Water, air, soil – the main components of the big ball of matter we call the Earth.

Formed from floating atoms and molecules billions of years ago, our planet is treated by its human inhabitants as a toilet, a smokestack, and a garbage can.

Humans adulterate, besmear, corrupt, defile, dirty, foul, impair, litter, pollute, spoil, and taint our earthly home with scarcely a thought for tomorrow.

Environment in Peril is the title of a book published by the Smithsonian Institution in 1991. The book is a compilation of presentations by eloquent defenders of the environment who spoke at a seminar convened by the Smithsonian and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

As we prepare to commemorate the 40^th anniversary of the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, the Earth Day Network (http://www.earthday.org/) – an alliance of more than 20,000 partners and organizations in 190 countries – says “the world is in greater peril than ever.”

What follows are some facts that support that dire argument.

Pollution affects over a billion people around the world. The World Health Organization estimates that 25 percent of all deaths in the developing world are directly attributable to environmental factors.  About 40 percent of deaths worldwide are caused by water, air and soil pollution, says David Pimentel, Cornell professor of ecology and agricultural sciences.

People affected by pollution problems are much more susceptible to contracting other diseases.  Others have impaired neurological development, damaged immune systems, and long-term health problems.

Pimentel and a team of Cornell graduate students examined data from more than 120 published papers on the effects of population growth, malnutrition and various kinds of environmental degradation on human diseases. Their 2007 report was published in the journal Human Ecology.

“We have serious environmental resource problems of water, land and energy, and these are now coming to bear on food production, malnutrition and the incidence of diseases,” said Pimentel.

The study also found that air pollution from smoke and various chemicals kills 3 million people a year. In the United States alone about 3 million tons of toxic chemicals are released into the environment contributing to cancer, birth defects, immune system defects and many other serious health problems.

Soil is contaminated by many chemicals and pathogens, which are passed on to humans through direct contact or via food and water. Increased soil erosion worldwide not only results in more soil being blown around but the spread of disease microbes and various toxins.

While children only make up 10 percent of the world’s population, over 40 percent of the global burden of disease falls on them – more than three million children under age five die annually from environmental factors.

Pollution has always been with us, at least since humans invented fire. Soot found on ceilings of prehistoric caves provides evidence of the high levels of pollution associated with inadequately ventilated open fires. Metal forging appears to be a key turning point in the creation of significant pollution that spread over wide areas. Core samples of glaciers in Greenland indicate increases in pollution associated with Greek, Roman and Chinese metal production.

Pollution has long been recognized as a threat to human health and to the Earth’s ecosystems. The earliest known writings concerned with pollution were written between the 9th and 13th centuries by Persian scientists and Arabic physicians.

The industrial revolution gave birth to environmental pollution as we know it today. The emergence of large factories and consumption of immense quantities of coal and other fossil fuels gave rise to unprecedented air pollution and a large volume of industrial discharges that added to the growing load of untreated human waste.

In the unusually hot summer of 1858, the overwhelming smell of untreated human sewage in London became known as The Great Stink and led to the construction of the London sewerage system.

Chicago and Cincinnati were the first two American cities to enact laws ensuring cleaner air in 1881. In response to the Great Smog in London that killed 8,000 people in 1952, the British Parliament introduced a Clean Air Act in 1956. It would take until the 1970’s before the United States and Canada passed similar laws but the effectiveness of the laws is questionable.

Britain’s environment minister Jim Fitzpatrick admitted in February that air pollution – minute sooty particles emitted by motor transport, ships and fuel burning in houses and industry – may be leading to the premature deaths of 35,000 people a year in Britain. About four percent of deaths in the United States can be attributed to air pollution, according to the Harvard School of Public Health.

A 2008 report by the Canadian Medical Association predicted 700,000 Canadians will die prematurely over the next two decades because of illnesses caused by poor air quality. The doctor’s group said the costs of dirty air, in terms of treating the illnesses in hospital and visits to doctors, as well as indirect expenses for time off work, would add up to $10 billion in 2008 alone.

Toxic chemicals in the environment are being blamed for a rash of illnesses among children – including cancer and autism.

The Environmental Working Group (http://www.ewg.org/) has detected nearly 300 chemicals in the cord blood of American newborns. Many of these chemicals are PBTs (persistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals), a category that includes DDT, polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the Teflon chemicals perfluorooctanyl sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), brominated flame retardants, lead and mercury compounds and dioxins.

Among the most troubling substances found in cord blood that are not PBTs are bisphenol-A, the synthetic estrogen and plastics component; perchlorate, a thyroid toxin and explosives chemical used in fireworks, airbags and rocket fuel; and phthalates, a class of potent endocrine disruptors linked to birth defects in boys and a common component of soft plastics.

“The chemicals that deserve highest priority are those that contaminate the blood of babies before they are born,” says the EWG. “There is an emerging consensus within scientific and medical communities that the most critical chemical exposures occur before birth, when the brain and other organs are exquisitely sensitive to trace changes in blood chemistry. Any substance, PBT or otherwise, that intrudes upon the womb and threatens a child’s normal development must receive our most urgent attention.”

Chemicals not only affect humans, but also denizens of the sea.

Scientists studying burbot in the Mackenzie River, one of Canada’s most pristine rivers, have found rising levels of mercury, PCBs and DDT in the burbot, a delicacy in the north described as tasting like freshwater lobster. In the period from the mid-1990s to 2008, PCBs have gone up six-fold, DDT by three times, and mercury by 1.6 times.

The chemicals have been deposited in the north as air pollution fallout from heavily industrialized areas. Scientists surmise that as temperatures in the Arctic rise due to climate change, snow and ice cover are diminishing, leading to a profusion of algae, zooplankton and other aquatic microscopic life able to absorb pollutants from water.

“What climate change is doing is changing the biological availability of PCBs and the DDT that are already in the system,” said Dr. Gary Stern, a senior scientist with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. While this greening of the Arctic environment means there is more for wildlife to eat, it also allows harmful contaminants to enter the food chain in far greater amounts, Dr. Stern added.

Toxic chemicals are also endangering us where we live.

Studies have shown that significant levels of toxic substances can leach out of commonplace items in our homes and workplaces. How do these toxins make their way inside us and what impact do they have on our health? And more importantly, what can we do about them?

Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie, two of Canada’s leading environmental activists, tackled these questions head on by experimenting upon themselves. Authors of the book Slow Death by Rubber Duck, Smith and Lourie ingested and inhaled a host of substances that surround us all every day, things suspected of being toxic and posing long term health risks to humans. By revealing the pollution load in their bodies before and after the experiment – and the results in most cases are downright frightening – they tell the inside story of seven common substances in their book.

Their book begs the question: Isn’t there any protection for Canadians from these dastardly toxic chemicals?

In February, the Globe and Mail newspaper revealed that potentially harmful substances were entering the Canadian marketplace because the federal agency charged with determining their safety often can’t complete the task in a timely fashion. The newspaper said an internal government audit of the New Substances Assessment and Control Bureau states the failure of the bureau to meet its deadlines “constitutes a risk that is not currently being tracked.”

When companies want to make or use new substances or import them into Canada, they must ask the bureau for an assessment. The bureau must then respond within specified timelines – 75 days for chemicals and 120 days for organisms. If the timelines are not met, substances can be used without an assessment.

While breast cancer deaths in Canada have been going down for years and survivor rates are increasing, one in nine women will be diagnosed with the disease in their lifetime – more than 400 every week.

