The current issue of Gallon Environment Letter leads with a story on ‘fracking chemicals’, substances injected into the earth by oil and natural gas companies seeking to ‘fracture’ the rock so as to release oil and gas deposits contained within. Clearly there is a risk that the injected chemicals will contaminate groundwater reservoirs.

Now three Democratic Members of Congress have released a report on Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing. The report is a summary of information provided to the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce by oil and gas companies.

Over a four year period from 2005 to 2009, the 14 leading oil and gas companies in the United States used 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products, not including water added at the well site. According to the report, twenty nine of the chemicals used in fracking are known or suspected human carcinogens, regulated under the US Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The most widely used chemical was methanol, poisonous to humans and a volatile organic air pollutant.  Also widely used were benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. These are commonly found in association with petroleum and petroleum activity: the first is a human carcinogen which the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment states has some probability of harmful effects on human health at any level of exposure and the remaining three are believed to have effects on the human central nervous system.

To Gallon Letter’s knowledge there has been no disclosure of fracking chemicals used in Canada that is at all equivalent to the admittedly incomplete information provided to the US Congress.

The complete report on Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing is available at http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Report%204.18.11.pdf

A press release is at http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/committee-democrats-release-new-report-detailing-hydraulic-fracturing-products

The current issue of Gallon Environment Letter is available at http://www.cialgroup.ca/galloncurrent.htm

Back in the ’80s and ’90s, Toronto offered several exhibitions specializing in environmental products. Most of those had disappeared by about the year 2000, in our guess because people go to a store to buy groceries, or cleaning products, or appliances, or gardening tools, rather than going to buy green products. We have become so accustomed to shopping in stores that specialize in a certain category of product that the idea of a store which specializes in greener products across a wide range of categories is somewhat challenging to us, especially when the range of greener products was still quite small. Even massive greener products exhibitions, such as Eco Expo in Los Angeles and some other cities in the ’80s and ’90s eventually died out for lack of interest.

For the last five years, the Green Living Show in Toronto has been trying to revive the idea of a greener product show and so far they have been having some success. The show has evolved since its beginning – for example, there are fewer large retailers and large pavilions, but for consumers interested in buying products with a lighter environmental footprint or learning more about the environment the show is still an interesting way to see a range of what is available in green products. The range of products exhibited is increasing and it seems that the number of unsubstantiated environmental claims is declining – not so much “greenwash” as there used to be.

The biggest attraction this year is probably the large number of hybrid and electric cars. Other highlights are renewable energy technologies and systems for homes, the always popular food displays, an ecological beer and wine corner with samples available for a small fee

In addition to exhibitor booths the Green Living Show offers a main stage with sessions on green jobs (noon – 1.30pm Saturday), toxic substances in beauty products (noon Sunday), eco fashion (1.00pm Sunday), renewable energy (2pm Sunday), and more sustainable food (3.45pm Sunday). There is a cooking stage with frequent presentations and other varied awards presentations during both remaining days of the show. An energy stage has frequent presentations on just about everything you might want to know about home renewable and alternative energy.

Allow at least two to four hours to visit the show, especially if you wish to sample some of the reasonably priced gourmet food products, and if it is a rainy day a family could easily spend a whole day taking advantage of the Green Living Show’s multitude of offerings.

The Green Living Show is open until 9.00pm on Saturday April 16 and from 10 am to 6pm on Sunday April 17th. Entry is $12 for adults and $9 for seniors and students but if you take some end-of-life electronics for recycling Samsuing will give you a ticket for free admission. For programs, more details about the show, and a list of scrap electronics that will get you in for free visit http://www.greenlivingonline.com/torontoshow/

The 2011 edition of the Green Living Show opens in Toronto today and runs through the weekend at the Direct Energy Centre at Exhibition Place. Gallon Environment Letter will be there. Watch for our review tomorrow (Saturday) morning.

Canadian universities are not right up there with those offering a green MBA but opportunities do exist in the US and elsewhere. Among US universities offering a green MBA, an MBA which includes study of green environment and economic principles, are the following:

Alliant International University, California

Monterey Institute of International Studies, California

San Francisco State University, California

Stanford, California

University of Colorado at Denver

Colorado Technical University

Colorado State University

Yale University, Connecticut

George Washington University, DC

Argosy University, Illinois

Dominican University, Illionois

University of Michigan

Antioch University, New Hampshire

Cornell, New York

New York University

University of North Carolina

Marylhurst University, Oregon

Portland State University, Oregon

Duquesne University, Pennsylvania

Green Mountain College, Vermont

University of Virginia

Bainbridge Graduate Institute, Washington State

Summary information and links are available at  http://www.greenmbaclasses.com

Other green MBA programs are available at some European universities and may be available at some Canadian MBA schools including York University’s Schulich School of Business, McGill University, and UBC.

We will be reviewing green MBA programs in a future issue of Gallon Environment Letter. Universities are encouraged to submit their green MBA program information to editor@gallonletter.ca for consideration.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, an independent professional organization made up of academics from around the UK, today issued what some consider a scathing report on biofuels, calling on the EU to set aside the renewable fuel mandates that are currently in place until the concerns that it has raised are addressed.

The Council states that there should be a set of ethical standards for biofuels, including:

1      Biofuels development should not be at the expense of human rights

2      Biofuels should be environmentally sustainable

3      Biofuels should contribute to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

4      Biofuels should adhere to fair trade principles

5      Costs and benefits of biofuels should be distributed in an equitable way

Further, it suggests that these standards should be addressed through adoption of a certification program for biofuels within the EU.

Gallon Letter’s first review indicates that in our opinion there are some major issues with the report:

a)   The Council ignored some important scientific issues, such as not determining whether or not biofuels are actually causing a shortage of land for food production. Much evidence, reported in the latest Gallon Environment Letter, indicates that they are not.

b)   The Council relied extensively on hearsay, and somewhat unreliable, evidence regarding fair trading and lifecycle analysis of biofuels.

c)  The Council ignored the alternative – increasing consumption of fossil fuels, which is a far worse alternative on several of the Council’s ethical criteria than development of biofuels.

d)  The Council paid scant attention to the fact that biofuels are a very new product and that substantial improvements to production methods will inevitably emerge if early introduction indicates there is an economically viable market.

Gallon Letter believes that by ignoring these key aspects, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics has itself provided a report which falls short of full disclosure of the facts. GL will be reviewing the report and covering the issues raised in more detail in a future issue.

The report is available at  http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/biofuels-0

José Blanco, Minister of Development of Spain, last week presented his government’s plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in transportation and buildings. By far the largest part of the plan involves shifting of freight transportation from road to rail, a move that, with other improvements to the efficiency of rail transportation, is expected to provide annual savings of 28 million tonnes of CO2 and ε9.4 million ($13 million CDN).  Spain’s total GHG annual emissions are currently about 337 million tonnes (compare Canada at 734 million tonnes, both for 2008 ) and have been rising significantly in recent years. Spain’s population is about 46 million compared to 34 million for Canada.

Other benefits identified by the Minister include strengthening of the national and urban transportation systems and a major contribution to economic recovery.

A copy of the plan and associated documents (in Spanish) is available athttp://www.fomento.es/MFOM/LANG_CASTELLANO/GABINETE_COMUNICACION/OFICINA_DE_PRENSA/NOTICIAS1/2011/ABRIL/110406-01.htm

Several Canadian environmental commentaries have recently noted that Congress is likely to shut down the US Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs). Gallon Letter has previously suggested that such predictions are likely to be wrong.

This week the House of Representatives passed legislation to curtail EPA’s GHG regulatory efforts but the US Senate defeated similar legislation. The result: US EPA’s GHG initiatives are likely to be able to go ahead.

Even if the US Senate is somehow persuaded to adopt legislation in this area, the White House has stated that the President will veto it.

The complexities of the US legislative process make it a little less than certain that EPA is now free to regulate GHGs but the odds are very much in that direction.

Why does this matter to Canadian industry? Two big reasons:

1) the Government of Canada has said that it will follow the US lead on GHG policies, though more recently it has been moving away from that commitment.  Reality check: if the US does regulate GHG emissions this year or next it will be quite difficult for Canada not to do something similar.  If Canada does not, it will be essentially the only major industrial country to have taken no effective action on GHG emissions.

2) US initiatives to regulate GHGs are quite likely to have implications for products imported into the US. Companies that export to the US, especially those involved in energy products, energy using products, and products with high manufacturing energy, should be following the issue closely. The US is certainly not going to let GHG regulations impact on the competitiveness of US producers, so Canadian producers can expect that one way or another they will have to comply with US GHG standards.

The article headlined Alberta conservation plan stuns oilpatch in yesterday’s Globe and Mail newspaper is way too dramatic. The claim that the announcement “sent shock waves rippling across [the] industry” suggests a northern Alberta tsunami. The reality is that it would be virtually impossible to find an oil company operating in the oil sands which was unaware of the provincial government’s thinking.

First it is important to note that the so-called ‘plan’ is at present nothing more than a consultation document. There is no plan.

Second, any communications consultant would have told the provincial government to do exactly what it did: in the face of mounting international pressure against the environmental effects of the oil sands, launch a game changing concept to make it clear that times had changed and that the Provinces was finally going to get really tough on the oil sands industry, doing everything short of shutting it down (as the Globe and Mail article inferred).

Unfortunately the ‘plan’ is unlikely to be effective. Setting aside 20% of the oil sands area for a conservation area that allows only existing operations is unconvincing as a strategy to significantly reduce the environmental effects of the operations. Much of the plan is vague, lacking in numerical targets and definitive regulations, and where limits are stated, for example in the Surface Water Quality Management Framework, they are limits more appropriate to an already contaminated industrial area than to a pristine wilderness area.

That’s the real challenge of the oil sands debate. Many people, including first nations residents of the area and environmentally concerned people in North America and in Europe, want to see the wilderness areas of Canada’s north kept as pristine wilderness. Oil companies with leases in the area and the Alberta and Canadian governments see it as an area ripe for industrial development, with all of the environmental effects that oil recovery and processing inevitably involves.

The Alberta draft plan will not be sufficient to satisfy those who want to see the Lower Athabasca region of Alberta maintained in a pristine condition. There may be a compromise somewhere but it will involve a much bigger reduction of environmental effects than the Alberta Government has so far put on the table.

For the draft plan and details on public consultations, visit http://environment.alberta.ca/03422.html and don’t believe the Globe and Mail when it tells you that the plan is really tough on industry – it’s a game to try to make you believe that Alberta is really doing something to protect the northern Alberta environment.

Note that comments on the draft must be filed by June 6th, 2011 at 4.30pm Mountain Summer Time. You are asked to file your comments by completing a 48 page workbook that severely constrains the extent and nature of your comments.

We’ll be following progress on this Lower Athabasca Regional Plan proposal in future issues of Gallon Environment Letter.

Having just returned from the Mayor’s Spring Breakfast for Business here in Haldimand County, Ontario (where Gallon Environment Letter is published), we unfortunately have to report that opposition to “industrial wind turbines” has taken over this municipality, even leading to the municipal council asking for a moratorium in installation of new turbines.  The Mayor won loud applause from the business audience when he stated that the Council would have banned wind turbines from the municipality of it had the power to do so.

Gallon Letter’s perception of the problems:

a) under its Green Energy Act, the Ontario Government took away the right of municipalities to have any control over the siting of large wind turbines. Had the municipality had a say as to their location, GL believes that people who have come to agree that some locations would be tolerable.

b) haste. By seeking to get turbines installed very quickly, the Province is seen as “ramming turbines down people’s throats”. If a more normal planning process had been followed, many people would have come round to the idea that turbines are better than the current very large coal-fired power plant that is located in Haldimand County.

c) turbine locations are slated for just about every part of the municipality. While this spreads the economic benefits somewhat, a more concentrated wind farm might have been easier to sell to a populace that for the most part does not want its quiet country life disturbed.

U.K. Water company Thames Water was recently fined £345,000 (about $550,000) for several uncontrolled releases of sewage from street level access covers which found its way into gardens and under houses.  The company was also ordered to pay legal costs of £139,690  and compensation of £2,250 to two residents.

This story caught Gallon Letter’s eye because similar overflows from sewers occur from time to time in Ontario municipalities. When the sewage goes into basements in Ontario the homeowners may get some compensation from the municipality or its insurer but there are no penalties and no one gets fined. Why is that? Well, expressed simply, it is because the municipality is both the operator of the sewage system and the prosecutor for sewage offences.

Watch a future issue of Gallon Environment Letter for a discussion of why it is unwise to have operators of environmentally risky systems, like sewers, to also have the role of enforcer when trouble arises.

For more information on the Thames Water case, visit http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/128271.aspx?page=5&month=3&year=2011