THE GALLON ENVIRONMENT LETTER
Canadian
Institute for Business and the Environment
Fisherville,
Ontario, Canada
Tel. 416
410-0432, Fax: 416 362-5231
Vol. 16, No. 1, April 20, 2011
Honoured Reader
Edition
****************************************************
This is the honoured reader
edition of the Gallon Environment Letter and is distributed at no charge: send a
note with Add GL or Delete GL in the subject line to
subscriptions@gallonletter.ca. 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 HST
nd provide additional benefits detailed on the web site. Individual
subscriptions are only $30 (personal emails/funds only please) including HST. 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 2009 are also
available.
****************************************************
ABOUT THIS
ISSUE
It is probably not so amazing how little
attention is being given to energy and environment issues in this election.
After all, the PM is not very interested in environmental issues, the last
Liberal leader was toasted to a crisp when he tried to address climate change in
the last Federal election campaign and the NDP voted with the government in
December 2007 to override the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and to restart
the Chalk River reactor despite the safety concerns of the CNSC, safety concerns
which were subsequently found to be quite justified in a general way. Two things
are amazing. First, that the Pembina Institute, usually a pretty politically
astute Alberta-based environmental ngo, set up a real time blog to comment on
the leaders' energy and environment remarks during the Leaders' Debate last
week, and was then forced to express surprise that there were virtually no
leader remarks on energy or environment, and second, that all parties actually
have quite substantial sections on energy and environment in their election
platforms. In this issue of Gallon Environment Letter we bring you some of the
highlights of what the parties are proposing. We also look at performance on
some key sustainability-related issues such as climate change (apparently just
entering the party platform vocabulary for the Conservative Party of Canada) and
access to environmental information.
Some would argue that we would be better off
forgetting politics. GL disagrees, but at least Roy Romanow used a recent event
to launch the Environment Chapter of the Canadian Index of Wellbeing. We
recommend it, with some caveats.
Regular readers will know that Gallon Letter
has been on a bit of a crusade against asbestos exports by Canada. The Canadian
Cancer Society is on a similar crusade. We wish them well.
We have a Letter to the Editor on the topic of
gaseous motor fuels and another with some clarifications on the toxic substances
from snow melt article in our last issue. We apologise for our confusion on this
subject - we were trying to correlate several different sources of information
and clearly missed some orders of magnitude, as did other journalists. We will
return to the toxic substances in waterways issue at a future date.
Ontario's environment industry has just
released a report entitled Still Ready to Grow. We hope that both federal and
Ontario politicians are listening - there is a short summary of the report in
this Gallon Letter. Statistics Canada recently published the latest edition of
its Households and the Environment Survey. We bring you some of their summary
information. Some of Gallon Letter's neighbours got ripped off by an
environmental crook - even Gallon Letter's editor nearly fell into this trap but
smelled a rat just in time. We tell you the story. Also check out our new take
on alchemy: someone seems to think you can turn conventional food into organic
food by whizzing it up in a plastic thingamybob. What a miracle!
From the titles of a couple of new books about
sustainability it seems that some authors or editors want us to think we may
soon have to choose between dogs and bananas. There will be reviews of both
books in our next issue, along with some feature articles on financing for clean
technology. In the meantime, visit our Gallon Daily blog at www.gallondaily.com. The blog offers one fairly short article each day from
Monday to Friday: articles are written by the Gallon Letter editor, topics are
selected for some relevance to the business community (or at least some part of
it), there is somewhat of an emphasis on current news items, and we do our best
to ensure that the relevance of the article to Canadian business is clear. All
articles are archived so you can visit less frequently than daily if you prefer!
Gallondaily also includes updates to items that have been covered in the current
monthly Gallon Environment Letter. For the time being, but not for too long, the
Gallon Daily is free to all.
****************************************************
WHERE GREENS
DID WELL IN THE LAST ELECTION
Gallon Environment Letter repeats its call
from the last election for a Green Party presence in the House of Commons.
Clearly there will not be a Green Party government but our opinion, based in
part on experience from other countries where Greens are represented in
parliaments, is that Canada's House of Commons could benefit greatly from a
Green Party presence.
Interestingly, all five ridings where Greens
came second in the last Federal Election were won by Conservatives and three of
the five were in Alberta. The Greens came second or a very strong third or
fourth (our judgement call) in the 2008 Federal Election in the following
ridings:
Central Nova, where Elizabeth May was
candidate and came second with 32.2% of the vote. She lost to Peter MacKay,
Conservative, who had 46.6% of the vote.
Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, where Green Party
candidate Dick Hibma received 27.2% of the vote. Larry Miller, Conservative, won
with 47.7% of the vote.
Guelph, where Green Party candidate Mike Nagy
came 3rd with 21.1% of the vote. Frank Valeriote, Liberal, won with
32.2% of the vote.
Calgary Southeast, where Green Party candidate
Margaret Chandler came 2nd with 10.2% of the vote. Jason Kenney,
Conservative, won with 73.9% of the vote.
Macleod, where Green party candidate Jared
McCollum came second with 9.1% of the vote.
Ted Menzies, Conservative, won with 77.4% of
the vote.
Wild Rose, where Lisa Fox came second with
12.6% of the vote. Blake Richards, Conservative, won with 72.9% of the
vote.
