On March 7 US Secretary of State John Kerry ordered all US diplomats to elevate the priority given to climate change “in everything we do”. In addition to international diplomatic efforts to maker progress on climate change the memo gives some information on the direction that the Obama administration is likely to pursue in its domestic policies.

Elements of the instruction include:

1. Lead by example through strong action at home and abroad: Making significant progress in combating climate change through domestic actions within the Department and at the federal, regional, and local level.
2. Conclude a new international climate change agreement: Working through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to negotiate a new, ambitious international climate agreement applicable to all countries by 2015 to take effect in 2020.
3. Implement the Global Climate Change Initiative: Undertaking a pragmatic, whole-of-government approach to speed the transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient future, including (1) promoting clean energy solutions; (2) slowing, halting, and reversing emissions from land use; and (3) helping the most vulnerable countries strengthen climate resilience.
4. Enhance multilateral engagement: Helping lead efforts including the Major Economies Forum, Clean Energy Ministerial, Montreal Protocol, and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants.
5. Expand bilateral engagement: Engaging more than 50 partner countries on clean energy, sustainable landscapes, and adaptation, including the largest greenhouse gas emitters in the developing world.
6. Mobilize financial resources: Working to mobilize and leverage billions of dollars of funding to transform our energy economies and promote sustainable land use, as well as working to limit public incentives for high-carbon energy production and fossil fuels.
7. Integrate climate change with other priorities: Better integrating climate solutions into cross-cutting challenges, including women’s empowerment, urbanization, conflict and national security, and our own management and operations.

The full announcement is at http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/03/07/we-need-elevate-environment-everything-we-do

Another interesting study, again of Americans rather than Canadians, suggests that we have a fairly poor perception of where in our daily lives we use water. This could have important, and not very helpful, consequences for increasingly needed water conservation initiatives.

The study, by Professor Shahzeen Z. Attari of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, is based on an online survey of 1020 Americans and shows that people underestimate water use by a factor of 2 on average, with large underestimates for high water-use activities. In addition, there is poor understanding of embodied water content in food products.

According to the paper, previous research estimated that 13.2 gallons of clean water are required per person per day for human needs (drinking, sanitation, hygiene, and food preparation). In 2005, the average American used about 98 gallons of water per day, of which about 70% was used indoors. An open ended question indicated that Americans view shorter or fewer showers, turning off water while doing other activities (not including brushing teeth), and turning off water while brushing teeth s by far the most effective water conservation measures. In fact, according to US Environmental Protection Agency, toilets use the most volume of water of household indoor activities and their suggested retrofit is the top recommendation made. However, “buying water-efficient appliances and fixtures” along with “water-efficient toilet” and “flushing less” are among the actions least-mentioned by study participants.

The study identifies several weaknesses such as small sample size and the lack of rigour of internet-based survey methodologies. Nevertheless, the research suggests that there is a lot of room for improved public education about water supply and use issues. GallonDaily finds it interesting that shower use comes out at the top of public perception of household water use. There has been much more publicity and advertising about shower use and low flow showerheads than there has about low-flush toilets and toilet water efficiency. Ngos, municipalities, and toilet manufacturers might do well to take note of these issues when planning education and marketing campaigns.

The paper is available at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/02/26/1316402111.full.pdf+html?sid=6aeca015-6cac-44de-934d-af4a7866427d

For those interested in this type of research, the same researcher in 2010 published a similarly interesting study about public perceptions of energy efficiency opportunities. That study can be found at http://www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16054.full.pdf+html?sid=6aeca015-6cac-44de-934d-af4a7866427d

The 3-day Smithers PIRA Sustainability in Packaging conference is wrapping up in Orlando today having highlighted some of the most contentious of the many issues in packaging and recycling today. One of the strengths of the conference is that it includes environmentalists, local government (one rep), and industry.

