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. 9, September 17, 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 subscriptions are $184 plus GST and provide additional benefits detailed on the web site. Organizational subscribers also receive the monthly Sustainable Technology & Services Supplement. Individual subscriptions are only $30 (personal emails/funds only please) including GST. If you would like to subscribe please visit http://www.cialgroup.com/subscription.htm 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/whatsnew.htm. Back free editions from January 2007 are available at http://www.cialgroup.com/whatsnew-a.htm
****************************************************  
 
ABOUT THIS ISSUE 

Last issue we discussed aviation and the environment. It is difficult to buy an airline ticket these days, especially in Canada a Europe, without the airline or some third party offering to sell you some offsetting carbon credits. In this issue we explore in some detail the retail and business to business availability of carbon credits, we address some of the critics of carbon offsets, and we try to explain in everyday language what carbon offsets and credits are all about. We also look at some of the problems. We hope the information helps you decide whether these are right for you.

Carbon credits are not the only new game in town. The Bush administration is trying to sell Canada on Extended Producer Responsibility, something that many Canadian environmentalists generally support, except this time it is for spent nuclear fuel. Tell us what you think!

We continue our 30-second summaries of current news with a carbon offset story and an announcement of the name of the new Executive Director of the David Suzuki Foundation. We hope to have an interview in an upcoming issue. A Letter to the Editor has some disagreement with our last issue on climate change and air travel. Our readers’ bookshelf feature continues with a contribution from David Brooks and we have a guest column that describes in as compelling a way as we have seen for a long time why Canada faces such serious drinking water problems on so many first nation reserves. The Environment Commissioner of Ontario has a job opening (deadline today) - details are provided below, some of Ontario’s top nuclear engineers have been defeated by an algae, and GE is promoting its compact fluorescent lightbulbs as perpetual motion machines. Last year we reported that the Federal government had prevented one of its employees who is also a novelist from attending the launch of his novel about climate change. We wonder, therefore, why they allow one of their employees who is also a pro-genetically modified blogger to blog with impunity! Finally, we introduce our next issue theme of environmental education and our first annual guide to Canadian universities with news about an environmental education initiative from South Africa. Organizational subscribers also receive our monthly Sustainable Technologies and Services Supplement with news and information about small business role in climate change, carbon neutral promise: Ontario Liberals, new rules for ships to prevent oil spills, environmental labelling of carbon offsets, and biosecurity breaches at a high containment lab.
****************************************************
 
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY FOR SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

We have frequently suggested that the business community does not give sufficient thought to the long-range implications of the environmental initiatives that it promotes. Now the proponents of Extended Producer Responsibility, many of them environmental groups, could be facing an ideological jam with respect to EPR for exported nuclear fuel.

Since early 2006 the United States Administration has been pushing an agenda known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. One of the seven elements of the GNEP is “fuel leasing, where advanced fuel cycle [countries], with the full elements of the fuel cycle can lease fuel and then take it back for ultimate recycling”. There could hardly be a better definition of Extended Producer Responsibility.

Canada is the world’s largest producer of uranium and most of our production is exported. That makes us the largest exporter of uranium in the world. The majority of our exports go to the US but we have also shipped uranium to most of the countries that have nuclear power plants.

So Extended Producer Responsibility for spent nuclear fuel would mean that Canada would become the world’s largest importer and “reprocessor” of spent nuclear fuel. Is that how Canadians’ want to exercise environmental responsibility?

There is a lot about the GNEP that has an aura of environmental fantasy. For example, in announcing the concept of the Partnership in February 2006, Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary of Energy in the US Administration, spoke of “advanced burner reactors” as if these are simple incinerators that burn spent nuclear fuel much as municipal garbage can be burned in an Energy From Waste plant. The fact is, as the US Department of Energy now acknowledges, that there is no such technology. Indeed, we have no commercial scale technology that is capable of accelerating the natural rate of decay of radioactive materials.

The lack of an important part of the puzzle does not appear to have dampened the enthusiasm of the Bush administration for the GNEP. They may well have realized that the US imports almost all of its nuclear fuel so a tricky political challenge could be resolved if EPR for spent nuclear fuel were adopted by all those countries from which the US buys uranium.

The debate about the GNEP that erupted this week leaves GL puzzling as to whether Canada should be supporting Extended Producer Responsibility for used nuclear fuel when we have not yet been able to develop a satisfactory method for disposal of the spent fuel rods from our own reactors. Which of course raises the fundamental question of whether we should be selling a product the use of which produces an extremely hazardous waste for which we have no completely satisfactory disposal technology in operation anywhere in the world.

To take our collective mind off the implications of such a serious question, GL is simply going to ask those who have been most vociferous in proposing Extended Producer Responsibility to let us know whether they also support EPR for exported spent nuclear fuel rods. We’ll publish the results of our informal survey.
 
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
****************************************************

VOLUNTARY RETAIL CARBON OFFSETS
****************************************************

This issue is a followup to GL Vol 12 No. 8 which discussed aviation and the environment. Although the theme of this issue is carbon offsets, some echos of the air travel are included here as carbon offsets are often marketed in relation to air travel.
****************************************************

WHAT ARE CARBON OFFSETS?

Carbon offsets are projects or activities which compensate for greenhouse gas emissions that one is either unable or unwilling to reduce.

Examples of offsets are storing (sequestering) carbon by planting trees and providing renewable energy, for example through wind or solar projects, to replace energy otherwise provided by fossil fuels. Among potential projects are:
In the proper spirit of environmentalism, one should first make efforts to reduce emissions and to set goals for future reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Although many people think of carbon offsets as the dollars you hand over to a third party, carbon offsets can be created by the first party, the one needing the offsets.

An amazing range of goods and services offer to sell you offsets for their goods or services. For example an auto dealer offsets the first 10,000 miles of driving an average car. A mortgage lender pays for 1 tonne of CO2 each year for the life of the mortgage. InterfaceFlor offsets the full lifecycle of its carpets including vacuuming and disposal. A Chilean wine maker supplies offsets for the transport of the wine. Some stores offset delivery and service. Other examples include hotel booking services, travel agencies, airlines, specialty expedition travel organizers, cruise agencies, Earthwatch: a charity where travellers volunteer on scientific research, backpacker tour operators, book publishers, home exchanges, sport schools, environmental recruitment, insurance, auto sales, gas, and electricity.
****************************************************

KATOOMBA: VALUING THE ENVIRONMENT

Market-like mechanisms for including the cost of ecosystem harm to the cost of goods and services are not new. The US Acid Rain trading program began in the 1980s. The non-profit organization Forest Trends based in Washington DC involved loggers, environmentalists, business, academics and scientists in planning to save the world's forests. The group began to think that the success depended on the need for society "to value standing forests at least as highly as it values soybeans, cattle ranches, logging operations and the other alternatives driving deforestation. As the saying goes, in the end, we will only protect what we value." Some environmentalists were critical about putting a monetary value on priceless nature but the Forest Trends concluded that economies don't value nature as priceless, they value it as zero: priceless = worthless.

