If there’s a problem, throw a little money at it.
At least that seems to be the common thread among some of the biggest celebrities and business moguls in America.
Virgin Group chairman Sir Richard “Money Bags” Branson recently dug deep into his pocket to offer $25-million to the first person who can create a workable plan for reversing the effects of climate change.
Who ever said that throwing a little capitalistic spirit into saving the world was a bad thing?
Internet tycoons like Bill Gates, Steve Case and John Doer are also giving millions to finance “green technology,” “sustainable lifestyles” and “ethanol bio-refineries.”
But, wouldn’t it be easier to just pay people to conserve energy and drive less?
And isn’t there always a tinge of irony when millionaires donate to environmental causes?
Bill Gate’s mansion in Medina, Washington alone takes up 48,000 square feet. That’s more than 30 times the size of an average American home, according to the National Association of Home Builders.
Adding over-consumptive insult to injury, his garage houses an estimated 30 cars.
That’s a lot of wasted materials, fuel and energy for one family.
Then there’s the politician/celebrity/environmentalist Al Gore whose Nashville mansion “consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year.”
So what kind of message are ‘environaires’ sending?
If you’re rich enough, you don’t have to change your lifestyle to save the world from pollution and climate change. You just have to spend some money and demand that others save the world for you.
Sure it’s nice to see these guys giving some cash and props to environmental causes instead of oil companies. But it would be even nicer if their generosity wasn’t seasoned with a fist-full of hypocrisy.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Put Your Hands Together for 'Eco-Faith'
The looming threats to our natural world – global warming, resource depletion, etc. – demand a unified voice.
Perhaps a new religious ideology isn’t such a bad idea.
Enter ‘Eco-Faith,’ a green religion that “discusses different religions and their perspectives on the importance of the environment.”
Right now, there are various fellowships, groups and congregations attempting to unify “different people with different religious backgrounds to discuss the importance of the environment and what they can do to protect it.”
The idea is to take the values associated with environmentalism and sustainability and apply them to religious ideologies.
Eco-Faith is in the developing stages, but already you can find examples of a widespread movement gaining force.
Carleton University student, Kristina Mellway, established ‘Faith and the Common Good.’ The group explores how “faith can play a role in correcting the damage that a consumption based lifestyle has done to nature.”
Faith and the Common Good plans to bring together as many as 20 local faith communities – including Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh - to follow in the path of praying and caring for environmental wellbeing.
After all, religions have the power to shape social and political values.
Just look at the ‘Eco-Faith Worship Community,’ led by Reverend Dr. Jason John.
According to John, “many religions have adopted an extremely human-centered view of our relationship with the Earth.”
In contrast, John’s fellowship has adopted a 'bio-centric' approach: a belief that humans are stewards, not dominators, of the Earth. Following this approach, humanity is only one piece of this complicated puzzle called life.
And Reverend John doesn’t need to think up a religious holiday to honour this new found faith.
Eco-Faith has its own religious holiday: Earth Day. And, some groups are already using Earth Day to reaffirm “a commitment to protecting the environment.”
The fight against global warming will demand a unified voice and unified action. Perhaps Eco-Faith will be the common ideological thread which ties many different religions together in the spirit and pursuit of co-operation.
Perhaps a new religious ideology isn’t such a bad idea.
Enter ‘Eco-Faith,’ a green religion that “discusses different religions and their perspectives on the importance of the environment.”
Right now, there are various fellowships, groups and congregations attempting to unify “different people with different religious backgrounds to discuss the importance of the environment and what they can do to protect it.”
The idea is to take the values associated with environmentalism and sustainability and apply them to religious ideologies.
Eco-Faith is in the developing stages, but already you can find examples of a widespread movement gaining force.
Carleton University student, Kristina Mellway, established ‘Faith and the Common Good.’ The group explores how “faith can play a role in correcting the damage that a consumption based lifestyle has done to nature.”
Faith and the Common Good plans to bring together as many as 20 local faith communities – including Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh - to follow in the path of praying and caring for environmental wellbeing.
After all, religions have the power to shape social and political values.
Just look at the ‘Eco-Faith Worship Community,’ led by Reverend Dr. Jason John.
According to John, “many religions have adopted an extremely human-centered view of our relationship with the Earth.”
In contrast, John’s fellowship has adopted a 'bio-centric' approach: a belief that humans are stewards, not dominators, of the Earth. Following this approach, humanity is only one piece of this complicated puzzle called life.
And Reverend John doesn’t need to think up a religious holiday to honour this new found faith.
Eco-Faith has its own religious holiday: Earth Day. And, some groups are already using Earth Day to reaffirm “a commitment to protecting the environment.”
The fight against global warming will demand a unified voice and unified action. Perhaps Eco-Faith will be the common ideological thread which ties many different religions together in the spirit and pursuit of co-operation.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Declining Birthrates Equal “Loss of Hope”?
According to Pope Benedict, Europe’s "declining birthrate is an indication of humanity’s loss of hope in its future, and is a form of dangerous individualism."
But, is this is true?
One of the biggest challenges facing humanity in the dawn of the 21st century is overpopulation.
The realities of overpopulation and the pressing need to curb procreation, however, is a touchy subject for many.
Especially since the concept of population control often butts heads with the doctrines of the religious right. In their view, the propagation of the human race is an "essential component" of human existence.
True, if people stopped making babies, the human race would cease to exist in another hundred years.
However, the Earth’s resources are finite and these finite resources, such as clean water, are essential for humanity’s survival.
If we keep expanding at a rate of approximately "1.7 per cent per annum," there could be some serious problems and resource shortages in the near future.
Some people even go so far as to say that if we don’t curb population growth now, humanity faces certain "extinction."
This begs the question: Is continuous population growth sustainable?
Not if we consider that the Earth has a carrying capacity: The maximum population size of a given species that an area can support without reducing its ability to support the same species in the future.
In other words, there’s a limit to how many people the Earth can support without humans resorting to drastic measures, like growing protein in a Petri dish for human consumption.
There are many reasons why people choose to have fewer children: cost, lifestyle choices, level of education, etc.
And, increasingly, people are choosing to have fewer children to reduce humanity’s impact on the world. Rightly so, considering it’s the only world we’ve got.
Maybe having fewer children isn’t indicative of "humanity’s loss of hope in its future." Maybe the decline in Europe’s birthrate is a sign of humanity’s plan to have a future worth looking forward to.
But, is this is true?
One of the biggest challenges facing humanity in the dawn of the 21st century is overpopulation.
The realities of overpopulation and the pressing need to curb procreation, however, is a touchy subject for many.
Especially since the concept of population control often butts heads with the doctrines of the religious right. In their view, the propagation of the human race is an "essential component" of human existence.
True, if people stopped making babies, the human race would cease to exist in another hundred years.
However, the Earth’s resources are finite and these finite resources, such as clean water, are essential for humanity’s survival.
If we keep expanding at a rate of approximately "1.7 per cent per annum," there could be some serious problems and resource shortages in the near future.
Some people even go so far as to say that if we don’t curb population growth now, humanity faces certain "extinction."
This begs the question: Is continuous population growth sustainable?
Not if we consider that the Earth has a carrying capacity: The maximum population size of a given species that an area can support without reducing its ability to support the same species in the future.
In other words, there’s a limit to how many people the Earth can support without humans resorting to drastic measures, like growing protein in a Petri dish for human consumption.
There are many reasons why people choose to have fewer children: cost, lifestyle choices, level of education, etc.
And, increasingly, people are choosing to have fewer children to reduce humanity’s impact on the world. Rightly so, considering it’s the only world we’ve got.
Maybe having fewer children isn’t indicative of "humanity’s loss of hope in its future." Maybe the decline in Europe’s birthrate is a sign of humanity’s plan to have a future worth looking forward to.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Efficient and Green: It’s Easy to Be Kind to the Environment
It’s time for home owners to latch on to sustainable energy sources. No excuses.
Coal and other non-renewable resources have damaging impacts on our Earth.
It’s obvious that as Canadians we have come to rely on fossil fuels and non-renewable resources for our survival. Since 1693, when the first Canadian coal mine opened at Grand Lake, New Brunswick, people have been using coal for energy.
