Three of the five members in my immediate family smoke. My Dad, after a breast cancer scare, quit. He’s been a non-smoker for almost three years now! Yay! At eleven years old, I took my first puff on a cigarette. And fainted. Clearly, the thrill was lost on me.

Which brings me to my rant of the month. It is estimated that 4.3 trillion cigarette butts are littered each year. It takes 12 years for the filters to decompose.

It is estimated that one in five New Yorkers smoke. My guess, from random observations, is that it is probably one in four. By comparison, the San Francisco Bay area has far fewer smokers. My guess is one in ten. I have pondered the reasons for this difference, and conclude that New Yorkers think it is part of the style image, and Californians weigh in on the healthy living side of things.

I was in Napa Valley recently. Friends from New York were visiting, and one of them had tossed a cigarette butt on the ground. I didn’t see her do this, and if I had, I’m not sure I would have said anything. Why is that? A man walked up to her with the discarded butt and did his best to politely ask her not to discard cigarette butts on the street because they wind up in the creek and get washed out to San Francisco Bay. She was more than a little surprised, and a lot embarrassed. Her comment? “That would never happen in New York!” So true.

I recall the day when my parents, chain-smoking in the car with the three of us suffocating in the back seat, would open the car door and dump the overflowing ashtray on the ground. I also recall being scolded to close the window because the air conditioning was on. I couldn’t see my parents in the front seat through the blue haze of smoke.

If, at the same moment a smoker tossed a butt on the street, I tossed a candy bar wrapper on the street, I suspect they would holler at me to pick it up and toss it in the bin.

Why do smokers think it is okay to discard their butts on the ground? How about get one of these portable ashtrays?

Actually no… most of them aren’t.  Cut flowers that you purchase in the majority of flower shops may be beautiful, but they come at a high price, both environmentally and socially.

Most of the flowers in these shops come from far away – so start with a
good dose of greenhouse gases from the transportation to get them here.
While growing, they are sprayed with a cocktail of pesticides –
sometimes as many as 100 times what they would spray on foods at the
same farm.  These pesticides have very negative impacts to the local
environment, not to mention the local people employed on the farm to
pick them and ship them here – people who don’t have options to demand
better.

So what should you look for?

(more…)

Now that the media spotlight is gone, and a couple of months have passed, what does the Copenhagen Accord really mean for the past, present and future of climate change?

January 31, 2010 was the deadline for participating countries to submit their proposals to the UNFCCC to reduce greenhouse gas emissions reductions. How did they fare?

Currently, with no changes, the forecast for average global temperature increase by 2100 is 4.7 degrees Celsius.  Scientific consensus is that this would be catastrophic, with sea levels rising by one metre.

The Copenhagen Accord was a promise (non-binding, remember) that the participating countries would reduce emissions so that we have a minimum average global temperature increase of only 2.5 degrees by 2100.

When you look at these projections, it is worth noting that many African countries, who are particularly sensitive to the drought and desertification brought about by higher temperatures, walked out on the Copenhagen summit at one point because their position is that average temperature rise by 2100 of more than 1.5 degrees will be catastrophic for them.

So how are the proposals that were just submitted on January 31? According to Climate Interactive, a collaborative project to use open-source tools to accurately predict the future of climate change, the proposals that have just been submitted don’t even take us to where we’re supposed to be ~ that is, reducing emissions such that the temperature only increases by 2.5% by 2100. (more…)

David Greene writes…

When I was growing up on the Canadian prairies (where, at this time of the year, your eye lashes freeze together), hot water was divine. To soak in a hot bath after being outside all day, shoveling snow, cross-country skiing, and building snow forts, warmed the soul. It turned my pink cheeks rosy red and made me feel so comfortable. When my partner and I moved onto our sailboat and began our circumnavigation of this beautiful world, hot water became a luxury. The hot water tank on our boat held only 5 gallons. It was very hot water, so 5 gallons mixed with cold water went a very long way. Our water was heated in two ways – by running the engine, or by running the generator. Either way, hot water required the consumption of fuel. And because we were often visiting in places where we couldn’t get water, we made our own by desalinating seawater. The generator was needed and fuel was consumed so that we could have water, hot or cold.