Okanagan—Coquihalla, where Dan Bouchard came
third with 13.3% of the vote, Stockwell day, Conservative, won with 58.1% of the
vote.
Vancouver Centre, where Adriane Carr came
fourth with 18.3% of the vote. Hedy Fry won for the Liberal Party with 34.5% of
the vote
Colin Isaacs, Editor
****************************************************
****************************************************
ELECTION
2011
****************************************************
TRANSPORTATION
STRATEGY: VISION GREEN
The Green Party of Canada web site states,
"It’s time. Vote Green. In 2008, nearly one million Canadians voted Green.
Nearly one million Canadians voted for a better future, for a positive vision of
Canada. We are not a one-issue party. The Green Party is the only party in
Canada with a full and comprehensive vision for our future available every day.
We do not wait until elections to unveil what we believe in. Vision Green is on
our website, available 365 days a year, every year." The platform is 130 pages
long.
One of the proposed policies is a national
rail system, reestablishing the National Dream which led to the founding of the
nation. The Greens, led by Elizabeth May, say that Canada is the only country in
the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) with no national
transportation strategy. Their proposed strategy includes inter-modal transport
with high speed rail from urban core to airports, bicycle lanes in cities,
downtown streecars, and rural areas served by rail and bus. The passenger rail
service in the Windsor-Quebec corridor is seen as infrequent and outmoded. Many
rail lines have been dismantled. The party's vision is to transfer freight from
trucks to rail through freight distribution nodes, to have separate lines for
passenger trains which currently have to give way to freight trains run by those
who own the tracks and set priorities. High speed trains serving downtown to
downtown such as Toronto to Montreal can reduce air travel, take cars off the
road, reduce air pollution and congestion, and reduce loss of life due to
traffic accidents. The National Dream includes "Re-invest in our national rail
systems, building more train cars in Canada, increasing train speeds and phasing
in high speed rail where feasible and creating green
transportation."
Green Party of Canada. Vision Green. 2011
Election Platform. Ottawa, Ontario: April 2011.
http://greenparty.ca/platform2011 and http://www.greenparty.ca
Green Party 305-75 Rue Albert Street Ottawa,
Ontario K1P 5E7 Tel : 1.866.868.3447 (1.866.vote.4gpc) Fax:
1.613.482.4632
****************************************************
FUNDING GREEN
ENERGY: NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
The NDP, led by Jack Layton, proposes
redirecting revenues from "auctioning of emission permits equitably across
Canada into investments in green technologies, business and household energy
conservation, public transit, support to renewable energy development and
transitioning workers to the green economy." The platform proposes to cut
subsidies to non-renewable energy as agreed to by Canada at the G-20. These
subsidies will be shifted to such areas as:
- clean power including industrial
co-generation and community-owned renewable energy facilities.
- incentives for "made-in-Canada" green
technology including research, development and commercialization.
- a revolving fund for home energy efficiency
retrofits.
- transitioning to a clean energy economy with
help with transitional costs for high energy use manufacturers and a revolving
Green Jobs Fund for support of workers.
- support for low income and energy dependent
people, to ensure inequality is not increased by high energy costs.
- training for green energy engineers,
technicians, construction workers, and maintenance and audit
professionals.
The NDP proposes to create a Green Bond Fund
in which Canadians can invest. GBF investments will include green energy
research and development and commercialization as well as community renewable
projects.
New Democratic Party of Canada. Giving your
family a break: Practical first steps. April 2011
Canada's NDP. 300 - 279 Laurier West Ottawa,
Ontario K1P 5J9 Phone: 613-236-3613
****************************************************
LIBERAL PARTY
OF CANADA: CANADA IN THE WORLD
The Liberal Party led by Michael Ignatieff
focuses attention on Canada on the international stage, "The Harper government
has embarrassed Canada on the international stage by obstructing progress on
climate change. In fact, Stephen Harper was openly sceptical of the science
behind climate change until recently, calling it “a socialist scheme”.
Meanwhile, emissions in Canada are increasing, there is still no plan in place,
and Canada’s international reputation is in
tatters."
The Liberals plan to earn a reputation as a
global leader in clean resources by producing resources for export with the
lowest possible impact, and supplying knowledge, technology and expertise to
drive Canadian business in global commerce. Examples of initiatives
include:
- Canadian Clean Energy Partnership, of
provinces, territories, private sector and stakeholders to manage the
transition to the low-carbon economy and help families and businesses conserve
energy in order to achieve global climate change goals.
- Cleaner Oil Sands Development with a goal of
eliminating the 15% higher carbon footprint compared to conventional oil.
Better monitoring, better knowledge and regulations are part of that package.
Improving the image of the oilsands is also important to Canada. Improving
oilsands environmental performance will help to combat climate change and
protect water, land and wildlife.
- Eliminating the oil industry Accelerated
Capital Cost Allowance faster instead of the phase out by 2015 will add $500
million to federal revenues over the next two years. The funds will be used to
support the industry's investment in emerging technologies to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts of the oil
sands.
- In 2008, the Conservatives campaigned on a
carbon price but didn't implement it. The Liberals will set up a cap-and-trade
system for all regions of Canada.. Several provinces (British Columbia,
Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec) are working on a North American cap and trade
system by 2015 under the Western Climate Initiative. The Liberals promise not
to outsource Canadian policy to American legislators.
