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.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
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)