Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, RETHINK

There have been recent ads featuring a man, perhaps Galen Weston, tossing an empty water bottle towards a recycling bin, only to have it bounce off the rim like Vince Carter’s 2001 Game Seven miss against Philadelphia. Much like the Toronto Raptors, the planet will never be the same.

(A basketball analogy and a contentious embellishment! What an intro!)

At the same time, the University of Winnipeg has become the first university in Canada to ban the sale of bottled water on campus (after the University of Washington did so in the United States), and is slowly phasing out the sale in time for the fall semester. To replace the loss of Aquafina et al. on campus, the school is installing more water fountains and providing each incoming student with a reusable bottle. Similar action is being taken by municipalities around the country, with Toronto and London leading the way, and more expected to follow suit. Any initiative that replaces environmental degradation and irresponsible capitalism with reusable products and communal resources at the expense of the bottom line is bound to be a good one.

We have all heard the arguments against bottled water, so I am not going to dwell on rehashing them too much, but the basic points are: they produce unnecessary waste; oil and other resources are used just to make the bottles; the product must be shipped from its bottling plant creating unnecessary carbon emissions; and they are not any healthier than tap water, and may actually lack teeth friendly additives such as fluoride. Proponents argue that recycling is a viable option, but a brief Internet search led me to figures varying between a twelve to twenty-three percent recycling rate for the bottles, with more sites closer to the twelve side. Of the remaining eighty-eight percent, the best case scenario is a landfill. It is easy to say that the bottles can be recycled, but this is clearly not happening, and it assumed that recycling is actually a positive force. There is also no reason to waste resources creating and shipping a product that already flows cheaply and easily to our homes. When in Italy last summer, we were delighted to find numerous ornate fountains in public squares that could also be used to fill our water bottles (lest we evaporate in the Italian heat).

Proponents of bottled water will argue that they are storing it in case of an emergency that renders tap water undrinkable. This is a reasonable argument in principle, but it is mostly a blatant lie, because nobody that concerned about water reserves would drink their emergency supply. If this were truly the case then people would buy large containers of bottled water to store for such an occasion, which perhaps isn’t a terrible idea. Another option would be a large office-esque ‘water cooler’ with reusable 20L jugs. Furthermore, any notion that bottled water is better for you than tap water is, in most parts of Canada anyways, a deliberate attempt by corporations to mislead consumers into fearfully buying their product. It wouldn’t be the first time, and it will not be the last.

Some argue that the ban by the University of Winnipeg is restricting students’ free will to drink the beverage of their choice. However, the university isn’t banning water, or limiting water available on campus. They are simply expressing their free choice to not sell bottled water, after a resolution was passed almost 3-1 by the students. Let’s hope this trend is extended to further Canada institutions.

We all know the Three Rs (reading TV guide, writing to TV guide, renewing TV guide), but do we really consider them in the proper hierarchy? Reduce is at the top for a reason, followed by reuse, and recycle. Recycling helps the planet much like hybrid cars. All they really are is ‘less-bad’ than the alternative, and yet allow us to guiltlessly continue our destructive lifestyles. By endorsing recycling, corporations are able to get us to continue to buy their (often unnecessary) products which may be doing different and greater harm to the planet than any single bottle in a landfill. The process of recycling uses many resources and produces waste, and while not as harmful as landfills, it is not an ultimate solution. I saw an ad recently that promoted buying a certain brand of diapers by suggesting they will donate a cost of a tetanus vaccine to an underprivileged child. This may seem hunky-dory, but the real question must be why is that child dying of tetanus, and the real solution won’t be found at the bottom of a bag of diapers (a discussion for another day, perhaps). And yet by buying diapers we are able to feel good about our consumption.

I am not suggesting that recycling is a bad thing. There must be a reasonable amount of waste that each person requires to live, especially in today’s Western world. A complete overhaul of our culture and ethic is not necessary; however it is necessary to continue to aggressively question our actions and be conscious of the consequences. Recycling and Green Bin programs must continue to be expanded, and every Monday night I am appalled by Ottawa’s poor recycling (and non-existent Green Bin) program when compared to Toronto and the GTA. These considerations and their results are beginning to be seen in Toronto and London, and the University of Winnipeg, and we need more people to be conscious of and take responsibility for their actions.

Russel MacDonald

Saving Our World for Tomorrow: A 21st Century Approach to Politics and Sustainable Development (Part 1 of 4)

This is the first in a series of 4 articles by Brent Densmore dealing with the current crisis facing the world as a result of 20th century over-expansion and unsustainable development. Today's article is an introduction to the series, a contextual look at some of the factors that have contributed to where we are today, as well as some of the challenges that we face in moving forward. Please check back at 5pm EST on each of the next four Fridays for the continuing story.

The collapse of the Berlin Will and the subsequent end to the Cold War reinforced the fact that capitalism and democracy were the dominant economic and political systems of the world. The spread of the free market economy and the rapid decrease in telecommunication infrastructure have resulted in an extensive global marketplace that is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Rich western nations, such as the United States and Great Britain, are no longer the economic super powers they once were. India, Japan and China, to name a few, now have the same access to markets and information as the rest of the world.

As a result, these nations are now able to compete with the historically rich nations, something many thought could never be done. It was only 30 years ago that wealth was virtually non-existent in these nations; today, their economies are growing at a rapid pace and their people are reaping the benefits. These nations however, are now consuming more food and water than ever and are demanding many of the same consumer products we have in here in Canada.

While it is a great that these new nations are now prospering, the world as a whole cannot sustain this new level of consumption; never before have our natural resources been depleted at such an alarming rate. There will be nothing left of our planet if we continue to live at this rate for the next 50 years.
(Editor's Note: a recent article from the BBC suggests that global resources will be depleted even faster, please see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7951838.stm)

In order to fix this problem and right the ship for future generations, we must all begin to live a more sustainable way of life. It will take a collected effort to change our old habits, something that may be hard for many, but it must be done.

The first step to implementing a more sustainable way of life requires a change in government policies. Secondly, the use of renewable resources as legitimate energy sources must become a reality. Finally, there must be changes made to how our cities are being built. While this is by no means an inclusive list, these three ideas will build the crucial foundation of a more sustainable way of life.

The development of a more sustainable way of life will require everyone to make a diligent effort. This isn’t something that one person or country can accomplish on their own. In order to make sure that everyone is on the same page, it will require the leadership of all governments around the world. They must be committed to significant change and be willing to absorb public resentment for as with any other new idea, there will be a share of the public who opposes new ideas.

As mentioned previously, the first step in this process is for governments to change certain outdated policies and most importantly, enact new environmental legislation. Mark Lynas states “the environment is still seen as a soft-focus poor relation to the real hard-politics issues such as health, the economy and asylum-seekers and so on” (Lynas: “Bring in the police to save the planet.” New Statesmen 9 May 2005: 40). The era of growing GDP at the expense of the environment must come to an end. While there is no denying that these too are important issues, it is clearly time that the environment becomes part of this list.

During the recent United States presidential election, President Obama released an extensive list of environmental policies and ideas that he believed would help cure our addiction to an unsustainable way of life. Some of his ideas included “government investment in clean energy and green jobs, promotion of green technologies and fuel efficiency standards, protection of the Great Lakes and National Parks, and the promotion of inner-city recycling programs” (“Obama on the Environment”). While by no means is this an inclusive list, it is an excellent start and it is a relief to see that the President of the United States has aspirations to fix this problem.

The most important ideas Obama lists relate to the promotion and investment in clean energy, technologies and jobs. If the government doesn’t promote or invest in these ideas then who will? In today’s competitive global market, corporations will require a long-term commitment from their governments on these issues. They won’t be willing to radically modify their factories, offices and practices unless everyone else is following suit. From their viewpoint, why would they? Aside from a few exceptions, no corporation will sacrifice their profits and reduce shareholder value while their competitors stand pat and face no punishments. Therefore, not only will there be a requirement for new policies to be enacted but there also must reward-based system in order to encourage speedy compliance.

Brent Densmore

Next week Brent will discuss and break-down some of the political changes that have the potential to revolutionize the way the environment is treated within politics, as well as a look a the some of the international issues that pose a challenge in solving this crisis.

Heathrow Expansion: What About the Climate?

After spending the last couple days wandering through airports on an overseas journey from Toronto to Stockholm I decided that tackling a spicy issue out of England invovling the further expansion of London Heathrow airport would be a fitting post-holiday return to the blogosphere.

The plan is to construct a third runway at London Heathrow which, proponents say, would be an economic boon for the Brits, and would allow the airport to increase the number of flights using Heathrow from 480 000 anually to 702 000 by 2030.

Ministers are expected to pass the strongly protested bill tomorrow all but ensuring the construction of the third runway, which Friends of the Earth director Andy Atkins is saying “…would shatter the government's international reputation on climate change.”
What Atkins is referring to is Britain’s goal of cutting carbon emissions by 80% before 2050; a goal which will likely be impossible of reaching if the plan for the third runway goes ahead.

Ultimately it comes down to a battle between politicians who see the economic positives of jobs being created as well as maintaining Britain’s image as a world hub and environmentalists who see Britain re-neging on their commitment to fighting climate change.

In this argument one only needs to go as far as looking at the stances the opposing sides are taking to see who has a better grip on reality.

The politicians are saying things like “We sincerely believe that Heathrow’s modernization is the only way to reduce aircraft emissions and cut disruption” and “Heathrow’s status as a global hub is at stake.” I think if these statements were re-worded to say something like “We sincerely believe that the only way we’ll get approval for this plan is by somehow making it appear green” or “We’re losing money fast” they would give a more accurate description of what is really going on.

Environmentalists are calling attention to the political propaganda that uses the current economic situation to overplay the benefits such as the creation of jobs while almost completely ignoring the environmental risks as well as the construction the new runway will require the demolishing of over 700 homes.

This technique, a common one in advertising, is playing off the emotions of people that are facing job-loss or struggling to make ends meet and points to a major problem, one that I discussed in the blog “How We are All Destroying the Rainforest in Borneo.”

The problem is that environmental concerns clash with the sustainability of the economy. If we are to slow progress, people will lose jobs, but if we don’t slow progress, we will destroy the planet. This is a paradox however that must be solved. We need a long term solution that helps people meet their daily needs while maintaining quality of life for both ourselves and the planet.

In this case, the truth is that expanding Heathrow airport is a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Building a new runway will create new jobs under the period it is being built but does little to help the economy long term while blatantly ignoring the environmental side of the equation.

It seems that when a problem arises that conflicts with environmental concerns it is rarely the environment that wins (and this project will almost certainly be approved tomorrow.)

I don’t want to be one of those doomdayers but Sir Issac Newton once said: “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction” and I maintain the politicians that continuously sacrifice the environment on the insatiable altar of economics are catalysts pushing us towards a great collapse.

Will Grassby

How We Are All Destroying the Rainforest in Borneo

In yesterday’s (Nov.23rd) Svenska Dagbladet (“The Swedish Daily Paper” in English) there was an extremely interesting and discomforting article discussing the ravaging of the rainforest on the island of Borneo.

The island of Borneo is governmentally divided between the countries of Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei and is the third largest island in the world. As of today over three quarters of the lowland rainforest, a major source of biodiversity as well as endemic species, have been destroyed through logging, fire and the replacement planting of oil palms.

Mattias Klum, the source behind the aforementioned article and one of the world’s leading nature photographers, has traveled to Borneo a total of 35 times documenting and researching into the destruction of the rainforest. He paints a bleak picture and does not hold any punches titling his article “The Nightmare on Borneo.”

The problem is the ongoing replacement of rainforest by oil palms, trees that provide masses of valuable palm oil, a commodity that can be found in almost anything from shampoo and soap to chocolate, margarine and chips. These trees provide a needed fiscal shot in the arm for the economically challenged economies of Indonesia and Malaysia but also, as Mattias Klum reports, hold massive environmental and ecological consequences.

Klum describes the brutal and devastating way the rainforest is set ablaze, releasing over 1652 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air for each hectare burnt. Multiply that by an area Klum says is equivalent to the size of Switzerland and you have what he calls “One of the world’s biggest environmental problems.”

In the case of the Borneo rainforest it is, as usual, difficult to simply intervene and say “No…Bad!” The problem is that the people have come to rely on palm oil and forestry and would be jobless and living under extreme poverty if it weren’t for the jobs provided by these industries.

Does the reliance on consumption and the consequential environmental destruction necessitated sound in any way familiar? This is in no way isolated to developing countries. Our dependence on the destruction of the environment has become conventionalized and is engrained in the daily lives of people around the world.

The situation on the island of Borneo eerily mirrors the worries presented to the industrialized nations of the world in the recent so called finance crisis. Jobs will no doubt be lost and people will struggle to keeps their homes and maintain the now cliché status quo we call “quality of life.”
In this crisis has anyone stopped to re-think this seemingly universally accepted truism? Scientists have for years beat around the term “sustainable development” and warned that current levels of consumption are not possible to maintain. In a lot of ways the current financial crisis looks like it might act to force us into more sustainable practices. One almost has to wonder if there is a genius environmental activist pulling the strings.

When it comes to the rainforest in Borneo it is not just factory owners and dubious governments that are to blame. Unsustainable consumption and lack of regulation in developed nations is directly fueling the palm oil industry. Despite laws against destructive de-forestation there is, as of now, no way for consumers or manufacturers to know if the oil they are receiving comes from legal, government approved producers or illegal ones.

It is easy to pinpoint problems such as consumption and lack of regulatory bodies, but in what way can this message be relayed to the public and the people who actually have the power to make change?

Weeks after vast brown clouds of pollution settled themselves over parts of Asia providing visual confirmation of the atmospheric suicide we are committing one has to wonder what it will take to bring about change. Is there anyone capable of prompting the type of change needed to make a difference?

It is easy to reject responsibility while issues remain invisible and theoretical, but when these same things become visible they become for many actualized. We are all doubting Thomases and yes, seeing is still believing. In the same way that these perceptible brown clouds brought international attention back to the urgency for change, the pictures taken by Mattias Klum speak an indescribable story.

If we truly want the public and governments to take climate change and environmental problems seriously we need to make them visible for people and Klum does us all a service in this respect.

Once again here is the link to his report and pictures (in Swedish):

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/utrikes/artikel_2083765.svd