Plastic bags: the burden of our consumer lifestyle

I have a pet peeve.
And 5-cents is not going to cure it.

For those who have purchased items at NOFrills, MEC, Big Carrot or other fine establishments know that select (but all too few) retailers in Canada are attempting to dissuade customers from using plastic by charging a bag-tax. In the GTA that "tax" is 5-cents.

Yet, there are some inherent problems. The retailers involved in the ban-the-bag campaign (official or otherwise) voluntarily do so. This means that the majority of retailers in Canada have not yet adopted a dissuasion method of weening consumers off plastic bag dependence. That said, most consumers are not even aware of the impact this tiny, flexible and limited-usefullness product truly has on the environment. As a result, the attempt to reduce plastic bag use and consumption has been sporadic and limited in Canada, at best.

Compare this to Ireland. In 2002, this country of 7+ million simply imposed a plastic ban tax -- each bag used and consumed would cost a consumer 0.15Euros, the equivalent of almost $0.25!! The result? Plastic bag usage dropped by 90%!

This prompts me to consider: should we not simply legislate a change, rather than waiting for a groundswell regarding the plastic bag?

Consider, the facts: the standard plastic bag may take between 500 and 1000 years to decompose (such figures are only estimates because plastics have not existed for long enough for the precise decomposition time to be measured). Add this to the fact that when one tonne of plastic bags is reused or recycled, the energy equivalent of 11 barrels of oil are saved.

At present only a handfull of countries or districts have imposed a plastic ban (typically a large enough tax imposed on consumers at all retail locations for the use of plastic bags). The Plastic Ban list currently includes: Bhutan, France, Bombay (India), Coles Bay (Tasmania), Ireland, San Francisco (USA), South Africa and Scotland. However, despite the handfull of bans, the impact has been enormous.

For example:

• In the marine environment plastic bag litter is lethal, killing at least 100,000 birds, whales, seals and turtles every year. After an animal is killed by plastic bags its body decomposes and the plastic is released back into the environment where it can kill again.
• On land, plastic bag litter can block drains and trap birds. They also kill livestock.
• Plastic bags are not free to consumers – in Australia and New Zealand plastic bags add A$173 million a year to grocery bills (cost to produce and use the bag)
• The amount of petroleum used to make one plastic bag would drive a car about 115 metres. The 6.9 billion plastic check-out bags we use every year is enough to drive a car 800 million kilometres or nearly 20,000 times around the world.
• At least 16 million plastic bags end up as litter on our beaches, streets and parks.
• Not all litter is deliberate. 47% of wind borne litter escaping from landfills is plastic – much of this is plastic bags.
• Roughly5% of plastic bags are currently being recycled

As a result, I do believe that all levels of the Canadian government should examine the great plastic-bag debate. While businesses do fear impositions on their customers, a nation-wide bag-tax would level the playing field and allow all retailers an opportunity to decrease the plastic bag dependence. Right now, the ad-hoc volunteer approach is just not working. Despite decades of education and knowledge, people still use and depend on the plastic bag. It's time to ween off of this product and, despite good-will, it's time to do this using legislation.

So, I am asking everyone to ban-the-bag. Refuse to use plastic bags. Lobby your local councillor, MP and MPP to examine and implement district, provincial and federal bag-taxes. Do your part.

Addiction is not an excuse

James Pacenza says his problems began after a dramatic and trying stint in Vietnam in 1969. That was not the year of love for Pacenza. Instead, allegedly suffering from post traumatic disorder, the Vietnam veteran came home and found solace in Internet chat rooms.

However, he alleges that, eventually, the stress of a being a vet led him to an a sex addiction and that led to an addiction to Internet adult chat rooms.

Why is all this important? Because Pacenza was recently fired from IBM for visiting these types of chat rooms during company hours. Pacenza's lawyer is blaming the sex addiction (due to the trauma of war) on Pacenza's use of the chat rooms; Pacenza's lawyer also alleges that the termination of his client has little to do with the charges and more to do with the man's age (Pacenza is 58 now, he was caught in the chat rooms at 55-years-of-age, after 19 years of employment with IBM. He would have been eligible for retirement at 56).

OK-- that's the run down.
Now, here's my take.

Listen, there are companies that consistently abuse the labour laws and skirt morality. Companies like Wal-Mart are known for bending the rules (hiring part-timers to work full time hours so they don't have to pay benefits; terminating employees before they reach retirement age, etc. etc.) -- IBM is not one of these companies.

That said, I want to also profer a little opinion on this notion of addiction, trauma and responsiblity.

First: addiction exists. It manifests in all forms and destroys the life of the sufferer and the lives touched by the sufferer.

Second: trauma CAN lead to addiction -- but is not a prerequisite.

Third: the only way out of addiction is to take responsibility.

Pacenza may truly be a sex addict. He may truly feel a compulsion and an obsession that drives him to seek out the fulfillment of that desire. This desire is far different than the love or lust one feels when attraction occurs. Rather, it a compulsive need to reduce angst and abate fears.

