Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2022

The Current Transcript for March 15, 2022

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

The oil fuelling Russia’s war

Guest: Sir Dieter Helm, Jackie Forrest

[clip] [/clip]

SOUNDCLIP

There's a lot of fear, a lot of frustration, and at times almost hopelessness, it's extremely scary for these families who've met their children who love them and who want them to come home.

MATT GALLOWAY: Amongst those affected by war in Ukraine, it is the children who in many ways are bearing the brunt of this conflict. For Ukrainian children who are in the process of being adopted, the disruption is even more acute. In 30 minutes, why advocates are calling on the Canadian government to speed up getting those kids out of danger and into their new homes. Plus, the war photographer Lynsey Addario on the story behind her searing images from Ukraine. Also this morning, they live in trees. They move slowly and they're in danger because of urban sprawl. We head to sunny Costa Rica, where a researcher is trying to save sloths by keeping them off the ground in the face of deforestation. And later.

SOUNDCLIP

We're most concerned about the nail technician. They're there hour after hour, day after day. Some of those substances lead to coughing and dermatitis headaches, a whole series of adverse effects.

MG: Inside a new study showing the true impact of the chemicals used in nail salons across this country. We begin, though, with a struggle to get free of the oil fuelling Russia's war. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I think we have to get rid of Russian fossil fuels as soon as possible. We are supporting and actually financing Russia's war, purchasing oil and gas and other fossil fuels from Russia. So the situation isn't a very good one.

VOICE 2: The commission laid out this timeline for 2027, so is not too far away?

VOICE 1: I think the only right answer is as soon as possible.

MG: At Sanna Marin the Prime Minister of Finland last week, the U.S., the UK and Canada have all announced bans on Russian oil imports. But for many countries in Europe, cutting off Russian oil and gas isn't so easy. Sir Dieter Helm is a professor of economic policy at Oxford University. His latest book is Net Zero: How We Stop Causing Climate Change. Sir Dieter Helm Good morning.

SIR DIETER HELM: Hello.

MG: You just heard the Prime Minister of Finland there yesterday. The German energy minister was warning that banning Russian fossil fuels could lead to mass poverty and unemployment. How did we get to the point where Europe is so dependent on Russian oil and gas?

SIR DIETER HELM: It has a very long history. And Russia and Germany are the pivot of the relationship between our energy needs and Russia and what's going on in Ukraine at the moment. I mean, Russia's always been a country that exports its natural resources oil, gas, coal, but lots of other stuff too. And Germany, at the heart of Europe, has always been a manufacturing company, and that exchange of raw materials for manufactured goods goes back well over a hundred years. And right now, Germany has doubled down over the last five to 10 years with Nord Stream one and then building Nord Stream two on the idea that if Russia is more integrated into the European economy and vice versa, that this will moderate Russian policy and make its government a normal government. It's been found to be a completely hollow view, but it's not something that's recent. It has a very long history.

MG: Do you think that this is a war- people have said this is a war that's not about oil and gas, but in many ways it's underwritten by oil and gas?

SIR DIETER HELM: Well, I think the the position of Russia would be a lot weaker in Ukraine if it was unable to sell its oil and gas into the European market. And clearly, Putin bet on the Germans being very acquiesced. But roll forward. Of course, what will happen if Europe does indeed wean itself off Russian oil and gas, as I think it should, is that Russia will sell the stock to China. And there's a good chance that the net result of what's happening in Ukraine is that Russia will end up being a vassal state of China, and it will basically supply its raw materials to the industrial needs of China to its south.

MG: In the short term. When you hear the German Energy Energy Minister saying that there could be mass poverty and unemployment if you ban Russian fossil fuels, who's more likely to be hurt by a full blockade? Would it be Russia or would it be European nations?

SIR DIETER HELM: Well, it would be pretty much Armageddon for Russia. So if Russia was not exporting particularly gas, its revenues would collapse even further and it would have to get China to bail it out. But it also be pretty catastrophic for in particularly Germany, because what happens if you need all that gas to run your industry and much of our economy and tomorrow morning, it simply isn't there. And what happens is your economy stops. So this is a high poker game. If the West genuinely cuts off purchases of gas from Russia, it would probably bring Russia pretty close to its knees. But you have to have the nerve to do it and the ability to cope with the consequences that would follow in the short term. And I'm not at all sure that the European public would actually be prepared to go through what would be in the very short term, a really nasty and harsh period.

MG: Some have also suggested that you would see a return to coal, and again, coal is still a part of the German economy. They're trying to wean themselves off coal. But but that you could see a spike in coal use, is that possible as well?

SIR DIETER HELM: Well, it's not only possible, it's happening. OK. I mean, you can't burn enough coal to solve the problem of getting out of gas from Russia because the coal is being burnt primarily for electricity and the gas is being used in industry. But in Europe, the coal burn is going back up again and much more frightening because global warming is a global problem, not the European one. The coal burning China and South East Asia is going through the roof because you have to remember these rising commodity prices, like gas and oil, started way before Russia invaded Ukraine. They are the product of the end of the pandemic, the stimulus mechanisms, the supply chain problems of last year. This is just giving it a further kick, but have no illusions that our current energy problems are purely the result of this ghastly invasion by Russia into a sovereign country.

MG: There are some people in this country who see this moment as an opportunity to make the case for expanding the production of oil and gas. Take a listen to the Premier of Alberta, Jason Kenney speaking at CERAWeek, which is a major energy industry conference in Houston last week.

SOUNDCLIP

We are a natural answer to the challenge of global energy security. Some of the world's worst regimes have had a growing presence in global energy markets, with radically lower levels of transparency of environmental standards, not to mention labour and basic human rights standards. Revenues generated from those sales have been converted into violence, terrorism, conflict and global instability.

MG: What role do you think Canada could or should play in helping to fill the gap left by Russian oil?

SIR DIETER HELM: Well, in those comments that were made, there is a deeper climate change story, and that's the following we are 80 percent the world economy dependent on fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal, 80 percent and the rest. Nuclear, hydro and a few other bits and pieces. Oh, and a little bit of renewables, perhaps 1.5 percent of the world's energy. So we are going to go on burning a lot of oil and gas and coal for a long time to come unless the demand stops for it and the people who are the pollutants are you and me? We buy the stuff that these oil, gas and other companies produce for us. So if you're not prepared to get out of your fossil fuel car, if you're not prepared to stop using plastics, if you're not prepared to completely change your clothing, your lifestyle or travel, or get off the aeroplanes, et cetera, then the the corollary of that is you're going to go on being responsible for demands for more oil and gas. And then the question comes if you're not prepared to stop using the stuff, where would you prefer it to be produced? And that's where the power of what the previous contributor just said is actually uncomfortably true. And we have the same debate in the UK should we all demonstrate and blew ourselves the doors of Shell and BP to stop them producing oil and gas in the North Sea and just buy the stuff from Saudi Aramco or Rosneft or someone else instead? There's a hypocrisy at the heart of this because it's ultimately us, the consumers, and that's what my net zero book is all about who, what the polluters and we have to change our ways. And there's not much evidence that when push comes to shove, we're actually prepared to do that.

