Here's an interesting entry from Lawrence Solomon from his The Next City colum in the Financial Post (a section in the National Post newspaper). Another fact to consider in thinking about "global warming" is that precisely the same (small) amount of warming has been measured on other planets in our solar system (e.g., Mars) which supports the idea that fluctuations in the Sun's output are responsible.

Global cooling sign: Solar winds at 50-year-low

by Lawrence Solomon

FP Comment, September 28, 2008

In yet another sign that the Earth could be heading in to a period of global cooling, NASA reports that the solar wind is now at a 50-year low, the lowest that NASA has seen. This change in solar activity, which began to occur about a decade ago, coincides with the end of the climb in global temperatures that had been underway for decades.

"What we're seeing is a long term trend, a steady decrease in pressure that began sometime in the mid-1990s," explains Arik Posner, NASA's Ulysses Program Scientist in Washington DC.

"How unusual is this event?

"It's hard to say. We've only been monitoring solar wind since the early years of the Space Age – from the early 60s to the present. Over that period of time, it's unique. How the event stands out over centuries or millennia, however, is anybody's guess. We don't have data going back that far."

As a result of the diminished solar wind, cosmic rays are entering the Earth's atmosphere in greater number. Research at the Danish National Space Institute shows that cosmic rays increase cloud cover on Earth, and that this cloud cover can have a cooling effect. Does this help explain why global temperatures plateaued a decade ago, and why they are now decreasing? Stay tuned!

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 3:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (3)

I thought readers might be interested in the following report from the (relatively) new organization, Zero Waste Simcoe. This is one of several "ZW" entities popping up around the country. This one is led by a municipal councilor, Gord McKay. The group wanted to do something concrete to promote Zero Waste thinking, and yet not sound shrill or negative. They picked a real winner in a promotional campaign (that used volunteers in front of grocery stores) to promote greater use of re-usable shopping bags.

They didn't specify what these should be made of, and they didn't overly "attack" other kinds of bags -- they simply promoted what everyone agrees is the most sustainable kind of shopping bag. The stores themselves were very receptive to this initiative and, in fact, positive.

Here is the note that one participant wrote up about the event:

Hi All

I am very pleased with the outcome of Saturday’s Campaign at Midland IGA, Mike’s Food Basics, Real Canadian Superstore and Midland Valu-Mart.

I think the best indicators, at the end of the day, were the enthusiasm of our 12 volunteers who engaged arriving and departing customers at our displays, and the reaction of customers and staff at the stores.

Many arriving customers were apologetic about having left cloth bags at home or in their cars. Many went back to their cars to get their bags. A few brought plastic bags from home to use again. And some bought cloth bags in the stores because they had been reminded of the benefits of decreasing consumption of plastic shopping bags. Some, as expected, were not interested. We were able to talk directly to many people about the environmental and taxpayer costs of the ever-increasing use of plastic shopping bags, and other plastic packaging in food stores and other retail outlets. And that awareness is precisely what Zero Waste Simcoe is trying to encourage throughout our County.

Store managers are enthusiastic about our Campaign, because we are supporting their efforts to decrease consumption of plastic shopping bags - and their operating costs. In the long term, these retail business initiatives reduce the amount of plastic material sent by consumers for disposal in municipal landfill and incineration facilities – and reduce taxpayer cost of “waste management”. One store had special cloth bags that they gave for free, one per customers, until their supply ran out. Another had cloth bags on sale for 50 cents each. One store allowed checkout counter staff to wear our “Bring Your Own Bags – BYOB” tags.

There was, understandably, much more interest in the cloth vs plastic issue, than in the broader scope of the Zero Waste concept. Shoppers have a very direct stake in the choice between cloth and plastic bags.

Christina Bernardo, a reporter for the Midland Free Press showed up at Food Basics. She interviewed Liz Dow and Sharon Nix and took pictures of them with our display. Watch the Free Press (likely last week of September). Christy tells me she is working to a deadline on an article for Tiny Ties.

Next Saturday, our teams will be at Penetang Foodland.

I believe the initial test Campaign justifies future local Campaign days and roll-out of the project across Simcoe County. In the near term we will call a meeting of the Action Committee to review progress and to plan next steps. Remembering that our long term goal is to drastically reduce or, preferably, eliminate the consumption of plastic shopping bags.

Thank you to everyone in ZWS for making our first action effort a success! Well done!

Ron

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I thought readers would enjoy the following exchange between writer David Menzies and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO). The initial article (and replies) appeared in the Financial Post and exposes the LCBO's sham environmental programs. The LCBO replies and this provides Menzies with another opportunity to gore them. Interesting stuff.

