|
||
|
||
|
2007 02 19
Using Online Collaborative Design To Solve Environmental Problems
2007 02 16
Legislators Forum In Washington: Just Hot Air?
The amount of press generated by the Legislators Forum in Washington would suggest the politicians there had solved global warming or ended global conflict forever. In fact, the news is not that good. The agreement arrived at is non-binding. Great. Without binding commitments why should governments bother to actually make companies comply? If we’ve learned anything from the Kyoto Accord it is that any commitment that can be put off will be. Political expediency is a wonderful thing to behold. Here is a European story about the forum. It is self-congratulatory and if looked at realistically takes us back to a pre-Kyoto era where we are entering a “climate of cooperation.”
Ontario Cleans Up Greenhouse Emissions
According to trade publication Oilweek Magazine (who knew?), Ontario has reduced the greenhouse gases produced by its coal-fired power plants to below 1990 levels. In addition, says the magazine, the Ontario government claims that the province’s emissions have declined by 29 per cent since the Liberal government took office. As you probably are aware, coal-fired power generation is among the largest greenhouse gas producers in the country. Here are some stats from the story:
2007 02 15
Canada’s Parliament Passes Kyoto Bill
Over the objections of the minority Conservative government, opposition parties came together yesterday to pass a bill that would have Canada meet its 2012 Kyoto targets. Private member’s bill C-288, championed by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, was approved by a vote of 161-113. In spite of the bill’s passage by a majority in a democratically elected parliament, the Conservatives said they will resist it with legal action if necessary. Still, University of Ottawa law professor Stewart Elgie says that the legislation will be binding on the Conservative government. Many Kyoto opponents say that Canada cannot possibly hope to meet our previously agreed upon Kyoto targets. Given the oil and gas industry’s huge investment in producing inefficient tar-sands oil, that is true. I belong to the “necessity is the mother of invention” camp on this issue though. If we do not make the effort and set binding targets with real regulatory teeth then we will never reduce our greenhouse gas production. Canada, as you know, is one of the world’s worst offenders. This is an issue equal to or greater than any other crisis our country has faced. Doing little or nothing will cost Canadians billions. Take a look at the U.K.’s Stern Report for a full explanation of the economic impact of global warming. It deserves a level of commitment at least as large as that given to “wars on terror” and other such policies that may or may not have any real validity.
2007 02 13
The End Of Global Warming Denial: Part 2, Spin Cycle
A few weeks ago we published a very enthusiastic story about how 10 major corporations joined forces to fight global warming. Calling their initiative the United States Climate Action Partnership, their stated objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10-30% over the next 15 years.
It turns out that the story should not be taken at face value, at least not according to the Seattle Post Intelligencer’s guest columnist, Mari Margil. Here is how Margil leads the story:
Can you spell S-P-I-N? The column gets more specific. Not only was USCAP member Walmart supporting politicians with bad green voting histories, it supported members of Congress who rate at the bottom of the green index.
While it is important to applaud and support any corporate activity that aims to reduce pollution and increase environmental sustainability, it is also important to penalize those companies who intentionally deceive the market. After all, they are trying to attract customers with their commitment to the environment. if that commitment turns out to be mere opportunism then consumers are obliged to shop elsewhere. Most rational people—whether consumers or producers—realize that we cannot continue to build companies around unsustainable practices. However, short-term business planning with its emphasis on quarterly results forces managers to look for quick solutions to their environmental problems. In this case, the solution was to engage in some proactive media spinning to give consumers comfort while, behind the scenes, continuing to engage in unsustainable practices.
Maybe the answer for companies like WalMart is to create a VP of Sustainability position with the power and responsibility to shift the company to a sustainable footing. There is no guarantee that this will work - look at Canada’s commitment to the Kyoto Accord as an example of how unsubstantial commitments can be.
2007 02 12
Alternative Forms Of Transportation: The Modern Bicycle Does 78 MPH!
Want to cycle past cars on the way to work? Easyracers.com has the answer. Their recumbent bicycles are designed to take the hard work out of going fast on two wheels. Take a look at this video for an example. The bike hit 78 miles per hour. The street version is not quite as streamlined but will easily test the limits of those 40 kph zones in urban Canada.
2007 02 08
In The Environment, Nothing Is Free
I have a theory. It goes something like this. The western economy is driven by inefficiency. In spite of what you may have heard about techniques of continual process improvement and other such schemes to improve efficiencies on a micro level, on the macro level we try and make our economies as inefficient as possible. Why? Simply put it is because we want to keep as many people employed as possible while making the greatest return on investments possible. Why else have massively inefficient home building trades “custom” build every home in every suburb from Baltimore to Beijing. After all, building highly customizable, efficient, factory-built shelters is something we’ve known how to do for about 100 years now. The truth is that we want places in our economy for skilled people who don’t have access to higher education. Building trades fit that bill. Another example of our need for inefficiency is the desire for energy panaceas like “ethanol” fuel mixes. The idea behind this so-called energy solution is that it reduces the demand for foreign oil imports while having the additional benefit of making our existing automotive fleet fractionally more energy-efficient. We produce this ethanol fuel by growing massive amounts of vegetables like, say, corn and use that as the base for a sludge that gets converted to ethanol. Brilliant - at least according to George W. Bush’s latest “State-of-the-Nation” address. Well, nothing is free, It turns out that the reality of biofuel is not as simple as our simple concept oriented media would have us think. Most of North America’s ethanol is derived from corn. Corn, as many researchers will tell you, really is not that efficient a product. It requires vast amounts of fertilizers and other energy inputs to plant, grow, harvest, and convert to other uses. Exactly! It is so inefficient that taking the ethanol route will employ millions and continue our North American pattern of more industrialized mega-farms using more to produce less - at least products that offer less quality on a number of important measures. More importantly, it will be a disaster for our landscape. Perfect, if you love reckless inefficiency.
Here is what the Green Prices magazine writes:
This is another example of macro-economic thinking driving driving solutions on a micro level. It works if you are an energy superpower like Exxon. But from a grassroots, bottom up economic perspective it makes little sense as a sustainable solution. So, lets not kid ourselves any longer. Biofuel sounds good but it is yet another high-cost, ineffecient environmental solution that is acceptable to the same people who bring you big oil.
2007 02 06
David Suzuki Wants You!
The Canadian environmental institution, David Suzuki, is on a cross-country tour asking people, “What would you do for the environment if you were Prime Minister?” You can participate by adding your video to David’s YouTube page. Here is his pitch to Canadians along with some responses.
2007 02 05
Toronto’s Waterfront Goes Green
Torontonians are waking up from a century long nightmare where our city willfully industrialized then polluted a waterfront that could rival the Riviera’s. Toronto’s dark sleep is over though. We are once again embracing the lake, this time with a green renaissance that will make Toronto a global leader in sustainable waterfront development. New parks will soon edge the lakefront from Etobicoke to Scarborough. The shear size of this waterfront rediscovery is difficult to imagine. After all, isn’t the waterfront where Toronto puts highways, rail yards, and smokestack industries? Not any more—except for the Ontario Liberal government’s counter-intuitive placement of a gas-fired power plant in the eastern port lands. But that is an exception that proves the rule. Look at the newly proposed Lake Ontario Park for the latest example of our waterfront reawakening. Extending from the Harris Water Filtration Plant in the east to the end of the Leslie Street Spit in the west, the 925 acre park will boast 37 kilometers of shoreline. It also will create new marinas and give all Torontonians the lake access now only enjoyed by a few in the ever more costly Beach district. The park’s plan ties together three major city districts: The Beach, the Spit, and the Cherry Street industrial lands. In many ways, the master planners, Field Operations of New York, are referring back to the landscape of an earlier Toronto waterfront where sand eroded from the eastern bluffs formed the now lost Fisherman’s Island that once enclosed Ashbridge’s Bay. The Beach segment is primarily recreational and cultural while the Spit will become more of a nature wilderness. In between is Cherry Beach—referred to as the “Bar” as in sand bar—that will offer a mixture of recreational and natural amenities including an expanded marina. A unified park this vast is intended to be an international landmark on par with New York’s Central Park or, in a Canadian context, Vancouver’s Stanley Park. The agency responsible for bringing these plans to life—the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation—thinks big. John Campbell, TWRC’s President and CEO, says that in the future when people think of Toronto they will first think of Lake Ontario Park. “Cities are defined by the quality of their public spaces,” argues Campbell. It will be expensive too. When finished, the entire east to west waterfront revitalization project will represent an investment of about 4 billion dollars in public money and 17 to 20 billion in combined public and private funding. According to Campbell it may just be the largest such project in the world. Whether you are an Italian Medici or a Canadian TWRC, the capital required for any renaissance attracts the best artists and designers. Don Schmidt of Diamond and Schmidt Architects notes, “The project is absolutely thrilling. What is really remarkable is that right now we have three or four of the world’s top landscape architects in the city working on these projects.” It is money well spent. We know from City Hall’s Creative City research that this kind of investment is a critical part of Toronto’s 21st century economic strategy. Offering knowledge workers a livable city will be essential to our future global economic competitiveness. We will also need enjoyable leisure spaces to decompress from the increasing urban density that is part of Toronto’s future. Ted Tyndorf, Toronto’s chief planner, says that by 2031 Toronto’s population will grow by 540,000 from its 1996 census figures. 2031 seems far off but what is interesting, according to Tyndorf, is that when our condo building boom is soon done we (...read more...)