Among the highlights of the conference as seen by GallonDaily:

• Consumer perspectives on packaging and the environment: clearly seeking increased recycling and packaging reduction.
• AMPAC and others speaking on recent trends in flexible packaging: lighter weight packaging protects products more effectively but may pose recycling challenges. This session provoked some lively discussion between industry and environmental ngo’s.
• Some innovative bio-based packaging materials, though validation of the environmental benefits of these seemed to GallonDaily to be a bit thin.
• An entire session on marine debris, especially plastics, led to another lively discussion between environmentalists and industry, though all parties seemed to agree that the problem is real and serious.
• Dick Lilly of Seattle Public Utilities explaining his view of Extended Producer Responsibility and how some current models fail to give sufficient control to municipalities.
• Allen Langdon on MMBC seeking to explain the highly controversial British Columbia Extended Producer Responsibility model.

GallonDaily was surprised, but perhaps should not have been, by the number of industry speakers who showed little understanding of the environmental issues surrounding their packaging products. Different companies disagreed on appropriate solutions. Until industry develops a more coordinated position and achieves environmentalist and consumer buy-in for that material, governments will continue to set the pace for regulation of end-of-life management of packaging materials.

This is a GallonDaily report from the conference floor. The full conference program is available at http://www.sustainability-in-packaging.com/home.aspx

Portable gasoline and diesel powered generators are often used to provide power at outdoor events with locations distant from a grid power connection. One of the many such examples is the Daytona 500 car races in Florida.

This year the US Department of Energy, NASCAR, and Acumentrics, a manufacturer of small fuel cells, have teamed up for a pilot project using fuel cells for remote video cameras and lighting at the Daytona 500 speedway track. Acumentrics will use two 250 watt solid oxide fuel cells to power some of the remote broadcast cameras and two 1 kilowatt solid oxide fuel cells to power lights in pit row.

According to the US DOE announcement:

• fuel cells are more efficient and quiet, making them a cleaner alternative to gasoline-powered generators.
• fuel cell units could save more than $2,000 per race weekend through reduced fuel use.
• fuel cell generators only have to be refuelled once per weekend, rather than every 8 – 12 hours as with a gasoline generator, improving race safety and logistics.

More details about the project from the US Department of Energy can be found at http://www.energy.gov/articles/nascar-green-gets-first-place-daytona-500

As part of a project to develop a methodology for assessing wind energy impacts on wildlife at a national scale the US Geological Survey has inventoried and mapped all of the industrial scale wind turbines in the US. The dataset includes the following data for almost 48,000 wind turbines:

• location
• startup year
• manufacturer
• model
• tower type
• height
• rotor diameter

and more. Data may not be complete for every turbine. A descriptive summary and a link to the dataset can be found at http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/mapping-the-nations-wind-turbines/

USGS has gone further by plotting the locations of all turbines on a map. This map is available at http://eerscmap.usgs.gov/windfarm/

To GallonDaily’s knowledge, no similar dataset of industrial scale wind turbines exists for Canada.

The Growing Sustainable Bioeconomies – Making it Happen conference and expo opened today in London, Ontario with a spirited call for more government attention for the bioproducts sector. W. Scott Thurlow, President of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association,  Thurlow claimed that:

• the biofuels industry is the anchor tenant of the bioeconomy,
• bioethanol is now cheaper than gasoline.
• 1 billion litres of ethanol per year is now imported from the US, meaning excellent opportunities for ethanol producers in Canada.
• the food versus fuel debate is just plain wrong.
• a larger share of profit for the ethanol industry comes from the sale of dried distiller grains, something that was previously considered a byproduct from bioethanol production.
• the bioeconomy is about conversion of existing production from fossil to bio resources and about developing new products that are based on renewable rather than fossil resources.

The CRFA is pushing hard for updating of the biodiesel mandate in Canada, currently standing at 2% of diesel fuel sales. Thurlow stated that the glycerin byproduct from biodiesel production is where the money is, more than in the biodiesel itself. Biodiesel also provides a useful outlet for waste materials such as cooking oils.