It was no April Fool’s Day joke when Canadian scientists announced on April 1 that exposure to certain chemicals and pollutants before a woman reaches her mid-30s could triple her risk of developing breast cancer after menopause.

Writing in a study in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, researchers found that women exposed to synthetic fibres and petroleum products during the course of their work appeared to be most at risk.

“Occupational exposure to acrylic and nylon fibres and to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons may increase the risk of developing post-menopausal breast cancer,” they wrote.

The researchers from Montreal’s Occupational Health Research Institute based their findings on more than 1,100 women, 556 of whom were diagnosed with breast cancer in 1996 and 1997 when they were aged between 50 and 75 and had gone through menopause.

A team of chemists and industrial hygienists investigated the women’s levels of exposure to around 300 different substances during their employment history. After taking account of the usual factors associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, the analysis indicated a link between occupational exposures to several of these substances, the Montreal team wrote.

The substances that are of particular concern to the scientific and medical communities are those known as endocrine disrupting chemicals or EDCs. They are under intense scrutiny because they’re found in every home in North America and our increased exposure to them parallels a rise in cancers in adults and autism in children.

Although many of the chemicals have been considered dangerous by some scientists and doctors for years, recent research is providing mounting evidence against EDCs like bisphenol-A (BPA) found in food cans, hard plastic water bottles, phthalates (found in soft plastics and cosmetics) and fire retardants (found in mattresses, sofas, computers, and flame-resistant clothing). Multiple animal and human studies have linked EDC exposure (during or after fetal development) with a host of hormone-related disorders, like low sperm count, cancer (breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular), congenital malformation of the genitals, infertility, early puberty, diabetes, heart disease, neurological disorders, and even obesity.

Exposure to EDCs is no mere theoretical concern. In 2000, a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study found detectable phthalates in 99.9% of adults including women of childbearing age. The CDC also discovered detectable levels of BPA in the urine of 93% of thousands of tested Americans over the age of six.

The presence of EDCs in women of child-bearing age is especially worrisome because there is evidence that even minuscule amounts of these chemicals – levels commonly present in a woman’s body – may disturb fetal brain development during highly sensitive periods of neural development known as windows of vulnerability.

On the second last day of March, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration announced “plans to scrutinize closely the potential environmental risks of bisphenol-A.” The Environmental Working Group has been asking for such studies for years. Bisphenol-A was invented in 1891and was first identified as toxic in the 1930s.

Surely the protection of our children calls for immediate and urgent action. Children should not be afflicted with rising rates of cancer and autism. A glance at obituaries in any large metropolitan newspaper finds the words “after a courageous battle with cancer” in far too many of them. Some of these are adults in their 20s, 30s or 40s.

When will we learn that life on Earth is a blessing and we should live our lives with precaution? Will it be the exposure to the chemicals released in backyard leaf burns, those in the plastic water bottle, or those in our household cleaners that causes our cells to mutate? Why are we taking the risk?

Pollution may be poisonous and a global killer, but it’s also a solvable problem. We can stop our contamination of the Earth by ceasing to use it as a repository for industrial and human waste. It can be eliminated worldwide with conscious commitment and the required resources. We must demand this of our industries, lobbyists, politicians – and ourselves – on Earth Day and every day.

On April 22, communities, churches and campuses will take action to create a blueprint for a cleaner world. Join in and help end the abuse of our Earth. Even after 40 years, there remains much to be done.

RESOURCES – See Earth Day Canada’s top ten actions to help the environment at http://www.earthday.ca/pub/resources/top10.php. These are simple everyday initiatives that everyone should do. Then read the book Slow Death by Rubber Duck by Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie; now you’ll really get active. The web site http://www.pollutionwatch.org/ is operated by Environmental Defence and the Canadian Environmental Law Association and is a source of information about toxic pollutant discharges that may be affecting your community. The EWG web site http://www.ewg.org/Health-Tips has a series of printable guides that may help make life safer for you and your children.

Utilities are known for selling energy, but utilities know that the easiest energy to sell is conserved energy. Rather than spending millions building new electrical generating facilities, utilities like FortisBC encourage their customers to use less. That “less” becomes an inexpensive source of new sellable power.

October is the month to conserve energy dollars and curb your winter expenditures on lighting and heating. FortisBC and a number of area retailers are ready to help reduce your energy bill. Special events and promotions are ongoing throughout the southern Interior, including a three-week radio contest in the Central and South Okanagan and the Kootenays. Throughout the month, the FortisBC PowerSense team will also be available to provide advice and answer questions at local community events across the southern Interior.

“October is a great time of year to focus on energy efficiency, making homes more comfortable and saving money,” says Keith Veerman, FortisBC’s manager of energy efficiency.  “Turning down the heat, insulating and using less hot water can make a big difference in energy consumption.”

“Heating and cooling costs can account for up to half of your energy bill,” adds Veerman.  “As we approach the winter heating season, it’s a great time to increase your home’s energy efficiency and help manage energy costs.”

Since its inception 19 years ago, FortisBC’s PowerSense program has helped southern Interior customers save more than 300 million kilowatt hours of electricity, enough energy to power more than 24,000 homes each year, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50,000 tonnes each year. The average family in BC will spend up to $1,700 on their home’s energy bill this year. Customers can reduce their costs between 10 and 50 percent by using a few energy-saving tips and solutions, as well as making some long-term improvements in their homes. Simply by adjusting your thermostat, you can save two percent on your heating bill for every 1 degree Centigrade it is lowered. A programmable thermostat allows you to automatically drop the temperature at night or when you are away. In addition, heat only the rooms you use. Close vents or turn off the heaters in rooms you aren’t using.

Don’t forget to let the sunshine in. Keeps blinds or drapes of sun-exposed windows open in the daytime to help naturally heat your home and closed at night to conserve heat. By sealing gaps around doors and windows, the foundation sill, and places where pipes pass through the exterior walls, you can save up to 10 percent on your home’s heating costs.

Keeping your home illuminated eats up between 15 and 20 percent of your monthly energy bill. Replace all incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs that use 75 percent less energy and last up to 10 times longer. You can also receive up to a $5 rebate per bulb from FortisBC PowerSense.

A longer-term investment that will pay energy dividends is the installation of an air source heat pump (ASHP). An ASHP can provide your home with heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. Heat pumps use electricity efficiently and can save you up to 40 percent on your heating and cooling costs.

If your home has single-pane windows, it’s a candidate for new energy efficient ENERGY STAR windows. These new windows will not only save energy, they will improve your home’s comfort level and increase its resale value.

For more energy saving tips, visit www.fortisbc.com.

FortisBC will be holding a number of community events to provide conservation and energy efficiency advice. The FortisBC PowerSense team will set up information booths at a number of Home Hardware stores this month throughout the Central and South Okanagan and the Kootenays. Check with your local store for times or call PowerSense at 1-866-436-7847.

Also this month, Home Hardware stores have special prices on weatherstrip and insulation products. Every time you buy a 2-pack of Blue Planet energy saving bulbs at Canadian Tire, the store will donate $2 toward planting a tree.

When economists begin bandying around the recession word, the best advice is to hunker down in one’s home and seek shelter from the storm.

But if your own home isn’t up to the task and starts to drain needless money from your wallet, then it’s time to get some power sense.
Don’t forget that a little conservation can make a big difference.

BC Hydro estimates if every home in the province reduced their energy consumption by just 7.6 percent over the four winter months, enough energy could be saved to power 44,500 households.

