Green at fifteen?

Canadian teens, like their counterparts in many other industrialized countries, are fairly knowledgeable about energy and environmental issues but the results of a just-published international study suggest that their educational systems have some room for improvement.

The OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) conducted an extensive survey in 2006 of 15-year-olds in the 30 OECD countries, including Canada, as well 27 other countries and economic regions.

“Overall, the PISA tests showed widespread awareness among teenagers about environmental issues, coupled with a sense of responsibility and optimism,” the OECD says in the 117-page report. “But the results also showed variations in competence in environmental science . . . and a lack of realistic appreciation on the part of students doing poorly in this area of the effort and time needed to address environmental problems.

 ”If, as tomorrow’s voters and taxpayers, they remain unconvinced of the scale of the challenges . . . they will be unlikely to be ready to bear the cost of forward-looking investments in these areas.”

The OECD’s Secretary General, Angel Gurria, who was Mexico’s foreign minister in the late 1990s, said the public’s actions and attitudes will determine whether the world successfully addresses unprecedented risks to the global environment.

“This survey shows that in many countries and social groups, awareness is high but levels of knowledge and understanding need to be raised,” he said. “Without this, there is a risk that ignorance will lead to complacency and inaction.”

On average, close to 20 per cent of students in OECD countries were able to tackle the hardest environment-related science questions, such as finding alternative explanations for the increase of CO2 emissions and global warming. In Canada, more than 25 per cent answered the question correctly.

Nearly all Canadian students, some 99 per cent, said they were familiar with or knew something about air pollution, compared with 90 per cent who had the same awareness of energy shortages. Asked whether they felt that air pollution and energy shortages were serious concerns personally or for other Canadians, the responses were 93 and 80 per cent in the affirmative. 

While students with a good grasp of environmental science felt better informed about complex environmental issues, they were also less optimistic than their peers that things will improve in the future. Within the OECD overall, only 16 per cent felt that air pollution would improve over the next 20 years while 23 per cent expected energy shortages to be less problematic. That optimism was even less pronounced in Canada with 13 per cent expecting air pollution to improve and 17 per cent expecting fewer energy shortages. The respective U.S. percentages were 21 and 26.

An educational opportunity?

“Naked as newts” on climate change

It all comes down to dollars and cents. If consumers and policymakers are forced to choose between a healthy environment and a healthy economy, the decision seems quite easy.

Which is why the hot topic of climate change is getting somewhat of a cold shoulder on the political front.

At least that’s what Toronto Globe and Mail columnist and co-author of “Hot Air: Meeting Canada’s Climate Change Challenge”, Jeffrey Simpson sees on the horizon for Canada. He expects climate change to be “somewhat” relegated to the back burner by the re-elected Conservative minority, forced there by world oil price trends and the ongoing international market meltdown.

Speaking to the ninth Canadian Hydropower Association annual forum, Simpson said there is a rational case for using carbon tax in concert with cap-and-trade initiatives, tougher emissions standards and selective subsidies in the fight against global warming.

He lauded British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell’s carbon tax and federal Liberal leader Stéphane Dion’s recent “green shift” election campaign. Simpson suggested the gradual introduction of a carbon tax as proposed by Dion could change consumer buying patterns.

Case and point. In recent months when oil prices soared, sales of sport utility vehicles “tanked” while sales of hybrids and other fuel-efficient alternatives increased commensurately. “So the market, in effect, did its job.” A promising sign that we can mend our bigfoot ways. But according to Simpson, consumer change is generally a slow and sometimes grudging process.

And when economic times are tough, environmental concerns “tend to subside” making climate change policy less of a priority.

Canadians were well ahead of their politicians on the climate change issue. From 2006 to 2008, successive polls indicated an overwhelming call for action on global warming. “We led the world in plans,” Simpson said, drawing a chuckle as he faulted governments for being “naked as newts to the rest of the world” in terms of turning plans into action.

