Most observers agree that climate change requires international action and that any set of initiatives will require broad public support to be successful.  An interesting report recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America addresses some of the issues that will need to be addressed to win that enduring public support.

The research was undertaken by means of somewhat large scale internet surveys on representative samples of the adult population in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Findings included:

• a strong sensitivity to costs: an increase of average household costs from 0.5% to 1% of gross domestic product decreases public support for an agreement by 10 percentage points. An agreement expected to cost 2% of GDP, which corresponds to €113 in France, €154 in Germany, £60 in the United Kingdom, and $213 in the United States per household and month, decreases support among citizens by 25 percentage points on average if compared with an agreement that costs only 0.5% of GDP.
• perceptions of agreement fairness are determined most powerfully by a polluter-pays principle as opposed to a strong version of the ability-to-pay principle. Distributing the costs of emissions reductions proportional to current emissions increases support by about six percentage points compared with an agreement in which only rich countries pay.
• mass support depends on how encompassing a global climate agreement is: increasing the number of countries that participate in an agreement from 20 of 192 to 80 of 192 increases support for an agreement by about 15 percentage points.
• the enforcement structure of potential climate agreements influences public support. Across all four countries, having an agreement monitored by an independent commission—that is, a new international institution—increases the probability of supporting an agreement over the alternative that national governments monitor themselves. The magnitude of the effect is 5–10 percentage points or a 10–20% increase over the baseline.

The report, from researchers at the Department of Political Sciences at the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, and Stanford University, provides considerably more depth to these analyses. Both an abstract and the full article are available at http://www.pnas.org/content/110/34/13763.full?sid=885dd472-5ba5-4cf5-b91e-ad3168f7d79b#

Users of the office supply superstore chain Staples may have noticed in the Company’s advertisements that it now accepts “writing instruments” for recycling. For such a progressive move GallonDaily cannot understand why Staples chose to use the archaic term “writing instrument”. So we investigated and found that Staples actually collects used pens and similar items for recycling. The actual list of writing items accepted for recycling at Staples stores is:

• any brand of pens and pen caps
• any brand of mechanical pencils
• any brand of markers and marker caps
• any brand of highlighters and highlighter caps
• permanent markers and permanent marker caps

Way to go, Staples! And way to go, GallonDaily readers! Now is the time to take all those dead ballpoint and other pens that have been cluttering your drawers to a local Staples store for recycling.  For details, including a Staples store finder, visit http://www.terracycle.ca/en-CA/brigades/writing-instrument-retail-based-brigade.html

Other manufacturer and brandowner recycling initiatives put in place by the recycling company TerraCycle include:

• cell phones
• chocolate wrappers
• cigarette waste
• coffee bags
• cookie and cracker wrappers
• diaper packaging
• digital cameras
• drink pouches
• inkjet cartridges
• laptop computers
• chocolate wrappers and personal care and beauty packaging through London Drugs stores
• Nespresso® coffee capsules
• sandwich bags
• Schneiders® Lunchmate® packaging
• TASSIMO® coffee, tea, espresso, milk and hot chocolate T DISCs

Some of these programs are better suited to points of bulk collection, such as schools and offices, but all are worth reviewing to see how waste recycling can be carried out. In most cases used items are returned by mail, with TerraCycle paying for the postage. Incentive points or charitable donations are associated with some of the programs.

For details on each of these recycling programs visit  http://www.terracycle.ca/en-CA/brigades.html

RWE AG, Germany’s second largest producer of electricity, provided some interesting insights in its recent first half of 2013 corporate performance report:

the company has decided to take about 3,100 megawatts of conventional generating capacity offline in Germany and the Netherlands “due to the continuing boom in solar energy” which the Company attributes to EU subsidies.

feed-ins from solar panels and wind turbines are increasingly replacing electricity generated by fossil-fuelled power stations, contributing to the steep decline in prices for EU carbon emissions trading credits.

the world coal market tends to be oversupplied and prices for coal used for power generation are falling.

the company ceased operation of a 1958 MW coal fired power plant in the UK because the plant does not meet current EU emission requirements.

an oil-fired power plant in the UK was shut down for economic reasons associated with the plant not meeting current EU emission requirements.

despite a slight decline in sales volume, the Company’s revenue from electricity sales was up 2% due to price increases.

the operating result recorded by RWE Innogy, RWE’s renewables division, was up 3%.

The RWE Report on the First Half of 2013 can be found at http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/mediablob/en/2011524/data/110822/4/rwe/investor-relations/reports/RWE-Report-H1-2013.pdf

A new report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers and the U.S. Department of Energy points out the huge costs that result from power outages caused by extreme weather events. The data show that between 2003 and 2012:

• Weather-related outages are estimated to have cost the U.S. economy an inflation-adjusted annual average of $18 billion to $33 billion.
• Roughly 679 power outages, each affecting at least 50,000 customers, occurred due to weather events. The aging nature of the grid – much of which was constructed over a period of more than one hundred years – has made Americans more susceptible to outages caused by severe weather.
• In 2012, the United States suffered eleven billion-dollar weather disasters – the second-most for any year on record, behind only 2011.
• Since 1980, the United States has sustained 144 weather disasters whose damage cost reached or exceeded $1 billion and seven of the ten costliest storms in U.S. history occurred between 2004 and 2012.