Saying this, however, I cannot be sympathetic for Pacenza. I do feel for him in terms of the devestation his addiction has wrought on his life. However, to legally hold the employer responsible for one's own disease is limited at best (in this circumstance -- there are MANY occasions where an employer IS responsible for the health of a worker). I say this, because, our society is very well versed on addiction of all sorts. Alcoholism, drug addiction and gambling problems dominate the debate, but other forms of this disease (and it is a disease) do seep through in media reports. As such, Pacenza would have access to information that would allow him to seek help. Now, my guess, having worked in large corporations before, is that IBM has a rather comprehensive program to deal with addictions. As such, Pacenza has access to the help.

Herein lies the difficulty. See, addiction is marked by a person's denial of the problem. Why would Pacenza ADMIT to himself or anyone else he has a problem, IF the disease has not yet cost him. Now, put an addict in a position where they must come face to face with their disease...and THEN they wake up. This is what happened to Pacenza. He lost his job due to his addiction and NOW he is willing to admit he has a problem. In otherwords, if he had not have lost his job (due to his own actions) he would not be seeking help.

So, the first step in responsibility requires that a person admit and accept that a situation exists. Only through honest appraisal can one come to terms with the enormity and the powerlessness that exists in the addictive state. Unfortunately, this admittance often comes only from major upsets.

Pacenza is an addict. A true addict. He acts to quell feelings he dislikes. He acts externally to change his internal state. Then, when caught in his own web, he cries foul and denies his own responsibility for his actions.

I empathize with Pacenza. I do not agree. I think the termination of his employment was a blessing. For if he truly is an addict, the admission of a problem is the first step.

Conservatives bow to the law -- and a toothless tiger (finally) takes a bite

Apparently Canadians will not be skipping to the bank come June.

Reuters (and others) reported that Canada's minority Conservative government backed away from legal confrontation by promising to obey a law obliging it to lay out how Ottawa will meet targets for cuts to greenhouse gas emissions dictated by the Kyoto protocol.

This, only a day after Prime Minister Harper and his merry band had promised to ignore the measure (citing a poorly constructed law...what is that old idiom about a poor workman who blames his tools?)

Apparently the media is saying that:

The environment -- a topic the opposition sees as the Conservatives' weak spot -- is set to be a key issue in the next federal election, which some political observers and insiders say could be called in the next few months.
The House of Commons adopted the bill on Wednesday in the latest clash over green issues between opposition legislators and the minority government, which says Canada cannot meet its Kyoto targets.

Woa...apparently even toothless tigers (Harper's phrase when criticizing the opposition bill because it did not provide economic incentives to off set the agony of meeting Kyoto targets) have bite.

I love my Canada.

Read more at here

In June you COULD sue the government over Kyoto!

I may just eat my words.

While dining with friends over the weekend I made a few statements regarding the lack of change in the Liberal party. The comments were premised on the notion that while Stephane Dion MAY (and I stress may) be more concerned about Canada's environmental impact and sustainability inititiatives, I did not believe that the party, as a whole, had changed. Not even an iota.

Well, blow me over.

I woke up this morning to the headlines of standing ovations and critical applause.

Apparently, the opposition (Liberals, Bloq and NDP), had managed to pass Bill C-288 -- a bill that demands the minority Conservative government to MEET KYOTO TARGETS.

Not only that but the Bill (now considered legislative law) would force Environment Minister John Baird to present a climate change plan within 60 days, providing a map for Canada to meet Kyoto's greenhouse gas reduction targets. The treaty calls for emission levels at 6 per cent below 1990 levels – a drastic reduction from current levels.

Wait, it gets better.

Within 90 day so the bill's passage, the federal cabinet is required to set out regulations on the petroleum and auto sectors, and other polluters -- targets that force them to meet Kyoto targets.

Now, this is where it gets better.

IF no action is taken, individual Canadians, environmental groups, lawyers – anyone – could take the federal government to court for contradicting the requirements of the law -- so says Montreal Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, the sponsor of the private member's bill.

Apparently, however, the Conservatives are having none of it. Despite the passage of the Bill (and despite the desire of Canadians to back parties with environmental policies) the Conservatives have given every indication they plan to ignore the bill!

Their rational is that Kyoto targets are impossible to meet.

WOA! That means that as early as June we may actually see class action lawsuits against the minority Conservative government for failing in their duties as leaders of the country.

Wow.

However, those lawsuits may never see the inside of a courtroom. It appears that the Conservatives are banking on an election, as opposed to staying the course, in an effort to gain more support from the Canadian public. Buses, planes (and maybe the more environmentally friendly transportation option, trains) are being booked and prepped for as early as March for, what many political analysts see as, a Spring election.

You have to love the tedious battleground of Canadian politics. Just when you least expect it things get really interesting!


For more information on the bill go to: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070214.wkyoto0214/BNStory/National/home

Couch Surfing hits cyber community

The weather outside is frightful, but the monitor glows
delightful.

Right, so the weather is more than a little on the nasty-Great-White-North side. For that reason, I keep this post rather light. However, despite its rather irrevant attitude, I wanted to alert people to this pseudo-service because it exemplifies a) the power of the Internet to connect, b) the generosity of people, c) the ability of values and honour to rise above.

Log on to www.couchsurfing.com and then poke around.

You will notice that, as a potential traveller, you have the option of surfing a stranger's couch in some far-flung location. And, yes, it IS legit! People do this all the time; now, however, it's not a knock on the door with a vague verbal introduction from a long, lost friend, it is a cyber-handshake and an address of an Internet buddy.

Check it out...as you dream of sunnier climbs.

Fourth R

This will be a very short post today.

It's simply to add in one more R to the three R's of green practice. At present our consumption model is (attempting) to model itself as:
reduce
reuse
recycle.

I would like to throw in another: recover.

This is the R that allows for the reuse of recycled materials.

And it is essential in a society that constructs obsolete products.

The ideal, of course, would be to remove the fourth R and simply recreate sustainable, and long-lasting products...but that would require a Q in the equation: Quality.

China continues to open borders.

It appears free-market proponents may have been right.

Back up. Read that sentence again. Yes, you got it...I said free market and right.

Now, I have absolutely nothing against the market forces. I think competition and desire can be strong motivators, however, I have always questioned the wisdom of using such forces in the face of overwhelming human rights abuses and cultural differences.

Perhaps my fears will be allayed. Perhaps.

This week, China's government made yet another move towards opening up the country. While the "opening" was only to allow foreign travel agents to set up shop in the expansive and largely rural country, it was, nonetheless, an opening of the borders. Quite literally.

As of July 1, foreign travel agencies will be permitted to set up branch offices nationwide. The move is part of China's commitment as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Up until now, the government had restricted all foreign movement into the country which prhobited travel agents from setting up anywhere in China (although, some exceptions were made in: Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Xi'an).

While, it does not always work this way, it certainly does appear that the almighty dollar really is prompting China to open its borders. Obviously, as a person that cares more about human rights than monetary gain, the fear is that the push for a version of communism-inspired free-market-economy may eclipse the need to change and alter their human right's record. May. However, I also believe that with a free market comes responsibility and examination. By embracing a more open market, the Chinese government are also opening up their policies to criticism. This world stage, then, will do more in changing the much-maligned human rights record China is currently known for, then any plea or petition presented outside a closed door.

I guess, travel really does bring the world closer.

Make mine a Living Wage -- evidence from Los Angeles

A week or so ago I read a headline on the commuter paper of record in Toronto (METRO) that simply made the fallacious connection that living wages destroy jobs.

I bring this up now, despite the provincial and federal government's refusal to raise Canada's minimum wage.

Now, even as I write this sentence, I know it is important to clarify. Minimum wage is under provincial jurisdiction. In Ontario, the McGuinty Liberals have professed to support the goal of a $10 an hour minimum wage but can't promise that we'll get there soon. To his credit, however, the current minimum wage increase (from $7.75 to $8 at the beginning of February) is the fourth increase in the provincial minimum wage since the McGuinty Liberals took office in 2003.

But a provincial government's commitment to a living wage does not justify a wage increase. What justifies the increase is statistical analysis.

In the USA, where the same arguments are taking place regarding living wages, analysis is now being done on the impact of living wage increases.

One study is out of LA - the venerable California destination that is home to disparity and large population shifts.

The study, titled Examining the Evidence, was conducted by David Fairris (Department of Economis at the University of California Riverside), David Runsten (North American Integration and Development Center, University of California Los Angeles), Carolina Briones (Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy), and Jessica Goodheart
(Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy).

The study is introduced as the "most definitive analysis of a living wage law’s impact on workers and employers. It provides important new insights on the effects of living wage policies, which have been adopted by more than 120 local governments
around the country."

It continues by providing a bit of history on living wage:

Living wage laws set wage and benefit standards for companies that do business with the government, such as service contractors, as a means to improve the quality of contracted jobs and increase the standard of living for low-income workers.
The first living wage law was passed in Baltimore in 1994. Over the past 11 years, many of the largest cities in the country, including New York, Boston, San Francisco and Chicago, have passed living wage laws, as have scores of smaller cities.
In 1997, Los Angeles became one of the first major cities to pass a living wage law. The ordinance currently (as of 2004–2005) requires firms to pay either $10.03 per hour, or $8.78 with a $1.25 per hour contribution to health benefits, and to provide 12 paid days and 10 unpaid days off per year.

Despite the grumblings of business and the concern of free-market advocates, this study found:

* The Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance has increased pay for an estimated 10,000 jobs, with minimal reductions in employment.
* The number of jobs where pay was increased is among the largest in the nation, after New York and San Francisco.
* Although the living wage has not prompted firms to set up health benefits plans, some firms have improved their existing plans or extended coverage to more workers, affecting 2,200 jobs.
* Most workers affected by the living wage are poor or low-income.
* Most firms affected by the law have adapted to the living wage without eliminating jobs. Employment reductions amounted to one percent of all affected jobs, or an estimated 112 jobs.
* Employers have recovered some of the increased costs of the living wage through reductions in labor turnover and absenteeism.
* Firms have adapted to the remaining costs in a variety of ways, including
cutting fringe benefits and overtime, hiring more highly trained workers,
cutting profits and passing on costs to the city or to the public.
* While workers and their families have experienced measurable gains from the
living wage, a significant minority still lacks health benefits and relies on government assistance.


I highlight the report findings as, I believe, they provide strong and ample evidence that the fears proferred by living wage critics do not, in practice, occur. In fact, a living wage appears to offer multiple benefits. Not only are the working poor provided a better standard of living, but the absentee and turnover rate of these low-paying jobs appears to be reduced and the standards of employee treatment (and employer treatment) is increased. The evidence, then, is that the job reductions produced by living wage increases are vastly minimal, at best. The majority of workers (and companies) appear to benefit from a living wage.

Just a little food for thought, particularly in the face of fear-mongering headlines.


To read more on the study go to:
http://www.losangeleslivingwagestudy.org/

If *I* were Prime Minister

What would you do if you were Prime Minister?

Seriously. You complain about the high cost of living in this country; the lack of opportunities; or, perhaps, the lack of initiative from our elected officials.

Well, now is the time to GET ACTIVE.

Dust off those camcorders and take 30 seconds to tell the nation what YOU would do if you were Prime Minister.

This is the call to action David Suzuki (and his foundation) made at the end of January. Their rational: They love Canada. They love the people of Canada. They love the geography, the weather and the opportunities Canada offers. Now, David is setting off on a cross-country tour to talk to every day Canadians about the environment.

Throughout the month of February he and his crew will be stopping in more than 40 communities from St. John’s to Victoria. And this is not a book or publicity tour. This is an opportunity to converse.

No matter what our political bent is, we all depend on a clean environment. Headlines over the last decade have highlighted that water, food and air -- when not taken care of -- can kill. Even in Canada.

So, David is asking us to take the power back - to make an effort to make a difference and change the direction our country is heading (despite recent rhetoric from all sides of the Capital Hill). Dubbed the "Prime Minister Tour", David is asking what YOU, the everyday working Joe (Joanne) would do if YOU were Prime Minister?

Learn more about the If YOU were Prime Minister tour at www.davidsuzuki.org.

If that wasn't enough, check out the Christian Science Monitor article on how Science LAGS behind the global warming issue facing global governments today.

The reality is the "debate" (ie: does global warming exist? and are humans a contributor?) was not put to rest until a Friday report, released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (a UN group), linked humans to global warming. In otherwords: yes, the Earth is heating up and, yes, we humans are a factor in that warming. From a body of rather conservative, logical folks it was a damning indictment.

Yet, even as governments world wide continue to catch up to the environmental bandwagon the very scientists, journalists and experts on global warming are complaining that scientific analysis is too slow. Perhaps the EU were appropriate in adopting the precautionary principle. The fact that we WAIT for analysis to show a negative impact before legislating significant changes is not only foolish, it is reproachable.

We all require clean air, food and water and global warming threatens that. Period.

For more on the Christian Science Monitor article go to:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0207/p03s02-sten.html

Peace Channel to launch in 2008

There are those that accuse our current callous behaviour on the prepondance of violence on television.

How could we care about genocide and war in a country far away when we were raised on a diet of violence?

In fact, numerous studies show there are negative impacts of early-childhoood exposure to violence. According to meta-analysis of psychological studies, children are affected in three ways:

*Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others.
*Children may be more fearful of the world around them.
*Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive ways toward others (imitation)

Accordingly, these studies also show that the average North American child will watch approximately 100,000 acts of televised violence, including 8000 depictions of murder, by the time he or she finishes sixth grade (approximately 13 years old).

According to studies by George Gerbner, at the University of Pennsylvania, this translates into 20 violent acts each hour in a children's show! (This study also confirmed that children who watch a lot of television are more likely to think that the world is a mean and dangerous place).

Given the prevalence of the negative affects of violence it should be a shock to hear that, for the first time, a channel dedicted to Peace is being launched.

Social activist and musician Bob Geldof is the brains behind the venture. Yesterday he announced that he will help launch a global TV and net channel which will aim at promoting world peace. He agreed to work on the idea under the title, Peace Channel, with internet firm Ten Alps Digital.

Under the terms of the agreement the company will develop proposals for a worldwide broadband channel, complete with video clips and social networking functions.Among other things the channel will look to encourage the West to help the poorer nations in an entertaining way. It is scheduled to launch next year.

For more information on the impact of violence on children go to:
http://www.abelard.org/tv/tv.htm

For more information on Peace Channel go to:
http://www.tenalpsdigital.com/?ctid=532&edid=658

The City of Love acknowledges the Global Crisis

Last Thursday evening officials at the Eiffel Tower extinguished the famous structure's necklace of lights for five minutes.

The decision to darken the Tower was to call attention to the issue of energy usage on the eve of a major report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (released on Friday -- 8:30am Paris time).

The Panel, which was formed in 1988, is comprised of over 2,500 scientists from 130 countries. Friday's report is the first of four that the Panel will deliver this year and it lays the groundwork for debate.

No longer are we debating about whether or not global warming IS occuring (it is); or about whether or not humans have a role (we do). Rather, the report, offered by such a large body of experts who have been described as conservative in nature, has allowed the debate to move from the if stage, to the who stage to the what stage -- what can and should be done.

Thank heavens...because a few more degrees, and we'll be debating about who has the right to clean, potable, and scarce water.

For more discussion on the impact and debate on the report go to:

Science Blogs

3R's

The end of the week (for most). No one really cares at the end of the week. Not unless it's mind-numbing or brain-stumping...the two extremes.

For that reason, I'm going to keep this fairly light today. Offer only a tidbit; some food for thought; a few possible solutions, and then we can all go home.

So, to start this day, lets just recall the lessons we learned in school (or work, or home, or at the daycare centre, grocery store or gym). I am talking about the 3R's: reduce, reuse and recycle (I'd like to through a fourth one in there, respect, but this is a principle rather than an action, so we'll leave it out for now).

The fact is we consume everyday. Coffee in the morning, snack at lunch, dinner, and the every day, every week and every month essentials (and goodies...can't forget the consumer goodies). As such, many of our purchasing decisions become wrote; we stop thinking about them; stop making the connections between manufacture, purchase, use and discard -- all of which have an impact on my economy, my environment and our lives.

Given all of this, I propose a little task. It doesn't have to be too tedious, don't assume you have to apply as much energy into this as figuring out dinner, or developing that work proposal, but enough to remind oneself that each purchase is a vote (for the product, for the company's values, for the principles that surround that industry).

Take, for example, plastic. It's a liberating substance. No really! It allows automotive manufacturer's to create lighter, hence, more fuel efficient cars (that's good for the environment AND the pocket book!); plastic has also offered more accessibility and choice in consumer goods. But plastic, as a substance, is made of a scarce (and much fought after) resource -- petroleum. As such, we should always be conscientious about our purchase, consumption and disposal of plastic products. While this type of thinking can be done with ANY product, I would like to offer a few suggestions for plastic products that follow the REDUCE, REUSE AND RECYCLE mantra.

1) The Plastic Bag -- When possible use refillable glass or tin containers (weigh them before you add the product) and buy in bulk (less packaging). Also when grocery shopping take your own cloth or canvas bags (or take a backpack or tote bag). Re-use veggie/fruit plastic bags (rinse them out if you are concerned about bacteria).
2) Detergent Squeeze Bottle (aka: dish soap) -- use the empty bottle to water plants, fill a steam iron or spot clean a floor (using a natural disinfectant, such as vinegar). Or, leave some of the soapy residue, fill it with water, and store it in your car to be used to wash the windows (rather than the dirty gas station water).
3) Yogurt/Margarine/Cottage Cheese containers -- reuse these to purchase items at bulk food stores or for storing and freezing leftovers. Or use them to pack salads, or dry goods for "brown bag" lunches.
4) Onion (mesh) plastic bags -- Use them as a dishscrubber (tied around a soap bar). If that does not appeal to you, then use these plastic mesh bags to make an air freshener. Just bake apple and orange peels on a cookie sheet at 200 degrees F for four to five hours (or until thoroughly dried). Mix the dried peels with whole cloves, nutmeg and bits of cinnamon sticks. Then wrap this aromatic mixture in the plastic netting and tie off!

Ok, there's a few of my suggestions.
What are your 3R tips?

Do Good vs. Feel Good

Green Marketing.

In the 21st century the term is synonymous with right living (or responsible living) and the use and prevalence of these labels and descriptions has risen exponentially in the last decade. But the question remains -- are these labels representative of actual change (products and services that are actually better for the environment?) or are they a marketing ploy to distinguish and market goods and services to appeal to certain values held by consumers? In other words are eco-labels a Do Good mechanism or a Feel Good mechanism.

The idea behind eco-labeling is that these certifications verify that a product/service meets specific standards. These labels, then, represent third party validation -- an apparently objective method of determining whether or not a product or service is green. All labels (with the exception of food and hazardous material labels) are voluntary as all certification processes have been created and are administered by private enterprises (at least in North America).

For example, any structure built in North America can volunarily apply for a LEED rating system classification. This system is based on a point system that allows builders (etc.) to tally up the number of environmentally friendly products/methods that were incorporated into the construction of that building. On the surface it appears that a LEED rating would prompt builders into executing more sustainable methods of construction. But that is not the reality. As a privately owned and operated classification system (that is now widely used and accepted across North America) the LEED system weights each construction decision equally.

What does this mean? It means a designer could opt to use concrete (a product that can be the best environmental choice in certain conditions) in order to create better lighting conditions (bounced light means less light energy is required to illuminate a room -- this cuts down on energy required, which, obviously, is also a more sustainable approach to construction). However this choice would not be rewarded under the LEED system. However, a designer who opted to add in ceiling tiles (classified as MORE environmentally friendly than other ceiling tiles) would be given a point under the LEED system. Even though the LEED system is an effort to produce more sustainable buildings, the very nature of its point system means that more sustainable construction decisions are often neglected for less sustainable decisions that will offer more points (thereby classifying the building as more environmentally friendly).

Can you see the conundrum?

While eco-labeling arose due to consumer demand, there are major flaws in these systems. As privately run classification systems there is no set, national standards that must be followed, no conclusive buy-in to the system (they are all voluntary) and there is no true objectivity in setting the standards (as seen by the skewed point system that defines LEED).

As such, consumers are being sold a bill of Feel Good, rather than being offered truly constructed and produced goods and services that Do Good.

This is not to say there are not truly sustainable products and services availabe on the market. However, there is a distinct difference between environmentally friendly and green marketing -- a difference more consumers need to be made aware of.

Carbon offsets and the 100th monkey syndrome

Carbon offsets.

You've heard the hype; then the criticism. So, what is it and, in a nutshell, is it any good?

A carbon offset is the process that allows organizations or individuals to compensate all or part of the carbon dioxide (C02) emissions by either reducing those emissions or paying for the priviledge to produce the emissions by paying for another to absorb those emissions. The hope is that these transactions will reduce net greenhouse gas emissions. The goal is to combat the very real, very dangerous global warming crisis.

The carbon offset process garnered a lot of press as of late, due to increased interest in this process of accountability. Now, there are organizations all over the world involved in the buying and selling of carbon offsets to individuals and organizations who want to compensate for climate impacts (due to air travel and other activities). One organization declared that an individual one-way plane trip from Toronto to Vancouver would cost a consumer as little as $15 extra in order to offset the carbon dioxide produced by their option to travel by air.

At first, environmental advocates and groups applauded the efforts of companies and individuals in attempting to become "carbon neutral".

However, with more press comes more criticism. Now, environmentalists are (and have) criticised carbon offsets as a distraction from essential reductions in fossil fuel use, and forestry offset projects have been met with heavy criticism, drawing the benefits into question.

Now, there is little doubt that the larger issues, as highlighted by carbon offset critics, must be addressed. A tree foresty project that does not contribute to carbon offsetting could be a waste of resources and a continued (and disproportionate) dependency on fossil fuels in the developed world will do more harm than good regardless of all the good intentions from carbon offset and other green programs.

However, we cannot write off this program entirely, and for one major reason: accountability.

The fact is in our global village and instant-communication society most of us are so far removed from the impact of our choices that are level of accountability has diminished greatly. The very fact that people continue to purchase goods produced in countries that are on record as human rights' abusers shows this level of (willing?) ignorance. Enter the carbon offset programs. This scheme enables people to reacquaint themself to the consequences of their decisions. It allows a person to take responsibility for opting to live, work and play in the manner they decide.

The fact is, the terms responsibility and accountability are often seen as killjoys. They are terms bantered about in relation to finance and legality and are often ignored (at least subconsciously) in our day to day activities -- or at least, so we think. Yet, responsibility and accountability are the cornerstones of our democratic (read: free) society. As a nation built upon free choice and market decisions we are afforded the opportunities to make informed decisions -- and any decision, informed or not, is subject to consequences.

The carbon offset programs (as limited as they are) are re-introducing the notion of consequence into our decision making process. By accepting the reality -- that there are consequences to every decision -- we can accept potential harm reduction, or solution-based options.

Think of it this way: if you were to go to the top of the CN Tower and jump off, would you deny the consequences of gravity? No. The fact that we live in a developed (hence rich) country affords us certain options that others may not have. While, some would have us guilt our way into oblivious ignorance the carbon offset pioneers are trying to awaken us to potential. Rather than deny a lifestyle they are asking us to accept the consequences of that lifestyle.

For those criticizing the offset program, may I remind you that this attachment between choice and consequence has long been missed by the average consumer. In a day where goods are plentiful and conditions of production easily hidden, it is important to once again make that connection. While the offset program does not address the greater issue (the over use and abuse of fossil fuels) it DOES get us thinking about the consequences. And everyone knows...critical mass comes from each one of us taking the time out to think and change.

Corn Cob Bob on hunger strike!

Corn Cob Bob may die.

Irrespective of his own health, the scrawny, veggie-dude decided to risk life (and limb?) to take a stand.

It appears the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association mascot is taking this stand because Telecastor Canada -- the nation's advertising watchdog -- attempted to thwart an advertisement that aired a clip of Prime Minister Harper making a campaign promise. According to Telecastor Canada the clip of the PM could not be used without his permission. According to Kory Teneycke, the Renewable Fuels Association executive director, Telecastor evnentually approved the advertisement, which focuses on the Conservative party's promise to require 5% biofuel content in gasoline, but said it would yank it if the Conservatives filed a complaint.

This is ridiculous! Since when do Canadians (including individuals, corporations and organizations) need permission to use publid domain material? The very fact that Harper declared his party's intent publically puts this material in the public domain. If, then, the clip helps emphasis a) the importance of such a decision, b) the promise of our currently elected members of parliament, then it is open season!

While one could appreciate any apprehension if a statement or clip was taken out of context, this does not appear to be the case. As a result the Canadian Renewable Fuels Associaton denounced the decision as stifling its freedom of speech. In turn, it announced that its mascot, Corn Cob Bob, would go on hunger strike. While the water-only diet for Bob the Cob may be a tongue-in-cheek response to Telecastor's obvious interference, Teneycke said the decision is due to the serious implications.

Tenecyke believes that Telecastor's willingness to pull an ad campaign with a Harper clip has implications across the country. He believes that by preventing public display and use of campaign promises by our politicians it, effectively, gives these same politicians a veto over their statements.

The fact is media (of all sorts -- whether it is theoretically objective or decidedly biased) should be allowed to hold all our leaders accountable. One way to do this is to offer evidence of promises and failures. The Renewable Fuels Association saw an opportunity to do just this and decided to act. The fact that a watchdog organization almost tried to quash the event bodes poorly on the future of free speech in this country.

For more words on this issue go to:

http://www.devonrowcliffe.ca/blog/?p=236
http://churchofwhatshappeningnow.blogspot.com/2007/01/its-bloody-outrage.html
http://domesticfuel.com/?p=1032

Keep the gore-hore out of my news

Newsmakers always defend their choices to report horrific events in great detail on the public's desire for the more grotesque aspects of a story.

However a study for the UBC School of Journalism's Feminist Media project may show that this circular logic is, in fact, fallacious.

The study, conducted by the Mustel Group, found that 52% of the 806 adults surveyed (by telephone) said they were interested in media coverage of the case. The study also showed that most B.C. residents believe news organizations should refrain from reporting salacious details of Robert Pickton's murder trial, while one in five say the media have reported "too much" about the case already.

What is interesting is that the poll showed that of those surveyed about the media's coverage of the Pickton trial, three-quarters (75%) believed the media had responded responsibly in covering the case. However 56% of the same respondants believe the media should restrict violent and sexually explicit details that arise at the trial, compared with 37% who believe the public should know as much detail as possible. The remaining 7% did not know.

The interesting component of this study is that there is at least half of those participating in the consumption of media are, in fact, not clamouring for the ghastly details. This should fore-warn media outlets -- perhaps it is not the sensational aspects of a trial, situation or case that draws half their readers, but, perhaps other aspects of journalism, such as insight, analysis, story-telling and, hopefully, alternative perspectives and solutions.

Good point to be aware of in a day and age where media of all types must compete for loyal listeners, readers and viewers.

Mickey D's does ethical bean juice

Who says pressure doesn't pay off?

Advocates of ethical business will be raising a cup of fair trade coffee this week after a decision by McDonalds'UK to purchase, serve and (essentially) promote ethically sourced coffee.

Steve Easterbrook, president of McDonald's UK, said in an interview with The Independent, that the coffee deal would "transform the market for sustainably grown coffee in the UK."

You better believe it will.

The fact is protests, pressure and persistence really do pay off when it comes to pushing the market towards sustainable and socially just practices. How do we know this? Through decisions made by corporations, such as McDonald's UK. While anti-globalists may not cheer this decision, those that weight fair trade and sustainable living (over and above loss of culture) will be putting another notch in their belt due to this recent decision. And with good reason. Since the 1950s -- when the term human rights became a standard phrase in domestic and international affairs -- the notion of ethical decision making has grown and blossomed. While the majority of multinational corporations still have a long way to go in aligning their economic practices with social justice, the gap does decrease when larger, more prominent (and arguably a large influence on the market type) businesses, such as McDonald's publically acknowledges the importance of social justice by changing their corporate policy.

While we may not all rush out to purchase a cup of "careful this is hot" brew at Micky-D's -- we can rest assured that a multinational has, in some small way, confirmed that market economies can be aligned with social justice values.

Government needs to be proactive in protecting our health

Lead poisoning.

A few decades ago, in North America, we began to recognize the necessity to reduce exposure to lead. The result was a phasing out of lead-based gasoline and lead-based paint -- two substances that, at the time, continued to use the heavy metal in the production of its product. The reason was lead increased the health problems of those exposed to consumer products that contained the heavy metal.

However, it appears that the attributes that once made lead attractive (easy workability, low melting point and corrosion resistance) have once again made it the metal du jour for cheap trinkets and jewelery -- particularly pieces worn and abused by young girls.

Herein lies the problem. The fact is that outside of occupational hazards the majority of lead poisoning occurs in children under age twelve. The main sources of poisoning are from ingestion of lead. This ingestion used to occur when contaminated soil (from leaded gasoline) was prevelant or when lead dust or chips from deteriorating lead-based paints were present. While restrictions and laws have been inacted in order to deal with these potential lead poisoning sources (in most American states, landlords and those selling such houses are required to inform the potential residents of the danger of lead poisoning in older houses due to paint chipping etc.) the fact is our governments are slow moving in dealing with the overall use of lead in consumer products.

Enter the developing market. In an effort to cash in on the North American consumerism cash cow, many developing nations are finding easier, cheaper and faster alternative ingrediants for consumer products. As such, lead has been reintroduced into consumer products in everything from make-up, jewelery and cheap, trinket toys.

In a story in the Globe & Mail today, Health Canada came out with a warning that several children's necklaces (and other trinkets) had to be recalled from two retailers due to high lead levels.

Kathleen Cooper, senior researcher at the Canadian Environmental Law Association, is not surprised. "Lead jewellery is as plentiful as pennies because there are no regulations regarding the use of lead."

Cooper explains that the only regulation the Canadian government has erected is to prohibit the use of lead in children's jewellery -- children being anyone under the age of 15. The problem is, Cooper explains, nobody makes an age distinction when purchasing costume jewellery. So jewellery with lead can be sold to anyone despite the restrictions. Cooper is appalled that the rational behind the Canadian government's last decision not to regulate lead in consumer based products -- including jewellery -- was due to the "unfair economic impact it would have on costume jewellery." Cooper is insistent that in order to reduce the exposure and the subsequent health risks due to lead poisoning, the Canadian government MUST enact strict regulations regarding the sale of domestic and international consumer products that contain lead.

While these regulations are not yet forthcoming, Health Canada is asking Claire's and Ardene stores to remove various items that contained lead. Health Canada's rationale is the risk of lead poisoning to children if they chew or suck on the items, or if they swallow them.

For further information, consumers can contact the Health Canada product safety office at 1-866-662-0666.

For more information on lead poisoning go to:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/5/429-a

Community is the key

It's the year of 007...and I'm about to throw around pop-culture psycho-babble like it actually matters. Thing is, I think it really does.

Now, I'm not one for self-help. I don't read Chicken Soups for any soul, nor to do I peruse the people from different planets (Mars or Venus), but a few years ago I did stumble upon a rather interesting book. It was by an American psychiatrist that had spent much of his formative professional years in service to the American military. From this experience (and from his own incite) he began to formulate a philosophy that focuses upon the necessity for the truthful development of love and community.

Community is an oft-abused word. In many cases it is used to create divisions, to define differences and, at times, to condemn segments of people. Yet, in modern times, no one concept or word has ever been so present in our day-to-day lives. Community dominates our work life, our home life and even our entertainment hours (what community are you a part of while surfing on this, here, inter-web???).

Yet, despite the pervasive nature of this aspect of humanity, community is often misunderstood and ill-defined. It is at this point that the self-help wisdom of Scott Peck enters the picture. According to Peck, any group that wishes to become a community must undertake a communal journey that involves four stages:

*pseudocommunity -- where "niceness" reigns
*chaos -- when the emotional skeletons of individuals and segments crawl out of the closet
*emptiness -- a time of quiet and transition
*true community -- marked both by deep honesty and deep caring

Peck outlines this concept (and the subject) in his 1987 book, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace (Simon and Schuster). In this, and any of th other Peck bestsellers, he mixes his poignant incite with examples and rational explanations as to why it is so important for us -- as the human race -- to develop and nurture community.

Regardless of whether you agree with Peck's description or not, the fact remains that in this day and age of division and strife, community has become an important and necessary aspect for peace and sustainability. Community defines who we are, what rights we are entitled to and what protections we can expect. Community also helps us grow and develop as individuals -- allowing all the little punk-rockers a chance to rebel, even as the suits choose to conform.

The problem is too many people ignore the integral part of community that demands honesty, open-mindedness and willingness. These principles (these traits) allow people -- all people -- to move from a state of insufferable "niceness" (where everyone gets along and no one is really real -- just think of the past holiday season:), to the chaotic stages of changing boundaries, perspectives and expectations, to a sense of loss (that comes from not getting OUR way), to the final stage of appreciation, acceptance and (dare I say it) respect.

Because in the end, there can be no community without respect and respect can only be attained through persistence and growth -- NOT through forcing person(s) to conform to our own (limited) standards.

So, why, in the year of 007, do I say all of this? Because now, more than ever, we need to stop glossing over the idea of community. We need to stop assuming that any community we belong to, participate in, or affiliate with MUST conform to every principle and value we hold. Despite how great we all believe our values to be (and how right, how righteous, and how rational) our perspectives and our views are these beliefs are not superior to anyone else's beliefs. Period.

That means we, all of we, have to make a decision to deal with the uncomfortable feelings that occur when we grow and learn as a community -- when we push the boundaries, question the status quo and then opt for the straight and narrow. Because in the end community is about love and acceptance, both for ourselves and for others.

I resolve....One Day at a Time

Is it just me or is it getting harder to make New Year's resolutions? Gone are the days when simple self-improvement sufficed. Now, in a media-rich and information savvy culture our resolutions take on a new timber. We look outwards (and perhaps upwards) and realized that personal development, although noble, can lack a global perspective. How can losing weight help decrease the gap between the haves and have-nots? How can making our own lunches help with species extinction or global warming? So, perhaps we need to look past the guilted-into-action strategies and focus on something else? But what?

M. Ryan Hess, author of the Ten Minute Activist: Easy Ways to Take Back the Planet, advises us to address this dilemma by thinking small. Using this strategy Hess, along with a five-member Mission Collective, has published a rather small (pocket-sized) book that outlines 150 ideas to "take life down a notch -- and take ten for the planet."

While books like these can often read as meditations (or sermons -- depending on your perspective) they can offer the impetous for people ready and willing to make changes but unaware of how to go about the shift. A few of the suggestions are so commonplace -- such as properly inflating your tires, or planting a tree -- that they almost appear ridiculously simple; however, by reframing them as part of a conscious resolution, a deliberate action to become a socially conscious activist, Hess and his crew helps to get every day, ordinary people to re-examine how small acts can add up to large results.

Whether it's this book or another, the hope us that each person's reinvigorated activism will become a habit -- something good for you and the planet that you can do everyday.

So before you make the list; before you resolve to better your health, your appearance or your bank account; scan the options and examine the impact. It is possible to help yourself, your planet and your global community one small action at a time.

Books to look out for:
1) Michael Norton's: 365 Ways to Change the World: How to Make a Difference -- One Day at a Time (also go online to www.365act.com)
2) M. Ryan Hess: The Ten Minute Activist: Easy Ways to Take Back the Planet
3) Christof Mauch: Shades of Green: Environment Activism Around the Globe
4) Michael R. Stevenson: Everyday Activism; A Handbook for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People and their Allies": A handbook for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People and their Allies