By Delia Montgomery •
April 11, 2009
Last month press releases were distributed about bamboo textiles. All were in relation to the Canadian Competition Bureau (CCB) announcements that textile manufacturers, importers and retailers are soon required to comply with the country’s Textile Labeling Act (TLA) and the Textile Labeling and Advertising Regulations (TLAR).
The CCB is an independent agency that contributes to the prosperity of Canadians by protecting and promoting competitive markets and enabling informed consumer choices. The CCB published Guidance on Labeling Textile Articles Derived from Bamboo to assist the textile supply chain to deal with new compliance in Canada.
By Andrew Williams •
January 22, 2009
In one of his first moves upon taking office, President Obama has ordered a freeze on all new or pending regulations from the Bush administration.
By Autumn Wiggins •
December 14, 2008

The CPSIA(Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008) states that even a simple wooden toy maker will be required to have a third-party lead test every different variation of marionette he makes, costing upwards of $2000 a pop. While well intentioned in the wake of numerous recalls of imported products for lead and toxic chemical content, CPSIA ignores the financial constraints and mostly excellent track records of domestic toy manufacturers. It means that as of February 10th, 2009, if you offer for sale any items marketed to, or for use by children under age 12 that have not gone through an expensive beaurucratic rigmarole, then my friend, you are a criminal.
By Joshua S Hill •
August 27, 2008
In the wake of the decision by the Bush administration to try and neuter the Endangered Species Act, environmental groups across America have come out in opposition to the plans. The latest, the Ecological Society of America, has come out hitting hard.
"The concept of independent scientific review has been in practice since the 18th century and is crucial to ensuring that ideas and proposed work are scientifically sound," said Alison Power, president of the Society and professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University. "This overhaul of the Endangered Species Act would place the fate of rare species in the hands of government stakeholders who are not qualified to assess the environmental impacts of their activities."
Smaller homes are more energy efficient generally, and consume fewer resources for their construction. In the United States, the average house size has been skyrocketing in the past few decades from 983 square feet in 1950 to almost 2,350 square feet in 2004.
Smaller buildings are potentially more affordable, are better suited to livable neighborhoods, and serve the needs of smaller families (while our houses have more than doubled in size since 1950, the size of the average family has actually decreased in that same period). There are already developers who understand this, but sometimes, the municipalities make it impossible to build smaller homes.
Marty Pieroni, a developer in Kuna, Idaho was turned down on his request to build some houses smaller than the 1,400 square foot minimum set by the city. With rising energy costs and the current housing credit crunch, there is an increasing demand for smaller, more efficient houses. But the city government (whose tax base is determined by the value of the developed property within its bounds) does not want to allow smaller properties and has turned down the request.
By Ranjit Arab •
March 13, 2008
I don’t know if you caught it, but the whole Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama flap over NAFTA exposed a dirty little secret: The North American Free Trade Agreement isn’t about American jobs or cheap Mexican labor—it’s about Canadian oil.
Think as far back as two weeks ago. I know you can do it. Remember, Britney’s dad started taking control of her life… everyone you know bugged the hell out of you by constantly saying: “I drink your milkshake…”
Anyway, back then, Hillary and Obama were campaigning among blue-collar crowds in Ohio when news broke out that someone from the Obama camp called the Canadian government and reassured them that the tough talk on NAFTA was all just an act. Later, it was revealed that Hillary probably made a similar call.
All of which begged the question: Why would they care so much about Canada if this was about NAFTA? Hasn’t Uncle Lou told us time and time again that NAFTA is all about Mexico: its cheap labor, and its non-existent regulations, which entice American factories to relocate south of the border?
By Philip Proefrock •
October 22, 2007

Green technologies make good sense to most of us, but incomplete or uncoordinated implementation can lead to circumstances where green technologies are not able to provide the full benefits that they can. In some instances, regulatory requirements can even lead to making green technologies counterproductive.
Waterless urinals present one striking example of how regulations and green technology are not yet working together. In some municipalities, waterless urinals have not been allowed by building
[...]