One in a continuing series of blogs for CBC's Dragon's Den:
Yesterday, the United States government made a very significant, and welcome, announcement: The first offshore wind project in US waters is going ahead. The 468 mW, US$1 billion project, which was opposed by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, will see 130 wind turbines erected about 5 miles off Cape Cod. When completed it will generate enough electricity to power 200,000 homes. To give you some perspective, northern Europe already has 2,000 mW of offshore turbines with a goal of reaching 40,000 mW by 2020.
Any North American plans are still penny ante in comparison.
Why is this a significant decision? The answer is this: Wind energy, and other non-polluting sources of electricity, are the cornerstone of the new green economy. Given the devastating global warming implications of carbon dioxide pollution, we need to move to non-polluting green energy as soon as possible. And wind is a big part of that equation. A recent article in Scientific American estimated that providing ALL of the world’s energy needs from wind, water and solar by 2030 is totally feasible.
The Ontario government has started to lay plans for this transition. The new and innovative Green Energy Act here in Ontario will both result in a reduction in global warming pollution, and a resuscitation of the province’s manufacturing economy. The government estimates the first batch of contracts announced under the Green Energy Act alone will create 20,000 direct and indirect green jobs and attract about $9 billion in private sector investment. Somebody in the world is going to make the wind turbine towers, blades and complicated internal mechanisms. If we want those jobs, we’d better make sure that manufacturing happens right here in Ontario.
Oh ya. And wind energy, as opposed to coal plants – North America’s most common source of energy at present -- doesn’t kill people.
If you haven’t picked up on it yet, I’m downright excited about wind energy. Which brings me to another of yesterday’s events, the small rally held at Queen’s Park in opposition to wind turbines. As someone who slugs it out every day in defence of the environment, I’ll be the first to admit there are some bone-headed wind energy proposals out there. Top of that list is the large project proposed just offshore of the world-renowned bird area of Point Pelee. But there’s a big difference between some badly sited individual projects, and the nonsensical claims being leveled at wind power with respect to phantom “health effects”.
By and large, Bob Dylan was right (as usual): the answer is blowing in the wind.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Hundred Pound Weakling
Today Environmental Defence Canada and NRDC are releasing a comparison of the low carbon fuel standards (LCFS) of California and British Columbia.
The verdict?
BC’s is a hundred pound weakling next to Schwarzenegger’s muscle. This is a shame in light of other good things that BC is doing on climate change – but this one has backfired due to the bad precedent it has set.
Our comparison comes at a time of intense lobbying by the Canadian government and tar sands industry in an attempt to weaken fuels progress in California, Washington, DC, and the European Union.
Unfortunately, the industry is already trotting out the weak BC standard in its attempts to undermine progressive action. The BC approach fails to do what the LCFS is supposed to do – require fuel suppliers to account for differences in global warming for different fuels. It ignores any accounting for high-carbon petroleum fuels. Nor does it separate the good biofuels from the bad ones. As such, unless it is fixed, the BC LCFS will likely do more harm than good in fighting global warming around North America and the world.
A LCFS is supposed to require that the “life cycle” carbon emissions of transportation fuels – the amount of pollution created by producing, transporting and burning the fuel – goes down over time. It is a tool that governments can use to cut global warming pollution and reduce oil dependency in the transportation sector.
California and BC are the first jurisdictions in North America to adopt low carbon fuel standards. They both set the same goal – to reduce the carbon content of fuel by 10% by 2020 – but that’s about the only similarity between the two.
While California requires fuel suppliers to account for carbon-heavy oil they sell, like tar sands oil, BC allows them to lump all fossil fuel together as if all are created equal from a carbon pollution perspective. Yet the life cycle carbon content of tar sands oil is 15-40% higher than conventional oil. This lets suppliers of tar sands oil off the hook for reducing emissions, and puts more burden on everyone else to do more than their fair share.
Already, nearly half of BC’s oil comes from the tar sands, and this is likely to increase as tar sands production ramps up over the next decade. As it stands, BC’s LCFS will do little to prevent the rise in global warming pollution that will result. The accounting loophole could allow a worsening petroleum mix to completely offset the benefits from any additional low carbon fuels used.
On biofuels, another glaring difference between the BC and California standards is in their treatment of the land use impacts of various biofuels. When land is used to grow biomass for fuel instead of food, new areas of forest or wetlands will inevitably be turned into farmland. This can have a big impact on the carbon stored in the ground, and when it is taken into account, some biofuels can lead to higher life cycle carbon emissions than fossil fuels. California, the U.S. EPA, and the European Union have all conducted significant analysis and modeling to account for this significant impact while BC has arbitrarily given a zero value without justification.
Low carbon fuel standards should encourage a transition to alternative fuel sources that produce less emission. The California standard achieves this by taking the land use impacts of biofuels into account, and can help drive innovation and research on new sources of fuel. The BC standard fails to do this, and thus props up some biofuels that may in fact be worse for the climate.