The report describes various approaches to modernization of the grid to reduce the frequency and severity of power outages. It notes that “Continued investment in grid modernization and resilience will mitigate these costs over time – saving the economy billions of dollars and reducing the hardship experienced by millions of Americans when extreme weather strikes.”

Power outage problems in many parts of Canada are almost certainly as severe as those in the United States yet the focus of much industrial and consumer advocacy has been to achieve the lowest possible power rates. As this report shows, scrimping on the maintenance of infrastructure can cause massive costs when system failures occur, substantially in excess of what infrastructure maintenance costs would have been.

A press release and a link to the full 28 page report Economic Benefits of Increasing Electric Grid Resilience to Weather Outages can be found at http://energy.gov/articles/white-house-council-economic-advisers-and-energy-department-release-new-report-resiliency

The Carbon Trust, a UK-based consultancy, has published a report stating that the best way to watch a football (soccer) game, from a carbon emissions perspective, is from your own home on a smartphone or tablet computer with a broadband connection.

Before we bring you a summary, GallonDaily wants to point out that Carbon Trust does not appear to have published either their methodology for the calculations or a peer review. The use of electronic devices has been controversial in carbon footprint circles, with some commentators suggesting that such devices have an extremely high carbon footprint. Without an opportunity to review the methodology, or at least an opportunity to see a peer review, GallonDaily has to remain somewhat sceptical of these football carbon footprint results which Carbon Trust humorously calls the carbon bootprint of watching football. Certainly we would not recommend that someone purchase a smartphone solely for the purpose of watching a few ballgames each season.

With that caveat, and recognizing that similar calculations may not provide similar results when the game is Canadian, we can report that Carbon Trust has found that:

• emissions for watching a game on a smartphone can be as much as eight times lower than watching on television, mostly due to the smaller size of the screen.
• in the UK 27 per cent of smartphone owners, and 63 per cent of tablet owners, are now using their device to watch live TV.
• mobile data increases the carbon bootprint of watching the game by at least ten times compared to a broadband connection Carbon Trust does not define mobile data or broadband in this article but we assume that by mobile data they mean data transmission on a cellular network and by broadband they mean wired service, possibly with wifi for the last link.
• total food and drink at the stadium use significantly more energy than stadium lighting.
• bottled water at the stadium creates fewer greenhouse gas emissions than soft drinks, beer, or freshly squeezed orange juice.
• going to see a game at the stadium is the most carbon intensive way of watching football – particularly for an away game – due to the impact of transport.

To review the full report, which is quite brief, visit http://www.carbontrust.com/carbonbootprint

A paper from researchers at The Pew Charitable Trusts and three US universities and published by the peer reviewed JAMA Internal Medicine claims that there are serious financial conflicts of interest in the way the US Food and Drug Administration allows food manufacturers to determine whether additives to food are “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS).  Food additives that are determined to be GRAS can be used in food without further regulatory approvals. The consequence of the conflict of interest finding is that some food additives are being brought to market without the kind of third party independent testing that Congress intended when it gave authority to the Food and Drug Administration to determine which ingredients are generally regarded as safe.

Note that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency does not rely on US GRAS determinations though Canadian consumers may be exposed to substances which have been determined to be GRAS in the US without additional food safety review in Canada.

To qualify for a GRAS determination in the US, manufacturers of additives must conclude that the use of the additive is safe. Safe is defined to mean “a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under the intended conditions of use.” The safety of the GRAS additive must be generally recognized, which “requires common knowledge about the substance throughout the scientific community knowledgeable about the safety of substances directly or indirectly added to food.”

The Pew researchers found the following for the 451 GRAS notices voluntarily submitted to the FDA between 1997 and 2012:

• 22.4% were made by an employee of an additive manufacturer
• 13.3% were made by an employee of a consulting firm selected by a manufacturer, and
• 64.3% were made by an expert panel selected by the manufacturer or a firm that was a consultant to the manufacturer.

In no case was the GRAS determination made by an expert panel selected by an independent third party.

The study concludes: ” The lack of independent review in GRAS determinations raises concerns about the integrity of the process and whether it ensures the safety of the food supply, particularly in instances when the manufacturer does not notify the FDA of the determination. When manufacturers or their consultants convene an expert panel to make GRAS determinations, they often pick one of a small number of individuals to serve on the panel.”

The complete research report, with more details of the GRAS determination process and of its perceived flaws, is available at http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1725123#Results

The US Environmental Protection Agency has published a Stormwater Calculator that runs on a desktop computer and provides useful advice on management of water that runs off from buildings and paved areas. The calculator is intended for owners of industrial, institutional and commercial properties and for developers of all types of property. It can even work for residential property though it is unlikely to be quite so useful to a homeowner with a small urban lot.

Unfortunately the National Stormwater Calculator only accesses US data, though a quick review by GallonDaily suggests that the calculator might still be useful to Canadian property owners if site specific data on

• Soil Type
• Soil Drainage
• Topography
• Precipitation
• Evaporation
• Land Cover
• Low Impact Development (landscaping designed to capture and retain stormwater) Controls
• Runoff

are available. In many areas of the US these some of these data can be imported automatically from government databases.

The Calculator allows the user to make changes to various practices, such as

• Disconnection of roof drains from storm drains
• Rainwater harvesting (retention for use in such applications as toilet flushing and landscaping irrigation)
• Rain gardens
• Green roofs
• Street planters
• Infiltration basins
• Porous pavement

and to immediately see the impact that one or more changes would have on off-site stormwater flows.

With increasing concerns about the environmental and pollution effects of stormwater on streams, lakes and oceans, the stormwater calculator is an excellent approach to encouraging landscapers to find better ways to reduce off-site impacts of stormwater. Maybe Environment Canada could look at licensing the software for use here with appropriate data to be made available to Canadian users.

The National Stormwater Calculator, user guides, and more description of the system are available at no cost from http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/wq/models/swc/

If one is wondering what leadership on climate change looks like, the State of Maryland is one of the best models. The Governor of this state of slightly fewer than 6 million in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States has decided that successful integration of climate change goals and economic growth will be one of his legacies.  Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley recently made a speech to his state’s Climate Change Summit that set out the key objective: we have a planet to save and we have jobs to create.

The state has a newly published greenhouse gas reduction plan that is 265 pages long and contains more than 150 state and state-led initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This plan proves for a 25% reduction in emissions by 2020 and the target looks to be achievable.

Initiatives cover every aspect of Maryland’s economy and human activity, including energy efficiency, renewable energy, cap and trade, transportation, agriculture and forestry, construction, recycling, innovation, and land use. Whether you are in business, government, non-profits, or simply a member of the public, Maryland’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan provides you with an economic and environmental role to play with the larger framework. It also provides a useful model for those in other jurisdictions who are wondering how to achieve meaningful climate change goals.

The 265 page Maryland Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act Plan is available at http://climatechange.maryland.gov/publications/greenhouse-gas-emissions-reduction-act-plan/

The Governor’s detailed 7 page speech to the 2013 Maryland Climate Change Summit is at http://www.governor.maryland.gov/documents/ClimateChangeSummit.pdf

According to the US government Energy Information Administration both the production and use of biodiesel is increasing in that country. May 2013 saw record production of biodiesel fuel. Production came from 116 biodiesel plants with operable capacity of 2.2 billion gallons per year.  Despite the increase, biodiesel still accounts for less than 2% of US diesel use. Some biodiesel is sold as a blend with conventional diesel fuel but some is sold as pure biodiesel for use in transportation.

Biodiesel is proving to be less controversial than bioethanol. There is less concern about biodiesel competition with food production, in part because it can be produced from inedible plant and animal oils, and production of biodiesel uses much less energy than production of ethanol so the question of whether it represents a net energy gain or loss is much less significant.

Even so, production of biodiesel does utilize land resources and it is inconceivable that it will ever completely replace current rates of use of conventional diesel from crude oil.

Our experience with biodiesel indicates that the commercial fuel, not the homemade stuff, is a viable alternative to petroleum fuel in diesel vehicles.  WE recommend that truck operators who wish to reduce greenhouse gas emissions make a switch at least to B10 (10% biodiesel) or B100. No name or home made biodiesel should be avoided as it likely does not meet government standards for biodiesel quality and lack of harm to engines.

The USE EIA monthly biodiesel report is at http://www.eia.gov/biofuels/biodiesel/production/

The Forest Stewardship Council has been around for 20 years. Maybe that is as long as it takes to attract criticism when an organization is seeking to strike a balance between the environmentally perfect and the environmentally good. It is challenging to achieve business success when resources, in this case forest resources, are potentially threatened by increasing demand.

Most involved groups see the FSC as a valuable organization for certifying sustainably managed forests. But there are other categories of FSC certification of pulp and paper products which are not quite so straightforward. Greenpeace Canada  claims that the FSC MIX certification category may be threatening species diversity in northern European forests. FSC MIX is what it appears to be: a mix of wood fibre from various sources but with less stringent overall environmental rules than the certified sustainably managed forest category.

According to Greenpeace, some FSC MIX wood products are coming from flying squirrel habitat and old-growth forests, which are being clear-cut by the Finnish state forestry company, Metsahallitus. Greenpeace states that this is not responsible forestry and should not be endorsed by the FSC.

Greenpeace Canada is not the only environmental organization with some criticism of certified sustainably produced forest products. It is not even the most strident. The forest industry needs to pay attention, and fast. Otherwise the concept of certified sustainably managed forest will go down the river and battles over the environmental impacts of forest products will resume.

A Greenpeace Canada commentary on FSC certification is at http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/Blog/working-together-for-stronger-fsc/blog/45781/