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. 6 July 14, 2008
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.
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. 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.
See also events of external organizations at http://www.cialgroup.com/events.htm
Back free editions from January 2007 are available at http://www.cialgroup.com/whatsnew-a.htm
***************************************************
ABOUT THIS
ISSUE
Our theme this issue is biodiversity. GL often
touches on biodiversity; the last theme was Landscaping for Biodiversity in GL
V9 N9 May 10, 2004. The global community seems to have begun to recognize
that biodiversity is not just an aspect to be managed or protected but is also
something which has economic value and which presents economic opportunity. GL’s
editor recalls trying to make this case to a Canadian government biodiversity
conference several years ago when the vast majority of participants were
interested only in protecting and preserving. Today the Value of Nature is a
theme for the most prestigious events. In this issue we review the economics of
biodiversity and a multitude of ideas for good corporate roles in biodiversity.
However, not all companies have yet got the message: we look at the example of
coral death and the role of business in lobbying against Marine Protected Areas.
If only the effort was put into protecting instead of fighting
protection.
Our editorial, while appearing to pick on the
cellular phone industry, is intended as a caution to all those industries whose
knee-jerk reaction is to deny the existence of any environmental or public
health problems with their production or product lines. The lawyers are coming
to take you away, ha ha.
Related to biodiversity, we report on the US
Conference of Mayors recent resolution against the use of high carbon fuels such
as those from the Canadian tar sands. It is difficult for anyone concerned about
the environment to deny that they have a point. The question will be how Canada
and the companies involved respond. Will it be with major efforts to address the
problem or will it be with a denial of the existence of a problem? The ngo
ForestEthics has already expressed an opinion. We bring you the industry view as
well.
As a preview for the second part of our
biodiversity review which will focus more on the role of food and agriculture in
biodiversity (next issue) we include in this issue a guest column by Phil Beard
on Alternative Land Use Services: Balancing the environmental demands of
society, with the needs of farmers and rural communities.
In this issue we also focus on the carbon
policies of the federal Liberal and Green parties. Will climate be a major issue
in the next election? Perhaps jaded by the fact that environment has never yet
taken its position as a major election campaign issue, GL is betting that
environment will not make it on to the politicians’ agenda in the upcoming
federal campaign, but we note that this is one occasion when we very much hope
that we are wrong.
A relatively new apparently low risk pesticide
appears to have some issues. We bring you news of a report from the UK. The
Competition Bureau has introduced updated rules for environmental labelling of
products. Brand owners who have been following the old rules, in effect since
the early 1990's, are unlikely to notice much change. However, environmental
groups may have to remove their logos from products. We bring you the scoop.
Finally a caution to Canadian environmental business and organizational
spokespersons: an invitation from the US to appear in a television show about
environmental technologies and services may be just another way to get you to
pay for advertising which may or may not be useful to you. We bring you a
caution.
In our next issue we plan to continue our
coverage of recent advances in biodiversity.
****************************************************
LIABILITY FOR
PUBLIC STATEMENTS
It seems likely that the day is not too far
off when organizations and their spokespersons could face liability for public
statements which they knew or should have known to be untrue. Nowhere is this
situation more obvious than in the present debate over the safety of cellphones
for children.
Toronto Public Health has issued a report
recommending that parents should make sure their children take simple
precautions to minimize exposure to radiofrequency (RF) waves if they use a cell
phone. The reason for this recommendation: "Scientists are not yet sure what the
health effects in children are from using a cell phone. While research continues
in this area, many scientists feel that children may be more susceptible [than
adults] to harmful effects of RFs from cell phones ".
In response, a spokesperson for the Canadian
Wireless Telecommunications Association was widely quoted in the media as saying
that "the state of the science is that there are no health effects". Such a
statement is blatantly untrue.
Several recent scientific studies have
documented the possibility that electromagnetic fields (EMFs), including those
from cell phones, may contribute to various types of brain disorder and cancers.
Risk in this case seems to correlate to duration and intensity of exposure. An
international working group, including several apparently very well-qualified
scientists, documented the evidence and last year called for stricter limits on
exposure to EMFs from cell phones, power lines and other electronic
equipment.
The CWTA spokesperson is a communicator, not a
scientist, but in our opinion his denial of the existence of such evidence
constitutes reckless disregard for accuracy in public information. Had he
explained that there is still uncertainty in the evidence about the effect of
EMFs on young children and that the industry does not intend to support or take
action until there is overwhelming proof of the negative health effects of EMFs
from mobile phones then we might have applauded him for accuracy. This weekend
Canada's telecommunications industry sounded a lot like the tobacco industry of
fifteen or so years ago.
As is often the case in environmental debates,
the cell phone debate is a discussion about precaution. There is growing
evidence that EMFs from cordless phones may have a detrimental effect on the
health of users. In the face of scientific uncertainty, Toronto Public Health
has issued an advisory to parents that it may reduce the potential risk if their
children are to limit wireless phone use. For the industry to respond by
implying that there is no need to do anything because there is no risk at all is
nothing short of unethical.
The CWTA is an industry association chaired by
an official from Bell Mobility and with vice-chairs from Rogers Communications,
Ericsson Canada Inc., and TELUS. We suggest that at least this group of
companies should receive a zero on any assessment of social responsibility until
they appropriately revise their association's positions on the possible effects
of EMFs from mobile phones on children. We also suggest that the executives of
the CWTA check up on the insurance coverage for their board and their staff.
With the growing popularity of class actions in Canada, GL predicts that it will
not be too long before CWTA and its member companies as organizations and the
CWTA Board members and staff as individuals face legal action from the parents
of children and young adults who have acquired serious brain diseases and who
have been chronic users of portable phones. When the court case comes the damage
to corporate reputations will be far greater than the minimal cost of an
admission that there might be a problem, that the industry is studying it, and
that in the meantime it might be best if parents limited their children's use of
mobile phones as recommended by Toronto Public Health.
Are class actions really the best way to
resolve issues of scientific uncertainty?
Colin Isaacs
Editor
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
BIODIVERSITY
****************************************************
ECONOMICS OF
ECOSYSTEMS AND BIODIVERSITY - TEEB
The economic case for biodiversity was
presented to CBD COP9* this May by Pavan Sukhdev, Managing Director of Deutsche
Bank's Global Markets business in India and a founder/director of the Green
Accounting for Indian States Project. The Environment Ministers of the G8+5
(including the five major emerging economies Brazil, China, India, Mexico and
South Africa) endorsed the global study and expressed their commitment to
various issues on biodiversity through a resolution at a 2007 meeting. The
Sukhdev report, commissioned by Germany and the EU, has a forward by Stavros
Dimas, Commissioner for Environment of the European Commission, and Sigmar
Gabriel, Germany's Federal Environment Minister.
The Nature of
Value / the Value of Nature
Nature provides humans with food, fibres,
fuel, clean water, healthy soil, medicines, protection from erosion and floods,
and many other services. Biodiversity is declining due to population growth,
changing diets, urbanization, and climate change to the detriment of the
wellbeing of humans. Nature's services and goods are most often public goods
with no markets and no prices so as Sukhdev explains, our current economic
compass does not detect them, "we are trying to navigate uncharted and turbulent
waters with an old and defective economic compass and this is affecting our
ability to forge a sustainable economy in harmony with nature." You cannot
manage what you cannot measure so a better yardstick than GDP is needed so that
national accounting systems can assess the impacts of losses and gains in
biodiversity within the economy. The second phase of Sukhdev’s work will examine
ways to improve economic models to better take into account biodiversity and
ecosystems.
