Debates on environmental issues are best when informed by facts. Last week the U.S. Energy Information Administration released piles of information on world oil production. GallonDaily found it interesting to note that, in 2011, Canada produced only about one third as much oil as the United States itself.

In 2011 Canada produced 22% of the oil produced in North America, Mexico produced 18%, and the United States produced 60%. On a global scale, Canada produced 4% of world oil production.

Canada’s production is 3.67 million barrels per day, compared to production of 10.1 million barrels per day in the United States. Canadian refinery capacity is 2.0 million barrels per day compared to 17.7 million barrels per day refinery capacity in the U.S.

Despite rhetoric one often hears from Canadian sources, the Energy Information Administration states that OPEC countries still control about 70% of the world’s proven oil reserves and they produce 41% of the world’s oil supply.

Gallon Environment Letter will be covering more of the useful data provided by the Energy Information Administration in upcoming issues.

The latest data on the major players supplying the world oil market is at http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/world_oil_market.cfm

Emails and websites touting scam conferences are becoming more common. For some reason many of these fake conferences purport to be on environmental topics.

The reasons for these fake conference invitations are not always clear but are most often associated with extracting money from registrants or verifying email addresses.

One that very recently came by email to GallonDaily’s attention is the Global Warming International Conference 2012, purportedly to be held in London, UK, from 20th to 24th April 2012. According to the scamwarners.com website, this conference is a fake and even the conference hotel, which has a very sophisticated looking website ready to take your booking, does not exist.

GallonDaily intends to launch a service in the near future which will, for a small fee, verify whether or not an environmental conference is genuine. In the meantime we invite readers to ask questions about any environmental conferences that they wish to have verified. We will do our best to provide the information within 2 working days of the request for information.

You can view the invitation for the fake  Global Warming International Conference 2012 at http://www.scamwarners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&p=91433

A review article published recently by the peer-reviewed journal Endocrine Reviews is raising further concern about endocrine disrupting chemicals. One of the main findings reported in the article is that EDCs do not follow the traditional relationship between dose and response, “the dose makes the poison”, that is seen in many toxic chemicals. Instead, EDCs, which are chemicals which mimic natural hormones, are non-monotonic, which means that exposure to very small doses may cause a significant response in the body of mammals, including humans.

The paper lists non-monotonic dose-response curves not only from bisphenol A but also for atrazine, dioxins, hexachlorobenzene, methyl paraben, nicotine, nonylphenol, PCBs, perchlorate, sodium fluoride, tributyltin oxide and other substances some of which are commonly found in products or the environment at very low levels.

The authors:

• encourage scientists and journal editors to publish data demonstrating NMDRCs and low-dose effects, even if the exact mechanism of action has not yet been elucidated.
• further recommend greatly expanded and generalized safety testing and surveillance to detect potential adverse effects of this broad class of chemicals. Before new chemicals are developed, a wider range of doses, extending into the low-dose range, should be fully tested.

The full article and an abstract are available at http://edrv.endojournals.org/content/early/2012/03/14/er.2011-1050.abstract

Draft legislation to give the US Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate the ingredients of cosmetics may soon be discussed by a Congressional committee. The legislation stands essentially no chance of passage but the debate between the industry and Republican members of Congress on one side and environmental and consumer advocates along with some Democrats on the other side could become very heated with high media profile.

The bill, known as the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, H.R. 2359, includes provisions to:

• establish labeling requirements;
• establish a safety standard that provides a reasonable certainty of no harm from exposure to a cosmetic or an ingredient in a cosmetic and that protects the public from any known or anticipated adverse health effects associated with the cosmetic or ingredient; and
• requires the FDA to issue guidance prescribing good manufacturing practices for cosmetics and ingredients.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics states “It’s up to Congress to close gaping holes in the outdated federal law that allows cancer-causing chemicals in baby shampoo, hormone disruptors in fragrance and lead in lipstick.” The cosmetics industry is less than enthusiastic about the proposed legislation.

The bill can be found at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2359ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr2359ih.pdf

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics position in support of the bill can be found at http://safecosmetics.org/section.php?id=74

An industry view can be found by searching for 2359 on the personalcaretruth.com website and especially at http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/07/personal-care-truth-responds-to-cosmetics-bill-hr2359-safe-cosmetics-act-of-2011/

In remarks today to the Globe conference, Canada’s Environment Minister Peter Kent seemed to be trying to reassure Canadians that the federal government continues to take science and environmental protection especially seriously. Key points included:

• Our work is rooted in science, measurement, monitoring, analysis and the enforcement of rigorous rules and standards.
• At Environment Canada, we are convinced that our status as a world-class regulator requires us to innovate at all levels of our operations, all the time.
• The role of government is . . . to work to remove the barriers and impediments to growth and ensure the health and safety of our citizens and our shared environment.
• People on either side are passionate about their position and are rooted in a deep desire to protect and preserve. . . All of these positions have merit and none are paramount.
• If there is one word that characterizes Canada I believe it is “diversity”. Diversity of people and cultures. Diversity of beliefs and ideology… Diversity of geography and opportunity. The federal government’s role is to find common place among divergent perspectives and develop effective public policy.
• My job as Environment Minister is not to shut down industry or deny development of our natural resources. . .My job is to ensure that Canada’s industrial operations are subject to robust environmental scrutiny.
• Environmental assessments are required at all levels of government on projects big or small. Every jurisdiction doing its part to protect the environment by imposing what amounts to overlapping, duplicative and inefficient regulatory burden. But that process can get slow and bulky pretty fast. It’s always important to remember that when you’re talking about environmental rules–less can be more. And quantity should never be confused with quality.
• We at Environment Canada take our role as a “world-class regulator” very, very seriously.
• The rule of “one project, one review,” reduces expensive duplication and if anything, makes that one review even more focused and more stringent. We’re also using that same practical strategy to frame our domestic strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent over 2005 levels by 2020.

GallonDaily’s response: institutions are measured by what they do, not what they say they do. We will be listening more closely than usual to the March 29th federal budget.

The Minister’s speech to GLOBE 2012 can be found at http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=6F2DE1CA-1&news=BB188B8A-58E9-4CC0-8E6D-327D0675E1A3

A survey of consumers indicates that more shoppers want to see greener packaging, according to data collected by Perception Research Services in the United States. Findings include:

• the percentage who would like to see more environmentally friendly packaging has increased from 28% in 2010 to 36% in 2012.
• 59% state that seeing environmental claims on packaging positively impacts their behavior, to either buy more of the brands they usually do, or switch to other brands.
• roughly half of shoppers continue to notice environmental claims at a high level.
• the number that report that there is not enough environmental information on packages has increased from 20% in 2010 to 26% this year.
• the number who say they are confused by all the different environmental claims has increased from 12% in 2010 to 20% this year.

More data are available in the Perception Research Services press release at http://www.prsresearch.com/about-prs/announcements/article/packaging-and-the-environment-shoppers-say-please-help-me/

People love buildings with huge expanses of glass so that they can see what is going on in the outside world. However, buildings with large expanses of window typically get too hot in summer and can lose too much heat in winter. Window shades are often used to mitigate against the effects of too much sun entering the enclosed space.

A new product called SageGlass overcomes most of the heat and light transmission problems. Windows made of SageGlass can be made darker or lighter manually or automatically. At their darkest, SageGlass windows reduce visible light transmission by 98%. They are also LEED qualified, helping builders and building owners score up to 8 LEED points in 5 categories. LEED is rapidly becoming the dominant standard for energy efficient buildings in North America.

SageGlass is not the only product of its kind but it does appear to be taking a significant share of the market for both commercial and residential windows in new construction. GallonDaily suggests that it is certainly a window glass product that is worth looking into.

Details can be found on the manufacturer’s site at http://sageglass.com/

The question of the carbon sequestration benefits of forestry projects through increases in the levels of carbon in the soil has been controversial since the Kyoto Protocol permitted forests as a carbon offset tool. While one study will not put the issue to rest, a recent report from researchers at a university in Yangling, China, suggests that some of the results suggested by intuition do occur, at least in Shaanxi Province, China.

The researchers compared farmland plots to adjacent forest plots that had been established on farmland 18, 24, 48, 100, and 200 yr previously. They found a nonlinear accumulation of total soil organic carbon in the 0–80 cm depth of the mineral soil across time. The carbon accumulated more rapidly under forest stands aged 18 to 48 yr than under forest stands aged 100 or 200 yrs. The rate was also greater in the 0–10 cm depth than in the 10–80 cm depth.

While one study does not make a global proof, the results suggest that more research using a similar methodology could be very useful in establishing more precise guidelines for sequestration of carbon in the soils of planted forests. In addition, they give encouragement to those undertaking afforestation and reforestation projects that the soil sequestration benefits that may be considered part of the project are in fact real and that there is a large potential for sequestration of carbon in the soils of planted forests.

The study is available in the peer-reviewed online science journal PLoS ONE at http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0032054#s3

A report published on line this week in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives reports findings of endocrine disruptors and asthma-associated chemicals in consumer products, including some green consumer products, from US brands. The highest concentrations and numbers of ingredients of concern were in the fragranced products perfume, air fresheners, dryer sheets, and sunscreens. Some of the ingredients of concern were not reported on ingredient labels.

GallonDaily shares the authors’ view that more research on biological activity of these ingredients is needed and that more complete ingredient labelling of these products should be required by governments or demanded by consumers but we do worry about some of the extreme headlines generated by mainstream media from this EHP article. The researchers have not published their detailed findings, suggesting either that they are not confident in their research results or that they are allowing a perceived threat of litigation to cloud their scientific credibility. Not publishing product by product results means that an entire product sector is defamed when likely only a few products in that sector contain the chemicals of concern and it means that consumers have no easy ability to determine whether a product might be of concern to them. GallonDaily considers not publishing complete product by product results as pretty poor quality scientific reporting.

The authors of this paper state that “It appears that consumers can avoid some target chemicals—synthetic fragrances, BPA, and regulated active ingredients—using purchasing criteria.” That reads like the kind of advice frequently provided by governments. Here’s GallonDaily’s advice:

Consumers concerned about toxic substances in household products should consider avoiding entirely or reducing use of some of the products identified by this research.

• Reputable green household products do not contain fragrances, a known source of certain substances having adverse health effects. Where fragrances are unavoidable, for example to mask unpleasant odours from a product ingredient, natural source fragrances are likely to pose less of a health risk than synthetic fragrances. However, all odours and fragrances are volatile organic compounds, which have an adverse impact on indoor air quality and may be contributors to respiratory problems, and are best avoided.
• Air fresheners fall into the same category: best avoided if you are concerned about indoor air quality. Air fresheners and dryer sheets are not generally considered to be eligible for reputable green product status.
• With the thinning of stratospheric ozone levels, caused by human activity and use of refrigerants, use of sunscreens may be unavoidable. However, screening by clothing and by shelter should be considered whenever and wherever possible, and use of sunscreen should be kept to a minimum. There are few sunscreens on the market today that would be considered green by reputable verifiers.

Selection of greener products verified by Ecologo, President’s Choice GREEN, Green Seal, or another reputable ecolabelling organization should ensure significant reduction in a household’s exposure to chemicals of concern from the product categories mentioned in this article.

The Environmental Health Perspectives article does provide detailed information on the ingredients that the authors consider to be of concern. The abstract, full report, and background data can be found at http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1104052

Disclosure: The owners of Gallondaily.com provide third-party verification services to one of the ecolabel brands mentioned in this article. All brands mentioned are trade marks of their respective owners. Trademark owners had no input into the content of this article.

It is not often that we can report that international environmental goals are met but this is a good one and it is five years ahead of the target. One of the Millennium Development Goals, agreed at the United Nations in 2000, to halve the number of people in the world without access to clean drinking water by 2015, has been met five years early. according to a just-released World Health Organization / UNICEF report.

The UN estimates that an estimated 89 per cent of the global population now use improved drinking water sources. Despite this enormous accomplishment, 780 million people remain unserved.

Progress on sanitation has not been so good. An estimated 2.5 billion people are still without improved sanitation; almost three quarters of them in rural areas.

A press release and the detailed report can be found at http://www.unep.org/newscentre/Default.aspx?DocumentID=2676&ArticleID=9068&l=en