MG: I guess in the face of this people. And there are many people, environmentalists, Bill McKibben and others who have said that this is the opportunity to reduce our dependence not just on Russian oil and gas, but on fossil fuels overall. What does this moment tell you about how difficult that's going to be?

SIR DIETER HELM: Well, it could be the moment. And indeed, there are very serious discussions, even in Germany, where the Greens are part of the government on, for example, the role of nuclear in this frame as the role of hydrogen. But right now, the chances of getting out of the coal, oil and gas into a renewables [unintelligible] is a long way off. And it comes back to this point that if you are a major economy, do you really think that you can run a major economy on wind and solar alone? Or do you have to have a more nuanced discussion about how you make this transition in a way that actually has some impact? Remember, for the last 30 years and 26 co-ops every single year, including last year, we added two parts per million carbon to the atmosphere. Even with the lockdowns, what that tells you is since the only thing that matters in climate change is the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere. One more heave or one more slight push of the tiller is not going to crack this disastrous prospect a really substantive climate change within the lifetime of people actually already alive on this planet.

MG: Sir Dieter Helm. Good to speak with you. Thank you very much.

SIR DIETER HELM: Thank you.

MG: Sir Dieter Helm is a professor of economic policy at Oxford University and the author of Net Zero How We Stop Causing Climate Change. As we heard, some people in the Canadian energy sector may want to help replace Russian oil and gas, but according to my next guest, that too may be easier said than done. Jackie Forrest, an expert on the Canadian oil and gas industry. She's executive director of the ARC Energy Research Institute. It provides analysis of the oil and gas industry for investors. Jackie, good morning to you.

JACKIE FORREST: Good morning.

MG: Realistically, how much could Canada do in the short term to help Europe get off Russian oil and gas? That, as we've said, is in some ways fuelling Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

JACKIE FORREST: Yeah, not much, unfortunately. You know, this year, potentially we could grow around 200000 barrels a day. That would be the equivalent of about one third of the oil that the U.S. is no longer taking from Russia. And you know, we really can't do much more because we don't have pipelines or transportation to get a lot more crude to market. And then also, you know, the projects we have in Canada take a long time to add supply with the oil sands. Those are big megaprojects that take many years to add production. Not just can add production overnight,

MG: you're seeing soaring prices for fossil fuels. What does it mean for the Canadian industry when those prices continue to go up and up and up in the face of this conflict?

JACKIE FORREST: Well, you know, the revenue and cash flow coming out of the Canadian industry has never been seen before. We're expecting something like $225 billion of revenue this year, which is just well well above anything we've ever seen before. So the industry is very profitable at these price levels. And traditionally when we had these price levels, they would put more money into projects, big oil sands projects that would take many years to to come to fruition. However, today very little money is going into new projects. Most of it's going to pay back debt or give money to shareholders. You know, partly because that's what shareholders want, and partly because there's really no ability to expand today because we don't have any more additional capacity on the pipeline systems for oil or gas at this moment.

MG: And so people have said that this is in some ways a convenient moment for the oil and gas sector here that and you heard Jason Kenney make that pitch that if people are going to continue to use oil and gas, why not use Canadian oil and gas? And this is this is an argument that's been made before. But as Dieter Helm said, right now, we're still as a world burning with 80 percent of the energy that we create is from fossil fuels. Is it going to be as difficult as people believe to get off of that reliance on fossil fuels?

JACKIE FORREST: Well, you know, it is really traditionally it's taken many decades to do an energy transitions like the three or three or five decades. I do think that the transition will be accelerated, but realistically we're going to be using oil and gas for a long time. So I think it does make sense for the world to find supplies that can be both secure and low carbon. You know, Canada Canadian producers have made commitments to reduce their emissions to be net zero. The Canadian government has has made a pledge for for the whole country to be net zero. So I think there's there's a lot of reasonable arguments why we should consider growing production from western Canada. But you know, I'll bring this pipeline issue back again because it is very, very difficult to build pipelines in Canada. I'll give you an example. The Trans Mountain pipeline has been almost 12 years in the making, and it looks like it's going to be 14 years before from the start of that project to when it actually starts delivering oil. The Coastal Link, the LNG project on our West Coast will be our very first LNG export facility. That project will be more than 10 years, but between start to actually shipping gas, and that's if it's on time. So, you know, it's not very fast to build pipelines. By comparison about DownDetector, we've got big conference in Houston last week, execs in there, the U.S. oil execs were talking and complaining that it was taking five years to build pipelines. So, you know, we're not very fast at building these pipelines, so I'm not optimistic that we're going to be growing our production to help Europe and other countries just because it's it's very difficult to build infrastructure in this country.

MG: And of course, the argument is is that we shouldn't be increasing production, that it should be difficult to go about building pipelines and increase production. Because we're in these twin crises, we have a war that's unfolding in Europe. We also have a climate crisis. And Canada and European countries have made these commitments to reducing carbon emissions. How do you square? How do you go about squaring that, the demand, but also with the climate crisis?

JACKIE FORREST: Yeah. Well, I mean, I think we've got to take a more global view on it. Let's use LNG, you know, I think we're going to be using gas for a long time to come. There's really it's very difficult to see a substitution of gas because it's for heating. It's very difficult to electrify everything and also for a lot of industrial processes as well. So Europe's going to be using gas for a long time. You know, if Canada doesn't build an LNG terminal to supply more gas to Europe and other countries, others places will, you know, we'll we'll see growth in LNG out of the U.S. for sure, and we'll probably see growth out of Qatar in the Middle East and other regions that will will fill in that void. So, you know, the emissions are going to happen anyway. But Canada's going to lose out in terms of having a much smaller economy by not meeting that need. So, you know, I think it's not going to really change the global emissions. If we don't build the LNG terminal, it's going to happen anyway. So we're kind of losing out by not participating.

MG: There are environmentalists who say that that's a fatalistic perspective, that the emissions don't need to happen anyway. I mentioned Bill McKibben, the Canadian environmentalist Seth Klein has has made similar arguments that this is an opportunity to to accelerate the move towards renewables, to get off fossil fuels. Bill McKibben was talking about an aggressive move towards clean energy that you could have the United States seise the moment and provide heat pumps across Europe so that oil and gas is not as in demand as it might be right now. Should the fossil fuel industry in this country really be looking to expand, given that we have to get down to net zero by 2050?

