From the Environment section of the Friday, January 18 - Sunday, January 20, 2008,24 hours, page 3, an article about a Canadian government proposal to set car mileage standards:
MANDATED MILEAGE ... BY 2020
The federal government has announced a proposal to improve fuel-economy standards on vehicles by 2020.
Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon said Thursday the government will consult the automotive industry on ways to improve fuel-efficiency standards.
"Our government recognizes the transportation sector is one of the largest sources of greenhouse-gas and air-pollutant emissions in Canada and that is why we are taking action now," Cannon said at the Montreal Auto Show.
The Sierra Club of Canada blasted the announcement and said the government has missed an opportunity for real action.
"Canadians shouldn't be made to wait another 12 years to see improvements in fuel efficiency," said spokeswoman Emilie Moorhouse.
"Such a delay would cost Canadians billions more in gas."
The Sierra Club said Cannon's announcement contrasts sharply with the leadership shown by Quebec and other provinces and states, who have pledged to adopt California standards for cars.
California is aiming to attain an average of miles a gallon by 2016.
"Canada should lead the way, not drag the leaders down," said Jean Langlois, the Sierra Club's national campaigns director.
Jean Charest was the first provincial premier to dismiss the federal proposal, saying Quebec will ignore the plan and follow tougher California standards.
"We like that the Canadian government gets in line with it, and we will continue to push them to adopt it," Charest told reporters at a Liberal meeting in Sherbrooke, Que.
- The Canadian Press
Friday, January 18, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Clean Coal Myth
From the November/December 2007, Volume XVIII, Number 6, E The Environmental Magazine, page 39, an article about the claims and the myth of clean coal:
THE MYTH OF CLEAN COAL
Can coal be clean? Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV), who has proposed legislation to subsidize "clean coal," says it can. He thinks the answer to foreign oil dependence is right here at home, buried in West Virginia's ancient mountains. He envisions $35-a-barrel oil produced froma homegrown resource: abundant coal. With very little prompting, Rahal will tell you that with coal-to-liquid technology we can "revolutionize our way to a new energy era."
Greenhouse gas emissions won't be a problem, he says, because the new plants Rahall's legislation envisions would sequester the carbon dioxide (CO2) so it never reaches the atmosphere. The resulting liquid fuel, he says, will be cleaner than required by the Environmental Protection Agency's strong Tier II standards.
Sound good? There's more. Coal executives will tell you we have enough of this fossil fuel in the ground to last up to 450 years, though the National Academy of Sciences recently down-graded that to a mere 100 years. But the coal is all ours. "Imagine a world where our country runs on energy from Middle America instead of the Middle East," says Peabody Energy, the world's biggest coal company and a major player in the Southeast.
Coal state politicians have proposed a patchwork of bills that would, among other things, offer billions of dollars in loans for liquid coal plants, support research and insulate coal fuel from price shocks. But even with a very effective lobby, getting this legislation through Congress has so far proven difficult. What's going on? The money would be well spent if it helps us achieve clean energy independence, right?
Alas, the dirty secret is that "clean coal" is anything but. The process involves heating coal to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit and mixing it with water to produce a gas, then converting the gas into diesel fuel. Although the industry-sponsored Coal-to-Liquids Coalition says that CO2 emissions from the entire production cycle of liquid coal are "equal to, or slightly below, those of conventional petroleum-derived fuels," its claims are based on a single federal study, now six years old.
Jim Presswood, federal energy advocate of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) says, "Liquid CO2 emissions are twice as much as emissions from conventional petroleum-derived fuels." He says that even if CO2 emissions are sequestered as part of the process, at best liquid coal would be 12 percent worse than the gasoline equivalent. As some environmentalists have put it, liquid coal can turn any hybrid Prius into a Hummer.
The Washington Post editorialized, "To wean the U.S. off of just one million barrels of the 21 million barrels of crude oil consumed daily, an estimated 120 million tons of coal would need to be mined each year.
The process requires vast amounts of water, particularly a concern in the parched West. And the price of a plant is estimated at $4 billion."
The technology to sequester carbon is largely theoretical, and the plants to liquify it are mostly in South Africa. But even if the process was perfected and burning coal produced zero emissions, liquid coal would still be far from clean.
There are many coal states, however, and their politicians will continue to advance their cause. Erich Pica, director of domestic campaigns at Friends of the Earth, says that several amendments that would be subsidized coal-to-liquid technology were stripped out of the Senate version of the energy bill, but supporters from both parties are very determined to put them back on the table. "It's an uphill fight for us," Pica says. "Supporters of coal-to-liquid have an aggressive, proactive agenda and many opportunities to get things done."
The flipside of the coal lobby's empty promises and ready cash (the Bush campaign secured $530,560 from coal companies and electric utilities in the 2000 cycle, reports EarthJustice) is the harsh reality of mountaintop removal mining. This now-standard practice in the Southeast coalfields is efficient only in delivering coal companies windfall profits. It has left an incalculable toll in shattered lives, permanently destroyed environments and polluted groundwater.
CONTACTS: Natural Resources Defense Council, (212) 727-2700, www.nddc.org; West Virginia Coal Association, (304) 342-4153, www.wvcoal.com.
THE MYTH OF CLEAN COAL
Can coal be clean? Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV), who has proposed legislation to subsidize "clean coal," says it can. He thinks the answer to foreign oil dependence is right here at home, buried in West Virginia's ancient mountains. He envisions $35-a-barrel oil produced froma homegrown resource: abundant coal. With very little prompting, Rahal will tell you that with coal-to-liquid technology we can "revolutionize our way to a new energy era."
Greenhouse gas emissions won't be a problem, he says, because the new plants Rahall's legislation envisions would sequester the carbon dioxide (CO2) so it never reaches the atmosphere. The resulting liquid fuel, he says, will be cleaner than required by the Environmental Protection Agency's strong Tier II standards.
Sound good? There's more. Coal executives will tell you we have enough of this fossil fuel in the ground to last up to 450 years, though the National Academy of Sciences recently down-graded that to a mere 100 years. But the coal is all ours. "Imagine a world where our country runs on energy from Middle America instead of the Middle East," says Peabody Energy, the world's biggest coal company and a major player in the Southeast.
Coal state politicians have proposed a patchwork of bills that would, among other things, offer billions of dollars in loans for liquid coal plants, support research and insulate coal fuel from price shocks. But even with a very effective lobby, getting this legislation through Congress has so far proven difficult. What's going on? The money would be well spent if it helps us achieve clean energy independence, right?
Alas, the dirty secret is that "clean coal" is anything but. The process involves heating coal to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit and mixing it with water to produce a gas, then converting the gas into diesel fuel. Although the industry-sponsored Coal-to-Liquids Coalition says that CO2 emissions from the entire production cycle of liquid coal are "equal to, or slightly below, those of conventional petroleum-derived fuels," its claims are based on a single federal study, now six years old.
Jim Presswood, federal energy advocate of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) says, "Liquid CO2 emissions are twice as much as emissions from conventional petroleum-derived fuels." He says that even if CO2 emissions are sequestered as part of the process, at best liquid coal would be 12 percent worse than the gasoline equivalent. As some environmentalists have put it, liquid coal can turn any hybrid Prius into a Hummer.
The Washington Post editorialized, "To wean the U.S. off of just one million barrels of the 21 million barrels of crude oil consumed daily, an estimated 120 million tons of coal would need to be mined each year.
The process requires vast amounts of water, particularly a concern in the parched West. And the price of a plant is estimated at $4 billion."
The technology to sequester carbon is largely theoretical, and the plants to liquify it are mostly in South Africa. But even if the process was perfected and burning coal produced zero emissions, liquid coal would still be far from clean.
There are many coal states, however, and their politicians will continue to advance their cause. Erich Pica, director of domestic campaigns at Friends of the Earth, says that several amendments that would be subsidized coal-to-liquid technology were stripped out of the Senate version of the energy bill, but supporters from both parties are very determined to put them back on the table. "It's an uphill fight for us," Pica says. "Supporters of coal-to-liquid have an aggressive, proactive agenda and many opportunities to get things done."
The flipside of the coal lobby's empty promises and ready cash (the Bush campaign secured $530,560 from coal companies and electric utilities in the 2000 cycle, reports EarthJustice) is the harsh reality of mountaintop removal mining. This now-standard practice in the Southeast coalfields is efficient only in delivering coal companies windfall profits. It has left an incalculable toll in shattered lives, permanently destroyed environments and polluted groundwater.
CONTACTS: Natural Resources Defense Council, (212) 727-2700, www.nddc.org; West Virginia Coal Association, (304) 342-4153, www.wvcoal.com.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Promoting Local Foods and Supporting Farmers
From the Friday, October 5, 2007, Toronto Star, page A14, an article about eating local foods and supporting local farmers:
CRUNCH ISSUE
All parties polish apple to promote local foods
Ontario farm aid now yields city votes, too
Catherine Porter
Environment Reporter
Depending on the day on the NDP campaign bus, Howard Hampton might be munching on a strudel with organic Swiss chard grown near Hamilton or Italian sausage from a King City pig.
It's part of a plan to promote the local food movement, underscored by a radical platform to pass a law, if the NDP were elected, that would require grocery stores to reserve shelf space for Ontario produce.
The four biggest parties have platforms to provide a boost to local farmers and get more of their products into our bellies.
It's a sign that politicians have realized agriculture is also an urban issue. City dwellers are increasingly concerned about where their food comes from, and how it is grown.
"This is the high-water mark for attention to food in Ontario politics in living memory," says Wayne Roberts, chair of the Toronto Food Policy Council.
Conservative Leader John Tory has promised incentives to encourage stores to carry Ontario-grown food, and the Green party has a $40 million program to help stores and restaurants carry local food from "sustainable" farm practices.
Thee Liberals plan to continue their $13 million annual "Buy Ontario" program promoting local food.
All but the Liberals have promised to lead by example - getting Ontario jails, schools and hospitals to start buying local food.
But only the Green party proposes a $300 million program to fund things like co-operatives, so small-scale farmers could band to supply large quantities to stores, and costly freezing and storage sites, so produce would be cooled correctly and look less limp on shelves.
"It has nothing to do with how good the farmer is. It's the kind of facilities the farmer has access to," says Mike Schreiner, vice-president of Local Food Plus, a Toronto non-profit group that certifies and promotes local, sustainable farms and food processors. "That's one of the things that get overlooked - the middle component."
The essential problem facing all these proposals is the dwindling number of Ontario farms. The Greater Toronto Area alone lost 16 per cent of its farms between 1996 and 2001. Fewer farms means less food to fill the demand, says Elbert van Dokersgoed, executive director of the Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action Committee.
"Farmers are not in a position to meet the growing demand," he says in an email. "The infrastructure of locally grown food has withered in the face of massive cheap imports."
Sunnybrook hospital consumes 70,000 apples a year. Multiply that by 150 hospitals around the province, and Ontario's 380 apple growers would be hard-pressed to meet the demand, says Tom Chudleigh, an apple farmer in Milton.
Ontario also has 31 provincial prisons and 884 secondary schools with produce needs, not to mention thousands of grocery stores.
The transition would have to happen over time, as farmers change their crop mix to meet the new demand, says Rod MacRae, a professor food, agriculture and the environment at York University.
He's among many food experts and farmers who dislike the NDP's idea to pass a law to force Ontario produce into stores.
"If stores are not committed to properly merchandising the stuff, it will rot," he says.
"That's what happened with the early organics. It was put on mobile unrefrigerated trays where it wilted , and then the stores complained that nobody was buying it.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Canadians Need Government Leadership on Climate Change
From the Friday, December 28, 2007, Ideas section of the Toronto Star, page AA8, an article about the Canadian public who want their government and businesses to take a leadership role in combatting climate change:
IT'S CLEAR: CANADIANS WANT ACTION
Agenda 2008 The Environment
The third in a series of essays about key issues in the year ahead
The public wants governments, businesses to combat global warming now
David Suzuki
Every important issue needs a flashpoint, something that ignites the topic in the public consciousness.
Just think of my favourite book, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which gave birth to the modern environmental movement. Or Sir Bob Geldof, who helped raise money for starving Ethiopians in the 1980s with his Live-Aid concerts.
For years, the environment was on the fringes of the mainstream. News about climate was relegated to the back pages of the newspaper, if it was covered at all.
But over the past year, the environment, especially global warming has experienced several flashpoints. In 2007, Al Gore's film about climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, won an Oscar for best documentary. A few months after Gore's win, hundreds of the world's leading scientists with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that humans were "highly likely" responsible for global climate change.
The hard work of raising awareness of global warming by Gore and the hundreds of scientists who make up the IPCC did not go unacknowledged. They richly deserved to earn the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, and it brought even more attention to the climate change challenge.
Their efforts had an effect. I discovered this first-hand this past year when I went on a national tour to find out what Canadians would do to protect the environment if they were prime minister. I was surprised by how thoughtful and well-informed their suggestions were.
Over and over, Canadians told me that nature was a key part of who we are as a people and they wanted it protected. They want Canada to meet its Kyoto commitment, a carbon tax and efficient, affordable public transit. And they are willing to do their part but want government to show leadership. Canadians also want corporations to act responsibly.
This should be remembered as the year the global alarm clock went off and the world was forced to wake up and deal with the problem at hand.
So what does all this action in 2007 mean for 2008? Plenty.
I hope to see several things happen in the coming year. First, I hope that the momentum that Canadians have built to adopt sustainable choices will continue.
Major social change is not possible without public support and momentum. All of the major battles of social progress, such as allowing women to vote, were made possible because people got involved and decided they would no longer stand for business as usual. The public knew it was time for a change, and they made sure their legislators knew too.
Nowadays, climate change it at the very top of the polls, and it's up to every one of us to tell our elected and business leaders what we want.
As a Northern country with the longest marine coastline of any nation, Canada is especially vulnerable to the impact of climate change. Our economy is dependent on climate sensitive activities like agriculture, forestry, fisheries and tourism. It's in our national interest to act strongly on climate.
And this leads to my second wish for 2008: I hope that all levels of government enact policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Although it's easy to criticize the federal governments of the U.S. and Canada for their inaction on global warming, other levels of government are showing real leadership.
For example, more than 700 U.S. mayors have signed an agreement promising to meet or beat the Kyoto targets of 2012. And a few years ago, Toronto City Council passed one of the world's most innovative projects, the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, which provides grants and loans for municipal projects that combat global climate change.
On a large scale, there are signs that the rest of the world is also joining together to take action. At the recent international climate change conference in Bali, Indonesia, Australia's newly elected prime minister immediately signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. And he received a standing ovation.
Delegates to the conference continued important discussions about the best approach the Kyoto's signatories should take after the protocol runs out in 2012. This dialogue is important. By talking and sharing ideas and technology, countries can learn from one another.
One of the biggest frustrations I've felt throughout 2007 was hearing the same excuse from Canada's federal government against taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"We can't reduce greenhouse gas emissions without destroying the economy." But let's think about this for a moment.
We live in one of the world's richest countries. If we can't afford to make changes that will protect our health and slow down global warming, who will?
Why on earth would we expect a developing nation to make changes and adopt sustainable policies if we don't?
And right now, the Canadian economy is strong, yielding an enormous surplus. We have a minority government in which all of the opposition parties favour strong action so there is nothing to lose by acting decisively.
I'm often asked how I feel about the extensive media coverage that climate change is currently receiving. My answer is always the same: It's a bittersweet moment.
It is good to see the public and the media discussing the environment and trying to find suitable solutions that will protect the health of Canadians and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But at the same time, it is frustrating to see government inaction on climate change.
And this brings me to my final wish for 2008: that each one of us considers the environmental impact of our decisions, and that we influence others to do the same.
In a democracy, we have the opportunity of expressing our concerns and demanding that those we elect to office act on them.
Groups as diverse as hockey players, scouting groups, stay-at-home moms and business people have publicly stated their concern for the environment, and are starting to take concrete steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
More than 320 NHL players, for instance, recently joined my foundation in adopting carbon offsets to neutralize the greenhouse gas emissions they create from all the travelling they do. These athletes are role models, at a time when many of our government leaders are not.
The growing body of scientific evidence shows that the public has every right to be concerned about climate change.
And if there is anything good to be taken from this current global crisis, it is that we are beginning to see individuals, organizations, communities and governments work together to combat this global challenge.
In times of crisis and war, humans are capable of an amazing ability to co-operate. In the late 1980s, several countries banded together and agreed to stop using ozone-depleting substances. There is evidence that the ozone layer has started to heal.
That's just one success. There are others. And now it's time for all of us to start doing something.
This crisis too big for us to fight on our own.
David Suzuki is a world leader in sustainable ecology and is co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation.
IT'S CLEAR: CANADIANS WANT ACTION
Agenda 2008 The Environment
The third in a series of essays about key issues in the year ahead
The public wants governments, businesses to combat global warming now
David Suzuki
Every important issue needs a flashpoint, something that ignites the topic in the public consciousness.
Just think of my favourite book, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which gave birth to the modern environmental movement. Or Sir Bob Geldof, who helped raise money for starving Ethiopians in the 1980s with his Live-Aid concerts.
For years, the environment was on the fringes of the mainstream. News about climate was relegated to the back pages of the newspaper, if it was covered at all.
But over the past year, the environment, especially global warming has experienced several flashpoints. In 2007, Al Gore's film about climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, won an Oscar for best documentary. A few months after Gore's win, hundreds of the world's leading scientists with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that humans were "highly likely" responsible for global climate change.
The hard work of raising awareness of global warming by Gore and the hundreds of scientists who make up the IPCC did not go unacknowledged. They richly deserved to earn the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, and it brought even more attention to the climate change challenge.
Their efforts had an effect. I discovered this first-hand this past year when I went on a national tour to find out what Canadians would do to protect the environment if they were prime minister. I was surprised by how thoughtful and well-informed their suggestions were.
Over and over, Canadians told me that nature was a key part of who we are as a people and they wanted it protected. They want Canada to meet its Kyoto commitment, a carbon tax and efficient, affordable public transit. And they are willing to do their part but want government to show leadership. Canadians also want corporations to act responsibly.
This should be remembered as the year the global alarm clock went off and the world was forced to wake up and deal with the problem at hand.
So what does all this action in 2007 mean for 2008? Plenty.
I hope to see several things happen in the coming year. First, I hope that the momentum that Canadians have built to adopt sustainable choices will continue.
Major social change is not possible without public support and momentum. All of the major battles of social progress, such as allowing women to vote, were made possible because people got involved and decided they would no longer stand for business as usual. The public knew it was time for a change, and they made sure their legislators knew too.
Nowadays, climate change it at the very top of the polls, and it's up to every one of us to tell our elected and business leaders what we want.
As a Northern country with the longest marine coastline of any nation, Canada is especially vulnerable to the impact of climate change. Our economy is dependent on climate sensitive activities like agriculture, forestry, fisheries and tourism. It's in our national interest to act strongly on climate.
And this leads to my second wish for 2008: I hope that all levels of government enact policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Although it's easy to criticize the federal governments of the U.S. and Canada for their inaction on global warming, other levels of government are showing real leadership.
For example, more than 700 U.S. mayors have signed an agreement promising to meet or beat the Kyoto targets of 2012. And a few years ago, Toronto City Council passed one of the world's most innovative projects, the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, which provides grants and loans for municipal projects that combat global climate change.
On a large scale, there are signs that the rest of the world is also joining together to take action. At the recent international climate change conference in Bali, Indonesia, Australia's newly elected prime minister immediately signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. And he received a standing ovation.
Delegates to the conference continued important discussions about the best approach the Kyoto's signatories should take after the protocol runs out in 2012. This dialogue is important. By talking and sharing ideas and technology, countries can learn from one another.
One of the biggest frustrations I've felt throughout 2007 was hearing the same excuse from Canada's federal government against taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"We can't reduce greenhouse gas emissions without destroying the economy." But let's think about this for a moment.
We live in one of the world's richest countries. If we can't afford to make changes that will protect our health and slow down global warming, who will?
Why on earth would we expect a developing nation to make changes and adopt sustainable policies if we don't?
And right now, the Canadian economy is strong, yielding an enormous surplus. We have a minority government in which all of the opposition parties favour strong action so there is nothing to lose by acting decisively.
I'm often asked how I feel about the extensive media coverage that climate change is currently receiving. My answer is always the same: It's a bittersweet moment.
It is good to see the public and the media discussing the environment and trying to find suitable solutions that will protect the health of Canadians and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But at the same time, it is frustrating to see government inaction on climate change.
And this brings me to my final wish for 2008: that each one of us considers the environmental impact of our decisions, and that we influence others to do the same.
In a democracy, we have the opportunity of expressing our concerns and demanding that those we elect to office act on them.
Groups as diverse as hockey players, scouting groups, stay-at-home moms and business people have publicly stated their concern for the environment, and are starting to take concrete steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
More than 320 NHL players, for instance, recently joined my foundation in adopting carbon offsets to neutralize the greenhouse gas emissions they create from all the travelling they do. These athletes are role models, at a time when many of our government leaders are not.
The growing body of scientific evidence shows that the public has every right to be concerned about climate change.
And if there is anything good to be taken from this current global crisis, it is that we are beginning to see individuals, organizations, communities and governments work together to combat this global challenge.
In times of crisis and war, humans are capable of an amazing ability to co-operate. In the late 1980s, several countries banded together and agreed to stop using ozone-depleting substances. There is evidence that the ozone layer has started to heal.
That's just one success. There are others. And now it's time for all of us to start doing something.
This crisis too big for us to fight on our own.
David Suzuki is a world leader in sustainable ecology and is co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
