THE GALLON ENVIRONMENT LETTER
Canadian
Institute for Business and the Environment
Fisherville,
Ontario, Canada
Tel. 416
410-0432, Fax: 416 362-5231
Vol. 13, No. 2, February 12, 2008
Subscription Edition Sent as Honoured Reader's
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.
This time only this is the paid subscription issue. Usually 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
Our feature in this issue is the 2008 Electric
Utilities Environmental Conference, recently held in Tucson, Arizona, and billed
as the USA's largest Energy & Environment Conference & Expo. It
certainly was a big event, with at least six tracks of twenty minute
presentations filling three very full days. Much of the conference focussed on
solutions to the environmental problems of the electricity industry but there
was much to interest decision-makers and environmental managers in all kinds of
resource and manufacturing industries. Most importantly, the conference provided
a major showcase of the real progress that is being made on environment, and
especially on climate change, in a significant portion of US industry. In this
issue we have space only to touch on some of the more interesting and
Canadian-relevant presentations but we will be returning to sharing EUEC content
as articles in future issues. Don’t think this is an issue only for electricity
utilities: we even tell you of a marketing consultant who sells green power on
YouTube. We report on presentation on carbon credits, tidal power, mercury
emissions, and much more.
Beyond the EUEC report this issue contains a
Letter and an accompanying article on asbestos, a Guest Column by Richard
Gilbert and Anthony Perl on Transport Revolutions, a report on BC (British
Columbia, not BC in a historic sense!) Climate Change Initiatives, a summary of
the recent NRTEE climate change recommendations, a review of a Harvard Business
Review article entitled The Biosphere Rules, a report of the GL visit to
Biosphere II, where a team of eight lived in isolation for two years and
certainly did not rule, and an update on US “rules” for marketing claims for
carbon products. We also summarize the account of a public meeting held in
Alberta, with perspectives from Port Hope, Ontario, on a possible new nuclear
reactor location. While GL does not take a position for or against nuclear power
we expect that we will be presenting a fair bit of information from nuclear
power opponents in the months ahead since proponents have the money to pay to
publicize their perspectives.
The Office of the Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development reminded us that it would be a helpful
addition to our coverage of the Commissioner’s report to tell readers of the
environmental petition process. We agreed and are so doing in this issue. We
also update our coverage of the Chalk River fiasco and alert our Ontario readers
to the need to review the Government’s questions about a province-wide ban on
the cosmetic use of pesticides.
We nearly forgot the regular funny but we
could not resist. We conclude this issue with an article entitled Jobs Blowing
In The Wind about jobs in the US wind power industry. Funny, as long as you are
not one of the people affected.
Next issue we plan to update our coverage of
environmental marketing in Canada, the US, and Europe.
[Editors note: As a mark of appreciation to
the great folks at EUEC Energy and Environment Conference & Expo who
provided GL with complimentary registration for the conference, all GL readers
are receiving the full content of GL this one time only.]
****************************************************
CANADIAN
LEADERSHIP IN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
Canada has missed the boat for numerous
environmental technologies in which we could have been a world leader. Wind
power is one of the most obvious. As a country with significant wind power
potential, we currently have only one fairly modest wind turbine manufacturer
and almost all of the wind turbines that are being installed in Canada are
imported. Back when other countries were developing their wind turbine
manufacturing industries, Canada was providing virtually no market so very few
people bothered to invest in Canadian wind turbine research, development,
commercialization, or manufacturing.
Unfortunately the problems that caused us to
miss out on wind turbine manufacturing and so many other possible environmental
industries have not gone away. From GL’s viewpoint, the problems are not a
shortage of investment funds or of high quality technical capabilities - we have
both in spades. We see three of the biggest problems as short-sightedness,
short-sightedness, and short-sightedness.
Into the first short-sightedness we put
government and industrial leaders. Canada pays precious little attention to
manufacturing developments in the rest of the world. Twenty years ago, it was
apparent that wind turbine manufacturing was poised to become a significant
growth industry in order to meet the demands for renewable power. Did Canada
implement programs, either investment or procurement, to stimulate development
of wind turbine manufacturing in this country? Absolutely not. We stood by and
watched as several other manufacturing countries developed their wind turbine
industries and now we are forced to import products from those countries in
order to meet our needs.
Another form of short-sightedness can most
easily be illustrated with an example from the fuel cell industry. Here Canadian
governments did invest and arguably positioned one Canadian company as a world
leader in mobile fuel cell technology. However, technology development and
commercialization of mobile fuel cells did not go well and in 2010 the world
will see that Federal-British Columbia’s promise of a “hydrogen highway” to
serve the Olympic Games is more than a bit of a flop. Recently the one company
has turned its attention to stationary fuel cells, to generate power, and is
facing competition from other countries, especially the US, in which the
stationary fuel cell industry is much more advanced than it is in Canada. Had
Canadian executives and officials been watching more closely what the rest of
the world was doing, they may have realized seven or eight years ago that
stationary fuel cells were becoming a major market opportunity and that Canada
would be well served by diverting some of its technology expertise to the more
immediate and lucrative market. Now there is a real question as to whether
Canada is able to maintain any leadership in fuel cells or whether our little
industry will be swamped by larger competitors in the US.
A third example of short-sightedness is the
way governments tout non-existent Canadian leadership. Recently the federal
government has promoted, and committed to invest in, carbon capture and storage
technology. There are more details about CCS later in this issue. Federal
Ministers are promising that Canada will be a leader in CCS technology.
Unfortunately it may already be too late. The US is already well ahead of us in
research and development of CCS technology and the first full scale facility is
likely to open in New York State around 2012. Had SaskPower gone ahead with its
proposed facility a year or two ago, Canada might have been able to maintain a
degree of world leadership in CCS but now the US is quite a bit ahead of us and
their leadership is likely to swamp whatever fledgling industry some modest
Canadian taxpayer investment manages to initiate. The SaskPower CCS project for
the proposed new Shand 2 coal fired generating station near Estevan,
Saskatchewan, died because a couple of years ago the federal government was not
willing to invest in greenhouse gas emission reductions and the cost was too
heavy for the citizens of Saskatchewan to bear alone. Short-sightedness in this
case means failing to take advantage of economic development opportunities as
they arise and then pretending to yourself that you will be a leader when
someone else is already way out in front.
Short-sightedness is not the only problem
hampering our environmental technology sector but it is certainly a big factor.
If only governments recognized that Canada can be a leader in some environmental
technology sectors and that the future of our manufacturing sector depends on
being an environmental leader, we might be making more progress in keeping
manufacturing jobs. As it is, investors are putting the most advanced European
and US environmental technologies into manufacturing plants in Asia. Canada
seriously risks becoming a backwater of old technology and minimal
manufacturing.
Colin Isaacs
Editor
****************************************************
****************************************************
ENVIRONMENT
& ENERGY CONFERENCE TUCSON JANUARY 27-30, 2008
****************************************************
The 11th Annual EUEC Energy and Environment
Conference & Expo held was a densely packed series of workshops accompanied
by a trade show of about 140 exhibitors. The EUEC has a sector focus: many
attendees and speakers are from electric utilities as well as environmentally
related sectors such as the cement industry and service/technology providers.
Conference tracks included Clean Air, Mercury, Global Warming, Renewable Energy,
and Climate Change. Sessions included wind power, Kyoto and Carbon markets, US
air program outlook, biofuels, biogas and biomass, managing risk and carbon
costs, and GHG corporate strategies. Roughly 1500 people attended: GL was amazed
to see conference sessions packed to overflowing from 7.30am to 6.30pm on the
second day and overflowing workshops even on the third day when many other
environmental conferences suffer from depleted attendance.
With so many sessions it is not surprising
that the occasional presenter is trying to sell something that has some
characteristics of snake oil, but most of what is presented constitutes advice
and technical information that would cost a fortune to buy from
consultants.
Dr. Prabhu Dayal, Chair of EUEC 2008,
announced a change of venue due to space pressures. The location of the next
EUEC will be Phoenix, Arizona, where the conference centre will be able to
accommodate a larger exhibit hall and more attendees: 12th EUEC 2009 - Energy
& Environment Conference. January 25-28, Phoenix Convention Center, Phoenix,
Arizona.
****************************************************
SECURING A
CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE: THE EUEC KEYNOTE
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Chair of the
National Governors Association (NGA) spoke at EUEC on his NGA initiative:
Securing a Clean Energy Future. The topic was the role of states in meeting the
electricity demand challenge. In the next two decades, electricity demand in the
US is expected to increase by 30% compared to current levels.
Pawlenty was quite positive about doing the
seemingly impossible saying that in the political arena there are three stages:
1. It will never work 2. It is too expensive and 3. I was for it all along. In
the debates about preemption, whether the federal or lower levels of governments
should have authority, Pawlenty sees states as leading in the future of energy
because they are more nimble, they can pilot demonstrations, try out best
practices on a scale at which failure is not so costly, and inspire broader
participation amongst stakeholders.
He suggested four priority areas:
1. Energy Conservation and Efficiency: The
easiest, cleanest and cheapest energy is that which we save. Minnesota used to
provide incentives based on how much money utilities spent on conservation
programs now the incentives are aligned with how much energy is saved in a
measurable, quantifiable way. Picking the low hanging fruit provides easy,
immediate, measurable and significant energy savings.
The National Governors Association has entered
into an agreement with Climate Savers Computing Initiative with the aim of a 50%
reduction in state-owned computing equipment over the next four years. Included
will be computer equipment with higher than Energy Star ratings, education to
manage computer power through sleep modes, and continuous improvement in
increasing the energy efficiency of equipment.
2. Alternate Fuels: Ethanol is going to get 10
times more efficient in the next 5-10 years as it will be made not from corn but
from waste pulp, microbial processes, municipal waste. He identifies the growth
of nuclear as "alternate." Different regions will use different renewable
energy. Minnesota has high wind capacity while other states have solar
resources. Minnesota and New Mexico have formed a Governors' Windpower
Coalition, which will research wind policies, exchange information and recommend
on federal and regional wind strategies. Pawlenty wants to see more
manufacturing jobs in Minnesota making components for wind
turbines.
3. R & D: States want to share research
regionally as well as share best practices while accelerating R & D for
advanced clean energy technologies.
4. GHG Reduction: If the western and northeast
greenhouse gas emission reduction agreements work, it is hoped that they will
eventually roll into a national compact. Goals are to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions "without wrecking the economy."
Pawlenty was a great speaker, better on this
topic than we would expect from any Provincial premier, and Minnesota has led in
a number of environmental/energy issues. One downside was that he said that even
if climate change is a hoax it is still worth taking action for other reasons.
GL wonders why he felt it necessary to make such a comment. Perhaps like
Canadians, Minnesotians are self-deprecating; the Governor says on his web site,
"We’re a modest people (someone described Minnesota as "a dog that is too shy to
wag its own tail")."
****************************************************
DTE: VIEW FROM
A MAJOR UTILITY
The second keynote speaker at the opening EUEC
plenary was Anthony Earley, Chair and CEO of DTE (Detroit Edison) based in
Michigan. GL thought his comments on the changing role of the environment
department in regulated industries from cost centre to growth centre could be an
eye-opener for some companies. As CEO he used to talk to the Environment
Department a couple of times a year but "Now," he said, "I talk to my
Environment VP a few times a week, sometimes several times a day." He spoke of
early involvement in fuel cells when his colleagues still thought he was nuts,
of success in reducing emissions such as sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, mercury
and the inevitability of carbon regulation. He said that industry must have a
policy on climate change policy or "get run over by it." Among his viewpoints
are:
- The electricity sector should not be the
chief focus of regulation on climate change. Two thirds of US emissions are
from other sectors.
- Offsets should be allowed but policy should
be crafted to produce best results.
- Make all nations participate in post-Kyoto:
letting some nations off the hook means they will take advantage. [GL notes
that while China has been reported to emit more greenhouse gases than the US,
per capita emissions and energy consumption in the US and Canada is four to
five times that of countries such as China and India.]
- different regions have different
opportunities and those states with fewer opportunities shouldn't have to pay
penalties.
- Regulations should relate to the state of
technology and the need to develop them at a price which "doesn't choke a
horse."
- NGOs should consider the cost of
implementation and barriers of reducing emissions.
- Policies need to take into account who is
paying and who is getting benefits. For example, the builder of homes pays the
cost for energy improvements but the home buyer gets the benefits. Utilities
don't get much benefit from saying "Don't buy our power."
- Too aggressive targets will result in
switching to natural gas. Risings costs will result in a backlash against
climate change policies.
- Don't push technologies too soon if they are
not ready for the marketplace. Technology never develops as fast as expected
and always costs more than expected.
- Nuclear is expanding with 12 companies
seeking licensing for 30 nuclear power plants.
- By 2030, coal will still represent 30% of
total energy.
- And a prediction: "We will never run an auto
plant with wind or solar."
****************************************************
CANADIAN
COMPANIES AT EUEC
More Canadian companies were exhibiting and
providing speakers at the sessions than discussed here but this is a selection.
We were pleased also to meet Canadian officials from the federal government who
will not be named because it is unclear that their political masters would
appreciate that they travelled to a valuable technical conference in an
above-freezing winter climate.
Jacques
Whitford
Jacques Whitford. with offices in Canada, US
and internationally. provides engineering and consulting services. One of its
hand-outs at the trade show was small bottles of hot sauce labelled "Hot sauce,
Cool Solutions." In June 2007, the company announced it was a carbon neutral
consulting company. Services offered for climate change "as North America moves
towards a carbon regulated system" include:
- baseline inventories of GHG sources and sinks
for corporations including direct and indirect energy, consumption,
administration, air travel and vehicles.
- verification of carbon footprints of
projects, facilities and corporations.
- opportunities to purchase or invest in the
creation of offset credits, track and record GHG reductions for early action
credit.
Anyone who attended the EUEC conference got
the message that corporations need to have a climate change policy and strategy
because that carbon-constrained world is on its way, maybe later, but possibly
sooner.
JW also had a leaflet recruiting potential
employees. Among the enticements were that JW put sustainability as central to
how it operates.
Carbonetworks
Carbonetworks is a software platform for
managing emissions from the point of view as both assets and liabilities. The
company provides automated reporting tools for emissions reporting as well as
scenario planning and forecasting tools to identify risks and
opportunities.
Stephen Mooney, VP Sales and Marketing and
Cofounder of Carbonetworks (Victoria, BC) said he found that the trade show was
good for him as an exhibitor because so many of the people attending were the
technical and operational people requiring and understanding the equipment and
services they needed.
intelex
Another Canadian company intelex (Toronto,
Ontario) sells web based, secure and centralized management system with various
modules for tracking permitting and certification, audit management, policies,
documents, training, safety incidents, and other controls. Some of the benefits
promoted are that the database mirrors the organizational structure including
multiple facilities, departments and work groups and is consistent with the ISO
14001 Environmental Management System standard.
Carbon
Busters
Godo Stoyke, M.Sc., B.Sc. LEED™ A.P. was a
speaker in the session Carbon Busting 101: Profitable Sustainability Strategies
for Your Business. Carbon Busters Inc is based in Edmonton Alberta and the web
site says "has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 55 million kilograms and
utility costs by over $20 million for its North American and European clients."
By counting their carbon emission and reductions, companies can implement many
energy and cost savings. His book "The Carbon Buster's Home Energy Handbook"
provides an accounting of home carbon emissions and how to evaluate ways to
achieve the highest returns for the environment and pocketbook. It was published
by New Society Press. A new book is due to be published shortly.
Other
Canadians
We also met representatives of
Canadian-founded Golder Associates and British-based but Canadian well-known
AMEC. We may have missed some other EUEC-attending Canadians.
Links
****************************************************
CATCHING THE
EYE WITH A MESSAGE
Many exhibitors were showing such technologies
as air pollution control and monitoring systems and were only fascinating to
specialized engineers but some exhibitors overcame the techy touch with
innovation. Barron Industries of Pelham, Alabama provides process equipment and
one of its leaflets showed a vivid example of why energy efficiency is good. A
stack of money at the intake decorated a cracked and sick looking cartoonish
fan. Bits of money were everywhere else. The caption read: "Do you have a sick
fan? An inefficient fan is blowing more than air...It's blowing your
money."
****************************************************
CATCHING
ENVIRONMENTAL DECEIT: CARBON CERTIFICATION OF BIO-BASED
MATERIALS
Beta Analytic, based in Miama, Florida, uses
ASTM Method D6866-05 to certify the renewable/biobased content of products. For
example, ethanol made of petroleum is a widely used industrial product. When tax
incentives are given by the US federal government, the intent is that the tax
credits apply only to bio-based ethanol.
According to Murry Tamers, founder of Beta
Analytics, bio-ethanol and synthetic ethanol have the same chemical formula.
However, the company uses radiocarbon dating, a tool used in archaeology, to
measure the naturally occurring radioactive isotope, carbon 14. Carbon 14 is
produced in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays impact nitrogen. Living plants
fix atmospheric carbon and animals eat the plants . Both contain about the same
amount of C14 as in the atmosphere at the time because the amount of carbon 14
which decays radioactively is restored during life. After death, the
replenishment stops, so there is only radioactive decay at a half life of about
5,730 years. After about 50,000 years, there is hardly any carbon 14 left.
Fossil fuels mostly have none. The company can also assess mixtures of synthetic
and bio-ethanol to determine the percentage of bioethanol for the tax credit.
Bulk gasolines can also be assessed for content of bioethanol.
****************************************************
YOUTUBE:
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY MARKETING TO YOUTH
Brian Keane of SmartPower, a non-profit
marketing organization, hired to promote energy conservation and efficiency by
power utilities and others: the "Got Milk" for the clean energy sector, said
that 80% of Americans say that they would buy green energy except that they
perceive barriers:
- Reliability: Americans don't think green
energy works. They think they will freeze/overheat in a dark house.
- Availability: They are unsure of where and
how to buy it. This is in contrast to green fuel at gas stations where it is
fairly clear.
- Cost: They think it is too expensive.
- Inertia: They think that if they buy green
power, it won't be enough, they have to make other lifestyle changes, buy
organic food, wear hemp, etc.
Keane said that young people are potentially a
big influence because they can send the message two ways: to their parents and
to their siblings. While old people who experienced the Great Depression and
World War II are often very frugal with energy, their children, the baby boomers
who have money, don't turn off the lights, etc because they don't have to.
Teenagers can gain moral superiority by turning off lights.
Keane said that SmartPower used to pay several
hundred thousands of dollars to marketing agencies for television ads. More
recently, they found a way to get high-quality ads for almost nothing. They held
a contest on YouTube for videos with the winner paid $10,000 and the others
signing over their copyright to SmartPower for the chance to be posted on the
web. To overcome some of the misperceptions people have about green, the
guidelines for the YouTube ads were that:
- Don't talk about the environment.
- Maintain the right tone and feel for a
YouTube audience, mainly an audience of 15-25 year olds.
- The more powerful you can make them feel, the
less power they use.
- Aim for only a few simple actions e.g.
unplugging their cellphone recharger, taking a shorter shower. Too many
choices and the average consumer does nothing.
- Don't get anybody to buy
anything.
The winner and nine finalists are posted on
the web site.
****************************************************
US REGIONAL
CARBON MARKETS
EUEC speakers provided many details on
specific initiatives but many of the speakers made clear that the push to carbon
pricing is a reality that companies ignore at their peril.
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
RGGI
RGGI (pronounced Reggie) is a regional
initiative begun in 2003 and comprised of the northeast and mid-Atlantic states
to develop a cap-and-trade program covering carbon dioxide emissions from power
plants. It is the furthest along in development and is expected to be in legal
force in 2009. It includes ten states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Rhode
Island. In addition, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, the Eastern
Canadian Provinces, and New Brunswick are observers. States are allowed to have
as much diversity in legislation, policies and strategies as possible for
example on source exemptions and allowance allocation. States have different
goals that RGGI will help to achieve, e.g. the New England governors and Eastern
Canadian premiers issued a Climate Change Action Plan in 2001 to reduce
greenhouse gases to 10% below 1990 levels by 2020. There is a Model Rule which
provides guidance and consistency to states who sign on to the Memorandum of
Understanding. Once RGGI is operational, states may consider adding other
sectors.
CO2 emissions from combustion of biofuels and
sustainably harvested biomass can be deducted from the unit's CO2 compliance
obligation. Old growth timber is not considered sustainable harvest but the
state can give credit for energy crops, trees, feed crop residues, aquatic
plants, uncontaminated wood and residue, animal wastes, organic wastes not mixed
with other solid wastes, biogas and neat liquid biofuels from such fuel
sources.
Originally the idea was to distribute free CO2
allowances but instead on June 2, the RGGI states that are ready with final
rules, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maine, are expected
to participate in an auction. The trading program is to be effective January 1,
2009. Although the auctions will set the price for a tonne of CO2, market abuse
and distortion is possible if not enough states are ready to make it a truly
regional system.
There are also concerns about maintaining the
electricity supply if there are possibilities of hitting the state cap, for
example, New York's Independent System Operator suggests that replacement of
power from a possible shut-down of a large nuclear power plant could require at
least 12 million tonnes of additional allowances each year, possibly exceeding
the New York cap of 64.31 M. RGGI allowances may also be purchased by generators
in other states or by investors or groups intent on retiring the allowances.
Fuel disruption such as happened during Katrina or changes in generators can
also affect the allowances. RGGI states have restrictions on the use of offsets
although these are to be considered in next stages. There is concern that
without more use of offsets, electricity may reach very high prices and supply
may be disrupted in emergency situations.
Western
Climate Initiative
The Western Climate Initiative was begun in
February 2007. Partners are Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah, Washington and the provinces of British Columbia and Manitoba with
Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan as observers. Public comments were received
until February 1 on the five options papers: allocation, electricity, offsets,
reporting and scope.
Each partner has their own goals but in
aggregate WCI members agreed to reduce GHG emissions 15% below 2005 levels by
2020. New entrants from Canada, Mexico and the US are encouraged as long as
they:
- Have adopted an economy-wide greenhouse gas
reduction goal.
- Have developed or are developing a
multi-sector climate action plan to support the goal.
- Commit to adopt greenhouse gas tailpipe
standards for passenger vehicles and
- Participate in The Climate Registry. (see
separate article)
In a letter to stakeholders, Janice Adair,
Washington, WCI Chair and Steve Owens, Arizona, WCI Co-Chair outlined further
consultations for public comment with the design recommendations to be released
in August.
Midwestern
Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Nine states, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Kansas, Ohio, South Dakota, and the province Manitoba
signed the Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord in November 2007.
The accord commits the partners to setting greenhouse gas reduction targets, to
develop a multi-sector cap-and-trade system and other policies. The goal is to
set targets by the end of 2008.
WCI. Letter to stakeholders. January 24,
2008
****************************************************
CALIFORNIA'S
GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT
California's Assembly Bill 32, The Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was the first in the US to mandate statewide
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
By 2009, the California Air Resource Board
must adopt a scoping plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Along
with the regulation on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by passenger vehicles
and AB32, the goal is to reduce GHG emissions in California by 25% by 2020 and
80% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. The regulation and reduction strategies are
to go into effect January 1, 2012. A number of workshops at EUEC discussed the
program design which is to cover multi-sectors, policy development and
development of the scoping plan. GHG reduction actions are expected to include
regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, voluntary action, incentives,
and market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system. A calendar of
consultations and workshops is listed on the CARB web site.
A number of the energy/environment service
providers are advising companies to keep informed on these developing issues
because the decisions will affect their bottom line. For example, companies that
have already made considerable effort to reduce GHG emissions on a voluntary
basis shouldn't be penalized by being required to reduce by the same percentage
as companies who failed to act. So far there are no guarantees of credit for
early action but the CARB is consulting on a policy statement for its Scoping
Plan to reward voluntary reductions as long as these are "real, permanent,
quantifiable, verifiable and enforceable." A number of the service providers at
the EUEC offer to help emitters with documenting their voluntary emission
reductions.
California Air Resources Board. Greenhouse Gas
Sectors.
CARB. Policy Statement on Voluntary Early
Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. February 6, 2008.
****************************************************
CLIMATE
REGISTRY
The VP of Business Development, Joel Levin, of
the Climate Registry spoke about the growing coverage of the registry. About 40
partners from Canada, the US and Mexico have joined with a coverage of 80% of
the North American population. The provinces are British Columbia, Manitoba,
Quebec, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and New
Brunswick.
The registry was incorporated as a non-profit
in Washington DC in March 2007. It plans to become the recognized platform for
reporting GHG emissions in North America. Key reporting requirements
are:
- entity-wide reporting by facility (a two year
exemption may apply if requested for by facility reporting as some companies
think this is proprietary). All emissions in North America are to be
reported.
- both direct and indirect (electricity use)
emissions are to be reported.
- all six GHG
- third party verified.
The benefits for the states/provinces/tribal
governments are:
- set up of a GHG accounting
infrastructure
- cost effectiveness
- promotes collaboration amongst jurisdictions;
states like collaborating as it means they can learn from other
experiences.
- provides a voice into national standards. A
bill has been passed in the US requiring the US Environmental Protection
Agency to set up a process to develop a national standard.
- helps companies develop baselines and
demonstrate reductions. Governments want to be able to say that companies in
their jurisdictions are successfully reducing GHGs.
GL notes that although the Canadian Standards
Association has a methodology for greenhouse gas inventory and reporting, it
could be that Canadian provincial governments may link in so much to the US
system that a lot of money may head across the border. The participation fees
for companies registering are tiered ranges from $600 US to $10,000
annually. Historic data will be charged at 50% of the annual fee for each year
reports. Companies will have to provide audited financial statements. A draft
proposal is also underway to accredit third party verifiers (only some of those
who express interest will be selected). Verification fees also
apply. Canadian provincial and if the federal level ever makes progress to
a national registry ought to provide some assurances that the Canadian economy
and environment industry sector benefits from this future economic growth area.
****************************************************
ACCOUNTING FOR
CARBON
In a session called Balancing Risk and
Opportunity in the Emerging Emissions Trade Markets, Kathryn Pavlovsky of
Deloittte Financial advised that too many companies fail to handle carbon
accounting in the same way as they handle commodities and other trading. The
risk management structure is to have a “front office, middle office and back
office”, that is procurement should be kept separate from monitoring and
separate again from settlement. Carbon trading is often allocated to one person
in the environment department because carbon trading is seen as an environmental
issue not a commodities trading one. The same person often controls everything
else so there is no tracking of violation of limits and fraudulent action.
She gave an example of a company where there
was no audit of the carbon emissions data and it turned out that although
monthly updates were being made on one system, they were never integrated into
the main system. Carbon emissions data has value, for credits and allowances or
to reduce penalties or costs of compliance. Systems should be in place to deal
with requirement of different jurisdictions, to define which greenhouse gases
are counted and under what timeframe. Investors are increasingly looking at
carbon risk and don't like to be told, "We don't know the nature of the risk" or
"There is a risk, we just don't know how big it is." More precision in carbon
disclosure is expected. When companies promise to become "carbon neutral", their
shareholders can expect that there are plans to achieve that promise. Companies
should ensure proper accounting of all aspects of greenhouse gas emissions and
use third party audits to make sure.
****************************************************
US MERCURY
CONTROL
In 2005, the US Environmental Protection
Agency delisted electricity power generators as a source of Hazardous Air
Pollutants HAPS under the Clean Air Act Section 112. Section 112 required that
the EPA regulate HAPS to achieve the maximum reduction possible with use of best
available control technology. HAPS include mercury. At the same time, US EPA
introduced the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), which sets facility-specific
standards of performance for mercury emissions for new coal- and oil fired
facilities based on a mercury emissions budget as well as a national mercury
emissions cap with state/tribal area mercury emissions allocations to cover both
new and existing power generators producing over 25MW. A voluntary cap and trade
program is part of the program for mercury.
A recent decision by the US Court of Appeals
overturned both EPA rules. Fifteen states, the City of Baltimore and a number of
organizations had sued that the EPA was violating the Clean Air Act and should
not have exempted the electricity generators. Many of the states have already
passed tougher legislation with timelines not so far in the future and they want
the EPA to strictly limit mercury emissions from power plants.
The states particularly wanted the elimination
of a cap and trade system for mercury. Unlike some pollutants which have more
regional impacts, mercury pollution affects directly the local communities of
the power plants. Mercury persists in the environment and bioaccummulates. If
power plants can buy emission reduction credits for mercury, a neurotoxin,
overall reductions of mercury might be reduced but as the press release of New
Jersey Attorney General Ann Milgram said that the national cap "encouraged the
development of mercury “hot spots” and endangered the health of children"
exposed.
Coal fired plants generate the largest
emissions of mercury in the US each year, 48 tons, and the stated reason for the
state lawsuit was that the cap and trade promised little reduction and even
then would not kick in for more than a decade. In contrast, New Jersey say its
tough restrictions on mercury emissions from coal-fired plants, iron and steel
smelters, hospital and medical waste and municipal solid waste incinerators are
expected to reduce emissions by 1,500 pounds annually and reduce mercury
emissions from NJ's coal-fired plants by 90% compared to current
emissions.
****************************************************
EUEC MERCURY
WORKSHOPS
Mercury strategies, policies and control were
a stream of workshops at the EUEC conference. The focus was Clean Air Mercury
Rule CAMR. If the EPA does expeditiously promulgate stricter mercury rules, the
sense of urgency about mercury control at EUEC conference stream may turn out to
be timely. Among the issues were:
- Use of technology to achieve mercury control
as well as co-benefits of NOx, SO2, and particulate matter control. e.g.
Reaction Engineering International's integrated process model uses the Ontario
method which has become a standard for mercury measurement at utility sites.
The method was originally developed by Dr. Keith Curtis of Ontario
Hydro.
- Large power producers have capacity to
measure mercury but many smaller generators such as cooperatives, municipal or
single generators may have serious difficulties dealing with the reporting
requirements including measurement.
- Mercury control can affect the reuse of fly
ash in cement plants. Emma Zhou of Sorbent Technologies discussed their
technology for concrete-friendly mercury removal.
- Review and comparison of state mercury rules
and comparison to federal rules.
- Mercury control technologies, established,
novel and in trial and implications for plant operations and economics.
Mercury in coal combustions comes in three different forms each of which may
need different technology with elemental mercury being the most difficult.
Coals coming from different regions have high and low chlorine content which
affects how controls work and whether there is corrosion or excess chloride.
Mercury technology also has to link to existing power plants equipment.
- Monitoring, testing, analysis: anybody put
off by acronyms would have found these sessions especially difficult but the
technical audience was quite happy with Hg (mercury), RATA (relative accuracy
test audit), CMM (continuous mercury monitors) and CEM (continuous Emission
Monitors) and many others.
****************************************************
TIDAL
POWER
Thomas Jensen, of the Washington, DC-based law
firm Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP said that it was no metaphor to say
it was easy to get into deep water and be swept away when speaking of ocean
renewables. Because there is no private ocean, marine based projects are in
everybody's backyard. It is the only renewable energy project where one cannot
buy leases. Policies are just starting to be developed and are being based on
the offshore oil analogy: states have jurisdiction 3 nautical miles from shore,
federal jurisdiction extends from there to 12 nautical miles but retain rights
within the 3 mile zone for navigation and water power. Other agencies have
authority for power generation, fishery management, protection of endangered
species and so on. There are a lot of vetos to get through to begin a marine
power project.
Verdant
Power
The Tidal Power presentation by Verdant was
cancelled. Someone commented that it may have been due to the problems the
company was having with its technology. Verdant Power installed six underwater
watermills on the east side of Roosevelt Island in New York City's East River.
The first two turbines were installed in December
2006 and the blades were snapped within a few days. The blades were changed to
aluminium and a total of six 24-foot tall turbines installed in April 2007 but
by June the bolts holding the blades broke.The force of the tides
eventually took off the blades off the six turbines The turbines had been
delivering more energy than expected and the trial was powering Gristedes
supermarkets and the Island Motorgate parking garage. Two reinforced turbines
are expected to be reinstalled in February. The project received $2.5 million
funding from the New York State Energy Research Authority. The company hopes to
install between 100 to 300 turbines in the East River.
A couple of other companies are
investigating the East River for tidal power but want to make sure that their
technology doesn't get beaten down by the tides and it is still uncertain how
one kinetic hydropower project affect the strength of the tide for other
projects.
Apparently there is speculation on potential
tidal power sites. Those who apply for three-year permits may have no
intention of developing them.
Marine Power
Early Stages
An article in Environmental Health Perspective
lists 25 concepts for capturing energy from tidal currents. Nova Scotia Power
chose OpenHydro Group for the Bay of Fundy said to be among the strongest tides
in the world at 8 knots. Higher speeds are good for energy production but
represent hazard of ice and debris smashing into the turbines. A criticism of
the current permitting in the US is that the cost is sometimes half of the
entire cost of the project mostly because jurisdiction is federal in coastal
waters and the permitting is based on utility-scale projects when most are
small. With so much money spent on permitting, less money is available for
technology development. Environmental impact data is still sparse mostly because
the operator is supposed to have all the answers before putting the equipment in
the water.
The Electric Power Research Institute, an
applied science arm of the utilities industry, was a source of a lot of data to
conference attendees. Their web site contains publications many of them
peer-reviewed on sustainable power and publically available. The Ocean Energy
Web page provides reviews and guides of specific sites including in Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick as well as economic guidelines.
****************************************************
LETTER TO
EDITOR
Subject: Asbestos Issue GL Vol. 13 No. 1
Dear Friends,
I want to congratulate you for your efforts to
alert the public about the role Canada continues to play in sustaining the
asbestos industry. We have developed a national grassroots campaign to fight for
the banning of asbestos, fair compensation for all victims of asbestos disease,
a national disease registry and just economic transition for the asbestos mining
communities.
I'm attaching two articles we have written on
asbestos in case you have not seen them. In Sarnia Ontario we have documented
the largest group of asbestos disease victims in Canada and yet there is still
relatively little being done.
Thanks again for your excellent piece on
asbestos..
Jim Brophy
****************************************************
MAPPING
ASBESTOS HAZARDS AND BODIES
In the first of the two articles attached (see
above Letter), a study was undertaken by the Occupational Health Clinics for
Ontario Workers (OHCOW) and Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) to support worker
compensation claims. Jim Brophy is Executive Director of OHCOW; he has a PhD
Education in occupational health through the University of Stirling, Scotland.
People tend to think that "occupational
disease" related to asbestos means asbestos miners but asbestos is extensively
used by many of the petrochemical industries in Sarnia in miles of pipes,
foundry ovens, and products produced. Asbestos is also imported as waste stored
in Sarnia.
The former workers reconstructed their
workplace, mapping hazards, at Holmes foundry making engine blocks and
munitions, at an insulation manufacturing plant and Owens-Corning fiberglass
products in Sarnia, Ontario. Body mapping detailed patterns of disease. Hundreds
of workers and families received compensation (in 2003: $16 million in lump sum
payments and $1 million per year in monthly benefits with more claims following)
for previously unacknowledged occupational disease. Between 1992 and 1998, the
rate of asbestosis in Lambton Country among males was 9 times the provincial
rate. Other occupational diseases were also elevated among former Holmes
workers.
Institutional occupational health systems
failed to protect the workers and government inspectors failed to enforce orders
to prevent exposure. Building trades and petrochemical workers continue to be
exposed and with the long latency, diseases will continue to emerge over the
next decades. Brophy and co-authors conclude: "Anything short of a global ban is
bound to cost human lives."
Keith, Margaret M. and James T. Brophy.
Participatory Mapping of Occupational Hazards and Disease among Asbestos-exposed
Workers from a Foundry and Insulation Complex in Canada. International Journal
of Occupational and Environmental Health. Vol. 10. No. 3 April-June 2004.
http://www.ijoeh.com/pfds/1002_KeithBrophy.pdf
Brophy, James, Margaret M. Keith and Jenny
Schieman. Canada's Asbestos Legacy. International Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Health. Vol. 13. No. 2. April-May 2007. p236-243
[Ed note: the second asbestos article
mentioned by Jim Brophy will be presented in our next Asbestos
issue.]
****************************************************
GUEST COLUMN:
SUMMARY OF TRANSPORT REVOLUTIONS BY RICHARD GILBERT AND ANTHONY
PERL
This is a summary of Transport Revolutions:
Moving People and Freight Without Oil, published by Earthscan in London, UK, in
December 2007 and in North America in February 2007. It is available from online
and other bookstores. The UK list price is £45 (about $90). See http://www.transportrevolutions.info for a table of contents, 24 of the book’s 376 pages, and
information about the authors.
Much of Transport Revolutions is taken up with
reviewing previous revolutions in transportation and describing transportation
today, its impacts and energy use. The energy analysis notes that 95 per cent of
motorized travel and freight movement by land, sea, and air is fuelled by oil
products, accounting worldwide for consumption of some 60% of crude oil. Just over half of the energy used
for motorized transportation moves people and just under half moves
freight.
Motorized movement of people grows by about 2%
per year worldwide, totalling some 30 trillion person-kilometres; about a
quarter of this comprises travel in, to, and from the U.S. Motorized movement of
freight grows by about 4% per year, totalling some 60 trillion tonne-kilometres;
about a sixth of this comprises freight movement in, to, and from the U.S. Oil
use for transportation grows more slowly than transport activity but more
quickly than use for other purposes.
Overwhelmingly, motorized movement of people
is by land, about 90% of total person-kilometres, and movement of freight is by
water, about 75% of total tonne-kilometres. More than a third of all freight
activity is movement of oil and oil products.
Motorized transportation provides enormous
benefits. It facilitates and even stimulates just about everything now regarded
as progress. It also produces major costs, notably fatalities and injuries from
road traffic crashes, and the adverse effects of emissions from the burning of
oil products in vehicles’ internal combustion engines.
Modern societies require prodigious amounts of
transportation for their functioning, now almost wholly fuelled by oil products.
Within a decade, major shortfalls are likely to emerge between
‘business-as-usual’ projections of oil consumption and oil production. The
resulting scarcity and high fuel prices will present what may be humankind’s
greatest challenge, more than climate change, at least for the short and medium
terms.
Our assessment of numerous alternatives to oil
as a transport fuel concludes that, as oil depletion progresses, only
electricity could reasonably power desired levels of land transportation. Oil
products will be increasingly devoted to fuelling marine transportation and
aviation.
Movement over water can be highly fuel
efficient if speeds are low; and oil use can be further reduced by exploiting
wind energy. (Transport Revolutions’ cover portrays a ship deploying a towing
kite.) There are no feasible alternatives to oil products for aviation, which
could undergo the most radical changes over next few decades. It could be
increasingly confined to large, fully occupied aircraft flying a small number of
mostly intercontinental routes.
Electricity is an advantageous energy source
for land transport in every respect except one: it cannot be stored on board
vehicles in sufficient quantities for the autonomous mobility our road networks
presently support. This disadvantage can be overcome by delivering electricity
to vehicles while in motion. Grid-connected electric vehicles have provided
transport for at least as long as vehicles powered by internal combustion
engines. As electric trains, streetcars, and trolleybuses, they provide large
shares of public transport in many of the world’s major cities. We anticipate
substantial expansion in the use of this kind of vehicle, and some deployment of
unfamiliar systems including trolley trucks and personal grid-connected
vehicles.
Electric vehicles offer the crucial advantage
of independence from how their fuel is produced. Electricity generation can
incrementally blend many sources from coal generation to solar thermal
generation without changes in the transport system. Electric traction is well
suited to the necessary transition from non-renewable to renewable
energy.
Increased use of electricity could bring
greater reliance on coal generation. We demonstrate that such reliance can be
avoided through ready reduction in electricity consumption for other purposes
and development of numerous opportunities for renewable generation.
At the heart of planning for oil depletion is
whether it will be anticipated in a timely manner. If anticipated, the result
could be a ‘soft landing’ into oil depletion. If not, scarcity and price
increases during oil depletion could produce a ‘hard landing’ involving economic
and social disruption and dysfunctional panic responses.
A central feature of Transport Revolutions is
analysis of how two countries, the U.S. and China, could begin redesign of their
transport systems for oil depletion. These are the most challenging cases among
richer and poorer countries.
The year 2025 is the focus for this
scenario-building, recognizing that it will be an early point in a prolonged
adjustment to oil depletion; 2025 is far enough ahead to allow substantial
change in transport systems, but near enough to impel early action.
The overall target based on what we believe to
be the most realistic expectations of world oil production available in mid-2007
is to reduce world oil consumption for transportation to 35% below a
‘business-as-usual’ projection for 2025, or about 17% below consumption in 2007.
The reduction would be shared unevenly between richer and poorer countries so
that the U.S. would reduce consumption by 40% from its 2007 level and China
would increase consumption by no more than 25% above its 2007 level (still much
below projected consumption).
The objective for transport activity within,
to, and from the U.S. is to maintain the current overall level, which would
amount to a reduction by about 15% per capita by 2025. The comparable objective
for China is to grow movement of people and freight to no more than four times
current levels, i.e., to about a fifth of current U.S. per-capita movement of
people and a half of current U.S. per-capita movement of freight.
The key feature of the transport redesign
proposed for both countries is massive expansion of electrically powered land
transportation. Movement of people in the U.S., for example, would be 30%
electrically powered in 2025 compared with well under 1% today.
We outline how these changes could be achieved
in each country, if serious redesign were to begin in 2010. The period until
2010 is critical. We have qualified optimism that enough progress can be made.
In the U.S., the 2008 election campaign offers unparalleled opportunities for
proposing, debating, and securing acceptance of appropriate strategies to
accommodate oil depletion. In China, the political success of the 2008 Olympic
and Paralympic Games could hinge on demonstration of serious intent to curtail
consumption of oil and other fossil fuels.
During 1942, in an earlier era of transport
revolutions, land transportation in the U.S. was radically transformed. In 1941,
3.8 million cars rolled off U.S. assembly lines. Few were made in 1942 and none
at all in 1943 and 1944. Car plants were quickly retooled for military
production. Car travel fell by half between 1941 and 1943; use of public transit
tripled. From our Canadian perspectives, we believe that the U.S. remains
capable of the kind of decisive innovation that yielded the transport
revolutions needed during the Second World War. We are similarly confident that
China could take bold actions to move away from its oil-intensive transport
trajectory. Transport Revolutions was written to help stimulate and facilitate
such transformations.
Richard Gilbert is a Toronto-based consultant
whose work focuses on transport and energy issues. Anthony Perl is Professor of
Political Science at Vancouver’s Simon Fraser University.
****************************************************
BC: CLIMATE
CHANGE INITIATIVES
Premier Gordon Campbell has said that a larger
global market for emissions trading is better for BC and Canada. He hopes that
BC will play a pivotal role in the development of the trading system and the
resulting demand for low-carbon products and services that BC can
provide.
On January 25, British Columbia announced that
it would seek approval from the legislature to fund a new Pacific Institute for
Climate Solutions with $94.5 million to create a collaboration between four BC
universities: Victoria (which will be the host), BC, Simon Fraser and Northern
BC, the private sector and government "to develop ideas that can be applied and
transferred to government, industry and the public." Environment Minister Barry
Penner said "Developing technologies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions
represents not only a challenge, but an economic opportunity. We have at least
18,000 people working on leading-edge technological solutions in B.C., which we
can market to the world.”
BC has also joined a number of climate
initiatives including the International Carbon Action Partnership, agreement
with individual jurisdictions such as Manitoba and Oregon and the US Regional
compacts. (see separate article above)
BC's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act Bill
44 came into force in January. Among its provisions are:
- BC greenhouse gas emissions will be at least
33% less by 2020 and 80% less by 2050 compared to the 2007 level.
- By December 31, 2008, the minister of
environment must set BC targets for 2012 and 2106 and can set targets for
other years.
- When reasonably possible, the 2007 BC
greenhouse gas emissions levels must reported publically; this forms the
baseline. Reports are required in even number years, the emissions, the
progress, action and plans for more progress.
- The provincial government must be carbon
neutral in 2008 and 2009 for emissions related to travel on public business.
Other organizations defined as public by regulation or inclusion in BC's
budget must seek to reduce emissions in 2008 and 2009. By 2010, each public
sector organization must be carbon neutral. Public reporting on carbon neutral
action plans is required.
- Various methodologies, for example for
offsets, defining words and expressions, greenhouse gases covered,
organizations mandated, when GHG are below threshold level and so on are still
to be developed.
BC Government policy is that any proposals for
coal-fired electricity generation must be provide 100% capture and storage for
greenhouse gas emissions. BC hasn't had any coal-fired plants although a couple
are in proposal stages.
Various workshops at EUEC (see above) provided
cost estimates for various types of reductions of greenhouse gas emissions,
ranging from fuel switching (coal to natural gas), technologies such as
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle IGCC which converts coal to gas and said
to burn as clean as natural gas, and the most expensive of all so far, carbon
capture and sequestration.
British Columbia. B.C. to Fund World-Leading
Climate Research. January 25, 2008.
****************************************************
NRTEE: GHG
EMISSIONS TRADING AND OTHER CARBON PRICING
Canada's National Round Table on the
Environment and the Economy NRTEE recommended in a January report that an
economy-wide carbon price is essential to meet "the government’s stated goal of
deep, long-term greenhouse gas emission reductions of 65% below 2006 levels by
2050." A mid-term target of 20% below 2006 levels by 2020 has also been a
commitment. The baseline of 2006 is not the one Canada signed on for the Kyoto
Protocol which uses a 1990 baseline.
NRTEE sees the need to establish "a pricing
mechanism for emissions, either through an emission tax, a cap-and-trade system
or a combination of the two. To provide policy certainty and a level of
predictability, the price signal must be communicated clearly, with an
expectation that the price of emissions would escalate over a scheduled time
period."
The NRTEE report also predicts that delay in
meeting these targets will raise the future price of emissions while increasing
the cumulative emissions released to the environment. Other policies in addition
to carbon pricing are needed such as regulations if market instruments fail to
achieve the right response, research, development and demonstration of
technologies as well as strategic investment in infrastructure.
National Round Table on the Environment and
the Economy NRTEE. Canada needs economy-wide price on carbon emissions as soon
as possible to achieve 65% reductions in GHG emissions by 2050 concludes
National Round Table report. Press Release. January 7, 2008.
and report
****************************************************
THE BIOSPHERE
RULES
An article with the title Best Practice: The
Biosphere Rules in the February issue of the Harvard Business Review caused GL
to become enthusiastically overexcited. GL thought that it might be The
Biosphere Rules! a truth key to business sustainability but it was only partly
so. The author Gregory C. Unruh is Director of the Lincoln Center for Ethics in
Global Management at the Thunderbird School of Global Management in Glendale,
Arizone. He is a co-founder of the Center for Eco-Intelligent Management with
architect William McDonough to develop product and process innovations from
Cradle to Cradle, the idea that sustainability requires minimizing environmental
impacts by taking account of materials and energy through the lifecycle of the
products and processes which in turn provide inputs into new products and
processes. Unruh suggests that "sustainable manufacturing practices have a
perfect model in Earth's biosphere" and that sustainable businesses should
follow three "biosphere rules":
- Make recycling easy by using as few raw
materials as possible. For example, a potato chip bag made of multi-layers is
not recyclable.
- Practice up-cycling: plan for the end of the
product's lifecycle to make it into a new product.
- Leverage general purpose
platforms.
Covering some well-trodden ground using as
examples Patagonia's clothing, Herman Miller chairs, and carpet tiles, this time
from Shaw instead of Interface for a change, he suggests the "rules" help
companies to:
- Stop using so many environmentally suspect
chemicals.
- Rethink design so that product specifications
use the limited material palette but have enough value to warrant recycling.
If too few valuable materials are used in the original product, it may not be
cost effective to recover it for recycling. An example for carpet tiles
relying on nylon is that while American manufacturers used 45% nylon,
Europeans reduced nylon content to 25% driving Polymid 2000, a nylon recycler
in the 1990s, bankrupt.
- Expand on the same platform to achieve
economies of scale. Shaw expanded from carpet tiles to broadloom carpet using
the same processes, collection systems, etc.
- Rethink buyer-supplier relationship. Because
the customer also is the supplier back into the facility at the end of life of
the product, some mechanisms might have to be put in place to ensure the
supply line e.g. offering incentives for customers to upgrade to newer models
so the old ones can be recycled.
- Build in obsolescence. Although this is often
seen as negative, it enables the phasing out of less energy efficient
appliances, cars, and their management at the end of their life.
- Rethink "reduce, reuse, recycle." Reduction
of material can lead to products with so little value that they will end up in
landfill. Reuse is ok for simple products such as cutlery but not for
complicated products such as microwave ovens. The material should be reused
but not the product. Recycling may encourage the use of toxic materials; for
example, companies such as Nike and Mattel are phasing out PVC; if PVC were
more commonly recycled more of a toxic material would be in
demand.
This article certainly gave us around here
lots to discuss. It would have been a better article without the overstatement
about the "biosphere" but that title did attract us in the first place. The
"rules" are a pick and choose, Unruh's construct, perhaps inspired by his
perception of nature but not verifiable by any external evidence. GL is all in
favour of applying imagination to finding models in nature for environmental
solutions but this article might exhibit a bit too much as at one point, Unruh
writes, "A dead beaver can be reincarnated as a tree, a mollusk, an eagle or
even another beaver - all high value applications of nature's recycling." Say
what?
Nature's model requires considerable human
interpretation. When Unruh recommends obsolescence of products is a company to
take the day-long life of a mayfly, the 70 years of a chimp, or the 4,700 year
old tree in the Sierra Nevada? Unruh's idea of using only a few materials is
generally consistent with green design but sometimes can lead to environmental
problems: for example, fertilizers with only three major nutrients could fit the
model as sustainable yet nitrogen leaching from fertilizer is a contributor to
dead zones in coastal areas of oceans. Compost, on the other hand, is much more
complex with additional benefits of soil building. In either case, both could
still cause pollution if mishandled.
The idea of looking to nature for ideas and
models is a good one as long as analysis accompanies the conclusion. A good
example of a publication which tries to do this is Journal of Industrial Ecology
which launched its first issue in 1997 also with an article about Patagonia's
clothing. Reid Lifset, the journal's editor-in-chief, wrote in the first issue:
"In nature, little is wasted, so the 'ecology' in the journal's title implies
that we can look to the natural world for models of highly efficient uses of
resources, energy and wastes. But the 'ecology' in industrial ecology also
refers to the importance of putting human activities in the larger context of
the natural ecosystems that undergird our society and economy. The 'industrial'
side of industrial ecology refers to the need to view companies as key players
in protecting the environment by incorporating environmental considerations into
product and process design. Behaving in an environmentally responsible manner
can be good for business, especially when environmental considerations are
designed in right from the start."
****************************************************
BIOSPHERE
II
Mimicking the biosphere turns out not to be so
easy (see previous article). In Oracle, Arizona, about 25 miles from Tucson is
Biosphere 2, (so named because Earth is Biosphere I), a used-to-be-sealed
steel-glass structure covering over 3 acres with an underground of engineered
equipment built from 1987 to 1991. Systems had to be designed to heat and
cool both water and living space for humans, plants and animals, to ensure that
heated indoor air didn't expand to blow out the glass and to purify the water.
Eventually the cost was $450 million of private money provided through a joint
venture but much of it coming from a company owned by oilman Edward
Bass.
The eight Biospherians, four men and four
women, who entered the Closed Ecological System on September 26, 1991 were paid
every two weeks into their accounts on the condition that they stayed for two
years, a target which apparently became more important to them than scientific
research. Each had a two story apartment and shared a common kitchen with all
the mod-cons; it was not camping out. They could telephone out and watch
televison although GL's tour guide said they gave television up because they
couldn't get at the food in the ads such as McDonald’s.
Almost right away, communal harmony was
shattered because of conflicting views of what the experiment was for: some
thought it was to demonstrate human capability of living on Mars and others to
mimic earth's ecosystem. They argued a lot such as how and when to prepare the
food. The social atmosphere became very painful even though many of the crew had
worked well together for years pre-entering the Biosphere.
There were seven so-called biomes which
included rainforest, ocean and so on but on a scale too small to represent real
ecosystems. Plants were brought in from various parts of the world but the
Arizona Department of Agriculture would only allow the use of Arizona soil. GL
wonders what kind of "biome", even a miniature kind, one can make with no
associated fungus and invertebrates. The guide still calls all the areas by
name: there is the ocean, not much bigger than some of the dug ponds around here
where GL is published.
An El Nino effect as well as volcanic ash in
the atmosphere made it the cloudiest period Arizona had ever experienced. The
clouds reduced photosynthesis and carbon dioxide rose, oxygen declined. Oxygen
was injected in 1992. The crew had to work 12 hours a day to maintain their life
support system and even with extra oxygen were often lethargic. With no bees,
they had to manually pollinate the crops. They lost an average of 26 pounds each
and grew pale because no UV light entered through the glass. The excessive
carbon dioxide meant that the plants and trees grew more leafy growth and faster
so to get through they spent a lot of time cutting excess growth but less food
was produced.
Some marsupials brought into the rainforest
didn't take kindly to being disturbed during the day and began to pick the fruit
like unripe bananas and guavas and throw them at the crew, who had to wear hard
hats. It is said the bushbabies were taken out, not eaten. There were also
domestic animals: 3 pigs, 6 goats, chicken and tilapia but the pigs didn't
procreate and got out destroying the garden so the crew ate them. Otherwise they
ate mostly vegetarian, "nutrient dense" food like seeds and nuts; the crew grew
about 80% of their food and brought in 20% at the beginning. All their clothing
for two years was brought in. All supplies such as toothpaste and consumer
products had to meet standards which allowed for relatively harmless
biodegradability. Although the Biosphere was supposed to be designed to provide
100 years of research, the surrounding land has been sold for development and
its future may be shorter than expected.
In many ways, the experience was a failure but
probably useful in demonstrating how difficult it is to set up a self-sustaining
system. Some scientific articles seem to indicate that the concept of using
closed systems as a laboratory to study earth functions has potential. The
buildings became unsealed and open to air in 1995. GL was particularly impressed
by the fact that the same 250,000 gallons of water at the beginning were still
being recirculated and purified for drinking water for two years. However the
cost per gallon might have been a little high!
****************************************************
FTC: GREEN
MARKETING GUIDES
The public comments to the proposed review by
the US Federal Trade Commission announcement of a workshop on January 8 to
include carbon offsets and renewable energy certificates in its Guides for the
Use of Environmental Marketing Claims have been posted. A webcast of the meeting
is available. The FTC also requested public comment on the whole set of what it
calls its "Green Guides" due February 11. Other workshops are planned. Like
Canada’s guide, the guides are interpretations for industry and not in
themselves enforceable as law but failure to meet the guidelines can result in
charges which the FTC must prove are unfair or deceptive. Among the questions
regarding modifications were request for any evidence since 1998 to show
consumer perception about green claims, including claims not covered by the
Guides and whether this evidence means that the Guides should be modified, if
so, why and if not, why not? Costs especially for reducing costs for small
business while maintaining or enhancing benefits for consumers were among the
questions as is evidence of industry compliance with the Guides.
Specific issues such as recycled content
calculations, degree of scientific evidence for biodegradability and others were
among the questions commentators were asked to answer.
The comments are very interesting although
some seem to GL to be expecting green claims to meet standards intended surely
to drive them right out of the marketplace. For example one says that only
scientific evidence provided by the National Academy of Sciences should be
acceptable. In regard to carbon offsets, check out GL's (Vol. 12, No. 9,
September 17, 2007: Voluntary Retail Carbon offsets) on that topic as many of
the issues are described there. The Consumers Union wants carbon offset
disclosure to be more open and specific but wants only companies that reduce
emissions directly to make claims of being "carbon zero" or “carbon negative”
disallowing any carbon credits or buying of renewably-sourced electricity. By
saying that only direct emission reductions are allowed for making this claim,
Consumers Union is undermining one of the most important tools in the
marketplace to drive CO2 reductions. Carbon dioxide releases have global impact
and reduction anywhere is reduction globally. Carbon cap and trade which
involves carbon credits is one of the most important initiatives to achieve
global reductions while having co-benefits such as helping local economies and
developing countries with projects of reforestation, greener energy and other
initiatives which support their economy and emission reduction efforts.
Rangan, Urvashi, Senior Scientist and Policy
Analyst, Consumers Union. Re: Carbon Offset Workshop--Comment, Project No.
P074207. January 25, 2008.
****************************************************
PAT MCNAMARA:
PORT HOPE NUCLEAR PROBLEMS CONTINUE
A former Port Hope, Ontario resident, Pat
McNamara spoke to 50 people in Falher, Alberta in January about a possible
future if a new nuclear power plant is built west of Peace River. The meeting
was organized by the Peace River Environment Society, which opposes the proposal
to by Energy Alberta which has teamed up with Atomic Energy of Canada AECL and
Bruce Power. McNamara wasn't a nuclear activist until 2004 when he was asked to
help with the playground at his daughters' school in Port Hope, a town of less
than 20,000 people on the shores of Lake Ontario less than an hour east of
Toronto. The town was the location of a uranium processing facility run by
Eldorado beginning in 1932. His book as yet unpublished tells the story of the
extent to which the public was kept in the dark. He told the Alberta meeting,
"We have to take this battle to the federal government - the federal government
is the nuclear industry. The federal government protects the nuclear industry
more than the health of residents and communities." He said that nuclear power
was not needed in Alberta, instead co-generation and energy conservation are
just two options available to meet energy needs. He said that according to a
report by the Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee there are about 3.5
million cubic metres of radioactive and heavy metal waste at various sites in
Port Hope. No funding has been provided for independent comprehensive community
health studies although the federal government is expected to spend $260 million
on clean-up and long term storage.
Environmental Petition on
Port Hope
McNamara has submitted an environmental
petition to federal Auditor General's office. It includes an extensive
background sheet as well as this summary:
Inadequate Environmental Assessment -Part1:
Port Hope's Radioactive Waste Cleanup
The largest radioactive waste cleanup in
Canadian history is currently in the planning stages in Port Hope Ontario. The
project is being managed by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), the Federal
organization responsible for radioactive waste in Canada.
The project is being assessed through a
Screening Level environmental assessment. This is the lowest level environmental
assessment possible. In essence, the proponent (AECL) is assessing itself. This
is not a prudent course of action for several reasons:
- As the Responsible Authority, AECL has been
delinquent regarding the deposition of radioactive waste in Port Hope since
its inception in 1952.
- As the Responsible Authority, AECL has been
delinquent regarding the protection of Port Hope residents from the effects of
radioactive waste.
- Natural Resources Canada's (NRCan) Report on
Phase 1 of the cleanup shows AECL is over budget and three years behind
schedule in the planning phase.
- NRCan's Report states AECL does not possess
the competence to undertake Phases 2 & 3 of the radioactive waste
cleanup.
- AECL's dual responsibilities for reactor
sales and the disposition of nuclear waste place it in a conflict of interest
position. It is not in AECL's best interest to declare the full extent of
radioactive contamination resulting from this part of the nuclear fuel cycle
if it wants to be effective promoting reactor sales.
- AECL has an extensive legacy of cost
overruns, late deliveries, failed reactor designs and unsafe operating
procedures. The health, safety and well-being of Port Hope residents should
not be placed in their hands.
- There is no Canadian precedent for a
radioactive waste cleanup of this magnitude, complexity and danger. Recent
biological testing of Port Hope residents revealed the presence of high-level
radioactive waste in Port Hope. The determination by the CNSC on the level of
environmental assessment for this project was made prior to this information
coming forward and was based on the presence of low-level radioactive waste
only. There has been no consideration given to the presence of high-level
waste.
Port Hope residents must have the highest
level of assessment possible to ensure the protection of their health, safety
and well-being. We have had a longer exposure to radioactive waste than any
community on Earth. We demand and deserve a Full Panel Review.
McNamara, Pat. Port Hope: Canada's Nuclear
Wasteland. Unpublished.
Froese, Richard. Protecting communities from
nuclear risk is vital. Smoky River Express. Falher, Alberta: January 30,
2008.
****************************************************
AUDITOR-GENERAL - CESD: ENVIRONMENTAL
PETITIONS
The Commissioner of the Environment and
Sustainable Development is responsible for the administration of the
environmental petitions process within the Office of the Auditor General. The
environmental petitions process allows any resident or organization within
Canada to submit a petition to Ministers of 28 Federal departments or agencies
to obtain a formal written response to their questions or concerns relating to
the Federal government's management of the environment. Though the process does
not guarantee the Federal Government will take action to address the issue
raised in a petition, it does require each minister of a petitioned department
to personally respond to the questions. The AG's 2007 survey of past
petitioners' has confirmed the fact that
petitioners' do believe the petitions process has had an impact on the
government's management of environmental issues.
The environmental petitions process may help
GL readers receive answers to their environmental questions relating to Federal
environmental issues and help raise the profile of their environmental issues.
There is more information on the web site about petitions. [see also above
article]
2007 Retrospective Study of the Petitions
Process.
****************************************************
CHALK RIVER:
ISOTOPE STORY CONTINUES
In an early release of an article to appear in
the February 26 Canadian Medical Association Journal, Roger Collier writes about
the Chalk River Nuclear Reactor (see last GL Vol. 13 No. 1). Among his comments
are:
- European isotope producers say MDS Nordion
which is the sole buyer of the radioactive materials supplied by the reactor
to convert to medical isotopes could have and should have coordinated with
them to ensure the global isotope supply.
- While shortages would have resulted in
Canada, US and Japan for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, the European
isotope suppliers faced no shortage because they worked together
internationally. Canada could have benefited from that isotope flow.
- Although some say there really was a
shortage, others say that there is plenty of surplus capacity but that MDS
Nordion preferred to scare the public rather than develop a contingency plan.
Scare tactics are sometimes good for business. especially when the company has
a large share of the $3.7 billion medical nuclear market.
Collier, Roger. Canada's Nuclear Fallout.
Early Release. Canadian Medical Association Journal. Subject to Revision.
February 4, 2008. For publication February 26, 2008 178(5) http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.080154 [Find Begin Manual Download and
click]
****************************************************
NOTICE OF
ONTARIO-WIDE COSMETIC PESTICIDE BAN PROPOSAL
On January 18, the Ontario Ministry of
Environment posted a notice on Environmental Bill of Rights Registry to
implement a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides. The public is asked to
comment on issues such as:
- the scope of the ban: proposed to be lawns,
gardens, parks and school yards.
- exemptions such as pesticides used for public
health e.g. to spray against West Nile virus, golf courses (which would have
to have plans for pesticide use and storage), agriculture, managed
forests.
- whether the ban should apply only to town and
cities and not to rural residents.
- whether to apply the ban to the sale of
pesticides for cosmetic purposes.
Legislation is expected to be introduced in
Spring 2008 and phased in over 3 years. Comment deadline is February
17.
or search
****************************************************
JOBS BLOWING
IN THE WIND
In the January 2008 issue of the magazine
Power Engineering, the American Wind Energy Association is running an
advertisement Wind Energy is one of the fastest Growing Power Sources: Wind
Energy Companies need engineers. A spokesman for the industry, Jeremy Norton,
operations, maintenance and training manager for PPM Energy, is quoted elsewhere
in the press as saying that the industry is seriously short of skilled workers:
“ "We're accepting a lot of people with technical skills that don't have wind
experience, . . . if you have technical skills and wind experience you can
pretty much write your own ticket in the industry and go anywhere you want to
go."
At the same time the same AWEA is telling
Congress that “that over 116,000 U.S. jobs and nearly $19 billion in U.S.
investment could be lost in just one year if renewable energy tax credits are
not renewed by Congress.”
GL is inclined to think that, with mixed
messages like this, it is no wonder there is a shortage of skilled workers in
the wind energy industry.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Copyright © Canadian Institute for Business
and the Environment
119 Concession 6 Rd Fisherville ON N0A 1G0
Canada. Fisherville & Toronto
All rights reserved. The Gallon Environment
Letter (GL for short) presents information for general interest and does not
endorse products, companies or practices. Information including articles,
letters and guest columns may be from sources expressing opinions not shared by
the Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment. Readers must verify all
information for themselves before acting on it. 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 = $193.20 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