Liberal Party of Canada 81 Metcalfe Street,
Suite 600 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6M8 Phone : (613) 237-0740
****************************************************
BLOC
QUÉBÉCOIS: QUEBEC'S INTERESTS WITHIN CANADA
Stephen Harper seeks a majority and warns of
chaos resulting from a "reckless coalition" which might include the Bloc
Québécois, a theme which Stephen Colbert spoofed on the Comedy Network's The
Colbert Report. Constitutional experts find nothing amiss either in the
formation of coalitions as an option for the Governor-General to ask other
parties to try to form the government is built into Canada's laws. In turn,
Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Québécois, warns that in case of a
Conservative majority, "Conservatives will have no obstacles in their path and
will be free to impose their ideological policies, which are harmful and
inimical to the interests and values of Quebeckers. This is a clear and present
threat to Québec." The threat includes "a belligerent foreign policy, billions
of dollars in additional military expenditures, protecting the interests of big
oil companies, unabashed favouritism for industry in Ontario, ever more prisons
and guns, as well as relentless assaults on the environment, the distribution of
wealth, gender equality, science, truth and democracy."
Among the priorities in the Bloc platform
are:
- for federal policies which recognize the
industries with a strong presence in Quebec such as forestry. For example,
forestry is seen as getting crumbs as opposed to the billions of dollars given
to the auto sector.
- tax credits for young graduates working
in rural areas
- assessment of programs for their impact
on regions (in Quebec)
- access to quality infrastructure and
more federal funding of infrastructure.
- harbour repair and ice breaking fees
paid by the federal level to promote maritime and intermodal transport
- no regional air transportation
tax
- integrated management of the St Lawrence
River to ensure that economic development doesn't destroy the ecosystem.
Another example of need to deal with policies on a regional rather than
national basis.
- focus on renewable resources like
forests and clean energy
- culture as an economic
driver
Bloc Québécois. Parlons QC. 2011.
Bloc Québécois. 3730, boul. Crémazie Est 4e
étage Montréal (Québec) H2A 1B4
****************************************************
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY: CANADA'S ARCTIC
The Conservative Party of Canada platform has
Canada's Arctic as one of its main priorities. The focus on the Canada's Arctic
for national sovereignty sends mixed messages about how the balance will tip in
terms of environmental protection. GL finds it ironic that the reason for
needing to protect national sovereignty is that climate change will open up the
Northwest Passage and no direct direct mention of climate change is made
in this section. The platform states that the Northern Strategy is already
being implemented with:
- expanding Nahanni National Park Reserve
to six times its original size
- taking action to establish Tarium
Niryutait Marine Protected Area and Lancaster Sound National Marine
Conservation Area
- passing legislation protecting Arctic
waters
- establishing a new economic development
agency, CanNor
- investing in affordable housing
- investing in skills training, and
supported business development by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
businesses
- starting work on a new Canadian High
Arctic Research Station (GL: CHARS was announced in August 2010 to be located
in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut.)
- expanding the size and capabilities of
the Canadian Rangers (part of the Canadian army)
- supporting the next phase of the
RADARSAT Constellation Mission, a system of three advanced remote sensing
satellites
- committing to invest in new Arctic
patrol ships and started planning for the launch of a new polar-class
icebreaker, the John G. Diefenbaker.
- planning to extend the Dempster
Highway, all-weather road from Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk.
Conservative Party of Canada #1204 - 130
Albert Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5G4
****************************************************
CONSERVATIVE
CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY: MIND THE GAP
The Conservative government, in office since
2006, has a long history of "turning corners" and "moving forward" on air
pollution, possibly with the collateral benefit of addressing greenhouse gas
emissions, but relatively little has happened. In the two previous campaign
platforms, 2006 and 2008, neither the phrases "climate change" nor "global
warming" were mentioned, although there were mentions of greenhouse gas
emissions and in 2008 also a North American cap-and-trade system. Below
are some samples of the positions taken by the Conservative-led government over
what is not really a short time period, a mere five years:
March 14, 2006. Environment Minister Rona
Ambrose said that the government will work with the Kyoto protocol but there is
a need for a separate made-in-Canada solution to achieve significant reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. The Kyoto target is six per cent
reduction in greenhouse gas levels from 1990 by 2012.
October 19, 2006 Environment Minister Rona
Ambrose announced "The government is committed to achieving an absolute
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between 45 and 65 percent from 2003 levels
by 2050." Medium targets kick in 2025 and nothing is said of short-term (such as
Kyoto by 2012) except that short term targets are to be set in consultation with
provinces and territories and affected industries. Targets were intensity-based.
The opposition viewed the Clean Air Act which introduced these targets as
another delaying tactic.
November 17, 2006. Environment Minister Rona
Ambrose reported from the Nairobi climate conference that Canada was committed
to the Kyoto Protocol:
"Future Commitments for Annex I Countries --
Countries like Canada, who have commitments under Kyoto, agreed to a
comprehensive work plan to help inform the development of future commitments for
the post-2012 period.
This agreement arose from discussions under
Article 3.9 of the Kyoto Protocol, which states that Annex 1 countries have to
start this work now. This is so that commitments can be in place by 2012, when
the second commitment period of the Protocol begins. The first stage of this
work will be completed in 2007.”.