Gillian McEachern, Environmental Defence and Simon Mui, Natural Resources Defense Council
The verdict?
BC’s is a hundred pound weakling next to Schwarzenegger’s muscle. This is a shame in light of other good things that BC is doing on climate change – but this one has backfired due to the bad precedent it has set.
Our comparison comes at a time of intense lobbying by the Canadian government and tar sands industry in an attempt to weaken fuels progress in California, Washington, DC, and the European Union.
Unfortunately, the industry is already trotting out the weak BC standard in its attempts to undermine progressive action. The BC approach fails to do what the LCFS is supposed to do – require fuel suppliers to account for differences in global warming for different fuels. It ignores any accounting for high-carbon petroleum fuels. Nor does it separate the good biofuels from the bad ones. As such, unless it is fixed, the BC LCFS will likely do more harm than good in fighting global warming around North America and the world.
A LCFS is supposed to require that the “life cycle” carbon emissions of transportation fuels – the amount of pollution created by producing, transporting and burning the fuel – goes down over time. It is a tool that governments can use to cut global warming pollution and reduce oil dependency in the transportation sector.
California and BC are the first jurisdictions in North America to adopt low carbon fuel standards. They both set the same goal – to reduce the carbon content of fuel by 10% by 2020 – but that’s about the only similarity between the two.
While California requires fuel suppliers to account for carbon-heavy oil they sell, like tar sands oil, BC allows them to lump all fossil fuel together as if all are created equal from a carbon pollution perspective. Yet the life cycle carbon content of tar sands oil is 15-40% higher than conventional oil. This lets suppliers of tar sands oil off the hook for reducing emissions, and puts more burden on everyone else to do more than their fair share.
Already, nearly half of BC’s oil comes from the tar sands, and this is likely to increase as tar sands production ramps up over the next decade. As it stands, BC’s LCFS will do little to prevent the rise in global warming pollution that will result. The accounting loophole could allow a worsening petroleum mix to completely offset the benefits from any additional low carbon fuels used.
On biofuels, another glaring difference between the BC and California standards is in their treatment of the land use impacts of various biofuels. When land is used to grow biomass for fuel instead of food, new areas of forest or wetlands will inevitably be turned into farmland. This can have a big impact on the carbon stored in the ground, and when it is taken into account, some biofuels can lead to higher life cycle carbon emissions than fossil fuels. California, the U.S. EPA, and the European Union have all conducted significant analysis and modeling to account for this significant impact while BC has arbitrarily given a zero value without justification.
Low carbon fuel standards should encourage a transition to alternative fuel sources that produce less emission. The California standard achieves this by taking the land use impacts of biofuels into account, and can help drive innovation and research on new sources of fuel. The BC standard fails to do this, and thus props up some biofuels that may in fact be worse for the climate.
Gillian McEachern, Environmental Defence and Simon Mui, Natural Resources Defense Council
BPA Back-Up: Substance is Banned in Baby Bottles, but Not Yet “Toxic” in Canada
It's true - bisphenol A (BPA) has not yet been added to the federal government’s Toxic Substances List. Chemicals on the Toxic Substances List must be managed in Canada while those that are not on the list may or may not be managed depending on things such as provincial regulations.
As you may recall, in October 2008, the government said BPA was “toxic" and recommended its addition to the Toxic Substances List given concerns for Canadians’ health and environment. Then, in June 2009, the government formally published the official proposal to add BPA to the list. After an official proposal is published, the public has a specific amount of time to send in comments before everything is finalized. Meanwhile, in March 2010 (as reported in our last Toxic Nation E-news), the government went ahead with making it illegal to advertise, sell, or import baby bottles containing BPA in Canada.
So, the good news is that BPA-polluted baby bottles are not longer allowed in Canada. But, the bad news is that its slow addition to the Toxic Substances List is concerning, particularly given the secrecy around its delay. As per Saturday’s Globe and Mail article, the reason for the delay is that someone/something “filed a formal notice of objection to the listing last summer”, but the government so far refuses to say who/what filed the notice of objection.
No other chemical determined to be “toxic” via risk assessments conducted via the federal Chemicals Management Plan (as BPA was) has yet to be added to the List of Toxic Substances.
As you may recall, in October 2008, the government said BPA was “toxic" and recommended its addition to the Toxic Substances List given concerns for Canadians’ health and environment. Then, in June 2009, the government formally published the official proposal to add BPA to the list. After an official proposal is published, the public has a specific amount of time to send in comments before everything is finalized. Meanwhile, in March 2010 (as reported in our last Toxic Nation E-news), the government went ahead with making it illegal to advertise, sell, or import baby bottles containing BPA in Canada.
