A new report from a food waste recycler and a charity that promotes sustainable businesses in the UK includes a number of proposals that may help other countries, like Canada, also achieve zero waste food to landfill. The report also suggests that its recommendations will save the UK economy over £17bn a year by 2020 through the reduction of food wastes from households, businesses and the public sector. The data in the report are specific to the UK, though similar data, scaled for population and food consumption differences, likely also apply to Canada.

The recommendations include:

• By treating food waste separately, it is possible to move it further up the waste hierarchy, reduce treatment costs and ensure that its true potential is realised.
• Surplus food that is fit for human or animal consumption sits higher in the food waste hierarchy and should be prioritised by businesses ahead of other means of treatment.
• Food redistribution takes surplus but edible food and redistributes it to people in need.
• The livestock animal feed industry is a well-established and regulated solution for handling surplus food. Feedstock for animal feed reprocessors is restricted to former foodstuffs that do not contain animal protein, such as clean bread, flour, biscuits, crisps, dough, grains, fruits and vegetables. Depending upon the volume and type of foodstuff, these materials will have a commercial value and therefore, in most cases, represent a more economically viable solution than landfill or incineration.
• Likewise, the pet food industry is a strong, growing and well-regulated sector.
• Rendering is the industry standard technology in most western countries applied to handling animal byproducts. The resultant tallow can be used in the production of biodiesel and meat and bone meal (MBM) can be used as a biofuel to generate renewable energy.
• The use of rendered products can be estimated to reduce GHG emissions by approximately 70,000 tonnes per annum. This is because they can be used as a direct replacement to soybean in the production of pet foods, palm oil in the manufacture of bio-diesel, and fossil fuels in the generation of energy.
• Unavoidable food waste is a resource. Food, by its very nature, contains nutrients and energy and therefore solutions should seek to maximise the resource potential in the material.
• Anaerobic digestion is a proven technology solution and has been widely used in the water treatment industry for many years. AD is a biological process. Food waste is first de-packaged, normally by machine, then pasteurised by being heated to 70°C for one hour to kill harmful bacteria, before passing into large digesters. Here good bacteria, in the absence of oxygen, work on the food and produce methane gas and a liquid/solid fraction called digestate, a low-carbon bio-fertiliser.
• Energy from waste has a role to play in UK waste strategy, but it is important to safeguard against the loss of crucial resources by avoiding treating a large proportion of our waste in this way.

The full report contains many more details and can be found at http://www.vision2020.info/

The Washington DC based Wilson Center’s Project on Emerging Technologies is compiling a global inventory of consumer products which contain nanoparticles using information provided by consumers as well as industry and scientists. To date what the Center calls a ‘living inventory’ contains 1638 products. The full list  can be browsed on the project website at http://www.nanotechproject.org/cpi/

The Project, established in 2005, is dedicated to helping ensure that as nanotechnologies advance, possible risks are minimized, public and consumer engagement remains strong, and the potential benefits of these new technologies are realized. The Center makes clear that it is not an advocate either for, or against, particular nanotechnologies. It claims that it seeks to ensure that as these technologies are developed, potential human health and environmental risks are anticipated, properly understood, and effectively managed. Anyone can register on the site and submit information on a product which uses nanotechnology. Registrants are asked to submit or update information pertaining to nanoparticle function, location, properties, potential exposure pathways, toxicity and life cycle assessment, though many of the products currently listed contain little more than product name, manufacturer, category, and market. Manufacturers of products containing nanoparticles may want to check and update their product listing with accurate information.

This crowdsourcing of information and expertise is a novel approach to documenting the introduction of a family of relatively new ingredients into the marketplace. It will be interesting to follow the evolution of the database. If successful, similar crowdsourcing approaches are likely to be applied to many other issues of public interest, both nationally and globally. Some such initiatives may be organized by supporters or neutral agencies but others will be organized by opponents of certain technologies and products. Extended ‘democratization’ of the consumer marketplace using similar crowdsourcing projects may well be on the horizon.

The Wilson Center, more properly known as the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars is a memorial to President Woodrow Wilson, the only President of the United States with a Ph.D. that was established by an act of Congress in 1968. It is a highly recognised think tank, with a mission “to commemorate the ideals and concerns of Woodrow Wilson by: providing a link between the world of ideas and the world of policy; and fostering research, study, discussion, and collaboration among a full spectrum of individuals concerned with policy and scholarship in national and world affairs.”