So, it’s been three centuries of using non-renewable and polluting energy sources. Maybe it’s about time we make the switch to environmentally friendly energy.
It’s really not that hard.
There is a widespread market availability of sustainable energy sources.
Google ‘solar panels + purchase’ to track down your local solar panel supplier. And don't worry, you'll have made back the money you invested in this green technology in four years. Well worth it to save the world from smog-causing coal exhaust.
Just punch ‘wind turbines + purchase’ into Google and you’ll be bombarded with a list of commercial wind turbine suppliers.
Plus, investing in wind turbines can actually lower your electricity bill by 50 to 90 per cent.
For enviro-friendly companies, planting a wind farm can recoup the energy used in manufacturing within six to eight months.
Going green isn’t as difficult as many people think.
True, investing in sustainable housing technology can be costly.
But, the initial cost of installing wind turbines and solar panels, for instance, are offset by what you save in the long run.
Conclusion?
It’s easy and cost effective to go green.
So, why aren’t more people jumping on board? Perhaps they’re still stuck in 1693.
Coal and other non-renewable resources have damaging impacts on our Earth.
It’s obvious that as Canadians we have come to rely on fossil fuels and non-renewable resources for our survival. Since 1693, when the first Canadian coal mine opened at Grand Lake, New Brunswick, people have been using coal for energy.
So, it’s been three centuries of using non-renewable and polluting energy sources. Maybe it’s about time we make the switch to environmentally friendly energy.
It’s really not that hard.
There is a widespread market availability of sustainable energy sources.
Google ‘solar panels + purchase’ to track down your local solar panel supplier. And don't worry, you'll have made back the money you invested in this green technology in four years. Well worth it to save the world from smog-causing coal exhaust.
Just punch ‘wind turbines + purchase’ into Google and you’ll be bombarded with a list of commercial wind turbine suppliers.
Plus, investing in wind turbines can actually lower your electricity bill by 50 to 90 per cent.
For enviro-friendly companies, planting a wind farm can recoup the energy used in manufacturing within six to eight months.
Going green isn’t as difficult as many people think.
True, investing in sustainable housing technology can be costly.
But, the initial cost of installing wind turbines and solar panels, for instance, are offset by what you save in the long run.
Conclusion?
It’s easy and cost effective to go green.
So, why aren’t more people jumping on board? Perhaps they’re still stuck in 1693.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
'Banking' on a Sustainable Future
Ever wonder how banks make their big bucks? Banks invest the investments you make in them. That’s right; banks make money off your hard earned cash!
But are all of the banks' investment ventures environmentally friendly?
That’s something ethically-conscious investors and environmentalists are wondering.
With billions of dollars at their disposal, banks have a significant influence over economic growth and activity. They can decide whether a business sinks or swims.
Equally, they can invest in ‘green’ or ‘dirty’ technology.
That’s why this coming June 7th the Financial Times and the International Finance Corporation are holding a “Sustainable Banking Conference and Awards” in London, UK.
It’s going to be a big boost towards sustainability, as more than 100 financial institutions form 51 countries are expected to attend.
The awards will “act as a catalyst for further innovation in sustainability banking, helping to encourage best practice and transparency in the way banks approach sustainability and stimulate debate on the role banks can or should play in the area of sustainability.”
Several online networks are jumping on the bandwagon to offer investors online sustainable investment assistance. They help companies cater to the environment when making investment decisions.
Banks and other investment institutions need our cash to generate profit. They operate just like any other run-of-the-mill business.
As consumers we can choose to put our money in banks that take a proactive approach to sustainable investing – investing in technologies with little environmental impact.
The truth is ‘we consumers’ have an enormous amount of power and can pressure banks to make environmentally-friendly decisions.
And it looks like the banks are catching on…let’s hope.
But are all of the banks' investment ventures environmentally friendly?
That’s something ethically-conscious investors and environmentalists are wondering.
With billions of dollars at their disposal, banks have a significant influence over economic growth and activity. They can decide whether a business sinks or swims.
Equally, they can invest in ‘green’ or ‘dirty’ technology.
That’s why this coming June 7th the Financial Times and the International Finance Corporation are holding a “Sustainable Banking Conference and Awards” in London, UK.
It’s going to be a big boost towards sustainability, as more than 100 financial institutions form 51 countries are expected to attend.
The awards will “act as a catalyst for further innovation in sustainability banking, helping to encourage best practice and transparency in the way banks approach sustainability and stimulate debate on the role banks can or should play in the area of sustainability.”
Several online networks are jumping on the bandwagon to offer investors online sustainable investment assistance. They help companies cater to the environment when making investment decisions.
Banks and other investment institutions need our cash to generate profit. They operate just like any other run-of-the-mill business.
As consumers we can choose to put our money in banks that take a proactive approach to sustainable investing – investing in technologies with little environmental impact.
The truth is ‘we consumers’ have an enormous amount of power and can pressure banks to make environmentally-friendly decisions.
And it looks like the banks are catching on…let’s hope.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Curb Your Appetite...for Non-Sustainable Products
Many of us live under the illusion that our wide, expansive Canadian oceans contain an infinite amount of aquatic life. This, however, is far from the truth.
Recently, David Suzuki hosted a discussion about sustainable seafood and the state of Canada’s oceans. The symposium’s underlying message: 'We should try to choose sustainable options for the good of our oceans and ourselves'.
Loblaws or Safeway may have food, but they certainly aren’t spawning fish in their stores.
Our major seafood supplier isn’t supermarkets. It’s the ocean. And the ocean is being jeopardized by deep-sea trolling and over-fishing.
The solution? Make sustainable food choices.
Not sure where to start? There are various organizations and websites available on the internet pushing sustainable fish picks.
For example, 'Ocean Wise', a Vancouver based Aquarium conservation program, promotes sustainable eating by helping the public make environmentally-friendly seafood choices.
Also, 'Seafood Watch', Monterey Bay Aquarium program, provides consumers with a colour-coded online guide that contains the “latest information on seafood choices.” They also suggest which seafoods to avoid.
Want to adopt a local-only food source policy? Visit ‘Sustainable Table’ where users track down a list of local food suppliers by entering their dwelling coordinates.
So don’t clam up about sustainable seafood. Splash a dash of Worchester on that filet of cod. But make sure that main dish comes from a sustainable fish.
Recently, David Suzuki hosted a discussion about sustainable seafood and the state of Canada’s oceans. The symposium’s underlying message: 'We should try to choose sustainable options for the good of our oceans and ourselves'.
Loblaws or Safeway may have food, but they certainly aren’t spawning fish in their stores.
Our major seafood supplier isn’t supermarkets. It’s the ocean. And the ocean is being jeopardized by deep-sea trolling and over-fishing.
The solution? Make sustainable food choices.
Not sure where to start? There are various organizations and websites available on the internet pushing sustainable fish picks.
For example, 'Ocean Wise', a Vancouver based Aquarium conservation program, promotes sustainable eating by helping the public make environmentally-friendly seafood choices.
Also, 'Seafood Watch', Monterey Bay Aquarium program, provides consumers with a colour-coded online guide that contains the “latest information on seafood choices.” They also suggest which seafoods to avoid.
Want to adopt a local-only food source policy? Visit ‘Sustainable Table’ where users track down a list of local food suppliers by entering their dwelling coordinates.
So don’t clam up about sustainable seafood. Splash a dash of Worchester on that filet of cod. But make sure that main dish comes from a sustainable fish.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Would a Sustainable Expo Work in Vancouver?
Vancouver isn’t exactly making a big step towards sustainable development with its expanding commuter culture.
So having an expo that teaches Vancouver residents about sustainable development may well be in order.
The Globe Foundation, an organization dedicated to helping firms “capitalize" on the environmental movement, is planning on hosting a Sustainable Living Exposition.
Globe Foundation Vice President Nancy Wright said that she “never thought the market was quite right for” a sustainable expo in Vancouver. That is until climate change became “so important to the public.”
Saying both these statements in the same breath as: “people that live in Vancouver are inclined to be proactive in protecting the environment,” demonstrates the disconnection between the perceived and actual reality in Vancouver.
Were or were not Vancouver residents concerned about protecting the environment when the Globe Foundation decided not to host the event?
A Sustainable Living Expo sounds great. But the Globe Foundation seems to be missing the point with its Ethical, Progressive, Intelligent, Consumer Exposition (EPIC) under the guise of a sustainable expo.
EPIC is nothing but another forum where businesses learn how to tailor their products to a market. Instead of buying more ‘green’ stuff, consumers should be buying less. Period.
I know, it’s better to buy green than not. What’s missing from EPIC, however, is the ‘learning about living sustainably’ part that many Vancouver residents need.
So having an expo that teaches Vancouver residents about sustainable development may well be in order.
The Globe Foundation, an organization dedicated to helping firms “capitalize" on the environmental movement, is planning on hosting a Sustainable Living Exposition.
Globe Foundation Vice President Nancy Wright said that she “never thought the market was quite right for” a sustainable expo in Vancouver. That is until climate change became “so important to the public.”
Saying both these statements in the same breath as: “people that live in Vancouver are inclined to be proactive in protecting the environment,” demonstrates the disconnection between the perceived and actual reality in Vancouver.
Were or were not Vancouver residents concerned about protecting the environment when the Globe Foundation decided not to host the event?
A Sustainable Living Expo sounds great. But the Globe Foundation seems to be missing the point with its Ethical, Progressive, Intelligent, Consumer Exposition (EPIC) under the guise of a sustainable expo.
EPIC is nothing but another forum where businesses learn how to tailor their products to a market. Instead of buying more ‘green’ stuff, consumers should be buying less. Period.
I know, it’s better to buy green than not. What’s missing from EPIC, however, is the ‘learning about living sustainably’ part that many Vancouver residents need.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
‘Big Corporate’ Jumps On the Sustainability Bandwagon
Sustainability has become the new trademark of Wal-Mart, according to the mega-chain’s CEO, Lee Scott.
Wal-Mart is looking to sell sustainable consumer electronics that use eco-friendly materials and are kinder on the environment.
Products will be graded using a scorecard that evaluates energy efficiency and durability. Wal-Mart’s electronics will also be graded on the amount of packing they use, their potential for recycling, and the level of hazardous substances found inside them.
The new face of Wal-Mart will have a very aggressive ‘sustainable agenda,’ Scott said, with the ambitious goal of “100 percent renewable energy, zero waste, and sustainable products.” In typical corporate style, however, Wal-Mart has not indicated when they will achieve their sustainability objectives.
This is precisely why the socially responsible investors (SRI) remain skeptical about Wal-Mart’s long-term goals.
Why the skepticism? Oh yeah, Wal-Mart is another one of those self-serving corporations who give little regard to the ripple effect their actions have on the public at large.
As the SRI rightly point out, Wal-Mart has more problems than a 10,000-mile supply chain and wasteful products. Let’s not forget that Wal-Mart has been accused of selling products made using sweatshop labour, of preventing its employees from forming unions, of inadequate wages and of exacerbating urban sprawl.
If Wal-Mart is serious about its sustainability image, it will have to do more than make speeches and talk about solar panels and windmills.
The ‘green’ Wal-Mart of the future requires some real and significant changes to its infrastructure and the products on its shelves.
Wal-Mart is looking to sell sustainable consumer electronics that use eco-friendly materials and are kinder on the environment.
Products will be graded using a scorecard that evaluates energy efficiency and durability. Wal-Mart’s electronics will also be graded on the amount of packing they use, their potential for recycling, and the level of hazardous substances found inside them.
The new face of Wal-Mart will have a very aggressive ‘sustainable agenda,’ Scott said, with the ambitious goal of “100 percent renewable energy, zero waste, and sustainable products.” In typical corporate style, however, Wal-Mart has not indicated when they will achieve their sustainability objectives.
This is precisely why the socially responsible investors (SRI) remain skeptical about Wal-Mart’s long-term goals.
Why the skepticism? Oh yeah, Wal-Mart is another one of those self-serving corporations who give little regard to the ripple effect their actions have on the public at large.
As the SRI rightly point out, Wal-Mart has more problems than a 10,000-mile supply chain and wasteful products. Let’s not forget that Wal-Mart has been accused of selling products made using sweatshop labour, of preventing its employees from forming unions, of inadequate wages and of exacerbating urban sprawl.
If Wal-Mart is serious about its sustainability image, it will have to do more than make speeches and talk about solar panels and windmills.
The ‘green’ Wal-Mart of the future requires some real and significant changes to its infrastructure and the products on its shelves.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
What is Sustainable Development Anyway?
If you Google sustainable development, you’re bound to come up with a variety of posts. But, what exactly does it mean when companies, foundations and the public at large refer to sustainable development?
The answer is simply that there is no consensus on what people mean when they refer to ‘sustainable development.’
Bearing that in mind, I will try to illuminate some of the darker corners and brighter sides of the concept.
First coined in the 1983 Brundtland Report, sustainable development is commonly understood to mean “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Basically, conserve the earth’s resources so that future generations will have something left.
However, some have interpreted this to mean that environmental abuse today is justifiable so long as it can be ‘fixed’ at a later date.
This belief is often employed by those that place their faith in technology to save the world from humanity’s many mistakes.
Those opposed to the concept of sustainable development, on the other hand, often cite that combining ‘sustainable’ with ‘development’ is an oxymoron. In other words, you cannot have sustainable human societies where there is constant development.
So, sustainable development can be a double edged sword that can act in favour or against environmentally friendly actions.
You know the cat is out of the bag when mega corporations like petrochemical distributor Shell Chemical start tossing in the term sustainable development to describe their products and policies.
Despite the controversy surrounding ‘sustainable development,’ the term is here to stay. After all, it’s better that people talk about developing sustainably instead of ignoring the problems associated with cities and urban development entirely.
The answer is simply that there is no consensus on what people mean when they refer to ‘sustainable development.’
Bearing that in mind, I will try to illuminate some of the darker corners and brighter sides of the concept.
First coined in the 1983 Brundtland Report, sustainable development is commonly understood to mean “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Basically, conserve the earth’s resources so that future generations will have something left.
However, some have interpreted this to mean that environmental abuse today is justifiable so long as it can be ‘fixed’ at a later date.
This belief is often employed by those that place their faith in technology to save the world from humanity’s many mistakes.
Those opposed to the concept of sustainable development, on the other hand, often cite that combining ‘sustainable’ with ‘development’ is an oxymoron. In other words, you cannot have sustainable human societies where there is constant development.
So, sustainable development can be a double edged sword that can act in favour or against environmentally friendly actions.
You know the cat is out of the bag when mega corporations like petrochemical distributor Shell Chemical start tossing in the term sustainable development to describe their products and policies.
Despite the controversy surrounding ‘sustainable development,’ the term is here to stay. After all, it’s better that people talk about developing sustainably instead of ignoring the problems associated with cities and urban development entirely.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
The Best Recycling Program: Lotus Land vs. Capital City
Recycling is a cornerstone of sustainable living. It reduces the amount of garbage thrown into landfills and the amount of raw material, such as plastics and metals, produced to manufacture commercial items, like bottles and cans.
Regrettably, Vancouver is still lacking some of the more refined recycling services available in smaller urban settings, such as Ottawa.
In Ottawa, everything goes into a bin. Plastics, cans, containers, tins, anything metal or plastic-looking into one bin and all paper including newsprint into another bin.
Paper items are stuffed into plastic bags in Vancouver. Paper, including cardboard, must be cut, trimmed and otherwise manipulated into a medium-sized bag that, in rainy Vancouver, is often soaked from the day before. Newsprint is stuffed in a separate bag.
Cans and plastics are generously entitled to a large blue bin, but plastic bags are not invited.
Instead, all plastic bags must be bundled up and hauled to a Safeway grocery store to be recycled.
Not to mention that when purchasing bottled items from stores in Vancouver, there is a five cent levy repayable only upon returning the item to the store. This, in my opinion, ends up being more of a third tax and a disincentive for people on a tight schedule or budget to buy recyclable items.