2007 02 02
The IPCC Report Is Out: Time To Invest In Frobisher Bay Vacation Properties?
Even U.S. President George Bush and the global warming denying “research” firms funded by record profit-taking energy company Exxon gasped when the IPCC released its report today. The news is not good. The science behind global warming theories is irrefutable. It turns out that Nobel Peace Prize nominee Al Gore and virtually every other sentient being on the planet were right: human activity is warming the planet.
Here is the IPCC’s punch-line:
Now that the “junk science” disputes are firmly behind us it is time for Canadian policy makers and companies to act. We’ve all seen the recent headlines. Ottawa politicians we are now to understand are some of the greenest on the planet. Even Kyoto-bashing Prime Minister Stephen Harper has had an epiphany and seen the light - the green light that is. What was that he once wrote?
Okay, let’s let bygones be bygones and work together to fix the massive problems we are responsible for. We need the Canadian government, and indeed all governments, to buy into the idea that correcting global warming and its causes are an social and economic opportunity beyond the great U.S. led “race to the moon.” Political theorists have long argued that the only way for governments to work together would be in response to a threat that could only be dealt with by combined action. Now we have it and it is not science fiction, it’s science fact. Corporations too have their place in this “war on warming.” One of the things companies do best is optimize the use of capital and human activity. This new war represents infinite economic opportunities for those smart enough to embrace the challenge. What is your company doing?
The IPCC Report Is Out: Time To Invest In Frobisher Bay Vacation Properties?
Even U.S. President George Bush and the global warming denying “research” firms funded by record profit-taking energy company Exxon gasped when the IPCC released its report today. The news is not good. The science behind global warming theories is irrefutable. It turns out that Nobel Peace Prize nominee Al Gore and virtually every other sentient being on the planet were right: human activity is warming the planet.
Here is the IPCC’s punch-line:
Now that the “junk science” disputes are firmly behind us it is time for Canadian policy makers and companies to act. We’ve all seen the recent headlines. Ottawa politicians we are now to understand are some of the greenest on the planet. Even Kyoto-bashing Prime Minister Stephen Harper has had an epiphany and seen the light - the green light that is. What was that he once wrote?
Okay, let’s let bygones be bygones and work together to fix the massive problems we are responsible for. We need the Canadian government, and indeed all governments, to buy into the idea that correcting global warming and its causes are an social and economic opportunity beyond the great U.S. led “race to the moon.” Political theorists have long argued that the only way for governments to work together would be in response to a threat that could only be dealt with by combines action. Now we have it and it is not science fiction, it’s science fact. Corporations too have their place in this “war on warming.” One of the things companies do best is optimize the use of capital and human activity. This new war represents infinite economic opportunities for those smart enough to embrace the challenge. What is your company doing?
2007 02 01
Turn Off Your Lights Today For Five Minutes
2007 01 31
Industrial Capitalism Vs Finance Capitalism
A critical issue facing the environmental movement is the way we structure our economic policies. The world of high-brow economic theory has waged a pitched battle for about two hundred years over the benefits of Industrial Capitalism versus Finance Capitalism. Now, if you've read Janes Jacob's "The Nature of Economies," you know that the way we structure our financial markets can have a cause and effect relationship on the environment. Some feel that when FInance Capitalism won out in the 1970s the world took a turn towards complete environmental collapse.I am not an economist and cannot claim any great insight into the clash between these systems. I have, however found a compelling essay that explains it well. Jonathan Larson is the author and this is posted on his website. (I am assuming creative commons copyright on this essay. Please go to Mr. Larson's site for more essays on his theories of "Elegant Technology ... economic prosperity through environmental renewal.") Economics: A Matter of Life or Death by Jonathan Larson (first posted at European Tribune, Jan 18, 2007) When I took economics at the University of Minnesota in the early 1970s, one of my professors was Walter Heller. Heller was President Kennedy's Council of Economic Advisors chairman and would claim, quite seriously, that he taught Kennedy Keynesianism. In those days, the Keynesians were utterly dominant in academe and government. There were so many of them, they had subdivided into various schools. It could be argued that Heller represented the right wing of the Keynesian school. His economics department used the Neoclassical Samuelson text and his primary accomplishment in the Kennedy administration was his tax cut suggestion. But even from the right wing of the Keynesian impulse, Heller was quite clear that he thought folks like Milton Friedman were at best mistaken and quite possibly insane. Yet by the time I graduated, the acolytes of Friedman were running the economy of Chile with their sights set MUCH higher. And yes, they would set the economic operating assumptions for planet earth for a generation. There has been a lot of invented terminology to describe the change in fortunes of the Keynesians and the Friedmanites. But the MOST descriptive was that it marked the change from Industrial to Finance Capitalism. If River Rouge was the defining symbol of Industrial Capitalism, then the archetypical example of Finance Capitalism was Enron. Enron embodied the major flaws of Finance Capitalism--it was only possible because of economic deregulation, it relied on a willing suspension of disbelief in all reasonable measures of prudence, it sold cotton-candy products like weather futures, and it relied on industrial sabotage to make its fantasy profit targets. All of these maneuvers were done in public with the main movers featured prominently on the covers of the business press. Phil Gramm, who shepherded Enron's enabling deregulation through the Senate, was a regular talking head on the television news shows because he was a true believer who preached, as a trained economist, that deregulation was necessary and virtuous. This was not some sort of invisible conspiracy, this was a seizure of the intellectual high ground. But, scream the apologists for Finance Capitalism, we are not industrial saboteurs, vandals, and rip-off artists. We are SCIENTISTS and one of our members has been rewarded with a Nobel since 1968. And sure enough, the defenders of Finance Capitalism have erected an awesome intellectual apparatus to justify their crazy ideas and when all else fails, they point to rising numbers at their Meccas--the trading pits of the various stock exchanges world-wide. The problem is that under the rules of Finance (...read more...)
2007 01 29
Atwood Does Alberta
Margaret Atwood, photo from www.greenpeace.ca Reading Toronto contributor Margaret Atwood (oh, and noted Canadian author) gave Richard Helm of the Edmonton Journal an interview this week and the Alberta oil patch may never be the same. What’s Atwood’s position on Alberta’s energy industry?
Congratulations to Atwood for continuing to use her voice to advance environmental concerns.
2007 01 25
Toby Heaps: Davos Diary
---------------------------- Environment themes and their relationship with the economy, particularly climate change, are hot this year in Davos. Case in point. Last night I was waiting outside the Belvedere, the main Davos Hotel where the glitterati gather at night. As I was running a little late and it was quite a long line to get inside the hotel through the security check, I wondered if anyone would notice if I budded a little. But when I noticed that the Premier of Quebec was waiting behind me in the cold line, my better instincts suggested that was not a good idea, especially in Switzerland. The Premier and I were both heading for similar events. He was off to speak on a panel with UK Conservative Leader David Cameron on climate change and energy security, and I had a dinner to co-host. I was looking forward to the dinner for two reasons: to hear what the world’s leading investment bankers had to say on taking the good fight (climate change, human rights) to the political stage, and I was curious how the red-blooded Wall Street crowd (Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Swiss Re) would appreciate the 100 per cent vegetarian-meal I had ordered for all of them. It turned out that the hi-carb but low-carbon veggie-lasagna was a big hit, but my dinner conversation was interrupted when a senior Canadian aluminum company executive had to go outside to answer questions from a newspaper survey on whether his company supported the Kyoto Protocol and what they were doing about it. After dinner, a senior investment banker from the US started talking about his company’s fleet of hybrids and eco-efficient headquarters. I took a big gulp of red wine, hoping to dull my senses to the coming barrage of PR. But then the boom lowered. Investment banker after investment banker stated the obvious: banks have a small direct effect on the environment but through financing activities they have a huge indirect effect, bigger than many governments. One of the top investment bankers in the US said with the same glint in his eye as a prospector finding gold: “this area [renewable energy] is very hot right now in our firm to be spending money on.” The head of an industry group focused on corporate responsibility noted that when Goldman Sachs included environment and social metrics in its energy sector analysis, it had a bigger impact than a 1000 socially responsible investment funds could ever have. But the bottom line, the consensus went, was there must be a broader economic basis for protecting the environment. In the words of one US bank chief, “there is a clear social cost to destroying the environment and we see a role for government to play in helping measure that cost, and in getting money from the destroyers to the people they hurt.” He backed up his comments disclosing that his firm lobbies US Congress for stricter environmental regulations and gives money to political action committees on this basis. A UK climate lobbyist pointed out that while winners go to market, losers go to Washington. The consensus among the participants was that the winners need to go to Washington too, in order to help balance out the aggressively negative lobbying by the losers from policies (i.e. carbon taxes) that would align economic drivers with by providing accountability for environmental costs. As a fair amount of the discussion had to this point focused on the implications of (...read more...) |
Read what people are saying about the environmental issues that impact us all
Blog posts about wind energy
Blog posts about sustainability
Blog posts about green investing
Blog posts about hybrid autos
Blogs mentioning Zerofootprint
|
The best green news sources on the Net
Hugg
Green Car Congress
Green Girls Global
Grist
Eco Worrier
Inhabitat
Lime
Real Climate
Treehugger
World Changing
|
Set your watches for 1:55 PM Eastern time today. France based environmental group L’Alliance pour la Planète 
By Toby Heaps: Editor of Corporate Knights magazine which publishes the annual Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations list each year at the World Economic Forum.