The California Coastal Commission, an independent, quasi-judicial state agency with responsibility for regulating the use of land and water in the coastal zone, has recently published what amounts to an environmental assessment of a proposed new 50 million gallon per day seawater desalination plant on the site of a soon-to-be-closed power station that is already drawing and discharging ocean water for cooling purposes. The report is an extremely detailed assessment of the proposed project, likely one of the more detailed assessments of a seawater desalination plant ever published.

The plan was to use the existing infrastructure for withdrawal of water from the ocean as an input to the desalination plant. The report by the Commission staff finds that use of the open water intake will result in significant adverse effects to marine life, capturing more than 80 million fish larvae, eggs, and invertebrates each year that originate in areas along about 100 miles of shoreline, including areas within Marine Life Protected Areas. The desalination plant, using a reverse osmosis type of technology, would also discharge effluent with salinity concentrations that are harmful to marine life, and cause adverse direct and indirect effects on wetlands on and near the project site.The report is proposing that a new water intake be constructed below the ocean floor so that marine life is not sucked into the plant. Media reports indicate that the proponent is not happy with this recommendation.

While this assessment report is specific to a plant proposed for southern California, it provides an interesting framework for those assessing projects which involve extraction of large amounts of water from oceans or lakes. In addition to the impact of withdrawals and discharges on aquatic organisms, sections of the report deal with:

• Wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas
• Flood, tsunami, and sea level rise hazards
• Geologic hazards
• Climate change
• Public access and recreation
• Land use – site designation and allowable uses

The report is available at http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2013/11/W19a-s-11-2013.pdf  The proponent’s website, describing and promoting the desalination facility, is at http://hbfreshwater.com/

It is important for government and business to understand those who influence public opinion. Hence GallonDaily’s interest was immediately drawn to a recent paper by two University of Colorado researchers in the journal Celebrity Studies. The 16 page paper is entitled ‘Wise contrarians’: a keystone species in contemporary climate science, politics and policy.

The paper focuses on what it describes as a heterogeneous yet loosely configured set of people dubbed ‘climate contrarians’, who have achieved veritable celebrity status in contemporary discussions of climate science, politics and policy in the twenty-first-century public sphere, often through the guise of public intellectualism. It analyses:

• the motivations that prop up these contrarian stances, such as ideological or evidentiary disagreement to the orthodox views of science;
• the drive to fulfil the perceived desires of special interests (for example, carbon-based industry);
• the exhilaration from self-perceived academic martyrdom; and
• the more general desire for notoriety.

The researchers conclude that the views of these ‘wise contrarians’ are a reflection of contemporary cultural politics and they will not disappear any time soon.

The paper is available at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2013.35.pdf

A poll commissioned by Friends of the Earth Canada and published today suggests that Ontario residents are much more concerned about bee health than we might have expected. Conducted for FOE by Oraclepoll Research in October 2013, and with a margin of error of +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20, the poll results include:

• 82% said that they would support a move by the Federal Health Minister to suspend the use of neonic pesticides until there is a better understanding of how to manage their negative impact. Only 8% would oppose this and 10% did not know or were unsure.
• 78% of Ontario voters would support a move by Premier Kathleen Wynne to take action on this issue by suspending the use of neonic pesticides until there is a better understanding of their negative impact on pollinators.
• 74% of those surveyed are concerned about the future health of honey bee populations, compared to only 5% unconcerned, while 18% had a neutral view (neither concerned nor unconcerned) and 3% did not know or were unsure.
• 81.3% of Ontario Progressive Conservative supporters, 78.3% of Ontario Liberal supporters, and 88.4% of Ontario NDP supporters agreed that the use of these pesticides [should] be suspended in order to protect honey bees.

Much more data, including more cross-tabulations with voting intentions, are available at http://foecanada.org/en/files/2013/11/FOE_Canada_Honey_Bee_Report.pdf The FOE Canada press release is at http://foecanada.org/en/stop-honey-bee-carnage-say-eight-out-of-ten-ontarians/

Megan Leslie, Deputy Leader of the Official Opposition and Environment Critic for the NDP has tabled a ‘laundry list’ of resolutions pressing for a much more activist House of Commons Environment Committee. While the chance of the government members of the committee agreeing to undertake all of the studies the NDP is calling for is slim, the resolutions do indicate the key environment topics that are seen as important by some MPs in Ottawa. Ignoring the one resolution that might be described as having purely political content, the NDP resolutions, which may win support from Liberal MPs, are as follows:

• That the Committee conduct a review of the federal government’s sectoral approach to greenhouse gas regulations, and review the delays in establishing regulations for the oil and gas sector’s emissions.
• That the Committee commence a study on the national capacity to assess, mitigate and cope with the impacts of climate change, and to assess existing capacity and research, and make recommendations on the development and implementation of a National Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategy.
• That the Committee commence a study on the Great Lakes, to consider the Great Lakes water quality and quantity, including the impact of climate change on water levels, temperature and ecology.
• That the Committee request a briefing by officials from Environment Canada, Parks Canada, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the National Energy Board, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on the impacts of the repeal of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act on their operation and on project approvals.
• That the Committee conduct a study on progress regarding the Joint Oil Sands Monitoring program, including hearing from witnesses from federally and provincially responsible agencies, as well as affected communities.
• That the Committee conduct a study on the impacts of climate change and resulting new resource development and transportation routes in the Arctic, its environment, species, and ecological balance.
• That the Committee request a briefing by officials of Environment Canada on the policy regarding communications with the public and media by departmental scientists, including scientists at Environment Canada, Parks Canada and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
• That the Committee conduct a study on the development of a National Water Strategy for Canada.
• That officials provide an update to the Committee on the status of the evaluation of environmental consequences of shale gas development, including the departmental study into the environmental impacts of hydraulic gas fracturing in Canada.
• That the Committee conduct a study on the implementation and funding of the Species at Risk Act
• That the Committee conduct a study into the impacts of budget cuts on the operation, sustainability, and accessibility for visitors, and sustainability impacts for surrounding communities, to Parks Canada.
• That the Committee request a briefing by the Official Canadian Delegation to the Climate change convention negotiations prior to the meetings in Warsaw in November 2013 to detail Canada’s negotiating priorities
• That the Committee invite the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, no later than November 14, 2013, regarding the Fall 2013 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
• That the Committee invite the Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Leona Aglukkaq and departmental officials, for a briefing on contaminated sites, polluter pay initiatives and progress on reducing environmental liabilities for Canadian taxpayers.

GallonDaily applauds the initiative as one way of putting environment back on the national agenda. We are surprised, however, that the list does not include a resolution on waste reduction and recycling, a topic that Environment Canada used to embrace but which has now almost completely fallen from the Federal agenda. Reduction of food waste, an increasingly important topic, will almost certainly require federal action.

The full NDP press release can be found at http://meganleslie.ndp.ca/mp-proposes-laundry-list-of-environment-committee-changes

The 2013 edition of the international climate change summit, officially the Conference of the Parties to the International Framework Convention on Climate Change, begins next week in Warsaw, Poland. Expectations for any breakthrough agreement are low, indeed a breakthrough is not expected at this conference, but many observers will be watching the United States to see the extent to which climate change commitments made domestically by the United States are incorporated into the country’s international position. Canadians may also be watching our country to see if movement by the US on the climate change front and the pending free trade agreement with Europe have any impact on Canada’s recent positioning at these conferences as “Fossil of the Year”. As a result of its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, Canada will only be an observer at the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) but will be a full participant in the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the UNFCCC.

GallonDaily review of ongoing international climate negotiations indicates that agreements at this year’s conference are likely to focus primarily on technical and financial issues with particular progress on forestry and land use. Expectations include:

• frameworks for monitoring of forests and forestry activities in support of the program for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and sustainable management and enhancement of forest stocks (REDD+).
• progress on an accounting mechanism for measurement, reporting, and verification of mitigation actions by developed countries, including accounting for binational and multinational efforts.
• an international mechanism for assisting the most affected countries to address damages caused by climate change.
• new commitments (or promises) for a short-term program of financing for climate mitigation and adaptation projects and programs.

As Chair of the Conference, the Government of Poland has set up a website at http://www.cop19.gov.pl/home . Polish government hopes for the Conference can be viewed by clicking on Incoming Polish Presidency of COP19/CMP9.

According to a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature, a business as usual scenario projects that the rate of generation of garbage on a global scale will almost double by 2025 and will triple by 2100. The paper, with lead author well-respected waste expert Dan Hoornweg, Associate Professor of energy systems at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and former Lead Urban Specialist, Cities and Climate Change at the World Bank, includes the following points:

• Solid waste management is one of the greatest costs to municipal budgets.
• The waste problem is acute in emerging country cities.
• Wealthy societies tend to curb their waste. So as living standards around the world rise and urban populations stabilize, global solid-waste generation will peak.
• As urbanization increases, global solid-waste generation is accelerating.
• Solid waste is mostly an urban phenomenon. In rural communities there are fewer packaged products, less food waste and less manufacturing.
• The member countries of the OECD are the largest waste generators, producing around 1.75 million tonnes per day. This volume is expected to increase until 2050, owing to urban population growth, and then to slowly decline, as advances in material science and technology make products smaller, lighter and more resource efficient.
• Waste reduction and dematerialization efforts in OECD countries are countered by trends in east Asia, particularly in China. Globally, on the current waste generation pathway, ‘peak waste’ will not occur this century.
• With lower populations, denser, more resource-efficient cities and less consumption (along with higher affluence), ‘peak waste’ could come forward from sometime after 2100 to 2075 and reduce in intensity by more than 25%. The environmental, economic and social benefits would be enormous.

