Category: Environment

Earth Day Idea for Canadians

First of all, happy Earth Day!

Here’s a neat idea for Canadians: have manufactures pay for waste management of their products. To our European (and some other) readers, this is not a new or crazy idea, but here in Canada this concept is revolutionary. For Earth day The Toronto Star has examined how Ontario can get manufactures to make more environmentally friendly products through legislation – and things are looking good.

One of the most obvious steps is Extended Producer Responsibility, the European concept that the manufacturer must cover the full cost of properly recycling or disposing of a product at the end of its life cycle.

The merits of EPR are simple: It entices companies strictly for cost reasons to redesign their products so they are easier and cheaper to recycle.

European rules, for example, forced Apple to create a computer without lead – leading to lower costs at the end of its life.

In its purest sense, EPR challenges companies to make product lines that lead to zero waste, because no waste would mean no charges at the end of the day.

The requirement may sound radical in Canada, but elsewhere, especially throughout the European Union, EPR is a familiar feature on the regulatory landscape.

Sustainable Energy – without the hot air

There is a lot of information out there on how we’re destroying our planet and there’s tons of information about how we can save it (this site looks at saving it). David J.C. MacKay has written a book Sustainable Energy – without the hot air that takes all the climate change information and creates an analysis that is much easier to understand than most writing on the subject. The best part is that you can read the entire book for free.

From the introduction to the synopsis:

We have an addiction to fossil fuels, and it’s not sustainable. The devel-
oped world gets 80% of its energy from fossil fuels; Britain, 90%. And
this is unsustainable for three reasons. First, easily-accessible fossil fu-
els will at some point run out, so we’ll eventually have to get our energy
from someplace else. Second, burning fossil fuels is having a measurable
and very-probably dangerous effect on the climate. Avoiding dangerous
climate change motivates an immediate change from our current use of
fossil fuels. Third, even if we don’t care about climate change, a drastic
reduction in Britain’s fossil fuel consumption would seem a wise move if
we care about security of supply: continued rapid use of the North Sea Photo by Terry Cavner.
oil and gas reserves will otherwise soon force fossil-addicted Britain to de-
pend on imports from untrustworthy foreigners. (I hope you can hear my
tongue in my cheek.)

How can we get off our fossil fuel addiction?

There’s no shortage of advice on how to “make a difference,” but the
public is confused, uncertain whether these schemes are fixes or figleaves.
People are rightly suspicious when companies tell us that buying their
“green” product means we’ve “done our bit.” They are equally uneasy
about national energy strategy. Are “decentralization” and “combined
heat and power,” green enough, for example? The government would have
us think so. But would these technologies really discharge Britain’s duties
regarding climate change? Are windfarms “merely a gesture to prove our
leaders’ environmental credentials”? Is nuclear power essential?
We need a plan that adds up. The good news is that such plans can be
made. The bad news is that implementing them will not be easy.

Green Roofs Coming to Toronto

Toronto is set to implement a law that would make green roofs mandatory for tall buildings. Being Toronto, the policy is confused and is arguably not bold enough, but the fact that this is being tabled with support across the city is a very good sign. Torontoist author Toodd Aalgaard has a look at the green roofs coming to Toronto:

After January 30, 2010, according to a draft version [PDF] of the by-law being tossed around today, every building “with a gross floor area of 5,000 square metres or greater shall include a green roof,” meaning that rooftops greater than five thousand square metres in area will require 30% green coverage, with 60% for rooftops exceeding twenty thousand square metres. Further, the construction and maintenance of new roofing will toe strict guidelines laid out in the Green Roof Construction Standard [PDF], ranging from assembly and load bearing to fire safety and plant selection. Even minimal alterations will be subject to City approval.

The Globe and Mail also examines Toronto’s green roof law:

The proposed bylaw would mandate specially irrigated rooftop gardens that are said to reduce air-conditioning costs and mitigate the “urban heat island” effect blamed on pavement and dark roofs.

Part of Mayor David Miller’s climate-change initiative, the move was deferred for fine tuning yesterday and was to return to a meeting next month of the city’s planning and growth committee.

Eco-Friendly Golf Courses

I never thought I’d be writing about golf courses on this site because golf courses are absolutely awful for the environment. They use lots of pesticides and consume insane amounts of water – all so people can hit a ball into a hole. So, it is with shock that I find out that there are at least seven eco-friendly golf courses on this planet. These are places I’d try to hit a ball!

Machrihanish Dunes, Scotland

This course in Scotland, opening this May, is historic in a number of ways. It’s being built on a Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI), the first time this has ever been allowed. The course steers clear of the rare native plants for its fairways and makes only less important grounds in play. It’s also literally inspired by golf history. The course will use no pesticides, chemicals or non-natural irrigation systems at all. Not even heavy machinery is allowed on the course. It will be a throwback to how the game started, a real natural links course built out of the sand dunes near the Mull of Kintyre. The course’s naturalist approach to the game is a lesson Donald Trump, who has been trying to build a 1 billion pound golf resort on wetlands nearby, would do well to learn.

Urbanites Pollute Less

A Canadian study has looked at how much carbon per capita a person living in Canada produces and the conclusion is that if you live in a city you produce less carbon. Once more it’s proven that living in an urban centre with high density is better for the environment than urban sprawl.

When it comes to climate change pollutants, Toronto residents are among the greenest in Canada, says a new study.

The report, published in the April issue of the journal Environment and Urbanization, says metropolises, commonly denigrated as big, dirty places, are in fact spewing fewer greenhouse gases per capita than the rest of their countries.

“Blaming cities for climate change is far too simplistic,” said author David Dodman, a researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development in London, England. “There are a lot of economies of scale associated with energy use in cities. If you’re an urban dweller, particularly in an affluent country like Canada or the U.K., you’re likely to be more efficient in your use of heating fuel and in your use of energy for transportation.”

Dodman found that the average Canadian is responsible for 24 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year, while Torontonians just 8.2 tonnes.