So, the good news is that BPA-polluted baby bottles are not longer allowed in Canada. But, the bad news is that its slow addition to the Toxic Substances List is concerning, particularly given the secrecy around its delay. As per Saturday’s Globe and Mail article, the reason for the delay is that someone/something “filed a formal notice of objection to the listing last summer”, but the government so far refuses to say who/what filed the notice of objection.
No other chemical determined to be “toxic” via risk assessments conducted via the federal Chemicals Management Plan (as BPA was) has yet to be added to the List of Toxic Substances.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Dragon's Den: The Earth Day Blog
Fourth in a series for CBC's Dragon's Den:
Happy Earth Day!
I’m actually writing this blog while waiting for my flight back to Toronto from the Pittsburgh airport. I’ve been here for a couple of days with Bruce Lourie, my co-author on Slow Death by Rubber Duck, speaking to an amazing conference on Women’s Health & the Environment. One of the keynote speakers yesterday was Lisa Jackson, the new head of the US Environmental Protection Agency. She gave a kickass speech that brought the crowd of 2,000 women to their feet when she committed to totally overhauling the system of chemical regulation in the States: a system so dysfunctional it’s clearly not protecting the environment or human health.
And this brings me to the point of this Earth Day blog. As I outlined last week, yes, it’s important for consumers to be smarter and more demanding. Yes, it’s critical to read labels more carefully and purchase greener products. But ultimately, we can’t shop our way to a cleaner environment. The power of green consumerism has its limits in the absence of effective policies and regulations from governments.
On Earth Day, and every day, it’s important for people to be savvier consumers AND more engaged citizens.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not discounting, in any way, the amazing power of consumers voting with their dollar. I think the New York Times today has it completely wrong. Environmentalists engaging with the corporate sector is not a sell-out. Green consumerism is not a passing fad, or an unwelcome dilution of “real” environmental change. The opposite is true. It is precisely because environmentalism has become a more powerful mainstream concern that many companies want to meaningfully engage with the debate. And the push-pull relationship between consumers demanding greener and less polluting products (better value, in other words), corporations who need to change their polluting ways, and governments who need to set improved ground rules is a terrain that is richer in real possibilities for change than ever before.
The women in the room in Pittsburgh understand this. These are the folks who are simultaneously pushing the Obama administration to fix a ridiculously broken law that has only properly regulated 5 out of 80,000 synthetic chemicals in the past thirty years. But these are also the women who, through the power of their green consumerism, forced -- and I mean forced -- manufacturers of baby bottles to eliminate the hormone-disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA) from their products. This shift in consumer preference on BPA, and the resulting pressure on manufacturers, is making government action to ban BPA in the US much more likely. Green consumerism is paving the way for proper regulation.
The recent announcement of Ontario’s first renewable energy contracts under the new Green Energy Act is another interesting example of this interplay between consumer demand and government action. For a while now, a growing consumer hunger for greener electricity has been building businesses like the fantastic Bullfrog Power. Solar panels have been slowly popping up in the most unlikely places. http://www.bslvideo.com/ The McGuinty government took note of this change and introduced the innovative Green Energy Act – the first North American application of a European-style renewable energy system – and a policy that Al Gore has dubbed “the single best green energy program on the North American continent”. As a result, Ontario’s energy system is becoming much greener. And Ontario has a real shot at becoming a global leader in the manufacture of renewable energy equipment.
So this Earth Day, let’s celebrate the progress we’ve made. And let’s recommit ourselves as consumers and as citizens to buy smarter and demand better from our elected representatives.
We’ve come a long way from the days when dealing with corporations was considered high treason within the environmental movement. The infamous incident of the Loblaws green diapers springs to mind. These days, in fact, and much to my frequent surprise, environmentalists sometimes find themselves making common cause for the Earth with corporate actors over the loud objections of other, allegedly environmental, voices. I promise some tantalizing tidbits from this raging debate next week.
Happy Earth Day!
I’m actually writing this blog while waiting for my flight back to Toronto from the Pittsburgh airport. I’ve been here for a couple of days with Bruce Lourie, my co-author on Slow Death by Rubber Duck, speaking to an amazing conference on Women’s Health & the Environment. One of the keynote speakers yesterday was Lisa Jackson, the new head of the US Environmental Protection Agency. She gave a kickass speech that brought the crowd of 2,000 women to their feet when she committed to totally overhauling the system of chemical regulation in the States: a system so dysfunctional it’s clearly not protecting the environment or human health.
And this brings me to the point of this Earth Day blog. As I outlined last week, yes, it’s important for consumers to be smarter and more demanding. Yes, it’s critical to read labels more carefully and purchase greener products. But ultimately, we can’t shop our way to a cleaner environment. The power of green consumerism has its limits in the absence of effective policies and regulations from governments.