In a speech before hundreds of
delegates, the minister said that "Canada remains strongly committed to the UN
process, to Kyoto and is driven by a principled obligation for collaboration and
action."
April 26, 2007 and March 10 2008 Environment
Minister John Baird announced Turning the Corner which ignored obligations under
Kyoto for targets in 2012. He promised a target of absolute reduction of 150
megatonnes by 2020. Emission reductions were also given as 20 percent below 2006
levels by 2020. A long-term goal for greenhouse gas emission reductions was 60
to 70% by 2050, presumably also below 2006 levels. Companies were to reduce ghg
emissions 18 % by 2010 for every unit of production..
December 17, 2009: A press release about
Stephen Harper attending the Copenhagen climate talks stated "The Harper
Government remains committed to contributing to the global effort by taking
action to reduce Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent from
2006 levels by 2020 and 60-70 per cent by 2050. The alignment of Canada’s
targets with those of the Obama Administration is a critical element of Canada’s
overall approach due to the close integration of our economies and our
geographic proximity. "
February 1, 2010 Environment Minister Jim
Prentice announces that Canada's 2020 emissions reduction target submitted under the Copenhagen Accord
was a 17 per cent reduction from 2005 levels.
With different leadership in other times, for
example with Brian Mulroney, the Conservative Party of Canada might also have
offered action on climate change but it would appear there is little likelihood
of action on this important environmental topic with Stephen Harper as Prime
Minister.
Paid subscribers see link to original documents and
references here.
****************************************************
OPEN
GOVERNMENT
All party platforms call for open and
transparent government.
For example, the Liberal platform on open
government includes:
- making government datasets available to the
public free of charge with open and searchable form including Statistics
Canada.
- post all Access to Information requests,
responses and response times online
- government grants, contributions and
contracts.
GL often sees the Access to Information Act as
a perverse way through which bureaucrats delay or prevent access to information
which should be made freely available without anybody having to ask for it. The
Canadian Civil Liberties says that Cabinet secrecy is being interpreted to mean
that anything that goes to Cabinet is eligible for secrecy and that these
refusals need to be subject to scrutiny by the Information Commissioner. GL is
grateful to the Conservatives for one decision made early on that sees many
publications of Statistics Canada made freely available, though other statistics
collected at taxpayer expense still carry a price. During this election,
Environment Canada seems to have stopped requiring an email address before one
can download a report. We wonder if that is short-lived relief.
In the field of environmental information a
growing problem is not only that key data is not released but that it is never
collected in the first place, or it is collected and published with a lengthy
delay, or it is released without any notice so potential readers never find it
unless they arrive at the right web site or find a physical copy by
accident. Redesigning web sites has also been common with this government which
tends to mean information disappears or is sent to a difficult to find location.
For example, the government recently opened a new web site for Library Deposit
programmes in which libraries can order government documents for the public and
announced that "Please note: Publishing and Depository Services has integrated
the Depository Services Program (DSP) and Publications Web sites into a single
CLF 2.0 compliant Web site (http://publications.gc.ca/). These pages (DSP Ecollection) were not migrated to the
new site, and they will cease to be available when the DSP Web site is
decommissioned later this fiscal year." This DSP site (http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Epubs/epub_author01-e.html) holds a rich history of documents, many of them on
environmental issues.
Another problem is the restrictions placed on
scientists, officials and experts within the government who are not allowed to
talk to anybody without political or senior (read Deputy Minister) oversight.
Especially in the US, GL has found that contact information including email and
telephone number is more commonly posted along with information. US Federal
government officials are also easier to reach, return calls, and are
surprisingly open in providing information compared to in Canada. For small
business especially, barriers to getting information is a competitive
disadvantage.
Another issue is that the environmental data
is not connected to the stated goals and policies. For example, smog can affect
health even at low levels of pollution. The Conservatives promised action on
"clean air" in their campaign platform beginning in 2006. The Canadian
Environmental Sustainability Indicators CESI were launched by the previous
Liberal government in 2004 and among other data provide some data on air
pollution and air quality. Much as we appreciate the availability of CESI, the
latest data is from 2008 and it was released in 2010. So here we are in 2011 and
we know how many houses sold in Kamloops last month but not how the national air
quality is faring. CESI data is presented with little to no link to government
policies to improve air quality and how these policies might have affected the
trends in air quality data. This is somewhat reminiscent of the motto "What does
not get measured does not get done" though GL is in this case deeply suspicious
that the guiding principle is "If we don't measure it, we won't have to do
it".
Paid subscribers see link to original documents and
references here.
****************************************************
GROSS DOMESTIC
PRODUCT: CANADIAN INDEX OF WELLBEING: ENVIRONMENT
On April 7, 2011, Roy Romanow, former Premier
of Saskatchewan and head of the Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care in
Canada which reported in 2002, was at the University of Waterloo to officially
launch the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW) Network. Funding is through a
Funders' Alliance currently led by the Atkinson Charitable Foundation. Romanow
is the Chair of the CIW Advisory Committee and also announced the release of the
first edition of the CIW's Environment report. CIW is part of an international
initiative with the Canadian version rooted in Canada, "Around the world, a
consensus is growing about the need for a more comprehensive and transparent way
to measure societal progress – one that accounts for more than just economic
indicators such as the Gross Domestic Product and takes into account the full
range of social, health, environmental and economic concerns of
citizens."