JACKIE FORREST: Well, your previous guest sort of talked about it. That's really the issue is people still demand the stuff and the situation we're in today is really illustrating that. So, you know, we can cut off the supply from Western countries, you know, because of the last several years. And investors, you know, new Western countries, public companies are not growing their production. However, what you know, if people keep demanding the stuff, we're just going to take more from Russia, more from Saudi Arabia and become more beholden to these countries. So, you know, I think we want an orderly transition, one where we have a reliable source of hydrocarbons. And at the same time, transition as quickly as we can to clean energy. But if we just shut off the supply before we reduced demand, we put ourselves in a situation we are today where these countries have a lot of leverage over us, and that's not in our best interest.

MG: Again, you and I have spoken before about how complicated that what would people call it, just transition is going to be. What does this moment tell you knowing what you know and where you're sitting right now? What does that tell you about but those complications?

JACKIE FORREST: Well, you know, just transition is often referred to in terms of the workers in the oil and gas industry and making sure that they have jobs in the new economy. But I know I maybe I should have a broader term, which is we need a just transition which provides affordable energy to people so that they can afford, you know, from the decades, we're still going to need oil and gas. That it will be an affordable commodity, and I think we need to think about that too, is how can we provide an orderly transition? We're having a disorderly transition right now where we have spiking prices, you know, being reliant on countries that are not are not using that leverage against us. So can we have a just transition where we have affordable energy for hydrocarbons and transition in an orderly way to clean energy as fast as possible? I think that I honestly think this is a real turning point in terms of energy policy, where countries like Germany and Germany and Europe and Canada, the United States are going to think a lot more about continuing to have a stable source of hydrocarbon supplies that's secure, but at the same time accelerating the path towards cleaner energy.

MG: I guess just in the last minute or so that we have, I think of a conversation that I had a few weeks ago with the Ukrainian climate scientist, and she talked about how the war in some ways is going to push the climate conversation that she's been so intimately involved in to the back burner. Do you see her perspective there?

JACKIE FORREST: You know, I think initially it will. Initially, there's a scramble for energy and, you know, like your past colour or speaker talked about the fact that Germany is going to burn more coal and, you know, people are going to get off Russian hydrocarbons. And for the next several years, it's probably going to mean in the case of gas burning, more coal and more dirty fuel, and it's going to result in more emissions. However, I don't think that in the long term, that's going to be the case. I think today policymakers are going to pivot to thinking about energy security and clean energy, and a lot of clean energy is actually much more energy secure. You know, once you build those wind turbines and solar panels and put in those storage systems, no one can turn off the sun or stop the wind from blowing in your country. And so I think this is actually going to accelerate the transition to clean energy, and it's going to be for a dual purpose now, one to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers of energy and two to clean up the environment.

MG: Jackie, great to talk to you again. Thank you very much.

JACKIE FORREST: Thanks for the invite, Matt.

MG: Jackie Forrest, executive director of the ARC Energy Research Institute. She was in Calgary. You're CBC News is up next.

JACKIE FORREST: And then I believe that people need to see the reality on the ground. Wars, war and war is brutal and it is ugly and it is always the civilians who pay the highest price.

MG: Lynsey Addario knows the cost of conflict better than most people. In six minutes, the war photographer and New York Times journalist. We'll talk about what she has seen in Ukraine. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One. Stay with us.

Back To Top »

Killing of fleeing family in mortar strike 'a moment that had to be documented': NYT photojournalist

Guest: Lynsey Addario

MG: Good morning, I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, a new study is peeling back the curtain on the dangers of working for hours on end, breathing in the chemicals in a nail salon in about 30 minutes, a nail technician and researcher on the risks and what needs to change. But first, the horrors of war through the lens of a camera.

[Music: Theme]

MG: The American journalist, Brent Renaud, was killed in Ukraine on Sunday. He was shot in a suburb of Kyiv, according to local police. He was targeted by Russian soldiers. The Ukrainian journalist Yevhenii Skaum, was killed two weeks ago when a TV transmission tower was destroyed. A crew from Sky News has also been shot and wounded near Kyiv. And yesterday, a reporter from Fox News was injured. All reminders that it is never safe for journalists to cover war, but it is important.

SOUNDCLIP

This is a war where there's a lot of misinformation going around. I think Putin has claimed that he's not targeting civilians. I think the journalists have proven otherwise, you know, and we are on the ground, we're not taking sides. We're not here to to decide the outcome of the war. We're here to simply document what we see. And I think that's why the importance of photojournalism, the importance of journalists on the ground, the importance of objective reporting is fundamental because we need to have this information. It's not propaganda. It is the reality. We all hope to create a better understanding of the situation to be able to effect policy. I think that that's what an important photograph can do.

MG: That's the war photographer Lynsey Addario. She's covered every major conflict of the past two decades Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Congo, amongst many others. She is now in Kyiv on assignment for the New York Times, and last week she was in the city of aeroplane, where she was taking pictures of civilians trying to flee.

SOUNDCLIP

I went on Sunday morning to what I thought would be a civilian evacuation route. I had seen the pictures of people crossing the bridge and there were questions about how safe it was because we knew the Russian positions were sort of a bit back in the village of our pan. And this is sort of on the periphery. So the day before a few days, journalists were going every day and so we assumed, OK, it was safe. It was a known evacuation route. And so I went there very early in the morning with my, with the New York Times security adviser and with Andre Dubcek, who is a videographer and who is working with the New York Times as a fixer and a videographer. We arrived around 8:15. It was pretty tense. There were small arms fire that could be heard sort of coming from the village, developing more in the centre. And I heard artillery, but I didn't think it was directed at or at this sort of bridge and the checkpoint. We made our way toward the bridge as we were going toward the artillery started getting a bit closer. There were some Ukrainian soldiers who were kind of taking cover behind a cement wall. And their purpose there was to help civilians get across the bridge, help them carry their bags, their pets, their children. So we stood behind the wall with them and and then I would go out and shoot. There were wounded people. There were, there was a wounded fighter that was brought over, an elderly woman who couldn't walk. They were helping her. There were two soldiers helping her walk. And then the mortar rounds started coming closer and closer. The first mortar that was sort of within range was about 200 metres away. And of course, I very naively thought, Well, they know where the civilian route is, so they're probably zeroing in on a Ukrainian mortar position off in the distance. And so I continued to shoot. Every time there was an incoming Ukrainian military would fire back, but from a position about 250-300 metres from the civilian path. But instead of the mortars going more toward that position where they originally started, they sort of started walking the mortar rounds on the position of civilians and eventually a mortar landed about 20-30 feet from where I was standing with my colleague. It was completely chaotic because we were so close that we weren't even sure whether we were injured. Dust kicked up in the air. There was a dog barking. One of the Ukrainian soldiers who had been kind of volunteering, assisting, helping people cross, he disappeared. So we weren't sure if he was killed. And then the New York Times security adviser ran across the street to try to help what we later learnt was a family, a mother and her two children and a churchgoer who was assisting them to get to safety, and the four of them died. When I got permission to run across the street, I was still kind of in shock, obviously, I mean, it was a very, very close call and I- but I've been doing this work for 20 years and I and I've learnt over the years that I have to try to continue to do my work in those moments because it's often very important work because it comes on the tail end of an attack. And so I saw these four lifeless figures and I was trying to connect the dots and I and I realised one of them was a child. Their suitcases were lying next to them. They were all kind of kind of just splayed out like where they had fallen is where they stayed. I took a picture kind of from their feet and you couldn't see their faces and then I moved around to the side. The situation was very, very tense. Still, there were still mortar rounds coming in. I took another picture and then I moved around to the front and took another few frames. And and then another mortar round came in and I screamed to Andre that we had to go. We started going with the people, and as we were leaving the area, several mortar rounds came in. We had to dive for cover on the way out. It was, yeah, it was. It was what I thought was a mother, father and two children. And we learnt later that it was a mother, her two children and the father was out of- was not in Kyiv at the time. I think that picture speaks to the intentional targeting of civilians. I think for photographers and journalists, we often arrive after a moment. We often arrive and have to try to understand what happened. We ask people. We do reporting on the ground. This was a situation where I watched every single second as it unfolded. I watched the mortar rounds literally being walked on to the position of civilians. So I knew it was intentional. There was no doubt. For me, that's why I felt so strongly about taking those photographs in that horrific moment. I mean, I'm a mother. I have two children, but I also knew that this was a moment that had to be documented. We bore witness to this, and that is our responsibility as journalists. Wars, war and war is brutal and it is ugly and it is always the civilians who pay the highest price.