On Earth Day, and every day, it’s important for people to be savvier consumers AND more engaged citizens.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not discounting, in any way, the amazing power of consumers voting with their dollar. I think the New York Times today has it completely wrong. Environmentalists engaging with the corporate sector is not a sell-out. Green consumerism is not a passing fad, or an unwelcome dilution of “real” environmental change. The opposite is true. It is precisely because environmentalism has become a more powerful mainstream concern that many companies want to meaningfully engage with the debate. And the push-pull relationship between consumers demanding greener and less polluting products (better value, in other words), corporations who need to change their polluting ways, and governments who need to set improved ground rules is a terrain that is richer in real possibilities for change than ever before.
The women in the room in Pittsburgh understand this. These are the folks who are simultaneously pushing the Obama administration to fix a ridiculously broken law that has only properly regulated 5 out of 80,000 synthetic chemicals in the past thirty years. But these are also the women who, through the power of their green consumerism, forced -- and I mean forced -- manufacturers of baby bottles to eliminate the hormone-disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA) from their products. This shift in consumer preference on BPA, and the resulting pressure on manufacturers, is making government action to ban BPA in the US much more likely. Green consumerism is paving the way for proper regulation.
The recent announcement of Ontario’s first renewable energy contracts under the new Green Energy Act is another interesting example of this interplay between consumer demand and government action. For a while now, a growing consumer hunger for greener electricity has been building businesses like the fantastic Bullfrog Power. Solar panels have been slowly popping up in the most unlikely places. http://www.bslvideo.com/ The McGuinty government took note of this change and introduced the innovative Green Energy Act – the first North American application of a European-style renewable energy system – and a policy that Al Gore has dubbed “the single best green energy program on the North American continent”. As a result, Ontario’s energy system is becoming much greener. And Ontario has a real shot at becoming a global leader in the manufacture of renewable energy equipment.
So this Earth Day, let’s celebrate the progress we’ve made. And let’s recommit ourselves as consumers and as citizens to buy smarter and demand better from our elected representatives.
We’ve come a long way from the days when dealing with corporations was considered high treason within the environmental movement. The infamous incident of the Loblaws green diapers springs to mind. These days, in fact, and much to my frequent surprise, environmentalists sometimes find themselves making common cause for the Earth with corporate actors over the loud objections of other, allegedly environmental, voices. I promise some tantalizing tidbits from this raging debate next week.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Love the Piano Scene
Just as James Cameron, director of Avatar, says that the tar sands are giving Canada a "black eye," comes a mock 'Avatarsands' video.
I love the piano scene:
I love the piano scene:
Monday, April 19, 2010
Prentice’s American Dreaming
Recently, Reuters published leaked information on the contents of the climate and energy bill expected to be introduced in the U.S. Senate within the next couple of weeks. The U.S. House already passed its version, and the two bills will get reconciled before going to the President.
Given that our federal government has adopted a “Made in the U.S.A.” approach to its own climate and energy policy, it’s important to understand the implications for Canada of copying the Americans, whether it’s the Senate bill or otherwise.
Based on the Reuters story and other reports, it seems probable that the Senate bill will include a cap on global warming pollution from the electricity sector, with other sectors being phased in later, some type of fee on transportation fuel, a renewable energy standard and energy efficiency measures.
While this is far less ambitious than the comprehensive climate bill passed by the U.S. House last year, American legislators are actively grappling with global warming and clean energy and have committed billions of dollars to help transition to a clean energy economy and harness the jobs that come with it.
In contrast, Canada’s federal government is cutting clean energy funding and has no proposal on the table to reach its national target to reduce global warming pollution. The U.S. is investing 18 times more per person in renewable energy than we are. For all the rhetoric coming out of Ottawa, we are in fact not matching U.S. federal efforts.
If we take the Reuters story as one possible model for the Harper government to copy, what would this mean for Canada? Several things:
1. A hard cap on the electricity sector: Within Canada, Ontario is doing the heavy lifting on electricity sector emissions by shutting its coal plants, meaning a federal cap on the sector wouldn’t require much beyond what Ontario is already doing. Canada copying America on this could be largely meaningless, and also let other provinces off the hook.
2. Postponing action on other sectors: If we copy this, it means a free pass for the tar sands, Canada’s fastest growing source of emissions, a corollary for which doesn’t exist in the U.S. in relative terms. It will be hard, if not impossible, to meet our target – or match the U.S. on a percentage basis – without reigning in those sectors that are actually growing.
3. Other federal policies: To match Washington, DC, our federal government would need to step up to the plate to work with provinces to regulate the faster adoption of renewable energy and higher energy efficiency standards.
4. Bad federal policies: The Senate bill may also contain incentives for nuclear and new oil drilling, and allow the use of offsets. Canada wouldn’t need to change much to mimic this part – we’re already subsidizing nuclear and tar sands, and are happy to dodge real reductions at home by allowing carbon offsets (and in Canada, unlike the U.S., our government clings tightly to that other loophole – payments into a tech fund in place of reductions).
