Every several years the power of Big Agriculture is evident when the Farm Bill is renegotiated, promising untold billions to the agriculture sector in the form of subsidies, incentives, research grants, and other programs.

Big Ag wielded its mighty stick again in the weeks leading up to the passage of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. A number of representatives led by House Agriculture Committee chair Collin Peterson (D-Minn) withheld support of the bill until control of future agricultural offsets for the upcoming cap and trade markets was wrested away from the EPA (the preferred choice of environmentalists) and given to the more farmer-friendly USDA. Also heavily involved in the lobbying for more agriculture-specific provisions in Waxman-Markey were some of Big Ag’s most powerful players, including heavyweights like Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, and Dupont.

One of the key areas that the USDA has taken control of in Waxman-Markey is the design and delivery of agriculture-based offset projects. Authorities in both the US and Canada have long recognized the importance of the agriculture sector in meeting national greenhouse gas emission reductions. Understandably, farmers have been eagerly anticipating the additional revenues coming their way from offset projects in cap and trade markets.

There are a number of agricultural project types that are being touted for generating offset credits, including:

• reduced tillage / no-tillage
• afforestation of marginal farmlands
• nitrogen fertilizer management
• improved manure management
• livestock feed management (dairy, swine)
• anaerobic digesters
• biomass energy
• energy efficiency upgrades of facilities

A number of the potential agriculture offset project types are robust, defensible, and easily measured, particularly those involving energy generation (digesters, biomass energy) and energy conservation. But in a classic example of ‘not all offsets are created equal’, there is the potential for a huge quality gap between the robust credits and those that are harder to measure, monitor, and verify.

Conservation tillage practices (reduced till or no-till) are used by farmers to introduce a number of benefits to the soil, including improved fertility and reduced erosion. A number of studies have also shown that conservation tillage increases the sequestration of carbon in the soil. One study conducted at The Ohio State University estimated that U.S. farmers could store 288 million tons of carbon in their soil every year, which represents 17% of American GHG emissions.

The recent actions of Big Ag suggest that it will make every effort necessary to get conservation tillage approved as an allowable offset project – the number of farmers and acres that stand to benefit are simply too great to pass by. Yet a number of contradictory studies have been published in recent years that question the scientific validity of using tillage practices for offset credits.

Researchers at the University of Edinburgh state that increased soil carbon storage introduced by conservation tillage could be counterbalanced by increases in nitrous oxide emissions from the soil, a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. They state that “the promotion of carbon credits for the no-till system before we have better quantification of its net greenhouse gas balance is naïve.” Meanwhile, a study by the USDA and University of Minnesota concludes that: “though there are other good reasons to use conservation tillage, evidence that it promotes C sequestration is not compelling.”

When you consider that tillage-based offset projects are difficult to accurately measure and routinely monitor (in addition to the contradictory science), it will be very interesting to see how much appeal these credits will have in the emerging cap-and-trade markets.

I am in the business of recommending offset credits to businesses that need to buy them either to meet future regulatory requirements or voluntary programs. In all likelihood I would never recommend a client invest in tillage-based offset credits – there are just too many questions surrounding them. And given the amount of potential acreage that could be signed up to no-till contracts if they are approved as an allowable offset for use in cap and trade, what impact will this risky carbon credit method have on the overall GHG inventory of the nation?

Image: jimmedia at flickr under a CC License

Stephen Boles is co-founder of Kuzuka, a marketplace website that brings a new level of convenience and confidence to carbon offset customers and provide consulting services to organizations that want to assess and reduce their carbon footprint.

Everyone knows the dark and dangerous side of the tobacco industry. The ill effects of cigarettes on the health of smokers, non-smokers, and the environment are well established. So is it fair or ethical for such a heinous and disgusting product to promote eco-friendly improvements to its packaging?

This is precisely what has happened recently with one of Canada’s leading cigarette brands, du Maurier. Du Maurier is using a more sustainable grade of paper for the outer cardboard packaging and they have removed the traditional inside foil liners with ones made of paper. To promote these green initiatives, du Maurier invested in a full-page color advertisement in a major Canadian magazine.