The full paper, which includes a commentary on tools that may be appropriate to reduce and advance ‘peak waste’, is available at http://www.nature.com/news/environment-waste-production-must-peak-this-century-1.14032 In addition to Hoornweg, the authors include Perinaz Bhada-Tata, a solid-waste consultant in Dubai, and Chris Kennedy, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Toronto.

Maplecroft, a leading UK-based risk analysis consultancy, has published an updated Climate Change and Environmental Risk Atlas. The Atlas identifies level of risk faced by countries, regions, and major cities from the impacts of climate change by the year 2025. According to a map released by Maplecroft, most of Canada is low risk but parts of the prairie provinces, Atlantic Canada, and coastal BC are in a somewhat higher risk category. By  far the greatest impacts are predicted to be in developing countries, including some with which Canada has important business and development assistance connections.

The risk assessments in the Maplecroft Atlas are based on three factors:

• exposure to extreme climate-related events;
• sensitivity of populations in terms of health, education, agricultural dependence and available infrastructure; and
• the adaptive capacity of countries to combat the impacts of climate change.

Maplecroft predicts that, by 2025, 31% of global economic output will be based in countries facing ‘high’ or ‘extreme’ climate change risks. Countries facing extreme climate change risks include, but are not limited to, Bangladesh (at the most extreme risk), Sierra Leone, Haiti, South Sudan, Nigeria, DR Congo, Cambodia, Philippines, India, Pakistan and Viet Nam. Countries facing high climate change risks include Indonesia, Thailand, Kenya and China. Canadian companies doing business in these countries, and others in the extreme and high Maplecroft categories would be well advised, in GallonDaily’s opinion, to undertake a more detailed climate change risk assessment of their investments and partnerships.

Though the US is overall a low risk country, Maplecroft has identified some areas which face higher risks from climate change. these include the coastal regions of Florida, Louisiana, Georgia, South and North Carolina.

A synthesis of the Atlas is available at http://maplecroft.com/portfolio/new-analysis/2013/10/30/31-global-economic-output-forecast-face-high-or-extreme-climate-change-risks-2025-maplecroft-risk-atlas/  Access to the complete Atlas requires a subscription or payment of what is likely a relatively substantial fee.

The Government of Alberta has introduced legislation to implement what it calls the Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency. Although the Government has announced the Agency in the context of monitoring of oil sands activities, the terms of reference of AEMERA are actually much broader:

(a) to obtain credible and relevant scientific data and other information regarding the condition of the environment in Alberta,

(b) to ensure the data and other information are available and reported to the public in an open and transparent manner, and

(c) any other purpose prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council [the Alberta Cabinet].

These purposes are consistent with the Premier’s statement that “People will be able to go on websites when this is done, look at a point on a map and see exactly what’s going on at that point in time.” In other words, the Bill, assuming it is passed by the Legislature, will cover not just the oil sands region but every other part of Alberta. It is not a bad idea, in GallonDaily’s opinion, to remove environmental monitoring from day to day political interference. However, the Bill may go further than industries beyond the oil sands region were expecting. Even the quantity of particulate emissions from farms, a significant but not well measured source of air pollution in Alberta, could be captured and published under the terms of reference of the new monitoring agency.

The new Agency, in carrying out its purposes, shall:

(a) plan, co-ordinate and conduct environmental monitoring,

(b) collect, store, manage, analyze and evaluate environmental monitoring data,

(c) report on the status and trends related to the condition of the environment on the basis of the evaluation of the data collected,

(d) make environmental monitoring data and related evaluations and assessments publicly available,

(e) develop standards respecting environmental monitoring,

(f) establish advisory committees or panels respecting environmental monitoring, and

(g) carry out other activities determined by the Minister.

The Agency may charge fees on a cost-recovery basis for requested services provided by the Agency in carrying out its
purposes.

The Bill that has been tabled in the Alberta Legislature can be found at http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDAR_files/docs/bills/bill/legislature_28/session_1/20120523_bill-031.pdf

GallonDaily will follow its progress with interest.