5. Provincial jurisdiction: The Senate bill may prevent states from implementing their own cap and trade programs. This comes with risks given what is on the table these days in the U.S. is far from an economy-wide system. In Canada, the federal government has been keen to sit back and let the provinces lead. Matching the US on this aspect would be a big change and mean that the federal government would have to be willing to step in and regulate Alberta so that it is making actual reductions like the other provinces.
Copying exactly the likely approach of the Senate could both be unfair to some provinces and result in failing to meet even the weak target that Ottawa has set for itself. Hitching our climate and energy to policy blindly to the U.S. is risky. Our government needs to start charting a Canadian approach to tackling global warming.
Rick Smith
Executive Director
Given that our federal government has adopted a “Made in the U.S.A.” approach to its own climate and energy policy, it’s important to understand the implications for Canada of copying the Americans, whether it’s the Senate bill or otherwise.
Based on the Reuters story and other reports, it seems probable that the Senate bill will include a cap on global warming pollution from the electricity sector, with other sectors being phased in later, some type of fee on transportation fuel, a renewable energy standard and energy efficiency measures.
While this is far less ambitious than the comprehensive climate bill passed by the U.S. House last year, American legislators are actively grappling with global warming and clean energy and have committed billions of dollars to help transition to a clean energy economy and harness the jobs that come with it.
In contrast, Canada’s federal government is cutting clean energy funding and has no proposal on the table to reach its national target to reduce global warming pollution. The U.S. is investing 18 times more per person in renewable energy than we are. For all the rhetoric coming out of Ottawa, we are in fact not matching U.S. federal efforts.
If we take the Reuters story as one possible model for the Harper government to copy, what would this mean for Canada? Several things:
1. A hard cap on the electricity sector: Within Canada, Ontario is doing the heavy lifting on electricity sector emissions by shutting its coal plants, meaning a federal cap on the sector wouldn’t require much beyond what Ontario is already doing. Canada copying America on this could be largely meaningless, and also let other provinces off the hook.
2. Postponing action on other sectors: If we copy this, it means a free pass for the tar sands, Canada’s fastest growing source of emissions, a corollary for which doesn’t exist in the U.S. in relative terms. It will be hard, if not impossible, to meet our target – or match the U.S. on a percentage basis – without reigning in those sectors that are actually growing.
3. Other federal policies: To match Washington, DC, our federal government would need to step up to the plate to work with provinces to regulate the faster adoption of renewable energy and higher energy efficiency standards.
4. Bad federal policies: The Senate bill may also contain incentives for nuclear and new oil drilling, and allow the use of offsets. Canada wouldn’t need to change much to mimic this part – we’re already subsidizing nuclear and tar sands, and are happy to dodge real reductions at home by allowing carbon offsets (and in Canada, unlike the U.S., our government clings tightly to that other loophole – payments into a tech fund in place of reductions).
5. Provincial jurisdiction: The Senate bill may prevent states from implementing their own cap and trade programs. This comes with risks given what is on the table these days in the U.S. is far from an economy-wide system. In Canada, the federal government has been keen to sit back and let the provinces lead. Matching the US on this aspect would be a big change and mean that the federal government would have to be willing to step in and regulate Alberta so that it is making actual reductions like the other provinces.
Copying exactly the likely approach of the Senate could both be unfair to some provinces and result in failing to meet even the weak target that Ottawa has set for itself. Hitching our climate and energy to policy blindly to the U.S. is risky. Our government needs to start charting a Canadian approach to tackling global warming.
Rick Smith
Executive Director
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Is the Tide Turning on Triclosan?
Triclosan – a man-made antibacterial found in many soaps and sanitizers – has, perhaps, seen more encouraging days. While its use in all kinds of antibacterial consumer products continues to grow (think toothpastes, cutting boards, socks), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) questioning of the substance also seems to be expanding. That is to say that according to an article in last week’s Washington Post , the FDA responded to an inquiry about the chemical from U.S. Congressman Edward J. Markey by saying that recent research raises "valid concerns" about triclosan’s health effects (hormone-system disruption, bacterial resistance) and that the chemical is getting a renewed look.
On the day the above article was published, the FDA also posted a new Consumer Update titled “Triclosan: What Consumers Should Know”. Within this, it was noted that the “FDA does not have evidence that triclosan added to antibacterial soaps and body washes provides extra health benefits over soap and water”. The FDA’s review is slated to become public next spring.
Did you know? Triclosan has been found in 76% of liquid soaps and 29% of bar soaps in the U.S. according to this American Journal of Infection Control article by Perencevich, Wong, and Harris.
Did you also know? Triclosan has been found in almost 75% of the 2,517 Americans tested by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) between 2003-2004 according to this CDC webpage.
