Yesterday the US government announced that new fuel economy labels, incorporating greenhouse gas emissions data, will become mandatory beginning with the 2013 model year for all new vehicles being offered for sale in dealerships. The new labels replace a style presenting only fuel economy data that has been in use for many years. Although climate change impact labelling is being introduced by some retailers and brandowners in Europe, this program is believed to be the first large-scale greenhouse gas emissions labelling for any consumer product category in North America. There is as yet no indication that the Canadian government plans to introduce a similar label.

The new label provides a Greenhouse Gas Rating, from 1 (worst) to 10 (best), based on the vehicle’s tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions only. Although the label does not provide upstream GHG emissions for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles the US Department of Energy provides an online calculator for upstream emissions associated with these vehicles based on the zip code in which you reside. The press release from the US Environmental Protection Agency claims that the new labels provide:

· New ways to compare energy use and cost between new-technology cars that use electricity and conventional cars that are gasoline-powered.
· Useful estimates on how much consumers will save or spend on fuel over the next five years compared to the average new vehicle.
· Easy-to-read ratings of how a model compares to all others for smog emissions and emissions of pollution that contribute to climate change.
· An estimate of how much fuel or electricity it takes to drive 100 miles.
· Information on the driving range and charging time of an electric vehicle.

More information on the new program is available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/names/hq_2011-5-25_fueleconomylabel

The Climate Commission of Australia is an independent body set up to provide a reliable and authoritative source of information on climate change, and help inform the debate on this issue. The Commission is made up of experts from a range of fields relevant to climate change and is not subject to Government direction.

Yesterday the Climate Commission released a report entitled The Critical Decade. The Report makes a strong case that decisions we make from now to 2020 will determine the severity of climate change for decades into the future.

Other key messages in the report include:

1. There is no doubt that the climate is changing. The evidence is overwhelming and clear.

2. We are already seeing the social, economic and environmental impacts of a changing climate.

3. Human activities – the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation – are triggering the changes we are witnessing in the global climate.

The report focuses primarily on the science of climate change and provides a very readable analysis of some of the implications as well as an overview of a carbon budget approach to dealing with climate change which the authors claim is preferred within the scientific community to the targets and timetables approach which has so far been more popular with developed country governments.

The full report and the key messages summary are available at http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/the-critical-decade/

Short biographies of the members of the Commission, chaired by Prof. Tim Flannery, are available at http://climatecommission.govspace.gov.au/about/commissioners/

Nick Clegg, UK Deputy Prime Minister, yesterday updated the Conservative / Liberal Democrat Coalition government’s plans for addressing climate change.

Key elements of the announcement include:
– householders, businesses and landlords will be able to improve the energy efficiency of their homes and buildings at no up-front cost. Householders will be able to access up to £10,000 ($16,000 CDN) investment and repay it through the expected energy bill savings they enjoy as a result.
– Legally binding targets to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions.
– A cut to carbon emissions of 50% of 1990 levels by 2025.
– A Green Investment Bank to manage capital funds that want to invest in the green economy, and firms bursting to grow but desperate for funds. In addition to providing a link between green investors and green companies and projects, the Bank will also provide finance for low carbon infrastructure. The bank will invest in a range of different industries, including manufacturing, engineering, and energy. The benefits will be largely felt outside of London, and in sectors other than financial services. The Government has guaranteed £3 billion for the initial capitalization.

The Deputy Prime Minister’s speech, which contains more details, is available at http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/deputy-prime-minister-s-speech-green-growth-climate-change-capital

One of the ‘good ideas’ that has been widely adopted in developments by environmentally interested companies and municipalities is the ‘permeable surface’, often consisting of a brick or concrete pavement with perforations allowing surface water to permeate through to the underlying soil. In Toronto the municipality required a permeable parking area in one retail development in which Gallon Letter’s parent company, CIAL Group, had an environmental planning role.