In 2000, the group met in the town of Katoomba in New South Wales, Australia and formed the Katoomba Group to promote markets and payments for ecosystem PES services for not only forest conservation but other ecosystems affected by air, water and climate change. In an introduction to a new book on voluntary carbon markets, Michael Jenkins, President Forest Trends and Ricardo Bayon, Managing Director, Ecosystem Marketplace say the group supports the use of both voluntary markets as well as regulated markets. The book part of their Ecosystem Marketplace project was funded through donations including ABN-AMRO, The Citigroup Foundation, Conservation International, the UK Department for International Development, the UK Forestry Commission and the US Natural Resources Conservation Service. Al Gore in the foreword describes carbon offsets as "a remarkable area of innovation in the fight to control global warming... in the current absence of a worldwide regulatory system for carbon reductions."

A number of trading systems show a price for carbon under the different rules for each market. Recent prices in $US/per ton of CO2equiv are:
The size of the global carbon market and the growth of the voluntary carbon market:
Motivations for companies to enter the voluntary carbon markets including:
Problems with offsets include:
Steps to participating in Voluntary Carbon Markets

1. Reduce emissions directly.
The first question a company will be asked is if they are relying on offsets as a crutch to avoid doing anything. Making internal reductions in operations first also reduces the cost of buying offsets. Various guides are available to help companies

2. Define corporate strategy for climate change and how offsets fit into this.
For example, companies may choose offset emissions from operations, total product life-cycle or from certain activities such as business travel, events, suppliers, products. The report provides links to various calculators and tools for business to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from various activities. GL notes that this is one area of criticism about offsets: individuals and companies may choose to offset a specific activity when most of the greenhouse gas emissions are in other areas. When HSBC became the first bank to claim carbon neutrality, Duncan McClaren of the Scotsman wrote that the carbon neutrality should be applied to core operations not just buildings management and travel; for HSBC he said that their core operations were financial investments which included financing of a carbon-emissions-intensive Cheniere gas terminal in Louisiana.

3. Evaluate The Market for Offset Projects

4. Assess risks
The best choice is one which leads to permanent greenhouse gas reductions which is recognized by stakeholders and customers.

Some projects have benefits such as:
Some projects have disadvantages:
5. Select criteria and evaluate offset projects:
If standards are applied, criteria need to take these into account e.g. some standards will not accept forestry projects.
Matching offsets: baseline data must match what is achieved by the offset
Accurate emissions reductions feasible for the time specified to ensure that the correct amount of carbon dioxide is actually offset.
Additional to business as usual: timelines, no additional emissions elsewhere
Project is likely to be successful

6. Evaluate Costs and Sellers

Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************

GL: LOVE OF FLYING GONE

One of our letter writers suggests GL's editor loves to fly which leads to making excuses for flying in lieu of taking alternatives such as driving, boats, and rail. As a teenager, GL's editor was a pilot in the UK Royal Air Force Reserves, thrilled to be zipping around the atmosphere but now as a passenger sees flying as a chore. The only thing convenient about flying these days what with the long security lineups, flight delays, poor food, and crowded conditions is that if and when the plane gets off the ground, the speed is impressive for covering large distances. While there are alternatives for short-haul air travel, the report of the International Panel for Climate Change IPCC discussed in the last GL suggests few lower CO2-emitting alternative for longer distances. Replacing short haul flights with rail or other multi-passenger has some potential in certain areas but replacing long haul air transport with different modes doesn't have much potential because aeroplanes fly over barriers such as large bodies of water, mountains and don't need ground infrastructure such as roads and rails.

A leisurely cruise might be an option for people with lots of money and time but is not a global warming improvement according to statistics such as from the Australian Clean Cruising, According to this group, the carbon offset for a cruise ship is 0.32 kg of greenhouse gas emissions per passenger per kilometre. A figure often used for long haul flight is 0.11 kg per kilometre although this varies depending on type of plane, its fuel efficiency, distance travelled, freight and passenger load, weather conditions (tail or head wind), and flight altitude. Carbon offset providers usually base the calculation on the number of seats in the plane rather than actual passengers on board. Some subtract a percentage for freight which passenger planes often carry in addition to the luggage. One time GL's editor was taken back to Toronto from Quebec City on a plane which had him as the only paid passenger because the airline needed it back at Pearson Airport for the morning: one might choose to allocate the entire flight's carbon emissions to its sole passenger or hardly any at all - a proverbial free ride of carbon emissions. Some offset providers double the actual CO2 emissions to account for extra effects of radiative forcing which the IPCC puts at 1.9 times so the actual CO2 counted is .22 kg per kilometre or about the same as medium-sized car with only a single person inside.

Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************

AIR TRAVEL AS AN INDIRECT CO2 EMISSION

Most people don't count most of the stuff or services they use as part of their personal carbon emissions. Aviation is often one of the few indirect activities that some personal carbon offset calculators allocate to individuals even though these are not part of the direct emissions normally allocated to individuals by national accounts of carbon dioxide emissions. Sometimes offset calculators make some effort to include other indirect emissions e.g. use money spent on purchases but expenditure doesn't necessarily reveal carbon intensive activities as one could be buying reused goods or buying energy-low activities such as singing lessons. Direct emissions are calculated from the actual bill the person pays for electricity or fuel and some personal carbon calculators use only those: how much energy (gas, oil and electricity) used in the household and by the vehicles. The direct per capita emissions in Canada are about 5 tonnes of carbon per year.

Indirect means the person buys services from another and his/her share is calculated using some kind of loading factor. This is a good concept for an individual who wants to understand that a rough measure of some of their carbon emissions goes beyond what energy they use directly in order to do something about it but is flawed if we start comparing individuals. Counting indirect emissions results in some double counting of emissions: the airlines who have accounts to measure what fuel they used and then the offset provider counts it for the individual again but in a guesstimate kind of way.

Most importantly however, cherry picking by choosing only, say, air travel and saying as George Monbiot (see GL V12 No. 8) suggests "Don't Fly", undermines the validity of comparison. If air travel is accounted as a personal carbon emission than so should the other indirect emissions. For example, if a person drives to the gym, the direct emissions would be those from the fuel of the car to get there but the indirect emissions are for the energy for running the machines, heating, cooling, lighting, hot water for showers, a share of all emissions allocated to personal emissions due to personal use of the facility or if a person buys a lot of goods, indirect emissions of the clothes, the packaging, even all those room air fresheners so heavily advertised these days, services such as banking, tourism, health care, etc. Everything we use or buy has energy associated with it. We would need that information before we can compare people's carbon footprints. See Wackernagel and Rees’s Our Ecological Footprint for the range of what makes up our environmental impacts.

When we point to air travel as negating everything else a person does to reduce the carbon footprint, we are comparing the individual who flies to another one who doesn't without calculating either direct or other indirect emissions. It's like having sugar rationing based on average sugar consumption but counting only blackcurrant jam as sugar; then the poor schmuck who has eaten a breakfast of toast and blackcurrant jam every day of his life is counted as the worst consumer of sugar. Meanwhile those others who say "Don't eat sugar" consume soft drinks or products which don't seem to contain sugar such as tortilla chips. They don't have their sugar consumption counted and can feel undeservedly self-righteous. Since aviation is about 2% of global emissions, that leaves 98% unaccounted for. Environmental impact is the impact of the activity multiplied by how many people (or companies, government, institutions) do the activity and how often.

Wackernagel, Mathis and William Rees. Our ecological footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC: 1996.

IISD. How Big is Our Ecological Footprint? Using the Concept of Appropriated Carrying Capacity for Measuring Sustainability Mathias Wackernagel with The Task Force on Planning Healthy & Sustainable Communities, The University of British Columbia.  http://www.iisd.ca/consume/mwfoot.html
****************************************************

GL: HANDS-ON CARBON OFFSETS

GL's editor purchased a little under 60 hectares or 146 acres of degraded cropland in 1989 specifically for the purpose of creating habitat to offset our environmental impacts. About ten hectares are in certified organic crop production, 30 hectares is trees including a mature slough forest of 5 hectares and farm land replanted with trees originally in a chunk including windbreaks of fast-growing hybrid poplar and then planting 1000 tree seedlings plus every year and the rest is 20 hectares of streams and naturalized grasses and mixed shrubs. The carbon sequestered by grassland, shrubs, riparian areas and trees varies depends on the conditions of the soil, type of plant, microorganims in the soil and other factors. A study for the prairies published by IISD suggests that grasslands can store from 0.4 tonnes to 2.6 tonnes per hectare per year. (which just goes to show we shouldn't be in so much of hurry to convert grasslands to trees). Young forests in Southern Ontario absorb on average 1 to 3 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Soil often store 2 times the amount of the above-ground vegetation in temperate forests. Here the soil is very heavy clay which is said to be more effective for long term storage of carbon. With one round trip across the Atlantic from Toronto Pearson Airport to London Heathrow emitting about 1.5 tonnes of CO2 according to some offset calculators, the annual carbon sequestration of this project is more than technically required to offset emissions from personal or even the business travel of GL's editor as well as other activities. Forest carbon sequestration is said by some to be an interim solution for a hundred years or so as eventually forests grow old and die changing from a sink of carbon to a net release of carbon again by which time hopefully we will have other solutions to permanently reduce carbon emissions. Using wood in permanent installations such as houses and furniture could store the carbon for longer.

Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************

CONSUMER'S GUIDE TO RETAIL CARBON OFFSETS

A guide to providers of retail carbon offsets was commissioned by Clean Air-Cool Planet, a coalition of groups in the US. This does not include larger scale sales such as to utilities and other large CO2 emitters. Among the advice to institutions and consumers is that attempts be made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions directly through best practices, reductions, energy conservation and efficiencies and then use offsets not only to offset but also to send the market, policy makers and the public signals about global warming. Funding for the guide which is intended to encourage greater transparency and quality in carbon offset providers was provided without influencing the content by corporate sponsors, Stonyfield Farm, Interface Inc. and Clif Bar. Stonyfield Farm is said to be among the first companies to aim for carbon neutrality by purchasing carbon offsets. Of the thirty providers studied, fewer than half completed the detailed questionnaire so the researchers used publically available information such as from websites and annual reports.

Providers are not ranked but receive scores which have not been provided and although no "best" provider is listed, eight providers received more than 5 out of 10 on a cumulative score. The market is changing rapidly and the methodology is intended to allow for future raising of the bar by providing scores so that many of the companies which are within reach of the top 25% can improve their performance. Common problems were the providers don't supply enough information on how the money received is actually achieving emission reductions and what criteria are used to select reductions. Only two Canadian based providers, Cleanairpass and Offsetters, neither of which made the top tier on this go-round, were included .

The Top Eight Offset Providers

The following met the basic criteria:
AgCert/DrivingGreen (TM) - Ireland
atmosfair - Germany
CarbonNeutral Company - UK
Climate Care UK
Climate Trust US
co2balance UK
NativeEnergy US
Sustainable Travel/My Climate (TM) US

These top eight met basic criteria but the researchers did not have the mandate to investigate projects and providers in detail and are unable to say whether the offsets will provide sufficient carbon dioxide reductions to guarantee carbon neutrality in the amount purchased. Consumers are encouraged to question their providers to gain more assurance and also to improve the market for better quality.

Steps in Carbon Offsets

The steps are:
Individuals and organizations often choose to apply the concept of carbon neutral to specific segments such as products, services, events, travel or air travel, home energy use, etc.

Criteria for Offsets

Factors to consider include the following:
Offsets can be sold ahead of when the project is being done, which may provide some assurance of its additionality, or as the project is underway and reduction/avoidances are being achieved.

Other benefits such as environmental or social should not be regarded as a reason for not meeting the CO2equiv reduction or avoidance.

Additionality

Additionality is one of the most difficult of the criteria to meet. An offset should achieve carbon dioxide reduction/avoidance in addition to what would normally occur. It cannot be an offset if:
Additionality is often considered to be in effect if the project would not have proceeded without the additional funds from the sale of offsets or funding from the offsets helps to overcome barriers in non-financial areas.

Buyer Beware

There is a lack of standard for offsets, lack of standard for providers and few disclosure and verification protocols. Issues include:
The report provides a list of a number of questions which consumers are encouraged to ask. Among them are the following:
Prices vary from US$5 to $25 per ton. The lowest price may not be the best as it might encourage slipshod approaches, but neither is the highest prices a guarantee.