Economic value cannot be assigned to all
aspects of biodiversity because of the intrinsic value many people place on
nature regardless of the services it provides to humans.
Ethics and equity also have to be considered.
We value a natural service for our grandchild 50 years from now at one seventh
the utility we derive from it today. The report says we should value the future
natural services the same as we value them today otherwise our grandchildren are
unlikely to thank us.
Major gaps in our understanding of ecosystem
functions means we can't assess the full range of benefits provided by
ecosystems. Marine ecosystems are less understood than land-based ecosystems.
Therefore the economic values that have been estimated in the report are on the
low side.
The author also wrote about limits on an
ever-growing economy, an idea touched on in the last couple of issues of GL,
"Imagine the growth of human well-being and security that is not based on higher
and higher per-capita GDP and evermore serious climate and ecosystem disasters
hitting the headlines every morning."
Business as
Usual Is Not an Option
The report estimates that if 'business as
usual" continues by 2050, the consequences will be serious indeed:
- 11% of natural areas remaining as of 2000
will be lost, mostly due to conversion to agriculture, infrastructure and
climate change.
- 40% of land under low impact agriculture e.g.
pasture will be converted to intensive agriculture with loss of
biodiversity.
- 60% of coral reefs will be lost by 2030
through fishing, pollution, diseases, invasive alien species and coral
bleaching due to climate change.
Humans are causing some changes which cannot
be undone. For example, fishing down the food web (first the large preferred
fish, then smaller fish, then less preferred species,...) in wild marine
fisheries has led to such a decline in fish stock that jellyfish have become
dominant in a number of areas. It is an example of a community shift which may
be irreversible because jellyfish eat fish eggs too. Aquaculture relies so much
on marine fish for fishmeal and fish oil that it is not achieving positive
benefits for the wild fisheries. Some researchers are predicting a collapse of
commercial fisheries around the world in less than 50 years. Low fish diversity
lowers fishery productivity, results in more frequent collapes and less ability
to recover from overfishing.
Forests and wetlands protect the water supply
even affecting the amount of rainfall, "Ecosystems play a part in determining
whether we have droughts, floods and water fit to drink. The value of this role
is often forgotten until it is lost."
Half of synthetic drugs are made of natural
sources. Three quarters of the world's people depend on natural medicines and
traditional remedies. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2007) estimated
that 70% of the plants in the world are under threat. The future of the planet's
healthcare is going extinct.
Impact on the
Poor
Poor people rely more directly on ecosystems
with livelihoods such as subsistence farming, animal husbandry, fishing and
informal foresty. These people suffer most from loss of
biodiversity.
Costs of Loss
of Biodiversity
From 2000 to 2050, the estimate is that human
societies are losing about $45 billion each year just in forest ecosystems in
the early years with the losses rising in later years. The loss of the capital
stock also affects service flows in future years so the estimate for the net
present value of forest ecosystems we lose each year is between $2 trillion and
$5 trillion.
Policies to
Strengthen Biodiversity
The basic principles of policies to protect
and improve biodiversity are:
- Redesign subsidies to meet priorities
- Reward those who protect ecosystem services
and charge the costs of ecosystem damages for those who cause harm
- Share the benefits for conservation
- Mmeasure the costs and benefits of ecosystem
services.
- Cnsider ethical issues and equity in
policies
- Ealuate risks and uncertainties in natural
processes and human behaviour
- Use tradeable values on the supply and use of
ecosystem services, for example Payment for Ecosystem Services PES
- Markets can play a role as long as the policy
sets the real costs of using biodiversity services.
Policies and regulations can be ineffective
because of information, market and policy failures. The report lauds the use of
environmental impact assessments EIA as a means to overcome information failure.
(Although GL notes that just because the information is available doesn't mean
the policy/decision takes it into account). An Indian Supreme Court ruling
mandated rates of compensation which has significant benefits for forest
biodiversity by costing more to convert forests. On the other hand, land use
permits are commonly issued by local authorities which fragment or destroy
habitat. Often the lost biodiversity is of greater benefit than the private
gain.
Examples of
Biodiversity Policies
Biodiversity policies include:
- Stronger property rights. Weak property
rights may lead to mining of the land rather than sustainable
management. (GL notes stronger property rights under some circumstances
lead to the right to overexploit land as well).
- Changes in tax incentives and subsidies to
those which encourage efficient and beneficial activities rather than
encourage environmentally harmful activities such as over use of natural
resources. An example is a shift from taxing work to taxing waste. Another is
elimination of fuel subsidies to fisheries which keep fleets on the water even
when fish have declined.
- Those mining upstream should have to pay for
the loss of health, fish or enjoyment of those downstream.
- Landscape auction: people bid on specific
elements, for example on a farm could be a tree, a pond or a rare breed of
cow and pay for its conservation. The farmers still owns the land but
gets income for protecting the elements. [GL: The first auction of a specific
landscape was held in The Netherlands in September 2007 raising EUR 140,000 as
elements of a typical Dutch river delta were "sold". Bids are linked to
specific maintenance conditions overseen and monitored by ViaNatura a trust
fund. A bank and waste management company were among the bidders.]
- Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto
Protocol. For example at Bali COP agreed to consider REDD Projects to Reduce
Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in post 2012. Care is
needed to ensure that fulfilling one purpose such as carbon storage doesn't
cause harm to other aspects. The payment for carbon storage could result in
damage to other ecosystem functions, for example by shifting cutting for
fuelwood to a neighbouring forest which may have been more pristine to start
with.
- Polluter pay and event-based cost recovery
such as the costs to Exxon Mobil for the Exxon-Valdez spill.
- Caps on resource use.
- Habitat or species banking: wetland banking
in the US is worth about $300 million; developers and agriculture can buy
credits when degrading wetlands. The credits are used to protect or restore
wetlands elsewhere. Biodiversity cap and trade. In the US and endangered
species credit can be purchased to offset negative impacts on threatened
species and habitat. In New South Wales, Australia, biobanking means
developers buy biodiversity credits to protect private land with high
ecological value to offset damage caused by the development.
- Eco-labelling. Markets for certified organic,
sustainably managed forest products are growing at three times the average and
expected to reach US $60 billion by 2010. In South Africa, vineyards which
protect at least 10% of their land can advertise "champion" on their wine
label.
- Shipping companies using the Panama canal
were encouraged by the insurance ForestRe to fund ecosystem restoration to
obtain lower premiums. Deforestation has led to floods, silting and low water
levels; the investment will lead to lower maintenance costs and less
risk.
- Nestle Waters began to pay farmers to reduce
nitrate contamination by adopting more sustainable practices to protect the
company's Vittel mineral water.
- In Uganda, local communities share in the
benefits of tourism in protected areas.
- Corporate sustainability reporting is
important for developing metrics about interactions with nature but because it
is voluntary is not used widely enough to serve as market standards.
- The consumer has a role for example in the
demand of food, which has widely different ecological footprints. A goal is to
develop a standard footprint simple enough for a label the consumer can
understand.
* Convention on Biological Diversity. Ninth
Conference of the Parties
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
BIODIVERSITY
IN GOOD COMPANY
In preparation for the 9th Conference of the
Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity held in Bonn in June 2008,
Germany led an initiative linking business and biodiversity. The background
document on Biodiversity in Good Company discusses some of the many benefits of
biodiversity including:
- Natural examples (lotus blossom, sharks,
penguins, geckos) have inspired new and high performance technologies like
self-cleaning surfaces, autos with low-drag, self-cleaning surfaces and
reusable adhesives.
