Lego - responsible company or greenwashing parasite?

An interesting little snippet in the latest Corporate Knights tells of how the Danish company Lego tried to do the right thing and failed.

Conscious of the environmental and carbon footprint of its operations, and determined to do its part in reducing carbon emissions, Lego announced a prototype plastic brick made from recycled water bottles rather than from "virgin" plastic. Lego's production requires a hundred thousand tons of plastic each year, so it was thought that the emissions savings would be huge.

Not so. It turns out that plastic made from recycled PET bottles is softer and actually needs more energy to process it. Furthermore, switching to the recycled plastic would require changing almost the whole factory set-up, a significant carbon hit in itself. It seems that changing Lego's production to recycled plastic is a non-starter.

It has been pointed out, though, that switching to recycled plastic would also be a good way to reuse plastic that would otherwise moulder away for centuries in landfills, particularly as the recycling market for plastics has all but collapsed. (It is estimated that just 9% of Canada's plastic is recycled, for example.) So, the calculus is not just about carbon dioxide emissions, and Lego's decision may be more about short-term profitability for its shareholders than anything else.

It has also been pointed out that reusing is better than recycling, ceteris paribus, and that maybe a better model for Lego would be to rent them out rather than selling them, although it's hard to see traditional customers (or shareholders) swallowing that. Lego does already have a Replay program that donates used bricks to children's charities.

So, responsible corporate citizen or greenwashing parasite? You decide. Lego has said that it is "looking at a circular business model", and is "fully committed to making Lego bricks from sustainable materials by 2032". But that's 9 years away, and right now it's totally reliant on unsustainable fossil fuels for its plastic gizmos.

A timely audit of the Ontario Place re-vamp

I have managed not to discuss Doug Ford's plans to "revitalize" Ontario Place thus far. But an article in the Globe and Mail today has served to remind me of how irritated I am about it (yeah, I know, I'm always irritated, when I'm not outraged), and in just how many different ways it is wrong. 

As Alex Bozikovic points out, there are no actual allegations of corruption - yet! - but two investigations are now being run by the province's acting Auditor-General into the propriety and appropriateness of the plans, and the huge costs that are about to be incurred.

The first question to be asked is why we are handing over six acres of the beloved site - the whole of the West Island - to Austrian spa operator Therme. The entirety of the parkland on the island is to be razed, along with some 800 trees, to make way for an up-market glass monstrosity. No environmental review is planned - this project has been "exempted" - nor any provincial heritage review, such as would usually apply to such a site.

Therme is to get a 95-year lease, but details of what they are paying remain hidden, as is the cost of the government-financed rebuild and infrastructure (which will, of course, be borne by taxpayers like you and me). These will almost certainly outweigh Therme's contribution, so the government line that the spa company is somehow subsidizing a public park is disingenuous at best.

Then there is the 1,000 underground parking facility which is now planned, covering a million square feet, and expected to cost (us) about half a million dollars. This, despite the 2019 "call for development" which made it clear that NO new parking was to be planned for the site, especially given that there will soon be a new subway station right there. The parking is clearly just another sop to Therme, although the paperwork for that too remains secret.

And last but not least, there is the matter of the provincially-owned Ontario Science Centre that Ford has belatedly announced is to move from its iconic Moriyama-designed in its spacious ravine location near Eglinton to ... Ontario Place! That decision came as a surprise to the Science Centre's board chair John Carmichael, who was clearly not consulted.

Sure, the Science Centre is looking a bit tired and dated, but that's because it has been starved of investment for decades, although it too us getting is new. But moving it to a site half the size in Ontario Place is not the solution. And who made this decision, and why? One theory is that it provides an excuse for that huge parking lot, as the two are to be built in one combined project.

The whole thing will probably cost taxpayers upwards of $1 billion which, for the notoriously stingy Ford, is a huge amount of money. And much of this has been hatched behind closed doors. It seems likely that the Auditor-General's investigations will turn up some nasty little under-the-counter dealing. 

They are already erecting fences and preparing to cut down trees with unconscionable haste, even though the City of Toronto has not given its consent to any of the work. So, the investigation could not be better timed. The first thing it should do is to impose a stop work order.

Canada and other petrostates not meeting their climate change targets

A new report from the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), and a bunch of other leading climate groups, concludes that Canada and other oil and gas-producing countries are failing dismally to meet important climate change targets. Current performance would not be consistent with keeping warming below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, or even 2°C, as agreed at the Paris conference, not even close.

Canada is doing slightly better than Brazil, USA and Saudi Arabia, but worse than many others. Among petrostates, only Norway and the UK are even projected to decrease oil and gas production by 2030. While most countries are technically striving for a net-zero target, none of them have pledged to reduce their fossil fuel production by anything like enough to meet such a target, let alone be on track to achieve it. In fact, coal, oil and gas production is still increasing.

The report also makes a point of downplaying carbon capture and storage technologies, which it says have largely failed to perform, and should not be relied upon as a major plank of any country's climate change efforts, and certainly should not be treated as a "free pass to continue business as usual".

The UN report supports another recent report by Canada's federal Environment Commissioner which found that Canada was well short of its 2030 targets, and so it should not come as any surprise. Canada and the other fossil fuel producers are going to have to justify themselves at the upcoming COP28 climate conference in Dubai, which is throwing a particular spotlight on oil and gas producers. Well, that should be interesting.

More heat pump madness

Just to show that the province of Ontario can make just as sdaft a decision on climate change as the federal government did recently with its pause on carbon tax for home fuel oil users in Atlantic Canada. Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) is now offering free heat pumps for eligible low-income households.

Sounds good, right? Well, partly. Thing is, though, the other eligibility requirement is that the household needs to be already using electric baseboard heating. 

Don't get me wrong, switching from electric baseboard heating to a heat pump, would yield good savings, both in cost to the household and in electricity used. But it would be even better if all those poor people using natural gas, propane or fuel oil for heating were able to take advantage of this offer too. They are the ones we really need to wean off fossil fuels.

Thanks to the Ontario Clean Air Alliance for pointing out this howler.

Quebec Is a weird mix of progressive and reactionary

Quebec is a strange animal. In some respects it is the most progressive of Canadian provinces, and in others it seems embarrassingly right-wing and reactionary.

A recent report by the Canadian Renewable Energy Association highlights Quebec's plans to triple its wind energy generation and substantially increase its solar and energy storage capacity. It already produces 99.6% of its electricity from renewable sources, mainly hydroelectricity, and is the largest exporter of electricity in Canada.

Quebec has the largest fleet of electric vehicles in Canada, and is second only to British Columbia in registration of new EVs. It also has far and away the most EV charging stations in Canada (nearly twice as many as Ontario, despite Ontario's much higher population).

Quebec has long had deeply subsidized universal childcare. It launched it $5-a-day government-funded daycare way back in 1997, and the rest of Canada has only very recently started playing catch-up with the federal Liberals' $10-a-day scheme. Similarly, its record on fighting poverty and inequality is second to none, and it has succeeded in virtually eradicating acute poverty among families.

And yet...

Some of Quebec's social policies leave much to be desired for an ostensibly progressive province. Due to its unique Francophone status, Quebec is the only province to have essentially total control over its immigration criteria and procedures. Due to the perennial Quebecois perception that its provincial identity - i.e. its language - is under threat, it is less enthusiastic than most of Canada about attracting immigrants.

Quebec's share of immigration over the years has been been disproportionately low, and that share has continued to fall throughout the last decade. It now stands at little over 10% each year (c.f. the province has about 23% of the country's population). Of course, this is largely about maintaining a dominant French language, but there are other concerning signs that Quebec just doesn't like foreigners that much, like its controversial policy of banning religious symbols in the public sphere, a policy that clearly disproportionately affects immigrant populations, and has had the manifest fallout of making non-Christian residents feel less secure (and must have a similar affect on those considering immigrating to the province).

Despite its progressive inclinations, Quebec, at least at the governmental level, seems to be obsessed with its language, and with the supposition that French is being usurped and replaced by English. Going back to Bill 101 in 1977, the province has passed a succession of measures which make it increasingly more difficult for non-French speakers to live there. Most recently, Bill 96 was passed in June this year (including a symbolic change to the Canadian Consititution, no less!), and tuition fees at English-language universities in the province were doubled just last month, with the express intention of reducing the influence of English in the province.

Bill 96 is still in the process of an extended implementation period, but its proposal to clamp down still further on English commercial signage and product labelling, including even brand names, trademarks and logos, is worrying many businesses there, and inspiring complete incomprehension among others outside the province. Many larger businesses have already chosen to invest in a name change for the Quebec market (e.g. Poulet Frit Kentucky, La Baie, Tigre Géant, Bureau en Gros, etc), but many more smaller companies will soon be expected to toe the line. 

Some "registered" English trademarks will be allowed (e.g. Starbucks, Canadian Tire, McDonalds, Best Buy), but they will have to display a "markedly predominant" generic description in French, presumably just in case some Francophones are unsure what Starbucks and Best Buy are actually selling. Canadian Tire, for example, will be required to include the phrase "Centre de Rénovation" on their store signs in even bigger letters than the trademarked name.

It's not like French speaking in Quebec is even under THAT much pressure. Historically, the percentage of Francophones in the province hovered around 80%. In 2021, that percentage was 75%, down from 78% in 2016. So, yes, down. But catastrophically down? By comparison, English was the mother tongue of just 8% of the province's population, and allophones make up 14% (the remaining 4% have more than one primary language). 

Other websites report different figures, all based nonetheless same census, an indication of how confusing the census questions are. CBC has the proportion of people who speak French at home "at least regularly" at 85.5% in 2021, down from 87.1% in 2016. An estimated 95% of Quebecers CAN speak French. Hardly cause for breast-beating and mass hysteria, I wouldn't have thought. 

Clearly, the issue is very important for Quebec - although I do wonder how much the average guy in the street actually cares - but to us outsiders, this is all petty nonsense. How can a province so forward-thinking in so many other ways engage in these kinds of retrogressive shenanigans? Obviously, I am an English-speaker in a predominantly English-speaking province, so it's hard for me to understand. 

I DO understand that they want to protect their language - but to the exclusion of all else? That's the part I don't get. After all, they are French-speakers in a predominantly French-speaking province, so what's the diff? And they have already imposed French on government activities across this largely English-speaking country. How much accommodation is too much accommodation?

So, what IS Poilievre's climate change policy?

Pierre Poilievre gets a lot of mileage out of his Trump-style sound-bites and slogans, like "Axe the tax!" (hardly original, but okay). The less-discerning Conservative voters lap this stuff up, and cheer wildly at his campaign-style appearances. Sound familiar?

So, is that it? Is that his climate change policy? Axe the tax (i.e. no policy at all)? The Conservatives have lost elections over a non-existent climate change policy in the past, although the climate change political climate does seem to have changed somewhat recently (probably partly propelled by Trudeau's huge gaffe on the issue just this last week, when he exempted home fuel oil in the Atlantic provinces).

Well, for one thing, Poilievre won't come out publicly and commit to upholding Canada's international obligations under the Paris Agreement on climate change, neither to Trudeau's ambitious target of 40-45% emissions reductions from 2005 levels by 2030, nor even to Harper's much laxer 30% target. When asked, he merely says that he will reserve judgement for now and changes the subject, so you kind of know what that means.

When pressed hard, his plan, such as it is, is to leverage technology to do the work for him, citing "small modular nuclear reactors, hydroelectric dams, tidal wave power, and other emissions-free energy", as well as speeding up the approval of mines for minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries.

Well, that's something to work with, I guess. 

Small modular nuclear reactors are not even a thing yet, although prototypes are in the process of being built. They are expected to be horribly expensive, if and when they do come to fruition, and suffer anyway from all the drawbacks of larger nuclear projects.

Hydroelectric dams? The chances of getting a new large-scale hydro project through modern environmental assessments are slim, although Poilievre hints that he would probably do away with such environmental red tape anyway. Current projects like Muskrat Falls and Site C in BC aren't faring well, years behind schedule and grossly over-budget (as are most nuclear projects).

Tidal wave power? Well, yes, I'm on board with that, although existing proven projects are few and far between (France and South Korea do have working models). The technology is still in its infancy, and there are still many concerns about underwater land ownership and environmental impacts. But it could eventually make a substantial contribution to our grid. Just not anytime soon.

And "other emissions-free energy"? Sure, bring it on. But there, I guess we are talking about the status quo - wind and solar - and every new project in clCanada involves a battle against recalcitrant Conservative provincial premiers (for some reason, Conservative governments seem to be actively hostile to renewable energy). I'm not sure what Poilievre's solution is for that.

Maybe by the time the next federal election rolls around in 2025, we might hear more from Mr. Poilievre, when his minions have had time to come up with something. But right now? The plan is: "Axe the tax!"

Snow penises springing up in Ykaterinburg

Couldn't resist reporting on this. A whole load of snow penises have sprung up on the streets of Ykaterinburg, Russia's fourth largest city, and local authorities are apoplectic over them.

Calling them an "outrage" and a "provocation" - well, yes! - the local council is promising that law enforcement could get involved if they persist, and "if they offend anyone". Municipal workers have been assiduously removing them, but they keep springing up again, presumably the work of students from Urals State University. 

A petition against them on Change.org had attracted all of 17 signatures as of Friday afternoon, which I thought was hilarious.

NDP unlikely bed-mates with Conservatives on climate change?

However much you may disagree with the Liberals' head-scratching announcement this week that they will pause the carbon tax on home heating oil - a dirty, expensive method of heating, primarily used in Atlantic Canada - the solution is most definitely NOT to extend the pause to ALL forms of home heating, which would effectively sound the death knell for the Liberals' marquee climate change policy.

That is the solution being put forward by Pierre Poilievre's Conservative Party. Poilievre has made it abundantly clear that, if the Conservatives were elected, they would repeal the carbon tax anyway, completely. This, then, as they see it, is just a measure to tide them over until the election, which they see as being fought mainly on the carbon tax. It would be, though, the first nail in the carbon tax's coffin (or the second, if you think of Trudeau's move as the first).

Well, blow me down, but the New Democratic Party (NDP) is planning on supporting Poilievre's move, which boggles my mind. NDP spokesperson Peter Julian says that the NDP has to be "the adult in the room", and is willing to support Poilievre in his ambitions because this is "about affordability" (which is an NDP priority), and because this is "for once, not a crazy climate-denying motion". He claims that the motion will "make it equitable so that everybody can afford to heat their home this winter".

**Sigh** So, the NDP is willing to sacrifice the closest thing we have to a climate change plan in this country, in the interests of, what, a little bit of affordability? I understand that some people are finding it hard to pay for heating oil, and I don't downplay that, although this measure is not in itself going to make or break anyone. The NDP has legitimate concern for affordability issues, which is more than I can say for Poilievre, who is much more concerned with bringing down Justin Trudeau, any way he can.

But the NDP is also supposed to be responsible custodians of the environment. They are supposed to be "the adults in the room", remember. Support for a motion, albeit a non-binding motion, that could lead to the dismantling of the whole carbon tax venture, does not seem to me to be the action of a responsible adult. It smacks of muscle-flexing, playing politics, and sending the Liberals a finger-wagging message that they are not to be trifled with. 

It's not even the case that the high cost of heating oil in Atlantic Canada is due to the carbon tax. As a Globe opinion piece points out, out of the 75c a litre that home heating oil has increased since 2020, only 12c of that was due to the carbon tax, the rest was down to wars, OPEC machinations and all of that geopolitical stuff. So, pausing the carbon tax for "affordability" reasons is nonsense. (And anyway, an escalating carbon tax is SUPPOSED to make using high-carbon products expensive and uncomfortable, isn't it? That's the whole point of it.)

In one week, my confidence in both the Liberals (never that high) and the NDP (slightly higher) has taken a nose-dive. So, what am I left with? The Green Party - sensible, committed and reliable, but without a hope in hell of changing the electoral landscape of Canada (sad, but true). Oh, Trudeau, what have you done?