drive-thru lies - the truth about the industry's greenwash » environment

The Declaration of Cumaná, Venezuela | This is a Brilliant Read Based on How We are Currently Functioning as a Society

corymorningstar — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:06:27 +0000

The Declaration of Cumaná

April 23rd 2009, by ALBA Member Countries

ALBA

Cumaná, Venezuela

We, the Heads of State and Government of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela, member countries of ALBA, consider that the Draft Declaration of the 5th Summit of the Americas is insufficient and unacceptable for the following reasons:

- The Declaration does not provide answers to the Global Economic Crisis, even though this crisis constitutes the greatest challenge faced by humanity in the last decades and is the most serious threat of the current times to the welfare of our peoples.

- The Declaration unfairly excludes Cuba, without mentioning the consensus in the region condemning the blockade and isolation to which the people and the government of Cuba have incessantly been exposed in a criminal manner.

For this reason, we, the member countries of ALBA believe that there is no consensus for the adoption of this draft declaration because of the reasons above stated, and accordingly, we propose to hold a thorough debate on the following topics:

1. Capitalism is leading humanity and the planet to extinction. What we are experiencing is a global economic crisis of a systemic and structural nature, not another cyclic crisis. Those who think that with a taxpayer money injection and some regulatory measures this crisis will end are wrong. The financial system is in crisis because it trades bonds with six times the real value of the assets and services produced and rendered in the world, this is not a “system regulation failure”, but a integrating part of the capitalist system that speculates with all assets and values with a view to obtain the maximum profit possible. Until now, the economic crisis has generated over 100 million additional hungry persons and has slashed over 50 million jobs, and these figures show an upward trend.

2. Capitalism has caused the environmental crisis, by submitting the necessary conditions for life in the planet, to the predominance of market and profit. Each year we consume one third more of what the planet is able to regenerate. With this squandering binge of the capitalist system, we are going to need two planets Earth by the year 2030.

3. The global economic crisis, climate change, the food crisis and the energy crisis are the result of the decay of capitalism, which threatens to end life and the planet. To avert this outcome, it is necessary to develop and model an alternative to the capitalist system. A system based on:

- solidarity and complementarity, not competition;
- a system in harmony with our mother earth and not plundering of human resources;
- a system of cultural diversity and not cultural destruction and imposition of cultural values and lifestyles alien to the realities of our countries;
- a system of peace based on social justice and not on imperialist policies and wars;
- in summary, a system that recovers the human condition of our societies and peoples and does not reduce them to mere consumers or merchandise.

4. As a concrete expression of the new reality of the continent, we, Caribbean and Latin American countries, have commenced to build our own institutionalization, an institutionalization that is based on a common history dating back to our independence revolution and constitutes a concrete tool for deepening the social, economic and cultural transformation processes that will consolidate our full sovereignty. ALBA-TCP, Petrocaribe or UNASUR, mentioning merely the most recently created, are solidarity-based mechanisms of unity created in the midst of such transformations with the obvious intention of boosting the efforts of our peoples to attain their own freedom. To face the serious effects of the global economic crisis, we, the ALBA-TCP countries, have adopted innovative and transforming measures that seek real alternatives to the inadequate international economic order, not to boost their failed institutions. Thus, we have implemented a Regional Clearance Unitary System, the SUCRE, which includes a Common Unit of Account, a Clearance Chamber and a Single Reserve System. Similarly, we have encouraged the constitution of grand-national companies to satisfy the essential needs of our peoples and establish fair and complementary trade mechanisms that leave behind the absurd logic of unbridled competition.

5. We question the G20 for having tripled the resources of the International Monetary Fund when the real need is to establish a new world economic order that includes the full transformation of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, entities that have contributed to this global economic crisis with their neoliberal policies.

6. The solutions to the global economic crisis and the definition of a new international financial scheme should be adopted with the participation of the 192 countries that will meet in the United Nations Conference on the International Financial Crisis to be held on June 1-3 to propose the creation of a new international economic order.

7. As for climate change, developed countries are in an environmental debt to the world because they are responsible for 70% of historical carbon emissions into the atmosphere since 1750. Developed countries should pay off their debt to humankind and the planet; they should provide significant resources to a fund so that developing countries can embark upon a growth model which does not repeat the serious impacts of the capitalist industrialization.

8. Solutions to the energy, food and climate change crises should be comprehensive and interdependent. We cannot solve a problem by creating new ones in fundamental areas for life. For instance, the widespread use of agricultural fuels has an adverse effect on food prices and the use of essential resources, such as water, land and forests.