MG: Lynsey Addario is a war photographer in Kyiv on assignment for the New York Times.

Back To Top »

Conflict puts international adoptions on hold

Guest: Alysha Buck

[clip] [/clip]

MG: The United Nations estimates that almost three million people have now fled Ukraine because of this war. Half of them are children. Not everyone wants to or can leave the country, though, including some 100,000 orphans living in state run institutions like boarding schools and orphanages. Ukraine has one of the highest rates of institutionalised children in Europe, and Russia's invasion has put international adoptions of those children on hold for Canadian parents who are in the process of adopting a child from Ukraine. That has meant worry and heartache. Alysha Buck chairs the board of directors for U.k.'s Eastern European Adoptions Inc. It's a private, non-profit adoption agency. It's based in Manitoba, and we've reached her in Winnipeg. Alysha, good morning.

ALYSHA BUCK: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Tell me a bit about the adoptions that your agency helps facilitate.

ALYSHA BUCK: We facilitate adoptions in different countries for primarily families living in Manitoba, but also families throughout Canada. Our main programme has been the Ukrainian International Adoption Programme, but of course, right now with the war in Ukraine, those those adoptions are on hold.

MG: Tell me more about what has happened. I mean, this war has complicated everything for Ukrainians and changed so much, so quickly. What has that meant for the international adoptions that you're involved in?

ALYSHA BUCK: It means that the families who were in the process of adopting are on hold, that we do have several families who are holding and waiting to see as the situation changes. It also means that other families that were considering the programme have chosen not to proceed with Ukrainian adoptions. Some families have chosen other programmes, and some families have just chosen not to adopt.

MG: How many adoptions through your agency are on hold?

ALYSHA BUCK: We have three files that are currently on hold.

MG: There's a war that's unfolding, so everything in terms of civil society has been disrupted. But what specifically has changed in the last three weeks that this war has been underway when it comes to that process.

ALYSHA BUCK: So adoption is a very complicated process and especially international adoption. There are lots of checks and balances in place because the safety of the children is always the primary concern. And with the Ukrainian government agencies closed and all efforts focussing on the war without these agencies, we can't proceed. And in addition, the Canadian embassies in Ukraine are not functioning either. So everything is really at a standstill.

MG: I can say I met with the Canadian ambassador to Ukraine last week. She's in Poland, or she and her staff have had to flee Ukraine. Without that office there, operating in that country. What? What can't you do?

ALYSHA BUCK: There's multiple steps to adoption from Ukraine, and our families are on hold during various stages of these processes. But without both agencies, we can't have adoptions finalised. We can't have documents. Draughted and children can't travel to Canada to join their family.

MG: What are you hearing from the families who you work with?

ALYSHA BUCK: It's very challenging, and the last few weeks have really been a roller coaster of emotions. There's a lot of fear, a lot of frustration, a lot of uncertainty and and feeling just complete helplessness and at times, almost hopelessness. It's extremely scary for these families who've met their children, who love them and who want them to come home.

MG: What are they telling you about? I'm going to ask you about two things the fear that you mentioned.

ALYSHA BUCK: Well, let me look at the situation in Ukraine, like you said, there's over two million people who fled. Countries like Poland are becoming overwhelmed, especially for vulnerable people like children like orphans. It's extremely hard for for families in Canada to know that their children are safe. Families who are together in Ukraine don't know if they're safe. And imagine your child being overseas in a war zone. You can't have eyes on them. You can't be in constant contact with them, and it's extremely scary for these families.

MG: You said they're also frustrated. What are they frustrated with?

ALYSHA BUCK: Frustrated with everything. Frustrated with the world's response to this crisis. Frustrated with these developed nations, these NATO countries, wanting more action and wanting their children to be safe and not seeing responses happening quick enough.

MG: These are children who have been legally adopted.

ALYSHA BUCK: There are children in a variety of stages, and I can't speak specifically to our files. But there are families who are in Ukraine who are waiting out the final stages of their processes with their children who can't travel home yet who who are afraid for their safety, who are trying to work very hard behind the scenes to try to speed the process up. But they're afraid, even say where they are, because that would potentially put them at risk.

MG: I was just going to say, what do we know about in a war zone where those children are right now and how they're staying safe?

ALYSHA BUCK: Families are being quite private about any information that they do have. It's not safe to talk about where your children are because this war Putin is targeting children, he's targeting hospitals, he's targeting shelters. Around 90 children have died so far, and anything that families can do to keep their children safe, they're doing so. There's not a lot of information that's being shared to try to keep children safe.

MG: I've also heard from some families who travelled to Ukraine before the war escalated, and they're still there or they're in the surrounding regions trying to figure out what to do. What have you heard from them?

ALYSHA BUCK: Families are really looking for more expedited processes, especially families who are with their children or who are hoping for their children to be evacuated. We're not talking about starting new adoptions here, though. These aren't babies who who don't have the ability to speak for themselves on many occasions as well. These are either older children who've met their parents who are not safe. And while maybe, yes, we can't have permanent solutions at this point. These situations have to be in the minds of the people who are making decisions because these children deserve to be safe and reunited with their families.

MG: You have a number of different roles here. One is to help facilitate this, but I'm assuming that those families would also talk to you and look for not just guidance, but but an ear and a shoulder to lean on. What do you tell them?