By the same token, fuel is consumed to heat the hot water you use in your home, and with some hope, some of that fuel is solar or wind. Becoming personally aware of the impact of the choices we make is the first step in finding a healthy balance between sustainability and creature comforts.

One bad example is our condominium in New York City. Hot water was constantly heated by mixing steam with cold water. To add insult to injury, hot water was constantly pumped through the entire building, so that when we opened the hot water tap, the water was instantly hot. Even at 3am! It struck me as a complete waste of energy to keep the water hot and to keep it circulating! But, we likely used way less water in total because the water was instantly hot, and therefore we weren’t running the water until the hot stuff came up through the building. On balance, I’m guessing that our carbon footprint for hot- and cold-water consumption was bigger than it needed to be.

(more…)

‘Tis the season when we look back on the year and make some commitments on going forward.  This year, why not include a little greening into your resolutions.  If you’re looking for suggestions, here are a few to get you started:

1) Ditch the plastic waterbottles.  If you are going to do just one thing to improve your ecological footprint, your best bang for your buck is to kick the bottled water habit.  Not only are you paying a ridiculous mark up on water, but you’re contributing billions of bottles to the planet, and all the associated greenhouse gases that come with them. Stainless steel waterbottles are reasonably priced and easy to find, and tap water is cheaper.  Save some money and the planet!

2) Go litterless at lunch.  Whether for you or the kids, its really no extra work to pack a few reusable containers instead of using plastic wrap or baggies.  One day, not a big day – 320 work days in a year – well that’s a lot of baggies in the landfill.  Consider a lunch kit – it makes packing kids lunches much easier.

3) Go green when you clean.  Our health tends to be the focus of most of our new year’s resolutions, so this is a good time to remember how closely the environment is tied to our health.  When we choosegreen cleaners for example, its not only better for the planet to choose a green cleaner, it’s also much healthier for you and your family.  Same goes for personal care products – the very same things that make a shampoo green make it easier on the body.

4) Drive lightly on the planet - We’ll explore how to save money on gas later - but you can get started simply by going lighter on the gas pedal.  Every 10 kilometres over the speed limit that you drive, costs you 10% more fuel to drive the same distance.  The two minutes that you save by speeding cost the planet and your pocketbook more than you think.

** Add your resolutions below – and check out the resolutions from my fellow Green Cricketers.

(more…)

In the aftermath of the UN’s conference on Climate change in Copenhagen last month and what seems, atfirst glance, to be the lack real progress from countries for plans and commitments to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions, we are tempted to say “Why bother?”

The magazine The Economist comments: “Faced with the undoubted grandeur of climate change, a grand response seems in order. But, to the immediate disappointment to most of those participating and watching, the much anticipated UN climate conference held in Copenhagen in December led to no such thing…” [The Economist (Leader) Dec 30, 2009]

The article goes on to comment that two positive outcomes may have been on some agreement for a process for international monitoring and also the recognition of new political structures to enable progress across developing and developed countries.

While this international debate is raging should we, the public, the consumer, the homeowner…really care?

I feel we must – individuals can make a difference - we must all strive to learn more about our environment, our lifestyle, the products we use and impact on climate change, pollution, depletion of natural resources as well as the health impacts of products we use every day.

The Green Cricket Blog can provide a forum for sharing thoughts, ideas and actions. What do you think? Do you think you can make a difference to what often seems to be a hugh issue and out of your hands? And why should we care?

In the coming weeks we shall talk more about the Copenhagen Accord, but also discuss the 5 criteria for selecting Green Cricket products that we feel support the move towards achieving a Green Lifestyle and a more sustainable world. We also want to hear from you - to understand what you think, what governs your buying and lifestyle decision choices. Post your comments!