- Animals, plants, fungi, and micro-organisms
provide ecological services such as cleaning the air and water, creating
fertile soil and maintaining climate. They provide food and preserve
health.
The worldwide loss of biodiversity threatens
the livelihood of humans.
Leadership in
Biodiversity in Good Company
The private sector is challenged to
participate by making specific commitments related to the Convention, presenting
pilot cases and best practices and integrating biodiversity elements into their
business objectives. Different sectors often need different plans and
implementation programs. Current and future engagements are to be presented at
the COP conventions. The initiative is aimed primarily at German companies but
other companies have signed on. Although the original aim was to have 20-30
companies sign, by the middle of May, 34 members with international operations,
including 17 companies from Germany alone and nine from Japan.Brazil, Finland
and Switzerland had signed. Among the companies are HeidelbergCement AG, Mars
Incorporated, Ricoh Company Ltd., SolarWorld AG, The Green Dot - Duales System
Deutschland GmbH, TUI AG, and Volkswagen AG.
Among the commitments of companies which sign
the Leadership Declaration are to:
- Analyze corporate activities with impacts on
biodiversity
- Include biodiversity in the environmental
management system and develop biodiversity indicators
- Appoint a responsible individual to oversee
activities and to report to the Management Board
- Define realistic, measurable and monitored
objectives and adjust these every 2 to 3 years
- Publish activities and achievements on
biodiversity in the company's report (annual, environmental or corporate
social responsibility)
- Include suppliers in biodiversity
objectives
- Deepen dialogue and cooperation with
non-governmental and scientific organizations to improve the company
plan.
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
UN Earth
Summit 1992 and Later
During the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro
in 1992, 190 nations signed the Convention on Biological Biodiversity with goals
to:
- Conserve diversity of species, ecosystems and
genetics
- Use natural resources sustainably
- Distribute the advantages and profits from
the use of genetic resources equitably.
In 2002, the Parties to the Convention agreed
to reduce the loss of biological diversity by 2010. Business activities have
impacts both in loss of biological diversity as well as its protection and have
always been identified as having a role and the private sector is often
mentioned in national biodiversity strategies and regional frameworks. Yet at
Conference of the Parties COP8 ( March 2006, Curitiba, Brazil) a decision stated
"The private sector is arguably the least engaged of all stakeholders in the
implementation of the Convention; yet, the daily activities of business and
industry have major impacts on biodiversity. Encouraging business and industry
to adopt and promote good practice could make a significant contribution towards
the 2010 target and the objectives of the Convention."
****************************************************
CBD:
FRAGMENTED
The ninth Conference of the Parties COP9 on
the Convention on Biological Diversity CBD was held in Bonn, Germany from May
19-30 following the fourth meeting of the Parties (COP4/MOP4) on the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety. For the first time, the Prime Minister of Canada, the
host of the secretariat located in Montreal, attended the high-level segment. A
Global Biodiversity Ministerial Forum was launched. Iraq will become the 193rd
Party soon.
Access and benefit sharing ABS measures and
climate change were the highest priorities on the agenda. but many felt
expectations were not met. The COP9 may have been too early as other efforts
such as the FAO High Level Confernce on Energy and Food Security took place
after the COP and some high level groups are considering sustainability
criteria, for example G8+5 Initiative on Biodiversity and the Global Roundtable
on Biofuels.
How mitigation of climate change is linked to
biodiversity led to what the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (IISD) writers called
the "mitigation troika of biofuels, GM trees and ocean fertilization." The
decision on biofuels does not include scientific criteria for sustainable
production or consumption. The private sector was encouraged "to improve social
and environmental performance of the production of biofuels, in particular
through through voluntary initiatives,
including through environmental management systems, codes of conduct, certification and public
reporting on environmental and social issues." The strong language against ocean
fertilization was lauded by some although there are many other proposals for
geoengineering for climate change which some say require negotiation. Activists
and many delegates were disappointed that there was no ban on GM trees but only
a requirement to release only after studies on containment and risk assessment.
Other successes include scientific criteria for marine protected
areas.
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
B & B:
BUSINESS AND BIODIVERSITY AT CBD
There were 244 side events, 82 of them
organized by business and a number of the others on topics of interest to
business.
Businesses have different direct and indirect
effects on biodiversity but all depend on biodiversity to a greater or lesser
extent. The parties to the convention have agreed to a 2010 target to
substantially reduce the loss of biodiversity. This requires a paradigm shift to
integrate biodiversity and ecosystem services into decision-making such as
land-use policy and planning. agriculture, forestery, fishery, tourism policies,
trade and development.
Among the business events were:
- German Business and the Biodiversity
Initiative which was promoted at a Business and Biodiversity Lounge ("get your
Biodiversity in Good Company on a USB stick"), presentation of signatory
companies at the Expo of Diversity, expert forums and presentation to the High
Level Segment.
- A special issue of the CBD's magazine
Business 2010.
- Daily business briefings on such topics as
making benefit sharing work for plant breeding, carbon markets for the poor,
trends on access and benefit-sharing across sectors.
- Policies for biodiversity e.g Swiss policy on
biofuels based on full life cycle assessment, sustainable forest management,
and trade rules for biodiversity-based products.
- Technology transfer related to climate change
and effects on biodiversity
- Intermediate results of United Nations
Environment Program: Initiative on International Payments for Ecosystem
Services.
- Bioprospecting contracts
- OECD work on economic aspects of
biodiversity
- Traditional knowledge and benefit sharing
with indigenous peoples
- Sustainable cultivation of coffee and cocoa.
Fair trade to protect the rainforest
- Caviar and crocodile: illicit souvenirs from
abroad
- Biodiversity in camping
grounds.
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
ICC GERMANY -
ROLE OF BUSINESS IN BIODIVERSITY
Angelika Pohlenz, Secretary General,
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Germany speaking at the Business and
Biodiversity conference held in Bonn before COP9 said that the ICC has been
attending the CBD conferences on behalf of the business community since the Rio
Earth Summit in 1992. Among her other comments were:
- Many sectors have only a vague idea of all
that biodiversity embraces and what it means for their daily business.
- Hosting the conference in Germany provides an
opportunity for German business to learn more about business and
biodiversity.
- Conflict exists less between business and
nature than between man and nature as population growth increases demand for
land for settlement, traffic and agriculture.
Business already plays a role in biodiversity
and has the potential to contribute more:
- Although business doesn't always use the term
biodiversity, environmental protection, resource management of water and
energy is significant for biodiversity. From 5 to 30% of species may be at
risk due to climate change so corporate climate change programs indirectly
enhance biodiversity. Global Reporting Initiative already covers aspects
relating to biodiversity; many companies report using the GRI.
- For many companies, a business case already
exists for protecting biodiversity. For example, tourism often depends on
flora and fauna as well as natural settings. Not only the tourism companies
but all companies operating in tourist areas are influenced to conserve
biodiversity. TUI, a large German travel company has various programs and
events including beach cleaning activities involving staff and even guests.
Guests are warned of the risks of unintentionally setting forest fires. TUI
has programs for fire prevention and natural regeneration. Agriculture is key.
Bayer CropScience has projects to increase biodiversity of birds and
pollinators through native tree planting and hedges.
- Biodiversity is a business opportunity.