While it seems laughable that a tobacco company would be trying to paint itself with a shade of green, does this constitute greenwashing?

Gideon Forman of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment said: “Is it green washing? Yes.” According to the ‘Seven Sins of Greenwashing’, the closest sin that du Maurier might be guilty of is the Sin of Lesser of Two Evils. This is where an environmental claim makes consumers feel ‘green’ about a product that is lacking in environmental benefits.

Obviously cigarettes are lacking in environmental benefits. But was the intent of the advertisement to trick people into thinking they were improving the environment by smoking du Maurier cigarettes? Doubtful. My guess is that they are trying to convince existing smokers to try their brand because of their green actions, basically saying ‘if you are going to partake in this senseless habit you might as well use one with green packaging’. Maybe they did some research and found there are enough smokers out there with an environmental conscience to warrant this advertisement.

If they truly are just promoting their recent green packaging without trying to pass off cigarettes as a green product, the greenwashing angle might be unfounded. Yet all of these issues may soon become irrelevant, as wheels are in motion to close the Canadian tobacco advertising loophole that allows ads like this to continue to be published.

Image: SuperFantastic at flickr under a CC License

Stephen Boles is co-founder of Kuzuka, a marketplace website that brings a new level of convenience and confidence to carbon offset customers and provide consulting services to organizations that want to assess and reduce their carbon footprint.

Over the last few years, the wind energy sector has been experiencing tremendous growth as governments and utilities around the world seek sources of energy that generate reduced greenhouse gas emissions. In Ontario, the province has plans to increase the wind component of its electricity generation from the current 1 percent to 15 percent by 2025.

For the most part the wind energy industry has coasted along with favorable press and public opinion. The industry has had to weather some resistance, particularly pertaining to wildlife impacts (primarily birds and bats) and the consistency and reliability of wind power. Yet these criticisms have not gained enough traction to have a noticeable effect on the growth of the industry, which is being hailed as a source of tens of thousands of potential new jobs in the evolving green economy.

But over time another resistance to the wind industry has emerged focusing on the negative impacts of wind turbines on human health. This movement has been steadily growing in both its organizational power and the press coverage that it has been receiving.

Wind turbines emit inaudible sound waves in the low end of the sound spectrum and rhythmic vibrations caused by the spinning blades. These are suspected to cause a host of adverse health effects in some people that live in close proximity to the turbines, including:

• insomnia,
• headaches,
• acute hypertensive episodes,
• cardiac arrhythmia,
• heart palpitations,
• high blood pressure,
• the sensation of bugs crawling on the skin,
• humming in the head,
• continuous ringing in the ears,
• dizziness

The condition has been given a name: “Wind Turbine Syndrome”, coined by Dr. Nina Pierpont, the subject of her recently published 150-page book. Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition of 32 individual anti-wind citizens’ groups that have joined together from across the province of Ontario; they have named Wind Turbine Syndrome as one of their key focus areas. Both Dr. Pierpont and Wind Concerns Ontario recommend a minimum 2 kilometer setback for wind turbines from residential homes, along the lines with what is recommended by the World Health Organization (1.5 kilometers).

The assignment of setback distances in Ontario is currently governed by municpalities (the province will be taking control under its new Green Energy Act) with most setbacks being under 500 meters. Given the mounting evidence indicating adverse effects that wind turbines can have on human health, it is critical that more research be conducted into adequate setback distances. With the empahsis that the world is placing on wind energy as a critical piece of our future energy puzzle, setback distance research would be time and money well spent to ensure that wind power grows in harmony with the environment and its citizens.

Image: Be…n at flickr under a CC License

Stephen Boles is co-founder of Kuzuka, a marketplace website that brings a new level of convenience and confidence to carbon offset customers and provide consulting services to organizations that want to assess and reduce their carbon footprint.