On the day the above article was published, the FDA also posted a new Consumer Update titled “Triclosan: What Consumers Should Know”. Within this, it was noted that the “FDA does not have evidence that triclosan added to antibacterial soaps and body washes provides extra health benefits over soap and water”. The FDA’s review is slated to become public next spring.
Did you know? Triclosan has been found in 76% of liquid soaps and 29% of bar soaps in the U.S. according to this American Journal of Infection Control article by Perencevich, Wong, and Harris.
Did you also know? Triclosan has been found in almost 75% of the 2,517 Americans tested by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) between 2003-2004 according to this CDC webpage.
Dragon's Den: Made to Measure
Blog #3 in a series for CBC's Dragon's Den
Last week I talked about how the first, and most important, ingredient of any claim to “green-ness” for a product is sincerity on the part of the manufacturer.
The next most important criterion is measurability. The product needs to objectively and quantifiably contribute to making the planet a better place. There are, obviously, as many different ways of doing this as there are products themselves.
A product can be clearly less polluting. Or less toxic. Perhaps it is more forest-friendly. Or more easily compostable. Green products can be very large and complicated. Or smaller in scale. They can be sexy. Or not so much. Some of them are familiar. And many of them most Canadians won’t have heard of.
What all of these things have in common is that they’re measurably better for the environment (and therefore human health) than their alternatives. Though these products may be the green real deal, the challenge in today’s market of cluttered, competing, green claims is to ensure that consumers believe this to be the case.
One way of achieving this is for manufacturers or retailers to submit to independently verified “green labels”. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), for example, certifies that paper products are environmentally-friendly. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is trying to do the same in the realm of seafood (though not without some hiccups). Before too long, I’m convinced, most things we buy will be covered by some third-party “green” certification scheme.
For the moment, most manufacturers don’t have the luxury of accessing such a process and need to fend for themselves. The only path forward is for them to do the homework and give consumers access to the detailed information that validates the green claim. In some cases, this involves contracting independent labs to do some serious in-depth research.
The result of all this? A heckuva lot of information for consumers to sift through, that’s what. It can be overwhelming. It can be maddening. Trying to analyze competing product claims can be difficult even for the most green-minded. And can we really shop our way to a greener planet, anyways? More on this next week.
Last week I talked about how the first, and most important, ingredient of any claim to “green-ness” for a product is sincerity on the part of the manufacturer.
The next most important criterion is measurability. The product needs to objectively and quantifiably contribute to making the planet a better place. There are, obviously, as many different ways of doing this as there are products themselves.
A product can be clearly less polluting. Or less toxic. Perhaps it is more forest-friendly. Or more easily compostable. Green products can be very large and complicated. Or smaller in scale. They can be sexy. Or not so much. Some of them are familiar. And many of them most Canadians won’t have heard of.
What all of these things have in common is that they’re measurably better for the environment (and therefore human health) than their alternatives. Though these products may be the green real deal, the challenge in today’s market of cluttered, competing, green claims is to ensure that consumers believe this to be the case.
One way of achieving this is for manufacturers or retailers to submit to independently verified “green labels”. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), for example, certifies that paper products are environmentally-friendly. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is trying to do the same in the realm of seafood (though not without some hiccups). Before too long, I’m convinced, most things we buy will be covered by some third-party “green” certification scheme.
For the moment, most manufacturers don’t have the luxury of accessing such a process and need to fend for themselves. The only path forward is for them to do the homework and give consumers access to the detailed information that validates the green claim. In some cases, this involves contracting independent labs to do some serious in-depth research.
The result of all this? A heckuva lot of information for consumers to sift through, that’s what. It can be overwhelming. It can be maddening. Trying to analyze competing product claims can be difficult even for the most green-minded. And can we really shop our way to a greener planet, anyways? More on this next week.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Cooperation for a planet in need
Today we applaud an example of the opposition parties coming together in Ottawa in a clear demonstration that the vast majority of MPs support federal action on global warming.
In one sitting, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc voted in favour of a motion put forward by Liberal Environment critic David McGuinty on a suite of key climate change measures, and of proceeding to a third reading of Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act.
The contents of the Bill and motion are a strong indication that these three parties support tough federal action – setting targets for reducing global warming pollution, reporting and transparency requirements around efforts to address climate change, and greater investment in clean energy and energy efficiency.
Most importantly, it has demonstrated that the opposition parties can cooperate on an ambitious agenda on clean energy and global warming. Canadians want to see our country lead in the clean energy economy. Currently, we are falling badly behind.
The U.S. is investing 18 times more per person in renewable energy than Canada, and is already reaping new clean energy jobs as a result. The U.S., South Korea, Australia, Mexico and Saudi Arabia all made larger investments in clean energy than Canada in their stimulus packages.
Canada needs to catch up or we’ll miss out on the clean energy boom, and we look forward to more of this kind of cooperation in Ottawa to get us there.
