Leaving Vancouver

Hello friends in sustainability. I apologize for disappearing for the last few months, but I was going through many changes and unfortunately, the side projects like this blog were the first ones to take a hit.

I am moving out East in September and will not be maintaining the blog. I'll leave it up for a little while so you can have access to past posts. If you'd like to take over the URL on Blogger, let me know, I can either transfer it or delete it to free the address.

Kind regards.
Melissa

Limited selection of events to attend in June

I've only found a few sustainability events being held in June (and I skipped the farmer's market announcements, since there's one being hosted pretty much every week starting June 1). It's not surprising, people don't necessarily want to spend beautiful evenings indoors and many of us are planning to take some time off during the summer. I'll revisit my regular sources next week to see if I come across a few more.

I haven't had a chance to write my review of the launch event for Net Impact Vancouver yet. I'll do this over the next few days. It was an intimate event, with a lot of promising ideas being exchanged. I look forward to meeting with the group again in July.

Review: Carbon Tax, What Is It All About?

Hard to believe the weather is going to be in the high twenties later this week when today was so wet and cold. I guess this is a perfect evening to share my notes on the sustainability café event I attended Monday night. This was an event promoted under the umbrella of 30 Days of Sustainability and held at the BCIT campus in downtown Vancouver. I counted between 35 and 40 attendees at the event, not a bad turnout.

Monday's BCIT event was on the carbon tax, soon to become part of the everyday reality for all British Columbians. The tax will work its way into our daily lives in June (I heard June last night but read July 1 in an online article), and a panel of specialists came together to discuss the impact of the tax, as well as why taxation was going to give us a fighting chance to tackle climate change. The event was moderated by Kevin Washbrook from Voters Taking Action on Climate Change and each speaker was allocated 10-15 minutes to talk about their view of the carbon tax.

The first speaker was Graham Whitmarsh, Head of the Climate Action Secretariat of BC. Whitmarsh briefly identified some of the different options the government has to fight increasing emissions: regulation (regulating the volume of methane emissions from landfills), fiscal measures (the carbon tax), market measures (a cap-and-trade system), programs to support the development of green tech, and encouraging changes in behaviour (education). The key is not to limit a climate change strategy to one option, but how to use these different options in combination to achieve the greatest impact.

The carbon tax being introduced in BC is based on the amount of carbon dioxide generated by different fossil fuels. First at $10 per tonne, it will increase to $30/tonne in 2012. What it means to you and I depends on the fossil fuel. For gasoline, $10/tonne means paying 3 cents more per litre at the pump. However, instead of investing the revenue from the tax in infrastructure and public transit, the government of BC is using the carbon tax to reduce other taxes (personal, corporate). This is why the tax is called "revenue neutral". In the Q&A part of the evening, someone asked why the government wasn't investing in the public transit infrastructure to further help reduce emissions. The answer from Whitmarsh was that our public transit was already funded by revenue generated from existing taxes on gasoline (in areas receiving the transit services). Therefore, the carbon tax dollars are being handed back to British Columbians to spend as they see fit (that's the $100 refund we should each be getting in a little while). Low-income households are also slated to receive additional refunds.

Because we already know how the carbon tax will increase over the years, there's an opportunity for changes in behaviour and operations to happen over time. Some changes are already happening today: Whitmarsh has already seen a positive impact on the green tech and alternative energy industries (additional funding? more interest?).

The second speaker was James Tansey from Offsetters Climate Neutral Society. Offsetters sells carbon offsets for air and car travel, and then pools the money into local and international greening projects. Offsets are charged on the market value of carbon, which is currently around $20/tonne. Tansey explained the difference between offsets and taxation. Offsets are a form of self-taxation and the money collected is invested into sustainable projects (the sustainability of which is variable, as there are good and bad carbon offsets). The carbon tax revenue, on the other hand, can be spent on energy efficient lightbulbs or a tank of gas once its back in the hands of BC residents.

Tansey, however, saw the carbon tax as an education opportunity, since it will impact all British Columbians. At what point will is start changing behaviour still remains to be determined (especially for individuals). Large polluters and corporations are already showing signs of modifying their energy strategy. This is not surprising considering the financial impact of the carbon tax on large energy consumers. For example, UBC will have to pay $600,000 extra on gas bills once the carbon tax is introduced. Greenhouse operators in BC estimate that the carbon tax will reduce their profits by 30% if operations are not revisited to include more energy-efficient equipment.

The final speaker of the evening was Jotham Peters from M.K. Jaccard & Associates. Peters, who is an environmental economist, spoke about the sources of carbon dioxide in BC: combustion of fossil fuels (75% of all emissions) and process-related greenhouse gas emissions (for example: cement manufacturing, aluminium smelting, and natural gas extraction). Peters then explained the three reasons why BC decided to introduce a carbon tax. First, subsidies and information programs of the past have not helped contain GHG emissions in Canada (quite the contrary, as our emissions have steadily increased over the years). Second, regulations cannot target all possible sources of GHG emissions and introduce the potential for loopholes and stifling overhead in the additional paperwork. Finally, the carbon tax, economically, is the most efficient and most fair option.

And how would one sell the carbon tax to skeptics? Simply by linking local problems to climate change. One example that keeps on coming back in this province is the pine beetle infestation, a serious issue for the forestry industry. Also, by starting the tax at a low level ($10/tonne instead of the market value of $20/tonne), you give people time to make changes.

Could there possibly be negative impact to the carbon tax? All three speakers initially answered "no". They then revisited this answer to "possibly" and gave the example of an increase in electricity demand as people switch to plug-in hybrids and electrical cars. If BC Hydro is not ready to handle the increase in demand, it will have to import electricity that could be generated using a coal plant, for example. The net impact on GHG emissions could be negative, but it would be a short term negative impact. What about the impact on the public? Again, all three speakers seem to agree that this impact would be very minor, but that the educational opportunity would be fantastic.

I did not stay for the last part of the event, which was meant to be a one-on-one between the speakers and the members of the audience. Overall, I was happy with the format of the presentation, and left feeling better informed on the topic.

Net Impact Vancouver Chapter Launch

Net Impact is a nonprofit organization focused on using business to improve the world. There are already two Net Impact chapters in Vancouver (Segal and Sauder each have a student chapter), but no chapter existed for professionals. On May 21, this is about the change with the launch of the Net Impact Vancouver Chapter. The launch event features Robert Safrata, CEO or Novex Couriers. Mark your calendars.

Does this mean I miss Green Drinks again this month?

Review: Climate Change - The Economic Opportunity is Now

Did you know that 1,360 companies in British-Columbia are involved in clean tech (hydrogen, fuel cells, wind, ocean and solar power, and so on)? The number surprised me, but it was reported in BCTIA's annual snapshot of BC's technology industry. With such a strong presence, it also seems surprising that the clean tech sector in this province is not well understood. The companies in clean tech includes well-established corporations such as Nexterra and Ballard, but also many small startups with innovative ideas and not much governmental or financial support to move them from concept to commercialization. The good news is, BCTIA identified the need to gather more data on the clean tech sector and is working with KPMG to prepare an annual survey to better assess the health of the industry.

Yes, today's BCTIA TechForum presentation on the opportunities of climate change was definitely about clean tech (and to some extend, about clean IT). Can't tell the difference between the two? Clean tech encompasses several different technologies that seek, as a common objective, to address environmental challenges. I would consider clean IT to be a subset of clean tech, but the focus in clean IT is on improving the efficiency of existing IT solutions. A server that requires 30% less energy to operate is clean(er) IT. When the remaining energy required to operate the server is generated using solar panels, then you are also using clean tech.

The first speaker at the TechForum was Chris Sullivan, the Vice President of IDC Canada. IDC is a research firm that offers, among other services, market research on IT, telecommunications and consumer technology. Recently, the analysts at IDC started researching clean IT, not only because their customers expressed interest in the sector, but also because the analysts themselves were interested in the technology and how it could help address some of the challenges of climate change. "Climate change is becoming part of people's daily lives", mentioned Sullivan.

The current drivers for clean IT include regulation, a push from consumers, a heighten interest from investors, rating agencies and venture capitalists. Companies who invest in green IT do it mainly for the cost saving opportunities (over 80%), but also in response to regulation (over 50%) and to a push from the top to favour green products (one third). Interestingly enough, over half of IT managers (those who are responsible for the technology assets of a company), when asked whether they felt climate change could have a positive or negative impact on business, provided a neutral answer (no positive or negative impact). This feeling could change quite rapidly as corporations start incurring additional costs because of new legislation such as the carbon tax.

Sullivan then shared with the audience other data that emphasized the opportunities that are presented by green IT. For example, going green simply makes good business sense when 81% of consumers say they care about climate change. Investing in green IT also makes sense when VCs pour over $5 billion into the clean tech sector (a clear show of support from the financial community). And when the cost of managing, powering and cooling servers is increasing eight times faster than the cost of purchasing new servers, one would wonder why anyone would think business as usual is even an option.

Canadian companies are coming up with green IT solutions, but so far, the examples have been hard to find. Sullivan named five examples: Longpen (a long-distance pen and ink signing device invented by Margaret Atwood), Artex Environmental (disposal of electronic waste), FifthLight (dimmable electronic ballasts), SkyMeter (vehicle use tracking system) and LComm Global Solutions (wireless). However, looking at the LComm site tonight, I couldn't really figure out why they were singled out as a green IT vendor.

The second speaker was Peter Robinson, CEO of the David Suzuki Foundation and a member of BC's Climate Action Team. Robinson spoke about a new brand of environmentalism starting to emerge. Instead of pinning itself against corporations and urging businesses to slow down and reduce, environmentalism is starting to look at corporations for potential solutions. At the same time, corporations are being asked to look beyond the silo of their solution and understand the consequences of some of the technology they are developing.

The solutions that exist today can help us address some of our environmental problems, but the remaining gap will pose the greatest challenge, as well as represent the greatest opportunity. Tackling climate change can no longer be seen as a hindrance on economical development, and some countries in Europe have the results to prove this. For example, Sweden, while seeing its economy grow, was able to reduce its per-capita emissions. If you look at greenhouse gas emissions of developed countries, you'll see how Canada and the US fare poorly in comparison to European countries. I found some data on the Green Party of Canada's web site that illustrates this (from December 2007). According to Robinson, the global average, today around 3-4 tonnes per capita, must be reduced to 1.5 tonne per capita if we are serious about addressing climate change.

Robinson described three challenges faced by businesses as they embrace clean tech to address climate change. First, it is important for businesses to look beyond the traditional quarterly results and understand the long-term impact of clean tech investments. Second, any solution should also be evaluated for unintentional consequences. The most common example cited for "unintentional consequences" is quite understandably biofuels. The embracing of biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels was done before we took a hard look at the actual greenhouse gas emissions generated by their production (especially corn-based biofuels), or the consequence of using food for fuel on the availability and price of this food to feed humans. Finally, businesses must also understand the complexity of problems we are facing. An example of this is the effort to turn dead pine trees into biofuels, as the pine beetle makes its way through our forests. The issue behind this approach is that we do not fully understand the complex role of dead trees in the whole lifecycle of the forest. By removing the dead trees, we are preventing increases in greenhouse gas emissions but also potentially removing a key element from the forest's complex cycle.

The presentation from Peter Robinson ended with recommendations for green tech companies. First, green tech will need to build trust in its solutions, not only with customers but also with the public at large. Some of the negative consequences of food-based biofuels might have tinted the public's view of all biofuels. Then, be ready to face consultation hurdles as you present solutions to the public, to communities. Regulatory hurdles will also be a challenge, as regulation can't keep up with the pace of clean tech development and might end up hindering initiatives. Clean tech companies should anticipate new legislation and be aware of legal changes happening elsewhere in the country and around the world. And even with all the recent interest in clean tech by VCs, clean tech companies should be thoughtful about their investments as financing is still tentative. Finally, solutions often skip directly to the ultimate outcome, but companies should not overlook the opportunities around transitional technologies.

May is right around the corner

What happened to April? Am I the only one thinking this month went by too quickly?

There are once again some exciting events to look forward to this month. I've already signed up for the BCTIA event on May 7 about the opportunities of climate change (I'm guessing this is going to be about green tech).

From May 8 to 11, there's an interesting film festival hosted at The Ridge. Projecting Change is showcasing films about sustainability. Have a look at the lineup, it's worth getting the festival pass if you are around that weekend.

I am going to try attending Green Drinks this month. I've been trying to go for the past few months but was either in class that night, or had other commitments. Fingers crossed.

Review: Business, Energy and the Greening of British Columbia

It is my pleasure to share my thoughts about an event I attended last night at the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue at SFU. The event included a presentation by Dr. Mark Jaccard on the past 20 years of government policies on climate change and why these policies have not prevented greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from increasing at an alarming rate, followed by a discussion between Dr. Jaccard and members of the audience. Tamara Vroomnan, CEO of Vancity and Bob Elton, CEO of BC Hydro were also asked to comment on the topic from the corporate point of view. Before I jump to the topic, let me first share my impressions of the Centre for Dialogue itself.

I had no idea we had such a presentation space in Vancouver. We might have others that are similar, but for me, this was a first. Think of the mental images you have of international leaders meeting at the United Nations to discuss policies, replace the country cards by name cards and voilà, you get the picture. OK, fair enough to add that the presentation was only in English, so we didn't get to test out the language selection controls. Next time maybe.

The evening started with a brief introduction of Dr. Jaccard. You are probably already familiar with some of Jaccard's work, including his latest book called Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge and his work on the Global Energy Assessment. The title of Jaccard's presentation was The Tipping Point? (note the strategic use of a question mark). In this presentation, four approaches (actions) to addressing climate change were introduced: energy efficiency (if using fossil fuels), renewable energy, emissions control and operational efficiency (don't quote me on that last one). Governments, not being in a position to act (although that's debatable in my mind, shouldn't we also look at the energy efficiency of our government offices?), create policies that will encourage others to act (businesses, individual citizens). Those policies can foster action by informing, subsidizing, regulating, or imposing financial penalties.

Over the past 20 years in BC (and at the federal level), the government has focused on encouraging energy efficiency. In 1998, the government was told that a carbon tax of $150 per ton was needed to allow Canada to meet the Kyoto targets. The tax was never implemented and carbon emissions have gone up since. Policies were implemented to inform and subsidize, both insufficient to reduce or even slow down emissions. Dr. Jaccard presented a few reasons that explain why these policies have failed: first, efficiency was more costly than was initially thought and we own more devices that run on energy (more or bigger devices). For example: as fridges became more energy efficient over the years, people also bought bigger fridges, separate freezers, wine fridges, and so on. Information-based policies were trying to compete with very successful lifestyle marketing messages.

The "tipping point" area of the presentation highlighted the kind of policies we need to have in place to curb emissions: command-and-control regulations (standards), financial charges (GHG emissions tax) and market-oriented regulations (cap and trade, niche market regulations such as vehicle emission and renewable portfolio standards). Such compulsory policies could reduce emissions by more than 50%, argues Dr. Jaccard. Is the carbon tax in BC a sign that we are indeed reaching this tipping point, that governments are willing to look beyond the next election and implement policies with delayed benefits?

Dr. Jaccard ended the presentation by encouraging attendees to pressure the government towards implementing compulsory policies and inviting business leaders to participate in designing realistic policies. The presentation was then followed by a response by the CEOs of Vancity and BC Hydro, both presenting their thoughts on the climate change challenge for businesses.

What became interesting at that point was that while Dr. Jaccard was insisting on the necessary involvement of businesses in policy development, the business community's response was that of uncertainty around their role in shaping policies. There was no strong resistance to the idea of compulsory policies, there was even a mention of going beyond these policies and becoming more engaged. Although this sounded wonderful, I'm not so sure the dialog would have remained so civil had it included cement producers and gas companies (top 10 emitters of GHG in BC according to a recent Vancouver Sun's article).

This was a disappointment for me. In the room, we did have business leaders and leading scholars, but nobody from the government (at least nobody who spoke) and nobody from the big polluters. The dialogue was very polite and proper, I was hoping for a heated debate on the question. Not a debate about whether climate change is a concern or not, I think we're all beyond this question right now. But a debate about real, applicable solutions and their potential impact on how we should run our businesses going forward.

Great news: Vancity is now carbon neutral, two years ahead of schedule! I'm only half celebrating, since 50% of the reduction was done through offsets. I'm not against offsets (to a certain extent), but this just goes to show how much work still needs to be done. Vancity is a sustainability leader in Vancouver, yet all their initiatives only managed to reduce their actual emissions by 50%.