Fake ‘green’ campaign kills real jobs

July 30, 2008

The LCBO’s anti-glass crusade is all about optics, not facts

By David Menzies

More than 400 employees of the Owens-Illinois glass plant in Toronto received a shock on Tuesday when they discovered their factory is being tossed upon the scrap heap of obsolescence come September.

What killed the plant? A robust loonie? Skyrocketing energy costs? Nope. The silent assassin is none other than the Ontario government’s liquor monopoly and its disingenuous pursuit of a bogus “green” strategy.

In a nutshell, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) now deems glass bottles to be environmentally-unfriendly. Waste is measured by weight in Ontario, and glass is heavy, so out with glass. As a result, the LCBO is actively strong-arming suppliers to opt for other forms of packaging. As Owen-Illinois CEO and chairman Albert Stroucken notes in a July 2, 2008 letter to Premier Dalton McGuinty, the LCBO has been “aggressively encouraging — and in some cases effectively forcing — our customers in Ontario and in other jurisdictions to switch from using glass packaging to so-called ‘alternative’ materials such as plastic and aseptic cartons.”

Unfortunately for Owens-Illinois workers, the LCBO’s anti-glass campaign is all about optics, not facts. The LCBO’s recent self-congratulatory marketing push hailed its campaign as “Enviro Chic: The Evolution of Packaging.” The liquor monopoly crowned itself a green champion thanks to a policy of “challenging” its suppliers to reduce packaging. When a government monopoly “challenges” a supplier, this is akin to issuing an edict, as Mr. Stroucken suggested.

The LCBO’s green master plan boils down to a weight reduction scheme by coercing suppliers to drop glass bottles in favour of light-weight aluminum, Tetra Pak and plastic. “Look, Ma. No waste by weight.” But putting containers on a diet creates another problem, which is massive waste that can’t be recycled and must be land-filled.

Consider the LCBO’s push for wineries to eschew glass bottles in favour of Tetra Paks. Undeniably, a Tetra Pak carton is lighter than a glass bottle; however, the recycling rate for Tetra Paks is downright abysmal. According to Waste Diversion Ontario, a minuscule 12.7% of Tetra Pak packaging was recovered in 2005, meaning 87.3% ended up in landfill. And Tetra Paks, like Toronto’s garbage, must be shipped out of the province for processing since there aren’t any facilities to recycle the stuff in Ontario.

Also of note, Tetra Paks are derived from virgin pulp and aluminum. As such, the manufacture of Tetra Pak containers requires excessive energy consumption and needlessly depletes natural resources. By comparison, almost 100% of all refillable glass bottles are recovered. “The LCBO has not produced any credible, validated third-party assessment of the environmental claims it is making regarding alternative packaging,” notes Stroucken. Owens-Illinois’s Toronto and Brampton plants are situated within 100 kilometres of every major beverage alcohol producer in the province, making it a localized packaging solution.

Unfortunately, given its monopoly position, the LCBO’s strong-arm tactics have paid off. “We were recently advised that as a result of commercial pressure by the LCBO, a major beverage alcohol producer in Ontario is switching from competitively-priced glass packaging to plastic bottles,” notes Mr. Stroucken. The LCBO, it seems, is taking greenmail to a new level.

Tetra Paks, moreover, typically contain foreign-made alcoholic beverages, such as French Rabbit wine (which isn’t even sold in France). The reason: the LCBO prefers foreign wine over the domestic product as it perceives Ontario vintners as a competitive threat due to their on-site wine stores. This is why Ontario wines are treated as second-class citizens at LCBO stores. According to the Wine Council of Ontario, Ontario wines can account for up to 30% of total LCBO wine sales. Yet, many LCBO stores give Ontario wines as little as 14% shelf space.

As a fake green corporation, the LCBO has managed to dodge bottle recycling. All bottles sold through the monopoly must now be returned by consumers to another company in Ontario’s bizarre alcohol market, The Beer Store, a retail monopoly owned and operated by Ontario brewers. Having dodged the recycling bullet, the LCBO is now looking for an environmental win and thinks it has found it in Tetra Paks and schemes that reduce its output of waste by weight. Hundreds of local manufacturing jobs are jettisoned along the way.

The premier, apparently, does not care about the Owens-Illinois Toronto plant nor the abusive business practices of a crown corporation. Meantime, the LCBO publicly congratulates itself for false green triumphs.

Financial Post

David Menzies is a Toronto writer.

For LCBO, the glass is half empty

Re: Fake 'green' campaign kills real jobs, David Menzies, July 31.

David Menzies' July 31st opinion piece, "Fake 'green' campaign kills real jobs" is another blatant attempt to discredit the LCBO by distorting the truth to support his bias.

He pins the sole blame for the Toronto plant closure of American glass manufacturer Owens Illinois (OI) on the LCBO, even though the company itself cites surging energy costs, a strong Canadian dollar and the U. S. economic downturn as the prime reasons. He also doesn't mention that OI previously announced plant closures in New Brunswick, France and Germany. According to OI, this contraction is a result of an ongoing review of its "global manufacturing footprint." No reference to LCBO.

Despite these challenges, OI announced on July 31 that its second quarter profit had climbed 60% and 2008 is shaping up to be a record year.

Far from being anti-glass, in fiscal 2007-08 the LCBO sold almost 287 million litres of products in glass containers, or the equivalent of 382.2 million standard 750-mL bottles -- an increase of 4.7 million 750-mL glass bottles over the previous year. Since 2005, the LCBO has made available fewer than 230 products in new or repackaged formats (PET, aluminium and aseptic containers).

The reality is suppliers make their own business decisions as to packaging. The LCBO has worked with a handful of suppliers to offer selected products in lighter-weight packages, but these products account for less than 4.6% of all LCBO volume sales. Most of these are imports, packaged outside of Ontario, not products that would impact a glass manufacturer in Toronto.

Mr. Menzies also uses selective, outdated data to try to discredit Tetra Paks. Some 30% of beverage alcohol Tetra Paks are now being recycled through the Ontario deposit return program. The 12.7% figure he cites represents all types of Tetra Pak containers including fruit drink boxes and pre-dates deposit-return. This government recycling program has also benefitted OI by significantly increasing the amount of glass available in Ontario for reuse.

The LCBO would be pleased to discuss with OI and other glass producers ways to help us in our efforts to shift to lighter-weight glass bottles.

Fanciful conspiracy theories aside, the fact is the glass bottle will be the dominant format in LCBO stores for years to come.

Chris Layton, LCBO Media Relations Co-ordinator, Toronto.

David Menzies responds: Alas, once again the control freaks at the Liquor Control Board are stretching the truth some more. Let me count the ways:

Firstly, the LCBO notes non-glass packages "… account for less than 4.6% of all LCBO volume sales." This is misleading at best. While the statistic may be true on a dollar sales basis (dollars of booze sold) on a unit sales basis (the number of containers sold) here are the facts: - Unit sales in non-glass containers exceed 22%, with 7.8% of that in aseptic cartons (Tetra Pak containers) and PET plastic; - 90% of sales growth between 2006 and 2007 was in non-glass containers (aluminum, PET and Tetra Paks) while the remaining 10% was in glass.

Secondly, suppliers are indeed coerced into so-called "alternative packaging" using LCBO listing polices as inducements. Just consider the January 31, 2006 letter penned by Lyle Clarke, the LCBO's project lead for "environmental strategy." In the letter sent to Linda Franklin, the then-president of the Wine Council of Ontario, Mr. Clarke notes the following:

"Assuming the WCO were to indicate a desire for the LCBO to lift the moratorium for Ontario wine, the LCBO would be pleased to discuss a comprehensive strategy for the expansion of the LCBO's offering of Ontario wines in this format [alternative packaging] … As I noted, it is very important for the LCBO to maintain a premium image for wines in alternative packaging, and therefore, the Wines Category will not purchase any new products, including extensions of existing brands, that are not priced in the premium segment. However, Wines [Category] will replace any existing SKU if the supplier is proposing to completely convert from glass to non-glass formats such as Tetra Pak for that SKU, regardless of its price positioning in the market."

When the only distribution channel in the province dangles increased shelf space to its suppliers on the proviso that they switch to non-glass packaging, surely this cannot be considered anything but coercion.

Thirdly, the LCBO cites a 30% recycling rate for Tetra Paks in the deposit-refund system. Actually the recovery rate is 30% but there is no dedicated Tetra Pak recycling available in Canada. Tetra Paks are therefore being blended into other cardboard collected by The Beer Store. Of every kilogram of Tetra Paks recovered, only 50% can be recycled with the plastic and aluminum going to landfill. It gets worse: the Michigan plant that was recycling Ontario's Tetra Paks no longer accepts such trash. As such, those Tetra Pak containers are now shipped half-way around the world to Korea and China for processing. The carbon footprint for that initiative is surely Sasquatch in size.

Bottom line: The LCBO clearly strong-arms its suppliers and floats misleading data so as to make it seem like it is doing something progressive for the environment, all at the expense of local jobs. And as long as the LCBO can continue to delude its ministerial masters that its environmental policies make sense, one shouldn't be hopeful that tangible change is in the cards. All of which is perversely ironic given that the ostensible policy reason for the very existence of the LCBO is "social responsibility."

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 8:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (5)