Other plenary speakers discussed composites and biogas from agricultural waste materials.

This report is a GallonDaily exclusive filed live from the Conference. See http://www.gtmconference.ca/ for conference details.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has released a report identifying the economic and environmental benefits of the RGGI ‘cap and trade’ program for the electricity industry in the nine states where it has been fully operational since 2008. These states are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Revenues from the sale of allowances are used by the individual states to address energy and GHG related policy objectives.

Key findings are that:

• the program has created an investment of $700 million investment in the region’s energy future: reducing energy bills, helping businesses become more competitive, accelerating the development of local clean and renewable energy sources, and limiting the release of harmful pollutants into the air and atmosphere.
• over 16,000 job-years of work were created as a result of investments made during the first three years of the program.
• six RGGI states were ranked among the top ten states nationwide for energy efficiency investments by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy in 2012.
• RGGI investments in energy efficiency are expected to return more than $1.8 billion in lifetime energy bill savings to consumers in the region.
• RGGI investments in direct bill assistance have returned more than $122 million in bill credits to more than 2 million participating households.
• RGGI investments in GHG abatement are expected to avoid the release of 260,000 short tons of harmful CO2 pollution into the atmosphere.
• RGGI related projects have offset the need for approximately 8.5 million megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity generation, and have saved more than 37 million mmBTU of fossil fuels.

Details of the findings organized by state are contained in the 32 page report which is available, along with a brief summary, at http://www.rggi.org/docs/PressReleases/PR022414_2012ProceedsReport.pdf

For the last three years the City of Toronto has been battling over new transportation technologies. On the one side the Mayor and some of his supporters have argued for new subways. On the other are council members who support light rail transit (LRT) and a plan put in place by the previous municipal administration. Unfortunately the debate has been heated and highly political with little regard for the facts.

Toronto’s public transit system, consisting of a mix of subways, buses, streetcars, and one 6 km intermediate capacity rail line powered by linear induction motors. Everyone agrees that Toronto needs more public transit. For a while it seemed that City Council had agreed on a subway-based model, though the support of many councillors was weak. However, at least one mayoral candidate now says that, if elected, he will scrap this plan and revert to an LRT-based plan.

The public part of the Toronto debate has obfuscated some of the key facts:

• there is little doubt that subways are in many ways a preferred approach to public transit where passenger volumes justify.
• subways are many times more expensive than LRT on a per km basis.
• subways normally take much longer to build than LRT.
• subways can carry more passengers over longer distances than LRT but stations are often further apart than LRT stops, meaning that more walking or transfers from buses are needed.

In short, if people need transit now, to overcome congested buses, subways, and streetcars, the LRT provides a quicker and cheaper solution, meaning more transit for the money spent.

Some of the politicians promoting subways seem to think that someone other than the user or the taxpayer will pay for them (business?) and they often seem to confuse, perhaps deliberately, streetcars, which do cause traffic congestion, and LRTs, which can be synchronized with traffic control to minimize additional congestion.

The result of the ongoing debate, now extended at least until October’s municipal election, is that little progress is being made on new transit for Toronto. Transit users and potential users will be the casualties, at least in the short term.

Transit planning is important to business. People use transit to get to work. Congestion, both on transit systems and on roads, saps the energy of employees and reduces their productivity. Transit systems cost a lot of money, much of which comes from business taxes. Traffic congestion reduces the productivity of delivery systems and parking tickets cost business big dollars.

Last July the Toronto Board of Trade, the largest multi-sector voice for business in Toronto, said the following about transit:

Politics trumps progress. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen over the decades, this begets delayed projects and higher costs. Meanwhile our transportation network falls further and further behind the needs of our residents and our economy. There must be a better way.

Hopefully Toronto voters will get the message next October.