Rick Smith
Executive Director
In one sitting, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc voted in favour of a motion put forward by Liberal Environment critic David McGuinty on a suite of key climate change measures, and of proceeding to a third reading of Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act.
The contents of the Bill and motion are a strong indication that these three parties support tough federal action – setting targets for reducing global warming pollution, reporting and transparency requirements around efforts to address climate change, and greater investment in clean energy and energy efficiency.
Most importantly, it has demonstrated that the opposition parties can cooperate on an ambitious agenda on clean energy and global warming. Canadians want to see our country lead in the clean energy economy. Currently, we are falling badly behind.
The U.S. is investing 18 times more per person in renewable energy than Canada, and is already reaping new clean energy jobs as a result. The U.S., South Korea, Australia, Mexico and Saudi Arabia all made larger investments in clean energy than Canada in their stimulus packages.
Canada needs to catch up or we’ll miss out on the clean energy boom, and we look forward to more of this kind of cooperation in Ottawa to get us there.
Rick Smith
Executive Director
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
McGuinty's gift to the Greenbelt: quarry rejected
The Ontario Greenbelt Alliance, a coalition of more than 80 organizations dedicated to protecting the Greenbelt and furthering its objectives, applauded today’s decision by the provincial government to stop the development of the Flamborough quarry.
“Today's decision is important for both the protection of the environment and human health," said Dr. Rick Smith, Executive Director of Environmental Defence, an Ontario Greenbelt Alliance member. “This is a great gift to the Greenbelt in its fifth anniversary year."
Today's decision is a huge victory for Alliance member Friends of Rural Communities and the Environment who have worked tirelessly to defend their community’s drinking water, air quality and natural features.
This quarry would have been the first new industrial development of its kind in the natural heritage system of the Greenbelt. The proposed site and service roads would have cut through working agricultural lands, Provincially Significant Wetlands, significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat that is home to a number of species at risk. In addition, the quarry was proposed to go below the water table threatening the safety of water quality for the thousands of residents who live in the area and rely on a ground-water based municipal drinking system.
While the introduction of Greenbelt legislation five years ago has done much to protect agricultural land and maintain natural habitats, proposals for aggregate mining continue to undermine this protection.
Heather Harding
Greenbelt Coordinator
Environmental Defence
“Today's decision is important for both the protection of the environment and human health," said Dr. Rick Smith, Executive Director of Environmental Defence, an Ontario Greenbelt Alliance member. “This is a great gift to the Greenbelt in its fifth anniversary year."
Today's decision is a huge victory for Alliance member Friends of Rural Communities and the Environment who have worked tirelessly to defend their community’s drinking water, air quality and natural features.
This quarry would have been the first new industrial development of its kind in the natural heritage system of the Greenbelt. The proposed site and service roads would have cut through working agricultural lands, Provincially Significant Wetlands, significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat that is home to a number of species at risk. In addition, the quarry was proposed to go below the water table threatening the safety of water quality for the thousands of residents who live in the area and rely on a ground-water based municipal drinking system.
While the introduction of Greenbelt legislation five years ago has done much to protect agricultural land and maintain natural habitats, proposals for aggregate mining continue to undermine this protection.
Heather Harding
Greenbelt Coordinator
Environmental Defence
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Tories axe home retrofit support
Last week, the Conservative government axed the ecoEnergy Retrofit – Homes program, which helped homeowners improve the energy efficiency of their houses.
Apparently, the program was too successful for its own good. Initially launched in 2007, the government topped up funding for it in the 2009 Economic Action Plan and then again in this year’s budget. In total, about $720 million was earmarked for home retrofits over the span of four years .
That may sound like a lot, but the much-touted Home Renovation Tax Credit (also part of the Economic Action Plan) cost the government $3 billion in a single year, more than four times the energy retrofit program .
That money could have been used to make another 2 million Canadian homes more energy efficient – saving families money, decreasing global warming pollution and creating new jobs. The federal government estimates that for every dollar spent on home energy retrofits, homeowners invest $10 in the local renovation industry.
The success of the program speaks to the fact that Canadians want to do their bit to cut energy use. Yet the government has canned it, along with funding for renewable energy and climate research. One more sign that this government is out of step with Canadians.
Click here to send Prime Minister Harper a letter urging him to restore the program.
Gillian McEachern
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Apparently, the program was too successful for its own good. Initially launched in 2007, the government topped up funding for it in the 2009 Economic Action Plan and then again in this year’s budget. In total, about $720 million was earmarked for home retrofits over the span of four years .
That may sound like a lot, but the much-touted Home Renovation Tax Credit (also part of the Economic Action Plan) cost the government $3 billion in a single year, more than four times the energy retrofit program .
That money could have been used to make another 2 million Canadian homes more energy efficient – saving families money, decreasing global warming pollution and creating new jobs. The federal government estimates that for every dollar spent on home energy retrofits, homeowners invest $10 in the local renovation industry.