I came across an equally inane law this past week - the ban on collection of rainwater in the state of Colorado. This law has historical ties, as Colorado long ago developed a system whereby a group of individuals or corporations referred to as ‘downstream water-owners’ had rights to a certain amount of flow from a reservoir, stream, or aquifer. The harvesting of rain by non water-owner Colorado residents is prohibited because it is considered water theft, even when the water is falling on their own property. Basically a rain barrel is depriving a downstream water-owner of the full flow to which they are legally entitled. Kevin Lusk, water supply engineer of Colorado Springs Utilities, explains:

All the water was spoken for here in the Arkansas Basin 100 years ago or more. If the water falls as rain, that’s water that was going to get to the stream system, and somebody already has dibs on it, and if somebody intercepts that, its the same as stealing.

Thankfully this law, which carries with it a $500 fine for an installed residential rain barrel, is rarely enforced. But even if the authorities are looking in the other direction, there would still be a large number of people that are hesitant to install rain barrels for fear of being subject to a fine.

Are rain barrels really that threatening to the delicate water balance of the water cycle in this arid state? A key point is that rain barrels are not a permanent removal of water from the system. Rain barrel owners are not collecting rain water and transporting it out of the watershed for their own personal gain. Barrels are temporary reservoirs where rain water is held before it is used for watering flower beds, gardens, or lawns, after which it will inevitably return to the ground water system.

And what is the alternative to rain barrel use? Colorado residents that do not have a rain barrel will be using water from the municipal water system for landscape maintenance (unless they are on a well). Treated potable water is not necessary for watering lawns and gardens - rain barrels would help to take pressure off of municipal water supplies in a state that suffers from chronic water shortages and increasing demands.

Two new recent pieces of legislation indicate that Colorado may be starting to embrace the rain barrel concept. The laws are restricted to well owners and a number of new residential developments in the state, but they are going to be used to assess the viability of larger-scale rain barrel allowances in the future.

Image: _ES at flickr under a CC License

Stephen Boles is co-founder of Kuzuka, a marketplace website that brings a new level of convenience and confidence to carbon offset customers and provide consulting services to organizations that want to assess and reduce their carbon footprint.

Over the last couple of years the term ‘carbon footprint’ has become commonplace in our culture. A growing number of people now have at the very least a general understanding of what a carbon footprint is, and for the most part this is a good thing. This has begun to translate into a greater awareness of the life cycle of the products we consume, which is an important step towards becoming a more energy-efficient nation.

But with increased understanding of a concept like carbon footprints comes the likelihood that it will be abused and mis-used. With greater frequency we are seeing reports that pervert the concept, such as the pointless ‘carbon footprint smackdown’ that compares the footprint of one cheeseburger being equivalent to that of 15,000 Google searches.

The climate change finger-pointing hit a new level of insanity when a paper was published recently that links overweight people to increased greenhouse gas emissions. Surprisingly this report did not appear in a sensationalist tabloid or newspaper, but was an article in the respected International Journal of Epidemiology. The logic of the study is relatively simple: compared to the average population, obese people eat more and use their cars more for everyday chores. Since both driving and the production of food create greenhouse gas emissions, overweight people contribute more to global warming than the average population.

It is shocking that this article was able to successfully pass the journal’s peer-review process, as there are a large number of flaws with its simplistic theory. Peter Gorrie of the Toronto Star has done an excellent job of reviewing several reasons why this report can’t be taken seriously.

Of greater concern than the lack of scientific rigor in the study is the precedent that this report sets in labeling a subset of the population as the cause of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The data and logic can be spun in a countless number of ways such that just about any subset of the population can be made to blame for climate change. As opposed to investing time and energy into questionable and discriminatory studies like the one described here, future efforts should be allocated towards developing solutions to the climate change problem.

Image: Victius at flickr under a CC License

Stephen Boles is co-founder of Kuzuka, a marketplace website that brings a new level of convenience and confidence to carbon offset customers and provide consulting services to organizations that want to assess and reduce their carbon footprint.

