Keep a wary eye on 'Industry-Led' initiatives...

An environmental controversy is brewing in Manitoba. A new Eco-Fee is likely to be introduced on consumer products, specifically electronics. When you go to Best Buy to purchase your new flatscreen TV, you will be hit by an additional fee that could be upwards of $25.00. The fee will appear on your receipt below the subtotal, similarly to a tax.

But here's the thing. It isn't a tax. At least, not a government-issued tax. It is a fee imposed by industry.

Presently, much the recycling and disposal costs in Manitoba are covered by the provincial and municipal governments, funded through provincial and property taxes. But new rules will soon have industry footing their share of the bill, which happens to be most of it. And since companies can't grab from your property tax bill, they will be funding many of the costs by charging consumers a separate fee.

Having industry incur the costs of recycling and disposing of products it creates is a step in the right direction, but the Eco-Fee issue sparking in Manitoba is illustrative of a wrong turn that is all too frequent in environmental policymaking. Two parties hate regulation: industry and the government. Industry, of course, doesn't like the hassle and added costs of government interfering with its business. Government, commonly misperceived as control freaks, generally don't want the hassle and costs of policy creation, enforcement and monitoring. So when something needs to happen -- say, industry paying for disposal of their products -- a common policy takes form: the 'industry-led initiative'.

Such an initiative is generally brought about by a "Stewardship" association, which is basically a group of companies. They see the writing on the wall, and instead of accepting government regulations, they come up with their own plan; "we'll do it, just in our own way". It is usually less strict than regulations would be and are typically voluntary in nature. Both government and industry win out. The environment loses.

Many industry-led initiatives are great and get the job done. But in the case of eco-fees, it isn't the best method. We need only look at the debacle in Ontario. Huge consumer backlash occurred when similar eco-fees were introduced by Stewardship Ontario. Thanks to a very poor information campaign by the industry association, lots of people thought it was a new tax by the government and became known as a secret tax. This was even more problematic given the new and unwelcome Harmonized Sales Tax the province was implementing. Stewardship Ontario and the province threw tantrums each other's way, more consumers got pissed and the fee has since been pulled.

What should have happened is a full blown extended producer responsibility program whereby industry would simply incorporate the added costs of disposal into the cost of the product, rather than a deceiving fee. For industry, the formula would be simple. Make your products easier to safely dispose of and it can be cheaper, attracting more customers.

The Winnipeg Water Privatization Empire strikes back...

Last July, Winnipeg became a hotbed for governmental controversy, as the city proposed uniting with a private partner to build and manage its water and waste-water systems. The anti-privatization folks jumped all over it as some councillors even went so far as to say nothing would be decided without a referendum. The deal, although mired in confusion and unknowns, was essentially to create a public-private utility whereby the city would continue to wholly own 100% of the assets, while the private partner would be entitled to much of the revenue from the projects.

Up until the past few days, the proposal kind of fell off the radar. But in what the Winnipeg Free Press is calling a "secret water deal", the fight is right back on. Only this time, the deal is a little more advanced. Instead of creating this formal utility, the city is simply proposing to contract a private developer to design and build $661 million in upgrades to two waste-water treatment plants. The kicker is three-fold.

First, the private developer is a company known as Veolia. Though North Americans would likely shrug their shoulders at the name, others throughout the world will undoubtedly recognize the firm. Veolia is huge and manages the water systems of regions all over the world, primarily in Europe, where it is based. In 2009, it had profits -- profits, not revenue -- of over $580 million. They are perhaps better known by their former title, Vivendi. When people like Maude Barlow talk about water being privatized, Veolia comes up first. Winnipeg is not dealing with an upstart company, but rather one of the world's largest private water companies.

Second, the deal is not simply to build and design the facilities. Rather, Veolia has agreed to manage and run the facilities for 30 years. The city is happy about this because it will save them over $1 billion in operating costs and you can imagine Veolia is happy about it, too. When you manage and run something in this business, you tend to reap much of the reward, which in this case, means revenue. And lots of it.

Third, the report that the council cabinet approved is only nine pages long. What?!?! My rental agreement living in residence a few years ago was longer than that. You're dealing with one of the biggest companies in the world, dealing with water services and a contract that is worth at least $661 million, and all you have to show for it is nine pages? There is no mention of how much profit Veolia might make and no mention as to guarantees in operating income and what might happen if those guarantees aren't met. Theoretically, if Veolia doesn't meet its targets, the city could be sued. Even the pro-privatization mayor, Sam Katz, claims he hasn't been given the full financial figures -- at least publicly. And get this, a representative from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation -- which loves privatization -- rejects the proposal because of how secretive it is. He likes the idea, but worries that the "devil is in the details".

To go ahead and vote on such a major deal with only a nine page report is outrageous. And I suspect Veolia is just electing to get their foot in the door in Winnipeg. When the major water infrastructure renewal needs come a barking, which will undoubtedly be sooner rather than later, don't be surprised to see Veolia at the front of the line.

A desperate paper plea coming to a Facebook page near you...

If you're young, you probably won't print this blog post. But you really should. Print five copies for your friends, even. And please, don't feel guilty about the environmental impact.

This is the message being put forth by one of North America's largest copy paper companies, Domtar. An article published in today's Globe and Mail details the new strategy being taken by Domtar. Quite simply, the company believes that the "think before you print"mantra endorsed by environmentalists is "just bull" and that people should not feel bad about printing. Indeed, it is very proud -- and it should be -- of its use of FSC Certified process and the fact that three trees are planted for every one used.

Domtar appears to be convinced that it is the environmental issue hurting its business -- sales are expected to slide significantly over the next several years -- and so it has put together a campaign called Put it on Paper to convince people that printing isn't nearly as bad for the environment as people make it out to be. Moreover, because young people don't seem to print too often, much of the campaign will be aimed at Facebook and Twitter, where most young people live. Don't worry, printed material will also be part of it.  

Domtar is right, the environmental issue is hurting its business. And I'm glad it is, as it means that more recycled paper is being used and, more importantly, less paper is being used overall. Its 'green' practices should not overshadow the underlying fact that using virgin materials is rarely, if ever, more environmentally sustainable than recycled products.

But where I think Domtar is wrong is in its targeting of the environmental issue as its main enemy. Paper is being used less frequently not because of its environmental impact, but because the alternative is so much more convenient. It has little to do with telling people printing is OK.

Why don't kids print out all the emails from their friends, Domtar asks? Because their square foot laptop can store as many emails as would fill their house if all of them were printed. And specific messages can be found in less than a second. Filing cabinets just can't do that.