The Toronto Board of Trade statement on transit is at http://www.bot.com/newsroom/news-release-files/Let_Metrolinx_do_its_job_July29_2013.pdf

GallonDaily has seen far too many highly exaggerated projections of the amount of energy produced from anaerobic digestion of municipal waste. That is not to say that we are opposed to anaerobic digestion (breakdown of biowastes in the absence of air) but even all the waste in the world is only going to produce a tiny fraction of our energy needs, not the huge fraction that some anaerobic digestion advocates have suggested.

For some time we have been looking for real data on how anaerobic digesters actually perform. The Norway-based power technology company Wärtsilä has provided some of the data we are seeking in a recent press release announcing a new aerobic digestion plant in Oslo.

So here are the numbers as provided by Wärtsilä and not independently verified by GallonDaily:

• the plant will accept 50,000 tonnes of food waste a year [that is the food waste from roughly 125,000 North American homes]
• processing of the food waste will make about 14,000 Nm3 (normal cubic metres) per day of biomethane
• that is enough methane to power 135 city buses
• which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 10,000 tonnes per year
• and which, according to a media report, will produce 90,000 cubic metres of organic waste material which can be applied to agricultural land as a fertilizer. [It is not clear how the 90,000 cubic metres output relates to the 50,000 tonnes input as the two streams likely have different moisture levels.]

GallonDaily suspects that Wärtsilä’s press people believe that we should be impressed that the waste to biogas plant produces enough fuel to keep 135 city buses on the road. However, GallonDaily is actually quite unimpressed. A city of 125,000 people [North America] or 590,000 [Oslo, Norway] needs more than 135 buses, so the waste to energy plant will not even keep all of the City’s buses on the road, let alone the cars and trucks and home heating and lights and everything else that takes energy to run. That is not to say that turning waste to fuel may not be a good idea – we see merit in it – but it will certainly be only a small part of our needed renewable energy future and, if we reduce food waste as we must if we are to feed the world’s rising population, then the amount of energy being derived from our food waste will inevitably decline. Energy from food waste has a role but it is by no means a panacea.

The Wärtsilä announcement concerning the Oslo food waste to energy plant can be found at http://www.wartsila.com/en/press-releases/biogas-liquefaction-plant-supplied-by-wartsila-to-produce-biofuel-for-buses-in-norway

The California-based GreenBiz Group Inc., an organization claiming to define and accelerate the business of sustainability, has published the 2014 GreenBiz NGO Report: How Companies Rate Activists as Partners. Though environmental groups frequently rate the performance of industry and business, they are less enthusiastic about being rated themselves. Remember that everything in this article applies to the USA. To GallonDaily’s knowledge no similar ranking takes place in Canada.

The Greenbiz report is based on a survey of sustainability executives in large corporations. They were asked to rank 30 well-known environmental groups into one of four categories:

Trusted Partners – Corporate-friendly, highly credible, long-term partners with easy-to-find public success stories
Useful Resources – Highly credible organizations known for creating helpful frameworks and services for corporate partners
Brand Challenged – Credible, but not influential, organizations
The Uninvited – Less broadly known groups, or those viewed more as critics than partners

The top three priority areas for corporations to engage with NGOs — that is, the topics or focus areas of partnerships
— were found to be the same for both large and small companies: climate change, community engagement, and energy (both renewables and efficiency). Smaller companies rank water and raising consumer awareness as next on the list while more large companies identified food and agriculture and health as the next-highest-ranked priority areas.

The survey found that companies ranked the following as trusted partners:

• Environmental Defense Fund
• The Nature Conservancy
• World Wildlife Fund

Those ranked as useful resources include:

• Business for Social Responsibility (BSR)
• Ceres
• Conservation International
• Greenpeace
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• National Wildlife Federation
• Oxfam
• Rainforest Alliance
• Rocky Mountain Institute
• Sierra Club
• World Resources Institute

The remaining lists and much more information drawn from experience partnering or interfacing with environmental ngos can be found in the report at http://www.greenbiz.com/research/report/2014/02/18/greenbiz-ngo-report