The success of the program speaks to the fact that Canadians want to do their bit to cut energy use. Yet the government has canned it, along with funding for renewable energy and climate research. One more sign that this government is out of step with Canadians.
Click here to send Prime Minister Harper a letter urging him to restore the program.
Gillian McEachern
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Dragon's Den: The Importance of Being Earnest
Blog #2 in a series for CBC's Dragon's Den:
When selling anything, it’s important that consumers trust your product. Witness the recent Toyota mishap for a lesson in what happens when consumer confidence in a product, or in this instance an entire brand, goes south.
In a confusing market crowded with competing claims of “green-ness”, it’s doubly important that your customers believe your claim of “green” to be accurate. If this isn’t the case, at best your product won’t derive any measurable benefit from the “green” claim, at worst consumers will hold your perceived lack of transparency against you. Big time.
Take the example of Sigg bottles as a case in point.
For much of the last three years, the hormone-disrupting toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) has been in the news. My organization, Environmental Defence, has made it a signature campaign. Linked to breast and prostate cancer and a host of other human diseases, mounting scientific evidence convinced Canada in 2008 to become the first jurisdiction in the world to ban the chemical from baby bottles.
Since then, a variety of other jurisdictions have also moved. Some of these bans include restrictions on the chemical’s use in food can linings (likely the most significant source of exposure for people). As concerns about BPA gathered momentum starting in about 2006, Sigg, the Swiss-based maker of funky aluminum bottles, positioned their product as a “green” alternative to then-common, BPA-containing, plastic sports bottles. The company enjoyed substantial increases in sales in the process. At the time, Sigg categorically stated that their products were BPA-free. But then, lo and behold, late last year the company had to issue an embarrassing public apology admitting that right up until August 2008 their bottle linings did indeed contain the chemical.
To say the least, this really caused the BPA to hit the fan. If you plug “sigg” and “bpa” into Google, you get over 85,000 hits.
After the company admitted misleading its consumers the Web lit up like a Christmas tree with angry people denouncing their former-favourite metal bottle. In summing up the Sigg episode, Advertising Age wrote that the company had moved from a ”badge of consumer eco-consciousness and all-around cool” to being “in danger of becoming a poster child for brand deception and corporate dishonesty.”
The lesson of Sigg is that, first and foremost, claims that a product is “green” have to be sincere. Before making such claims a company better be darn sure that they are true. In this age of email, Twitter and by-the-minute Facebook updates, the moment a customer sniffs out a corporate untruth it will be broadcast far and wide before the hour is out. Sincerity isn’t the only important consideration in evaluating the relative “green-ness” of a product, but more about that next week.
When selling anything, it’s important that consumers trust your product. Witness the recent Toyota mishap for a lesson in what happens when consumer confidence in a product, or in this instance an entire brand, goes south.
In a confusing market crowded with competing claims of “green-ness”, it’s doubly important that your customers believe your claim of “green” to be accurate. If this isn’t the case, at best your product won’t derive any measurable benefit from the “green” claim, at worst consumers will hold your perceived lack of transparency against you. Big time.
Take the example of Sigg bottles as a case in point.
For much of the last three years, the hormone-disrupting toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) has been in the news. My organization, Environmental Defence, has made it a signature campaign. Linked to breast and prostate cancer and a host of other human diseases, mounting scientific evidence convinced Canada in 2008 to become the first jurisdiction in the world to ban the chemical from baby bottles.
Since then, a variety of other jurisdictions have also moved. Some of these bans include restrictions on the chemical’s use in food can linings (likely the most significant source of exposure for people). As concerns about BPA gathered momentum starting in about 2006, Sigg, the Swiss-based maker of funky aluminum bottles, positioned their product as a “green” alternative to then-common, BPA-containing, plastic sports bottles. The company enjoyed substantial increases in sales in the process. At the time, Sigg categorically stated that their products were BPA-free. But then, lo and behold, late last year the company had to issue an embarrassing public apology admitting that right up until August 2008 their bottle linings did indeed contain the chemical.
To say the least, this really caused the BPA to hit the fan. If you plug “sigg” and “bpa” into Google, you get over 85,000 hits.
After the company admitted misleading its consumers the Web lit up like a Christmas tree with angry people denouncing their former-favourite metal bottle. In summing up the Sigg episode, Advertising Age wrote that the company had moved from a ”badge of consumer eco-consciousness and all-around cool” to being “in danger of becoming a poster child for brand deception and corporate dishonesty.”
The lesson of Sigg is that, first and foremost, claims that a product is “green” have to be sincere. Before making such claims a company better be darn sure that they are true. In this age of email, Twitter and by-the-minute Facebook updates, the moment a customer sniffs out a corporate untruth it will be broadcast far and wide before the hour is out. Sincerity isn’t the only important consideration in evaluating the relative “green-ness” of a product, but more about that next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