(Trevor Smith, Editor)

You’ve been asking for ways to get the kids involved in your quest for green, and we’re happy to provide some suggestions. A great way to start - if they haven’t seen the Earth Rangers, check them out at www.earthrangers.org and invite your school to book their free show.

Earth Rangers is an environmental education organization based in the Greater Toronto Area. They go into schools and offer a live show with a strong environmental message in a fun way, along with some amazing wildlife that the students can see in action. There are separate shows for primary, junior and intermediate students that inspire them to take action to protect the planet.

Their kids’ website, www.earthrangers.com provides a follow up to the school show. I has a bunch of great eco-tips for kids, along with fun games to play (my daughter likes Funky Skunky best – and I have to say that I see where she’s coming from). The games also have a great message woven into them, like recycling, composting, or energy efficiency.

(more…)

Perhaps one of the most difficult issues that we’ve tackled as Green Cricket is the search for Green Cosmetics. Ideally, we’d love to recommend a line of cosmetics that reduces both the environmental impacts and the health risks of traditional cosmetics, yet function just as well.

Sadly, that is not as easy as we had hoped. The challenge is that there is not a great deal of consensus around what is acceptable or isn’t in these products. While we always want to err on the side of caution, some of the truly green ones that we’ve found really aren’t a great substitute for more conventional cosmetics.

Some highlights of the debate:

1) Parabens – A widely used preservative to inhibit microbial growth in personal care products, in particular cosmetics. It’s good, because it does a good job of keeping cosmetics safe, extends their shelf life, and it replaced formaldehyde. The challenge is that while both Health Canada, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States currently say that it’s safe, there is mounting concern over its long-term safety too. Most major cosmetic companies are looking for alternatives to phase it out. But there is no easy switch, so companies like Jamieson, Avon and Almay, are experimenting with new options.

2) Nanoparticles – Microscopic particles being added to all kinds of personal care products – usually because of their UV blocking capabilities. The problem is that they haven’t been tested for safety either on people or the environment, and early reviews aren’t optimistic. Again, we’re hoping to avoid it.

3) Propylene Glycol – Used to moisturize both the skin, and to prevent cosmetics from drying out themselves. Again, Health Canada and the FDA have given it the green light, but the debate outside these forums rages on about short-term skin irritation, and long-term safety. A deciding factor for me – if it’s a major component of automotive antifreeze, I probably want to minimize in the products that I put on my face.

So where can we get good information? Well that’s another part of the challenge. (more…)

I am wrapping up my fourth year living in one of the largest, most populated cities in the world. The New York metropolitan area has an estimated population of 19.75 million people, ranking it the largest city in the US, and fourth largest in the world. That’s about 5 times the population of Metro Toronto, and much more geographically constrained. It is estimated that over 80% of people who live in Manhattan bike, walk or take public transportation to work.

Living in such density makes a commitment to a green lifestyle challenging in many ways, and easy in others.

The easiest part of living green in Gotham is that I don’t need a car because the public transportation is excellent – an instant contribution to reducing my carbon footprint. The Metro Transportation Authority (commuter rail, NYC subways and buses) carries 1/3 of all the commuters in the US each day. This is an astonishing statistic. This means a lot of cars left at (or near) home. I like the MTA (note the absence of “love”), but I have a bone to pick with them about their recycling policy. While they sort recyclables from the trash bins in subway and train stations, there is no sign on the receptacles to tell consumers this fact and thereby create public awareness.

Toronto’s organic waste composting program has not reached our shores. There is no wet waste pickup in Gotham. Worse still is that most of us live in tiny shoebox-sized apartments with no yard to start composting. And rodents and cockroaches (called water bugs in New York) are a serious problem, leaving composting under the kitchen counter a magnet for unwanted visitors. But, those of us committed to composting of organic waste schlep our stinky bits to one of two places in the city as part of the Lower East Side Ecology Center community composting program. They also have occasional drop-off events for recycling of electronics and clothing.

In a city the size of New York, private interests like LESEC fill in where public interests can’t or won’t. For example, #5 plastic containers are not recyclable in New York. Neither are batteries (although, get this, it is illegal to dispose of them in the garbage). Whole Foods will take #5’s and batteries to be recycled.

While the city still has a way to go, Mayor Bloomberg is taking a leadership role in the greening of New York. Part of his plan was to pass a congestion tax, similar to those imposed in London, Stockholm and Singapore, but the boneheads in Albany said no. Instead, Bloomberg decided to increase bridge and tunnel tolls, convert major intersections like the Broadway-Fifth Avenue crossover at 23^rd Street, to parks. A major part of Broadway in Midtown was converted to bike lanes and a promenade. And bike lanes all over the city displaced car traffic lanes. In some cases, boulevards planted with gardens separate the cyclist from the parked cars and traffic. Indeed, these initiatives have frustrated car drivers’ ability to get around the city, making them think twice about using the car at all.

I will be writing more over the coming weeks on the subject of green metropolises, and share with you the thrills of what I have learned about living a green life in a major urban centre. I am in the midst of relocating to the San Francisco area and will begin to report on my findings in relation to what I learned in New York.

[written by David Greene]

In his bestselling book on climate change, Hot Flat and Crowded, Tom Friedman includes a chapter on what he refers to as “global weirding”. What he is referring to with this phrase is “increased variability” in the climate, as opposed to a uniform, linear increase in temperature that many have come to expect as the earth’s average daily temperature increases.

This is because the laws of nature do not behave in ways that are wholly predictable. Have you heard of the butterfly effect? Or chaos theory? Or the idea of logarithmic feedback loops?  There are so many factors interacting with each other to create the experience of a snowstorm, or a drought, or a flood, or a hurricane, that it becomes increasingly difficult to predict exactly how or when climate change will show up in our day or our year or even in this century. What we do know is that we should expect the unexpected.

That means that a typical fall may be followed by daffodils in January, followed by a typical spring and a summer that is much colder than usual, and then the complete absence of fall and then a winter with record low temperatures and blizzards. In other words, all sort of extremes with a lack of predictability built-in.

This is why our weather reporters have been so rarely on the mark this last year or two. The carefully built predictive meteorology models that scientists have traditionally used to tell us what to expect the next day or next week are falling apart in the face of this “increased variability”.

I’m a sailor, and I can tell you that the difficulty in predicting the future weather had big implications for me when I took our family sailboat out this last August for a month-long trip along the north shore of Lake Ontario. A lighting storm that hit the lake on August 9 was not predicted, inspiring an article in the Toronto Star about “meteorologist-bashing” that pointed out that the public was getting increasingly irate with inexact predictions. For my part, I was stranded on my boat that night outside a harbour with a badly marked channel. Had I known about the lightning storm I would not have been on the lake. On the other hand, if I were to not set out at all every time the forecast said there was a “chance of thundershowers”, I would not have set out on my boat at all.

When our friends and neighbors who are skeptical about global warming, pointing out that the current summer has never been colder or that the current winter has never been as severe,  you can lean towards them and say “climate change means increased variability” with a knowing look.

What does all this mean for us in our daily lives? It means that we should stay flexible and low-to-the-ground when it comes to planning our gardens, our outdoor activities, our wardrobes, our home renovations.  Be ready for anything, expect the unexpected, and then you can enjoy the beauty an intense lightning stormin the summer or a long hike on a mild winter Saturday.

A lightning bolt strikes over Highway 404 South as a major thunderstorm rolls through the GTA Aug. 9, 2009, as seen from the Finch Ave. overpass. ADRIEN VECZAN/TORONTO STAR