Rasmussen Reports‘ new survey has revealed a huge disconnect between the American people and the Obama administration’s proposed cap-and-trade climate change legislation.

The survey asked respondents to pick the subject area that the proposed cap-and-trade legislation will deal with: Environment, Health Care Reform, or Wall Street Regulation. A stunning 76% of the respondents were unable to select the correct Environment option. 30% of those surveyed stated that they had ‘no idea’, while 29% believe that cap-and-trade is a Wall Street regulation mechanism. Health care reform was the choice for 17%.

For the record, cap-and-trade is defined by Wikipedia as:

A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.

While the intent of the cap-and-trade legislation is to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases in the USA, there is a considerable amount of skepticism that the proposed bill will have a detrimental effect on the already weakened economy. For individual citizens, the most noticeable impacts of cap-and-trade may be inflated prices for electricity and energy (which is also expected to trickle down to impact prices of food and other consumer goods).

While corporate America has been working hard to prepare for the likely cap-and-trade world, Main Street America is very behind in understanding this landmark piece of legislation. The Obama administration has to make it a priority to educate the American people about the purpose of cap-and-trade, how it will work, and what it means to the average citizen.

When President Bush attempted to overhaul Social Security a number of years ago, he aggressively promoted his plan through a relentless barrage of town hall meetings, press conferences, and promotion through other media outlets. Although his campaign was unsuccessful, the public was well aware of the plan and the Bush administration could not be accused of hiding the details of the proposed changes to Social Security.

The Waxman-Markey Clean Energy and Security Act (the ‘cap-and-trade bill’) has the potential to permanently alter the American economic landscape. Hopefully the Obama administration will act to reverse the woeful job it has done to date in preparing the American people for this potential carbon-oriented policy.

Image: Caveman 92223 at flickr under a CC License

Stephen Boles is co-founder of Kuzuka, a marketplace website that will bring a new level of convenience and confidence to carbon offset customers and provide consulting services to organizations that want to assess and reduce their carbon footprint.

Last month the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its so-called ‘endangerment findings’, an announcement that set the table for future federal CO2 regulations under the Clean Air Act on the basis of greenhouse gases (GHG) representing a threat to human health and welfare.

The EPA’s landmark announcement was released at a time when public skepticism about the root causes of climate change is on the rise, and the sizable group of critics that oppose the endangerment findings were given a boost of ammunition this week.

The release of an undated and unsigned White House of Management and Budget memorandum (marked as ‘Deliberative - Attorney Client Privilege’) provides nine pages of critiques and challenges to the EPA’s assertion that GHG are a threat to human health and welfare. The memo is based on a collection of opinions from representatives of various federal agencies. The memo questions the scientific rigor employed by the EPA in preparing its endangerment findings report, and even suggests that the proposal to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act “would have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the US economy, including small businesses and small communities”.

Read more of this story »

The City of Toronto’s Planning and Growth Committee met earlier this week to discuss the proposed and highly controversial ‘Green Roof’ by-law. A green roof is partially or completely covered with vegetation and soil that has been planted over a waterproof layer. The benefits of these roofs include reduced energy use, reduced storm water runoff, and increased longevity of the roof by protecting it from natural elements.

The original version of the by-law would have made green roofs mandatory in new construction of condos higher than 7 storeys and office or retail complexes greater than 54,000 square feet beginning in 2010. The law was to require 30-60% of subjected buildings’ roofs to be green (depending on the size of the building) and violators would be subject to fines up to $100,000.

Read more of this story »

Read more of this story »

North of the border a controversy is starting to gain steam in the nation’s largest city, Toronto. The city has proposed a by-law that would make ‘green roofs’ mandatory in new construction of condos higher than 7 storeys and office or retail complexes greater than 54,000 square feet (about 1/4 of a Wal-Mart Supercenter). The proposed law would require 30-60% of the surface area of buildings’ roofs to be green (depending on the size of the building) and violators would be subject to fines up to $100,000.

Read more of this story »

Over the past several months the Canadian federal government has been operating under the assumption that they would be joining forces with the US government in the development of a joint carbon trading system between the two countries. Because of this, progress in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions has basically been on hold at the federal level in Canada until the details of a US-led plan were revealed.

This inaction by the Government of Canada has taken the spotlight off of their much-maligned Turning the Corner greenhouse gas action plan, which was originally introduced in early 2007. This plan was widely criticized for its use of intensity-based emission reductions and targets that were not nearly as strong as those defined in the Kyoto Accord, of which Canada is a signatory.

Read more of this story »

Some attempts have been made to calculate the carbon footprint of President Obama’s inauguration. The inauguration had a MASSIVE footprint - over half a million pounds of greenhouse gas emissions! However, the President’s inauguration can basically be compared to a wedding or other one-time event. It is not indicative of a normal year-over-year carbon footprint caused by everyday living and business travel. There have been no apparent efforts to calculate the footprint of the President in an average year - this is a first attempt to provide an initial rough estimate. It is important to note that this carbon footprint is for the office of the President of the United States, not necessarily President Obama. For example, It could just as easily be applicable to former Presidents Bush and Clinton.

Due to the difficulty in obtaining specific data about the White House and the President’s travel detail, certain assumptions have been made which are documented after the main body of the article. These assumptions were kept conservative, yet realistic, and documented facts (such as airplane specifications and carbon emission factors) were used wherever possible.

An important consideration of a carbon footprint assessment is the boundaries - in other words ‘What is included?’ We have included the following items in the carbon footprint calculation:

1. Airplane Travel (all flights associated with a Presidential trip, including official Air Force 1 and alternate Air Force 1, military cargo planes, and advance security missions)
2. Helicopter Travel
3. Automobile Travel
4. White House electricity and natural gas use

We have not included the emissions related to: the Inauguration ceremony, maintenance of Camp David, maintenance of other personal property owned by the President, maintenance of the approximately 18 acres of White House grounds.

Using our set of assumptions*, the carbon footprint of the President is about 41,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases per year. This is the equivalent to the annual carbon footprint of about 2200 American households. This also far exceeds the carbon footprint of any of the European leaders, largely due to the number of additional airplane trips that accompany the President when he travels to provide the necessary security for the Commander in Chief. This level of security far surpasses that of the President’s European counterparts. This includes a second Boeing 747-200B (identical to Air Force One) that serves as a backup and decoy to the official Air Force One. Also deployed are two C-17 Globemaster military cargo planes to move the helicopters and limousines that carry the President at his eventual destination. Finally, there are oftern a number of advance flights made by the military to perform security assessments at the destination before the President arrives.

This carbon footprint estimate is in no way meant to be a criticism of the President. The security of the President is the utmost concern when he travels, regardless of the amount of emissions that are generated to ensure his safety. This article is intended to provide some perspective as to where the Presidential carbon emissions come from. President Obama has received some criticism in the media for the temperature that he maintains in the Oval Office. Whether these concerns are valid or not, it is obvious that automobile use and White House emissions are only a small fraction of his carbon footprint. Given the huge proportion of air travel emissions in the President’s carbon footprint, this is the area with the largest potential for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Even modest improvements in areas such as logistical planning could reduce the President’s carbon footprint by a significant amount.

President Obama has emerged as a ‘green champion’ since he took office. His aggressive promotion of green energy will do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than the massive carbon footprint that his office is responsible for. We recognize that with the need for security and the realities of his office it is inevitable that the President will have a very large carbon footprint. But is his office doing everything (within reason) that they can do to reduce his impact? It is more likely that the American people will act to reduce their own emissions if the President leads by example.

*Assumptions:

Air Travel
Amount Flown (for each plane in fleet): 100,397 miles per year or 202 hours of flight time (2 trips to Middle East, 1 to Far East Asia, 2 to Europe, 8 to west coast of North America, 16 within the Eastern time zone of North America)

Number of Planes Deployed per Presidential Trip: 8

• 2 Boeing 747-200B (Air Force 1 + alternate; fuel consumption data)
• 2 C-17 Globemaster military cargo planes; fuel consumption data
• 4 Boeing 767 (advance security mission flights); fuel consumption data

Air Travel CO2 Emission Factor

Helicopter Travel
Hours of helicopter usage per year: 58
(30 minutes of helicopter use on each of the 29 Presidential trips multiplied by 4 to account for the number of helicopters used each time the President travels)
Fuel consumption data from Sikorsky S-76 model (Marine One is actually a Sikorsky Sea King)

Automobile Travel
Size of motorcade when President travels: 30
Annual distance driven per vehicle in motorcade (in miles): 3650 (10 miles/day)
Assumed fuel efficiency of vehicles in motorcade: 20 MPG
CO2 Emission Factor for Gasoline

White House Electricity and Energy Use:
Square Footage of the White House: 55000
Assumed Electricity Use per square foot: 15.5 kWh
Electricity Emission Factor: 0.62 kg CO2 / kWh
Assumed Natural Gas use per square foot: 0.27 therms
Natural Gas CO2 Emission Factor: 2.146 kg CO2 / cubic meter

Stephen Boles is co-founder of Kuzuka, a marketplace website that will bring a new level of convenience and confidence to carbon offset customers and provide consulting services to organizations that want to assess and reduce their carbon footprint.

Red flags were raised when CARB released their “Cool Cars” initiative that outlined a number of methods to reduce automotive greenhouse gas emissions. One such method was to mandate that all automotive paints had to contain a reflective coating that would reduce the amount of absorbed solar radiation. Less absorbed solar radiation would reduce the temperature inside the vehicle, requiring less use of fuel-hungry air conditioners.

The CARB report specifically stated that ‘jet black remains an issue’ because dark colors absorb far more radiation than light colors. This statement generated outrage amongst a range of right-wingers, libertarians, and probably a lot of people who just like the color black.

Read more of this story »

Even though the rapid growth of the human population is such an obvious concern, very few people outside of the academic world and some dedicated NGOs are willing to discuss the issue. The earth’s population is projected to rise an astonishing 40% to 9.2 billion people by 2050! This level of increase will put tremendous strain on a wide range of already-stressed resources, including food stocks, fresh water, precious metals, and of course fossil fuels.

Read more of this story »

The first phase of this shift was 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 phase of this paradigm shift has been a noticeable increase in skepticism amongst the general public about the causes and impacts of climate change and a general decrease in interest in the topic. 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 are now questioning the causes of climate.

Yet some recent polls in the US and Britain indicate that the tide may be turning in this regard. 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.

Stephen Boles is co-founder of Kuzuka, a marketplace website that will bring a new level of convenience and confidence to carbon offset customers. Kuzuka also provides consulting services to organizations that want to assess and reduce their corporate carbon footprint.

Image:

Given that overall US consumer spending in the fourth quarter of 2008 fell by its largest margin in almost 30 years, one has to wonder how the market for ‘green products’ will be impacted by this recession. Leading up to the economic downturn the momentum of the green economy was chugging along splendidly. The consumer demand for environmentally-friendly products was at an all-time high, even if the products were priced at a premium over standard options.

A recent survey by the consumer research firm Mintel explored the green buying preferences of Americans during this recession. The results should serve as a wake-up call to producers and retailers of green products.

Read more of this story »

I am a dual citizen of Canada and the USA. My two older children are also dual citizens, but my youngest one is Canadian only and wife Jenni is American only – it is great fun explaining this to border agents when we travel between our two countries!

What this means is that I have a unique perspective when it comes to climate change issues (or political issues in general) having spent a significant amount of time on both sides of the Canada – US border. I find the subtle and sometimes not so subtle differences and nuances between the two nations fascinating and I hope to convey a lot of my observations in this area to the RG&B readership.

Read more of this story »