Another example in the making is that companies have been required to notify Environment Canada with the levels of pollutants they emit and publish them on a national NPRI registry which is available to the public. Many companies have been using engineering estimate techniques (which are conservative and tend to overestimate) to report in their data. If a Kyoto type of carbon trading system were to come in, what measures would there be to ensure that companies dont just refine their measurement techniques to be less of an overestimate and thus providing a false sense of carbon reduction? It is my hope that the government has considered this and will hire enough well-qualified auditors to sift through the historical data and verify the numbers that have been estimated by companies. It will do us all no good when such a system finally does arrive to show that Canada has reduced its emissions by 20% on paper but that actual emissions remained unchanged due to these accounting errors.

With the current public opinion that corporations must be good environmental citizens, much greenwashing is now appearing and though some companies truly want to make a change to ‘do no harm’, many companies are now eager to align with the cause simply because it can affect their bottom line. While it is true that many corporations have environmental departments that act as watchdogs for the corporation, the current corporate structure in such that in most organizations environmental departments are often ‘end-users’ in the process, left to chase their tails trying to improve things on a micro scale but having no leverage to influence change in critical areas such as the overall supply chain, marketing (packaging), and R&D (product mix). Couple this with the fact that if a company, take for example a chemical company that manufactures pesticide, has a product that is making lots of money for the company – it will never be a company decision to eliminate this product. If the demand is there and the product will sell, the company will not only continue to sell it, but they will continue to market it and lobby against those who might try to curtail its use because it is their cash cow. Where there are systems now finally being put in place for chemical product safety such as REACH in Europe and in CEPA in Canada, there are so many more collective resources and cash available to industry that government policy makers find themselves in an uphill battle trying to eliminate hazardous chemicals. A recent case illustrates this point – Dow has recently taken the Quebec government to court because they have banned the use of pesticides in the province. Instead of spending their money on R&D to strike out in a new and environmentally responsible direction, they have elected to hire lawyers to build a case for why they should be allowed to sell and promote their pesticides for use in the province (hmm sounds a lot like the battle with the tobacco companies in years past). Or consider Monsanto who sued Germany for banning MON 810, a controversial GMO corn variety – see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joweZ6uM5iY. As I see it, the problem with unbridled capitalism is that it has yet to offer any true corporate conscience. These same companies demonstrate with volumes of paperwork their ability to meet the requirements in order to be included on ‘sustainability indices’ – so they can demonstrate their corporate conscience. Many are now also working towards providing environmental footprint information for consumers (in the absence of a clear set standard for how this calculation should occur). The problem is that unless the highest level CEOs of corporations were willing to shrink their businesses in areas where the product delivered was environmentally irresponsible, use the precautionary principle for products whose full impact may not yet be fully understood (such as nanoparticles), and spend money to rework their business models towards only those products which are environmentally responsible, only then could corporations be relied upon to do the right thing. Unfortunately, this is not the current trend. In fact in the chemical industry it is being seen more and more that the larger companies (which should have the most resources to do these types of things), is scaling back its product safety testing. You can see it on MSDS sheets provided by companies. Many of them do not test for some of the routine types of tests that would demonstrate the level of hazard of a material both in the short term and the long term. What does this mean? It means that we, the public, are the test cases to see if harm will arise.

What can be done? Public awareness of the issues is the biggest part. Public involvement and media coverage of issues has a great effect to put these concerns square in the face of industry. When faced with something that could affect public image, and consequently their bottom line, all companies will react to these pressures. So the giant macro-companies might rule the world, but it is the micro-community that has the collective power to rule the macro-companies. Individuals working together can have global effects by actions taken at a local level. Let the anti-globalization movement begin!

I thought I was well prepared, but nature had some lessons to teach me. Last year when we gathered our bounty at harvest time and set it out on our counter, we took stock: 4 raspberries, about 8 carrots 1/3 the size of a pinky finger, some onions that didnt bulb, rhubarb that died, cucumber that got mildewy and died, 3 squash, 10 green peas, 4 zucchini and (thank God for tomatoes!) about 20 tomatoes. To put this measly outcome in proper context, we had at least 6 types of each plant growing, and for some (like the tomatoes) as many as 15 of them. It was a rather large garden that should have produced many times this amount!

So we’re trying it again this year – this time planting the cool season veggies much earlier in the season, having a proper sheltered area to slow our ‘crazy winds’ in this area, weeding more frequently, buying the right variety of onion (that bulbs!) and starting the plants from seed earlier indoors. We’re even trying an interesting method we heard about for growing potatoes in a 4sq ft bin – http://lifehacker.com/5202849/grow-100-lbs-of-potatoes-in-4-square-feet. I have high hopes that this year we can enjoy the embarrasment of zucchini that everyone always complains about. Reading some gardening blogs that detailed this problem, I found myself feeling quite inadequate that I wasnt even able to get enough for a large stir fry!

Not easily deterred, we’ve decided to expand our garden this year and even try growing some wheat and barley organically. There must be something about gardening, because despite the black flies, deer flies, horse flies, sore back and pitiful bounty, I’m so excited that it’s Spring and time to garden again. One day we will have our supply for a 100 foot diet…

But wait, what about the fuel for our cars, the lawnmower and the barbecue? It would be great to have an electric vehicle, a lawn replacement and a solar oven…

As a side note, for those who are interested there is a new electric vehicle conversion course being offered in Ottawa by the Electric Vehicle Council of Ottawa in May-July of this year: http://evconversions.ca/

And then there is the energy that goes in to everything we purchase – both our staple items like furniture and clothes, as well as our consumables like food and medicine. Looks like we have a long way to go yet. Sometimes it can be a bit daunting. I guess trying to get off the oil addiction takes time and determination – I need an ‘oilaholics anonymous’ support group.

Why are we such consumers? We have it drummed into us from an early age. Since having my son, a couple things have become very clear. We all want to buy ‘things’ for him because we love him. Why has our society become such that in order to show love and caring, we feel we must give ‘things’. I am as guilty as the next person. If I go to a friend’s birthday party, I make sure to buy an appropriate amount of things for the child to keep in step with the others there and ensure to show my friend how much their friendship and their child means to me. The result? In our case, a large chunk of main floor living space devoted to a pile of toys for our son.

But our son is wiser than we are. He has not yet been told that he needs things to make him happy. The result? What you hear from most people: my child is just as happy to play with the cardboard box that the toy came in as he is the toy itself. Most of the toys sit in a pile in a corner of the room and dont move. He is much more happy to spend time with mom and dad, going for walks, hearing stories, gardening, fixing things around the house, playing chase or helping cook dinner…