ALYSHA BUCK: It's extremely hard. Our agency is staffed by people of Ukrainian descent. Our board is represented by people of Ukrainian descent, so our organisation is watching the situation develop very closely, both for professional and personal reasons. And it's very hard to be that shoulder to lean on when when many of us have family that are impacted as well. Winnipeg has a huge Ukrainian community. Canada is the third largest Ukrainian population outside of Ukraine and Russia. You know this this crisis, it's not just the Ukrainian crisis, it's a global crisis and the crisis that is impacting our communities in our backyard. We take a lot of solace in the strength of the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainian people are so strong and resilient, and we know that ultimately Ukraine will be successful and will win this war. But but at what cost?

MG: In the heart of this conflict, there are concerns about the well-being of those children, the children who are there in Ukraine, but also what might happen if processes are expedited and they're able to get out of the country. In the midst of that NICEF has warned about the risk that the war poses to unaccompanied minors who are at heightened risk of abuse. UNICEF has said that adoptions should stop during times of war to guard against child exploitation. Do you agree with that principle?

ALYSHA BUCK: I agree that everything has to be done to keep children safe. I think it is important to recognise with some of these adoptions that we're speaking of. It's not a new adoption. We're not starting new processes. We're we're finalising adoptions and children are at different stages of that finalisation. And I think that that really should be kept in mind that the safety in the best interest of the child is the most important thing. And I think when we make blanket statements, it can be dangerous.

MG: Let me play you something from Audrey Macklin, who's a professor of law and chair and human rights at the University of Toronto. We asked her about the tension that war creates around the issue of international adoptions. Take a listen to what she had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

Transnational adoption necessarily involves exchange of money whenever that financial dimension is introduced. Concerns arise about the potential for corruption and for illegality. For example, a concern that not all the children are in fact orphaned or don't have any parents or guardians concerns about coercion and ultimately even concerns about trafficking. These are all, of course, legitimate concerns that lead to scrutiny and vigilance about adoption processes. So what happens in wartime? The fog of war and the chaos, the uncertainty and the violence all elevate the risks of not being able to adequately monitor and track what's going on at the same time. The fact of war and conflict, of course, and understandably heightens the urgency of trying to get children to safety. And of course, the adoptive parents are frantic about the safety and security of the children that they are adopting. I guess all that one can say is that if the Canadian embassy is able to devote some of its resources. Who facilitating these adoptions, speeding up what they ordinarily do without giving up on the kind of scrutiny and vigilance that they have to do to ensure the legitimacy of the adoptions. Then, you know, one would hope that they they could certainly do that.

MG: Alysha Buck, what do you make of that? That, as Audrey Macklin says, in the fog of war and the chaos of war, the uncertainty and the risks are heightened, and it may not be possible to adequately monitor where these kids are going and why.

ALYSHA BUCK: I think those statements make a lot of sense when we're talking about Ukraine and specifically, not all children who are living in an institution in an orphanage are available for adoption. It's very complicated. Of those children who are available for adoption, many of them are not available for international adoption. So for a child to be available to be adopted internationally, there's already a great deal of scrutiny that has gone into reviewing the situation of that child. Furthermore, there's a great deal of scrutiny that families undergo prior to being able to go to Ukraine to receive a referral where there are checks and balances that have been put in place and approvals that have been given from both the Canadian and Ukrainian government upon the family needing their child and both agreeing to become a family together. A lot of things have already taken place. So we're not talking about throwing that out. We're not saying that adoptions should continue as normal and that new adoptions should be undertaken. We're talking about adoptions that are in process, in various stages of the process, where families have met their child or children, and they want to be able to proceed with the remaining steps that, that are left. And especially when we're talking about the Canadian embassy there, we're looking at legalisation of the immigration process of passport of travel documents. At that point, a child has been adopted so that the checks and balances are done, except for the travel home. So it's a very complicated process. There are lots of steps, but for these families that are in the middle of their process, what we are wanting is just for situations to be taken on a case by case basis at times.

MG: What is the thing that you're most concerned about as this drags on? You said that now is not the time for bureaucracy and for worrying about documents. As this war continues and this process, it's only been grinding slowly in some ways, ground to a halt. What are you most worried about?

ALYSHA BUCK: That's a really hard question to answer. This war is incredibly unpredictable, and I worry to even think of what the worst case scenario could be for fear that it could be far worse than that.

MG: You talked about the ties that people at your agency have to this story, and this is true for yourself as well. You adopted a son from Ukraine?

ALYSHA BUCK: Yes.

MG: Do you see him in the children that we're talking about?

ALYSHA BUCK: Absolutely. That's probably one of the hardest things as we met a lot of wonderful children when we were in Ukraine. Many of those children are still in Ukraine and are now young adults. It's it's so it's so terrifying to think of those children being in this kind of situation where they're waiting in shelters or being evacuated. It's, I can't imagine.

MG: How old is your son?

ALYSHA BUCK: He's 19.

MG: What kind of conversations do you have with him about what's happening right now?

ALYSHA BUCK: They're very hard conversations. He still has a number of ties to Ukraine. He's angry. He doesn't understand why this is being allowed to happen. We watch a lot of media coverage and just shake our heads in dismay. It's really sad to have adopted a child and told him all these wonderful things about the Western world and and what our beliefs are. And now watching the situation unfold, it's hard to reconcile.

MG: It's got to be really difficult.

ALYSHA BUCK: Yeah, it's really hard.

MG: But it drives the work that you're doing.

ALYSHA BUCK: Absolutely.

MG: I wish you the very best in that work. It's really important, always, but especially now, and I hope we have the chance to talk again about that work as it progresses. In the meantime, Alysha, thank you very much.

ALYSHA BUCK: Thank you so much.

MG: Take care. Bye, bye. Alysha Buck chairs the board of directors for U.S. Eastern European Adoptions Inc. It's a private, non-profit adoption agency based in Manitoba that focuses on Ukraine. She was in Winnipeg. As she mentioned, there are many Canadian families who have involvement in a story like this through the adoption process. We would love to hear from you if you or someone you know has been in. Evolved in what Alysha has been speaking about. Also, if you've gone through this already and you've adopted a child from Ukraine, what are the conversations that you're having now with that child about what is unfolding and the war that's taking place? You can let us know. Email us thecurrent@cbc.ca. Tweet us @TheCurrentCBC or go to the website cbc.ca/thecurrent and click on the contact link on that website. Well, coming up after your regional update.

SOUNDCLIP

I worry about the problems in our body. You can see we know the chemicals are not good for our bodies, but we don't know how to change it.

MG: The consequences of breathing in the chemical fumes inside nail salons hour after hour, day after day, year after year. We'll tell you more about that coming up. And saving the sloths. We're going to head to Costa Rica to speak with a researcher who's trying to keep sloths off the ground. Why is that important? We'll tell you. Coming up, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. We're back in 90 seconds. Stay with us.

