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
Monday, April 19, 2010
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