Even as Canadians pressed for change, Not-In-My-Back-Yard remained the watchword. Consumers are in favour of more wind and solar power, but keep the turbine and panel arrays away from my little patch of green. Clean hydroelectric power is great, but don’t flood any areas near me.

“Canadians are still open to ideas about how to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, but they’re very wary about how it should be done – and at what cost.” Simpson added that Canadians are at the early stages of a revolution away from fossil-fuel dependence to a different energy mix as they become increasingly aware of the liabilities and global environmental degradation.

Simpson lamented the lack of a national energy policy, including a federally-financed national power grid, as the provinces go their own way and the federal government keeps its grip on trade and economic issues. That being said, there was no mention of hydroelectricity in the re-elected Conservatives’ campaign plan.

Overall, Canadians remain wedded to the easy options, according to Simpson: government subsidies, energy-efficient light bulbs and appliances. Conversely, higher prices for energy remain as unpopular today as when the Progressive Conservative government of Joe Clark was defeated on the “short-term pain for long-term gain” concept of an 18-cent increase in gasoline excise taxes.

For now, the market has spoken.

Cellulosic biofuels show that the grass is indeed greener

Biofuels, like ethanol or other fuels made from plant materials, offer that ray of hope that we can dramatically reduce global warming pollution. But rising food prices and the looming threat of a global food crisis are adding fuel to the tummy or tank debate surrounding biofuels.

Many consumers are asking, “Should food crops be diverted into energy production?”

Biofuels are not entirely to blame in the shrinking global food supply. Increased demand for livestock feed, a multi-year drought in Australia and market speculation are being touted as contributing factors.

That’s where cellulosic biofuels offer a viable alternative to traditional grain-based biofuels. Utilizing the leaves, stems and stalks of the raw plant material, cellulosic biofuels can produce fuel from hardy perennial prairie grasses.

Take switchgrass as an example. Not only is it a potentially abundant raw source, but because it’s a native species, it doesn’t require any harmful pesticides and fertilizers. The key benefit is cellulosic biofuel does not compete with food crops for land. In fact, certain celluloid biofuel crops could prove beneficial to farmland, protecting against soil erosion and increasing soil carbon.

Thanks to cellulosic biofuels, we could see biofuels for sale on par or less than the average price for gas and diesel fuel as early as 2015. By 2050, biofuels could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1.7 billion tons per year. That’s more than 80 percent of the current greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.

Proving that the grass is indeed greener on the other side.

What happens to sex when the planet heats up?

The foundering polar bear swimming through slush is certainly a potent symbol, but when it comes to getting our attention there’s rarely something as provocative as sex.

All right, the sex we’re talking about isn’t of the human variety, but it’s still an essential touchstone in the discussion on climate change. And, as with polar bears, it starts in the cold.

Penguins, who also add the all-important “cute” factor to their environmental appeal, are apparently functioning as modern day miner’s canaries, signaling the beginning of major environmental shifts. In addition to the damage caused by pollution, over-fishing and developments that encroach on their breeding grounds, a variety of penguin species have been subject to the effects of a warming environment. In fact, according to Dee Boersma, a University of Washington biology professor and a penguin authority, these changes could lead to the birds’ extinction.

Among the direct effects of climate change on penguins’ breeding, the colony of penguins featured in the documentary March of the Penguins, lost its young when the ice they were nesting on broke apart, sending the underdeveloped chicks into the water. While the effect might not be the kind of tawdry detail we generally look for when it comes to sex, it does demonstrate how the whole purpose of the exercise can be undermined. No young, no point.

And aquatic birds aren’t the only species whose sexual activities are directly influenced by the Earth’s temperature. The sexual characteristics of tuatara lizards, a species more than 200 million years old, are defined by heat—the higher the temperature (above 21.5°C), the higher the probability of a male birth. With rising global temperatures, then, the tuatara is in danger of becoming extinct due to a lack of sexual diversity.

One of the solutions to increasing heat might be something as simple as a cloth draped over a nesting site, keeping the temperature relatively cool. Interestingly, placing a shading barrier over the tuatara’s breeding grounds has been suggested, albeit with more sophisticated (read: expensive) technology, for the entire planet.

After all, where troubled sexual reproduction is concerned, that’s an issue worth rallying a planet around.

Feeling gassy?

You’ve heard this: We are all hothouse tomatoes, trapped under invisible, gaseous glass and if we don’t stay green we’re going to go overripe faster than you can say ketchup. What’s more, you’re probably aware that the invisible gases fuelling our environmental woes are being tackled with emissions standards, cap-and-trade carbon credits and carbon taxes.

So, since you know all of that, a few simple questions: Do you really know what a greenhouse gas is?

Can you name one? Two? Six? Do you know when and where you produce them?

Well, if you can’t, have no fear; Flow is here to give you the basic whats and wheres of greenhouse gases. After all, they’re as tricky as substances can be. For one, they’re all invisible.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the four primary greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol are carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and ozone (144KB PDF), with each of them assigned a numeric “Global Warming Potential” (GWT) value. The remaining three, all man-made, are sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons.

Below are a few examples of where your actions may have produced some of these tomato-shriveling gases.

Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Where: Your soda
Car exhaust, feedlots, industrial pollution, fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is the dominant greenhouse gas for a reason—it’s in almost everything we burn, and it’s what we exhale. It’s so common, and because it’s impractical to suggest we all stop breathing, for now let’s concentrate on the C02 that makes those little fizzing bubbles in our Mountain Dew.

Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Where: Your steak
Before your sirloin was medium-rare, it was so rare that it walked, mooed and produced nitrogen-rich manure. Vegetarians aren’t off the hook either, especially if the plants they eat were grown with nitrous fertilizers. If there’s a plus side to animal waste, though, it’s that it doesn’t need to be wasted.

Methane (CH4)
Where: Your trash
Along with CO2, methane is one of the two gases found in “landfill gas”, which smells as appetizing as it sounds. But new energy techniques are trapping this noxious gas and turning it into viable fuel that, when burned, leaves only CO2.

Ozone (O3)
Where: Your car
In fairness to your car, ozone pollution isn’t all its fault. But when its exhaust comes in contact with so-called “volatile organic compounds” in the air, ground-level ozone is created. And while Canadians may be committed to stopping the depletion of the ozone layer, those added ozone gases aren’t helping.

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
Where: Your magic
As far as direct contributions, you’re probably safe here. Short of the electrical industry, which uses the gas to insulate high voltage circuit breakers, the closest you’re likely to come to releasing sulfur hexafluoride is when you decide to wow your friends with your incredibly low voice and magical powers. But while you might not be a burgeoning magician, you certainly do use the magic of electricity every day.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
Where: Your cold air
What would summer be without the comforting cold of an air conditioner? Well, for starters, it would see a lot fewer HFCs, which are used in air conditioning units. And before you rush off for your backup popsicle, just remember that your freezer is chock full of HFCs too.

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
Where: Your foil
If you’re a fencer and read “foil” with horror, relax: This is the kind of foil that wraps up leftovers, not competitions. PFCs are released during the process of turning alumina into aluminum, a metal you’ve used if you’ve ever had brisket left over to wrap up or used virtually any other modern metal convenience.

Seven greenhouse gases and seven familiar ways we generate them in our daily lives. Their effects are varied, but in addition to their eponymous greenhouse effect, they’re also known to increase the acidity of our oceans. And since the gases clearly aren’t just generated in the limited fields of soda, magic or food wrappings, it’s important to understand exactly how and where they are produced, and how the industries responsible for generating greenhouse gases are dealing with them.

It’s always better to understand the ways your energy use affects the world you live, because even if you’re behind on your reading there’s always time to “ketchup”.