Back To Top »

Nail salon workers exposed to high levels of toxic chemicals, new study reveals

Guest: Jackie Liang, Miriam Diamond

MG: Hi, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

Unidentified: [Bacground noises and chatter]

MG: Filing and polishing, cutting and manicuring a trip to the nail salon can be a treat for many people. But a recent Canadian study shows that the people giving us those mani pedis are being exposed to hazardous chemicals. Research by the University of Toronto found nail salon technicians are breathing in chemicals that can cause great risks to their health. We will speak more about this study, with one of the co-authors coming up in just a moment. But first, Jackie Liand is a nail technician and community health worker at Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre in Toronto. Jackie, good morning.

JACKIE LIANG: Good morning and thank you for having me.

MG: Thank you for being here. You helped the University of Toronto do this study. Tell me why you wanted to be involved.

JACKIE LIANG: As a nail technician, I love my job and I want to do it a while. I want to make it better for an entire nation because we use many chemicals and they are not good for our bodies. But we don't have all information, and we wanted to have the researchers to find out more about this.

MG: Tell me more about what you learnt through the study. The study found that you are being exposed to hazardous chemicals. What do you what do you make of those findings? Is that something that you were aware of before the study?

JACKIE LIANG: I'm not surprised about the results. As a nail technician, I feel sad and the powerless because we know the chemicals are not good for our bodies, but we don't know how to change it.

MG: You feel powerless?

JACKIE LIANG: Yes.

MG: Tell me more about that. I mean, in the work that you do every day, just describe what you're surrounded by and what those chemicals are like.

JACKIE LIANG: Yeah, we use too many chemicals like asitones and the gel nails and the deep importer, you know, is all all this is the chemicals and the they we use makes the most of the chemicals and we don't have the good ventilation system, although we're working long hours.

MG: What does it smell like?

JACKIE LIANG: Sometimes when I go home, I can smell the strong acetone.

MG: You can smell it when you get home.

JACKIE LIANG: Yeah.

MG: Are you worried about the impact of those chemicals?

JACKIE LIANG: Yes. I worry a large because I don't know how long the chemicals will stay in my bodies and all the chemicals will impact on our health.

MG: One of the things that came up in the study are some of the impacts of those chemicals things like coughing and rashes on people's skins, but also reproductive issues. What have you experienced when it comes to the impact of the chemicals that you're surrounded by?

JACKIE LIANG: Yeah, [unintelligible] and my throat is itchy and I caough right way, and I also have a skin problem. And the most inail technician have a skin problem. But it's important what you can't see and I worry about the problems in our body. You can't see.

MG: The problems that you can't see.

JACKIE LIANG: Yeah.

MG: You mentioned, the cough when you put the base tone on is that is that every time?

JACKIE LIANG: Yeah, I'm the probably every time I realise, oh, is that every time we're using these so-called. Every time? Yeah.

MG: And you mentioned the ventilation issue. What sort of ventilation do you have in your salon?

JACKIE LIANG: I don't think we had the ventilation system, you know, the I... Yeah, just, you know, we depends open the doors. That's it. Yeah, that's all.

MG: That if you can open the doors, you get a bit of fresh air. And but otherwise, no.

JACKIE LIANG: Yes.

MG: What do you hear from other technicians about the health issues that they have experienced? What have they told you?

JACKIE LIANG: I know through a close the co-worker that the miscarriages are a problem and this is a private information, and it's a hard to get this information. Also, it's hard to talk about it. Yeah.

MG: Is that something - I mean, as you say, it's it's private information. It's personal information. These are difficult conversations. But are the conditions something that you talk about with other technicians?

JACKIE LIANG: It's like I said, you know, it's hard to get this information only, you know, is a close co-worker, you know, it's about not all nail techinican want to share about it.

MG: You were doing this work yourself while you were pregnant.

JACKIE LIANG: Yes.

MG: Were you were you worried then?

JACKIE LIANG: Yeah, I was worried. I feel, you know, is thinking, you know, maybe you know, people- I should stay at home to quit my job to stay home, but, you know, sometimes those are hard for me, it's a financial pressure.

MG: Because it's your job and you need to make money. Yes. Yeah. Is it easy to talk to employers about the conditions that you're working in?

JACKIE LIANG: The market is dominated by a few companies, and it's really hard to find that different than the products that are safer. And the companies sometimes always say this product is organic, but this is not always true. And yeah, it's a hard to talk about a health problem because we can't see what the solution is.

MG: Do people worry that if they bring these issues up, they might find themselves out of a job, they might get fired, for example, if they're complaining about the conditions?

JACKIE LIANG: Yes, I think it's a part of reason, and another reason is just the we don't know how to deal with that thing.

MG: What would you want to see done? Now that, for example, this is part of a study and it's being talked about more widely? What are the solutions that you think could be out there?

JACKIE LIANG: We really hope the government that we'll hear a voice and to improve the regulation and we can have the safer products, and we also hope the customers will join us with their voice, asking for safer products and better ventilation.

MG: You said at the very beginning that that you love the job, you love being a nail technician. What do you love about the work?

JACKIE LIANG: Yeah. Oh, I really like this job and that every time you know, I did the- I finished the nails and the customers say, Oh, thank you, my nails, it looks beautiful. You did a great job and that kind of feeling and always the feel good. Yeah.

MG: You just want to be able to do that in a safe environment.

JACKIE LIANG: Yes.

MG: Jackie, I'm really glad to talk to you. Thank you very much and take care of yourself.

JACKIE LIANG: OK, thank you. Thank you so much.

MG: Jackie Liang is a nail technician and community health worker at Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre in Toronto. Miriam Diamond is co-author of the study and an environmental chemist. She's also a professor at the University of Toronto in the Department of Earth Sciences, and she's been listening in. Miriam, good morning to you.

MIRIAM DIAMOND: Good morning.

MG: How familiar does what you just heard from Jacqui seem in terms of the work that you have done through the study?

MIRIAM DIAMOND: Well, sadly familiar. I should mention that our study is part of the study that we published as part of a larger effort to look at hazards experienced by nail salon technicians. In our study, we look specifically at some compounds that can lead to bad health effects specifically for during foetal development. So what that means is that we were concerned because many of the women working in nail salons are of reproductive age. And that means that if they're pregnant, their foetus could be exposed to elevated levels of some chemicals that have been shown to be hazardous. To foetal development,

MG: Jacqui talked about this in her own experience, but also what she'd heard from other technicians and again understanding that it's incredibly sensitive and personal and difficult. She mentioned that she had heard of other technicians having miscarriages,

MIRIAM DIAMOND: and that's very disturbing. And that's really what what prompted our work.

MG: How did you go about doing this research to figure out how hazardous these chemicals might be?