Bionics is a field where new materials, technologies and products are
developed based on ideas or resources from nature. New cosmetics, medicines
and design such as water repellency called the lotus effect are examples. New
environmental technologies can assist in solving problems: a ballast water
management system by Evonik Degussa which disinfects without chlorine to get
rid of invasive species so the tank can be emptied in port without risk of
escape into a non-native area.
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
BUILDING
BIODIVERSITY BUSINESS
A cooperative effort by Royal Dutch/Shell and
International Union for Conservation of Nature reviews how different sectors can
be biodiversity business. The chapters review both main approaches as well as
specific opportunities for increasing private sector investment in
biodiversity.
There are even some new words (new to GL
anyway):
Biocarbon: combining climate mitigation and
biodiversity conservation in one activity such as reforestation.
Biodiversity Business: a commercial enterprise
generating profit through production process which conserve biodiversity, uses
biological resources sustainably and shares the benefits arising out of this use
equitably.
Among the findings include:
- The business sector must urgently be engaged
in conservation.
- The scale of global effort must increase: 10
times more public expenditure, from 12% protected land to 15%, vast increase
in marine protected areas,
- Green products and services need to move from
niche to general market dominance.
- Efforts on conservation need to be of better
quality, more socially equitable and wealth creating.
- Efforts must be faster and more responsive to
changes in land use, climate and biotech as well as keeping pace with public
opinion and consumer preferences.
- Mechanisms directed to the private sector:
sticks (e.g. more penalities for damage/loss of habitat), carrots (more
rewards for conservation work) and flexibility (more accounting of consumer
preference and producer costs)
- Some financing mechanisms are already in
place for small and medium-sized business and could serve as models for
scaling up to larger scale businesses.
- Who pays is a big question. Business may be
able to make the business case for project and site level activities but
cannot be competitive and protect biodiversity at the landscape level.
Biodiversity offsets may be options.
- Only some consumer certification system
address biodiversity, examples include Rainforest Alliance and the Smithsonian Migratory Bird
Centre (“bird-friendly”).
- Biodiversity business plans and performance
indicators need to include both commercial and biodiversity
performance.
For business, this is an excellent sourcebook.
There are chapters for each sector/opportunity type: agriculture, forestry,
non-timber forest products, fisheries and aquaculture, biocarbon, payments for
watershed protection, bioprospecting, biodiversity offsets, biodiversity
management services, ecotourism, recreational hunting and sportfishing. Each
discusses what the sector is, what the status and trends are, what is working
and what is not, and gaps and business investment opportunities. In addition,
there are chapters on the challenges of biodiversity, the business case,
mechanisms, business tools, financing instruments, critical success factors and
supports which need to be in place such as biodiversity business think
tanks.
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
CORAL IN HOT
WATER
An article in the July issue of Environmental
Health Perspectives by Charles Schmidt focusses on the toll global warming is
taking on coral reefs. Heat disrupts the relationship between the coral animals
and the algae which supply the coral with nutrition especially carbon through
photosynthesis. When it becomes too hot, the algae which also defines the colour
of the coral leave. The coral returns to its stone colour and begins to starve.
Bleached coral can return to health if the water temperature cools and the algae
return.
However, bleached coral in the East Caribbean
never got such a chance because it succumbed to attacks from diseases due to the
stress of lack of nutrition. In 2007, nearly two thirds of the coral reef in the
Virgin Islands and half of Puerto Rico's La Parguera Natural Reserve died. This
tragedy has been repeated around the world for the last few decades putting
biodiversity at risk as reefs support 800 different types of coral, 4,000 fish
species and many invertebrates. Hundreds of thousand marine species haven't even
been identified yet.
In addition to heat, climate change means more
carbon dioxide is dissolved in the oceans making them more acidic; the carbonic
acid formed is also dissolving the coral.
The impacts on humans are serious: one quarter
of the annual fish catch is from coral reefs; storm surges which can cause
serious damage to coast settlements are expected to increase in frequency and
size as sea levels rise - coral reefs help to buffer the coastline from such
damage; visits to the coral reefs are important for tourism; as animals attached
to the coral are otherwise defenseless, they use chemicals to repel predators -
these chemicals are important sources of medicine.
The impact of
business
In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, human
activities are adding stressors to the coral ecosystem through pollutants,
sewage and sediments from unpaved roads and land development. Hillside
development in the tropics causes deep ravines which wash soil into the sea.
Technologies to filter out the soil before it reaches the water are available
but not often installed. Coral covered in sediment spend too much time cleaning
it up rather than finding food. Diving expeditions and dredging operatins
stir-up more sediment to settle on coral.
Marine protected areas MPAs can help but
enforcement is sometime weak and many allow fishing. The parrot fish plays a key
role for coral by cleaning surfaces of seaweed and other growth so the
beneficial algae can settle there. With overfishing, other fish species are not
there to catch so the parrot fish once seen as garbage is prized and now being
fished.
The article suggests that business owners
generally lobby against MPAs and marine reserves. Business is said to point
to things they can't do anything about, for example toxicity due to suntan
lotion but won't "accept financial responsibility for paving roads, limiting
sewage and septic releases, or undertaking other, more burdensome measures to
protect coral reef."
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
GREEN ROOFS
FOR HABITAT
Green roofs can provide refuge for nesting and
raising young by ground-nesting birds such as killdeer according to an
information sheet from the BC Institute of Technology's Centre for the
Advancement of Green Roof Technology. Green roofs also provide habitat by
connecting with other green roofs and green spaces to provide corridors through
the city to bigger natural spaces. GL suggests that in Canada and elsewhere,
there is much emphasis on necessary protection of natural areas but that will
not be enough as biodiversity is about connections, unique and specialized as
well as general interactions, networks, and the overall environment. Green roofs
are just one example of taking the needs (food, shelter/cover and raising young)
of wildlife outside protected areas and making connections with other wild
spaces.
GL notes that if the green roofs are also used
by people there could be animal-human conflicts even if only small scale
conflict in habitat use. Some of the animals attracted may be considered
nuisances or even if they are seen as "good" may create problems due to the
wildlife and human needs. An example is a pair of killdeer which build their
nest in the middle of the vegetable garden, liking the flat open space because
it gives high visibility of approaching predators. Although the nest takes less
than a square foot, the killdeer consider the whole area about 10 metres (30
feet) wide and long the territory they need to protect. Goodbye garden planting.
One might appreciate and enjoy the not-so-close-up view of dedication as they
sit on the nest for 30 days but they need space for which humans have other
plans. Of course, other animal-human conflicts on a larger scale (not likely on
green roofs) give another meaning to the phrase, “elephant in the
room”.
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
RBC(R):
BIODIVERSITY IN FINANCE
In its 2007 environmental report, the Royal
Bank of Canada discusses the the RBC Environmental Blueprint. The RBC is one of
only three Canadian companies listed in the Global 100 Most Sustainable
Companies, a project of Corporate Knights and Innovest Strategic Value Advisors
Inc. The Blueprint provides guidance for two main objectives: to manage risk and
to drive areas of opportunity. In 2007, among the activities were:
- Liaison with a number of groups including
NGOs such as ForestEthics, Canadian Boreal Initiative, WWF-Canada and
Rainforest Action Network.as well as industry groups such as Forest Products
Association of Canada and the Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers.
- Collaboration with others listed in the
report to research activities relevant to the sustainability of Canada's
Boreal Region and examining the value of biodiversity risk management for
financial institutions.
RBC has identified three priority
environmental issues: climate change, water and biodiversity. The consideration
of biodiversity includes:
- The necessity for preserving critical
ecosystems and biodiversity "to maintain healthy communities, cultural
values and shareholder value."
- Businesses operating in natural areas must
consider their effects on the indigenous communities.
- Protection of Canada's boreal forests and
rainforests through sustainable forest practices.
In 2007 activities relating to biodiversity
included:
- Ecological risk assessment methodologies and
tools for managing portfolios and transactions.
- RBC joined the United Nations Environment
Programme Finance Initiative Biodiversity and Ecosystem Working Group
- RBC employees toured the Canadian Boreal
forests to view operations within these areas and to talk with stakeholders
including industry and community.
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
US MAYORS:
HIGH-CARBON FUELS RESOLUTION
Protection of the boreal forest was one of the
reasons that the US Conference of Mayors passed a resolution against the use of
"high carbon fuels" including the tar sands, liquid coal and oil shale. GL notes
that the phrase "tar sands" is often used by those critical while "oil sands" is
used by the oil companies and those more supportive.
Tar sands oil is said to emit three times the
carbon dioxide pollution per barrel as compared to conventional oil and
"significantly damages Canada’s Boreal forest ecosystem--the world’s largest
carbon storehouse." Climate change due to dependence on fossil fuels also
threatens "the health of the planet, including its oceans, wildlands, rivers,
air and climate." The resolution:
- Encourages the use of lifecycle analysis of
greenhouse gas emissions including extraction, refining and transportation.
- Federal and state guidelines for tracking the
origin of fuels.
- Encourage mayors to "track and reduce the
lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions from their municipal vehicles by preventing
or discontinuing the purchase of higher-carbon unconventional or synthetic
fuels for these vehicles."
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
FORESTETHICS:
TAR SANDS ACCOUNTABILITY OVERDUE
Gillian McEachern, campaigner for ForestEthics
is contradicting the claims that the federal and Alberta government are holding
the companies operating in the oil sands to strict environmental standards. A
July 2nd press release is subheaded, "Library late fees in Calgary and Edmonton
total 16 times more than environmental fines levied at Tar Sands companies."
According to the press release, library fines apparently totalled over $4
million while all the companies in the oil sands were fined only $249,000.
Suncor in 2006 alone is said to have had 240 air exceedances. No charges were
laid for oil sands under the federal Fisheries Act between 1998 and 2005. GL
found it interesting that the reference for the exceedances was to the Suncor
2007 Sustainability Report.
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
OIL SANDS
COMPANY WANT TO TALK
Syncrude has joined with other oil sands
producers in Alberta on a web site "to understand Canadians’ concerns and share
ideas about the oil sands."
Marcel Coutu, President and CEO of Canadian
Oil Sands Trust, the largest owner of the Syncrude venture, was interviewed on
CBC's The Current on June 25 on the new public relations campaign. On one level
as he suggested boycotts such as the US Mayors are proposing are ineffective in
a commodity market; there is always a buyer for oil. However, Coutu realizes
that such high levels of negativity about the environmental effects of the oil
sands operation carry risk and potentially increased costs, for example the US
Mayors want to trace sources of oil and require lifecycle analysis. Adverse
public opinion could bring more regulation.
Certainly negative views about their
operations heightened the outrage about the 500 migrating ducks oiled in
Syncrude's tailing ponds. The company said this is the first such incident in 30
years. GL isn't sure how much Syncrude paid for ads in newspapers but the full
page ad in the Globe and Mail saying sorry seemed an indicator of missed
opportunity. Although to Syncrude such advertising expenses are truly neglible,
those bucks could have paid for conservation for ducks instead.
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
PEOPLE AND
BIODIVERSITY: WINNERS AND LOSERS
A new book written for the OECD examines the
distributive effects of policies on biodiversity which may benefit the
well-being of society as a whole but which creates winners and losers. Limits on
land use may protect biodiversity but reduce the income of poor people by
reducing access to the natural resources on which they make their living. These
distributive impacts are important for a number of reasons:
- The benefits to society of biodiversity
policies could be negated if the distributive effects are ignored.
- Policy makers have specific criteria to meet
in commitments on poverty reduction such as in the Millenium Goals but little
specific guidance on how to include biodiversity policies.
- OECD has guidelines which member countries
follow on the distributive effects on the absolute and relative well-being of
different groups of people.
- Traditionally for other environmental
policies, analysis evaluates the policy's efficiency ie benefits over and
above the costs (natural resources, capital and labour). The benefits can then
be distributed as policymakers decide.
This separation of efficiency from
distribution is seen as not so applicable to biodiversity policies. For most
biodiversity policies, the cost are borne mostly locally e.g. by property
damaged by protected wild animals usually by people who can little afford the
loss. Some policies can ensure that there are local benefits e.g. income to
local people from tourism to see wildlife can compensate for
losses.
Time scales are as important as geography as
future generations may be affected by today's policies. Decisions need to
address how much different generations should be affected.
Total Economic
Value of Biodiversity
Biodiversity contributes to human well-being
through use: assets such as minerals, fish, and forests and through services
such as carbon sinks, and cleaning of water. Humans also value non-use
biodiversity such as cultural, aesthetic and enjoyment of nature.
Different households have very different views
on the goods and services of biodiversity. Poor income households rely on
primary resources and are more directly engaged in consumptive and extractive
activities. Richer households appreciate more the indirect and aesthetic values
of biodiversity. Most biodiversity policies benefit the richer households at the
expense of the poor. Since biodiversity is often richest in developing
countries, the distribution effects further favour the people in developed
countries.
Policy
Type
Voluntary versus non-voluntary policies.
Voluntary means that those who participate recognize some benefit. Involuntary
means that the losers will try to undermine the policy e.g. not pay the tax or
fee such as a pesticide tax or use land with land use bans. Non-voluntary
policies could still work out to significant net benefit.
Reward-based versus property-based. Reward is
similar to voluntary in that the participant can decide how much activity is
worth the reward. For property-based policies, the market decides what the value
of the activity is but the policy sets the conditions to create the
market.
These use and non-use values make up the Total
Economic Value of biodiversity. A cost-benefit analysis of a biodiversity can
then be done. Costs include direct costs of implementation such as taxation
usually to government and indirect costs such as crop losses at the boundaries
of parks and opportunity costs such as lost of consumption of natural resources,
the last usually the highest cost.
The aim of biodiversity policies is to improve
and maintain "biologically diverse habitats and ecosystems to create net
benefits to society by realising all of biodiversity's values: material
benefits, as well as those that are less easily quantified." Equity is an
important policy element. Biodiversity policies are different from other
environmental policies mostly because optimal land use is a key policy component
and inherently this has a specific geographic scope.
Policy
Examples
Some of the examples of the relation of
distributional concerns in biodiversity policies include:
- A case in South Carolina on the enactment of
the Beachfront Management Act which banned development in many areas along the
coastline in order to reduce erosion and also to reduce public claims of
damage due to storms. A developer who had bought land earlier for development
found his land was commercially valueless and took his case to court. The
court found that the policy conferred a benefit to the general public, the
government had a right to regulate but must compensate individuals who
suffered substantial loss. The courts provided an ability to deal with
negative reactions without derailing the policy.
- In Germany, conflict arose in the 1990s when
the government tried to implement the European Union's Directive on the
Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora. When Germany tried
to implement Natura 2000, private landowners and groups vigourously opposed
the proposed protected areas forcing the delay of the initiative. Little
compensation was offered, people felt their livelihoods threatened, costs to
some individual landowners were perceived as excessive (e.g.no longer being
able to farm or to use land for leisure). Citizens were not consulted.
- Brazil has since the 1970s set aside
extractive reserves which conserve rainforest while also supporting the
indigenous people's usufruct, which means local residents gain property rights
to exploit non-wood forest services such as rubber tapping, nuts, copalba
(used for pharmaceuticals) and babacu (a palm for nuts and cooking oil). The
losers were the people who wanted to convert the land to agriculture for
ranching. The conflicts resulted in the death of the head of the rubber
tappers Chico Mendos. While the policy has good features, it includes limits
on the amount of material which can be extracted so for example for natural
rubber, the local producers can't compete globally. The policy fails to
improve the capacity of the people within the reserve to earn a living so
eventually the people may not support the policy.
- For Canada's Boreal Forest Program, the
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy examined how to
balance economic activity with conservation through a task force including
non-governmental groups and extractive industries. The report suggests, "A
national roundtable is a good forum to discuss the different uses of the
forest by stakeholders in different parts of the country and to reveal
potential conflicts and potential co-operatives actions between the main
users. It can also identify the main distributive issues. It is also a useful
tool for adjusting existing policy to strengthen conservation and assess new
policy instruments (e.g. fiscal combined with regulation).
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
LETTERS TO
EDITOR
Subject:
Alternatives and Degrowth GL V13 N5
Hey Colin,
I just read your short missive about
alternative energy and the IESO and MoEnergy in the Gallon Environment
Letter.
We might want to embrace the IESO definition
of alternative as including natural gas and oil. For you see, if we were to do
that, the alternative to the 'alternative' choices, as provided by the likes of
wikipedia, become the preferred choices. In other words, alternative energy
sources should never have been called 'alternative' - they should always have
been referred to as preferred choices. Let's delegate fossil fuels to the
'alternative' - when all else fails - back burners. (Same goes for
transportation!)
Thanks for your coverage of the degrowth work
- I too was supposed to present at the Paris conference, and it's great to see
some of this covered for a wider audience such as the Gallon Environment
Letter.
Robert Rattle
****************************************************
PHIL
BEARD
Our guest columnist is Phil Beard, General
Manager/Secretary-Treasurer, Maitland Valley Conservation Authority, Ontario
where he has worked for almost 30 years. He is also a Provisional member of the
Ontario Professional Planners Institute and has worked on many community
projects. He's been Chair of the Town of Wingham's Economic Development
Committee and a member of Wingham Ecological Park Committee. GL knows him for
his support for the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario which he helped to
establish and mentored in its early days, for example EFAO had office space in
the Conservation Authority headquarters in Wroxter and he has also been a
director on EFAO's board. His contribution was recognized at the EFAO's 25th
anniversary in 2004. He has worked on governance and co-management of natural
resources with the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature.
His commitment to the environment, and melding
both social and technical issues is illustrated in the Maitland Watershed
Partnerships, a multistakeholder partnership established in 1999 using
collaboration to manage resources.
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
GUEST COLUMN:
ALUS: AN AGRI-
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY SOLUTION FOR ONTARIO'S FARMLANDS
by Phil Beard, General Manager of the Maitland
Valley Conservation Authority MVCA, Ontario
Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS):
balancing the environmental demands of society, with the needs of farmers and
rural communities .
Agricultural policy in Ontario is at a
crossroads. Not only are farmers facing economic challenges, agriculture is also
facing an emerging environmental agenda, as an urban-based electorate is
demanding new products- clean air and greenhouse gas reductions, clean water,
wildlife and species at risk, and pastoral landscapes- from farmers. These
environmental goods or "products" are often referred to as "ecological goods and
services (EGS)."
Most environmental resources in Ontario,
including water, air, fish and wildlife, are in public ownership, even if they
occur on private land. Since there are no real markets for public resources,
farmers must maximize revenues from crops and livestock. Ontario farmers have
used this model to provide Ontarians with the best food in the world as well the
essential raw materials for a significant agri-food industry. But now Ontarians
in general are demanding even more from our farmers.
The Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS)
proposal (see ALUS Principles below) is a concept that balances the
environmental demands of society and the needs of farmers and farm communities.
ALUS proposes that agricultural producers be provided with incentives in return
for the provision of environmental benefits to society by conserving the public
environmental resources that exist on private land. ALUS is an alternative to
regulating private land use under the authority of various acts and regulations.
The regulatory approach has not worked because it is antithetical to the
"culture of agriculture" while ALUS is part of that culture. The ALUS concept is
rapidly gaining momentum in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Prince Edward
Island. ALUS is endorsed as official policy of the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, the National Farmers
Union and conservation groups in Ontario. A voluntary program to encourage the
production of environmental goods and services from private farmland was
recently recommended by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture
and Agri- Food and more recently by the FAO of the United Nations in their 2007
State of Agriculture Report.
ALUS is a bridge between agriculture and the
environment that will work for farmers, rural communities and urban Ontarians.
Lets encourage or better yet demand that our Federal and Provincial Governments
make ALUS a cornerstone of the next Agricultural Policy Framework.
The ALUS Principles
1. A mix of public and private ownership of
resources exists on private land, so the stewardship of natural capital and
environmental resources must be a shared responsibility of governments and
landowners. Due to this shared nature, environmental services should be
cost-shared with producers. Farmers should receive annual payments or other
forms of compensation to deliver and maintain environmental
services.
2. Stewardship and conservation are services,
therefore they must be assigned a fair market value.
3. ALUS will consider payments for the
maintenance of existing natural assets, particularly where a viable alternative
exists for converting natural assets into other (agricultural) uses. ALUS will
also provide incentives for landscape improvement.
4. ALUS will produce measurable environmental
goods and services, and associated socio-economic benefits for all
Canadians.
5. Investment in the capacity of citizens and
rural communities is integral to conservation. ALUS will build on this capacity,
to allow flexible decision-making at the community level that respects local
agricultural and environmental priorities.
6. Farmers and ranchers are in the best
position to deliver environmental goods and services on their land. ALUS allows
farmers to lead the environmental agenda and develop workable solutions in
co-operation with their communities, farm organizations, governments,
non-government agencies, and the Canadian public.
7. ALUS will be independently monitored and
audited by trusted farm organizations and existing institutions that have the
capabilities required to perform this role.
8. ALUS development and delivery will be
transparent and accountable, from the conceptual stages to service delivery.
Community leadership in ALUS planning, delivery, and reporting will ensure
accountability and value.
9. ALUS will meet Canada's international trade
obligations, and shall remain consistent with ecological goods and services
delivery programs undertaken by our trading partners.
10. ALUS will complement the Agricultural
Policy Framework and build on provincial policies such as environmental farm
planning in Ontario.
11. ALUS is an environmental goods and
services delivery program that uses a "fee-for service" concept to provide
environmental benefits to all Canadians. ALUS is designed to provide these
benefits at a fair market value, and will not provide environmental subsidies
that artificially increase farm incomes.
12. ALUS is a science- based agri-
environmental program concept, which will integrate best management practices
for the environment and agriculture with the needs of rural
communities.
Reprinted from Ecological Farming in Ontario.
March-April 2008. http://www.efao.ca [Magazine available by subscription or membership in the
Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario.] Phil Beard’s contact information see
http://www.mvca.on.ca
****************************************************
THIRTY SECOND
SUMMARY
Quite a few people seem to be involved in the
"degrowth of the economy" which GL has touched on in the last couple of issues.
Peter Victor, economist and Professor at the Faculty of Environmental Studies
and Coordinator of the MES/LLB Joint Degree Program at York University writes
that his book "Managing without Growth: Slower by Design, Not Disaster"
published by Edward Elgar, will be out in August, "Much of the empirical work in
the book focusses on Canada." GL will review it. One of the endorsers of the
book is Robert Costanza, whose valuation of global natural services reported in
Nature in 1997 was startling both for the innovative methodology and the value
estimate: $33 trillion, more than the GDP of all the countries of the
world.
Costanza, Robert et al. The value of the
world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. Issue 387. 1997. p
253-260
***
David Chernushenko was Deputy Leader of the
Green Party of Canada, a position he left, is also a member of the National
Round Table on the Environment and Economy and runs a consulting business. In
June he launched a film he made called Be The Change and wrote to GL, "I am
hoping the film will be useful for community groups, schools and others as a
spur to discussion of the whole idea of living sustainably. Must it be a drag? A
sacrifice? Freezing in the dark? Not according to the people I meet who are
doing their best to go this route, to live more lightly!" It is called a "100
kilometre film" as it was shot entirely within the Ottawa region with further
efforts made to reduce environmental impact. A web site called the Living
Lightly Project supplements the film with ideas.
***
Arun Kumar, Economist and Professor,
Jawaharlal Nehru University's Centre for Economic Studies and Planning (see also
GL V10 N21, GL V11 N13) has written an article warning that the poor in India
still form the largest population group with 77% of people living with less than
Rs 20 per person per day (GL: a rupee is about 2 cents Canadian). The article
was responding to a speech by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi inaugurating the new airport in
Hyderabad and saying that air travel is not elitist anymore. For 2004-05, only
4% of the population or 44 million spent more than Rs. 48 per person per day.
Few people can afford trains never mind air flights. GL thinks the point is
important in negotiations for international agreements taking the situations of
developing countries into account.
****************************************************
SHIFT OR GET
OFF THE POT
The federal Liberals Green Shift plan has the
right goals towards reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions
including:
- Shifting taxes from "those things we all want
more of such as income, investment and innovation" to "what we all want less
of: pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and waste."
- Making the economy competitive in times of
constrained carbon including encouraging energy efficiency, creating green
jobs less reliant on fossil fuels, and fighting poverty.
- "It should no longer be free to dump
greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. The true cost of pollution must be built
into the decision-making process of every polluter."
- Other countries are developing regulations
which may impose tariffs or restrictions on countries/products/companies with
high carbon emissions. Failing to act now may leave Canada with boycotts on
its exporters.
The actual plan for the carbon tax side may
help to achieve the goals but the tax cuts don't continue the theme as well as
does the Green Party of Canada's plan released June 18, the day before the
Liberals released theirs (see separate article).
The Auditor General is to be charged with the
tax to verify that the Green Shift charge on carbon is revenue neutral. The
target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by
2020.
The carbon price starts at $10 per tonne of
greenhouse gas emissions rising $10 per tonne per year to reach $40 per tonne
within four years. The excise tax on gasoline at the pump is said to be the
equivalent of $42 per tonne of carbon so no additional tax will be levied (a
political positioning to get around the outrage caused by a price increase at
the pumps when BC implemented its carbon tax July 1). The tax on diesel and
aviation fuel of four cents per litre will not be raised in the first year. The
carbon tax will apply to coal, propane, natural gas, oil and diesel on the basis
of their carbon emissions. Because the plan charges at a flat rate for each
input, it doesn't seem to reward any future innovation which might prevent the
release of the carbon emissions of the fuel. It is projected that $15 billion
per year by the end of the four years quite a bit less than the Green Party
estimate of $40 billion at $50 per tonne.
As well as various personal income and
corporate tax cuts, other initiatives include:,
- Capital cost allowances (the amount business
can deduct each year for capital expenditures) will be accelerated for green
technologies.
- Private research and development tax credits
will be 25% refundable to spur innovation.
- The tax shift will complement other greening
the economy programs including Renewable Power Production Inventive, Advanced
Manufacturing and Prosperity Fund to stimulate green manufacturing and
Infrastructure Surplus for upgrading infrastructure such as public transit
through unexpected government surpluses.
- The tax shift will complement regulations and
incentives for Canadians on home retrofits, energy-efficient appliances and
vehicles, low-carbon farm and forestry practices and other ways to help
Canadians reduce their carbon footprint while conserving energy and saving on
energy costs.
- Funding to offset carbon tax on
not-for-profit organizations and charities ($1 billion over four
years).
Issues yet to be resolved:
- The development of a cap and trade system for
carbon.
- How the carbon pricing of provinces such as
British Columbia and Quebec and potentially Ontario will be affected by
federal action.
- How the 700 large final emitters (industry
and power plant) emitting the most greenhouse gas emissions will react. They
are expected to provide most of the revenue of the Green Shift but how they
react may affect the success of the plan and the effects on
consumers.
The carbon tax is a high political risk to the
Liberals who have hopes of gaining enough seats to form the government in the
next election whereas for the Greens such a policy is unlikely to harm their
goal of winning at least one seat. Even if Canadians become willing to bite the
inevitable bullet necessary to deal with climate change despite fears of higher
oil prices, they may doubt that the particular policies will be implemented
fairly and achieve the aims. Prime Minister Harper spluttered calling the plan
crazy and insane and using other language some thought crass. In the House of
Commons, government MPs attacked the plan with "Shift happens". However, more
economists are finally coming around to the idea that climate change is a
serious threat and that a carbon tax is necessary. For some time now Don
Drummond of the TD Bank has said pollution must be taxed. The June 21 issue of
the Economist's special report on "The Future of energy" was introduced with a
recommendation that the best thing the rich world can do to encourage
alternative energy is to tax carbon even if China and India do not and to remove
subsidies supporting fossil fuels.
GL has lamented that no Canadian election has
ever been fought with environmental issues at the top so lauds Dion's efforts to
try to make it so. However, the public interest in election topics can change on
a dime. If he fights an election on the environment and loses his gamble, we may
lose even more as the governing party will have received a mandate to ignore the
looming threat (not so much a change from now). Critics compare the carbon tax
to the former National Energy Program seen as disadvantaging the oil-rich
Western Canada. Dion was at the Calgary Stampede wearing a cowboy hat and trying
to persuade Albertans, a tough crowd currently benefiting from oil extraction
which sees itself as the most to lose. Supporters of the carbon tax see events
such as the announcement of the GM shutdowns and the US Mayors resolution
against oil sands as dirty oil as a sign of things to come where the greener,
more energy-efficient, climate-friendly, environmentally-progressive economies
win. GL takes the latter view and hopes that Canadians will be wise enough to
choose a decent future for their children's children.
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
GREEN PARTY: GREEN TAX SHIFT
The federal
Green Party's Green Tax Shift plan was released before the Liberal Party plan.
The Greens’ proposed tax at $50 per tonne of carbon is expected to bring in $40
billion, quite a bit more than the Liberal projection of $15 billion at $40 per
tonne in the fourth year. Families will be allowed to split income, employer
costs for the Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance as well as employee
share will be reduced, and there are promises of increases in low-income
supplements for seniors and low-income Canadians. Exemptions for farmers and
fishers are to be allowed for higher fuel costs. The GST will be increased (most
economists advice that consumption taxes are the most fair and better for
achieving environmental goals than income taxes.)