What’s disappointing about Vancouver’s recycling system is not so much that it does not provide comprehensive service. It’s that recycling in Vancouver is painstaking, inconvenient and just plain nonsensical (paper should never have to be shoved into bags!).
What makes more sense, and would probably save more fuel and time in the long run, would be to have one truck pick up all recyclables and take them to the recycling plant. This would save on gas and would, probably, encourage more Vancouver residents to pick recyclable items and fill up their bins.
Even Saskatoon, Saskatchewan has a more user-friendly recycling program than Vancouver. Check it out here.
Regrettably, Vancouver is still lacking some of the more refined recycling services available in smaller urban settings, such as Ottawa.
In Ottawa, everything goes into a bin. Plastics, cans, containers, tins, anything metal or plastic-looking into one bin and all paper including newsprint into another bin.
Paper items are stuffed into plastic bags in Vancouver. Paper, including cardboard, must be cut, trimmed and otherwise manipulated into a medium-sized bag that, in rainy Vancouver, is often soaked from the day before. Newsprint is stuffed in a separate bag.
Cans and plastics are generously entitled to a large blue bin, but plastic bags are not invited.
Instead, all plastic bags must be bundled up and hauled to a Safeway grocery store to be recycled.
Not to mention that when purchasing bottled items from stores in Vancouver, there is a five cent levy repayable only upon returning the item to the store. This, in my opinion, ends up being more of a third tax and a disincentive for people on a tight schedule or budget to buy recyclable items.
What’s disappointing about Vancouver’s recycling system is not so much that it does not provide comprehensive service. It’s that recycling in Vancouver is painstaking, inconvenient and just plain nonsensical (paper should never have to be shoved into bags!).
What makes more sense, and would probably save more fuel and time in the long run, would be to have one truck pick up all recyclables and take them to the recycling plant. This would save on gas and would, probably, encourage more Vancouver residents to pick recyclable items and fill up their bins.
Even Saskatoon, Saskatchewan has a more user-friendly recycling program than Vancouver. Check it out here.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Missing the Target on Energy Conservation
British Columbia is again talking about energy and this time they’re pushing for more consumer conservation.
The new B.C. energy plan encourages residents to turn down their thermostats and live in more energy-efficient homes.
Under the new plan consumers will also end up paying more during peak energy hours and may have ‘smart’ meters installed in their homes to track the amount of power they use each hour.
Conserving energy should be a main target for big city centers, like Vancouver, that want to improve their sustainability. But, far too much emphasis is being placed on the average homeowner and not enough on big businesses and energy wasters.
On any given day you can walk down Vancouver’s sidewalks and see thousands of streetlights needlessly lighting up empty alleys, thousands of closed stores with their lights on and countless buildings with illuminated hallways and offices.
Realistically, the majority of the power-wasting is being perpetrated by those who can afford to do so.
Not surprisingly, if you take a stroll down some of the wealthier areas of Vancouver, you will notice more front lights, track lighting and ornamental lights on than you would in poorer areas of the city.
If anything, there should be caps on the total amount of energy that can be consumed per household each month.
Instead of forcing the consumer to pay more, and the poor to freeze more during the winter and sweat out the summer, regulations should force businesses and the upper crust to give up some of their electrical luxuries.
The new B.C. energy plan encourages residents to turn down their thermostats and live in more energy-efficient homes.
Under the new plan consumers will also end up paying more during peak energy hours and may have ‘smart’ meters installed in their homes to track the amount of power they use each hour.
Conserving energy should be a main target for big city centers, like Vancouver, that want to improve their sustainability. But, far too much emphasis is being placed on the average homeowner and not enough on big businesses and energy wasters.
On any given day you can walk down Vancouver’s sidewalks and see thousands of streetlights needlessly lighting up empty alleys, thousands of closed stores with their lights on and countless buildings with illuminated hallways and offices.
Realistically, the majority of the power-wasting is being perpetrated by those who can afford to do so.
Not surprisingly, if you take a stroll down some of the wealthier areas of Vancouver, you will notice more front lights, track lighting and ornamental lights on than you would in poorer areas of the city.
If anything, there should be caps on the total amount of energy that can be consumed per household each month.
Instead of forcing the consumer to pay more, and the poor to freeze more during the winter and sweat out the summer, regulations should force businesses and the upper crust to give up some of their electrical luxuries.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Sustainable Housing Hits B.C.!
The City of Vancouver is finally taking steps towards developing homes that consume less energy on smaller plots of land.
These new ‘eco-density’ housing developments will, hopefully, have solar technology, perhaps geothermal units, natural lighting inside the homes to save on hydro and energy efficient appliances and lighting.
Above all, eco-density homes will be located close to major centres to encourage people to leave the family car at home when going to work or picking up groceries.
This, eco-density proponents say, will result in fewer cars on the road, saving the environment from countless tones of fossil fuel emissions each year.
In theory this sounds great, but...What are the chances that people will choose to walk instead of drive?
And, how do you ensure that people will choose to live close to where they work?
The eco-density plan seems hopeful, and I would love to see fewer cars on the road and an average ecological footprint per-person in Vancouver of below eight hectares.
But, who wants to see, or live in for that matter, more overcrowded apartment and condo complexes where people practically live on top of each other?
Realistically, eco-density homes seem to be heavy on the ‘density’ and lower on the ‘eco.’
Nevertheless, they are a step forward, and I would like to see more improvements in a similar direction.
These new ‘eco-density’ housing developments will, hopefully, have solar technology, perhaps geothermal units, natural lighting inside the homes to save on hydro and energy efficient appliances and lighting.
Above all, eco-density homes will be located close to major centres to encourage people to leave the family car at home when going to work or picking up groceries.
This, eco-density proponents say, will result in fewer cars on the road, saving the environment from countless tones of fossil fuel emissions each year.
In theory this sounds great, but...What are the chances that people will choose to walk instead of drive?
And, how do you ensure that people will choose to live close to where they work?
The eco-density plan seems hopeful, and I would love to see fewer cars on the road and an average ecological footprint per-person in Vancouver of below eight hectares.
But, who wants to see, or live in for that matter, more overcrowded apartment and condo complexes where people practically live on top of each other?
Realistically, eco-density homes seem to be heavy on the ‘density’ and lower on the ‘eco.’
Nevertheless, they are a step forward, and I would like to see more improvements in a similar direction.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Tories Drop the Ball on the Environment…Again
The Tories’ environmental record has been so marked with dark spots, and far too many shortcomings, that one might characterize them as the proverbial black hole of environmental inactivity.
Rona Ambrose’s plans for the environment were anything but rosy and John Baird has so far been rhetorical but ineffective. Which is why Stephen Harper’s two-speak on reducing climate change while abandoning the minimum Kyoto targets for greenhouse gas emissions is almost comical if not just plain sad.
Harper didn’t even show up when the Senate voted on Bill C-288, despite his strong words of opposition to the Bill.
Ironically, it seems the Conservatives could have used Harper’s support, as the Bill passed and the clock is now ticking.
The Bill promises to put some ‘teeth’ into the Kyoto targets, forcing the minority government to come up with a solid plan to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions in 60 days.
This whole situation made me a little nostalgic.
Paul Martin’s Liberal government may not have done much in terms of lowering Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, I always got the impression that, at least on the surface, the Liberals cared about the environment.
Jean Chrétien ratified the Kyoto Protocol, perhaps a legacy-making move on his part. And Martin promised to fund Ontario’s transition to coal-free power generation (see page five here).
What strikes me about the Tories is that they don’t even pretend to like environmentalists or the climate-saving banner of the Kyoto Protocol.
Instead, they seem to scoff at legislation that would help to speed along Canada’s recovery from smog-infested cities to cleaner airspace and more environmentally-friendly modes of production.
Whether Harper likes it or not, Canadians, and the majority of the Senate, do care about Canada’s inactivity on meeting Kyoto targets.
Environmental problems won’t be going away any time soon; and, the Conservatives can expect to feel even more pressure on the issue of climate change as the temperature heats up.
Perhaps another scorching-hot-and-humid summer in Ottawa will be enough to melt Harper’s icy-blue heart.
Rona Ambrose’s plans for the environment were anything but rosy and John Baird has so far been rhetorical but ineffective. Which is why Stephen Harper’s two-speak on reducing climate change while abandoning the minimum Kyoto targets for greenhouse gas emissions is almost comical if not just plain sad.
Harper didn’t even show up when the Senate voted on Bill C-288, despite his strong words of opposition to the Bill.
Ironically, it seems the Conservatives could have used Harper’s support, as the Bill passed and the clock is now ticking.
The Bill promises to put some ‘teeth’ into the Kyoto targets, forcing the minority government to come up with a solid plan to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions in 60 days.
This whole situation made me a little nostalgic.
Paul Martin’s Liberal government may not have done much in terms of lowering Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, I always got the impression that, at least on the surface, the Liberals cared about the environment.
Jean Chrétien ratified the Kyoto Protocol, perhaps a legacy-making move on his part. And Martin promised to fund Ontario’s transition to coal-free power generation (see page five here).
What strikes me about the Tories is that they don’t even pretend to like environmentalists or the climate-saving banner of the Kyoto Protocol.
Instead, they seem to scoff at legislation that would help to speed along Canada’s recovery from smog-infested cities to cleaner airspace and more environmentally-friendly modes of production.
Whether Harper likes it or not, Canadians, and the majority of the Senate, do care about Canada’s inactivity on meeting Kyoto targets.
Environmental problems won’t be going away any time soon; and, the Conservatives can expect to feel even more pressure on the issue of climate change as the temperature heats up.
Perhaps another scorching-hot-and-humid summer in Ottawa will be enough to melt Harper’s icy-blue heart.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Dying of Natural Causes
Over the last while, an outbreak of influenza has struck British Columbia. Among the victims, myself. As well as some real victims, like the Lower Mainland child that died of the disease.
This got me thinking more about what it means to live in crowded cities where the spread of a common cold or flu (or a deadly, gross fungus) is becoming increasingly normalized.
Population might seem like a non-issue in Canada because of its still somewhat vast wilderness and sparsely populated northern regions.
But, crowding in Canada’s major cities – like Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver – is creating patches of overpopulation.
Let’s be honest. The more ingredients you mix into the pot, the better the chances you’ll get something you didn’t expect.
And disease is just that. It’s the reaction that occurs when too many people intermingle, share germs (and other bodily fluids) and become the carriers (and mutators) of nasty diseases.
Population growth is not something people discuss at the dinner table, but it is one of the biggest impediments towards achieving sustainable communities and cities.
Similarly, it’s one of the main reasons that so many people, plants and animals get sick and die. See: extinction and disease.
There are few definitive solutions to solving the problem of overpopulation and disease, besides relying on modern science to save us when we get sick.
As for me, I think I’ll ride my bike instead of taking the bus. Cough.
This got me thinking more about what it means to live in crowded cities where the spread of a common cold or flu (or a deadly, gross fungus) is becoming increasingly normalized.
Population might seem like a non-issue in Canada because of its still somewhat vast wilderness and sparsely populated northern regions.
But, crowding in Canada’s major cities – like Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver – is creating patches of overpopulation.
Let’s be honest. The more ingredients you mix into the pot, the better the chances you’ll get something you didn’t expect.
And disease is just that. It’s the reaction that occurs when too many people intermingle, share germs (and other bodily fluids) and become the carriers (and mutators) of nasty diseases.
Population growth is not something people discuss at the dinner table, but it is one of the biggest impediments towards achieving sustainable communities and cities.
Similarly, it’s one of the main reasons that so many people, plants and animals get sick and die. See: extinction and disease.
There are few definitive solutions to solving the problem of overpopulation and disease, besides relying on modern science to save us when we get sick.
As for me, I think I’ll ride my bike instead of taking the bus. Cough.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Got a Sustainability High?
Hemp homes make an interesting alternative to the highly toxic and ecologically harmful products often used to create our modern abodes.
Production of concrete and paint requires the use of toxic chemicals. The result is the emission of fossil fuels and other chemicals into the atmosphere during the manufacturing and distribution of many home building products.
As well, man-made products can emit fumes inside your home, which can have a negative impact on your health.
Happily, a “hemp crop can be grown without the use of herbicides or insecticides and produces up to four tonnes of material per acre per year,” according to Natural Life Magazine.
The plant is so versatile it can be used to build and even paint an entire house using methods far less harmful to the environment than other building materials.
According to Natural Life Magazine, hemp houses use “less energy to build, create less waste and take less fuel to heat.”
Using hemp in building construction is nothing new.
‘Hempcrete’ was used to create a sixth century hemp-reinforced bridge in France, which still stands today as a testament to the material’s strength.
Hemp construction materials can also be useful in damp climates – like Vancouver, B.C. – for fending off the annoying mould that seems to creep over and into everything.
Unlike other insulation products, a lining of hemp/lime mixture on your house’s walls will prevent toxic mould growth.
Hemp-for-the-home is so popular that an Ontario company, Wellington Polymer Technology Inc., is having a hard time meeting the demands of consumers eager for a green fix.
But, don’t stop at hemp!
Check out what Colette Brooks has done to her home in Malibu, L.A. to lead the good life without hurting the environment.
There is truly a wealth of information out there about greening your home.
So stop smelling the paint fumes and mould spores and start breathing in the fresh air of home sustainability.
Production of concrete and paint requires the use of toxic chemicals. The result is the emission of fossil fuels and other chemicals into the atmosphere during the manufacturing and distribution of many home building products.
As well, man-made products can emit fumes inside your home, which can have a negative impact on your health.
Happily, a “hemp crop can be grown without the use of herbicides or insecticides and produces up to four tonnes of material per acre per year,” according to Natural Life Magazine.
The plant is so versatile it can be used to build and even paint an entire house using methods far less harmful to the environment than other building materials.
According to Natural Life Magazine, hemp houses use “less energy to build, create less waste and take less fuel to heat.”
Using hemp in building construction is nothing new.
‘Hempcrete’ was used to create a sixth century hemp-reinforced bridge in France, which still stands today as a testament to the material’s strength.
Hemp construction materials can also be useful in damp climates – like Vancouver, B.C. – for fending off the annoying mould that seems to creep over and into everything.
Unlike other insulation products, a lining of hemp/lime mixture on your house’s walls will prevent toxic mould growth.
Hemp-for-the-home is so popular that an Ontario company, Wellington Polymer Technology Inc., is having a hard time meeting the demands of consumers eager for a green fix.
But, don’t stop at hemp!
Check out what Colette Brooks has done to her home in Malibu, L.A. to lead the good life without hurting the environment.
There is truly a wealth of information out there about greening your home.
So stop smelling the paint fumes and mould spores and start breathing in the fresh air of home sustainability.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Headline: Environmental Security – The Looming Threat
Climate change could lead to some hefty security issues over the next few years. The safety and wellbeing of millions of the Earth’s inhabitants could be at risk if wars break out over scarce resources.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a branch of the United Nations, published a report on the science of climate change entitled: UN climate change report: accelerating global warming and increased insecurity.
The report tenders “the strongest warning yet that human activities are heating the planet.” World temperatures may increase “by 1.8-4C by the end of the century,” the report says, adding that, as a result, the “sea level will most likely rise by 28-43cm.”
That would most likely mean that Delta, British Columbia and parts of Richmond will look like a lagoon and much of Canada’s present coastline will be under water.
The U.N. report also characterizes climate change as a potential threat to inter-state security. This is a very important issue that needs to be examined more closely.
Safety must come first
Sustainable development is often only achieved after basic human needs are satisfied. Which is why ensuring the safety of individuals is an essential step towards achieving sustainable communities.
It is operationally difficult to enact environmental and resource sustainability policy measures in countries plagued by civil and inter-state conflict. As well, it would be morally reprehensible to expect individuals to implement such policies when their personal safety is at risk.
Similar to the Malthusian model, the U.N. report predicts an increase in violent conflicts as resources, such as fresh water and food, become scarcer.
Water woes
Rising sea levels (see above) will displace large numbers of people from coastline regions, often areas of high population density.