Clutter is a problem, too. I'm in the process of moving out of my rental house and I've been rifling through piles of old pages I was encouraged to printout in earlier years. All of it is going to the recycling bin. Electronic forms of that stuff would be much more convenient.

We should not get rid of paper entirely. It most definitely has its place. I have been raised by a family with a vested interest in the printed word and still enjoy reading the newspaper, magazines and books in printed word over their electronic versions. But Domtar is a copy paper company and is encouraging the increase of printing things like emails. Sure, some things should be printed, specifically those things that are very important, and multiple copies should be made in the same way that we use backup drives on our computers. But printing with the mindset or in the volume proposed by Domtar seems ridiculous.

It is nothing more than a desperate plea from a company that sees its future going down the toilet. That, unfortunately for Domtar, is the nature of capitalism. As more and more industries start to grind to a halt, I just hope that the pleas are at least somewhat accurate and realistic, and more importantly, that alternatives can be found so as few as possible jobs are impacted.

Photo Credit: MSNBC

There's no poop in our water...

Bottled water companies are notorious for the multitude of reasons they use to convince consumers of the desirability of their product. The usual suspects include pictures of pristine freshwater springs -- though lots of bottled water actually comes from municipal sources; lulling descriptions of filtering processes -- "triple distilled through reverse-osmosis, oxygenization, and vapourization and cold-filtered with minerals for taste"; and report after report chastising the health risks of municipal tap water -- even though tap water is regulated to a much higher standard in much of the world.

But today I saw something I had never seen before. A particular bottled water company (whose name escapes me) had a poster up in one of Trent's cafeterias with a bountiful list of the wonderful benefits of its product. At the bottom of the list was the cartoon of a small orange fish with little drops coming out of its backside. Beside the picture read, "No fish swam here".

Wow.

I know the bottled water industry is under attack, but I've never seen anything so desperate to claim that there is no fish poop in the product, let alone that no fish swam in the source water. If there were no fish, where did they even get the water? And is there any life in the water? If not, it might be an indication that the water isn't all that healthy.

Of course, now I'll take an extremely cautious approach to any drink that is not labelled with a "no fish swam here" logo. I don't know about you, but I don't want to drink fish poop...

The Percy Schmeiser Case...

In a presentation on genetically modified plants during one of our policy courses, it was mentioned that "we all know the Percy Schmeiser case." But it strikes me that not everyone is familiar with the story or its influence on a growing issue. So here is a summarized version:

In the mid-90s, the biochemical leviathan Monsanto developed a genetically modified canola seed that is resistant to its Roundup brand of herbicide, which became known as Roundup Ready Canola. Farmers are required to purchase a license in order to use the seed. After only two years in use, it quickly constituted one quarter of Canada's canola production.

Percy Schmeiser was a canola farmer in Saskatchewan with a 1,000 acre farm and a custom strain of canola. He did not use Roundup Ready Canola, but found in 1997 that a portion of his crops were resistant to Roundup herbicide, which he used to kill weeds even though his canola plants typically die. But this time, many of them survived. A farmhand later saved the seeds from the resistant plants and they were planted the following season and later sold for feed. When it was revealed that the seeds being used by Schmeiser were the Roundup Ready variety, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement.

Schmeiser, a former mayor and former member of the provincial legislature, fought the allegations, claiming that his actions were accidental and that the seeds came onto his property without his knowledge or consent. Although Monsanto admitted this was possible, the federal judge found that it was extremely unlikely and ruled in favour of Monsanto, citing Schmeiser's patent violations. It still remains unclear how the seeds got onto Schmeiser's farm.

Schmeiser, who had received a lot of publicity and (financial) help from environmental & anti-genetic groups, appealed the decision, but it was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal. Schmeiser then tried the Supreme Court, which in a 5-4 decision, also ruled in favour of Monsanto. It did, however, also decide that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto the nearly $20,000 he had received from sale of the modified canola. More importantly, he also did not have to pay for Monsanto's legal fees, which were well over $500,000.

As a result of the judgements, Schmeiser had to destroy all trace of his custom-bred strain, which he had been using for several decades. He also had a legal bill of approximately $400,000 to deal with. He now travels the world as a speaker telling his story and raising awareness of genetically modified plants, as well as the tactics of major companies like Monsanto. Indeed, many predict that the judge's decision on the poor likelihood of Monsanto's seed spreading accidentally is a reflection of the lack of knowledge we have on genetically modified plants, which have since been shown to spread very rapidly.

Schmeiser did, however, sue Monsanto in 2007 for the clean up costs after more Roundup Ready Canola made its way onto his property. An out of court settlement was agreed upon in 2008. Although it was only for a few hundred dollars, it demonstrates that the danger of seeds spreading is very real.

What is particularly interesting about the case is that none of the three federal courts approached it as an issue over the spread of the seed -- as Schmeiser did in 2008 -- but rather the patent violation. It set a protective precedent for large companies like Monsanto in that it recognizes patent violations as priority over the accidental spread of product, a problem that is sure to increase over the coming years.        

A cleaner, cheaper, more useful type of clean coal...

Imagine if all you needed to resurface your driveway was a little sea water and some carbon dioxide? And what if I told you that by resurfacing your driveway you would be taking advantage of carbon free energy and even creating some relatively clean water?

Bollocks, you'd probably say (and I would hope in an English accent). Well, there's a company in the United States that is hoping to prove you wrong. Based off the naturally occurring process corals use to make their bones, some very innovative entrepreneurs at Calera have developed a method to take carbon emissions from gas and coal-fired plants and mixing it with ocean water to create calcium carbonate. Calcium carbonate -- the substance making up coral bones -- can be turned into cement or used as aggregate in construction projects.

There are plenty of small innovative firms out there with cool ideas like this, but Calera could very well make a significant impact. It has already attracted attention from Thomas Friedman, author of The World is Flat and columnist for the New York Times, and more importantly, significant investment from a major engineering firm confident enough to build several Calera plants.

There are hopes that this process will actually lead to a "clean coal" future, something that is heavily criticized by many because of the extraordinary expense and excruciatingly slow development of mainstream carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. By capturing the carbon emissions from coal and gas plants, it essentially makes them carbon emissions-free. Moreover, the carbon is stored in useful products like cement, as opposed to being pumped in large quantities underground.

A wonderful bonus that comes out of this process is relatively clean water. The salt water used loses about 80% of the properties that make it unsafe to drink, which happens to make it much easier to convert to fresh water using desalination as less energy is required to filter the water.

Considering how much coal is being used to power the world's electricity systems, this process, if actually scalable in an economic fashion, could change the whole playing field. The company is touting the potential of this technology in China and India, which are developing coal plants at a rate of nearly one a day. And since major construction projects and fresh water crises are bound to define much of each country's upcoming future, the technology is especially attractive.

But even if all the potential of this technology does come to fruition, it won't be perfect. Coal is a finite resource. Coal plants, even without carbon emissions, still have significant impacts on our lives. They emit dangerously high levels of toxic chemicals into the air -- even with scrubber technologies -- causing severe health complications. And coal mining is among the most environmentally devastating processes known to our history. I mean, how many other industries can say that they blow the tops off mountains to get what they want?

The trouble is, coal is going to be used excessively whether we like it or not.

No energy technology is perfect, but the Calera technology could at least make a significant dent as we try to lower carbon emissions. It's amazing what we can learn from nature. One hopes we don't kill too much of it off as we do.    

Stupid Green Ideas: Dell's Tree-Saving Boxes...

A friend of mine recently had a package delivered to him that looked as though it had been kicked around as a practice ball for England's upcoming stab at the World Cup. The tarnished box came from Dell, one of the world's largest computer and hardware manufacturers in the world. My friend tossed me the box and told me to take a look at the label attached on the side. Expecting to see one of the typical "we are sorry about the condition of the package, it was damaged during travel", I was very surprised to instead see the words inscribed, "We apologize for the condition of this package. Dell is reusing packaging to save trees."

As my friend said in a more polite fashion, what a load of bull. I admire the desire to try and "green" itself, but this is pushing it. My friend rightly believes that they are not reusing the boxes for environmental reasons, but rather to save money. They should admit it, rather than trying to greenwash consumers. It's similar to a case where I tell my friends that I won't wash the dishes for a week because cleaning them in bulk is more efficient than in small spurts and less water and soap will be used. Regardless of whether or not there is any truth to that statement, we all know that the real reason is that I'm just lazy.

Don't pretend to be something you're not. You like like an idiot, and worse, you give the environmental movement a bad name.

But he was a little more sympathetic to the actual state of the box than I was. Granted, it was still structurally sound and the product inside was protected with bubble wrap. But when I saw the box, the first thing that I thought was how bad Dell looked. Now I realize that we live in a consumer culture where aesthetically pleasing packaging is an environmental folly and that we shouldn't focus so much on the appearance of packaging, but there are ways to save money and/or be more environmentally friendly that won't make your packages -- Dell was built on packaged and mailed products -- look like junk. When someone sends me something by mail in a package, significant damage to the package indicates to me that at some point in the trip perhaps something else more important was damaged.

I do not know the packaging industry particularly well, nor do I pretend to understand the technology overly comprehensively, but I'm sure there are substitutes to reusing cardboard boxes that won't have a massive impact on the presentation of the packaging. Perhaps supply chain management could develop some innovative reusable box system or maybe the boxes could be compostable. Of course, Dell would unlikely go for any of those considering its true motive is probably financial.

But if I were Dell, I would look to make 'green' improvements in other facets of my business that don't make the average consumer wonder whether having them send something by mail is a liability to the product. But most of all, as my friend pointed out, don't pretend to do something for environmental reasons if that isn't your main intention.

Getting businesses on board with the environment...

This morning Tim and I had the pleasure of speaking with one of Canada's most influential and political businessmen in our environmental policy course. Speaking to us all the way from Switzerland after a day of skiing, the Hon. Hugh Faulkner spoke to our class about the role of the private sector in global environmental policy.

Mr. Faulkner served as an MP for many years and the Secretary of State under Pierre Trudeau, was a senior executive at Alcan, a major aluminum refining company and was the co-founder of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development(WBCSD), a group of some of the world's largest corporations dedicated to sustainable business practices.

He offered several important insights into the world of business and the environment.

When asked how you form a group of businesses like the WBCSD, he said you must find the right businesses. According to Mr. Faulkner, there are three types of businesses you'll find when an issue like the environment is brought forward: leaders, followers and naysayers. Leaders, which make up 10% of all businesses, are those that are willing to take serious steps forward to deal with environmental issues. Followers (40%) are those that are willing to do something, just as long as someone else will lead. And naysayers (50%) are the group that won't budge and claim that the environment isn't their problem and they have to be accountable to their shareholders.

This is extremely important to realize. For most environmentalists -- especially left-leaners at Trent -- all corporations seem to get clumped into the naysayer category. My experience in several seminars at Trent has been that most if not all corporations are met with strong cynicism. But it is good to know -- especially from a reputable source -- that there companies out there willing to make a positive difference. The leaders, Faulkner said, are the ones you have to identify if you want to get anything done with the private sector. Moreover, it is especially important to have business leaders participate, as getting other businesses to listen seriously to politicians or NGOs is very difficult.

The second main theme he talked about is something that I have been advocating for several years, and that is to place an economic cost on environmental factors. Without this, companies just won't get it. As much as moral and ethical responsibilities are important to business -- and found within the problematic voluntary codes of conduct -- they usually come second to the company's balance sheet. By incorporating the cost of environmentally-impacting actions into the balance sheet, such as carbon emissions, solid waste generation or water pollution, a company can't help but notice and do something about it. This is difficult because coming up with a firm and accurate price level is next to impossible, but giving it some value is extremely important.

According to Mr. Faulkner, it should be governments that put in place firm regulations requiring companies to measure these impacts, rather than companies doing it voluntarily.

The third piece of advice he offered is that when dealing with a business, under no circumstance should one ever lose sight of the fact that it is a business. Businesses are founded on economic growth and financial generation. Trying to tell them that they shouldn't follow that initial goal is a non-starter. Furthermore, one has to remember that when dealing with a business, they might not be as familiar with the environmental issues as you might be. For example, when Mr. Faulkner formed the WBCSD, none of the business leaders were aware of what sustainable business meant. Expecting the CEO of a multibillion dollar company and likely trained in management to know everything about environmental issues is unreasonable.

But he did stress that businesses want to learn more about it. At least the 50% made up of leaders and followers are interested. So for people in the environmental field or being trained in it at a post-secondary level, as we are, the private sector is a relatively untapped and attractive market for people looking for work. It was especially refreshing to hear him say that they genuinely want to do more. Such genuinity in the private sector is often questioned by onlookers, including myself, as I have written about before.

The role of the private sector in shaping global environmental policy is one of the most important yet controversial topics. Many don't want to include it in talks, citing the 'naysayers' and feeling it would only stifle progress. You can't ignore it. But bringing businesses onboard could be one of the most effective and influential moves policymakers could pull off in environmental decision-making.      

Carbon credits & Ontario's FIT...

Ontario's uber-progressive Feed-in-Tariff program is wonderful for someone wanting to produce renewable energy. Solar PV producers can get as much as $0.802 per kWh produced, which is almost twenty times greater than the market rate for electricity in Ontario.

At the same time, much talk is happening provincially, nationally and globally about a possible cap-and-trade system: Ontario has mumbled about a potential interprovincial program with Quebec; Stephen Harper's government is bound to join up with any system that comes out of the American government (which I assure you, will be a cap-and-trade system); and the climate change summit in Copenhagen in just a few days will have a large cap-and-trade facet to it. For renewable energy project developers, this could mean cashing in on the carbon credits they'd receive for their "emissions-free" projects. They could sell their credits to the less-green folks out there.

Renewable energy developers should be licking their chops. Serious money could be made from two different angles.

But hold your horses. Ontario's independent energy manager, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA & delivery agent of the Feed-in-Tariff) has a nice little clause written into the FIT contract. Under section 2.10 of the contract it reads that "the supplier hereby transfers and assigns to...the OPA who thereafter shall...retain all rights, title, and interest in all Environmental Attributes associated with the Contract Facility during the Term of this Agreement."

In layman's terms, the OPA keeps everything that might contribute to potential carbon credits, which in its terms is an "Environmental Attribute".

You could easily criticize the OPA for doing this, especially for no direct cost in exchange. But the OPA claims that no price can be put on it at this time because their is such uncertainty in what the carbon credits could be worth.

But really, who can fault them? The government is providing huge swaths of money for these projects, so any chance of reclaiming some of that without really harming anyone isn't really out of the question. Furthermore, it could inevitably end up making the FIT program considerably cheaper, if, say in a few years, the government decides to sell its carbon credits on a carbon market to recoup some of its costs.  

This is not a new policy from the OPA. Some of its conservation-demand management programs -- like the Power Savings Blitz program where $1000 worth of lights are given to businesses for free -- have the same "Environmental Attribute" clause written into them.

For now it is not a problem, mostly because a significant carbon market does not exist and nobody really knows about the OPA contract clause. But give it a few years and you can be sure that some people might be a little up in arms when they decide to sell their carbon credits only to find out they don't own them.   

  

Meet Canada's new Big Green Giant...

It took a few months, but Alberta's largest electricity generator, TransAlta, was finally able to finalize its takeover of Canada's largest renewable energy generator, Canadian Hydro Developers (CHD).

This is big. As it stands, the development of renewable energy in Canada has been fairly scattered as a multitude of different companies, utilities and community groups are installing 'green' power, primarily from wind, hydro, solar and biomass. The largest of these companies is CHD, generating nearly 700 MW from 21 wind, solar and biomass projects in B.C., Ontario, Quebec & Alberta. Those in Ontario may be familiar with its largest and most controversial wind project, the Wolfe Island Wind Project.

But today, TransAlta purchased CHD for $1.6B to significantly add to its green portfolio. TransAlta is known for its large coal-fired generation plants that generate nearly 4000MW, although it also dabbles in gas and some renewables. But acquiring CHD will put a lot of money behind renewables in Canada and could lead to a massive influx of grandiose renewable power projects.

This acquisition has several benefits for TransAlta. First, it makes them look greener. Coal is not cool anymore and being known as a coal giant degrades its reputation daily. Being green, however, is cool and people may look more favourably towards it.

Secondly, TransAlta intends to cease expansion of coal-fired generation plants in the next few years. Since energy companies like to grow, it leaves a sizeable (and profitable) gap of potential development. The new renewable projects will fill much of that gap, but more importantly, they will launch TransAlta into a sector that has nowhere to go but up, made especially enticing by considerable government incentives.

Thirdly, it gives TransAlta the right to any 'green credits' that might come along with a large cap-and-trade system. That is, groups creating green power will be given credits -- as opposed to having to purchase credits for GHG emitting behaviour, like coal plants -- that they can sell to other firms, or in TransAlta's case, use to offset some of the damage done by its GHG emitting gas and coal plants.

With the arrival of such a giant in Canada's renewable energy sector, the development of renewable power is hit with a question: What is the best way to go about deploying renewable energy? Is it through large companies like TransAlta that will be able to take advantage of massive economies of scale and significant resources to establish very large generation projects with an increased likelihood of encountering public opposition? Or should governments be focused on deploying them locally, through community-based power projects?

The presence of TransAlta will certainly make things interesting. And with the Green Energy Act coming into place, TransAlta's green future looks even more promising. But if its future projects are anything like Wolfe Island, you can be sure we'll stand witness to a big, windy fight.

Trent University, Aramark and Bottled Water...

Venture into a university campus across Canada and, when you find yourself hungry, you will likely be directed to a food court operated by Aramark. Be prepared to reach into your wallet. Deep into your wallet.

Aramark is an American giant. It is the 19th largest employer on the Fortune 500 and routinely generates nine-figure profits. It is one of the largest food service providers in the world, supplying businesses, sporting events and hospitals. But it is its role in schools, specifically Trent University, that I will dwell on in this discussion.

At Trent, Aramark holds a near monopoly on food service. With the exception of a small, basically student-run cafe, Aramark operates all five cafeterias on campus, including a small Tim Horton's satellite. Students living in residence are almost forced to buy into an outrageously priced meal plan and others are commonly found trying to scrape together the nine dollars charged for a simple burger and fries.

Several controversies have stiffened Trent's relationship with Aramark over the past years, but because of its efficiency and well-managed size, it is seen as an actor Trent can not live without. Even as its contract expired amidst student anger, Aramark was signed on again last year and was even granted permission to raise its meal plan prices nearly $300 -- citing commodity price increases -- from Trent's seemingly pro-business Board of Governors, a topic out of the scope of this piece.

But as much as I dislike Aramark's involvement at Trent, I will offer them some credit in relation to the work they have done with Trent's environmental student group, Sustainable Trent, of which I serve as an executive member. ST has worked with Aramark to develop notable, popular and successful programs. The Lug-a-Mug program, whereby customers using a re-usable mug receive discounts for beverages has been a hit, as has been the implementation of 'Resource Recovery Stations', organized and well-labelled stations to deposit waste, compost and recyclable goods. These are only a few of the many joint-programs.

But ST is embarking on what might be its most difficult project with Aramark: the ultimate ban of bottled water from campus. And since Aramark is in charge of the sale of all bottled water on campus, removing the beverage from its shelves is necessary for such a task. Although we are unsure of bottled water's share of revenue for Aramark, judging by the number of bottles seen around campus daily, it is a fairly significant share. Convincing a multi-national giant to drop the sale of such a lucrative product in even one of its locations is a tall order.

An anti-bottled water sentiment is slowly moving over the school. This summer, Trent held Canada's first bottled water-free convocation. Posters proclaiming the downsides of bottled water are frequently seen on campus and stainless steel water bottles are attached to nearly every backpack or bookbag you pass in the halls. Even bottled water filling stations, essentially modified water fountains, are being installed on campus after years of resistance from Trent administration and, I speculate, some influence from Aramark, who might see a significant drop in drink sales as thirsty schoolgoers will refrain from paying the two bucks for a Coke.

Aramark has even agreed to work with ST to develop a bottled water education campaign, but my pessimism predicts that the ST version might be considerably watered-down once Aramark goes through it (pardon the pun).

But bottled water is rapidly becoming an eyesore in the eyes of the public. Some schools have already banned the sale of the stuff and municipalities throughout Canada are banning the sale in its public buildings. Despite the arguments of bottled water companies and their distributors, it appears as though the battle might be leaning in the direction of the opposition.

That being said, ST certainly has its hands full. Keep your eyes peeled.

And remember, tap water is just as good, often safer and a hell of a lot cheaper. Buy smart.

Is the environmental attack on the Oil Sands going to make any headway?

A recent article in the Globe and Mail signalled that the fate of the hyper-destructive and very profitable Alberta Oil Sands might well be tipping in favour of those opposed to them. The article outlines the role the Norwegian state-owned oil company, Statoil, who has invested over $2B in the Oil Sands, is having in the country's federal elections.

Norway, from an international standpoint, is widely regarded as a friendly, progressive country, similar to its counterparts in Scandinavia. And even its historic oil industry -- Norway is the world's first country to employ a one-way CCS project -- is among the more respectable groups in the sector.

So being involved in the Oil Sands is sure to raise some eyebrows and rustle some feathers. The negativity of Statoil's involvement in the Oil Sands is so heavy that it could play a major role in the federal election as candidates from nearly every party are promising to carefully examine the role of Norway's state-owned company. One prominent leader is already offering to create environmental laws that would make it impossible for Statoil to even come close to getting involved with anything like the Oil Sands.

Norway is not the only one rethinking its involvement in Alberta. Even the Chinese government, whose state-owned oil enterprise is heavily invested in the Oil Sands, is looking at what's going on. The article also mentions that several Chinese journalists are on their way to take a tour of the areas surrounding the Oil Sands to witness the environmental destruction of the place.

But before we start to think that the tables have really turned and the Oil Sands are on their way to being shut down, let's just put a few things in perspective.

Statoil is state-owned. Generally speaking, state-owned energy companies have a lot more to answer to than their purely private contenders, especially in a country like Norway. The Chinese, although to a much lesser degree of social & environmental responsibility, are also state-owned. The downside is that the majority of investment in the Oil Sands is private. Private companies often, but not always, answer only to their shareholders who often, but again, not always, only want to make more money. The Oil Sands make money. Lots of it.

Secondly, keep in mind that it is election time in Norway. For those of us who have followed election campaigns, they are filled with promises. Often, these promises are politically charged and do not always come to fruition. Considering the length of time it would take to get out of there and the investment losses, the task of pulling out would be very difficult. I would not be surprised if this issue slowly fades away after election fever winds away.

Thirdly, and almost in summation, the Oil Sands are very, very lucrative. They are profitable for those involved and beneficiaries range from international partners (the United States) to domestic governments (Alberta). The Alberta government has certainly signalled more than once how little it really cares about the environmental consequences and its internal bureaucratic systems (see Andrew NikiForuk's Tar Sands) are far from being pro-environment. Furthermore, the Conservative stronghold of Alberta is almost insurmountable and if the current policies of both the Alberta and Federal Conservative government's is any indication, these policies are not going to change quickly.

And I wouldn't put too much money on Obama making a big deal about the Oil Sands anytime soon. His hands are full with his health care reform plan and any fight with the Oil Sands would surely have short-term economic consequences, which is the last thing he needs as the U.S. economy is starting to recover. Right now, he has bigger, more homegrown fish to fry.

I don't mean to sound like a pessimist, but the Oil Sands are big. Very big. I do not deny the environmental, economic and health damages due to the Oil Sands, but tackling such a beast is so complex and in my opinion, nearly impossible. However, I would urge those already fighting to shut down the Oil Sands to keep on doing what they're doing, as anything helps in the struggle against them.

But in some ways we need to be a bit realistic and make the best out of an already awful situation by looking more into conservation strategies, renewable energy markets and to pressure our elected officials. Perhaps we could at least reduce the demand for oil in this country. But really fighting the Oil Sands seems like a steep moutain to climb.

I can only hope I'm wrong.

Stupid Green Ideas: hybrid parking spots...

A recent story in the Winnipeg Free Press, "Environmentally concious shoppers get prime parking spots", reports that a large local shopping mall has reserved several parking spots near the building for hybrid vehicles. The aim -- at least, from the mall's marketing director -- is to reward more environmentally concious drivers by giving them membership to the exclusive club previously limited to expecting mothers and the handicapped.

Apparently this is not the first of its kind. Larger box stores like IKEA and Whole Foods have dipped into these waters, too.

So is it a silly idea?

Well, enforcement is a bugger. Finding non-permit vehicles parked in handicapped spots is certainly not a rarity and such an offence probably strikes witnesses much more severely than parking illegally in a hybrid spot.

Secondly, the environmental benefits of hybrids over traditional vehicles is certainly not absolute. What if the hybrid driver drives tens times as much as the driver of an SUV? Which of these drivers should really be rewarded? And furthermore, hybrids are not always the most fuel-economic vehicles. Lexus has several hybrids, one of which has 438 HP V8 engine. Its fuel economy is worse than that of its parent company's Toyota Tacoma pickup truck. Even Cadillac's Escalade (pictured above) has a hybrid version. There is no way these vehicles should be given priority over non-hybrid, but more fuel-efficient vehicles. And what about an electric car? Would it qualify?

Thirdly, lots of people think poorly of hybrids because the drivers are sometimes perceived to be rich, snobby, self-righteous, do-gooding elites. They always aren't, but the perceptions will stick and this certainly won't help. Most people don't have a problem giving priority to the handicapped or expecting mothers, but they might think the hybrid spot a tad elitist.

Lastly, this seems like nothing more than a marketing ploy for those who employ such a strategy. It allows the stores to brand themselves as 'green' and attract more customers, without actually implementing an effective policy. It just looks good.

So yes, it is silly.

But then again, even if it is silly, at least it is something. The majority of hybrids out there are much more fuel-efficient than the rest of vehicles on the road. It probably won't hurt anyone, since angry drivers will soon drop their threats of switching supermarkets and just find another spot. And lots of corporations are employing 'green' strategies, so a harmless one like this can't hurt, right?

That is of course, if you live by the mantra 'an empty policy is better than no policy'.

I don't own a hybrid, but I do spot one in the parking lot across the way. I think I might steal the 'hybrid' logo on its rear end and attach it to my car so I can take advantage of this great deal.

Out of my way, soon-to-be mothers and handicapped, I'm saving the world!

Would you take the job?: Corporate Environmental Policy...

I posed this question to an environmental policy class seminar I was in during my third year: if on the day of your graduation as an Environmental Studies/Science student a person from a large oil company offered you a multi-year position as an environmental consultant with a $250,000 salary, benefits up the wazoo, a 40-hour work week and your choice of living location, would you take it?

Surprisingly, very few if any from the 15 person class said they would. The main argument was one of ethics, where the majority of my peers would be unwilling to 'sell their soul' to work for the groups we've all learned to despise.

Fair enough, but perhaps the naive optimist in me believes that not all big corporations are inherently evil and that they be wanting to at least do something pro-environment, if not for intrinsic reasons than at least for business purposes. To this a few said that such a position would simply be window-dressing, offering lip service for an organization that really doesn't care. Although you'd get a hefty paycheque, the frustration involved with such a position might be enough to drive you over the edge. Not to mention, of course, the degrading feeling that might come if you feel your role is only perpetuating the wrongs you seek to right.

Personally, I would take the job. Aside from the wonderful financial perks -- I might be an environmentalist but I certainly wouldn't decline a sweet boat or a Porsche -- I point to one particular argument I've explored before in a different arena: the law of diminishing returns. This simple idea says that as we put effort into something, the effect one 'unit' of effort will have will diminish over time.

If, for instance, you have a test to study for, the first hour you study may increase your potential grade from a 50 to a 70, but the next hour will only improve it from a 70 to an 80, then 80 to 85 and so on until each extra hour you study really isn't making a difference.

So if we take this idea into the grand context of say, combatting climate change, our efforts (financial, political, time-intensive, etc) would have a bigger impact if put towards aspects of the environment that are already quite bad. Putting efforts into improving the environmental performance of the traditionally poor environmental performers (fossil fuel firms, manufacturing, transport industry, etc) might have a much bigger impact than putting the same amount of effort into other already less-environmentally destructive performers, such as investing millions to make fuel-efficient engines slightly more efficient (which might be the equivalent of raising your mark from a 90 to a 91).

The question of individual effort should be raised. It is well and good that changing the behaviour of these 'dirty' firms would have a large impact in our climate struggle, but are these large conglomerates, like the oil companies, not already so large and influential that actually implementing this change from an environmental consultant's position would be next to impossible if not the most frustrating endeavour one might venture on?

Would it be frustrating? I imagine so. Next to impossible? Could be. But are they too big? No.

One of the world's largest financial institutions, the World Bank, was once without an environmental program or department. Unlike the majority of other major banks, the World Bank focuses much of its attention on development, first in post-war Europe and later in the less-affluent countries of the world. Its projects have had massive environmental impacts, yet it wasn't until 1971, 26 years after its conception, that it first developed any sort of environmental program. It was resourced by one person for many years, who was later able to increase the size of the department to six staff.

This was an incredibly frustrating time, especially since the World Bank did not require environmental assessments on any projects up until 1989, making the environmental reviews by even six staffers next to impossible. As you can imagine, the other departments were less than inclined to cooperate with the toothless environmental department. However, thanks to the diligence of the pioneer staffers, the World Bank's environmental department is now one of its biggest. Billions of dollars are invested in environmentally-focused projects. (Although the environmental benefits of some of these projects are quite controversial).

It had to start somewhere. So it could certainly start with grabbing such a position, especially with such cushy benefits -- not unrealistic either, considering many environmental assessment folks at the publicly-owned Ontario Power Generation make over $125,000.

Corporations aren't necessarily evil, but they can be a tough nut to crack. But the benefits of cracking such a nut could be more influential than any of us know. I wouldn't, however, count on such a cushy job being offered right after graduation, but you never know...(hint, hint ExxonMobil).

Would you take the job?

Conservation often makes the most economic sense...sort of...

I recently saw a presentation by an architect & professor of architecture, Michael Pelken, from Syracuse University, on integrated wind technologies. Among other things, his talk focused on a now notorious offshore wind farm proposed to be built off the coast of Cape Cod in the Northeastern United States. The proposal was met with so much opposition from the local community that external designers (Mr. Pelken's group) were brought in to revamp the project.

The new proposal was quite impressive, though a tad impractical (as conceptual designs always seem to be). But the biggest piece of the design that stuck out to me was the idea to minimize the number of wind turbines (from 130 to 50) and offset the lost power generation with energy conservation measures (better lighting, smart meters etc) in the surrounding communities. Building less turbines would be cheaper and so the leftover cash could be put into the conservation measures.

This is a particularly attractive idea, especially for publicly-owned utilities. Instead of spending millions of dollars, time and other resources trying to site new renewable energy facilities (wind farms, solar farms, small-hydro dams), they could instead use the funds they would have put into the project into conservation measures, as the total energy saved could often equal or surpass the amount of energy that the project would have produced. This can also be a much cheaper process, both in money and time, as you won't have to deal with the same level of opposition that you might if siting a large project.

But it strikes me that this strategy would only be effective for public utilities, such as Peterborough Utilities (which already operates several conservation programs) and the Ontario Power Authority. The problem lies in the private and semi-private power generation companies (such as Ontario Power Generation).

The problem is quite simple. If your business is to produce energy, there is no profit in conservation. You want to build your project, make energy and sell it back to the grid. This is not always a bad thing. After all, it's now highly encouraged to build renewable energy systems.

And from a business and macro-economic perspective, power generation over conservation certainly works into the pro-growth model. And new projects can often look better politically, as people, companies and organizations become impressed with the project, especially in this new era of renewable development. But as we're seeing, unsustainable growth (a model without much conservation) is fraught with problems.

There will always be a hefty demand for energy in Canada, regardless of conservation and efficiency measures (we can only conserve so much), so this is certainly not a call for the cessation of energy projects. And we certainly need more renewables adding to the grid. But if the ultimate goal is to reduce GHG emissions while still being economically viable, perhaps governments should shift a portion of their immediate focus away from the often slow development of renewables and put those resources into conservation. It might not make millions of dollars, but it will certainly save millions of them.

Energy Conservation in Toronto…

On average, about 20% of your home electricity costs are attributed to lighting.

This past weekend I was working an event called “Spring Turn On” at a Home Depot location in Toronto. It is a two weekend event (May 23rd/24th and May 30th/31st) at Home Depot and Canadian Tire locations across the city. Toronto Hydro, the largest electricity utility in Canada, is the main organizer with aims to inform customers about the latest energy conservation programs available in the city. Summerhill Group, my employer is a company dedicated to transforming markets to achieve sustainability. They are running the event in conjunction with Toronto Hydro, Home Depot and Canadian Tire.

For both Saturday and Sunday, store customers found themselves wandering around curious to find the latest deals and bargains on new cool appliances. Once customers noticed our presence they were filled with excitement and irrational exuberance desperate to grab their free compact fluorescent light bulb. We provided 350 free CFLs to the first 350 customers which served as a great avenue to educate inform and discuss the numerous benefits that CFLs serve. There is more to it however, the customers were required to fill in a quick survey on energy conservation in Toronto so that Toronto Hydro can identify what part of the city their from, their knowledge on energy efficient strategies and how often they participate in these eco events. We are also providing $4 rebate coupons for all Energy Star Certified light bulbs, and $10 coupons for power bars with timers.

One of my responsibilities was to inform and educate customers on Toronto Hydro’s peak saver program. In short, only residents who have centralized air conditioners and/or water heaters are eligible. Why? In the summer months when residents profligately run their air conditioners, it contributes to peak demand because everyone in the city is doing it. So, Toronto Hydro figured that by installing peak savers on air conditioners for absolutely free and providing a $75 gift card in the process, residents would feel more inclined to have it.

How does it work? During peak periods, Toronto Hydro will send a signal to the AC or water heater to interrupt power to the appliance for a short time. Air conditioners are cycled off for 15 minutes out of every 30 minutes. This way, a lot of pressure is taking off of the hydro system thereby reducing demand and keeping the cost of power lower in the future. Additionally, this reduces the need to import electricity.

We are also informing people about “time of use” pricing. Both smart meters and time of use pricing help minimize peak demand. Let’s say for example you want to use your clothes dryer and it is 6 pm in the evening. Chances are a lot of people are using their dryers at this time and will have to pay the on-peak (highest price) of 8.8 cents per kWh. If you wanted to dry your clothes at 11:30 pm you would be paying off-peak (lowest price) of 4 cents per kWh. In other words, incentives do exist to encourage residents to think about when they wash and dry their clothes, use their AC and dishwasher.

Key message: “All electrical devices have two prices tags, the initial purchase price and the cost of operating it.”

Obama introduces new emissions laws...

Earlier this week, President Obama introduced new automotive legislation significantly increasing the level of fuel efficiency that new cars sold in the United States will be able to have. The legislation also curbs the level of harmful, toxic emissions that these new cars will be able to release.

The requirements are relatively simple: by 2016 all new cars and light trucks in the United States will have to have an average fuel efficiency level of 35.5 MPG (6.6 L/100 km; a 2009 Honda Civic coupe), up from an average level of 25 MPG (9.4 L/100 km; a 2009 Ford Escape SUV) today. Starting in 2012, carmakers will have to improve fuel efficiency by 5% annually.

According to the administration, this new legislation would reduce carbon emissions in the United States by 30%. Though you should not expect the changes to happen overnight. First, the goals of the legislation don't have to be met until 2016, which still leaves seven more years. Secondly-- and more importantly-- it will take quite a few years for the new, fuel efficient cars and trucks to diffuse into the market. Since car owners generally like to hold onto their vehicles for a number of years, many car buyers won't purchase the new, fuel efficient vehicles until much later. Especially since the new emissions and mileage targets will make new cars about $1300 more expensive. 

According to a group at MIT, the main benefits of the legislation won't really be felt until 2030. So the massive carbon reduction from this policy that Obama talked about may not actually take place for a good while. But there is a provision in the legislation that seeks to speed up that process, known as the 'Cash for Clunkers' plan.

The plan would provide financial vouchers for car owners to scrap or trade in their old vehicles for new, fuel efficient ones, thereby quickening the pace that the fuel efficient vehicles get rolled onto the roads. The plan is being touted as environmentally friendly and a help to car buyers. It is true that it could have benefits for climate change, but we must keep in mind that building new cars (and disposing of old ones) is certainly not an environmentally friendly activity, no matter which way you cut it. Germany has also adopted such a plan, but instead of aiming for the fuel efficiency goal (Europe already has some of the highest mileage standards in the world), its goal is moreso to re-ignite its ailing auto industry.

While it is true that the 'Cash for Clunkers' plan could be effective, a number of critics are worried that the savings accrued by vehicle swappers may not be as high as everyone perceives. This is because of the Miles Per Gallon Illusion, a phenomenon I've described before, where the marginal increase in gas savings falls rapidly with higher levels of fuel efficiency. The authors of the MPG Illusion blog have researched the plan heavily and are concerned the savings may not be economically or environmentally viable. 

But regardless of the minor problems with the legislation, it is still a masterful and landmark piece of policymaking. It will certainly have serious benefits from an environmental point of view. Although the carbon emissions cut will not happen for some time, a 30% reduction is still very significant and very realistic, especially in an industry that accounts for a hefty share of the U.S.'s GHG emissions. 

Such legislation has been fought by automakers for many years. When California adopted its stringent efficiency limits a few years ago, automakers were less than excited and very quickly launched lawsuits that exist today (although they will be dropped as a result of the new legislation). A national policy similar to California's was called for, but was crushed at the powerful hands of the then 'Big Three' (GM, Ford & Chrysler). Since the 'Big Three' are all on the verge of collapse, their lobbying powers in this case were not all that powerful. 

In fact, what makes this legislation so impressive is the fact that the auto industry is actually in support of it (although I wouldn't be surprised if even more stringent rules were watered down in exchange for their support). And it probably doesn't make it all that easy for them to say no since one of the main stakeholders in GM and Chrysler is the federal government.

This will have important implications for Canada since the federal Conservative government has no serious environmental policies and has openly stated its waiting for the US to make some moves so it could join up and follow the leader. Don't be surprised to hear Canada adopting similar efficiency standards and emissions limits within the next little while. 

Getting the most bang for our buck...

I recently attended the Ontario Centres for Excellence (OCE) Discovery conference in Toronto. It was attended by 2000+ people and a host for hundreds of exhibitors from the world of technological innovation, commercialization and revolutionary thinking. Canadian universities, research groups, small businesses and large technology-focused conglomerates showed off their arsenal of gizmos, business catalysts and multimedia watchamadoozles.

One university's engineering department was showing off a hybrid car that had solar panels splattered all over the roof to help run the battery. Wonderful idea. A few other groups had innovative ideas to capture energy, such as smaller wind-capturing technologies and a process to use energy from grapes. There was even a small float plane being touted as the next-big-thing.

It was like looking into the future. One of the beauties of such a conference is its ability to bridge the gap between ideas & commercialization and actually take some of these great innovations and put them to use in the real world.

However, as I'm discovering with some of my research this summer, this gap is often much wider than many people believe. As Prof. Stephen Hill of Trent University (the prof I'm doing much of my summer research with) outlined in his brief discussion at the conference, a great deal of these innovations are technologically and economically feasible (often by a wide margin) but are not widely implemented in the world. 

As he says, this is because of social and political opposition. What might be economically feasible might not be socially or politically feasible. For example, a large solar farm in the outskirts of a medium-sized town might be able to produce enough electricity to power the entire town with clean, emissions-free energy at a relatively low cost. But the residents near the proposed farm might be vehemently opposed to the proposed project, be it for a variety of reasons, making it a non-feasible project overall. 

Much of our research is directed towards the renewable energy sector, where much popular talk revolves around economic incentives for these technologies (wind, solar, small-hydro etc) so they can compete with traditional energy sources. But while much time, money and research is being put into making these technologies economically feasible, a far lesser proportion is being put towards making them socially and politically feasible.

As technologies become increasingly efficient and governments provide incentives to make them cost-effective, the economic barriers are essentially eliminated. But the socio-political barriers are still standing and are very, very strong. 

While putting millions of dollars into getting that extra few miles per gallon out of our hybrid vehicles (which is not as effective as many think) is a great technological leap, perhaps we would get more bang for our buck if we put that money towards safely and effectively implementing the wonderful technology.

The money and resources could be put into research of social acceptance, making stakeholder involvement in projects more inclusive and widely distributed, the training of specialists (ex. engineers and other designers) to include social and political aspects of their work and even an established framework for standardizing project development processes to make them more socially and politically acceptable. 

This is certainly not a call to withdraw funding from technology research and development. That would be idiotic. But if our goal is to actually implement this technology, we should probably divvy those funds up a little bit.  

Tsk Tsk, Mr. Gates...

A brief tidbit in the journal from the very leftist, progressive Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) reports that The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation--the multibillion dollar charity funded through Bill's not-so-modest stake in Microsoft--has given $5.4 million to a technology firm funded by Monsanto.

The money is to be put towards lobbying African governments and promote the entry of genetically modified crops (GMOs) to the continent, which, in all likelihood, will largely be provided by Monsanto. As I've blogged about before, GMOs can be beneficial. But as I also mentioned, it is the nature of the GMO industry that should be very concerning for the world's population and Monsanto's presence in this group is quite worrying.

Although I did not have incredibly detailed knowledge about the Gates' foundation, I did think of it as a wonderfully beneficial group. Their work in the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other diseases has been particularly notable. But this new donation strikes them down a few notches on the 'awesome pole'. 

The trouble with such a situation is the deep respect, resources and connections the Gates' foundation has. Warren Buffett (now the world's third richest man, but last year topped the list) provided the foundation with nearly $30 billion worth of shares (paid over time) from his investment company, Berkshire Hathaway. That'll be one hell of a tax receipt. But I can't think of any other charity in the world that would be getting anything close to $30 billion.

So if people think the Gates' foundation is doing good in the world, then they're sure to follow suit. In this case, they're following in the wrong direction. As the CCPA said, the floodgates could open up wide. Very wide. 

The Illusion of Miles Per Gallon...

So you're looking to buy a new car, eh? You've got two options: You could replace your five year old Honda Civic that gets about 35 MPG with a brand new one, which gets about 45 MPG; Or you could replace your old handy pick-up truck that gets 15 MPG with a new pickup that gets about 20 MPG. You want to do your part to help the environment and save as much money as you can. 

Well, this one seems like a no brainer. By replacing your Civic you gain 10 MPG as opposed to the 5 MPG you'd get from the truck, plus you don't want to replace an inefficient truck with another one that's inefficient. Your choice is obviously the best for both the environment and your wallet, right?

Wrong, according to researchers at Duke University (go Blue Devils!). In an article released in a 2008 issue of Science, titled The MPG Illusion, the researchers argue that using MPG as a measure of fuel efficiency is flawed and that its use could have serious implications for car buyers and public policy.

The basis of their argument is that when you measure fuel efficiency in MPG, it is not a linear improvement, but rather a curvelinear improvement (see the figure below). So contrary to popular belief, an improvement in efficiency from 15 MPG to 25 MPG, is not equally effective as an improvement from 90 MPG to 100 MPG. In fact, the former upgrade is actually far more effective when it comes to reducing gas consumption.

As you can see in the graph, as you increase your MPG, the rate at which you decrease your gas consumption decreases significantly. For example, when comparing the amount of gas used per 10,000 miles, an increase in MPG from 42 to 48 would only result in a decrease of 29.8 gallons. But with an increase of MPG from 16 to 20, you actually save over four times more gasoline: approximately 125 gallons.

Who would've thunk it?

In a series of surveys, the researchers found that the majority people assume the MPG measure is linear. The amount they'd be willing to pay for an increase in MPG from 30 to 40 is equal to the amount they'd be willing to pay for an equal increase in the lower range of MPG. In actual fact, the value of the vehicle increases a lot more with an increase at the lower levels of MPG.

The researchers recommend switching the formula around. Instead of measuring distance over volume, you can measure volume over distance: GPM. In Canada, it is fairly standard to use Litres per 100 km as a measure (although a hefty majority of people still use MPG).

Too often, people have made car buying decisions based off inaccurate linear thinking and have undervalued the small improvements in the lower range of MPG. So yes, we should switch to a common measurement like L/100 km or GPM, but we should also focus many of our overall efforts on improving the efficiency of those vehicles at the lower end of the MPG range rather than pouring millions of dollars into transitioning a 50 MPG car into a 52 MPG car. 

Many thanks to my cousin for sending me the article.