MIRIAM DIAMOND: We work very closely with the healthy nail salons network. And that was really important because we had to gain access to nail salons. Not a trivial problem. And we did this also with Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre. We visited 22 different nail salons and we were able to recruit about 48 nail technicians. Essentially, what we did is that we fitted it, fitted them with these tiny vacuum cleaners, vacuum cleaners that sucked in the air that they breathe. We analysed the air that they breathe through the collection of the sample, and then we analysed it for a series of plasticisers and flame retardants.

MG: And these tiny little vacuum cleaners. I mean, these were vests that the technicians were wearing.

MIRIAM DIAMOND: The technicians wore vests and fitted to the vest was this tiny little vacuum cleaner? Believe me, it's very small because it didn't pose a problem to wear it. And what it does is just sucked in the air that the technicians were breathing captured it on a cartridge. We take that cartridge out and we analyse it in the lab.

MG: What did you learn then, about the impact of the chemicals on the technicians?

MIRIAM DIAMOND: We found that the levels of plasticisers were about two to three times higher than what we would find in homes of the general public. And I know that well because we did this study of homes in Toronto and Ottawa. So we had data using similar collection methods, same lab, so we could really readily compare the data. Now, interestingly, we found that one chemical had about the same levels as that that we found in homes. Now why it's interesting is because that chemical is on the cosmetics hot list. That's a list that's held by the under the Food and Drug Act within Health Canada. That Cosmetics Hot List prohibits this chemical this that we found this chemical at levels comparable to homes is good news. That means that putting something on the cosmetics hot list works. Now what we were really surprised to find, though, were levels up to a hundred times higher of two types of flame retardants. So 100 times higher than in homes in Toronto and Ottawa. And we had done a comparable study looking at e-waste workers shot, and it was really shocking to us to find up to 10 times higher concentrations for nail in the nail salons relative to the e-waste dismantling facility.

MG: What would the possible health impacts of being exposed to chemicals at that sort of level be?

MIRIAM DIAMOND: There are a whole series of effects. Unfortunately for the plasticisers, we're most concerned about adverse effects on the male reproductive system. What that translates to is poor semen quality, the possibility of testicular cancer, other abnormalities such as undescended testes. Evidence has shown that exposure in the in during foetal development can result in the kids having less responsible behaviours. Externalising behaviour problems can interfere with sex steroids and can also cause lower reproductive success.

MG: Coughing and skin rashes as well. I mean, again, are those things that that that you would expect the chemicals to lead to in the technicians who are using those those substances.

MIRIAM DIAMOND: Yes, the technicians use a wide range of substances, some of those substances would lead to coughing and dermatitis or the rashes, headaches, a whole series of adverse effects.

MG: What about for customers who are also in that shared space?

MIRIAM DIAMOND: The customers should not be too concerned. It's a very short lived exposure. We're most concerned about the nail technicians. They're there hour after hour, up to 10 hours, day after day. We also learnt that some of the nail technicians bring their bring their kids to the salon. We're not bringing that the kids come after school, and we're concerned about elevated exposures to kids as well.

MG: You said in our opening of the conversation, something around gaining access that you were able to gain access to a certain number of salons and that that was no trivial matter in itself. How difficult was it to get access to the salons to measure what those technicians would be exposed to?

MIRIAM DIAMOND: It's taken years of cultivating a trusting relationship between the nail salons and scientists. And why? Because many nail technicians and owners are from a vulnerable population. Many come from immigrant families or immigrants themselves. It can be precarious employment. These are non-unionised workplaces. So it's very difficult to gain access. We really don't want to shut down nail salons. The reason why we did this work was to bring attention to the problems so that nail salons could be healthier places so that workers can gain their living with confidence that it's not impairing their health. What we hope will come out of this work is that industry will take greater notice. It's fundamentally up to the industry to provide safe products and by industry. I refer to all the the links in that supply chain, starting from the chemical manufacturers to the companies that formulate the nail products to finally the companies that retail them. There are numerous and growing number of retailers that have made strong statements about getting hazardous chemicals out of products on their shelves. Fundamentally, we want action from the industry to make safer products.

MG: The last point on this is that Jackie said in some ways for customers, they see this, as you know, an exercise in beauty. They may not be thinking about the impact of those who are involved in providing those nails, providing that beautification element. What is the role of consumers who use these services to push for greater change?

MIRIAM DIAMOND: Consumers play a very important role. Consumers and consumer power has been shown to change the landscape. Consumers have been pressing for safer products. So this is another case in which we, as consumers, need to press for safer products. We need to demand of retailers that they put safer products on their shelves. We also need better government oversight.

MG: I hope the study leads to that. Miriam, it's great to speak with you about it. Thank you very much.

MIRIAM DIAMOND: Thank you for having us. Take care. Bye bye.

MG: Bye.

MG: Miriam Diamond is an environmental chemist and a professor at the University of Toronto in the Department of Earth Sciences. She was in Toronto.

Back To Top »

How 50 metre-tall rope bridges are helping sloths in Costa Rica fight deforestation

Guest: Rebecca Cliffe

MG: This is The Current on CBC Radio One. My name is Matt Galloway. Are you done with winter? How about travelling south away from the minus double digit temperatures away from snow, rain, sleet, whatever your Canadian winter looks like to Central America? Are the sounds of the rainforest in Costa Rica? What you can't hear, but you can sometimes see if you're lucky. Are the sloths the world's slowest mammal native to Costa Rica? But development and cleared patches of rainforest have been posing a serious problem to our friends of the three toed variety. One British zoologist is working to fix that. Rebecca Cliffe is a zoologist and founder of the Sloth Conservation Foundation. She is in Costa Rica. Rebecca, hello.

REBECCA CLIFFE: Hello. Good morning.

MG: How are you? I'm great. Thanks, but I'm not in Costa Rica, so I'm envious for people who have no contact with sloths. We only know them from popular culture and films like the animated film Zootopia describe a slot for us in terms of what you love about about this animal.

REBECCA CLIFFE: Oh, well, so it's a lot of people think of them as sort of boring, lazy animals that don't really do anything and just sleep all day. But actually, they're fascinating. And a lot of people don't realise is that they they're moving all day long. They're just moving like everything's in slow motion. It's actually amazing to watch. I always describe it a bit like the trying to swim through a lake of Nutella. Like, everything is in slow motion and they're just very peaceful, lovely creatures that don't require much for survival. They require like the absolute basics. And yeah, that's what we're trying to do is provide them with the basics so that they can continue surviving alongside us humans.

MG: How do they interact with us humans?

REBECCA CLIFFE: They ignore us. It's actually fantastic. They as-long-as because they don't have much energy available to them. So everything they do is about saving energy and they don't have any defences either against predators. So the main strategy for staying alive is just to make sure that nothing sees them. So when a human comes along, they'll ignore you completely unless you actually threaten their lives, and then they'll be like, Oh gosh, now I need to do something. So, yeah, they just get on with the business and they don't they don't care about anyone else unless it's causing them a direct problem.