The report is a beginning snapshot of Canada's
environment. It is not a comprehensive analysis of the state of the environment
nor a report on whether Canada is using its resources sustainably. The state of
environmental information is inadequate and the knowledge of how ecosystems
function still limited. With that disclaimer, the report lists the stocks and
flows of Canada‘s natural capital and ecosystem services on 14 primary
indicators in categories of air, energy, freshwater, non-renewable resources,
and biotic resources, each of which have subcategories. For example,
non-renewable resources includes Waste (Per Capita Waste Disposal Rate), Viable
Metal Reserves and Viable Non-Renewable Energy Reserves.
An appendix compares in chart form indicators
used by other organizations such as OECD, EU, Conference Board of Canada,
Environment Canada such as CESI (see open government article), Statistics Canada
such as Human Activity and the Environment, and Vital Signs of the Worldwatch
Institute.
Example of some of the findings
are:
- Air. Indicators are variable with some
improvements and some declines. Certain locations are more affected when air
pollution peaks. Some of the drivers of poor air quality have been addressed
in Canada but respiratory diseases have increased in the past two decades.
Criteria Air Contaminant Emissions are decreasing. Greenhouse gas emissions
have risen 24% since 1990.
- Energy. Canada is enviable due to being able
to export energy. Renewable energy is a small portion of total energy
use.
- Biotic Resources. Trends are negative for
both marine and land. Marine systems are showing systemic changes as large
fish are replaced by smaller species. Species including mammals, reptiles,
amphibians and some birds are declining. Forests aren't being replaced even
with better forest management practices.
- Freshwater. Freshwater in southern Canada is
declining and demand is increasing.
Scarcity of
Environmental Data.
The report states, "Lastly, as Canadians, we
face a challenge when it comes to the availability of environmental data. Though
this issue affects most countries, and notwithstanding the excellent work of
government agencies (e.g., Statistics Canada and Environment Canada), Canadians
should be concerned about the paucity of information on natural capital. Like
other countries, Canada has insufficient funding and capacity when it comes to
environmental monitoring, and without much more comprehensive data, it will be
impossible to fully assess the stocks and flows of Canada‘s natural capital and
ecosystem services, and how they in turn affect our wellbeing. "
Paid subscribers see link to original documents and
references here.
****************************************************
CANADIAN
CANCER SOCIETY: ELIMINATE MINING OF CANADIAN ASBESTOS
When the Quebec Government agreed in principle
to reopen the Jeffrey Asbestos Mine with the promise of millions of dollars of
loan guarantees, the Canadian Cancer Society expressed its disapproval. The
Society has been lobbying both provincial and federal levels of government to
stop supporting the asbestos industry. Most of the asbestos mined in Canada is
exported to cause over 100,000 deaths a year globally mostly in developing
countries.
The Society has asked the federal government
to adopt a strategy for asbestos related diseases including:
- "immediately setting a clear timetable for
phasing out the use and export of asbestos
- implementing a national surveillance system
to track health outcomes of people who have been exposed to asbestos
- creating a public registry of buildings that
contain asbestos
- providing transition support for affected
communities
- including chrysotile on the Rotterdam
Convention’s Prior Informed Consent list."
A month earlier the Society expressed its deep
disappointment in the spending plan 2010-2011 released by the federal government
on March 1 to fund the Chrysotile Institute, a lobby group for the asbestos
industry promoting the use and export of asbestos around the world. “From a
public health point of view, the Federal Government has made the wrong decision
in proposing this funding, as all forms of asbestos cause cancer,” says Paul
Lapierre, Vice President, Public Affairs and Cancer Control, Canadian Cancer
Society. “We urge the government to put the health of people first and to stop
funding the Chrysotile Institute. The government’s plan to use taxpayers'
dollars to support the asbestos industry directly conflicts with global cancer
control.”
Paid subscribers see link to original documents and
references here.
****************************************************
LETTERS TO THE
EDITOR
Subject:
RE: Gallon Environment Letter v15 n12
Sir:
I commend your effort to shed light on the
importance of using life-cycle assessments to inform public policy debates over
motor fuels and vehicles. Unfortunately virtually all debate is focused on the
ASSUMPTION that the only viable motor fuel options available to consumers are
liquid petroleum-based motor fuels – total emphasis is on producing more liquid
fuels and more efficient electric-drive vehicles.
This policy overlooks the third leg of the
policy stool; developing the low-carbon gaseous motor fuel distribution
infrastructure. This policy oversight will not only deny consumers the ability
to CHOOSE the best motor fuel, it will guarantee that pressing policy goals and
objectives are NOT achieved.
Why? The most affordable, cost-feasible motor
fuel pathways are readily available, affordable gases – natural gas (aka
methane) and hydrogen. Yet these cost-efficient, low-carbon pathways are being
ignored by current policy and thus are NOT being implemented
nationwide.
Why?
In my opinion the reason is that the political
debate is too focused on the motor fuel supplies rather than the demand side.
The result is that the political debate is controlled by an supply-side
oligopoly – a handful of interests that dominate the liquid petroleum-based
motor fuel production and distribution system.
This is perhaps the best kept open secret in
modern governance. But the tragedy is that this oligopoly has framed the
political debate in ways that stifles competition.
The political focus on efficiency and
supply-side stimulus has distorted the motor fuel market.
Natural gas TODAY is priced about $0.50/gge
compared to more than $3/gge for gasoline, diesel fuel and biofuels. Yet policy
debate ignores this obvious fact. And automakers rush to build more efficient
vehicles that burn dirty, expensive liquid petroleum-based motor fuels. You and
I cannot buy an affordable natural gas vehicle; since we cannot buy these
vehicles. NOBODY is willing to invest in fuel stations that sell this superior
motor fuel.
The result is market failure. This is
NUTS.
For your next edition, I suggest you focus on
the demand side of this problem. Specifically focus on the motor fuel pathways
based on technical and cost feasibility metrics that empower consumers to make
more informed choices among vehicles and ALL the various biofuels, natural gas
and electric fuels.
Help people understand that the liquid
petroleum-based motor fuels in common use TODAY need NOT be the only options
available to consumers; liquid petroleum-based motor fuels, while convenient,
will NOT the most cost-efficient options TOMORROW let alone achieve security and
life-cycle greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Help people understand that TOMORROW biofuels,
natural gas and electric fuels will be used in very different ways than they are
used TODAY.
Empower consumers to make these decisions
rather than supply-side liquid petroleum-based fuel oligopolies.
On the demand side of this issue, vehicle
drive and motor fuel technology is changing more rapidly than the ability of
experts, pundits and consumers to understand, let alone communicate, the
opportunities associated with those changes.
The disruptive technology is NOT just the
electric battery; the disruptive technology is the reliable, affordable
low-temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cell electric drive technology.
And the PEM fuel cell operates most efficiently on a gaseous motor fuel --
hydrogen.
The high efficiency vehicle of the future will
still require chemical fuels, but those fuels will be converted to hydrogen for
use on the vehicle. The policy issue is NO LONGER the introduction of the
electric drive, the policy issue that must be taken up TODAY is shaping the
infrastructure that will supply the chemical fuels used to power those
vehicles.
Gaseous motor fuels are cleaner, cheaper,
safer, efficient and feasible today with off-the-shelf equipment TODAY. Gaseous
motor fuels will be even cleaner, safer, more efficient and more affordable
TOMORROW.
But gaseous motor fuels threaten the liquid
motor fuel oligopoly; help give consumers the information needed to break this
supply side oligopoly.
If you have questions, I would be happy to
help you out with sources, facts, articles, editing and
mentoring.
Carpe diem,
dave
David E. Bruderly PE
Bruderly Engineering Associates
Wise Gas Inc. 1221 Molokai Road Jacksonville
FL 32216-3275 www.wisegasinc.com
***
Subject:
clarification regarding article in March 31 issue
Dear Colin,
In the article How dark is our spring? from
the March 31 issue in the Gallon Environment Letter a few things have been
confused.
The concentrations of PAHs in the Highland
Creek river increased by two orders of magnitude (factor of approximately 100)
and considering the enhanced river flow rates at the onset of melting, the PAH
flux (chemical amount per time unit) increased by three orders of
magnitude
(factor of approximately 1000). This is quite
different to a factor of 3 as mentioned in the article.
Also, in this particular study the particle
associated PAHs do not necessarily originate from the snow packs. Prior to the
spring melt period those polluted particles simply accumulate over weeks and
months on urban watershed surfaces and are then flushed into the streams along
with the melt runoff.
If you have further questions, please send me
an email.
Torsten
(Torsten Meyer is the researcher of the study
discussed in the last GL)
****************************************************
ONTARIO
ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY: STILL READY TO GROW
The Ontario Environment Industry Association
(ONEIA) released a report with recommendation on how the Ontario government
could support the innovation of the industry at its Environment Industry Day
where business leaders were heard and heard from legislators including Premier
McGinty and Environment Minister John Wilkinson. The report is an update to a
benchmark report issued in 2009.
The paper suggests that Ontario's traditional
industries are under pressure due to the rising dollar, higher energy costs and
shifts of manufacturing e.g. offshore. Ontario's environment and cleantech
industry provides an opportunity in its own right and also to assist traditional
industry sectors in making the transition to a cleaner economy. The environment
and clean tech sector in Ontario consists of about 3,000 firms, $8 billion in
annual revenues and 65,000 jobs. This sector has the potential to grow. Robert
Redhead, Chair of ONEIA and Alex Gill, Executive Director wrote in the
introduction "As a growing part of the province’s “next generation” economy, it
is important that our environment and cleantech sector offer an agenda so that
all stakeholders can respond and engage in a responsible public debate. Our
province’s economic and environmental future demands no less."
Five recommendations were listed:
- Ensure the success of the modernization of
the approvals process within the Ministry of Environment to make our business
climate even more progressive. MOE announced a comprehensive reform of the
approvals process to introduce two streams. An interim system was to be
introduced by September 2011 and a full system a year later but MOE may need
more capacity to deal with its regular work and the reform.
- Undertake a comprehensive green procurement
effort to make Ontario a North American leader in this area and provide
important support to our companies
- Focus on creating winning conditions – not
winners – through broad-based growth policies;
- Support research and product development
conducted in existing companies to complement our existing focus on
university-based research
- Support an industry-led bridge strategy that
helps connect our environment and cleantech firms with established players in
the Ontario economy. A number of companies have found it easier to do business
outside the country. Public policies with such aspects as higher energy and
water prices as well as clear regulations of strict environmental standards
and enforcement provide opportunities for the environment sector to provide
solutions.
While various levels of government put
priority on export markets, many small and medium companies need initiatives
which support developing a critical mass domestically first.
The paper defines the sector as "Ontario’s
environment and cleantech sector is made up of organizations or divisions of
organizations based in Ontario (or with substantial operations in this province)
whose primary business is the production, provision or development of products,
technologies or services that are designed to produce beneficial environmental
outcomes.
Ontario Environment Industry Association.
Still Ready to Grow: Generating growth and jobs through Ontario's environment
and cleantech sector.: An update. Toronto, Ontario: April 2011.
****************************************************
STATISTICS
CANADA: HOUSEHOLDS AND THE ENVIRONMENT SURVEY 2009
Households and the Environment is one of the
useful environmental reports still being published by Statistics Canada. The
following is a summary of some of the key finding of the 2009 report sent out by
John Marshall, Chief, Environmental Protection Accounts and Surveys, when the
report was published a few weeks ago:
More Canadian households were participating in
measures to conserve energy in 2009, such as using energy-efficient light bulbs
and programmable thermostats.
The majority (88%) of households reported that
they were using at least one of four different types of energy-efficient lights:
compact fluorescent lights, fluorescent tube lights, halogen lights or
light-emitting diode lights.
The use of low-flow shower heads more than
doubled during the past two decades, and more households reported having
low-volume toilets.
Households appear to be relying less on
bottled water at home, with the majority drinking tap water. Fewer households on
municipal water systems treated their tap water prior to drinking it compared
with 2007.
More than one-third of Canadian households had
unwanted electronic devices such as cell phones, computer monitors and
televisions to dispose of in 2009, and more than a fifth reported they had dead
or unwanted compact fluorescent lights to discard.
In 2009, 8 out of 10 households reported they
had purchased environmentally-friendly, or "green" cleaning products. In
addition, reusable and recycled bags and containers have increased in popularity
among shoppers for carrying their groceries.
Energy conservation
In 2009, energy accounted for about 15% of an
average household's annual spending on shelter, according to Statistics Canada's
Survey of Household Spending.
Nationally, three-quarters of households
reported having at least one compact fluorescent light. The proportion was
highest in Nova Scotia (84%).
Just over one-third (35%) of households
reported having a halogen light and 7% had the highly energy-efficient lights
that use light-emitting diodes.
Nearly half (49%) of the households that had a
thermostat had one that could be programmed, up from 42% in 2007 and 84% of
these households had implemented the programming option.
Just under three-quarters (74%) of households
that had programmed their thermostat used it to lower the temperature while they
were asleep. Households in Saskatchewan and Manitoba were the most likely to
have done this.
Almost two-thirds of households reported that
they used a clothesline or drying rack in 2009 as an alternative to a clothes
dryer.
Household hazardous waste
About 45% of households that had unwanted
electronic devices had taken or sent them to a depot or drop-off centre, up from
19% in 2005. About 11% of households put them in the garbage, down from 16% in
2005. Around 22% said they had donated the items to a charity or given them
away.
Compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) contain
mercury, which can have a significant impact on both human health and the
environment if not properly disposed of. Generally, these items are not accepted
in the regular garbage stream. More than one-half (56%) of households reported
that they put their dead or unwanted CFLs into the garbage. About 24% said they
took or sent them to a depot or drop-off centre.
Households in Ontario and British Columbia
were least likely to have put the CFLs into the garbage.
Water conservation
More households were taking steps to reduce
water consumption. In 2009, 63% used a low-flow shower head, more than double
the proportion of 28% in 1991, with the highest proportion in New Brunswick
(67%).
About 42% reported having a low-volume toilet
in 2009, compared with 9% in 1991. Almost half (48%) of households in Ontario
reported having a low-volume toilet, the highest proportion
provincially.
Households that did not have a municipal water
supply were more likely to use both devices.
About 18% of households not in apartments had
a barrel or cistern to catch rain water. These were used most commonly by
households in the three Prairie provinces.
Drinking water: Fewer households drank
primarily bottled water
Canadian households were less likely to have
consumed bottled water at home in 2009. About 24% of households reported bottled
water as their primary type of drinking water, down from 30% in 2007. About 9%
reported that they drank both tap and bottled water equally.
Just over half (51%) of households that had
municipally-supplied water treated it before using it. Jug filters were the most
common form of filtration device used by these households, with 35% reporting
one.
A similar proportion of households (49%) that
obtained their water from a non-municipal source, such as a well, treated it
prior to consumption. Filters and purifiers on the main supply pipe were most
commonly used (29%), followed by jug filters (15%).
Radon awareness and testing
Radon is a radioactive gas that is colourless,
odourless and tasteless. It is formed by the breakdown of uranium, a natural
radioactive material found in soil, rock and groundwater. In enclosed spaces,
such as basements, it can sometimes accumulate to high levels, which can be a
health risk.
About 42% of households reported they had
heard of radon gas, and just under half of those who had (49%) were able to
describe it correctly. Households in Manitoba and Nova Scotia were most likely
to have heard of it (60%).
The only way to know if radon is present in a
dwelling is to test for it. About 3% of households that had heard of radon and
were not in apartments had tested their dwelling for radon. Most (78%) had
conducted the testing within the last 10 years.
Note to readers
This release is based on new results from the
2009 Households and the Environment Survey (HES), which collects information on
households' activities related to the environment. More than 14,750 households
were surveyed by telephone in late 2009.
The 2009 survey covered several major themes,
including consumption and conservation of energy and water, indoor environment,
household hazardous waste, and purchasing decisions.
The HES is a biennial survey conducted under
the umbrella of the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators program, an
initiative of Statistics Canada, Environment Canada and Health
Canada.
Available on CANSIM: tables 153-0059,
153-0060, 153-0062, 153-0063, 153-0066 and 153-0098.
Definitions, data sources and methods: survey
number 3881.
The publication Households and the
Environment, 2009 (11-526-X, free), is now available from the Key resource
module of the Statistics Canada website under Publications, choose All subjects,
then Environment.
A CD-ROM, Households and the Environment
Survey: Public Use Microdata File, 2009 (16M0001X, free), is also
available.
For more information, or to enquire about the
concepts, methods or data quality of this release, contact the information
officer (613-951-0297; environ [emailsymbol] statcan.gc.ca), Environment
Accounts and Statistics Division.
----
****************************************************
CHEAP
"ENVIRONMENTALLY-FRIENDLY" SLAG STONE COULD BANKRUPT CAMPGROUND
OWNERS
On March 19, 2011 the Ontario Gazette, the
official government magazine, contained a list of companies which are being
dissolved. One of them was Rebound Resources Inc., Ontario Corporation
001177155. Here in Haldimand County, Rebound used to advertise in the local
newspapers every week for an alternative road and laneway surfacing material
that claimed to be cheaper than gravel. GL's editor was interested in the idea,
needed gravel for the drive and contacted the company almost a decade ago. The
salesman came to call and made the claim that the material was environmentally
friendly because it was recycled. He told us that it was slag stone from the
steel mills without any harmful components. We phoned the Ministry of the
Environment and they would not tell us much one way or the other. We didn't buy
it, mostly because the seller and the Environment Ministry told us that you
could not lay concrete on top of it, but apparently others used the material
quite widely for drives and roadways.
One such case was discussed last fall by Diane
Saxe, an environmental lawyer in Toronto. Campground operators Patricia and
Charles Edwards in Dunnville, also in Haldimand County and on the shores of Lake
Erie, purchased 940 tonnes of what Rebound advertised as "an affordable and
environmentally friendly stone alternative" for a price of just under $4,000 in
2001. In 2004, the Edwards were charged around $8,500 for clean up due to
leachate in the ditch. Rebound continued to tell the Edwards that the fill met
all government regulations. Then, in 2006, the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment notified the Edwards of a potential cleanup order but apparently
didn't issue a formal order because the cleanup costs would have bankrupted
them. Nevertheless, the fill was to be removed from the ditch by July 27, 2006.
The fill was classed as a recycled product, exempt from regulatory provisions,
but only until the Edwards took possession at which point it lost its
recycled/exempt status and they became solely liable for monitoring and clean-up
costs. The Edwards sued both Ontario and Rebound. Their claim was that the
province was grossly negligent in allowing Rebound to operate and advertise and
breached the Government's duty under the Environmental Protection Act. The court
found that there is no law for "negligent licensing" and the Environmental
Protection Act doesn't relate to advertising, selling of stone or slag. The
Edwards were mistaken if they thought that Ontario has a "public duty to protect
and warn the public and the Plaintiffs that such recycled materials need not
meet basic environmental standards or are otherwise exempt from same." The
judgement said, "There is no duty upon Ontario to enact legislation which
achieves any particular purpose."
The judge agreed that if the plaintiffs wanted
to pursue the case against Rebound they could do so as long as Ontario was not
one of the defendants. By then, Rebound was no longer in business. From a legal
point of view, the court was dismissive of the idea that government has any
obligation to protect its citizens but GL thinks it problematic that the
Ministry of the Environment has so little surveillance of polluters that this
company could operate for years advertising in an open way and moving toxic
industrial materials unto rural and lake-accessible waterways. The campground
owners have to be just one among many buyers of the slag material.. Also in the
international arena, it is the responsibility of the waste generators to ensure
that waste is handled responsibly retaining liability if it is not. Maybe it is
time, that governments took similar steps to protect its own
citizens.
Paid subscribers see link to original documents and
references here.
****************************************************
A WEE GAP:
BABY BULLET
The television ad for a small food
blender/grinder called the Baby Bullet advises that by making one's own baby
food, one can avoid pesticides, hormones, pesticides and other chemicals.
Mothers are shown with the finished baby food-filled jars admiring the date dial
and the voice-over explains that in a few seconds a sweet potato can be turned
into organic baby food. The only problem is, of course, that if the sweet potato
isn't organic to begin with, whipping it up in the Baby Bullet won't make it
organic!
Paid subscribers see link to
original documents and references
here.
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 + HST = $207.92. For individuals (non-organizational emails and paid with
non-org funds please) $30 includes HST. Subscription includes 12 issues about a
year or more. http://www.cialgroup.com/subscription.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx