THE GALLON ENVIRONMENT LETTER
Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment
Fisherville, Ontario, Canada
Tel. 416 410-0432, Fax: 416 362-5231
Editorial: editor@gallonletter.ca
Subscriptions: subscriptions@gallonletter.ca
Vol. 12, No. 4, April 25, 2007
Honoured Reader Edition
****************************************************
This is the honoured reader edition of the Gallon Environment Letter and is distributed at no charge: send a note with Add GL or Delete GL in the subject line to subscriptions@gallonletter.ca. Paid subscribers receive a more complete edition without subscription reminders and with extensive links to further information following almost every article.Organizational subscribers also receive the monthly Sustainable Technology & Services Supplement. If you would like to subscribe please visit http://www.cialgroup.com/subscription. Individual subscriptions are only $30 including GST. Organizational subscriptions are $184 plus GST and provide additional benefits detailed on the web site. If you feel you should be receiving the paid subscriber edition or have other subscriber questions please contact us also at subscriptions@gallonletter.ca. This current free edition is posted on the web site about a week or so after its issue at http://www.cialgroup.com/galloncurrent.htm. Back free editions from January 2007 are available at http://www.cialgroup.com/whatsnew.htm
****************************************************
ABOUT THIS ISSUE
This issue continues our focus on Extended Producer Responsibility initiatives for a wide range of products from batteries to packaging to chemicals to pesticides, much of this last being, in our opinion, a classic greenwash. While initiatives only cover a small part of the developed world, we think it is interesting to note how much can be done without destroying the economies of those jurisdictions that are taking waste reduction and recycling much more seriously.
Our editorial looks at recent federal and provincial budgets and explains why we are not reporting on their environmental features. However, we do tackle one budget feature which we see as woefully inadequate: the supposed cancellation by the Federal budget of accelerated depreciation for oil sands developers. Other topics in this issue include an update on municipal pesticide bylaws, recommendations for the use of Life Cycle Assessment in development of policy, 2 letters to the editor, another commentary on the Ontario Species at Risk Bill, an analysis of worrisome birth gender ratio changes (something that is not unique to the Chippewas of Sarnia, Ontario as many in the mainstream media have suggested), an interesting symposium, an awards program for developing country projects, an audit of multi-residential household waste in Vancouver, and an analysis of the greenness of Members of Parliament. Unfortunately, for now , the study is of MPs in New South Wales, Australia, but maybe some media outlet or NGO will try for a Canada version! We hope you enjoy and keep those letters coming.
Organizational subscribers also receive the monthly Sustainable Technologies and Services Supplement with this issue. Topics in this issue include: BASF: Benchmarking Chemicals; China's Restrictions on Hazardous Substances Law; Jobs and Recycling Linked in North Carolina; Producer Responsibility for Cross-border Waste; Alberta Purchasing: Happy to Hear from Vendors; and Al Gore: Nashville Training Session.
There is so much happening in environment and business as well as in Sustainable Development that we are not sure whether the next issue will be about the federal climate change program, now two weeks late based on the promise of delivery in two weeks that the Prime Minister gave last month, the Toronto Green Living Show (April 27-29 Automotive Building, Exhibition Place http://www.greenliving.ca), or the huge number of mainstream magazines that have published green issues in the last few days. Maybe we will include all of the above, perhaps we will include none of them.
****************************************************
FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL BUDGETS ARE BECOMING MEANINGLESS
Maybe it is that as we age we become more ornery or maybe it is that as the years go by our governments become even less accountable to their commitments but we have reluctantly come to the conclusion in 2007 that most of the promises for environmental spending in federal and provincial budgets are not worth the paper they are written on. So little detail is provided and so much is subject to subsequent change that today budgets seem to be no more than just another round of election campaign promises.
In 2005 the federal Liberal government tabled a budget that never gained the approval of the House of Commons. Most of the environmental programs that began implementation were cancelled when the Conservatives came to power. One might excuse that budget from the analysis but the media did give it a lot of attention, as if it meant something, when in fact it did not. The 2006 Conservative budget was the most environmentally weak that we had seen in years. When it came to the details, usually found in a series of books called the Estimates, there were none. The Conservatives operated throughout the 2006-2007 fiscal year on the Liberal spending estimates, though of course they did not abide by them but cancelled environmental and energy programs on a whim without any ratification by the House of Commons. Now we have the 2007 budget, a document which is so lacking in detail in its environment and energy aspects that it is impossible to know exactly how they will spend the money voted to them by the House of Commons. The 2007 Estimates are equally vague. After more than a year in office it is clear that this Federal government still does not know what environment and energy conservation programs it intends to implement. Maybe that is one way to avoid most criticism.
One big beef that we have is that many environmental spending programs simply disappear into the maw of the bureaucracy. Money allocated to environmental programs is often transferred from one department to another to pay civil service salaries. Sure there is usually a piece of paper, somewhere, that says the people being paid are doing something which relates to the purpose for which Parliament voted the moment, but when you really look hard you usually find that the people who are being paid from that account are just doing what they have always done. It is true, as Steven Harper says, that the system has extraordinary ways of thwarting the will of the Cabinet of the day. The problem is that if the system is thwarting the will of Cabinet in ways that support environment and Sustainable Development then we are unlikely to blow the whistle. If monies intended for environmental projects are being diverted to other things which are only slightly environment-related, then what’s the point of blowing the whistle because it happens so often it is just not interesting any more.
Just to be fair, we want to note that governments in other Canadian jurisdictions, including GL’s home province of Ontario where a Liberal government rules, are doing exactly the same thing. It seems that many Canadian governments have lost the ability to plan and have made budgets about as meaningful as election promises. It is time we reminded our governments that Sustainable Development is all about planning, long range planning for a more sustainable future, and that governments who lurch from one agenda to another as quickly as the Finance Minister changes socks are not going to achieve the kind of prosperous and healthy society that all of them promise.
Colin Isaacs
Editor
****************************************************
WHAT IS ON GL'S READERS' BOOKSHELVES?
Do you have a favourite or inspirational environment book (fiction or non-fiction) or magazine? Let us know what it is and in 50 words or less why it appeals to you from an environmental point of view. We'll make a selection and print some of your recommendations. Send email to editor@gallonletter.ca with subject line: Fav Env Book
****************************************************
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY Part 2
****************************************************
BC EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
In British Columbia, Extended Producer Responsibility is prescribed in the Recycling Regulation, last amended March 31, 2006, under the province's Environmental Management Act. The plan is considered by many to be the most comprehensive in Canada at this time.
Under the regulation a product stewardship plan generally needs to:
An annual respot is specified and the plan is subject to review every five years.
The Pollution Prevention Hierarchy
In descending order with the higher level to be done before the lower level, the pollution prevention hierarchy is:
"(a) reduce the environmental impact of producing the product by eliminating toxic components and increasing energy and resource efficiency;
(b) redesign the product to improve reusability or recyclability;
(c) eliminate or reduce the generation of unused portions of a product that is consumable;
(d) reuse the product;
(e) recycle the product;
(f) recover material or energy from the product;
(g) otherwise dispose of the waste from the product in compliance with the Act."
Categories
Beverage Container Product Category
Steward: Encorp Pacific (Canada) for non-alcoholic beverage containers http://encorp.ca/cfm/index.cfm
Steward: BC Liquor Stores accept wine, beer and liquor with deposit-return
The regulation covers the beverages mentioned including liquor and beer offered for sale or sold in British Columbia. Refillable glass containers are covered except for refillable containers with a capacity of 10 litres or more which are exempt. A deposit-refund system is province wide with minimum charges specified in the regulation for various sizes and types of materials. Redeemed containers must be refilled or recycled, not disposed of to landfill. Beverages sold for consumption on premises are not covered. "Beverage" means any liquid that is a ready-to-serve drink but does not include milk, milk substitutes, rice milk, soya milk, flavoured milk, infant formulas, meal replacements or dietary supplements. "Container" means a container made of aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, steel or other similar material, or any combination of them, that is or was sealed by its manufacturer. Only containers which can be refilled or recycled can be sold. Tabs on metal containers must not be removable from the container.
Residual Product Category
Steward: Product Care Association http://www.productcare.org/BCzoom.html
Steward for residual industrial aerosol paint: Tree-Marking-Paint Stewardship Association http://www.treepaint.ca/
An empty container is considered to contain less than 3% by volume of the product inside. Residuals are:
Pharmaceutical Product Category
Steward: Medications Return Program http://www.medicationsreturn.ca/british_columbia_en.php
These are unused or expired drugs as defined by the Food and Drug Act (Canada). Exempt are (a) those from a hospital or office of a medical practitioner (b) contact lens disinfectants, © antidandruff shampoo or products, (d) antiperspirants, (e) antiseptic or medicated skin care products, (f) sunburn protectants, (g) mouthwashes, and (h) fluoridated toothpastes. About 90% of pharmacies accept this material.
Lubricating Oil Filters and Containers Program
Steward: British Columbia Used Oil Management Association (BCUOMA) http://www.usedoilrecycling.com/en/province.aspx?prov=2
Lubricating oil product category: includes petroleum or synthetic crankcase, engine and gear oils, hydraulic, transmission and heat transfer fluids, and fluids used for lubricating purposes in machinery or equipment.
Oil filter product category: includes transmission, hydraulic or internal combustion engine filters as well as oil, diesel fuel, storage tank fuel, coolant and household furnace oil filters. Exempt are gasoline, air or household furnace air filters.
Paint Product Category
Steward: Product Care Association http://www.productcare.org/BCzoom.html
Paint includes paints and stains for commercial and household use including empty containers such as aerosols. Exempt are unpressurized coatings for industrial, automotive or marine anti-fouling applications.
Electronic Product Category
Steward: Encorp with Electronics Product Stewardship Canada EPSC http://www.epsc.ca/
Electronics includes desktop computers as well as servers and portable computers, desktop printers, and televisions. Exempt are hand-held devices. Also exempt are electronics attached to vehicles, marine vessels and commercial or industrial equipment. The program is expected to start in the August 2007 and is associated with phased-in bans on electronics disposal at landfills such by the Greater Vancouver Regional Board.
Tire Product
Steward: http://www.tirestewardshipbc.ca/
Tires include pneumatic or solid tires used for motor vehicles, farm tractors, trailers or other equipment or machinery. Exempt are tires for cycles, wheelchairs or three wheeled vehicles used for disabled persons, aircraft, wheelbarrow, tires retailing for less than $30, and tires with specified tire tread codes. The government ran the program for 16 years and it was shifted to an industry run program on January 1, 2007.
Lead Acid Batteries
The Lead Acid Batteries program is not technically an EPR program but an incentive program. Companies registered with the Battery Program can apply for the Transportation Incentive Payment TIPS under the Sustainable Environment Fund to pay for collection and transportation of used batteries from the generator to an approved broker or processing facility. A formula is used based on the market value of lead, a cost allowance for collection, handling and transport and an average cost of processing batteries. The BC Ministry of the Environment suggests that while about 60% of the batteries used to be stockpiled or disposed of in landfill, now nearly 100% of them are responsibly recycled. Since 1991, over 8 million BC generated batteries have been recycled at a cost of about $9 million in incentives paid.
British Columbia. Ministry of Environment. Welcome to British Columbia's Product Stewardship Programs. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/ips/
****************************************************
EU EPR INITIATIVES
GL has discussed most of the EU directives and initiatives for Extended Producer Responsibility over the years although how different member states are implementing these may affect business in different ways. Analysts are indicating that some of the EU EPR directives, especially the chemical laws, are having a profound effect on companies who have waited too long to pay attention to them. A recent PowerPoint presentation to the National Electronic Distributors Association by Harvey Stone of the GoodBye Chain Group, based in Colorado and offering data collection and services for compliance for electronic equipment, touches on various initiatives:
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
NSW: FOCUS OF EPR
New South Wales in Australia has consulted on Extended Producer Responsibility and reports on priorities. The programs are voluntary and critics say little progress has been made since the 2004 EPR Consultation. A EPR Priority Statement is required under 2001 legislation and was released for 2005-6 as a public consultation report. Voluntary actions taken by industry are also described. The following are the categories the state says it is focussing on in its early-stage EPR program:
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES
The Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation charges companies to collect their rechargeable batteries from consumers in a voluntary North-American wide program. In Canada, various retailers such as Staples, London Drugs and others offer boxes for deposit of used rechargeable batteries. Alkaline batteries are not accepted although many municipal hazardous waste collection programs accept them. RBRC recycles the following battery chemistries: Nickel Cadmium (Ni-Cd), Nickel Metal Hydride (Ni-MH), Lithium Ion (Li-ion) and Small Sealed Lead (Pb). These batteries power cellular phones, laptop computers, camcorders, power tools, cordless phones, and children’s toys.
A recent report from Environment Canada identifies a number of Extended Producer Responsibility initiatives for batteries, especially in the US and the EU. The number of consumer batteries discarded is rising. About 348 million consumer batteries were discarded in 2004. The total tonnage is not a large part of total municipal waste with about 11,623 tonnes of batteries discarded each year but the toxic releases in the form of lead, mercury, cadmium, and possibly other metals are of concern.
RBRC will not release data on the recovery rate which its program achieves but evidence indicates that it is a very small percentage of total rechargeable battery waste.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
INNOVEST: CHEMICAL LIABILITY FROM PRODUCTS
Investors are calling for more disclosure on risk to capital related to toxics in products. In a recent study for the Investor Environmental Health Network (IEHN), which manages assets of $22 billion, Innovest Strategic Value Advisors reviews the chemical liability associated with products from four sectors:
The report includes a list describing the nature of various shareholder resolutions including requests for feasibility studies for phasing out certain ingredients. California and other states have compiled chemical priority lists and are basing legislation on these lists. Chemicals which adversely affect human health expected to be targeted by legislation include plasticizers, flame retardants, benzene, bisphenol A, solvents, and pesticides. Manufacturers will be required to disclose more information on what happens when the chemical is released to the environment.
The EU REACH (Registration, Evaluation Authorization of Chemicals) may result in the use of up to 1400 chemicals being subject to governmental authorization. Approval will be given if no alternatives are available and if socio-economic benefits are higher than health and environmental effects. The report suggests both opportunities and losses as some companies can adapt and gain market share while others will lose. For example, bans on brominated flame retardants in electronics and textiles may mean companies have to eliminate these substances from their products or loss access to entry into the EU and California markets. REACH may have an extra long reach into many sectors such as packaging, farming, vehicles, household goods such as furnishings and appliances, and electronics. Other countries and US states are looking to REACH as a model for legislation of their own.
Wal-Mart is introducing its Preferred Chemical Principles to set criteria for ingredients in health and beauty products and household products and Marks and Spencers is already ahead on this theme. Hospitals are phasing out phthalates in plastic such as blood bags. Companies such as Herman Miller, Steelcase and Interface are setting new standards for chemicals as part of growing green building initiatives.
Increasingly labelling is being used to help consumers gain awareness of ingredients. For example, as of November 2006 Canada requires ingredient labelling for cosmetics.
Lawsuits, especially in the US, have had significant results. For example, Akron, Ohio sued paint manufacturers for damages to pay for its lead-abatement program. The suit never reached court but six other states have pursued lawsuits. DuPont has settled lawsuits but is facing a $5 billion products claim class action suit which is based on the allegation that DuPont should have labelled its non-stick products, under the brand name Teflon, with the risks of the PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) (see also GL V9N11 and N14). The cleanup of the gasoline additive MTBE is estimated by the American Water Works Association to cost up to $85 billion. The pollution has spawned multiple lawsuits. Originally the oil and chemical companies expected that the US Energy Policy Act of 2005 would protect them but no such clause was included so the companies face liability.
The Innovest report identifies environmental groups as having had a significant impact on increasing media attention to toxic substances. It particularly identifies the campaigns of the Environmental Working Group. Another example is the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Health Care Without Harms is working to reduce impacts of the health care sector through such initiatives as phase-out of mercury in medical equipment, closure of medical waste incineratiors, greener purchasing by the industry, and food purchasing from sustainable farming. Eliminating PVC in medical equipment and containers is another campaign of NGOs which is leading to the development of alternatives.
The conclusion is that laggards in greener chemical management may be unable to compete for market share and could be cut out of the supply chain if they don't improve their products. Hence producer responsibility becomes a competitive issue which is from GL’s point of view, exactly what it should be. The report provides data on the size of these markets, which range into the billions of dollars, and give examples of losses, for example Sony apparently lost over $100 million when one its new products launched into the EU was stopped because it was judged to contain chemicals above the threshold allowed.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
ELECTRONICS PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY INCREASING
The April newsletter of the International Association of Electronics Recyclers indicates a growing use of the producer responsibility model to handle electronics waste. As more states initiate electronics recycling laws, the more pressure is on the US Congress to create a national plan. About 21 states are considering electronics waste, 15 of them leaning towards producer responsibility legislation. In the last two months, state initiatives include:
Nova Scotia New E-Waste Law
Nova Scotia announced regulations February 23 which will ban disposal of some electronic products in landfill and require producers to manage their products in an environmentally sound way. The industry will accept free drop-offs of computers, televisions and printers from consumers beginning February 1, 2008. About 4,500 tonnes of electronic products go to waste in Nova Scotia annually. The industry may charge consumers a fee at the point of purchase.
Greenpeace Greener Electronics
That Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics mentioned in the February 19 issue of GL has been updated. The Chinese company Lenovo which was listed at the bottom in the August 2006 edition has risen to the top with the highest ranking of 8 out of ten. The company, which bought IBM’s consumer electronics divisions in 2005, was lauded for providing global take-back and recycling services, the first company to achieve this goal although it still has problems will chemicals.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
NEW DIRECTIONS GROUP: LCA
The New Directions Group NDG recently issued a report on life cycle assessment in the development of environmental policy.
Life cycle assessment, which evaluates the environmental impacts related to a particular product over its entire lifecycle, is relevant to producer responsibility policies, according to a new report by the NDG, a forum of Canadian business and NGOs. By understanding which phase of the lifecycle has the most environmental impact, policymakers can apply the best policy options which may include environmental labelling, green procurement, tax credits and exemptions, direct regulation, reporting requirements, take back legislation, standards and guidelines. For example, the European Union ecolabelling program is based on LCA which forms the basis of the criteria. Canada's Environmental Choice is also based (ed. somewhat?) on LCA. If the ecolabel is taken up by a number of producers, the ecolabel serves as a benchmark to encourage other producers to improve the environmental performance of their products. A chart indicates the range of applications of life cycle information. Education and awareness about the lifecycle effects can also help consumers, government and corporate purchasers make informed decisions.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
CROPLIFE CANADA GREENWASHES THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF STEWARDSHIP
Croplife Canada, an industry association of companies in the chemical and biotechnology sector, has produced a report it calls its "first stewardship benchmarking report." Unlike some industry sectors which do not have a lot of experience reporting environmental data, the agri-chemical industry has years of experience through the Responsible Care program and other initiatives. The reader of this glossy colourful document could be excused if he/she thinks that this report comes from an industry with no experience in environmental reporting. The table of contents looks fine but when one reaches most of the pages, there is puffery rather than relevant data. In many respects, this report is the same old, same old --- the reader is told of the dire effects of reduced or no use of pesticides but without much substantiation: crop yields would fall by 30-50% largely due to insects and pests, production costs would rise by 75%, food prices would rise by 27%, lower yields would require conversion of more wilderness to cropland. Despite these warnings, large scale organic farming in California and elsewhere seems to be demonstrating the feasibility of farming with a reduced pesticide loading. The initiative, Stewardshipfirst, is supposed to be results-based but the report doesn't tell us what the results for the environment are although it does outline the kind of activities undertaken such as audits for manufacturing standards. With few reporting of results and few targets, it is difficult to know how this report serves as a benchmark for the industry to improve their effect on the environment. In contrast, a number of members of Croplife Canada such as BASF have benchmarking models (see STSS section in this issue).
In dollar terms, of all the crop pesticides sold in Canada in 2005, 78% were herbicides, 4% insecticides, 10% fungicides and 8% speciality. Manufacturing standards address occupational health, environmental issues, safety and loss prevention and policies and procedures. If this were a real benchmark document, one would expect some data on progress or not. For example all the CropLife manufacturing facilities are audited but no information is provided on the results of the audit. The Agrichemical Warehouse Standards Association audits storage of agrichemicals certifying 1,544 warehouses nationally in 2005, and recently instituted training programs that include Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, Transportation of Dangerous Goods, and emergency response systems. This page states, "Since its inception in 1995, the AWSA has virtually eliminated health and environmental incidents associated with storage of agrichemicals." but provides no measures. A chemical training and certification Certified Crop Science Consultant offered by distance education by the University of Guelph and U. of Saskatchewan has graduated 400 CCSCs since 1997. The program includes integrated pest management, stewardship and sustainability.
Empty container recycling: the industry collects about 65% of all agricultural containers shipped. These are collected from 1,100 collection sites across Canada. From 1998- 2004, governments in cooperation with Croplife collected obsolete and unused pesticides totalling 800 metric tonnes. Farmers could bring the chemicals to a collection site. A second initiative is underway.
GL's publisher also produces Ecological Farming in Ontario for the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario and for the March-April issue was interviewing Richard Blyleven, a farmer (and neighbour) who produces organic eggs but is in transition to organic for field crops; he told the story of returning his chemical jugs for recycling to the dealer in a small rural town here in Haldimand County. He was told to go behind the shop to toss them and found a mountain of jugs, a mountain which shocked him. He said, "When you go to buy chemicals, you meet one or two people buying there so it doesn't seem like a lot. But then at the end of the season when you go and see what everybody has taken back, it is appalling. Here is one small chemical dealer in a small community and all those chemicals from that mountain have been applied to the land. And then you think what would that mountain look like multiplied over many counties, all of Ontario, Canada and North America." Farmers are supposed to rinse the containers and most do but about 10% of containers in 2006 still contained residual pesticides. This means it has to be handled as hazardous waste greatly increasing the recycling cost. Blyleven, who is a director on the Ontario Wheat Board, recently became chair of the AgCare, Agricultural Groups Concerned About Resources and the Environment, a coalition of 45,000 Ontario horticultural and field crop growers. From GL's view, AgCare has reverted to a similar tack as Croplife Canada, defensive about chemical use and denigrating organic agriculture instead of accepting organic as part of the continuum towards responsible care. Perhaps Blyleven will help AgCare to change its strategies.
The attacks on organic agriculture and campaigns against municipal pesticide bylaws are a big gap in CropLife's stewardship initiatives. For example, Croplife Canada responded to a poll in November 2006 which found that a majority of Ontarians believed organic fruits and vegetables to be superior to conventionally-grown produce in regard to safety and nutritional value. The press release said people didn't understand that "many so-called 'natural' pesticides" were used in organic production, that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ensures all food is safe regardless of production method and that there is no conclusive proof of superior nutrition in organic food. Interestingly, CropLife Canada had commissioned the poll from POLLARA Inc. but perhaps had hoped for different results.
Croplife Canada claims to support integrated pest management IPM. IPM is intended to reduce the use of pesticides by scouting for pests, better identification and by prevention or as Croplife Canada’s document says, "the underlying principle that a crop protection product should be used only when necessary." Organic farmers take this principle so seriously they avoid the use of synthetic pesticides all the time and most only use certain approved natural pesticides sparingly. As long as the pesticide industry spends so much effort on undermining organic farming, it will be very difficult for GL to accept that the agri-chemical sector really cares about stewardship. Instead of attacking organic producers, the industry should improve its own education and advertising to support IPM. Some of the advertising for chemicals in farm literature uses far too many images of what the industry obviously wants the farmers to think are killing machines in the “war on weeds” not at all in line with IPM: wolves, sharks and even a pesticide called Battalion(TM) featuring an army tank. In organic farming and IPM, some level of pests and weeds are tolerated.
There is also a gap in stewardship regarding household pesticides with the report merely saying, "here numerous stewardship initiatives [are] in place in the non-agriculture use category as well." CropLife Canada consistently lobbies against pesticide bylaws in municipalities (see Oakville article).
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
JAPAN'S ECO-FRIENDLY PROCUREMENT
Green procurement is one of the tools to provide incentive for producers to manufacture, sell, or import more environmentally responsible products. One example is from Japan. The “Law Concerning the Promotion of Eco-Friendly Goods and Services by the State and other Entities" was enacted in May 2000 and came into effect on April 1 2001. The law has two aims: 1. to promote greener purchasing by public institutions and 2. to provide information on eco-friendly goods and services. Manufacturers are to provide environmental information on their products and the law also promotes eco-labelling programs. Businesses and consumers are also encouraged to increase their purchasing of greener products.
Criteria have been established for:
As much as possible the criteria include numerical data supplemented as needed by non-numerical information called "factors to consider." For example, 100% recycled pulp for paper or 40% recycled plastic for ballpoint pens. The criteria are also intended to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals through procurement of low emission vehicles, energy efficient appliances and electronics, recycled paper and goods with no hydrofluorocarbons HFCS.
Japan’s Ministry of the Environment conducted a survey of local governments throughout Japan on their green purchasing between October 2006 and January 2007 and published the results in April. Local governments have been increasing green purchasing although smaller centres such as towns and villages less so. The law requests that local governments give precedence to buying items with low environmental loading. Most green purchasing is for paper, stationary and "office automation equipment" which includes fax machines, copiers, printers and so on while some categories have hardly any presence at all. About 32% of local governments have a green procurement policy. Senior local officials are increasingly using low emission vehicles (38%).
The survey of state and public institutions gauged the effect of green purchasing on reducing carbon dioxide CO2 emissions. It concluded that a reduction of 61,000 tons of CO2 emission was achieved in 2005. The share of eco-friendly goods on the market has been expanding. The effect of green purchasing is especially visible from stationery purchased by the state and other entities.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
OIL SANDS - CANADA HOUSE OF COMMONS STUDY
Witnesses at the federal House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance which was studying taxation of the oils sands under Standing Order 108(2) made presentations on February 27, 2007 at a meeting chaired by Vice Chair Massimo Pacetti. The focus of many of the witnesses was specifically the accelerated capital cost allowance ACCA which the environmental groups see as encouraging fossil fuel producers to develop oil sands despite the cost of their environmental impacts. The accelerated capital cost allowance was introduced in 1996 to encourage investment in the oil sands when oil prices were low.
Get Rid of the ACCA
Among those saying that the ACCA should be eliminated were Andrew Van Iterson, Program Manager, Green Budget Coalition which represents 20 environmental and conservation groups, Charles Caccia, Senior Fellow of the University of Ottawa, Marlo Raynolds, Executive Director, Pembina Institute and Hugh Wilkins Staff Lawyer Sierra Legal Defence Fund - Toronto. This group pointed out that:
Charles Caccia said that the tax system "promotes and encourages greenhouse gas emissions at a time when we want to reduce them. It does not make sense to have the Government of Canada attempting to ride two horses galloping in opposite directions, the Kyoto horse in one and the fiscal horse in the opposite." He proposes taxation to provide a level playing field for renewable sources of energy which is currently tilted in favour of fossil fuels. A Canadian solar energy institute and support for renewables from the climate change innovation fund are other initiatives suggested.
Keep the ACCA
Among those urging that the ACCA be retained were Gordon Peeling, President of the Mining Association of Canada, Marvin Romanow, Chief Financial Officer, Nexen Inc, Greg Stringham, Vice-President, Markets and Fiscal Policy, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Robert Plexman, Senior Oil and Gas Analyst, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and Bill Roberts, Vice-President, Investment Banking, TD Securities Inc making points such as:
The ACCA in the Budget
In Federal Budget 2007, it was announced that the ACCA will be phased out by 2010 but environmentalists say this is too long a lead time. In addition, any projects already under construction by the budget date can use the ACCA over their lifetime. Projects after March 2007 but before 2010 will receive the full ACCA to be reduced between 2011 and phased out by 2015. The government plans to allow ACCA for oil sands investments to remove carbon dioxide and reduce pollution. The ACCA was extended in the budget to wave and tidal, solar, fuel cells, biogas, pulp and paper waste fuels, waste-fuelled thermal energy, and fuel upgrading equipment.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
OAKVILLE: PESTICIDE BY-LAW
The Town of Oakville (pop. about 166,000) in Ontario passed a by-law to regulate pesticide use to take effect on January 1, 2008. Mayor Rob Burton said that the town had virtually eliminated the use of pesticides on public land already. Pesticides are banned with the boundaries except for:
The debate has continued over six years and is especially significant because Oakville has among the highest household income in Canada, a situation commonly associated with pristine lawns but the ban on non-essential uses of pesticides was motivated by environmental and health concerns especially due to advice from Health Canada on protection of children and pregnant women exposed to pesticides. The bylaw addresses use of pesticides and cannot prevent the sale of pesticides by retailers so the Town is engaging in education.
Oakville joins 127 other municipalities with cosmetic pesticide use bylaws. In 2003 Toronto City Council approved its pesticide bylaw regulating outdoor, non-essential use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes on public and private property. Croplife Canada appealed the by-law to the Ontario Superior Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal which upheld the by-law on May 13, 2005. Croplife Canada and its Urban Pest Management Council submitted a right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on August 10, 2005 which was denied November 17, 2005. The by-law had withstood all court challenges.
In a presentation to the Town of Oakville Council in February, Peter Macleod of Croplife Canada said that Health Canada permits the use of pesticides by homeowners after a risk assessment and concluded that "All allegations related to pesticides should be brought to Health Canada and International Health forums for decisions NOT municipality by municipality." From a producer responsibility point of view, this view which is sometimes supported by the courts is that the producer has reduced responsibility and liability because government has "approved" the chemicals or products as safe for its specified use.
It may take some time for pesticide bylaws to have an effect on consumer behaviour. According to the 2006 Households and the Environment Survey (thanks to John Marshall, Manager, Households and the Environment Survey, Statistics Canada for the heads up), about 29% of households apply pesticides to their lawn or garden, down only from 31% reported in 1994. Of those using pesticides, 52% of pesticide users used them as part of a regular maintenance schedule and 47% applied pesticides as problems arose. About 74% of Canadian households have a lawn or garden and 32% used fertilizers.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
LETTERS TO EDITOR
Re: GL V12 N2
Colin,
From someone who is a little out of date on the politics behind today's environmental issues, I wanted to compliment you on the "political" update and analysis. It is a sad state of affairs when the "posturing", "studying", "referring to committee", and "promising" are substituted for "commitment" and "execution". I hope people like you and your colleagues can "spur to action" the people who can actually do something about the most serious issue that may be facing the world today.
Tom Gove
******
Re: Frank Luntz GL V12 N3
I don't want to make a career defending Frank Luntz but he may be taking responsibility for things he didn’t do. I’ve attended many meetings over the years in which representatives of NRDC (Natural Resources Defence Council) and ED (Environmental Defence) have used the term “climate change” instead of “global warming” and explained their choice of terms by noting the real issue isn’t whether or not the world is getting warmer – because that detail varies locally – but the impact of climate change caused by human activities. As for “energy efficiency” I spoke at an energy efficiency conference maybe six years ago and was told they prefer that term to “energy conservation” because the latter carries an air of poverty whereas the former merely sounds more business like.
Maybe he got his linguistics ideas in these two cases from the “other” side?
Chaz Miller
****************************************************
BILL 184: ONTARIO SPECIES AT RISK - CONSULTATIONS
A coalition of environmental group under the name Save Ontario's Species S.O.S. are supporting Ontario's revised Endangered Species Act, Bill 184, now in second reading. Janet Sumner, Executive Director of CPAWs-Wildlands League urged action without delay despite the proposals from some politicians and interest groups for more consultation. She said that public consultation has been ongoing and intensive. She also said "Politicians come and go but extinction is forever. " The groups like the legislation because the proposed ESA includes a list of endangered plants and animals and mandatory habitat protection along with a stewardship fund of $18 million to help landowners in protecting wildlife habitat.
A number of industry groups and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters want more of that consultation of which the nature and environmental groups say there has been plenty. Among the industry groups are Ontario Forest Industries Association, Ontario Fur Managers Federation, Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and the Ontario Mining Association. Their view is that the government has provided little information about how the new Act will lead to actual recovery of endangered species while it will "have direct implications for people, communities and industries across the province."
Given the recent history of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in confiscating a pet deer, Bam-Bam, raised from its babyhood by a family and later to be returned on the say-so of Premier McGuinty after much public support for the poor deer, there is a certain legitimate fear and trepidation in giving so much power to bureaucrats so willing to choose low priority issues for enforcement. If all of the species covered by the Act were indeed endangered then the pressure for quick action might be understandable but some of the species are in fact quite prolific in Canada though possibly threatened in specific locations. The Act does not make a sufficient distinction between these species and those which are truly on the edge.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
BILL 184: FEATURES
The Ontario Species at Risk bill prohibits killing, harming, harassing, capturing, taking, possessing, collecting, buying, selling, leasing, trading or offering to buy, sells, lease or trade a member of the species or parts thereof. It also prohibits damaging or destroying the habitat of the species even if the species is extirpated (ie no longer exists in Ontario). For those species already classified, the prohibition on the damage to habitat begins on a date described. Habitat is defined as "an area on which the species depends, directly or indirectly to carry on its life processes."
The Ministry must ensure a recovery strategy is prepared for each species including those species extirpated if the Minister thinks that reintroduction of the species is feasible. The Minister is to respond to the recovery strategy with actions it intends to take and Government priorities. Each species is to have a management plan. The Ministry may enter into agreements which allow persons to engage in prohibited actions only in specified circumstances. The government retains the right to make exemptions so no recovery strategy needs to be prepared for that species and to make species-specific regulations for certain habitat. The Minister must make certain information public but may keep secret other information if disclosure could harm species or their habitat. A Species At Risk Stewardship Program is to be established to promote stewardship activities related to the species on the Ontario list. The main parts of the bill are to come into force June 30, 2008 or earlier if proclaimed.
Both direct and indirect habitat are to be protected. The direct habitat includes dens and nests, already accepted as part of species protection. What could be very interesting from an interpretation and enforcement point of view is indirect habitat such as is used for migration and feeding. Some animals such as the badger have a large range.
The Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario will have appointments of people from scientific disciplines and aboriginal traditional knowledge. COSSARO maintains criteria for assessment and classifying species and advises the Minister on listing of species. Different levels of risk are: extinct (no longer exists anywhere in the world). extirpated (not in Ontario but elsewhere), endangered (in imminent risk of extinction or extirpation), threatened (likely to become endangered without intervention), special concern (not endangered or threatened but identified threats or biological characteristics indicate risk). In general, the risk is for all of Ontario unless COSSARO specifies a geographic location.
One of the controversial features for landowners including corporations is the right of an enforcement officer to enter not only land but any building except one used as a dwelling without a warrant, "remove any thing for the purpose of making copies or of further inspection" and download information from computers and other devices. Ditto for stopping vehicles, boats or aircraft. The items such as live animals and plants may be forfeited to the Crown whether or not the person is ultimately convicted. The enforcement officer may also issue order to require person to stop engaging in an activity, to engage in activities as ordered and to rehabilitate any area damaged or destroyed by the activity.
Whether or not a corporation is prosecuted for an offence, the agent of the corporation who directed, assented, authorized or acquiesced in the offense is liable to conviction to the punishment for that offence. As long as the offence was committed by an employee of the company, the onus is on the agent to prove that the employee acted without the knowledge and without the consent of the agent. A defense is acceptable which includes proof of due diligence or that the agent honestly believed something that if true would have made the conduct not an offence. From GL's point of view, the Act seems to give an excessive amount of power to a set of bureaucrats without giving them any guidance on reacting based on relative harm being done. It wouldn't be surprising to hear someone hauled up for eating nuts from their own butternut tree which is a listed species.
Penalties for a first offence at a fine of not more than $1 million for corporations or not more than $250,000 or jail of not more than one year or both for other persons. Second offences are higher and more than one animal or plant is the penalty multiplied by the number of plants and animals. The penalty may be increased by the court by the amount the person benefited in monetary terms in committing the offence.
