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.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)