Environmental planners in British Columbia are now rethinking this idea for developments close to the ocean. In Sooke, on Vancouver Island, a liquid waste management plan that is being touted as cutting-edge actually limits the extent to which permeable surfaces can be used and also seeks to control the rate at which rainwater flows into rivers and streams. The goal is to improve water quality in the harbour in order to be able to lift a long-standing ban on the harvesting of shellfish.

Permeable surfaces make sense where the underlying soil can act as a focus for biodegradation of contaminants, for example from parked vehicles, that may be in the runoff water. Where the surface is close to surface waters the permeable surface may just be a fast-track through which contaminants can flow into the river, lake or ocean. Proper planning for storm and surface water management requires more than a cookie-cutter approach. Gallon Letter urges municipalities and developers to look at each development site as an individual ecosystem with regulations and technologies appropriate to the situation.

For more information about the Sooke plan visit http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2011ENV0021-000556.htm

Paid subscribers to the monthly Gallon Environment Letter should receive their copy of the May 2011 issue today. Honoured Readers should receive their copy tomorrow.

Among the articles in this issue:

Sustainability Applied: June 9-10 in Windsor, Ontario
Where Have All the Local Foods Gone?
Theme: Clean Technology: What Is it and Is it Enough?
Nova Scotia: New Clean Technology Fund
Intensity-based Ecoefficiency May Undermeasure the Environmental Impacts
Suncor: Technology Solution to Tailings Ponds
WWF-Netherlands: Cleantech Index
E. Ann Clark: the Future Is Organic but Organic Is Not Enough
IPCC: Special Report on Renewable Energy and Climate Mitigation
Ontario Centres of Excellence – Discovery 2011 May 18-19, 2011.
SDTC: Cleantech Report 2010
Batteries for Electric Vehicles
Book Review: How Bad Are Bananas?
Time to Eat the Dog: the Real Guide to Sustainable Living:
IDB: Annual Meeting in Calgary
Sustainable Emerging Cities
Wouldn’t You Know It!

The Honoured Reader edition will be posted at http://www.gallonletter.ca in about 10 days.

In this month’s issue of Gallon Environment Letter a lead editorial discusses how the federal regulatory agency, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, limits the claim of ‘local’ to food produced within 50km of the point of sale. As the editorial points out, while the rule states 50km, instead of the more widely recognized 100km, the interpretation of 50km is somewhat more complex.

The following is a summary of the responses on this subject from CFIA most recently received by Gallon Letter. The information is provided to assist our business readers to determine whether or not they are in compliance with CFIA requirements. The responses have not been edited except for length.

On 5 May 2011:

Gallon Letter: Can the CFIA provide us with information on why 50km or adjacent local government unit is rational policy? The key issue in this is 50km rather than some larger distance?

CFIA Answer:

The CFIA enforces the Food and Drugs Act and Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, as it relates to food. This legislation requires that information shown on food labels and advertisements must be truthful and not misleading to consumers.

The CFIA’s policy on the use of the term ‘local’ was developed a number of years ago and it is based on the definition of a “local food” in the Food and Drug Regulations (FDR) as well as on a defined distance from origin.

The policy states, in part:

“Local,” “Locally Grown,” and any substantially similar term shall mean that the domestic goods being advertised originated within 50 km of the place where they are sold, measured directly, point to point, or meets the requirements of section B.01.012 FDR, whichever condition is least restrictive.

This means that a fruit or vegetable grown in the furthest corner of a large municipal area can be sold and advertised as a local food anywhere in that municipality, even if the distance between where the food is grown and where it is sold exceeds 50 km. The food may also be sold and advertised as “local” in any adjacent local government units.

In smaller municipalities, the food may be sold or advertised as “local” in any government unit within a 50 km radius, even if some of the government units are not adjacent.

This approach provides producers with flexibility and market access while providing consumers with information they need to make informed food choices.

The CFIA is aware that since this policy became effective, interest regarding claims about local food has grown tremendously. Interested consumers and stakeholders are always encouraged to share their feedback on CFIA policies. This feedback is taken seriously and will be taken into consideration in any future policy considerations.

In addition, the CFIA takes fraudulent labelling seriously. Consumers with concerns about food labelling practices at a particular retail outlet should first contact the store manager. If their concerns are not addressed, or if they have knowledge about a fraudulent situation where produce is intentionally being mislabelled, they are encouraged to contact the CFIA. All complaints are thoroughly looked into.

Contact the CFIA:
Telephone: -800-442-2342
Email: cfiamaster@inspection.gc.ca

On 19 April 2011:

Gallon Letter: What is the actual CFIA regulation governing ‘local’ claims on food? Is this an actual regulation? Or a guideline that is not being strictly enforced?

CFIA Answer: “Local”, “locally Grown”, and any substantially similar term shall mean that the domestic goods being advertised originated within 50 km of the place where they are sold, measured directly, point to point, or meets the requirements of section B.01.012 of the Food and Drug Regulations, whichever condition is least restrictive.

B.01.012………..”local food” means a food that is manufactured, processed, produced or packaged in a local government unit and sold only in
a) the local government unit in which it is manufactured, processed or packaged,
b) one or more local government units that are immediately adjacent to the one in which it is manufactured, processed, produced or packaged, or
c) the local government unit in which it is manufactured, processed, produced or packaged and in one or more local government units that are immediately adjacent to the one in which it is manufactured, processed, produced or packaged

The emphasis in interpreting the legislation is generally placed on “whichever condition is less restrictive” in defining local. A “local government unit” means a city, metropolitan area, town, village, municipality or other area of local government.

When the above requirements are met, the food can be considered compliant. Failure to meet these criteria could create a situation where the claim would be misleading and in possible non compliance with the Food and Drugs Act (section 5.1), and the CFIA could take enforcement action.

It should be noted that other terms such as “Product of Nova Scotia”, “Foodland Ontario”, ” Buy BC” or “Quebec Vrai,” etc. may be used to describe fresh produce which is produced and grown within a province but which does not meet the criteria for “local”.

For more information please see:
Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising: Decisions http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/decisions/compoe.shtml
Food and Drug Regulations (B.01.012)
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.%2C_c._870/page-18.html

In April 2007 Federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn claimed  that “Making the switch to more efficient lighting is one of the easiest and most effective things we can do to reduce energy use and harmful emissions”.  “The environmental benefits are clear. By banning inefficient lighting, we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by more than 6 million tonnes per year,” said Minister Lunn. “More than that, these new standards will help reduce the average household electricity bill by approximately $50 a year.”

In April 2011 the Federal Government quietly announced its intention to postpone the ban on inefficient lightbulbs for two years. The reasons: “to strengthen communication activities, to allow for technology innovations and to consider the concerns expressed about the availability of compliant technologies and perceived health and mercury issues, including safe disposal for compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs).” According to the Federal Government the increase in energy use resulting from the delay is 88 petajoules, or approaching 1% of Canada’s total energy use (including all sectors and all fuels). The delay will cause an estimated 12.8 million tonnes of additional greenhouse gas emissions. Rough calculations made by CIAL Group (Gallon Letter’s parent consultancy) a few years ago indicated that a ban on inefficient incandescent lightbulbs could reduce Ontario electricity consumption by as much as 5%.

The thinking that lies behind the delay is not clear to Gallon Letter. The United States is moving forward with its own energy efficient lighting legislation beginning in January 2012 for 100 watt (or equivalent) lightbulbs. The Canadian Government delay puts Canada a couple of years behind the actions of the United States government and way behind European initiatives. There is virtually no Canadian incandescent lightbulb industry to protect. The government itself admits that “minimum energy performance standards are one of the most cost effective means of achieving this priority” of “reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution”.

One is left to wonder whether this is not yet another pander to the small population of climate skeptics that seem to hold much sway with the current Federal Government. British Columbia has already implemented regulations with similar objectives to the now postponed Federal program. Ontario has announced that it will do the same but so far there is no sign of any action.

The proposal to delay implementation of the ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs is subject to a 75 day public consultation period which ends on June 30th 2011. Comments, which we encourage to be in opposition to the proposed delay, should be sent to John Cockburn, Director, Equipment Division, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources, 930 Carling Avenue (CEF, Building 1, Observatory Crescent), 2nd Floor, Room 25, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Y3 (tel.: 613-996-4359; email: equipment@nrcan.gc.ca).

An extensive and, by all appearances, balanced Regulatory Impact Analysis regarding the proposed delay to implementation of the regulations can be found at http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2011/2011-04-16/html/reg1-eng.html

U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) yesterday introduced bipartisan legislation that would enact a national energy efficiency strategy. Gallon Letter does not often report on the introduction of Bills into Congress because, under the US system, what comes out often bears little resemblance to what went in! But this Bill appears to have a high degree of bipartisan support and good potential for being passed in a recognizable form.

Among the initiatives contained in the Bill are the following:

– strengthens national building codes and creates a goal of achieving net-zero-energy building by 2030.
– allows rural electric utilities to provide loans to customers for energy efficiency upgrades to their homes.
– expands the existing Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program for commercial, industrial and municipal building energy retrofits.
– expands energy efficiency standards for household appliances, outdoor lighting, and residential HVAC systems based on agreements between energy efficiency advocates and manufacturers.
–  helps states establish a revolving loan program for energy efficiency improvements in manufacturing.
– encourages the DOE to work with private sector partners to invest in the research, development and commercialization of innovative energy efficient technology and processes for industrial applications.
– establishes a DOE program to help make companies’ supply chains more efficient.
– requires the federal government to adopt energy saving techniques for its own computers.

Details of the Bill are available at http://shaheen.senate.gov/news/press/release/?id=52fbb7ba-d513-4482-a7a2-1aa57f40a76f

“In various settings Renewable Energy is already economically competitive”. “The cost of most Renewable Energy technologies has declined and additional expected technical advances would result in further cost reductions.” These are among the conclusions of a Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation released in summary form this week by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The full report is expected to be released on May 31st.

According to data presented in the summary report (Gallon Letter’s interpretation), some of the better economic performers include biomass electricity, geothermal electricity, hydropower, wind electricity, biomass heat, solar thermal heat, geothermal heat, and biofuels.

According to the Report, “Examples of important areas of potential technological advancement include: new and improved feedstock production and supply systems, biofuels produced via new processes (also called next-generation or advanced biofuels, e.g., lignocellulosic) and advanced biorefining; advanced PV and CSP technologies and manufacturing processes; enhanced geothermal systems; multiple emerging ocean technologies; and foundation and turbine designs for offshore wind energy. Further cost reductions for hydropower are expected to be less significant than some of the other RE technologies, but R&D opportunities exist to make hydropower projects technically feasible in a wider range of locations and improve the technical performance of new and existing projects.”

Gallon Letter regular monthly edition will be commenting in greater detail following release of the full report.

The Summary for Policy Makers of the Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation can be accessed at http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report .

Last week Washington State became the third major US jurisdiction, after the City of Austin and Washington DC, to ban the use of coal tar based sealants on roads and driveways. The concern arises from the high level of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, a family of substances which includes known or suspected carcinogens and mutagens, which is contained in such sealants. There is some evidence that the PAHs can flush from treated surfaces into nearby surface waters.

The decision to ban coal tar sealants was made by the State Legislature when it passed House Bill 1721 An Act Relating to Preventing Storm Water Pollution  From Coal Tar Sealants.

The legislation bans the wholesale or retail sale of coal tar pavement products after January 1st, 2012 and bans the use of such products after July 1st 2012.

The Bill was introduced by Washington State Representative David Frockt (Democrat), first elected to the Legislature in 2010 with support from the Sierra Club and Conservation Voters.

The text of the short bill may be found at http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/WA/HB1721

Evidence from the United States Geological Survey against coal tar based sealcoats can be found at http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/asphalt_sealers.html