MG: What are the dangers that they face? I mean, you run the conservation foundation. Your Twitter feed is filled with photos of you interacting with the sloths. What are the dangers that they face on the ground?

REBECCA CLIFFE: So think things on the ground, in particular things like attacks from domestic and stray dogs. They get hit by cars as they try and cross the roads, because you can imagine how long it takes this loss to crawl across the road. And they get poached by people as well to to be used as photo crops and tourists encounter experiences and things. And then the leading cause of death is actually electrocution on electricity lines. And the real problem here is this loss can't run and they can't jump, so they really need trees to physically connect and overlap. And in disturbed areas where humans are living, usually the trees don't physically connect. So that's why they're having to move around on the ground and climb on the power lines and things like that.

MG: How much change have you seen in Costa Rica when it comes to deforestation, modernisation, the, you know, the creep of sprawl, for example?

REBECCA CLIFFE: Oh, it's wild. When I first came here 13 years ago and it was a completely different place. It was wild and the roads were like single lane and the trees would connect over the road. And in the last 10 years, development has gone completely out of control. And now you've got four lane highways. And yeah, the the big money investments have come in and the results in the hotels, and everything is great for the economy. And I don't think that the slot conservation can come at the expense of economic development. That's really important for a country like Costa Rica. But I think what's important is that people do it in the right way and we do it with the wildlife in mind and we make sure that we're we're doing things that help the sloth survive, as well as developing the land for the human use.

MG: One of the things that you're doing to help them survive is build these sloth crossings. What are they?

REBECCA CLIFFE: Yes, these are essentially wildlife bridges that helps us get from tree to tree in urban areas and avoid some having to come down to the ground. And they're remarkably simple. It just involves stringing ropes up between trees. But the wildlife use them so much. I think we've had almost 30 different species using these bridges so far, which is amazing.

MG: How did the sloths cross these bridges? I mean, is this something that's natural to them to go across a rope bridge?

REBECCA CLIFFE: Not a rock in particular, but they do use like vines in the rain forest and things, so they are very used to climbing on thin structures, so it takes them a little bit of getting used to. But then as soon as they realised that this structure is safe, then they climb on it because they're always climbing on things like electricity cables, for example. So if it's there, they will use it once they trust it.

MG: How do you go about, how do you go about installing these bridges?

REBECCA CLIFFE: Well, I have a tree climbing team and they go up. They put the ropes up in the trees, they climb up and they install them. They just try them around the branches. We have a giant slingshot that we use. Yes, we actually physically climb up them and tie them up there ourselves.

MG: And how high up are they?

REBECCA CLIFFE: Well, it ranges. They can go up to about 50 metres high. Some of them are lower down, some go over buildings, some go around. Buildings over roads is a good one.

MG: And what are the other creatures? You said there's something like 30 creatures that use these things. What else? One of the other species that are using the sloth crossings,

REBECCA CLIFFE: we get a lot of monkeys. So how are the monkeys and capuchin monkeys? We've had spider monkeys. We my favourite was a tree frog. A little frog hopped along the rope all the way, from one tree to the other, and things that can produce species that people don't often hear about in the western world. But yeah, we've got an awful lot iguanas.

MG: What is it? Could you?

REBECCA CLIFFE: I can could use what they call a night monkey hare. It's like a a little furry animal that likes to drink nectar from flowers in the night. Very cute, actually.

MG: It seems like this is a story. I mean, partially it's about sloths, but it's also about coexistence and how we can can find space and humility to to live, you know, in the space of of these creatures as well.

REBECCA CLIFFE: Exactly. And I think that's the key moving forwards because humans aren't going to go anywhere where we're always going to keep expanding into the remaining wild places. But there are ways to do it in ways that that help the wildlife and allow us to coexist peacefully. And so it just requires a bit of flexibility on our part as humans. So I think what we do here is we work with communities who are developing the land and we say, OK, well, if you are going to do something, then let us come in and sort of mitigate the impact of the damage. So if you are going to cut a tree down to build a house, then we'll put a wildlife version and we'll plant other trees around the edge to replace the one that you're going to cut down. And that's a Win-Win because it brings wildlife to their property, so they get to live amongst nature, especially for people building vacation rentals. They get tourists coming so they get more income because there's more nature around. The slots are winning. Everybody's happy.

MG: Is that a priority, though? I mean, again, tourism marches on, and there's a lot of money that's wrapped up in tourism is preserving the seldom seen sloth top of mind for those who are leading the expansion of tourism in Costa Rica.

REBECCA CLIFFE: Yes, I think so. They actually Costa Rica just announced the sloth as the new national symbol of the country, which is amazing because it gives legal protection to the sloths. But it's the reason most people come here. They want to see us loss and they look on Google and Costa Rica is the place to see sloths, so everyone's coming here to see them. And it's bringing billions of dollars into the country every year. And so preserving the sloths is obviously very important if they want that to continue.

MG: We're just about out of time in the 13 years that you have been doing this work. What have you learnt about these creatures that surprised you?

REBECCA CLIFFE: Home Maori things mainly that they don't sleep all that much, they only sleep for about eight hours a day. And I know some humans who sleep more than that. The thing is with sloths, no one's really studied them before because we have this misconception that they were just sleeping all day and there was nothing exciting to know about them. And also, they're very difficult to see in the wild because they go up into the tops of the this rainforest trees and they literally look like a bird's nest. I remember my first year I spent a lot of time looking at birds nests and collecting data on them, thinking they were sloths. So it took a long time and a lot of modern technology. But yeah, the they're busy little things up in the canopy, and we just never knew it. One of the things I discovered is it takes them 30 days just to digest a single leaf, which is phenomenal. Can you imagine that?

MG: Everything is in slow motion?

REBECCA CLIFFE: Everything, everything they do takes an inordinate amount of time, which is frustrating.

MG: The enthusiasm that you have for sloths is infectious, and I'm delighted to talk to you about the work that you're doing to keep them alive. Rebecca, thank you very much.

REBECCA CLIFFE: You're welcome. Thank you for having me.

MG: Rebecca Cliffe is a zoologist and the founder of the Sloth Conservation Foundation. We reached her in Evita, Costa Rica. It's a nice way to end on a Tuesday that is The Current. Coming up next on CBC Radio One, it's q. A legend speaking with Tom Power, the bassist Bootsy Collins, of course, has played with James Brown. Parliament Funkadelic wears those crazy star shaped sunglasses, and he has a new album out called The Power of One. Bootsy Collins has stories for days, and you will hear some of them coming up in just a moment on CBC Radio One. I'm Matt Galloway thanks for listening to The Current. We'll talk to you tomorrow.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

Tuesday March 15, 2022 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This