Personal or Organizational Carbon Calculators

Providers often offer calculators to determine the greenhouse gas footprint and individuals and organizations are increasingly purchasing carbon offsets, at the cost of about US$10/ton. For less than $100, many Americans are buying offsets for their home energy use, their car, their air travel and other household carbon activities. The newness of this market makes it open to almost anybody to offer for sale carbon offsets and there is little way for the consumer to verify the reductions actually achieved. The report has a list of calculators which vary in complexity and accuracy.

Standards

Examples include the CDM Gold Standard which the report suggests is too limited as it allows only energy and energy efficiency projects. Costs are high to implement.

The support of an environmental group is said to add to credibility. For example, the US Environmental Defense Fights Global Warming provides a small list of projects (rather than the providers) which have been subject to informal review by EDF's Environmental Resources Trust.

Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************

CARBON OFFSETS AND HIGH FLYING

While some see carbon offsets as an excuse to keep on polluting, others see them as a demonstration of pricing the services nature provides. In the case of offsets, nature in the form of the atmosphere keeps the earth's temperature suitable for life. Most people have become used to paying someone else to deal with their garbage or wastewater but it is a new concept to think of paying someone to deal with greenhouse gases. To really change behaviour probably requires much higher pricing than is now voluntarily accepted by some but it is a start on how to develop the pricing.

Despite not agreeing with his condemnation of carbon offsets, GL had to admire the monologue CBC broadcaster Rex Murphy delivered on carbon offsets in May. Murphy doesn't like the term climate denier but he is said to be one. He identified carbon offsets as worse than useless, "Keep that SUV; drive it even more; add a few rooms to that monster house; and fly, fly away. Carbon offsets will allow you to maintain your prodigal lifestyle - and - they will minimize or neuter your environmental guilt." He talks of "Air Canada now lets you pay a fee for feeling guilty about filling their planes" and "Westjet doesn't put the conscience fee on the customer - WestJet buys the indulgence for you."

The idea that offsetting will make people behave even more environmentally irresponsibly is exactly the same argument as was put up about community recycling. Being able to recycle was said to make people able to ignore the fact that packaging and products were wasteful and salve their guilt instead of rising up in a collective mass and opposing, say, disposable diapers and non-refillables. There is an element of truth in that view but it is difficult to predict whether people will be pushed in the right direction or, even if they feel real guilt, whether that leads to behaviour change or demands for change from in society, industry and business. Yes, it's better not to generate the waste in the first place but if it is generated, then recycling is good. So it seems better to take whatever steps can be taken to reduce environmental impact now rather than wait for the ideal or an environmental revolution, which may not happen.

Hot Air

Murphy calls carbon offset companies as being in "the hot air conscience business."

In the carbon credit market, hot air is a term which applies to a particular circumstance, usually to the Eastern European countries where greenhouse gas emissions were dramatically reduced merely by the collapse of the economies giving them room to spare for meeting their Kyoto targets. These countries can then sell their spare room as credits but have made no changes in energy efficiency or transportation improvements. As the economy improves, the greenhouse gas emissions reductions may not be permanent. This is why these credits are called hot air. Carbon credits are different than carbon offsets in that credits have formal standards, established by such as the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme and the Chicago Climate Exchange, and can be sold and resold within that marketplace. For projects which provide credits, typically the credit is not given until the project has achieved the reductions. Carbon offsets often don't meet these standards. Although there are wholesalers and retailers in of carbon offsets, voluntary carbon offsets are very variable. Once the individual or organization buys them, the offset is not transferable.

Hot air, the way Murphy uses it, is to say that carbon offsets are a fraud. GL agrees that the heating up of the markets for carbon offsets does leave plenty of room for scams or just offerings from businesses which seriously misunderstand what needs to be done. However, other markets also have scandals, for example, the predatory lending which caused the subprime mortgage financial crisis doesn't negate the validity of mortgages as a concept. The voluntary carbon offset market right now is fairly accurately described as the wild west but standards are being developed.

Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************

CARBON OFFSETS COMPARED TO INDULGENCES

Recently GL was in conversation with a friend about carbon offsets and was surprised to hear that word Rex Murphy used again: "indulgence". It is not a word or concept common to conversation otherwise. When critics of offsets connect these to the sale of indulgences, they are really saying that carbon offsets are selling the invisible for intangible benefits. Besides they are often rather dismissive about the power of indulgences. Like offsets not covered by legal cap-and-trade systems, indulgences were voluntary, a kind of free market in purchasing forgiveness. Some families went bankrupt buying indulgences to speed the entry of the souls (either of themselves or their relatives) from purgatory (or even from that other supposedly hotter place) into heaven. Half the money from the sale of indulgences helped to fund priceless works of art such as Michaelangelo's painting of the Sistine Chapel and Vatican buildings such as the rebuilding of St. Peter's Basilica. The system was set up by the Archbishop of Mainz and half of the money went to pay off his banker loan for his promotion to this exalted position! The Augustine monk, Martin Luther asked the Archbishop to cast his eye upon one speck of dust (Luther) about the papal indulgences. Luther felt the road to salvation was hard and difficult and was appalled that people believed that if they had purchased a letter of indulgence they were assured of salvation without any need for contrition. The lack of willingness to have a good talk with Luther caused the Reformation and changed western civilization. While indulgences really were buying the intangible and invisible, forgiveness of sin, the fact that critics often use this analogy seems to suggest that carbon dioxide (an invisible gas, after all) is also up there in the air somewhere but not doesn't physically exist and that any offset activity is a figment as well. A buyer never gets delivery of the carbon bought but rather the carbon is stored in soil or trees or never produced because of use of renewable energy rather than fossil fuels. To GL, this sounds a lot like buying a corporate share in the stock market.
****************************************************

CO2: HERE, THERE AND EVERYWHERE

While some of the criticisms of carbon offsets reveal considerable misunderstanding about greenhouse gas emissions, GL notes that many such criticisms also express an urgency and acceptance of responsibility about dealing with emission reductions. The interest and discussion in these concepts of carbon offsets, carbon neutral, and the rich paying the poor to do the work for them (some things don't change) is leading to more information and understanding about climate change and carbon offsets.

A key point to the concept of carbon offsets is that no matter where on earth CO2 is released it is integrated into the global stock fairly quickly. This is very important and makes CO2 emissions different from many other types of pollution, such as air pollution, which have mostly local and regional impacts.

Example: Columnist Lyn Cockburn writing in the Edmonton Sun slightly tongue in cheek says, "Take the problem of the homeless. Why should Canadians do anything about the people living on our streets? If we pay the Sudanese government to round up more and more of their homeless and put them in camps, then we can, in good conscience, ignore our own. Better yet, we can simply ship our homeless directly to the Sudan." She also suggests that the Chinese government could deal with excess smog in Beijing during the Olympics by paying Rio de Janeiro to reduce smog there.
Comment: Although the world is made better, the homeless on our streets do not benefit directly by actions on the homeless on Sudanese streets. Smog is local so smog reduction in Brazil will not offset smog in Beijing. However, any CO2 emissions reduced or avoided is a step forward a reduction in the global stock of CO2 in the atmosphere.
 
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here
****************************************************

EEA PURCHASES GOLD STANDARD OFFSETS

To create a model for other organizations, the European Environment Agency introduced its own carbon offset scheme. It bought Euro 13,500 carbon offsets to offset 673 tonnes of CO2 emissions from air travel in 2006 for its own staff travelling outside Denmark for meetings and conferences and for invited guests coming to the Agency.

A four year contract was given to Atmosfair, a carbon project connected to Germany's Federal Environment Ministry. The quality of the offsets is considered high because they are recognized under the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. This level of offset is labelled as the Gold Standard. Projects include:
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here
****************************************************

US FOREST SERVICE OFFSET PROGRAM

A partnership program between the US National Forest Foundation and the US Forest Service launched the Carbon Capital Fund, an offset program, in July. Individuals and organizations can invest in Forest Service reforestation projects which replant areas on national forests damaged by wildfire and other natural disturbances. Verification will be by Winrock International.

Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here
****************************************************

EFFECTIVENESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SIDE EFFECTS OF OFFSETS: IRON DUMP

A controversy about a carbon offset plan in the Galapagos has put a small development stage company, Planktos, under international scrutiny.

The International Maritime Organization's Scientific Group of the London Convention discussed this offset project at its June meeting. Planktos is creating an international stir by its proposal to dissolve up to 100 tons of iron dust in a 100 km by 100 km area about 350 miles west of the Galapagos Islands in June 2007 to create phytoplankton blooms. The company on its web sites announced a delay in August. It calls its offsets ecosystem restoration credits from its European KlimaFa for new planting of forests and "healing the seas" also called "feeding the seas" for the iron dumping. The plankton are expected to absorb carbon from the atmosphere, which the company will measure and sell the credits. The original vessel was under the US flag but since the US Environmental Protection Agency started asking questions, the vessels are said not to be US-flagged, so that the US does not have jurisdiction. The US recommends that any state which does have jurisdiction should carefully consider this activity. The company plans to conduct similar large-scale iron depositions in other parts of the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean. The company plans to collect data on the depositions to assess whether carbon is sequestered so they can sell carbon credits mostly to the European Union market. According to the agenda item, the potential environmental impacts of their planned iron addition projects, is missing key and important information such as:
1 the estimated amount and potential impacts of iron that is not taken up by phytoplankton;
2 the amounts and potential impacts of other materials that may be released with the iron;
3 the estimated amounts and potential impacts of other gases that may be produced by the expected phytoplankton blooms or by bacteria decomposing the dead phytoplankton;
4 the estimated extent and potential impacts of deep ocean hypoxia (low oxygen) or anoxia (no oxygen) caused by the bacterial decay of the expected phytoplankton blooms; or
5 the types of phytoplankton that are expected to bloom and the potential impacts of any harmful algal blooms that may develop.

The company's website says it is based in San Francisco, California with offices in the European Union and British Columbia.

The London Convention limits ocean dumping but only restricts disposal but does not cover material put into the ocean for other purposes. Individual state regulation or regional agreements may cover this type of non-waste placement.

A number of environmental groups such IUCN and Greenpeace International as well as the US government submitted documents. The IMO Scientific Group issued a statement of concern. While some marine researchers are studying fertilizing ocean waters with micro-nutrients such as iron, the statement concluded "that knowledge about the effectiveness and potential environmental impacts of ocean iron fertilization currently was insufficient to justify large-scale operations." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC has identified iron fertilization as having potential but identified this as highly speculative requiring assessment of many potential environmental side effects.

The Parties to the London Convention and the London Protocol are to consider the issue of large-scale ocean iron fertilization operations to ensure adequate regulations at meeting of the Parties to be held November 5-9, 2007. The IMO is a UN-based organization with a mandate to oversee international agreements on shipping safety and pollution prevention in marine environments such as limits on ocean dumping.

Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here
****************************************************

VATICAN NOT YET FIRST CARBON NEUTRAL SOVEREIGN STATE

Planktos (see above article) with less than $2 million in stockholder equity reported in June may be small but its executive Russ George knows how to get attention. Planktos announced it is donating the resources to plant a forest in Hungary's Bukk National Park to offset the Vatican's carbon emissions. The dimensions of the forest will depend on the size of the Vatican's 2007 emissions. Forests absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and stored within the tree's wood, foliage and roots as well as the soil. The company put out a press release which was picked up by the media as if it were a Vatican announcement.

It is not clear how much commitment there is in the world's smallest independent state (44 acres, pop. 800) to paying over the long term to be carbon neutral. The Pope has been talking about the environment, rides an electric Popemobile, and the Vatican has plans to give the Paul VI Centre, the audience hall, a rooftop of solar panels sometime in 2008. On September 2, Pope Benedict told the Catholic Church's first eco-friendly youth rally attended by half a million youth that "A decisive 'yes' is needed in decisions to safeguard creation as well as a strong commitment to reverse tendencies that risk leading to irreversible situations of degradation." Participants who mostly slept on blankets or in tents received backpacks made of recyclable material, a flashlight with a crank rather than batteries and colour-coded bags for recycling waste. Prayer books were printed on recycled paper and food was served on biodegradable plates. Trees are to be planted in parts of Italy where fires have destroyed forests to offset carbon emissions for the event. However, the Vatican is not a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. As an absolute monarch, the Pope may be the one deciding whether to pay. As long as the Vatican uses fossil fuels, more trees will have to be planted every year to achieve "carbon neutral" state status.

Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here
****************************************************

CONFERENCE BOARD OF CANADA: CARBON EMISSION CONFERENCE

A conference scheduled by the Conference Board of Canada for October in Vancouver will discuss carbon emission management and opportunities. It is sponsored by TransCanada, Forest Products Association of Canada and IETA (International Emissions Trading Association). Among sessions on GHG accounting, reducing emissions in a growing economy, lessons learned by early adopters of carbon management, international emissions trading, the program will discuss the new Montreal Climate Exchange partnering with the Chicago Climate Exchange to offer environmental financial products and services in Canada.

Attendees are invited to "Zero Footprint" their travel to this event by paying $15 extra when they register to "neutralize the carbon dioxide added by your attendance."

Zerofootprints in turn buys carbon credits from another organization called Ecosystem Restoration Associates which is involved in reforestation . Zerofootprint says it does calculations according to the Greenhouse Gas protocol however GL didn't see any mention specifically about how much CO2 is reduced or avoided for the $15 extra charged for the Conference Board event. While the realities of time constraints and costs may justify the flat fee charged (it is voluntary after all), a flat fee is contrary to the basic concept of offsets which is that you pay to offset what you emit - someone who emits less pays less.

Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here
****************************************************

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

            re: GL V12 No. 8

Dear Editor,

Reading your most recent GL, I was disappointed at your defensive reaction to Monbiot's "don't fly" recommendations. You countered it with four specious arguments examined briefly below.
1. Why did he list other ways for individuals to cut personal emissions if air travel is so important?
Answer: because every little bit counts.
2. Monbiot's approach, if applied to Montreal Protocol, would have resulted in people not using refrigeration.
Answer: But in the case of refrigerants, alternatives to CFC's are available. Alternatives to flight are available as well (boat, train, car, no travel), but you find them limiting or inconvenient.
3. Monbiot's per person emissions are based upon future carbon quotas.
Answer: Not really - they're based on what we should be emitting now if we want to stop global climate change.
4. Flying provides broadening experiences.
Answer: Yes, broadening experiences for the wealthy, but not for the poor people in Bangladesh whose homes will be flooded from rising sea level. There are lots of broadening experiences that don't require flying.

In short, GL adopted the antiquated mainstream perspective that we don't need to change our lifestyles at all to protect our environment. It sounds awfully like the author of the piece on Monbiot loves to fly and is trying to justify it to himself. I am also troubled by the idea that because of their wealth, wealthy individuals have a greater right to pollute than the poor. This idea is troubling when applied to nations, but when applied to individuals, it undermines all notions of social responsibility. The wealthy, who are emitting so much more CO2, should be using their money to cut their emissions - such as by purchasing solar power, better insulation, hybrid vehicles, or at a bare minimum, carbon offsets - not just paying money for the privilege of emitting.
Steve Lachman, Ph.D., Esq.
State College, PA 16801
****************************************************

30-SECOND SUMMARIES

An article in New Scientist discusses the potential of cellulosic ethanol made from native fast-growing prairie grasses. Jason Hill at the University of Minnesota in St Paul is growing mixed grasses without fertilisers; the soil retains about 0.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide in the soil after the grass is harvested and Hill concludes that wild grass ethanol could save 16 times as much greenhouse gases as corn ethanol. Mixed grass species provide better habitat as they mimic natural prairies. The article mentions Canadian Roger Samson who is working on switchgrass and biofuels such as grass biofuel pellets at the Resource Efficient Agricultural Production Canada REAP-Canada in St. Anne de Bellevue. Samson is executive director.

Giles, Jim. Can biofuels rescue American prairies? NewScientist August 18, 2007 http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19526173.400-can-biofuels-rescue-american-prairies.html or http://www.newscientist.com [Search switchgrass and click on title - can be viewed by paying per article or buying a promo subscription]

REAP-Canada. http://www.reap-canada.com
***

In May, GL had an article with a job posting for Executive Director for the David Suzuki Foundation (GL V12. No. 5). The position has been filled by Peter Robinson, who was CEO of the Vancouver-based Mountain Equipment Co-op MEC, an outdoor equipment and supply store known for its environmental commitment. and will join DSF by the beginning of 2008. GL notes that while environmental groups including the David Suzuki Foundation have some ambiguity about business, it is interesting that a business person was chosen as a leader in the organization. In 2004, another leading environment group WWF Canada also chose a private sector executive as CEO, Mike Russill was Chairman of AADCO Automotive Inc. a recycler.

David Suzuki Foundation. Peter Robinson to be the new CEO of the David Suzuki Foundation. Press Release. Vancouver, British Columbia: September 6, 2007.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/latestnews/dsfnews09060701.asp
****************************************************

THE BOOKSHELF

Do you have a favourite or inspirational environment book (fiction or non-fiction) or magazine or have you written a book, report or article you would like to draw attention to? It can be electronic or hard copy. Let us know what it is and in 50 words or less why it appeals to you from an environmental point of view and a few words on who you are. We'll select one for printing in each issue over time in the next year or so. Send email to editor@gallonletter.ca with subject line: Fav Env Book.

This Bookshelf item written and recommended by
David B. Brooks, PhD, Director of Research
Friends of the Earth Canada 300 - 260 St. Patrick Street Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1N 5K5
Tel: 1-613-241-0085 X27 Eml: dbrooks@foecanada.org http://www.foecanada.org

Brooks, David B. Human Rights to Water in North Africa and the Middle East: What is New and What is Not; What is Important and What is Not INT. J. OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT. June 2007 pp227 – 241 DOI: 10.1080/07900620601097075
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=g780747829~db=all [paid subscription]

Effort should now be directed to enlarging the concept of human rights to water in at least two new directions: first, to ensure that enough water is made available for small farmers and householders to grow the food that human beings must ingest directly to live; second, to ensure that enough water is left in the ecosystems so that they remain viable and contribute fully, if indirectly, to human life and to human livelihoods.

Only when we know how it is that human rights come to be adopted as policy and implemented as practice by governments shall we really be able to say with confidence that it is really worth fighting to establish a human right. Only then shall we be able to go beyond a “general comment” to an effective lever to promote action.
****************************************************

GUEST COLUMN: CANCELLATION OF SAFE DRINKING WATER CONFERENCE
by Hans Peterson PhD, Voluntary Executive Director, Safe Drinking Water Foundation

In 2004 the Safe Drinking Water Foundation SDWF held our "The Future of Water Treatment Conference" in Saskatoon where we attracted more than 200 native delegates and around 50 non-native delegates. Had native people interested in coming to that conference received financial support for travel, hotel and registration, participation would have easily exceeded 500.

Since that time, SDWF has increased its efforts to help native communities across Canada. We have been instrumental in developing sustainable solutions for exceedingly poor quality ground and surface water sources and we have developed educational water programs with an increasing native content, including our free program "Operation Water Spirit". These programs have received Awards of Excellence every year for the past five years. Our work on helping research and develop functional and effective water treatment systems even for remote communities was recognized when we were asked to present at the United Nations in New York in 2005. Our volunteers have reached out their hands in different parts of Canada helping them assess drinking water quality and demand action. 

For example, a Hereditary Chief of an Alberta reservation called the SDWF expressing her concern with the water on her reserve. I asked one of our board members, Tony Steinhauer, always willing in his free time to go and help anybody that he can with water, to go to the reservation, bring a chlorine tester and turbidity meter with him and just test the basics. Tony called from the reserve where he measured more than 80 NTUs (turbidity units) at the school drinking water fountain - it should be 200 times less. I told him he had to repeat the testing but he already had taken five replicates. There was no free chlorine either and you simply cannot disinfect such poor quality water anyway. The following day, Tony was called by the Director of Public Works for the community and asked what he was doing on his reserve - he should know Health Canada had told them there were no problems with the water and Tony was also told not to set foot there again. Health Canada found out that somebody connected with the SDWF had been on the reservation testing the water so they sent HC people out and issued a boil water advisory shortly after.

In another incident, a woman from a Manitoba reservation called the SDWF with concerns about the water in her community. Another SDWF board member, Bob Pratt, and I drove to this community to see if we could help. This is one of the first communities where a nanofiltration membrane skid had been installed anywhere in Canada, but they hadn't been able to get it to work for the previous two years. Yet, an INAC (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) -hired person visited the reserve once a month to help and check that everything in the water plant was working. INAC must have had an excess of cash when the plant was constructed because the manganese greensand filters and nanofiltration unit were 10 times too big and were only run for 4 hours every second day; it is not possible to run a membrane system like that so failure was inevitable.

We had worked well with INAC in Saskatchewan since 2002 on the Yellow Quill project and we continued to work with INAC officers that embraced change and truly wanted to be part of it (even if Ottawa couldn't figure that one out). Indeed, a former head of the regional Saskatchewan office, Earl Kreutzer, confided in me at the opening of the Yellow Quill Water Treatment Plant, "You know Hans I used to fear coming to Yellow Quill knowing that we had done such a lousy job on their water (9 years of boil water advisory), but now (with the system we developed) I feel I could be elected Chief here!"

While we have been critical of poor federal decisions and actions, we have always helped whenever we were asked and indeed given kudos to the federal government when they deserved it (see, for example, my editorial in Aboriginal Times December 2006). The treatment we first developed at Yellow Quill First Nation went from experimental (treatment plant commissioned December 2003) to proven (two more plants commissioned in December 2005) and after a couple of more years we fully expected that INAC would deem the Yellow Quill Process "best available technology" as we have been able to show that at George Gordon First Nation the band is saving more than $100,000 per year after it switched from conventional treatment and RO to the Yellow Quill Process.

We have also formed an Advanced Aboriginal Water Treatment Team (AAWTT) extending capabilities within native communities and allowing AAWTT members to more effectively help others. At Saddle Lake Cree Nation we have done what INAC and even an engineering company stated was impossible on such a poor quality source water as Saddle Lake: develop "Yellow Quill-type" water treatment process using no chemicals except final low level chlorination. Sharing the knowledge we had gained treating both surface water and ground water as well as learning about developments in safe drinking water from both a national and international technical, legal and other perspectives was therefore something that excited all of us and we started to discuss an Edmonton Conference for September 2007.

Little did we know that the underpinnings of safe drinking water for Canada's native communities had started to be pulled out. Despite federal announcements last year that drinking water safety was a priority with the introduction of regulations (later diluted into an expert panel), these actions were accompanied by cuts in water and wastewater funding for regional INAC offices with further cuts to such programs this summer. Combining this with increased building costs across Western Canada, the federal government's ability to deal with the native drinking water issues has been decimated. In discussions with representatives of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (representing 68,000 engineers) we agreed on one thing in Toronto October 2006. More than 90% of all native water treatment plants can likely not meet the Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines should Health Canada decide to test for more than 5 of the more than 50 health parameters in the guidelines. In fact, through the efforts of an SDWF volunteer, Simon Kapaj MD, and one INAC employee, Health Canada parted with more than 7,000 pages of drinking water test data (first time INAC had seen them) for us to analyze. We couldn't figure out heads or tails and argued for quite a while with Health Canada trying to determine what was raw and what was treated water (I guess HC's samplers were too busy to note that down) until we did get a statement from Health Canada that they only have jurisdiction to sample distributed water so it was all treated water. I responded that if that is correct the problems are much greater than I could have ever imagined.

But the federal fix was not to deal with the drinking water but to tie Health Canada and INAC Contribution Agreements to each native community with the native community rescinding its ability to sue the federal government for problems with drinking water on reservations. This has happened across the country this spring. And, the second fix was make sure native people attend officially sanctioned Health Canada meetings (indeed demanding that they go to these meetings) where the operators are told about the five pillars to drinking water safety, total chlorine, free chlorine, E. coli, coliforms and nitrate. Never mind that one of the most distinguished drinking water treatment plant troubleshooters in the world, and one of SDWF's speakers, Dr Colin Fricker, will state that testing for those gives us no indication if the water is safe or not and much more has to be done. If native people learn more than HC's 5 pillars, who knows, they may even question Health Canada's Golden Rule (the one with the Gold makes the rules, see my May/June editorial in Aboriginal Times). I guess, as Dave Schindler said, we should not be surprised that the federal government is not supporting native people to attend SDWF's conference in Edmonton, September 2007 because if federal support of water issues were based on supporting sound science we would not be in the mess we are currently in.

We have literally contacted every native community in the country and SDWF's phones have been very busy with people trying to come to our conference. It has become apparent, similar to our conference in 2004, that neither Health Canada nor Indian and Northern Affairs Canada will support any native people coming to our conference. But, despite that we had more than 200 native people come to our last conference. The difference between then and now, however, is that not only will the federal government not support the natives to attend, but they are also actively discouraging them from going, which means that bands are concerned about using band funds to pay for something that some misguided people within the federal government disapproves of.

True, we have both federal and provincial civil servants registering in much greater numbers than in 2004, but none of us expected to spend a lot of our time to outline how native communities can move forward to almost exclusively non-native delegates. This was supposed to be a meeting where native efforts in the drinking water field were recognized both from the podium and the floor. Among us we have, for example, Bob Pratt, George Gordon First Nation, who gets more than 600,000 hits on Google dwarfing the "expert" in the federal government's "expert committee" Steve Hrudey, with less than 40,000 hits. However, with too low registrations our ability to hold an effective meeting has been crushed and we are forced to cancel.

See planned agenda: Fresh. New. Perspective. 2007 Water Quality Solutions Conference. September 24-28, 2007. Edmonton Alberta. http://www.safewater.org/GetPage.aspx?ID=3
****************************************************

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO: POLICY AND DECISION ANALYST JOB

$57,666 - $70,203 - COPE - permanent and contract/OPS secondment

Join the team at the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. You will: analyse, review, evaluate ministries proposals/decisions to evaluate their compliance with the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR); undertake research projects; prepare memos on policy, legal/scientific/economic/social aspects of environmental issues. Liaise with government ministries; help with other duties. Location: Toronto

Qualifications: thorough, wide-ranging knowledge of current environmental issues re: EBR designated ministries, provincial policy/legislation; superior writing ability; excellent research & policy analysis skills; advanced computer skills using word processing/spreadsheet programs; extensive Internet experience; ability to organize information efficiently/effectively, work independently/on a team to meet deadlines. Legislative Assembly employees are part of the Ontario Public Service pension and benefits plan.

While we appreciate all applications received, only those candidates selected for an interview will be contacted. We thank all applicants for their submissions. Apply by Monday, September 17, 2007 to: Policy & Decision Analyst, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 1075 Bay St. Suite 605, Toronto, ON M5S 2B1
****************************************************

A BIT TOO MUCH BLARNEY: BIOTECH BLOG

Interesting that the not-so-New Government of Canada which forbad an employee who wrote a novel to speak at his own book launch in Ottawa last year, seems to give carte blanche to Shane Morris to promote GM food in Ireland through a web blog about which he says "THIS BLOG PURELY REPRESENTS MY PERSONAL VIEWS AND NOT THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER, WIFE, FAMILY, FRIENDS, PETS OR ANYTHING ELSE." He says he also speaks against GM food sometimes but the overall effect seems to be tilted fairly heavily one way, just as likely to lean toward ad hominem against critics of gm rather than discuss any particular subject. GL has visited a few times usually when there is an email on one of the agriculture listservers we receive about the latest volley on this blog about who is attacker and who is attackee. GL is a believer in free speech but wonders if it is no accident that the government allows this particular person free rein while others are muzzled. Morris is listed in the Government Electronic Directory as "Senior Consumer Analyst Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Consumer Analysis Section" in Ottawa. If you go to read his blog, you might think to question whether this position listens to a full range of voices and opinions regarding genetically modified food/agriculture or whether the position is more about public relations for the biotech industry without regard to consumers especially the growth of consumer demand for organic products. Morris accused GMWatch, a critic of biotechnology and of his approach in particular, of defamatory statements and their service provider banned them from service for a while even though they provide a useful news and views on the anti-gm side (whether one agrees with them or not.) Morris could stop flailing around with his shillelagh with the Canadian Maple Leaf on it and do a wee bit of lightening up. As the Irish say, THERES NO NEED TO FEAR THE WIND IF YOUR HAYSTACKS ARE TIED DOWN.
 
Celticlad (Shane Morris Blog). http://gmoireland.blogspot.com/
****************************************************

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND INFORMATION SHARING: SOUTH AFRICA

Environmental learning and education will be the focus of a new Environmental Resources Centre at Cape Peninsula University of Technology in Capetown, South Africa. Deputy Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Ms Rejoice Mabudafhasi announced that the unprecedented environmental challenges facing South Africans needs making information and knowledge more readily accessible. The ERC will focus "on the impact of environmental degradation on people, in particular marginalised communities, as well as environmental degradation caused by unsustainable human activities." The Distant Learning and Information Sharing Tool DLIST which began in 2003 and is funded by the United Nations Development Funds' Global Environment Facility is part of the ERC. It provides open forums of discussions and is intended to improve information flow between civil society and government. Vice Chancellor of CPUT Professor Vuyisa Mazwi-Tanga said the ERC will not only contribute to a community of practice, raise awareness of environmental issues but most importantly of all prepare environmental professionals with the skills to meet the development challenges of the 21st century,

Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here
****************************************************

TOP ENGINEERS DEFEATED BY SIMPLEST ORGANISMS

Algae are often described as being among the most simple of single cell organisms, though we recognize that some algae are somewhat more organized than this description might suggest. Algae have been around for about 500 million years.

Nuclear engineers are often considered to be among the elite of their profession, though maybe this is a slight exaggeration in a very few cases. Nuclear engineers have been around for a little more than fifty years.

Not for the first time, one of Ontario Power Generation nuclear units was shut down due to algae. OPG's Pickering nuclear unit #5 was shut down August 9 because algae were blocking the cooling water intake pipes despite a new installation of netting designed to reduce unwanted materials in the water from clogging screens and filters and thereby reducing the flow of water in the water intake systems. It is also not the first time that the smaller species has shown its ability to frustrate the larger species. GL cannot help but wonder what might happen if a species with a little more brain than an algae decided to mount an attack.

Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here
****************************************************

BY THE NUMBERS: WEBSITE CONTROLLED BY GE PROMOTES LIGHTING MIRACLE
 
The iGo Green website is part of iVillage, self-described as "the Internet for women" comprising "several online and offline media-based properties that seek to enrich the lives of women, teenage girls and parents through the offering of unique content, community applications, tools and interactive features." iVillage is owned by NBC Universal, which, according to Wikipedia, is itself owned by General Electric.

No surprise, then, that a Fast Fact on the iGo Green would be the vehicle to promote a new lighting miracle:

"If you replace just one out of four of your light bulbs with fluorescents, you can save about 50% on your lighting bill."

For readers who do not have a technical background, we point out that the corollary must be that if you replace just two out of four of your light bulbs with fluorescents, running the remaining two, as well as the two fluorescents, will cost you almost nothing at all as it would save you (50%*2=100%) all of your lighting bill. If you replace all four, somebody must be starting to pay you to run your four lights!

If only!

The Energy Star FAQ for Compact Fluorescents states that Energy Star qualified CFLS use up to 75% less energy than incandescent light bulbs. So if you replace one incandescent with one of these CFLs, then you would reduce your total lighting bill for the set of four by 18.75%. All other things being equal,  if you replace all four, then your total bill for the four lights would be reduced by (18.75%*4) surprise surprise 75%.

Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here
****************************************************
Organizational Subscribers also receive the following:
IN THIS SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY & SERVICES SUPPLEMENT

Small Business Role in Climate Change
Carbon Neutral Promise: Ontario Liberals
New Rules for Ships to Prevent Oil Spills
Environmental Labelling of Carbon Offsets
Biosecurity Breaches at a High Containment Labs
****************************************************
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Copyright © Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment
119 Concession 6 Rd Fisherville ON N0A 1GO 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