Migrants from flooded lands will need to relocate to other settlements/communities, increasing the demands on resources in these areas.
Competition for what may already be a limited supply of resources may ensue, resulting in conflicts between persons and nations.
Although there is no way to prove for certain that such an outcome will occur, why chance it?
My two cents:
Communities and nations need to work together to achieve resource conservation and pollution reduction targets.
Population control will also play a significant role in whether nations can achieve sustainable goals and ensure everyone has enough to eat and drink to prevent the looming ‘Resource Wars.’
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a branch of the United Nations, published a report on the science of climate change entitled: UN climate change report: accelerating global warming and increased insecurity.
The report tenders “the strongest warning yet that human activities are heating the planet.” World temperatures may increase “by 1.8-4C by the end of the century,” the report says, adding that, as a result, the “sea level will most likely rise by 28-43cm.”
That would most likely mean that Delta, British Columbia and parts of Richmond will look like a lagoon and much of Canada’s present coastline will be under water.
The U.N. report also characterizes climate change as a potential threat to inter-state security. This is a very important issue that needs to be examined more closely.
Safety must come first
Sustainable development is often only achieved after basic human needs are satisfied. Which is why ensuring the safety of individuals is an essential step towards achieving sustainable communities.
It is operationally difficult to enact environmental and resource sustainability policy measures in countries plagued by civil and inter-state conflict. As well, it would be morally reprehensible to expect individuals to implement such policies when their personal safety is at risk.
Similar to the Malthusian model, the U.N. report predicts an increase in violent conflicts as resources, such as fresh water and food, become scarcer.
Water woes
Rising sea levels (see above) will displace large numbers of people from coastline regions, often areas of high population density.
Migrants from flooded lands will need to relocate to other settlements/communities, increasing the demands on resources in these areas.
Competition for what may already be a limited supply of resources may ensue, resulting in conflicts between persons and nations.
Although there is no way to prove for certain that such an outcome will occur, why chance it?
My two cents:
Communities and nations need to work together to achieve resource conservation and pollution reduction targets.
Population control will also play a significant role in whether nations can achieve sustainable goals and ensure everyone has enough to eat and drink to prevent the looming ‘Resource Wars.’
Thursday, February 1, 2007
The Pine Beetle Cometh – Polluters Beware
Hot and dry summers are quickly approaching British Columbia, which could spell sudden disaster for the province’s trees.
According to a recent report, the mountain pine beetle is expected to spread throughout the Okanagan this year, which could lead to the deaths of millions of trees. (I think it’s appropriate to anthropomorphize trees in situations like this).
As if this wasn’t bad enough, chances are that the pine beetle could infect other Canadian or American forests.
The pine beetle spread to parts of Alberta in the late 1970s to mid 1980s. Park officials and volunteers managed to eradicate the outbreak by quickly burning infected trees. Whether they would have been so successful had the outbreak been more widespread is unknown.
Policies need to be enacted now to prevent one of the leading causes of the pine beetle outbreak: Climate change.
Unlike Alberta, the pine-beetle is native to British Columbia. So, the bug is not an invasive species brought in from distant nations, but a natural part of the B.C. environment.
As our B.C. climate grows hotter and dryer, trees become weaker and less immune to the presence of the beetle. Although healthy trees can fend the beetle off, older trees, like those that make up the primary composition of our present-day old-growth forests, are less resistant to the beetle and more susceptible to infection.
The best solution? Prevent long, hot and dry summers by polluting less!
There is no quick fix to this problem, but if everyone pitched in and reduced their overall greenhouse gas production by driving less, buying only reusable/recyclable products and protecting green spaces, B.C.’s trees might have a chance.
According to a recent report, the mountain pine beetle is expected to spread throughout the Okanagan this year, which could lead to the deaths of millions of trees. (I think it’s appropriate to anthropomorphize trees in situations like this).
As if this wasn’t bad enough, chances are that the pine beetle could infect other Canadian or American forests.
The pine beetle spread to parts of Alberta in the late 1970s to mid 1980s. Park officials and volunteers managed to eradicate the outbreak by quickly burning infected trees. Whether they would have been so successful had the outbreak been more widespread is unknown.
Policies need to be enacted now to prevent one of the leading causes of the pine beetle outbreak: Climate change.
Unlike Alberta, the pine-beetle is native to British Columbia. So, the bug is not an invasive species brought in from distant nations, but a natural part of the B.C. environment.
As our B.C. climate grows hotter and dryer, trees become weaker and less immune to the presence of the beetle. Although healthy trees can fend the beetle off, older trees, like those that make up the primary composition of our present-day old-growth forests, are less resistant to the beetle and more susceptible to infection.
The best solution? Prevent long, hot and dry summers by polluting less!
There is no quick fix to this problem, but if everyone pitched in and reduced their overall greenhouse gas production by driving less, buying only reusable/recyclable products and protecting green spaces, B.C.’s trees might have a chance.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Garbage Free At Last!!
Just like safety, practicing sustainable living starts in the home, or at least that’s the case for Sarah and Kyle McGaughey.
Check out their blog, ‘Say No to Trash’.
The McGaughey’s have a goal to not produce any garbage for a month, after already having only produced one bag of garbage in all of 2005.
Now that’s what I call sustainable!
It’s easy enough for us to say we care about the environment, but much harder to practice what we preach.
Which is exactly why the McGaughey’s are a great example of what can be done with a little willpower and by paying close attention to the products that they purchase.
One problem that the McGaughey’s face in their quest towards garbagelessness is that so many products (like dental floss and beer caps) are not recyclable.
Germans are known for their green policies as well as for their frugality. So when they started to have to pay for their trash, they also started to demand that grocery stores sell only recyclable items to save on waste.
When some grocery stores refused to comply, many Germans did the most logical thing…they brought the garbage right back to the grocery store, forcing them to swallow the bill for the waste.
Needless to say, the grocery stores soon demanded that distributors only produce recyclable items for their stores.
Now, under the new Green Dot system, companies have to fork over the dough to reduce waste by carrying mainly recyclable products and by paying for any excess packaging.
It’s good that the McGaughey’s have decided to take it upon themselves to reduce their total waste to nothing! But it would be even better if businesses would look to the recycling model of Germany and start carrying only recyclable products.
Something to push for.
Check out their blog, ‘Say No to Trash’.
The McGaughey’s have a goal to not produce any garbage for a month, after already having only produced one bag of garbage in all of 2005.
Now that’s what I call sustainable!
It’s easy enough for us to say we care about the environment, but much harder to practice what we preach.
Which is exactly why the McGaughey’s are a great example of what can be done with a little willpower and by paying close attention to the products that they purchase.
One problem that the McGaughey’s face in their quest towards garbagelessness is that so many products (like dental floss and beer caps) are not recyclable.
Germans are known for their green policies as well as for their frugality. So when they started to have to pay for their trash, they also started to demand that grocery stores sell only recyclable items to save on waste.
When some grocery stores refused to comply, many Germans did the most logical thing…they brought the garbage right back to the grocery store, forcing them to swallow the bill for the waste.
Needless to say, the grocery stores soon demanded that distributors only produce recyclable items for their stores.
Now, under the new Green Dot system, companies have to fork over the dough to reduce waste by carrying mainly recyclable products and by paying for any excess packaging.
It’s good that the McGaughey’s have decided to take it upon themselves to reduce their total waste to nothing! But it would be even better if businesses would look to the recycling model of Germany and start carrying only recyclable products.
Something to push for.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Bush’s War on Mexico
George W. Bush, the U.S. President who has notoriously ignored environmental pleas for sustainability, has finally admitted that global climate change is a reality in his State of the Union speech. More importantly, Bush plans to do something about the American contribution to climate change by encouraging ethanol production.
In typical Bush style, however, the President fails to account for the impact increased ethanol production will have on world market prices, agricultural production and the poor.
Ethanol is made from corn, the same corn that billions of people and animals rely on for nutrition.
The paradox of using corn to fuel cars instead of feeding the people and creatures of the world is not being lost on the part of all members of the U.S. government, however.
“The U.S. Agriculture Department said ethanol plants and foreign buyers are gobbling U.S. corn supplies,” according to an Associated Press report published in the Chicago Tribune. “Tortilla prices have jumped nearly 14 per cent over the past year,” according to the report, and the production of ethanol to lessen America’s reliance on costly oil is to blame.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has taken steps to prevent businesses from using rising international corn prices to gouge the Mexican poor. It is unclear, however, what affect this will have on the retail price of tortillas which experienced a 14 per cent price increase in 2006, more than triple the inflation rate.
However, Bush, and increasingly Canada, would rather use ethanol for cars, skyrocketing the market price of corn and squandering the staple food source for millions of Mexicans.
CNN.com cites Bush as saying that: “Over the next decade … the U.S. should reduce gasoline consumption by 20 per cent by tightening fuel economy standards and producing 35 billion gallons of renewable fuel such as ethanol by 2017.”
Such an expansion of ethanol production will place a lot of pressure on the corn industry to produce higher yields (more genetically modified corn, fertilizer application and pesticides). Alternatively, corn manufacturers would have to clear more land or redistribute current agricultural lands to produce the upwards of 139-million tons of corn needed to meet projected fuel demands, according to the President of Earth Policy Institute, Lester Brown.
On his blog on The Huffington Post website, Brown says that “the rush to invest in crop-based ethanol is pitting the world’s poorest against the world’s wealthy motorists.”
Indeed, one can just imagine the millions of Mexicans dying of starvation just to afford Americans the luxury of motorized transportation. And need I mention the countless square miles of natural landscape and agricultural land that will be devoted to producing fuel for this endless habit of driving people can’t seem to quit?
Many might think Bush’s State of the Union speech is a big step forward for Bush, and they would be right. The fact that the current President has finally admitted that the U.S. will have “to confront the serious challenge of global climate change,” is a breakthrough in and of itself.
However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that with high levels of ethanol production comes high demands on the production of corn. Corn that will not feed people, but cars.
In typical Bush style, however, the President fails to account for the impact increased ethanol production will have on world market prices, agricultural production and the poor.
Ethanol is made from corn, the same corn that billions of people and animals rely on for nutrition.
The paradox of using corn to fuel cars instead of feeding the people and creatures of the world is not being lost on the part of all members of the U.S. government, however.
“The U.S. Agriculture Department said ethanol plants and foreign buyers are gobbling U.S. corn supplies,” according to an Associated Press report published in the Chicago Tribune. “Tortilla prices have jumped nearly 14 per cent over the past year,” according to the report, and the production of ethanol to lessen America’s reliance on costly oil is to blame.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has taken steps to prevent businesses from using rising international corn prices to gouge the Mexican poor. It is unclear, however, what affect this will have on the retail price of tortillas which experienced a 14 per cent price increase in 2006, more than triple the inflation rate.
However, Bush, and increasingly Canada, would rather use ethanol for cars, skyrocketing the market price of corn and squandering the staple food source for millions of Mexicans.
CNN.com cites Bush as saying that: “Over the next decade … the U.S. should reduce gasoline consumption by 20 per cent by tightening fuel economy standards and producing 35 billion gallons of renewable fuel such as ethanol by 2017.”
Such an expansion of ethanol production will place a lot of pressure on the corn industry to produce higher yields (more genetically modified corn, fertilizer application and pesticides). Alternatively, corn manufacturers would have to clear more land or redistribute current agricultural lands to produce the upwards of 139-million tons of corn needed to meet projected fuel demands, according to the President of Earth Policy Institute, Lester Brown.
On his blog on The Huffington Post website, Brown says that “the rush to invest in crop-based ethanol is pitting the world’s poorest against the world’s wealthy motorists.”
Indeed, one can just imagine the millions of Mexicans dying of starvation just to afford Americans the luxury of motorized transportation. And need I mention the countless square miles of natural landscape and agricultural land that will be devoted to producing fuel for this endless habit of driving people can’t seem to quit?
Many might think Bush’s State of the Union speech is a big step forward for Bush, and they would be right. The fact that the current President has finally admitted that the U.S. will have “to confront the serious challenge of global climate change,” is a breakthrough in and of itself.
However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that with high levels of ethanol production comes high demands on the production of corn. Corn that will not feed people, but cars.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
The Problem with Carbon Credits
Although it might seem like a good idea for promoting sustainable practices, carbon credits are wracked with pitfalls and shortcomings.
The carbon credit is a concept developed under the Kyoto Protocol agreement to provide countries who create excessive amounts of pollution/ waste with a way of ‘offsetting’ it to countries that produce much less.
For example, if one company emits more CO2 into the atmosphere than is permitted under the Kyoto agreement targets, they must buy credits from other companies that are producing less pollution/ waste.
The result is that as much pollution/ waste as is allowed under the agreement will be created, as companies that produce too much will just buy what they need to offset their emissions, and environmentally unsustainable ways, from companies that are actually making a difference by conserving energy and reducing their total pollution/ waste.
One of the major problems with the ‘carbon credit’ or ‘carbon neutral’ process is that it does not deter people from abusing the environment. Instead, it allows those rich enough to afford credit transactions, payments for polluting, to continue leading wasteful lifestyles (jet fuel, exhaust, noise, other pollution, etc.) without the guilt.
While some might say that paying back what you’ve taken from the Earth is a commendable gesture, it is important to look to the cultural and social message this sends to people, in particular the next generation.
When employees, the rich and others who can afford to, or can’t afford not to, unflinchingly lead resource-heavy lifestyles, they promote a consumer culture of wastefulness to others.
Owning SUVs and flying to Mexico for a vacation with the kids, then turning around and throwing a few bucks at environmental research, sends a message to others that it is okay to pollute so long as you’re rich enough to afford to.
Carbon capture has also become the latest celebrity fad, according to a Georgia Straight feature article, with artists like Coldplay and Pearl Jam announcing that they will offset (pay a fee for) the environmental impact of their albums (plastic, shipping, manufacturing, etc.).
On the bright side, making those who have enough money to abuse the environment give a bit back is not such a bad idea.
Two professors from the University of British Columbia, Hadi Dowlatabadi from the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability and ethics and business professor James Tansey, began Offsetters, a carbon-neutralizing company, in hopes to get big polluters and small polluters alike to give back to the environment.
This online business mainly serves pollution bills to people who travel extensively for business. Simply go online and tell Offsetters, partnered with WestJet, how far you travelled and they will tell you how much you owe them … or is it the environment?
The money given to Offsetters is then invested in “projects that work to counteract the environmental footprint caused by air travel or any number of other offending practices,” according to an online article in Backbone.
It looks like a good idea, it really does. Only, does it prevent people from flying?
Not at all.
The number of flights in and out of the YVR (Vancouver International Airport) have been rising steadily over the last few years, to the chagrin of Richmond residents who have to listen to 747s flying over their heads every day and night.
So what would be a better alternative to Offsetters and other ‘carbon neutral’ promoting organizations?
Perhaps, what is most needed is a mass dissemination of the concepts of conservation, preservation and sustainable development.
If you’re business insists you fly twice a month, insist that you don’t have to work there.
Perhaps it’s just a matter of saying no to the temptation of being wasteful.
Enough truisms for one day.
The carbon credit is a concept developed under the Kyoto Protocol agreement to provide countries who create excessive amounts of pollution/ waste with a way of ‘offsetting’ it to countries that produce much less.
For example, if one company emits more CO2 into the atmosphere than is permitted under the Kyoto agreement targets, they must buy credits from other companies that are producing less pollution/ waste.
The result is that as much pollution/ waste as is allowed under the agreement will be created, as companies that produce too much will just buy what they need to offset their emissions, and environmentally unsustainable ways, from companies that are actually making a difference by conserving energy and reducing their total pollution/ waste.
One of the major problems with the ‘carbon credit’ or ‘carbon neutral’ process is that it does not deter people from abusing the environment. Instead, it allows those rich enough to afford credit transactions, payments for polluting, to continue leading wasteful lifestyles (jet fuel, exhaust, noise, other pollution, etc.) without the guilt.
While some might say that paying back what you’ve taken from the Earth is a commendable gesture, it is important to look to the cultural and social message this sends to people, in particular the next generation.
When employees, the rich and others who can afford to, or can’t afford not to, unflinchingly lead resource-heavy lifestyles, they promote a consumer culture of wastefulness to others.
Owning SUVs and flying to Mexico for a vacation with the kids, then turning around and throwing a few bucks at environmental research, sends a message to others that it is okay to pollute so long as you’re rich enough to afford to.
Carbon capture has also become the latest celebrity fad, according to a Georgia Straight feature article, with artists like Coldplay and Pearl Jam announcing that they will offset (pay a fee for) the environmental impact of their albums (plastic, shipping, manufacturing, etc.).
On the bright side, making those who have enough money to abuse the environment give a bit back is not such a bad idea.
Two professors from the University of British Columbia, Hadi Dowlatabadi from the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability and ethics and business professor James Tansey, began Offsetters, a carbon-neutralizing company, in hopes to get big polluters and small polluters alike to give back to the environment.
This online business mainly serves pollution bills to people who travel extensively for business. Simply go online and tell Offsetters, partnered with WestJet, how far you travelled and they will tell you how much you owe them … or is it the environment?
The money given to Offsetters is then invested in “projects that work to counteract the environmental footprint caused by air travel or any number of other offending practices,” according to an online article in Backbone.
It looks like a good idea, it really does. Only, does it prevent people from flying?
Not at all.
The number of flights in and out of the YVR (Vancouver International Airport) have been rising steadily over the last few years, to the chagrin of Richmond residents who have to listen to 747s flying over their heads every day and night.
So what would be a better alternative to Offsetters and other ‘carbon neutral’ promoting organizations?
Perhaps, what is most needed is a mass dissemination of the concepts of conservation, preservation and sustainable development.
If you’re business insists you fly twice a month, insist that you don’t have to work there.
Perhaps it’s just a matter of saying no to the temptation of being wasteful.
Enough truisms for one day.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Conservatives Turn Green
Tories are feeling the environmental heat over climate change and nowhere is this more apparent than in their $300-million Eco Energy Renewable Power Initiative.
Lots of hot air has been blown around by the Conservatives regarding climate change and long-term sustainable outlooks.
Not that former Environment Minister Rona Ambrose is completely to blame for the Conservative’s near miss on what has become Canada’s top concern, in case you didn’t know, the environment.
Let’s hope this new strategy will see the Canadian government step up to the plate, get beyond the "policy" stage and start making some changes.
In particular, let’s hope Tories prevent B.C.’s two new coal fired plants from being built.
B.C. is again being drenched in wet snow, the third time this year that the lower mainland has experienced abnormally cold and snowy weather. Not to mention a couple devastating windstorms that practically destroyed our hottest tourist attraction, Vancouver’s famous Stanley Park.
But let’s be serious. It is more important than ever for the Canadian government to set the stage for world-wide political leaders and demonstrate just how green Canada is.
We still have a lot of resources and green space, but growing climactic woes, such as the recent devastating snow storm in Saskatoon, are becoming more frequent. But, Canadians need to do more than switch to energy saving light bulbs.
We need a paradigm shift towards a sustainable future.
The Liberals passed a $200-million Green Budget plan in 2005 to do basically what Conservatives are heralding now as their new environmental vision.
Canadians should expect more from their government.
Enough stalling, lets see some real pollution and population growth reduction strategies enacted.
Lots of hot air has been blown around by the Conservatives regarding climate change and long-term sustainable outlooks.
Not that former Environment Minister Rona Ambrose is completely to blame for the Conservative’s near miss on what has become Canada’s top concern, in case you didn’t know, the environment.
Let’s hope this new strategy will see the Canadian government step up to the plate, get beyond the "policy" stage and start making some changes.
In particular, let’s hope Tories prevent B.C.’s two new coal fired plants from being built.
B.C. is again being drenched in wet snow, the third time this year that the lower mainland has experienced abnormally cold and snowy weather. Not to mention a couple devastating windstorms that practically destroyed our hottest tourist attraction, Vancouver’s famous Stanley Park.
But let’s be serious. It is more important than ever for the Canadian government to set the stage for world-wide political leaders and demonstrate just how green Canada is.
We still have a lot of resources and green space, but growing climactic woes, such as the recent devastating snow storm in Saskatoon, are becoming more frequent. But, Canadians need to do more than switch to energy saving light bulbs.
We need a paradigm shift towards a sustainable future.
The Liberals passed a $200-million Green Budget plan in 2005 to do basically what Conservatives are heralding now as their new environmental vision.
Canadians should expect more from their government.
Enough stalling, lets see some real pollution and population growth reduction strategies enacted.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
New Hope For The Electric Car
Car manufacturer Chevrolet is taking a step towards reducing fuel emissions linked to rising levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and climate change.
The Chevrolet Volt is an electrically-powered car that allows the operator to choose one of three different power sources to generate electricity: a fuel cell, an engine, or a battery charged from the power grid.
The Volt uses an electrical propulsion system along with a 1.0-liter 3-cylinder turbocharged engine. The engine requires that only a blend of 15 per cent gasoline and 85 per cent ethanol, or E85 fuel, be used.
Although ethanol is mildly better for the environment, it is still considered “mildly toxic,” according to Wikipedia, and so will still emit harmful greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.
Chairman and CEO of General Motors Corporation, Rick Wagoner, stated that “tomorrow’s automobiles must be flexible enough to accommodate many different energy sources,” and that “a key part of that flexibility will be enabled by the development of electrically driven cars.”
In fact, electric cars are not a new phenomenon.
General Motors began producing the electrically powered car, EV1, in 1996 to meet the looming zero-emissions mandate initiated by California in 1990.
After the California Air Resources Board dropped its Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate, production of the EV1 was terminated. Customers who still had EV1s on lease were forced to return them to the dealership, despite the fact that many people were unwilling to do so and told the car manufacturer that they would jump any legal hurtles to keep their EV1s.
Before turning in their cars, EV1 owners and their supporters held a mock-funeral at the Hollywood Forever Cemetery in Los Angeles, California on July 24, 2003.
Despite bolstering a lot of support for their cause, EV1 owners were all forced to return their cars to GM. The EV1s were then left in storage, put into museums or scrapped.
California is again cracking down on fuel emissions, but this time they have the celebrity power and legal and financial backing in Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to hopefully make green-technology stick.
As for the rest of the world, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if the Volt has some teeth.
The Chevrolet Volt is an electrically-powered car that allows the operator to choose one of three different power sources to generate electricity: a fuel cell, an engine, or a battery charged from the power grid.
The Volt uses an electrical propulsion system along with a 1.0-liter 3-cylinder turbocharged engine. The engine requires that only a blend of 15 per cent gasoline and 85 per cent ethanol, or E85 fuel, be used.
Although ethanol is mildly better for the environment, it is still considered “mildly toxic,” according to Wikipedia, and so will still emit harmful greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.
Chairman and CEO of General Motors Corporation, Rick Wagoner, stated that “tomorrow’s automobiles must be flexible enough to accommodate many different energy sources,” and that “a key part of that flexibility will be enabled by the development of electrically driven cars.”
In fact, electric cars are not a new phenomenon.
General Motors began producing the electrically powered car, EV1, in 1996 to meet the looming zero-emissions mandate initiated by California in 1990.
After the California Air Resources Board dropped its Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate, production of the EV1 was terminated. Customers who still had EV1s on lease were forced to return them to the dealership, despite the fact that many people were unwilling to do so and told the car manufacturer that they would jump any legal hurtles to keep their EV1s.
Before turning in their cars, EV1 owners and their supporters held a mock-funeral at the Hollywood Forever Cemetery in Los Angeles, California on July 24, 2003.
Despite bolstering a lot of support for their cause, EV1 owners were all forced to return their cars to GM. The EV1s were then left in storage, put into museums or scrapped.
California is again cracking down on fuel emissions, but this time they have the celebrity power and legal and financial backing in Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to hopefully make green-technology stick.
As for the rest of the world, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if the Volt has some teeth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)