Broadening the list of protected species sounds good but could be no more than a token gesture. There have been some successes such as the reintroduction of the wild turkey, but overall the province has had a desultory approach to existing species list so adding more may not lead to any greater protection of species. A lot of time and money has been and can be spent on developing and revising recovery plans which never get implemented. In the long run, it might be better to focus on some priorities in species protection, and save a few such as the species unique to Ontario rather than none. Environmental groups have more faith in legislation than GL has. One of our colleagues participated as a community member in the Barn Owl Recovery Program and found that many more farmers were willing to have a barn owl box installed in or on their barn by the volunteer wildlife group Habitat Haldimand if the Barn Owl was not on the endangered species list.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
GENDER RATIO CHANGING FOR JAPANESE AND WHITE AMERICANS
A study published in the US Department of Health Environmental Health Perspectives suggests that the number of male births relative to female has declined in US whites and Japanese since 1970. If the same ratio of boy/girl as in 1970 had applied for the next thirty years 127,000 girls were born in Japan which statistically should have been boys (1970-1999). In the US 135,000 girls were born (1970-2002) which statistically should have been boys. The proportion of male fetuses dying is also increasing. The authors explore various possible explanations including environmental ones such as exposure especially of the father to endocrine disruptors/pesticides/mercury as well as social ones such as stress which would affect the male fetus at a critical stage of development. They do not come to conclusions so much as expressing some urgency that the changes in ratio may be sentinel indicators of larger ecological patterns which need to be investigated.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
PUBLIC SCIENCE IN CANADA SYMPOSIUM 2007
The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) is organizing a 2007 Science Policy Symposium to be held in Gatineau, Quebec on September 6-7. The Symposium themes include "Food and Drugs", "Water and the Environment" and Energy and Natural Resources’ focussing on how science policy serves Canadians. Government scientists, policy makers and industry and non-profit experts will discuss how to improve links between science and policy. Improving the profile of public science in the media will also be explored. Among the speakers are Dr. Alex Bielak, Director, Science and Technology Liaison, Environment Canada (see GL Vol.11 No. 10), Francois Guimont, President Canadian Food Inspection Agency; Michael Horgan, Deputy Minister, Environment Canada; Dr. Arthur Carty, National Science Advisor, Industry Canada; Prof. Ben Martin, Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex; and Tim Lougheed, President Canadian Science Writers' Association.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
SWISS RE: RESOURCE AWARD
Swiss Re, a large reinsurer, held the 5th ReSource Award Ceremony in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on March 22. The winner of $80,000 was a rainwater harvesting project in Southern Ethiopia. A runner up project in Jamaica received $70,000. The presentation was made by Ivo Menzinger, Swiss Re Head Sustainability and Emerging Risk Management and accepted by Ephraim Alamereph Bogale, Executive Director of the Ethiopian Rainwater Harvesting Association, which operates the project with three other groups. One of Swiss Re's clients is the Ethiopian Insurance Corporation.
The next edition of the ReSource Award is open for submissions through a two-step process of an initial application of no more than four pages followed by an invitation for pre-selected applicants to submit a full proposal. Total monies available are $150,000, exclusively for project implementation. Projects must contribute to raising awareness of ecological, social and economic significance of water sources and watersheds in developing and emerging countries through local community involvement.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
GARTNER LEE: GARBAGE SCAN
Somebody's got to do it but sorting people's garbage is at best unforgettable, according to Maura Walker, senior environmental planner with Gartner Lee. The company was hired by the Greater Vancouver Regional District to study what is in the garbage from multi-family units and to what extent information about and services for recycling are changing behaviour. Multi-unit housing is expected to consist of 60% of housing stock in the GVRD by 2015. This type of housing is usually served by private collectors who mix this waste with that from business so it is not easy to determine the recycling behaviour of the families even though recycling services are offered. Walker reported they found material from marijuana grow-ops, a whole goat's head, mink stoles, chemicals, needles as well as the more usual food, plastic, and packaging.
The study was one of the largest ever as it covered 100 buildings using daily sample delivery schedules over 25 days. The waste was separated into 12 primary categories and 104 secondary categories. Most of the crew, hired from the Environmental Youth Alliance, could only stand about five days on the job. A telephone survey provided information on the attitudes and behaviours of the residents regarding recycling. Very few people were interested in composting. The quantity of material in the building recycling bins was reduced by scavengers removing deposit containers. There was little difference in different types of buildings such as rental, condo, high-rise, low rise, or geographical regions within the GVRD. Multi-unit building waste includes more diapers and animal litter but less organic waste (due to lack of yard waste). Each multi-unit family disposes an estimated 511 kg per year or about 266 kg. per person. This compares to an average of 215 kg per person in Toronto and 237 kg per person in Seattle. The municipal recycling collection resulted in a recycling rate of 19%.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
HOW GREEN IS YOUR MP?
The Daily Telegraph in New South Wales, Australia, surveyed Members of Parliament for their home energy use. The list of actions included energy saving light bulbs, water-saving shower heads, avoidance of using dryers, rainwater tanks, solar hot water tank, small camp size frig, some signed up to electricity sourced from renewable resources or buy carbon offsets, use public transit or ride a bike. or buy local food to reduce food miles. Out of 50, 24 did not reply, putting them among those the newspaper concluded were a group of politicians with little regard for walking the green talk.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out what our Canadian MPs are doing at home or their Ottawa residences?
Howden, Saffron. How green is your local MP? The Daily Telegraph. http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21561364-5006009,00.html
****************************************************
In the Sustainable Technologies & Services Supplement which Organizational Subscribers receive with this issue:
BASF: Benchmarking Chemicals
China's RoHS
Jobs and Recycling Linked in North Carolina
Producer Responsibility for Cross-border Waste
Alberta Purchasing: Happy to Hear from Vendors
Al Gore: Nashville Training Session
****************************************************
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Copyright © Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment
119 Concession 6 Rd Fisherville ON N0A 1G0 Canada. Fisherville & Toronto
All rights reserved. Readers are advised to check all facts for themselves before taking any action. The Gallon Environment Letter (GL for short) presents information for general interest and does not endorse products, companies or practices. Advertising or sponsorship of one or more issues consistent with sustainable development goals is welcome and identified as separate from editorial content. Subscriptions for organizations $184 + GST = $195.04 includes monthly Sustainable Technologies and Services Supplement STSS ; for individuals (non-organizational emails and paid with non-org funds please-does not include monthly STSS): $30 includes GST. Issues about fifteen times a year with supplements. http://www.cialgroup.com/subscription
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx