Pity poor Exxon!

An appeals court cut in half the $5 billion (U.S.) in punitive damages that Exxon was ordered to pay after its Valdez tanker spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil off the Alaska coast 1989 (yes, it's been in court all this time). The judges ruled it was "unconstitutionally excessive." Tell that to the 34,000 fishermen whose livelihoods were destroyed -- not to mention the hideous environmental damage that drunken captain caused.

But here's the kicker: Exxon Mobil reported earnings of $10.49 billion (U.S.) in the third quarter of 2006. That's the second-largest quarterly profit ever recorded by a publicly traded company in the U.S. I had to check this on Exxon's own website because I just couldn't believe any company could pull down $10.5 billion in just three months. But alas, it's not a typo.

Read the Globe's story here.

Speaking of recycling...

The Harper Conservatives (namely, lame-duck minister Rona Ambrose, who is due to get shuffled out of the enviro portfolio any second) made an announcement the other day that biofuels will have to make up 5% of gasoline by 2010. Actually, the Tories made the same announcement back in May, 2006. Back then, David Suzuki dismissed the goal as insignificant.

Besides, the debate is still raging over how environmentally friendly ethanol really is -- considering all the pesticides, water and fossil fuels it takes to grow and ship it (though new technologies will hopefully remedy this at least in part). I put in that last part to appease ol' Squeaky Wheel -- we've had this argument many times before.

Vegetables-Good for You! Good for the Planet?

So T joins the debate with this:

I was once exposed to a moral dilemma by my younger brother. Eating meat meant causing pain and killing nice little pigs and cows and such. Meat tastes great. Take your pick. I became vegetarian then, but have long since fallen off of that higher moral plane. I sometimes attempt to go back. Now, however, another moral dilemma is posed. It ain't about the animals, it's about the planet. Eating meat is unsustainable. We can't have meat and biofuels both. The following article was printed as an opinion piece in the International Herald Tribune. I still don't occupy the high ground, but I'm trying. Maybe this time, I'll be the source of a moral dilemma. Or maybe we'll live with our little luxuries. Hats off to Gord Rand for getting this blogosphere started.

BELEM, Brazil: Thirty-five years ago, Frances Moore Lappé's revolutionary cookbook, "Diet for a Small Planet," warned of the dire consequences of a growing taste for meat. For example, it takes up to 16 times more farmland to sustain people on a diet of animal protein than on a diet of plant protein.

As American, European and Asian farmers run out of land for crop expansion, her warning rings prophetic. The emerging meat-eaters of the emerging economies - especially China - are driving industrial agriculture into the tropical forests of South America, sending greenhouse gases skyward in a dangerous new linkage between the palate and the warming of the planet.

Tropical forests contain a wealth of plant and animal species. But they are also a giant, volatile reservoir of carbon that must remain largely intact in order to bring global warming under control.

The wood of these magnificent ecosystems stores more than 400 billion tons of carbon, dwarfing the more than 7 billion tons of fossil fuel carbon burned each year.

This reservoir is leaking carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at the rate of 1-2 billion tons of carbon per year through the cutting and burning of rainforest. When agricultural fires escape into neighboring tropical forests during particularly dry years, another billion tons or two can slip into the sky.

Keeping tropical forests standing will not be easy. The problem is that they are perched on some of the world's largest remaining tracts of soil suitable for crop and pastureland expansion.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that all of the cropland of the United States could fit into the South American central plain and Amazon rainforest to the north. So as the growing wealth of China led to a doubling of its meat consumption over the last decade, it has turned to Brazilian soybeans to feed its exploding population of chickens and pigs. India, South Africa, and other emerging economies are on a similar course.

Continental meat-eating habits also deserve some credit for the demise of the Amazon. The European Union created an enormous protein shortfall when it banned the use of animal carcasses in animal ration following outbreaks of mad cow disease. As Chinese imports of soy from Brazil climbed from 0 to 8 million tons in the last decade, European imports went from 3 to 11 million tons.

High oil prices have also fueled the replacement of tropical forests with fields of grain and sugar cane. The most promising source of ethanol to fuel a new fleet of cleaner cars is Brazilian sugar cane, whose expanded production is pushing soy fields into the Amazon.

This diet-energy-climate conundrum may seem insurmountable. But there is reason for hope.

Imbedded in the growing worldwide demand for agricultural commodities is an increasingly rigorous set of environmental and social standards. Finance institutions, commodity traders, consumer groups, environmental NGOs and human rights organizations are pushing to raise the bar on the socio-environmental "quality" of the agricultural-commodity production chain.

For example, the companies that buy most of the soy produced in the Amazon recently declared a two-year moratorium on the purchase of soy grown on recently cleared Amazon rainforest soil, responding to a Greenpeace attack on McDonald's restaurants in Europe that fatten their chickens with Amazon soy.

And international climate negotiations provide another ray of hope. Last year, Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica proposed the compensation of tropical nations for their efforts to curb deforestation. Brazil advanced a similar proposal at the Nairobi round of negotiations last week.

Brazil's recent success in establishing large nature reserves in the path of the expanding agricultural frontier of the Amazon demonstrates that political will can translate into the slowing of tropical forest destruction. But the demand for agricultural commodities also must come down.

And there the hope is as close as our dinner tables. If Americans face the connections between diet and the planet by eating less meat they could provide a rare act of leadership in slowing global warming.

Daniel Nepstad is a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center.

What to do, what to do...?

Here's the oldest official vegetarian society in the world (or so they claim...). Bernie Shaw was a member!

www.vegsoc.org/index.html

Also, for any gluttons for punishment:
www.peta.com

This one I couldn't resist. I mean, who could resist a vegetarian from Alberta?
www.vofa.ca

Also, should you wish to date a vegetarian:
www.veggiedate.org

And should you wish to impress that vegetarian with a fantastic meal, these recipes look pretty good:
www.ivu.org/recipes/
It's the International Vegetarian Union.

And if you need your meat, there is this option:
www.thehealthybutcher.com/about_us.html
But who knows whether buying organic meat is better than not? Perhaps its tastier, and better for us, but is it more ecological?
Here are some arguments for the organic meat path:
www.care2.com/channels/solutions/food/526
Although, that weird stat from Tom's entry:

"The European Union created an enormous protein shortfall when it banned the use of animal carcasses in animal ration following outbreaks of mad cow disease"

Was it actually better for the planet when cows were eating themselves?

Some guys said these things, I guess...:

Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.
- Albert Einstein

Once we spread out into space and establish independent colonies, our future should be safe...
- Stephen Hawking

Oh yeah, and one other, in honour of Frances Moore Lappe:
www.smallplanetinstitute.org/

Down with the drive-thru!

My husband, Tim, screams and yells every time we pass by a line of cars idling at a drive-thru. Here's what he has to say:

"Why are drive-thrus allowed to exist? Just count the number of cars that sit and idle while waiting for a coffee -- and
multiply the wait time by 10 if, god forbid, somebody orders a bagel. I can’t imagine what the emissions would be if you
added up all those idling cars at drive-thrus across the country."

It's a good point. Toronto has a three-minute idling bylaw. But that bylaw doesn't seem to apply to drive-thrus. Why not? Because our society is all for environmental awareness -- as long as they don't have to drag their lazy asses out of their cars to grab a coffee.

By the way, in Alberta, land of the car, there are Starbucks drive-thrus. Picture, if you can through all the smog clogging the air, a line of SUVs idling in the drive-thru line while the cowboy up ahead waits for his tall double-fat extra-caffeinated mocha frappuccino.

Christmas time...

Season's greetings.

I got an email from my friend J3Names...

It's christmas. And so I ask. How do you package your gifts that you give? Me, I use old shopping bags (often the bag the purchase came in but more often a grocery sack with some holiday cheer on it) and whatever I can find as a substitute for grooving up the holidays.

If you are serious about this, I encourage you not purchase gift bags and boxes and what-nots that are the same kind of waste as over-packaging, and in fact, encourage consumer over-packaging. Recycle your own in some creative capacity. Save a tree, save the world.

My weird family used to cut down a thorn tree (that grew like weeds in the back woodlot) and use that as a Christmas tree. Plus, we all wrapped our presents in newspaper. This year is the second year my wife and I have used the same tree. It's a little potted pine that had some weird wind damage to it, but has filled out nicely in other places. It has tons of character.

Any suggestions for a green Christmas?

www.at-bristol.org.uk/wildwalk/GreenChristmas.htm
This is a British site that has a picture of a sweet and strange British couple enjoying a British Christmas day. Click on the various "yuletide elements" to find out what may make a greener holiday choice. Good for the kiddiwinks!

www.christmastrees.on.ca/consumers/recycling-ideas.html
What you can do with your Christmas tree after you use it! From the experts!

Here's a suggestion from our government:
www.ec.gc.ca/EnviroZine/english/issues/15/get_involved_e.cfm
More enviro-friendly Holiday tips:

• Try a potted tree this year. You can plant it in your yard in the spring and decorate it outdoors next year.
• Decorate your tree with handmade ornaments, strings of fresh cranberries and popcorn.
• New energy-saving outdoor light use 5-watt bulbs instead of 7-watt bulbs, a difference of 30 per cent less energy used.
• LED (Light Emitting Diode) holiday lights use about 99 per cent less energy than larger holiday bulbs at a tremendous savings on your energy bill.
• Homemade cards add a special personal touch or send an e-card this year to all your on-line friends.

If you believe in vegetarianism as a way to save the world, here's a Christmas website for you:
www.goveg.com/
It's got interesting recipes for vegetarian alternatives this Christmas.

And here's one from the hometown Hogtown boys (and girls):
www.toronto.ca/ourcity/holiday3r.htm

And of course, our old friends from Greenpeace, with some excellent suggestions including flourescent light bulb gifts and a "green guide" to consumer electronics. Plus, unnecessary encouragement to increase the mistletoe factor! What could bring world peace faster than lots of kissing? (except if you are kissing someone else's wife...)
www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/12-steps-to-a-greener-holiday

PLEASE SEND IN YOUR OWN IDEAS. JUST PRESS "LEAVE A COMMENT" AND BLOG AWAY! WE LOVE IT...

Breakfast of Champions?

A couple of weeks ago, I was standing on the Spadina streetcar platform when someone shoved a box in my hand. The box contained a white-flour sesame bagel, two packets of peanut butter and a plastic knife. And it was all inside a plastic container, wrapped in heavy cardboard. It was a new breakfast-to-go product put out by Dempster's. I was horrified. So were a lot of other people. Stuart Laidlaw, the Toronto Star's faith & ethics reporter, picked up the story, focusing on two women who started an online petition asking Dempster's to ditch it (the petition is at http://www.petitiononline.com/PKGREG/petition.html). So far, 1,155 people have signed. Here's an excerpt from a story that ran on Dec. 15:

"...More than 1,000 people have signed a petition set up by Nugent and roommate Morwenna White after a free sample of Dempster's Morning Mate bagel was handed to White on her way to work last week.

The petition is now one of the most popular on http://www.PetitionOnline.com, with signatures jumping six fold in the past few days. The two women are upset about the amount of packaging used for the bagels, which each come plastic-wrapped, with individual packets of jam and a cardboard sleeve.

The meeting, announced yesterday on CBC radio after a Toronto Star story about the bagel and petition, was called by the company so it could explain to Nugent and White the reasoning behind the packaging, and hear their ideas.
Connie Morrison, vice president of business development at Dempster's parent Canada Bread, told CBC consumers want a bagel they could grab on their way out the door in the morning. Many people, she said, don't have time to prepare a bagel before leaving for work.

That's why the company decided to encase the bagels in sealed "modified atmosphere packaging," which keeps the bagels tasting fresh for up to 30 days, allowing consumers to keep them on hand for when they are needed, Morrison said. The bagel is being test-marketed and is not on the market. She couldn't be reached yesterday. ..."

I encourage you to add your name to the petition and send Dempster's a message.

If they win, I hope the Liberals follow through...

Here's an excerpt from a story that ran in today's Globe and Mail, written by Alexander Penetta. It has Stéphane Dion saying he'll review all the juicy tax breaks the big oil companies get each year. I want to believe him so badly. But I won't get my hopes up just yet.