These two words will define the future of our cities.

Our hometowns exist for the health, safety and enjoyment of the people who live there. They are centres of economic vitality, places where the action is, cornerstones of learning, citadels of culture, and playgrounds for our children.

In our neighbourhoods, we shop, borrow books, walk in the park, eat out and hang out. People know our names and our dreams become realities here.

But our communities are in trouble. They overuse water, energy and materials; they disperse garbage, sewage and pollution into the air and water.

Our cities need to be redesigned to be in balance with nature; they must be integrated into the local ecosystem, not imposed upon it. Our buildings must be designed to be heated and cooled by nature as much as possible.

This is where transition and innovation come in. Our cities need to transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy, from wasting to efficiency, from sprawl to compactness.

In a nutshell, we must move from sustaining our communities to improving them. Our cities must become healthier, more connected and self-reliant.  

On February 22nd, the city council of Seattle announced the city will aim to become carbon neutral, and explore whether it can realistically commit to hitting that target by 2030. Achieving this goal would make Seattle the first carbon neutral city in the United States.

“Addressing climate changes is the most pressing moral issue we face as a society,” said Councilmember Mike O’Brien.

“Seattle has an opportunity to shape what a carbon neutral society can look like in a way that is both economically sustainable and socially just.”
 
Reinventing the Automobile, written by two engineers from GM’s advanced auto division and the head of MIT’s Smart Cities program, describes the sustainable city of the future in considerable detail. Here is a condensed sketch of that city:

Everything is linked up in a smart, integrated communications, power, and transportation network. The city “knows” which roads are congested and which parking spots are free. It can communicate to individuals what combination of walking, transit, and individual vehicles will get them where they’re going fastest. Vehicles are small, electric, modular, and – via sensors, GPS, and broadband wireless – intelligent, so they can pilot and park themselves. They can be charged by parking-integrated stations or even electromagnetic coils embedded in curbs, and since they’re interchangeable and easily customizable, they can be public goods (like today’s car-sharing services), easily swapped out and thus continuously in use.

The city uses the vehicles’ batteries as distributed energy storage, along with other storage options including pumped hydro integrated into the sewer system. Rooftops, parking lots, and other marginal lands are covered with solar panels; small-scale wind turbines are perched on bridges and towers; cogeneration systems are attached to every industrial facility. Through smart design and sensing, every building and neighbourhood maximizes efficiency. The city senses power demand, knows where power is being produced and stored, and continuously balances supply and demand.

Pictures tell a thousand words and the preceding images give us a taste of the transformation and redesign our cities – the places where most of the world’s population lives – will undergo in the years to come.

Seattle is just one of dozens of cities – big and small – that is pioneering sustainable change.  Here are some of the ways that Worldchanging’s Sarah Kuck imagines cities will be different in a bright green future:

In a carbon neutral city, cars are no longer king. Land use policy and zoning laws are designed with people in mind, to bring us nearer to the people we want to see, and the goods and services we need to live, learn and work. Through these new plans, development will be more compact, people will walk where they need to go and green spaces will proliferate.

Innovations in transportation help to shift the focus from moving the most cars the farthest distances in the least time, to getting the most people to the places they want to be most effectively.

In a bright green city, water is something everyone will think about because they will have more information and access to the resource. Here, every raindrop that falls on a building is used – each drop is recycled and used again onsite. Water use is monitored in our homes and clearly marked on the things we buy. Innovators tell us that we will be able to capture all our water on site and reuse it before we send it away.

In the carbon neutral city, we’ll live so close to food sellers you can walk there. Farming innovators say that, with the exception of a few international products (coffee, chocolate, etc), most of the food available will come from nearby farms, if not from farms within the city itself. More people will grow their own food. Educated on the physical and climate effects of meat, most of us choose to eat only locally raised chicken on special occasions.

In a bright green city, cradle-to-cradle designers create goods with their next use in mind and landfills are a thing of the past. Products are less toxic because they have to be used longer and over again, are not designed to break but to be fixed and are meant to be shared.  In carbon neutral cities, we are all aware that there is no “away.” Each item is designed to be reborn as something new or is capable of decomposing. Composting masters work together at centres to create new organic material, reuse specialists collect and redistribute larger items and technology workers are trained to retool and upgrade technology and small items are effortlessly repaired at recovery parks.

In the carbon neutral city, it’s essential to include and support everyone. Bright green city philosophy states that equality is an essential part of creating sustainability. Research shows that people who are taken care of and shown respect are able to think beyond their basic needs, and have the energy and motivation to take care of themselves and others.

In a bright green city, business people care about the triple bottom line – people, planet and profit. Success is not just measured by how much money a company can make, but also by how much good they can do for the people and places they operate in and for. Companies support carbon neutrality as a business goal.

In a carbon neutral city, citizens are engaged in the political process because they know that the more they are, the more is possible. In such a city, politics are transparent, people are involved, and everyone knows that by working together, positive change happens.

In a bright green city, our laws, regulations, infrastructure, built spaces, economics, behaviours, and values are embedded in sustainability. We will use them to turn our cities into new creations.
Communities are about what we can and should do for each other. Innovating the transition to our future is our challenge.

The David Suzuki Foundation was commissioned by VANOC in 2007 to produce a carbon management for the winter Olympics and the organization developed strategies for a carbon neutral games.

After an analysis of the organizer’s efforts, the Suzuki Foundation has awarded VANOC a bronze medal for its attempt to reduce the climate impact of the event.

The Vancouver Olympic bid set clear goals related to energy efficiency and renewable energy, but was vague in other areas, says the foundation in its climate scorecard.

VANOC was relatively transparent about its climate program and made improvements over previous Games with a more rigorous and comprehensive approach, the foundation added.

“The number one priority in managing the climate impact of any large event is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions wherever possible (before offsetting), and it is estimated that the Vancouver Olympics will have reduced overall emissions by around 15 percent,” says the environmental organization.

“Since the Salt Lake City Winter Games in 2002, most Olympics have taken responsibility for some of their climate impact by using carbon offsets,” it adds. “VANOC has so far committed to offset 118,000 tonnes of its emissions, which is substantial, but still represents under half of Games-related emissions.”

In March 2009, VANOC announced a target to neutralize up to 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from the Games.

“Together with our partners, we take responsibility for our carbon footprint and are working hard to make the 2010 Winter Games as green as possible. Since we won the bid for the Games in 2003, we have focused on understanding our total carbon emissions and finding ways to reduce them at source,” said John Furlong, VANOC’s CEO.

In setting its carbon offset target, VANOC relied on the Suzuki Foundation forecast which was subsequently reviewed by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The independent foundation predicted that, based on planning at that stage, the Games would produce an estimated 110,000 tonnes of direct carbon emissions and another 220,000 tonnes of indirect emissions from air travel by spectators and other participants.

While VANOC now believes the Games will only produce about 270,000 tonnes of CO2, it has quietly decided to offset only about 118,000 tonnes of direct emissions.

Ann Duffy, a VANOC sustainability officer, told Global TV to think of the Games as a wedding – VANOC will pay the expenses of the wedding party and the immediate family, but not those of the extended family and friends.

That means the Games will only be about 43 percent carbon neutral – not the “greenest ever and carbon neutral” promised in a handout Premier Gordon Campbell gave to world leaders in December at the Copenhagen climate summit.

VANOC says corporations and visitors to the Games will be asked to voluntarily help offset their emissions travelling to, at and from the Games.

The Suzuki Foundation credits the Vancouver Olympics with reaching out to sponsors, suppliers and others with several climate initiatives, but says VANOC hasn’t motivated the general public.

“Environment is one of the three pillars of the Olympic movement, and the Olympic Games are an unparalleled opportunity to reach out to billions of people around the world and inspire them with solutions to climate change,” says the foundation. “Yet this is the category where VANOC has had the least success.”

The Olympic transportation legacy, the Canada Line notwithstanding, was also criticized by the Suzuki Foundation.

“Local transportation and shipping are a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions for the Olympics,” it said. “In Vancouver it appears opportunities to create lasting reductions in transportation emissions in the region have been missed.”

VANOC did get high praise in two areas – the quality of its venues – many are built to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards – and its reduced use of fossil fuels.

“Venues are a visible legacy of all Olympics, and the Vancouver Olympics will leave the region with innovative energy-efficient buildings that will reduce community greenhouse gas emissions – and save money – for many years into the future,” says the scorecard.

“Fossil fuel energy use at venues, including electricity, heating and cooling, is typically a major source of greenhouse gas emissions for winter Olympics,” says the foundation. “However, the Vancouver Olympics will primarily use clean energy sources.”

Normally about 600 diesel generators would be used for an event of Olympic proportions, but VANOC plans to use only 100. However, alternative green energy sources such as wind or solar appear not to be a significant part of the solution.

Dr. Chris Shaw, a University of British Columbia professor, has been one of the most vocal critics of the Vancouver Games.

He says about 120,000 trees were cut for roads, venues, legacy trails and ski jumps and over 800 trees cut down in Whistler for a Celebration Plaza. Trees are widely viewed as a carbon sink so the number of trees felled actually increases the Games’ carbon footprint.

Shaw is the author of Five Ring Circus, The True Cost of the Olympic Games, a critical report on the process leading up to Vancouver’s selection as host to the 2010 Winter Games. He has already paid a price for his criticism.

Last June 3rd, the Joint Intelligence Group, a branch of the Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security Unit, pulled Shaw aside at a West Broadway café over his 2008 anti-Olympics book. And on June 7, Shaw was detained at Heathrow Airport passport control for an hour. Shaw said a U.K. Home Office representative peppered him with questions about a talk he was going to give on June 12 at a conference in Coventry, undoubtedly concerned his talk might bash the upcoming London 2012 Summer Olympics.

Anti-Olympics protestors say police have approached dozens of people opposed to the Games at their work and homes. The RCMP-led Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security Unit (ISU) argues such visits are a legitimate tactic to ensure the Games are safe.

More than 70 top athletes and thousands of Canadians wrote to the organizers of the 2010 Olympics, asking them to make the Games carbon neutral.

“As a winter Olympian I see global warming firsthand: melting glaciers, changing snow patterns and the closing of lower-elevation hills,” says Canadian Alpine Ski Team member Kelly VanderBeek. “Winter sports are threatened by global warming and Canadian Olympic athletes are stepping forward and calling for action.”

“The winter Olympics depend on snow and ice, and they need to do their part to protect winter,” says former Olympic speed skater Ingrid Liepa. “It’s encouraging to see that the Vancouver Olympics are making a contribution, and I hope that future Olympic Games will raise the bar even higher for the sake of our winter sports culture – and our planet.”

Ms. VanderBeek and Ms. Liepa are members of Play It Cool, a joint initiative of the Climate Project of Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation. These athletes are taking action in their own lives to reduce their carbon footprint.

All Canadians can do their part by reducing their carbon footprint and encouraging others to do the same. Learn more about climate solutions at http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/.

With trees blooming and flowers blossoming in Vancouver, it appears the flora around the city will be the greenest part of 2010 Olympics.

Avoid Wasteful Gift-Giving

By Michael Jessen

One Christmas when I was in Grade Three, I starred in a school play about some children who snuck down to unwrap presents under the tree well before Christmas morning. The parents – knowing this would happen – wisely put the practical gifts, not the toys, under the tree.

My line of dialogue was “Oh no, two pairs of underwear” as I unwrapped my present. The disappointment I acted out in that play is unfortunately repeated many times over during the gift-giving season.

Spending hours in crowded malls looking for a tie to give Uncle Tom or a scarf for your sister Sharon is hardly worth it if it goes straight to landfill or the thrift store. That’s the premise of Scroogenomics by Joel Waldfogel, the chair of business and public policy at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Waldfogel says what people pay for gifts rarely matches how much the receiver values them. In surveys, he asked his students to estimate the value of their gift to what they would pay for it. On average, gifts were 20 percent less valuable.

Canadians spent $7.3 billion on Christmas gifts in 2007 and according to Waldfogel’s estimate, that’s a loss of $1.5 billion. On a worldwide basis, he suggests it’s the equivalent of throwing $25 billion into the garbage. Last year, two million unwanted Christmas presents were listed on eBay in Britain.

Now that we’re concerned about the carbon footprints of our lifestyles, it seems logical that we join this economist in lamenting the “sloppy spending” of Christmas, a season Waldfogel describes as an “organized institution for value destruction.”

A British statistic says the average person’s footprint is increased by 1,500 kilograms through Christmas gift purchases. The waste from unwanted gifts swells the footprint by 80 kilograms.

Even before that Grade Three theatrical, I’d been a strong believer that gifts should be just as important to the receiver as to the giver. Back then, of course, I would blame Santa Claus if I didn’t get what I’d told him I wanted while sitting on his knee.

As an adult, I want to buy something for someone that they would have bought for themselves and I’d like to receive something that I would have bought for myself.

No matter how well someone knows you, their taste in sweaters may not match yours. Waldfogel’s research found that parents, spouses and siblings fared best when buying valued Christmas presents. But with faraway friends and distant relatives, the greater the chances were to mess up on a choice of gift.

Since one holiday survey found the average person buys 23 Christmas gifts, that’s a lot of room for error and a lot of potential waste.

Now we all know that Christmas provides the biggest stimulus of the year to our economy and a lot of people get extra employment because of this annual buying spree. So how can we avoid being an Ebenezer and instead act like one of the Three Wise Men?

One obvious solution is to get your significant others to provide a list of desired gifts. That way you can be sure the gift is wanted.

Moving away from the idea of bigger is better, an envelope with either cash or a gift card may be more welcome than another boxed and overwrapped knickknack or doodad.

Another idea is to give a homemade gift – someone’s favourite cookies or dessert. Give a gift basket with your favourite recipe and all the necessary ingredients.

Use a colourful tin or a jar to package your homemade goodie and avoid wrapping paper. According to Ecoholic author Adria Vasil, Canadians use 40 square km of virgin forest wrapping paper every year!

Buy previously enjoyed gifts of antiques, books or CDs – they’re often as good as new and always cheaper. Support local authors when you buy books and don’t forget artwork or crafts made by local artists.

Experiential gifts of tickets to a movie, play, concert, art show, or lecture that you can enjoy with the recipient are always excellent choices.

Make a donation to a charity or non-governmental organization relevant to the recipient’s interests.

My favourite gift idea this year is a donation to Nelson’s Amy Ferguson Institute to help them mount an original opera to be written by Nicola Harwood and Don Macdonald.

The Jane Goodall Institute of Canada has an excellent guide to reducing your Christmas environmental footprint. It can be found at http://www.janegoodall.ca/documents/HolidayGuide_002.doc.

Christmas gifts are not going to stop piling up under the tree anytime soon, but as shoppers we can become wiser in our shopping choices.

*************************************************************** ]]> http://ilovenelson.com/avoid-wasteful-gift-giving/feed/ http://ilovenelson.com/a-dubious-reward http://ilovenelson.com/a-dubious-reward#comments Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:35:32 +0000 jessen Environmentally Speaking http://ilovenelson.com/a-dubious-reward Our Conservative federal government has an uncanny ability to find the sin in doing good.

Being responsible and undertaking right action usually merits a reward, but the recently announced Home Renovation Tax Credit (HRTC) just makes one feel dirty.

A 2006 survey by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation found that almost 840,000 of the country’s 12 million private dwellings failed the adequacy standard and required major repairs.

Combine this knowledge with the fact that buildings are the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption and one could have anticipated a Civilian Conservation Corps-type program to superinsulate homes and mandate energy efficiency.

Instead we have a program that gives tax credits for putting in a swimming pool, building a fence, resurfacing a driveway, or laying new sod.

Buy an automobile that is super efficient on gasoline use, you are eligible for an ecoAUTO grant from the federal government; buy Energy Star qualified windows, doors, refrigerator, freezer or clothes washer in BC and you save the seven percent provincial sales tax.

But spend $1,000 renovating your kitchen, bathroom or basement, and you get zilch under the HRTC which requires expenditures of between $1,001 and $10,000 to be eligible for the 15 percent tax credit.

The HRTC is administered by the Canada Revenue Agency so the credit reduces the amount of federal tax you have to pay. If you spend the maximum $10,000, you won’t receive a cheque for the maximum $1,350 credit.

It’s obvious that our federal government didn’t consult green building guru Alex Wilson who has spent 30 years working to improve buildings and the planet.

In a letter in the March issue of Fine Homebuilding magazine to US President Barack Obama, Wilson urges him to launch a massive superinsulation program to reduce the energy consumption of low-income homes and buildings by one-half to two-thirds.

“Retrofitting existing homes to boost energy performance will create millions of jobs, and by cutting energy use, we will reduce carbon emissions,” says Wilson, author of Your Green Home (New Society Publishers, 2006).

“While public works programs can tackle low-income homes, different programs are needed for middle-class homeowners,” Wilson writes. “To reduce the total energy consumption of their homes by one-half to two-thirds (a challenging but realistic goal), a variety of tax credits, deductions, loan guarantees, and other inducements will be needed.

“We need new incentives that are performance-based, unlike most of today’s tax credits. By basing subsidies directly on improvements in energy performance – not simply on how much money is spent – we can encourage energy conservation retrofits and renewable energy systems that provide an attractive return on investment.”

Wilson suggests the performance-based focus could also apply to mortgages and loan guarantees using the home energy rating system (HERS), a 0 to 100 scale in which 100 equals the energy performance of a home meeting the 2004 Model Energy Code and 0 represents a net zero energy home.

“If the secondary mortgage market required a HERS index of 25 for new homes and 50 for existing home, we would see a dramatic ramping up of energy performance.”

Wilson advocates that building codes should be revised to promote a concept called “passive survivability.”

“In colder parts of the country, such requirements could include minimum R-40 walls, R-60 ceilings, triple-glazed windows, and passive solar features. By mandating such high levels of energy performance, homes would never put their occupants at risk – even with an extended power outage or loss of heating fuel – because the homes would never drop below 50 or 55 degrees Fahrenheit.

“By targeting as a top priority the energy performance of homes, we could not only put millions of people to work and achieve dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, but also significantly reduce our vulnerability to wild fluctuations in world energy prices or energy availability while improving the comfort and security of homeowners and renters.”

Another major failure of the HRTC is the fact it doesn’t apply to rental properties, meaning the homes of low income Canadian renters won’t be eligible for energy efficiency upgrades.  This takes on added importance because persons with lower incomes spend a higher proportion of their income on energy expenditures.

The HRTC is definitely not a perfect program and we should all inform our MPs of this fact. Since it only applies to the 2009 tax year, there is hope improvements can be made if the program is extended.

If you can afford it, by all means take advantage of the HRTC for eligible home renovation expenditures for work performed, or goods purchased, after January 27, 2009 and before February 1, 2010.

Properties eligible for the HRTC include houses, cottages and condominium units that are owned for personal use. Alterations and additions to new construction are also eligible.

Renovation costs for projects such as finishing a basement or remodeling a kitchen will be eligible for the credit, along with associated expenses such as building permits, professional services, equipment rentals and incidental expenses.

Routine repairs and maintenance will not qualify for the credit, nor will the cost of purchasing furniture, appliances, audio-visual electronics or construction equipment.

Taxpayers will be able to claim the HRTC when filing their 2009 tax return. Receipts do not have to be submitted with the return, but should be kept in case they are asked for by the Canada Revenue Agency.

Eligibility for the HRTC is family-based. For the purpose of the credit, a family is generally considered to consist of an individual and, where applicable, the individual’s spouse or common-law partner. Family members will be able to share the credit. More information on the tax credit can be found at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/bdgt/2009/fqhmrnvtn-eng.html.

Renovation supply retailers are eager to piggyback on the federal government’s tax credit and some have already announced offers of additional incentives to attract your spending dollars. Be sure to ask about special deals at your local building supply store. Both Home Depot (http://www.homedepot.ca) and Rona (http://www.rona.ca) have gift card offers.

Canadians who spend money on home renovations will also be eligible to receive an ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes grant. To be eligible for this grant, homeowners must first have a pre-retrofit evaluation. The grant provides homeowners with up to $5,000 to offset the cost of making energy efficiency improvements.

Before you start your renovation project, it’s wise to visit the CMHC web page on home renovation. Go to http://www.cmhc.ca/en/co/renoho/ to get started.

The HRTC is better than nothing, but the seriousness of our global warming problem merited more than just a token response. ]]> http://ilovenelson.com/a-dubious-reward/feed/ http://ilovenelson.com/the-antarctica-challenge http://ilovenelson.com/the-antarctica-challenge#comments Sun, 06 Sep 2009 06:29:32 +0000 jessen Environmentally Speaking http://ilovenelson.com/the-antarctica-challenge

It is Earth’s fifth largest continent, yet devoid of permanent human inhabitants. Bigger than the contiguous 48 United States and Mexico together, Antarctica is the coldest, windiest and driest place on the planet.

Containing approximately 87 percent of the world’s ice and 70 percent of the world’s fresh water, Antarctica is often represented on maps merely as outlined white space since it is 98 percent covered by an ice sheet that averages 2,164 metres (1.5 miles) in depth.

The remaining two percent of Antarctica is bare rock and constitutes Earth’s largest desert. With under five centimetres (two inches) of precipitation per year, it averages less than Africa’s Sahara Desert.

Antarctica’s climate is characterized by temperatures rarely above freezing, high wind velocities, and frequent blizzards. High altitude and continuous darkness in winter combine to make the interior of this land mass the coldest place on Earth. In 1983 the world’s lowest temperature – minus 89.6 degrees Celsius (-128.6 Fahrenheit) – was recorded at the South Pole. Yet during Antarctic summer, more solar radiation reaches the surface at the pole than is received at the equator in an equivalent period. In the dry, dust-free air, one can see for tens of miles in clear weather. Distances are deceptive and mirages are common.

Maps of Antarctica date back to the time of Roman geographer and astronomer Ptolemy who envisioned a land in the southern hemisphere to counterbalance that in the north to satisfy an ancient sense of proportion. Claimed to be discovered in 1820, Antarctica is mostly known through the exploits of a trio of adventuring explorers – Robert Falcon Scott, Ernest Shackleton, and Roald Amundsen. Today the world’s most mysterious continent is home to about 1,000 scientific personnel during the winter, swelling to about 4,000 during the Antarctic summer.

Antarctica has long been perceived as a frigid, pristine part of the world and as such inhospitable to flora and fauna. The French nature documentary March of the Penguins introduced the world to the yearly journey of the continent’s emperor penguins, receiving the 2005 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature. In addition, adélie and chinstrap penguins inhabit the sea ice and open waters of Antarctica. The climate supports only a small community of land plants – two types of flowering plants and many varieties of lichens and mosses – but the rich offshore food supply sustains penguins, aquatic mammals, and immense seabird rookeries of migrating petrels, skuas, terns, cormorants, and gulls. The largest and best-known of the Antarctic petrels are the albatrosses, which breed in tussock grass on islands north of the pack ice. With a wing span of three metres (10 feet), they roam freely over the westerly wind belt of the Southern Ocean.

But this “terra incognita” at the base of our world has been undergoing rapid changes – changes that scientists conclude could have profound effects on the rest of Earth.

Recent climate change has driven significant changes in the physical and living environment of the Antarctic. Environmental change is most apparent in the Antarctic Peninsula. Adélie penguins, a species well adapted to sea ice conditions, have declined in numbers and been replaced by open-water species such as chinstrap penguins. Melting of perennial snow and ice covers has resulted in increased colonization by plants. A long-term decline in the abundance of Antarctic krill in the southwest Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean may be associated with reduced sea ice cover. Albatrosses are declining in alarming numbers as they are drowned in the nets of long line fishermen.

Large changes have occurred in the ice cover of the peninsula. Many glaciers have retreated and around 10 ice shelves that formerly fringed the peninsula have been observed to retreat in recent years and some have collapsed completely. Furthermore, 87 percent of glaciers along the west coast of the peninsula have retreated in the last 50 years, and in the last 12 years most have accelerated.

The Antarctic region is an important regulator of global climate. The Southern Ocean is a significant sink for both heat and carbon dioxide, acting as a buffer against human-induced climate change. The sea ice that forms around the continent each winter controls the exchange of energy between the Sun and the Earth, and its partition between atmosphere and ocean. As sea ice forms, brine rejected from the ice increases the density of the upper ocean. These waters then sink and form the deep ocean currents that carry heat around the globe.

Antarctica made big headlines over three days in March 2002 when one of the most dramatic alterations to the map of the continent since the last ice age occurred. The 650-foot thick Larsen B floating ice shelf, larger than Luxembourg, had been attached to the peninsula for thousands of years. But at the end of that Antarctic summer, it fractured like a plate of glass, shattering into hundreds of huge icebergs that floated into the South Atlantic.

“Really we don’t think there is much doubt that the collapse of the Larsen B shelf was caused by man-made climate change,” says John King, chief climatologist at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS). From their base at Rothera, on Adelaide Island, BAS researchers have mapped in detail how a pulse of warmer air temperatures has pushed south across the peninsula over the past fifty years, lengthening the summer melt season, sending glaciers into retreat, and destabilizing ice shelves.

Antarctica started turning green over the southern summer of 2004. Beginning at its northern tip, great green swards of Antarctic hair-grass began forming extensive meadows in what was once home to only rock and ice. Then the air above Antarctica began behaving strangely. A 2006 study of archived data collected by weather balloons positioned above the continent over the previous thirty years revealed a heating of Antarctica’s atmosphere three times higher than the global average.

March 2007 to March 2009 was the fourth International Polar Year (IPY), following those in 1882-83, 1932-33, and 1957-58. In order to have full and equal coverage of both the Arctic and the Antarctic, an IPY covers two full annual cycles. Organized through the International Council for Science and the World Meteorological Organization, IPY 2007-09 involved more than 200 projects with thousands of scientists from more than 60 nations examining a wide range of physical, biological, and social research topics.

Canadian filmmaker Mark Terry, president of Toronto’s Polar Cap Productions, decided to make a documentary on Antarctica focusing on studies made there during the most recent IPY. His film, The Antarctica Challenge: A Global Warning, brings its audience face to face with what global warming actually looks like in one of the most delicate ecosystems on Earth.

Already nominated for Best Picture in the Climate Change category of the New Delhi Environmental and Wildlife Film Festival to be held October 27 to 31, Terry’s film premieres at the Blue Planet Film Festival in Santa Monica, September 5, 6 and 7. It will also be shown September 9 to 12 at the International Film Festival in Tipperary, Ireland, to the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition in Washington, D.C. on September 22, the MIPCOM television and film marketplace in Cannes, France from October 5 to 9 and the Planet in Focus Film Festival in Toronto October 21 to 25.

Its most influential showing, however, could be in Copenhagen, Denmark in December. Terry’s film has been chosen to be screened before world leaders at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that will seek to forge a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol.

Terry’s documentary explores new discoveries about the ozone layer, diminishing populations of penguins and other marine life, the greening of the world’s largest desert, and global warming.

Footage of field study and interviews with scientists stationed in Antarctica reveal some startling data never before included in a television documentary for the public at large. Here are just a few of the findings The Antarctica Challenge showcases:

• Several species of insect life indigenous to Antarctica are facing extinction due to the increase of temperature caused by the increasing hole in the ozone layer situated over the continent.
• Other species of insect life have evolved a unique means of surviving the deadly increase in ultra-violet rays from the sun. They have developed a hormone that acts as a sunscreen lubricant protecting their bodies.
• Many varieties of starfish have stopped reproducing and their numbers are exponentially diminishing as they no longer procreate. Their species is expected to face extinction in the coming years due to a two-degree increase in water temperature.
• Certain varieties of penguins are exhibiting a disturbing behavior pattern. Groups gather away from their feeding and nesting grounds for a period of time. They then split up and return to their respective areas, except for one. This sole penguin turns and faces the interior on the continent and begins a march that doesn’t end until he dies.

There is evidence to suggest that all these catastrophic changes to the wildlife of Antarctica are directly related to the warming temperatures and the unprotected solar rays bombarding the continent over the past five years.

“We were all stunned at the findings being made there this past year,” says Terry. “From penguin suicide to grass growing in the world’s largest desert, the environmental face of Antarctica is changing faster than anyone had previously thought – and the impact on us is imminent.”

Polar Cap Productions (http://www.youtube.com/user/polarcapproductions) formed a partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme to present the screening as part of the United Nations “Seal the Deal” campaign, a call to action to clinch an ambitious and effective agreement on climate change.

“Of all the canaries in the climate coal mine, the polar regions and the mountain glaciers are singing the hardest and the loudest,” said Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme. “Mark Terry’s new climate change documentary underlines these realities with some of the latest and increasingly sobering scientific findings, providing further stark evidence as to why governments need to Seal the Deal in Copenhagen.”

The conference, held from December 7 to 18, will be attended by nearly 190 world leaders and ministers and about 11,000 delegates.

It is planned to screen the film’s trailer on a giant video screen in the centre of Copenhagen, and on the “Climate Express” train commuting delegates between Brussels and Copenhagen.

Terry said there is an historic trend of temperature increase in Antarctica that indicates it’s going to continue for the next 100 years.

Recently, researchers at the University of Leeds writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters said the Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica is thinning at a rate four times faster than just a decade ago. The glacier is the largest in West Antarctica and at 175,000 square kilometres is roughly the size of the province of New Brunswick and the island of Newfoundland combined.

Professor Andrew Shepherd, a co-author of the research, suggested warming waters around the continent are likely responsible for the thinning of the glacier at a rate of up to 16 metres a year. The resulting ice melt could have implications on estimates of sea level rise around the world, Shepherd said.

Speaking about his film, Terry says, “I think the important thing is to have the scientists talk very frankly, bluntly and honestly about both the good and the bad of what they’ve discovered down there.

“I didn’t want to go in with an agenda,” he adds. “I simply wanted to do a reportage of what the scientists were discovering right now today.

“There is no denying that this is happening and there’s no stopping it from happening but they are trying to find a way that would save us and protect us,” Terry says.

“The main thing they’re trying to do now is educate. They have to get the word out and films like this will help do that.”

The Antarctica Challenge could become the “little engine that could” of the film world, propelling the continent at the bottom of the world to the top of the planet’s climate change agenda. ]]> http://ilovenelson.com/the-antarctica-challenge/feed/ http://ilovenelson.com/the-low-carbon-path http://ilovenelson.com/the-low-carbon-path#comments Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:15:44 +0000 jessen Environmentally Speaking http://ilovenelson.com/the-low-carbon-path We yak a lot about the economy in Canada these days when what we really need is more conversations about the low-carbon economy.

The news media gives us daily reports on the rise and fall of the stock markets; the fate of the Canadian dollar in relation to the American greenback is cause for constant concern.

Yet the current heat wave and spate of forest fires should remind us that there is a reason why our Earth is hotter and extreme weather is proliferating. That reason is the amount of carbon dioxide we humans are putting into our atmosphere – we’re adding about 30 billion tonnes of CO2 annually.

We need to transform our economy to be less dependent on carbon sources of energy or else the media may be giving daily updates on the rise of sea levels and the fate of many of Earth’s species.

We are “oil-aholics”; we are addicted to fossil fuels. This year we’ll burn eight billion metric tonnes of oil, natural gas and coal. Next year we will undoubtedly burn more.

Three spoonfuls of crude oil contain as much energy as eight hours of human labour. Even at last summer’s market price of $150 a barrel, oil was an extraordinary bargain. We pay only about a tenth of energy’s real value to our economy.

We need to explore ways to “get off this sauce” and the solution is to embrace the low-carbon economic model.

Simply stated, a low-carbon economy is one in which carbon dioxide emissions from the use of carbon based fuels such as coal, oil and gas are substantially reduced. Such an economy features low energy consumption, low pollution, and low greenhouse gas emissions.

The low-carbon economy offers the potential to create new businesses, provide new opportunities for existing businesses, and in doing so create and support jobs.  A number of governments have already indicated they believe a low-carbon economy is an integral part of economic recovery, not an optional extra.

The Obama administration in the U.S. is ready to make a $70-billion commitment to energy efficiency, renewable energy, transit, and fuel economy programs as part of its economic stimulus package, creating 459,000 jobs by the end of 2010; Ontario expects it recently introduced Green Energy Act to create over 50,000 “green collar” jobs and generate billions of dollars of economic growth in communities across the province.

In neighbouring Washington State, Governor Christine Gregoire set a goal of having 25,000 green jobs in her state by 2020, but that goal has been met in just two years with 47,000 jobs in the state now considered “green.” When the state created an incentive for wind energy development, it became the U.S.’s fifth largest producer almost overnight.

And it was recently announced the world’s largest solar photovoltaic plant, capable of generating 75 megawatts of electricity (enough for 45,000 homes), will be constructed in the state. The Teanaway Solar Reserve will be located on 400 acres of formerly-logged private property four miles north of Cle Elum, in Kittitas County, Washington. Comprised of approximately 400,000 photovoltaic panels, the energy generated will offset about 275-million pounds of carbon dioxide annually compared to the same amount of energy produced by coal plants.

Many people believe that to grow our economy, we need to continually use more energy. The good news is that our economies expand not so much because our energy inputs grow, but rather because our efficiency in using these inputs constantly rises. Research by Robert Ayres and Benjamin Warr, authors of The Economic Growth Engine: How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity, shows that while our economies are deeply dependent on massive inputs of cheap fossil fuel energy, those economies will have to find ways to reduce the amount of fossil fuel energy input per unit of work in order to have continued growth. Energy conservation and energy efficiency are key to economic and environmental sustainability, they write.

These two pillars of the low-carbon economy – conservation and efficiency – are more than affordable; they are literally a source of new wealth. Research by McKinsey & Company shows that developing countries could slow the growth of their energy demand by more than half over the next 12 years – to 1.4 percent a year from 3.4 – and demand would be 25 percent lower in 2020 than it would otherwise have been. Just by using existing technologies that would pay for themselves in future energy savings, consumers and businesses could save some $600 billion a year by 2020.

The picture is no different in the developed world. In a report — Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy – released July 29, McKinsey says Americans are wasting $130 billion a year on energy. Businesses and individuals could save money, curb emissions of global warming pollutants, reduce dependence on foreign oil and cut energy consumption by 23 percent by 2020, merely by taking sensible, practical steps to use energy more efficiently says the report.

To get a real understanding of the low-carbon economy, just take a look at the Low Carbon Transition Plan unveiled July 15 by the United Kingdom government. By 2020, more than 1.2 million people will be employed in green jobs; 7 million homes will be made more energy efficient and 1.5 million homes will be supported to produce their own energy; the average new car will emit 40 percent less carbon than now; and there will be a five-fold increase in renewable energy generation.

Kicking the carbon habit is crucial to both the economy and the environment. That makes it a good topic for your next coffee klatch and a priority for government policy.

“A series of studies clearly show that low-carbon growth is not only good for the planet, but it is also the most logical long-term way out of the economic crisis,” says Erik Rasmussen, founder of the Copenhagen Climate Council. “Huge opportunities await in new, green markets. It is no coincidence that the two most energy efficient countries in the world – Denmark and Japan – are competitive and wealthy.”

A low carbon economy is humanity’s next big leap forward – or next industrial evolution. The scale of needed change is daunting but achievable.

Life is full of questions – “what ifs,” “whys” and “how comes”.

Why is life filled with transience, uncertainty, and suffering? How can I make my life problem-free and fulfilling? What if climate change results in catastrophe?

How we approach such questions charts the journey of our lives. Conventional wisdom (also known as the status quo) tells us to go for the easy, in fact the easiest side of easy. Yet, deep within us, we know that anything worth answering isn’t easy.

The awareness that humans can alter the Earth’s climate has dawned slowly on our consciousness. World governments continue haggling about the correct responses to this problem.

In my columns, I have always attempted to help the reader see the climate change issue as it is, rather than as we might wish or believe it to be. I have offered explanations to the problem of global warming and what we can do about it.

My foundation has always been that global warming is real and not an opinion. Meaningful action to reverse the saturation of our atmosphere with carbon dioxide must involve us all. It is not enough to ask only the motivated to act.

It matters less what each of us does to personally cut emissions; what is more important is that we ensure that everyone on the planet does what we do. We need to insist that governments and businesses stop dickering with the lives of future generations and drive the scale of change necessary at the speed required.

Last week the Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Congress – a climate change conference held in March where 1,400 scientific presentations were made to 2,500 participants from 80 countries – was presented to Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen.

The conclusion of the report is blunt – inaction is inexcusable. “The scientific evidence today overwhelmingly indicates that allowing the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities to continue unchecked constitutes a significant threat to the well-being and continued development of contemporary society,” it states.

Such news is daunting and challenging, but humanity has lived in a sustainable world before – during most of our grandparents’ time.

Last Saturday I attended the Yasodhara Ashram’s annual strawberry social and I saw sustainability in action. The retreat centre on Kootenay Lake has a solar photovoltaic system to heat water and uses geothermal heating to warm buildings. It has retrofitted, reinsulated, weather-stripped, improved lighting and replaced windows. It uses vinegar, borax, washing soda, and non-chlorine bleach as cleaning agents.

Currently 25 percent of all fruits and vegetables used in the Ashram kitchen are grown in its own orchards and gardens and a large amount is preserved for winter. It is working with neighbouring growers to get even more of its food locally.

Last October, FortisBC presented the Ashram with its PowerSense Conservation Excellence Award for outstanding achievement in energy efficiency. The Ashram has a goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2013, the year of its 50^th anniversary.

When Swami Radhananda recently accepted the 2009 Tourism BC Environmentally Responsible Tourism Award for the Ashram’s decade of efforts, she said: “We at the Ashram take sustainability personally and seriously. Living in BC, we are privileged to have beauty all around us. We feel that maintaining it is our first responsibility to our guests.”

The Ashram realizes that environmental action to reduce CO2 emissions involves social responsibility and ecological integrity. It has examined the nature of the problem, what it is and where it comes from, and then it has got down to basics and acted.

The Ashram’s community is learning by doing that everything matters. It has – as the poet Rainer Maria Rilke wrote – learned to “love the questions” and is living the answers.

Our homes and workplaces are over-lit and under-insulated; their structural, electrical, plumbing and mechanical systems are aging, outdated and inefficient.

They waste: resources, water and energy.

The result is heating and lighting bills that are 50 percent higher than they need to be.

With poor eco-IQs, our buildings not only cost too much to operate, they are profound contributors to planetary global warming.

That’s not to say they should be torn down and thrown away.

There are many examples of buildings that have been successfully renovated and restored to productive uses, even after standing dormant for many years.

It’s obviously time to rebuild, renovate and remodel, especially since utilities, federal and provincial governments are offering a variety of rebates, grants and tax credits to help finance building performance improvements.

By using the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) rating system as a guide, your building rehabilitation will result in sustainable upgrades and operations.

“Retrofitting existing homes to boost energy performance will create millions of jobs, and by cutting energy use, we will reduce carbon emissions,” says Alex Wilson, author of Your Green Home (New Society Publishers, 2006).

“While public works programs can tackle low-income homes, different programs are needed for middle-class homeowners,” Wilson wrote in a recent issue of Fine Homebuilding magazine. “To reduce the total energy consumption of their homes by one-half to two-thirds (a challenging but realistic goal), a variety of tax credits, deductions, loan guarantees, and other inducements will be needed.

“We need new incentives that are performance-based, unlike most of today’s tax credits. By basing subsidies directly on improvements in energy performance – not simply on how much money is spent – we can encourage energy conservation retrofits and renewable energy systems that provide an attractive return on investment.”

Wilson suggests the performance-based focus could also apply to mortgages and loan guarantees using the home energy rating system (HERS), a 0 to 100 scale in which 100 equals the energy performance of a home meeting the 2004 Model Energy Code and 0 represents a net zero energy home.

“If the secondary mortgage market required a HERS index of 25 for new homes and 50 for existing home, we would see a dramatic ramping up of energy performance.”

Wilson advocates that building codes should be revised to promote a concept called “passive survivability.”

“In colder parts of the country, such requirements could include minimum R-40 walls, R-60 ceilings, triple-glazed windows, and passive solar features. By mandating such high levels of energy performance, homes would never put their occupants at risk – even with an extended power outage or loss of heating fuel – because the homes would never drop below 50 or 55 degrees Fahrenheit.

“By targeting as a top priority the energy performance of homes, we could not only put millions of people to work and achieve dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, but also significantly reduce our vulnerability to wild fluctuations in world energy prices or energy availability while improving the comfort and security of homeowners and renters.”

Thanks to the federal government’s recently introduced Home Renovation Tax Credit, homeowners may be eligible to receive a credit on their renovation expenditures.

Let’s start with the rules. The 15 percent credit can be claimed on the portion of eligible expenditures exceeding $1,000, but not more than $10,000. The maximum tax credit that can be received is $1,350.

The HRTC will apply to eligible home renovation expenditures for work performed, or goods purchased, after January 27, 2009 and before February 1, 2010.

Properties eligible for the HRTC include houses, cottages and condominium units that are owned for personal use.

Renovation costs for projects such as finishing a basement or remodeling a kitchen will be eligible for the credit, along with associated expenses such as building permits, professional services, equipment rentals and incidental expenses.

Routine repairs and maintenance will not qualify for the credit, nor will the cost of purchasing furniture, appliances, audio-visual electronics or construction equipment.

Taxpayers will be able to claim the HRTC when filing their 2009 tax return. Receipts do not have to be submitted with the return, but should be kept in case they are asked for by the Canada Revenue Agency.

Eligibility for the HRTC is family-based. For the purpose of the credit, a family is generally considered to consist of an individual and, where applicable, the individual’s spouse or common-law partner. Family members will be able to share the credit. More information on the tax credit can be found at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/bdgt/2009/fqhmrnvtn-eng.html.

Renovation supply retailers are eager to piggyback on the federal government’s tax credit and some have already announced offers of additional incentives to attract your spending dollars. Be sure to ask about special deals at your local building supply store. Both Home Depot (http://www.homedepot.ca) and Rona (http://www.rona.ca)  have gift card offers.

Canadians who spend money on home renovations will also be eligible to receive an ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes grant. To be eligible for this grant, homeowners must first have a pre-retrofit evaluation. The grant provides homeowners with up to $5,000 to offset the cost of making energy efficiency improvements.

Before you start your renovation project, it’s wise to visit the CMHC web page on home renovation. Go to http://www.cmhc.ca/en/co/renoho/ to get started.

There are about 12 million dwellings in Canada according to a 2006 database compiled by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In that same year, residents reported that almost 840,000 of them fell below the adequacy standard and required major repairs.

Home renovation spending was calculated at $49.5 billion nationwide by CMHC in 2007 and about $7 billion in home-renovation business is expected this year in BC alone.

The world’s houses and office buildings consume 40 percent of global energy and emit the same proportion of greenhouse gases, making them the single biggest source of pollution in the world. (Transport is the next biggest culprit at 30 percent.)

A new study says a $400 billion annual investment in building efficiency would lead to a 60 percent cut in building emissions globally by 2050. The savings achieved would mean a five to 10 percent annual return on that investment, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development study found. (See the report at http://62.50.73.69/transformingthemarket.pdf)

Buildings and communities are “sustainable” when they are designed, built and operated with low environmental impacts while enhancing the health and quality of life for the people that live in and around them. Climate change, species extinction and a host of other environmental problems are already creating a very different world for our grandchildren than the one we enjoy today.

We need to make our residences and office buildings healthier, more comfortable, energy and water efficient. By following green building renovation principles, it is possible to achieve those goals and decrease their greenhouse gas emissions and maintenance costs.

And yes, our buildings will be smarter too.