back to Updates Page

June 7, 2004 (Globe and Mail)
From cheap and dirty to clean and lean

Canada could really learn a thing or two from the Calgary Flames about using energy efficiently. The Flames have relied for success on the strategic use of energy (along with some superb goaltending). Canada, on the other hand, has a terrible record of wasting energy, an approach that is costing our economy billions of dollars and damaging our environment.

According to the World Economic Forum, Canada ranks dead last among the world's 18 wealthiest nations in energy efficiency. "Energy efficiency" measures the amount of energy required to produce a fixed amount of economic output or Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Among the nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Canada is 28th out of 29, lagging behind nations like Mexico, Poland, and Portugal.

Although we perceive ourselves, as an industrialized 21st-century society, to be technologically advanced, scientists calculate that the overall energy efficiency of the Canadian and American economies is about 10 per cent. In other words, 90 per cent of the energy generated is wasted. Light bulbs are a classic example, as only 8 per cent of the energy consumed by a regular bulb is used to produce light while the rest produces heat.

The costs of Canada's energy inefficiency are high, opening a Pandora's box of environmental problems. Inefficiency contributes to the air pollution that kills more Canadians than homicides annually, to our Faustian bargain with nuclear energy, and to the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.

On the economic side, we are recklessly wasting energy, the way Canada's sponsorship program squandered taxpayers' money. Energy inefficiency costs us money, reduces our competitiveness in global markets, strains aging infrastructure, and makes us more vulnerable to energy price shocks.

Why is Canada's record on energy efficiency so awful? The leading excuses are our vast size and cold climate. While Canada's size is a challenge, the U.S. and other large nations are more energy-efficient. Climate is also a red herring, as cold Nordic nations like Sweden, Norway, and Finland are far more energy-efficient.

There are several key reasons for our dismal record. First, energy is so cheap in Canada that there is scarcely any incentive to conserve. In contrast, Europe is much more efficient because gasoline and energy cost three to four times as much as in Canada.

Despite warnings from economists and environmentalists, Canada stubbornly continues to subsidize both the production and the consumption of energy. Taxpayers have forked over billions to the nuclear, oil, gas, and coal industries. Consumers have reaped bonanzas in the form of ill-conceived home heating rebates. Our energy prices fail to reflect the health and environmental costs of air pollution, climate change, and habitat destruction.

A second problem is that Canada depends mainly on ineffective voluntary programs to increase energy efficiency. For example, the overall fuel efficiency of the motor vehicle fleet is worse today than it was in 1982, when manufacturers persuaded the federal government to rely on a voluntary agreement instead of regulations. In fact, a 1912 Model T Ford could get up to 35 miles per gallon of gas, surpassing the fuel efficiency of all but one model in Ford's 2003 vehicle line-up.

Similarly, the voluntary R2000 energy-efficiency standard for homes has been around for 20 years, yet only 1 per cent of new homes are built to this standard, despite the fact that it produces homes with better indoor air quality, lower utility bills, and higher resale value.

In contrast to these failed voluntary approaches, there is one beacon of progress in Canada: the federal Energy Efficiency Act passed in 1992. About 30 products, from refrigerators to small motors, have been mandated by law to increase their efficiency. Contrary to the initial objections from manufacturers about higher costs and unproven technology, the law is widely regarded as successful.

There is hope to be found in the fact that Canada's energy efficiency has increased by 21 per cent since 1980. However, many OECD nations experienced greater gains than Canada over the same period, including the U.S., the U.K., Denmark, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. More importantly, despite efficiency gains, total energy consumption in Canada increased 20 per cent between 1980 and 1997 because of our growing population and economic growth.

An optimist would observe that we have vast room for improvement. For Canada to move forward, governments need to implement smart efficiency policies. Canada should shift taxes from employment to energy as a number of European nations have done. Canada should have mandatory energy-efficiency standards for all appliances, vehicles, homes, commercial buildings, space-heating systems, and new power-generating facilities.

Canada could subsidize energy-efficiency audits of businesses, and require the implementation of all actions with a payback period of five years or less (equal to a 20-per-cent return on investment), as done in Denmark. Canada could expand the existing energy-efficiency retrofit programs for residential, government, and commercial buildings.

Toronto's Better Building Partnership has retrofitted more than 450 buildings, reduced building operating costs by $19-million, eliminated 132,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually, and created about 3,800 construction jobs.

Energy-efficiency is a subject where there is a clear convergence of interests between economists and environmentalists. It saves money and results in cleaner air - a dream come true for politicians seeking win-win solutions. It would also help Canada meet its Kyoto targets.

In one of his leadership speeches on route to becoming Prime Minister, Paul Martin called on Canada to become the most energy-efficient nation in the world. In light of our dismal performance to date, this represents a gargantuan challenge.

Such a goal is akin to transforming the Calgary Flames from perennial doormats into Stanley Cup champions. As the Flames have demonstrated, this is an ambitious but not impossible task. If our next prime minister is willing to show the same kind of leadership and work ethic as Jarome Iginla, and invest the requisite resources, he could make it happen.

David R. Boyd is an environmental lawyer, professor, and author of Unnatural Law: Rethinking Canadian Environmental Law and Policy.

September 24 , 2003 (Globe and Mail)

Look who's driving the green agenda

Auto workers are not generally thought of as being in the vanguard of environmental protection. So it's a surprise that the Canadian Auto Workers union (CAW) is proposing one of Canada's most promising revolutions in environmental policy in years.

The CAW is calling on Canadian governments to apply a policy called "extended producer responsibility" to the auto industry. Also known as take-back legislation, this policy holds manufacturers accountable for the goods that they produce for the product's entire lifetime. This means that owners can return vehicles to the manufacturer at the end of their useful life. Instead of cars winding up in unsightly junkyards, landfills or incinerators, their manufacturers would be obliged to take them back.

The beauty of this concept is that it provides manufacturers with a powerful incentive to redesign their products so that they can be disassembled into parts that are reused, remanufactured, or recycled. Ideally, all vehicle parts will have some valuable future use, so far less waste will enter landfills or incinerators, decreasing the burden on municipalities and taxpayers. As well, hazardous materials such as lead and polyvinyl chloride could be designed out of the vehicle production process.

Another key benefit of take-back legislation is that it results in the much more efficient use of energy and resources through recycling and reuse. Take-back laws generally require that 85 to 95 per cent of the weight of products be recycled or reused.

By lobbying for take-back legislation, the CAW is merely demonstrating enlightened self-interest. The CAW envisions a vehicle disassembly plant beside every assembly plant. Even if car sales decline in an environmentally friendly future dominated by public transit, cyclists, pedestrians, and tele-commuting, there would still be jobs for auto workers.

Extended producer-responsibility legislation was first introduced in Germany in 1991; since then, other nations including Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands have followed suit, with the European Union passing a regional directive in 2000. The results are impressive. Companies such as Volvo, Mercedes and BMW have redesigned the vehicles they sell in the European market in innovative ways, saving money, reducing waste and creating additional jobs for auto workers. Some countries have extended take-back laws to cover large home appliances, office equipment, and electrical and electronic equipment.

Extended producer responsibility is part of a new way of thinking about how goods and services should be designed for a sustainable 21st-century economy. Almost half of New Zealand's local governments have strategies aimed at eliminating municipal waste by 2015. Toronto has made a similar pledge. Innovative corporations like Ikea, Xerox, 3M, and Interface Flooring are also embracing the concept of eliminating waste and pollution.

Ikea wanted to increase sales of its compact fluorescent light bulbs, which use 80 per cent less energy than conventional bulbs and last eight to 10 times as long. But compact fluorescent bulbs use more mercury than regular bulbs, and mercury can be environmentally harmful. So Ikea encourages customers to return used bulbs to its stores. Now 98 to 99 per cent of the mercury from the used bulbs is recovered for new bulbs.

It is possible to envision a future where all products are made of either substances that can safely biodegrade (i.e. return to nature, and nourish the soil) or be endlessly reused in our techno-industrial society. In a sense, this means redesigning industrial economies to mimic the genius of the natural world, where millions of years of evolution (or as author Paul Hawken calls it, "design experience") have resulted in waste-free systems.

Love them or hate them, motor vehicles are with us for the long haul. But, as the CAW recognizes, we can minimize their destructive impact. Bringing extended producer-responsibility legislation to the auto industry could lead to broader application across wide sectors of our economy. Ottawa should move take-back legislation out of the showroom now -- and onto the road for a test drive.

back to Updates Page