The Green Party
obtained the costing under a Freedom of Information request from an Environment
Canada study done by Marc Jaccard, who is said to have concluded that the $50
carbon tax and the tax reductions elsewhere would have a marginal improvement in
Gross Domestic Product for Canada. The Green Party plan is to return two thirds
of the revenue in income and payroll tax cuts. Other money would be used for
building retrofits. A cap and trade system for the largest emitters, development
of renewable energy, increased energy efficiency, support for municipalities for
mass transit and other energy saving infrastructure and more passenger rail
service are also part of the plan.
No one expects
that the Green Party will form the next government but they could be in a
position to influence government policies. The fact that both the Liberals and
the Greens have indicated that they intend to push off-carbon economic policies
in the next campaign may help to keep these topics on the campaign agenda but GL
still expects that the Conservative party will obfuscate its position
sufficiently that the media decides to focus it attention on other things. As
former Prime Minister Kim Campbell once said, election campaigns are not the
place for discussion of policy complexities. Unfortunately, if the government
does not wish to discuss a particular policy area, such as climate change,
introduction of policy details may not be the best way for opposition parties to
keep the topic on the campaign agenda.
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
HERBICIDE: A LITTLE GOES TOO FAR
The Royal
Horticultural Society in Britain posted news in June that gardeners are
reporting damage to vegetable crops from all over the country. It is believed
that the contamination is due to a chemical aminopyralid, a plant growth hormone
herbicide used in pastures to control weeds. The manure from the animals eating
the grass or hay was applied to gardens. The pesticide regulator doesn't seem to
expect to take any action because it is advising gardeners to ask whoever they
got the manure from whether the aminopyralid was used. The gardener is expected
to follow the supply chain as the farmers may have bought silage or hay from
someone else or even several someone elses.
Although the
herbicide is only applied at the rate of a few ounces per acre of grassland,
sensitive plants such as tomatoes, potatoes and legumes, especially beans,
develop fern like leaves and stunted growth. As the herbicide is registered for
non-food areas such as pastures and rangeland and wheat, there is no safety
guideline to say the vegetable produce is safe to eat. It is approved for
livestock to eat the treated grass so it is not expected to cause harm to
children, pets or wildlife. The RHS press release said until now herbicide
damage to food gardens was mostly due to individual gardeners making mistakes
such as using a container to water which was previously used for herbicides or
applying lawn weed killer where non-grass plants are growing. This year has seen
a dramatic increase in gardeners calling about damage caused by
manure.
Dow Agrosciences Notice
Dow AgroSciences
has a notice for allotment holders and gardeners including:
-
The grassland
herbicide carries a warning against using the manure for fertilizer or
compost.
-
Although the
risk is low, the produce should not be consumed. Stressed plants are unlikely
to produce a harvest and may succumb to pest and disease attacks.
-
It would be
prudent not to replant but wait until next year.
-
Turn over the
soil a number of times now and repeating again later the plant residues should
break down.
-
Always ask the
manure supplier whether any herbicides have been used with restrictions on the
use of the manure.
Milestone(tm): Reduced Environmental
Risk
Dow's herbicide
containing aminopyralid is new in the last couple of years (Canada approved it
January 17, 2007). According to company's web site, Milestone(M) is "registered
under the EPA’s Reduced Risk Pesticide initiative. Milestone carries a Caution
signal word, and it is not a federally Restricted Use Pesticide, so it does not
require a special license for purchase or application."
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
COMPETITION BUREAU: NEW GUIDE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
LABELLING
The Competition
Bureau CB has published a new guide on environmental claims. The CB seems to
have taken comments into account and adjusted the guide, a refreshing action
from a government agency. The guide based on ISO14021 supercedes the Principles
and Guidelines for Environmental Labelling and Advertising PGELA (1993). The
Competition Bureau had been making the case that it had already made ISO 14021
the basis of its guidance but as GL's editor pointed out, the draft guide
proposed in 2001 for replacing PGELA was never implemented. This guide covers
what are called Type II, self-declared environmental claims usually single
claims made by a manufacturer or distributor. Other types are Type 1 (ISO 14024)
which covers products/services under eco-logo programs and Type III (ISO 14025)
which are environmental profile declarations. This guide only applies to Type II
but the Competition Act still requires the others to meet the same tests for
avoiding false and misleading advertising.
The guide is
also not a regulation as the Competition Act is the federal law for criminal and
civil provisions on false and misleading representations. The guide is
considered by the CB to be best practices for businesses to ensure they are not
making claims which are false or misleading.
Although a full
lifecycle analysis is not required, the environmental claim should consider the
lifecycle of the product or service to ensure that the environmental improvement
on the one dimension is not offset by negative impacts in other areas and the
claim should be based on verifiable data.
A bombshell for
environmental groups may be discouraging the use of the logo of environmental
groups on products. GL's editor was on CHTV speaking on this guide and by
happenstance wearing a tie (a beauty with little pandas eating bamboo) with the
WWF logo on the back. Environmental groups gain some funding from participating
in such ventures; they don't have to handle the goods but still receive
recompense. It seems this tie would now have a claim which could be considered
misleading. Cereals and many other products are labelled with the logos of the
groups which benefit as some money is returned to the groups.
The guide is
still tilted in favour of conventional rather than green products. The focus on
the wording of the claims may mean that an environmentally improved product may
still be judged to be in breach of the labelling laws. For example,
pesticide-free type claims are discouraged for organic products because
"pesticides were never used in the first place in that product category." This
is like saying a green product is in a green product category so that green
bleach (never having had chlorine in it) can't make a chlorine-free claim. This
interpretation is removing the very thing that is key to the real environmental
features of the product and which gives the product positioning in the market.
GL note that the term organic is poorly defined anyway when applied to non-food
items except in countries which have specifically set standards.
The guide
discourages use of symbols of natural objects such as fish and trees not
directly connected to the product e.g. a fish symbol on a paint can might
mislead the consumer to think it was safe for the marine environment. Photos and
other images which may create the same impression are not discussed. The chasing
arrows which resemble the mobius loop for recycling used for plastic coding is
also allowed even though some of the plastics are not recyclable.
When GL's parent
company conducts third party review of proposed green products, what
environmental claims can be made is part of the consideration but while
collecting data to support one (or two or three) environmental claims for the
label is necessary it is not sufficient. Once a green product is under
development, it is sometimes possible to make improvements beyond the single
claim given cost and current technical constraints and availablity of product or
material suppliers. Product suppliers differ in their ability to respond and
sometimes have to scramble to assign the right people in their company to
provide the technical information needed or to provide authority to make product
design changes. A few suppliers are shocked to find their company's product has
been superceded by another supplier with more ability or willingness to make
design changes.
Paid subscribers see links to
original documents and references here.
****************************************************
INVITATION TO ALLEGED TELEVISION
SHOW
Environmental
companies may receive calls from a company called Our Planet calling to ask for
participation in a show on sustainable development. Since GL's editor makes
appearances, this wasn't so surprising but the lack of detail certainly was
since most television shows know what the specific theme is, the questions they
want the environmental expert to answer and when the taping is. At GL's office,
we asked the caller who gave a phone number as 954 312-0480 what it was all
about. She said she didn't know when the show would be aired, what the
discussion was or indeed anything about it. When asked whether they pay, she
said there were license and production fees. And who pays? Our Planet charges
you the fee to make the videos and then apparently tries to have them aired
somewhere; GL doesn't know if these videos ever see the light of day but beware.
The same group also contacts other non-environmental companies.
****************************************************
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Copyright ©
Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment
119 Concession 6
Rd Fisherville ON N0A 1GO 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.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx