I have really abused The Buzz lately, without my last post being 5 months ago! There is no good reason for that, and I am going to try to post more frequently this fall, but I have said that before….

Sometimes it takes a ludicrous story that needs to be re-told in order to break me out of my blogging doldrums. Such a story came up last week, when it was reported that All Nippon Airlines of Japan has instituted a pilot project where they are asking their passengers to visit the bathroom before boarding.

You might think that this project is being implemented to reduce passenger disruptions and improve maneuverability for flight attendants. You thought wrong! All Nippon brass decided that a plane full of empty bladders (and colons too) would equate to a lighter payload which would require less fuel to fly. That’s right. The logic behind the empty bladder policy is to reduce the airline’s carbon footprint.

In theory this plan actually could have a positive impact on a flight’s carbon footprint, albeit a minimal one. One article calculated that if every passenger on a fully booked flight went to the bathroom before boarding it would equal the weight of three grown men (however that assumes that all bladders were full, which is not a realistic assumption).

Is this another case of ‘carbon footprint craziness’? It seems like a policy that encourages bathroom use is starting to cross the line into intrusion of personal space. It also is likely that the airline could easily have found another way to reduce the plane’s payload without facing the ridicule in the press or the backlash of irritated passengers. In the meantime, if you are flying All Nippon sometime soon, there should be fewer lineups for the bathroom.

NOTE: This is an update of a post that I wrote for the blog Red Green and Blue on March 14, 2009.

You may have noticed that the subject of global warming and climate change have been undergoing some paradigm shifts recently.

The first component of this shift has been the transition from the phrase ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’. As Secretary of State Clinton recently pointed out it has become increasingly difficult to preach about the dangers of global warming during a decade that has featured a significant reduction in the temperature increases that occurred in the 1990s.

The second aspect of this paradigm shift is the noticeable increase in skepticism amongst the general public about the causes and impacts of climate change. Until recently that opinion has remained the domain of primarily right-wing media types - Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus to name a few. But there is a growing body of evidence that suggests a majority of Americans and Britons are now questioning the causes of climate climate.

A recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center ranked global warming as the least important issue amongst 20 political priorities that were included in the poll. And a January survey by Rasmussen Reports indicates that a greater number of Americans (44%) believe that long-term planetary trends are the cause of climate change than the number of Americans (41%) that believe human activity is the culprit. Less than a year ago the reverse was true – 47% of Americans blamed climate change on human actions while 34% believed it due to a long-term cyclical effect. And its not just in the US either – polls in the UK have shown similar doubt amongst a majority of Britons about climate change causes.

So how do those of us that are trying to promote reduced-carbon lifestyles and greener businesses deal with the public’s changing attitudes towards climate change?

I think the most effective communicators are the ones that are able to tailor their message to what the audience wants to hear. I honestly believe that a growing number of individuals and businesses are interested in making more sustainable choices. However, I think their reasons for doing so are not entirely based on fears of climate change, as they might have been just a year or two ago.

Unfortunately during the beginning of a potentially long and painful recession the environmental movement might lose some of the steam that it had picked up over the last five years. This just means the message has to be changed, even if the end goals are still the same. A renewed focus has to be made on energy security and reduced energy costs – the sky-high prices for gasoline, natural gas and heating oil from last year are still fresh in people’s minds. If green practices are promoted as a way for individuals and businesses to save money and reduce dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets, the momentum of the green movement should continue to grow.

For those of us that have been writing about the cause and effect of climate change, this change in communication strategy should not be considered to be giving up. It is simply adapting to the current social and economic realities. Even the Rush Limbaughs of the world will have a difficult time arguing against increased profits and reduced dependence on foreign oil.

So the take-home message to my fellow citizens that are concerned about climate change: stop focusing on the polar bears. Start talking about saving money – and don’t forget to remind people that we are trying to avoid paying $4.50/gallon for gas like we did just last summer.

Like many North Americans I have a morning vice called coffee. Although I am not as bad as some, my day is thrown out of sorts if I don’t start it with about three big cups of strong joe. Most of the coffee I drink is self-brewed - I try to avoid going to Tim Hortons, Starbucks, or Dunkin. Part of the reason I self-brew is cost - it adds up to buy one or two coffees a day from the name brand stores.

Another reason I self-brew is time. I live in a country that is obsessed with Tim Hortons for reasons that I can’t figure. Canadians are so determined to get their coffee from this company that in the morning it is impossible to get a coffee without having to wait at least 10 minutes in your car or in the store. I honestly think Canada’s carbon footprint would be significantly reduced if just a fraction of Tim’s customers actually gave up their morning ritual and brewed their own coffee at home. I am being a bit facetious here, but not entirely. Not only are the drive-thru lineups wasteful in terms of fuel use,  they can actually be dangerous as well. I have witnessed several near car accidents from the drive-thru line snaking out into the city streets.

But the most important reason why I self-brew is because I like to know where my coffee comes from. One of my favorite companies is Vermont-based Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (GMCR). They have an awesome selection of Fair Trade and Organic coffees to choose from. They are not green bandwagon jumpers either - they have been leaders in the sustainability movement for many years now.

Recently GMCR announced a competitive grant program called Changing Climate Change. They are going to award $200,000 to each of four projects ($800,000 US total) that address climate change mitigation. In an era of corporate cost-cutting and mass layoffs, GMCR is actually initiating a funding program to address one of society’s critical issues. Funding of projects targeting climate change is an area that is typically dominated by government agencies - it is very refreshing and encouraging to see a member of the corporate community take some leadership in this area and hopefully others will follow.

GMCR coffees are competitively priced against other premium whole bean and ground brands. Even here in Canada GMCR products are worth a look. Canadian consumers are frequently overcharged for food products compared to their American neighbors. Because of this, GMCR coffee is actually competitive with store-bought organic and Fair Trade brands in Canada even after the exchange rate and shipping charges are added in. A trick that I use to bring down the per-bag cost is to order several bags at one time - this way the shipping charges per bag are much less than with a smaller order.

Do yourself a favor and give them a try - and sip with satisfaction knowing that you are supporting a true sustainability champion. And if you are one of the few brave souls still playing the stock market, click on the graph below to see how GMCR has performed on Nasdaq over the last six months compared to the rest of the index! And GMCR is not compensating me in any way to write this post - I just wanted to spread the word about the great things that they are doing.

Graph courtesy of NASDAQ

As we enter the final week of the George W. Bush presidency, it gives us a chance to reflect on the President’s record over the last eight years on a myriad of issues. One of the areas where President Bush has been most scorned during his tenure has been the environment. This is due in large part to his administration’s inaction on the climate change issue. Indeed his unwillingness to deal with climate change, or even to admit that it exists, is one of the main reasons that the President is vilified by most people that consider themselves to be environmentally aware. 

Only time will tell how history will perceive President Bush in terms of his environmental legacy. I would like to pose a question that might not sit well with many of my eco-minded colleagues: Was the President’s ignorance and outright refusal to act on climate change actually a positive thing?

President Bush’s outright ignorance of the climate change issue left no question in people’s minds – if action was going to be made it would be done at the state or multi-state level. While shockingly short-sighted of the President to ignore climate change, at least it was such a strong refusal to address the issue that there was absolutely no uncertainty that other levels of government would have pick up the slack. The President’s inactions spurred a number of regional initiatives across the country (RGGI, WCI, CCAR, to name a few) that have been positively embraced across state lines (and even international boundaries) and will likely set the framework for a future continental cap and trade market.

What if Bush had tried to appease his critics and had given climate change even a small amount of attention within his government? It likely wouldn’t have been given anything but a token mention within policy meetings, as his administration obviously had other issues that they placed at a much higher priority. But if this had occurred, the very fact that his government recognized climate change might have led to the kind of uncertainty that has paralyzed action in Canada for a number of years. My assessment of the Canada situation will be the subject of a follow-up post in a couple of days.

I’m not saying the President’s choices were good. Obviously it would have been better to have had strong support from the White House several years ago - who knows where we might have been now? But at least he made it clear that he wasn’t going to deal with it, and that left the door open for others to take the lead. It seems hard to believe, but someday we might actually thank President Bush for his stubborn climate change stance.

Escalating costs of gasoline have led to increases in the use of public transit in the US and Canada, two nations that have traditionally been some of the most reluctant to part with the automobile as the chosen method to commute to work. This increased usage of transit systems across the continent (and around the world) is one of the benefits of the rise in global energy prices. Hopefully we are entering a new era of much-needed awareness with regard to energy consumption that will see increases in conservation and innovation and continued popularity of public transit.

I had an experience a couple of weeks ago that leads me to question whether our local transit authorities are adequately prepared for the surge in demand. I had a meeting in Toronto at 10:30 on a weekday morning, so I stayed at my parent’s house in the suburbs the night before. My plan was to drive 5 minutes to the local commuter rail station, park my car there and take the train into the city. I arrived there around 9:00 and could not find a single parking spot in the entire large lot. I drove to the next station and checked there also, but to no avail. With the signs posted throughout the lot threatening to tow and ticket for improper parking I decided to drive into the city instead. Luckily the traffic was good and I found a spot to park on the street for $5.

As I drove into Toronto that morning I wondered how many other people have had a similar experience where they had good intentions but the transit infrastructure wasn’t prepared to accommodate them. According to the Washington Post, public transit in the US has been woefully under-funded for decades and the current spike in usage will make evident this neglect. This means that there are probably countless people that have had experiences like I had that morning, and a lot of potential transit users are opting to continue driving because there simply isn’t the infrastructure in place to let them make the switch. Let us hope that governments and transit authorities have already started to act on this problem, so that they can keep up with the demands that almost certainly will continue to rise.

Photograph courtesy of Tufts University.

Ever since Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” brought climate change to the mainstream, the infatuation of the media with the topic has been a mixed blessing in my opinion. On the positive side, the continuous coverage of climate change and other things environmental has ushered in an era of eco-awareness that we would have thought impossible just a few short years ago. On the negative side, the media is frequently guilty of reporting high-impact sound bites that barely scratch the surface of the story and almost never explain the actual science.

Recently I was reading an interesting article in the local paper about green initiatives in new home construction. They provided a statistic about the per capita annual carbon footprints of the residents of major cities. Although they provided no source for the information, it was reported that Denver leads North American cities (25 tons per capita) while the footprint of Toronto’s residents is 9.3 tons. Many people who read this might get the impression that the residents of Denver are consumption-crazy eco-terrorists that burn oil like there’s no tomorrow.

What the newspaper didn’t report is that Denver’s carbon footprint is so high because its electricity is almost entirely derived from fossil fuels. Meanwhile, Toronto resident’s receive almost three-quarters of their electricity from hydro-electric and nuclear sources, neither of which contribute to their carbon footprint. A telling statistic is that the average amount of electricity consumed per household is almost double in Toronto than it is in Denver. So much for the implication in the newspaper that Denver residents are consumption crazy.

Photographs courtesy of National Geographic Travel and Denver Cityscape.

Skyrocketing gas prices have been at the forefront of a lot of people’s minds lately (at least the media would have us believe that). With prices being more than double what they were a few years ago, Americans are finally starting to reduce the amount that they use their cars.

The modest decrease in automobile use (1.8% fewer miles driven in April 2008 than April 2007) is good news, but more extensive changes will likely be in store if gas prices continue their meteoric rise. What is the magic number in terms of price that is going to lead to fundamental changes in how we live in North America? By fundamental change I mean hard choices that have a profound impact on how we live, such as moving from the suburbs to the city to reduce commuting expenses.

I was listening to the great Mitch Albom on Detroit’s WJR-AM the other day, and he posed that very question to his listeners. It is a very intriguing question. Mr. Albom contends that in North America our addiction and reliance on our gas-powered automobiles is so great that we would sacrifice almost any other expense before undergoing a radical and fundamental change in our lifestyle. Mr. Albom believes that $10 / gallon (about $2.67 / litre) is the magic number that will introduce a wave of change. This is not an unrealistic scenario - keep in mind that European gas prices are already near or greater than $10 / gallon and many parts of Canada are well on their way to $6 / gallon.

Is Mitch way off with his thinking, or do you think his guess sounds reasonable? Send me your comments about what your own ‘tipping point’ is with regard to changes induced by gas prices.

Photo courtesy of Therese Flanagan
www.thereseflanagan.com