OTTAWA — Stéphane Dion says he will review tax breaks for the Alberta oil sands if he becomes prime minister and will only reward companies that meet environmental standards.
The Liberal leader said he would not impose a tax on gasoline, but would use other fiscal measures to encourage green technology.
Alberta's oil patch receives an estimated $1.4 billion in annual tax breaks through a program designed to encourage new capital projects.
He said the Accelerated Capital Cost Program, designed a decade ago to help the then-fledgling industry, is outdated and needs to be revamped.
“We will revisit it completely,” Mr. Dion told a news conference Thursday.
“Instead of an economy based on waste, we will have an economy based on recycling, on the best environmental technologies available.”
His pledge reflected positions that the NDP and environmental groups have long promoted.
Mr. Dion attempted to cut short any suggestion that the moves would be perceived as anti-Alberta.
He pointed out that former premiers Peter Lougheed and Ralph Klein, as well as Reform party founder Preston Manning, have all called for a move toward green technology....

One Sided Journalism?

This is from my friend Dave:


You asked about issues burning us, and there is one burning me (Dave) bad. It's been burning me for a while now, and, not surprisingly, it's the thing that really jumped out at me from An Inconvenient Truth. Gore talks about a recent survey which found that of the more than 900 peer-reviewed studies on climate change that have appeared in recognized journals not one has challenged the idea of global warming, but 53% of articles published in the mainstream media have presented it as a theory or debate. (my italics)

It's clear to me that journalists, both individually and collectively, are to blame for the atmosphere of doubt and apathy surrounding climate change. There is no editorial conspiracy. There are simply individual reporters and editors doing fantastically shitty jobs of covering and presenting these stories.

Over the last few months I've been buoyed up by a very few isolated articles (like this one http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html from the Globe and Mail in August) in which reporters have simply stated that climate change is an accepted scientific fact. It seems like such a small thing, but being unequivocal about that fact is still a pretty bold thing to do inside a journalistic organization. CBC still can't seem to do it.

Here's the link to a story by Teddy Katz on the CBC web site as well: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/basketball/story/2006/12/08/skiers-climate.html.

The radio story begins by introducing the "debate" about global warming in the ski industry. It then describes the dissenting voice as one

"caution(ing) that people shouldn't be so quick to push the panic button,"

and contrasts it with the scientists -- whose voices we don't even hear, but -- who "paint a picture" of an ugly future and "blame" global warming.

Seems to me that cautious voice reasoning against panic sounds a heap more reasonable than those artsy scientists and their nasty old blame. On the web they actually give that dissenting voice the last word, leaving readers with the suggestion that climate change scientists should be taken about as seriously as weathermen.

If you read the web story, and have anything to say I strongly urge you to send your comments to the CBC ombudsman as well. Apparently they like you to include your name, address and telephone number in your email. I guess so that they can call you, and then come to your house.

ombudsman@cbc.ca

After watching a feature news story on CBC at 6 tonight (Dec 15.2006) that talked at length of the bizarre weather all over Canada and saying "it was not clear what was causing it" I had to agree with him. Only a child of about 6 said "maybe it's global warming?"

I encourage everyone to demand real coverage of these issues on the news. I'm going to write the following letter to the ombudsman of the CBC. Want to do the same? Hurray! Power in numbers, people...

Dear Ombudsman,

It is with dismay that I have noticed lately a reticence on your journalists' part to mention global warming in their articles on climate change. In an article on CBC radio about champion skiers Thomas Grandi and Sara Renner's publicizing of the damage they feel that global warming is doing to their cherished mountains, the last word is given to a global warming skeptic. In a feature article on CBC at 6 on the bizarre weather Canada has been experiencing over the last few weeks the only mention of global warming was a brief comment by a six year old child! This is not good enough.

According to Al Gore, of 900 peer reviewed articles to appear in scientific journals not one questions the veracity of global warming. Yet in 53% of articles published in the mainstream media global warming is presented as a theory or debate. I expect my tax subsidized journalists to present me with the truth. I expect articles about extreme weather, or vanishing natural wonders to present the fact of global warming not as an odd theory, but the clearest reason behind the issue. It is infuriating enough to watch members of the public stick their heads in the sand, but when our most respected journalistic institution does the same, it is sickening.

Thank you for your time.

Gord Rand
419 Euclid Ave
Toronto, ON
416 960 1454
percystusk@yahoo.com

Here are some other popular media contacts:

National Post Editor
letters@globeandmail.com (the Globe and Mail)
lettertoed@thestar.ca (The Toronto Star)
editor@tor.sunpub.com (The Toronto Sun)
fanmail@ctv.ca (CTV)
globalnews.tor@globaltv.com (Global TV)

Please add your own!

Interested in submitting and issue? Email Gord at percystusk@yahoo.com

Packaging!

So anyway. Today's issue is packaging:

At the bottom of this letter is another letter that I am mailing to Fisher Price. If you feel the same way, add your own deets to it and send it too. Or write your own. I know that I've talked to a few people who feel the same way. Also, here are some websites that might help in learning about the issue.

This one's for kids, but also fun for us:
www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/info/pubs/mountain/e_mount10.html

• Packaging

• Approximately 35% of municipal solid waste is packaging
• In the U.S., 5.6% of all steel, 50% of all paper, 65-70% of all glass, 25-30% of all aluminium, and 23.5% of all plastics produced are used for packaging.
• $1 out of every $10 spent on food goes into packaging.
By the age of 6 months, the average Canadian has consumed the same amount of resources as the average person in the developing world consumes in a lifetime.

-Recycling Council of Ontario

these facts and others at:
www.wrwcanada.com/download_facts.htm

• Germany passed laws that force manufacturers to deal with the waste their packaging creates ten years ago. The manufacturers have to pay for companies to sort waste and deliver it for recycling. The idea has spread through Europe and Japan. But in North America, corporations are resisting.

This from:
www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/home/overpackaging/index.html

Now, perhaps, we should hear from the nays (the Packaging Association of Canada):

• That's right! A food safety standard for packages that will be in contact with food and beverage products... written BY food processors and package converters FOR package converters. The standard will include several sections:

Generic Prerequisites (complete)
Flexible Plastic Packaging (complete)
Rigid Plastic Packaging (complete)
Paper Packaging (complete)
Metal Packaging (to come)
Glass Packaging (to come)
Composite Packaging (to come)

This from:
www.pac.ca/services/haccphome.html

And from the same folks (the Packaging Association of Canada), how they are dealing with it (some interesting reading):

SOURCE REDUCTION

• Canadians have been pushing the edge of the technological envelope to maximize thin-walling, down-gauging, light-weighting, elimination and other reduction activities, while maintaining package and product integrity, consumer safety and meeting other needs.

• In 1996, 4.89 million tonnes of new packaging was used, as compared to 6.18 million tonnes in 1988 – a drop of 21 per cent through source reduction despite an 11 per cent population increase.

www.pac.ca/information/how.html



As promised, a letter to Fisher Price to complain about the overpackaging of their baby items. Use this as a template for your own letter and send it to your favourite overpackaging company. Or write an original one. Squeaky wheels get the grease! :



To whom it may concern,


Please be advised that I will do my utmost to avoid your products in the future. Why? Packaging! My wife and I were given a gift of your baby monitor and I had to wrestle through a thick layer of cardboard, a thick layer of plastic sheeting, and then another layer of molded plastic in order to get to it! This is unacceptable. I see no practical value in this excessive packaging.

We - like many parents these days - are very concerned about the effect we have on the earth. All this excess packaging in the name of marketing creates a significant amount of plastic and cardboard. This stuff either fills our waste sites, gets incinerated and pollutes the air, or uses valuable energy to recycle. The unrecyclable plastic is burdensome waste already. As for the cardboard, anyplace that actually recycles cardboard requires a significant amount energy to do so, most likely increasing greenhouse gas output. The solution is to reduce the amount produced in the first place. This way, energy and waste can be saved in two places: the production of and the disposal of any necessary packaging.

Please reduce your packaging! Until such time as this is addressed, I will buy patronize an alternative company. One that takes “green parents”’ concerns seriously.

Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely,


(and here's Fisher Price's info:

Fisher-Price products, including Baby Gear, Infant Toys and Car Seats:
In the US and Canada: 800-432-5437

Mattel Canada Inc.
Mississauga, ON L5R3W2

Unfortunately I couldn't find an email address, so it has to be snail mail.)