The first in a weekly series of blogs I'm doing for CBC's Dragon's Den:
Green Notes : Green Comes of Age
Posted on March 31, 2010 3:18 PM
There was a time, not that long ago, when "concern for the environment" was a marginal activity. It was about protecting faraway, inaccessible, forests and obscure endangered rabbits. It involved eating unpalatable, cardboard-like, veggie burgers and organic spelt. It was of interest only to the most hardcore devotees of unflattering sandals.
But times have changed.
It's hard to date exactly when things flipped and the environmental movement's decades-long effort emerged fully into the mainstream. The release of Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" in 2006 had a huge impact. Here in Ontario, the environmental debate was fundamentally transformed by the advent of Dalton McGuinty's ambitious green platform in 2003. What is certain is that Barack Obama's election last year sealed the deal. It's difficult to see any daylight between Obama's economic plans and his environmental ones. The President has convincingly made the case that there is green to be made in green, and that the road to America's 21st Century prosperity and jobs creation lies through a "green economy."
"Environment" ain't just for granola-munchers anymore. All of a sudden, the whole world is green. It's become politically de rigueur to at least be seen to be green. The US military is going green. Even the largest, most sluggish, corporations are scrambling to put their sustainability strategies in place. And in the depths of a recession, the new green consciousness has proven it's here to stay.
The realization that there's good money to be made in ideas and ventures and businesses that also protect the environment has permanently transformed the environmental discussion. Now, we see the Clean Energy Economy being hailed as the "new Internet." A recent report estimated that the clean energy technology sector will grow into a US $2.4 trillion industry by 2020, surpassed only by automobiles and electronics. That ain't no chump change. The new Green Energy Act, adopted a few months ago by Ontario, is as much about resuscitating the manufacturing economy as it is about reducing carbon pollution. Provinces are now competing against each other for green investment. And the "green economy" isn't just about energy. It's about making things in less toxic ways. It's about new approaches to waste management (though the relative merits of waste incineration remain an open question), and it's about creating new jobs by conserving water.
Which brings us to Dragon's Den (a show that my wife Jen and I have loved for a while) and Greenvention. With "green business" poised to be such a huge investment opportunity, what could be more appropriate than television's most fun and most watched investment program focusing on this area for Earth Day. May the best Greenvention win! More next week with some tips on the good vs. the bad when it comes to green products.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
It’s Official: BPA Banned in Canadian Baby Bottles!
Riding on yesterday's post about bisphenol A (BPA) movement in the U.S. and Denmark, today, Canada published a notice that polycarbonate baby bottles containing BPA have been legally banned from advertisement, sale, and importation into Canada since March 11, 2010. So following on its earlier global lead in proposing such action, Canada has just become the first country to fully enforce BPA restrictions!
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
US and Denmark Move Forward on BPA
This past week has been a bad one for BPA, but another affirmative one for Canada. To expand, action initiated by Canada against the hormone-mimicking chemical is becoming more globalized with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announcing that it is going to intensify its study of BPA’s effects and consider designating it as a “chemical of concern”, and with the Danish government introducing a temporary national ban on BPA-containing products in contact with children’s food.
In the US, yesterday’s news is particularly welcome for those pushing for federal action on BPA as the chemical failed to be added to the EPA’s “chemicals of concern” list last December. It also follows an earlier US Food and Drug Administration announcement that BPA poses “some concern” for the health of fetuses, infants, and young children.
The Danish ban is undergoing a three-month transitional period, with a full prohibition on certain BPA-containing products used by 0 – 3 year old children beginning on July 1, 2010. It is a precautionary response to a recent assessment by the National Food Institute at the Technical University of Denmark which raised uncertainty about BPA’s low-dose effect on learning capacity.
BPA is a massively produced chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic (recycling # 7) food and beverage containers, the linings of metal food cans, and various other products from which it can leach. Canada was the first country to take action on BPA, proposing that it be designated as “toxic” in Canada and that it be banned from baby bottles.
In the US, yesterday’s news is particularly welcome for those pushing for federal action on BPA as the chemical failed to be added to the EPA’s “chemicals of concern” list last December. It also follows an earlier US Food and Drug Administration announcement that BPA poses “some concern” for the health of fetuses, infants, and young children.
The Danish ban is undergoing a three-month transitional period, with a full prohibition on certain BPA-containing products used by 0 – 3 year old children beginning on July 1, 2010. It is a precautionary response to a recent assessment by the National Food Institute at the Technical University of Denmark which raised uncertainty about BPA’s low-dose effect on learning capacity.
BPA is a massively produced chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic (recycling # 7) food and beverage containers, the linings of metal food cans, and various other products from which it can leach. Canada was the first country to take action on BPA, proposing that it be designated as “toxic” in Canada and that it be banned from baby bottles.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Enbridge Green or Brown?
Enbridge has a red and orange-y logo, but reaches for that bit of green. On its website, it even lays claim to going "Towards a Neutral Footprint." So, how, exactly, does ramming a tar sands pipeline down the throats of British Columbians fit into that vision?
That should be the question that Enbridge employees are asking themselves today after a large and diverse coalition of BC voices joined together to reject its Gateway pipeline proposal.
If Enbridge is listening, even just a little bit, it would pull the plug and instead try to live up to its green rhetoric. You can't traffic in dirty oil and expect the world to believe you are trying to do the right thing.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
That should be the question that Enbridge employees are asking themselves today after a large and diverse coalition of BC voices joined together to reject its Gateway pipeline proposal.
If Enbridge is listening, even just a little bit, it would pull the plug and instead try to live up to its green rhetoric. You can't traffic in dirty oil and expect the world to believe you are trying to do the right thing.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Not outside enjoying the weather and looking for something to do?
Well, then perhaps consider doing a survey on people's daily exposures to chemicals! This survey being conducted by the National Network on Environments and Women's Health (NNEWH), in collaboration with the Canadian Women's Health Network, is trying to gather information from as broad a range of people in Canada as possible, with a particular interest in responses from women. Please fill it in by March 24th and encourage others to do so as well. The results will be published on NNEWH’s website sometime this spring, and made known to Health Canada. Click here for the English version and here for the French version of the survey.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Dollar parity? You ain't seen nothing yet...
UPDATE: The Globe and Mail today has two interesting things on this. First, a blog by Jeff Rubin on the petro-dollar (which we think is better than his attack on low carbon fuel standards). And second, a story that essentially says that manufacturing is doing fine despite the rising dollar - although we'll apparently have to get used to fewer jobs...)
The Canadian dollar is once again on the cusp of parity with the U.S. dollar. On one level, this inspires a sense of national pride, of muscular loonies beating up on American eagles, until, that is, you look a little deeper.
The pin stripes on Bay Street make all that exchange rate stuff sound very complicated, and far be it for this environmentalist to want a cage match with a bunch of economists. But, then you look at a graph charting the price of oil and the Canadian dollar over the past year and you can't help but notice the similarity:
Turns out that because of rampant tar sands production we now have our very own petro-dollar, or "petro-loonie" that rises and falls with the price of oil.
This might not be so bad - cheaper vacations in Florida and all that - other than the fact that we can expect very soon lots of painful noises coming from our manufacturing sector about how they are being priced out of international markets and need to lay people off. This just in time for a fragile economic recovery. And, with ever more tar sands production being promised by our government and with the prospect of oil prices going even higher, how high will the loonie go?
For a fact sheet on the petro-loonie, visit here.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
The Canadian dollar is once again on the cusp of parity with the U.S. dollar. On one level, this inspires a sense of national pride, of muscular loonies beating up on American eagles, until, that is, you look a little deeper.
The pin stripes on Bay Street make all that exchange rate stuff sound very complicated, and far be it for this environmentalist to want a cage match with a bunch of economists. But, then you look at a graph charting the price of oil and the Canadian dollar over the past year and you can't help but notice the similarity:
Turns out that because of rampant tar sands production we now have our very own petro-dollar, or "petro-loonie" that rises and falls with the price of oil.
This might not be so bad - cheaper vacations in Florida and all that - other than the fact that we can expect very soon lots of painful noises coming from our manufacturing sector about how they are being priced out of international markets and need to lay people off. This just in time for a fragile economic recovery. And, with ever more tar sands production being promised by our government and with the prospect of oil prices going even higher, how high will the loonie go?
For a fact sheet on the petro-loonie, visit here.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Eating Seal Meat While the Planet Burns
Just how much more messed up can Canadian politicians appear to the rest of the world? Plenty, it turns out.
Canada lost whatever was left of its international boy scout image during the Copenhagen UN climate negotiations last December. Turns out our government cares much more about strip mining for oil than it does about passing along a stable atmosphere to our children.
So, what are we doing to clean the tarnished maple leaf? Well, after a prorogation to Own the Podium, we come back with a budget that cements our last place showing in the race to get a piece of the emerging two and a half trillion dollar clean energy market, and then key up a seal meat buffet in the Parliamentary restaurant so that our politicians can all poke their fingers in the eyes of those nasty Europeans.
In your face, world! We own the dirty oil podium too and will beat all challengers away with seal picks!
Oh Canada. All thy sons command quite a mess.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence Canada
Canada lost whatever was left of its international boy scout image during the Copenhagen UN climate negotiations last December. Turns out our government cares much more about strip mining for oil than it does about passing along a stable atmosphere to our children.
So, what are we doing to clean the tarnished maple leaf? Well, after a prorogation to Own the Podium, we come back with a budget that cements our last place showing in the race to get a piece of the emerging two and a half trillion dollar clean energy market, and then key up a seal meat buffet in the Parliamentary restaurant so that our politicians can all poke their fingers in the eyes of those nasty Europeans.
In your face, world! We own the dirty oil podium too and will beat all challengers away with seal picks!
Oh Canada. All thy sons command quite a mess.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence Canada
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Avatar(sands) has our vote
Watching the scenes in the movie Avatar depicting ‘unobtainium’ mining felt eerily like reliving my trip to the tar sands – the pristine forests being torn away to create ugly strip mines, the giant trucks, the obsessive drive for a dwindling resource. The only thing missing from the theatre were the toxic fumes so prevalent when flying over the tar sands.
Today, 55 environmental groups and First Nations from eight countries ran a full-page ad in Variety, the most influential Hollywood magazine, praising Canadian-born James Cameron for bringing to light in his movie the reality of Canada’s tar sands.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Produces shot back by claiming that the ad is blurring the line between fact and fiction, then went on to craft its own fantasy story about the ‘responsible oil’ flowing from the tar sands.
CAPP claimed that “oil sands development does not go ahead without direct and meaningful Aboriginal consultation about both environmental impacts and economic benefits.” Yet George Poitras from Mikisiew Cree First Nation downstream from the tar sands said in response:
“I would question CAPP's take on characterizing us as "their" neighbours. I am a member and former Chief of the Mikisew Cree First Nation, the largest First Nation in the Athabasca tarsands and today our First Nation has no "formal" relationship with Syncrude or Suncor, that after 40 years is not something I would characterize as good corporate responsibility. They actually have both recently been applying pressure to the First Nations in our community of Fort Chipewyan for speaking out publicly about environmental, health and other issues that we have observed with the unrelenting pace of tarsands development in the past few years.”
CAPP also claimed that “all lands disturbed by oil sands development must be fully reclaimed” yet after 40 years in operation, only 0.2% of the land has been reclaimed. And according to them, Canada “currently has GHG regulation in place.” Um, sorry, but last time we checked Canada was still hiding behind the US on that one. Canada has no regulations to reduce global warming pollution from big polluters like the tar sands.
So who’s really blurring the line between fact and fiction?
Today, 55 environmental groups and First Nations from eight countries ran a full-page ad in Variety, the most influential Hollywood magazine, praising Canadian-born James Cameron for bringing to light in his movie the reality of Canada’s tar sands.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Produces shot back by claiming that the ad is blurring the line between fact and fiction, then went on to craft its own fantasy story about the ‘responsible oil’ flowing from the tar sands.
CAPP claimed that “oil sands development does not go ahead without direct and meaningful Aboriginal consultation about both environmental impacts and economic benefits.” Yet George Poitras from Mikisiew Cree First Nation downstream from the tar sands said in response:
“I would question CAPP's take on characterizing us as "their" neighbours. I am a member and former Chief of the Mikisew Cree First Nation, the largest First Nation in the Athabasca tarsands and today our First Nation has no "formal" relationship with Syncrude or Suncor, that after 40 years is not something I would characterize as good corporate responsibility. They actually have both recently been applying pressure to the First Nations in our community of Fort Chipewyan for speaking out publicly about environmental, health and other issues that we have observed with the unrelenting pace of tarsands development in the past few years.”
CAPP also claimed that “all lands disturbed by oil sands development must be fully reclaimed” yet after 40 years in operation, only 0.2% of the land has been reclaimed. And according to them, Canada “currently has GHG regulation in place.” Um, sorry, but last time we checked Canada was still hiding behind the US on that one. Canada has no regulations to reduce global warming pollution from big polluters like the tar sands.
So who’s really blurring the line between fact and fiction?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Throne Speech - Canada Falling Behind
It's pretty amazing in this day and age that you can have a section of a speech titled "Building the Jobs and Industries of the Future" and then in that section fail to recognize that the world's next industrial revolution will centre on getting carbon out of our economy.
Yet, this is exactly what today's Throne Speech by the Harper government does. Worse, in service of becoming a "clean energy superpower" the government promises to soften rules on energy exploitation. Many would say that the tar sands industry, for example, is already out of control, in part due to the failure of the federal government to enforce laws now on the books.
The speech does promise to invest in clean energy technologies, but fails to say whether this involves recapitalizing the successful ecoEnergy program that has now run out of money, or whether this will instead be more money for unproven carbon capture and storage programs.
The Speech closes by lauding the incredibly weak Copenhagen accord, and consistent with that, fails to articulate how - or even whether - it will reduce greenhouse gas pollution in Canada.
In all, a disappointing but not surprising speech by a government that seems frozen in the past while our competitors jump ahead in creating the new energy economy of tomorrow.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence Canada
Yet, this is exactly what today's Throne Speech by the Harper government does. Worse, in service of becoming a "clean energy superpower" the government promises to soften rules on energy exploitation. Many would say that the tar sands industry, for example, is already out of control, in part due to the failure of the federal government to enforce laws now on the books.
The speech does promise to invest in clean energy technologies, but fails to say whether this involves recapitalizing the successful ecoEnergy program that has now run out of money, or whether this will instead be more money for unproven carbon capture and storage programs.
The Speech closes by lauding the incredibly weak Copenhagen accord, and consistent with that, fails to articulate how - or even whether - it will reduce greenhouse gas pollution in Canada.
In all, a disappointing but not surprising speech by a government that seems frozen in the past while our competitors jump ahead in creating the new energy economy of tomorrow.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence Canada
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
It's Not About the Ducks
Exxon is widely known for its hardball legal tactics. From the high profile Exxon Valdez case that the company dragged out over 20 years, to small scale battles, the company is known for choosing to fight rather than settle.
Imperial Oil, Exxon's Canadian subsidiary, is 25% owner of Syncrude, with an ex-Exxon man now the President and CEO. The news that Syncrude is arguing against being charged for the oily death of ducks in one of its tar sands tailings pond is therefore no surprise.
And this despite running full page ads at the time apologizing for the incident.
Part of this is about the tar sands industry not wanting the federal government to finally enforce its laws after getting away with the province of Alberta giving it free reign to destroy Northern Alberta. Syncrude's lawyer in the duck case stated that the federal migratory bird act, being used by prosecutors:
"was not ever designed to be used to regulate Alberta's natural resources. This is the toe of the federal government coming into the regulation of Alberta natural resources."
In other words, provincially mandated natural resource exploitation should be exempt from federal environmental laws. But, Canadian law students learn in first year constitutional law that in cases of shared jurisdiction, like environment, when push comes to shove, federal jurisdiction trumps provincial jurisdiction.
Yet, ever since the NEP, there has been a reluctance on the part of Ottawa to enforce its laws in Alberta, and a constant war waged by successive Alberta politicians to push the feds out of their way. The result is failure to enforce a range of federal laws in the tar sands, from the Fisheries Act to the Species At Risk Act.
But another part of Exxon's aggressive legal strategy is that it doesn't just want the feds out of its way, but it wants everyone out of its way. It will challenge enforcement by any level of government anytime. At its core this is about accountability and not wanting any. It's a perfect metaphor for the tar sands in general.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence Canada
Imperial Oil, Exxon's Canadian subsidiary, is 25% owner of Syncrude, with an ex-Exxon man now the President and CEO. The news that Syncrude is arguing against being charged for the oily death of ducks in one of its tar sands tailings pond is therefore no surprise.
And this despite running full page ads at the time apologizing for the incident.
Part of this is about the tar sands industry not wanting the federal government to finally enforce its laws after getting away with the province of Alberta giving it free reign to destroy Northern Alberta. Syncrude's lawyer in the duck case stated that the federal migratory bird act, being used by prosecutors:
"was not ever designed to be used to regulate Alberta's natural resources. This is the toe of the federal government coming into the regulation of Alberta natural resources."
In other words, provincially mandated natural resource exploitation should be exempt from federal environmental laws. But, Canadian law students learn in first year constitutional law that in cases of shared jurisdiction, like environment, when push comes to shove, federal jurisdiction trumps provincial jurisdiction.
Yet, ever since the NEP, there has been a reluctance on the part of Ottawa to enforce its laws in Alberta, and a constant war waged by successive Alberta politicians to push the feds out of their way. The result is failure to enforce a range of federal laws in the tar sands, from the Fisheries Act to the Species At Risk Act.
But another part of Exxon's aggressive legal strategy is that it doesn't just want the feds out of its way, but it wants everyone out of its way. It will challenge enforcement by any level of government anytime. At its core this is about accountability and not wanting any. It's a perfect metaphor for the tar sands in general.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