9. We condemn the discrimination against migrants in any of its forms. Migration is a human right, not a crime. Therefore, we request the United States government an urgent reform of its migration policies in order to stop deportations and massive raids and allow for reunion of families. We further demand the removal of the wall that separates and divides us, instead of uniting us. In this regard, we petition for the abrogation of the Law of Cuban Adjustment and removal of the discriminatory, selective Dry Feet, Wet Feet policy that has claimed human losses. Bankers who stole the money and resources from our countries are the true responsible, not migrant workers. Human rights should come first, particularly human rights of the underprivileged, downtrodden sectors in our society, that is, migrants without identity papers. Free movement of people and human rights for everybody, regardless of their migration status, are a must for integration. Brain drain is a way of plundering skilled human resources exercised by rich countries.

10. Basic education, health, water, energy and telecommunications services should be declared human rights and cannot be subject to private deal or marketed by the World Trade Organization. These services are and should be essentially public utilities of universal access.

11. We wish a world where all, big and small, countries have the same rights and where there is no empire. We advocate non-intervention. There is the need to strengthen, as the only legitimate means for discussion and assessment of bilateral and multilateral agendas in the hemisphere, the foundations for mutual respect between states and governments, based on the principle of non-interference of a state in the internal affairs of another state, and inviolability of sovereignty and self-determination of the peoples. We request the new Government of the United States, the arrival of which has given rise to some expectations in the hemisphere and the world, to finish the longstanding and dire tradition of interventionism and aggression that has characterized the actions of the US governments throughout history, and particularly intensified during the Administration of President George W. Bush. By the same token, we request the new Government of the United States to abandon interventionist practices, such as cover-up operations, parallel diplomacy, media wars aimed at disturbing states and governments, and funding of destabilizing groups. Building on a world where varied economic, political, social and cultural approaches are acknowledged and respected is of the essence.

12. With regard to the US blockade against Cuba and the exclusion of the latter from the Summit of the Americas, we, the member states of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America, reassert the Declaration adopted by all Latin American and Caribbean countries last December 16, 2008, on the need to end the economic, trade and financial blockade imposed by the Government of the United States of America on Cuba, including the implementation of the so-called Helms-Burton Act. The declaration sets forth in its fundamental paragraphs the following:

“CONSIDERING the resolutions approved by the United Nations General Assembly on the need to finish the economic, trade and financial blockade imposed by the United States on Cuba, and the statements on such blockade, which have been approved in numerous international meetings.

“WE AFFIRM that the application of unilateral, coercive measures affecting the wellbeing of peoples and hindering integration processes is unacceptable when defending free exchange and the transparent practice of international trade.

“WE STRONGLY REPEL the enforcement of laws and measures contrary to International Law, such as the Helms-Burton Act, and we urge the Government of the United States of America to finish such enforcement.

“WE REQUEST the Government of the United States of America to comply with the provisions set forth in 17 successive resolutions approved by the United Nations General Assembly and put an end to the economic, trade and financial blockade on Cuba.”

Additionally, we consider that the attempts at imposing the isolation of Cuba have failed, as nowadays Cuba forms an integral part of the Latin American and Caribbean region; it is a member of the Rio Group and other hemispheric organizations and mechanisms, which develops a policy of cooperation, in solidarity with the countries in the hemisphere; which promotes full integration of Latin American and Caribbean peoples. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to justify its exclusion from the mechanism of the Summit of the Americas.

13. Developed countries have spent at least USD 8 billion to rescue a collapsing financial structure. They are the same that fail to allocate the small sums of money to attain the Millennium Goals or 0.7% of the GDP for the Official Development Assistance. Never before the hypocrisy of the wording of rich countries had been so apparent. Cooperation should be established without conditions and fit in the agendas of recipient countries by making arrangements easier; providing access to the resources, and prioritizing social inclusion issues.

14. The legitimate struggle against drug trafficking and organized crime, and any other form of the so-called “new threats” must not be used as an excuse to undertake actions of interference and intervention against our countries.

15. We are firmly convinced that the change, where everybody repose hope, can come only from organization, mobilization and unity of our peoples.

As the Liberator wisely said:

Unity of our peoples is not a mere illusion of men, but an inexorable decree of destiny. — Simón Bolívar

Published in: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4390

Posted in Sustainability for Future Generations Tagged: Capitalism, Climate Change, Emissions, environment, G20, IMF, True Cost Economy, UN, WTO

Drive-thru debate divides council

corymorningstar — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:39:17 +0000

Drive-thru debate divides council

By Elaine Mitropoulos, Comox Valley EchoApril 17, 2009

As the debate drags on, drive-thrus continue to divide the Comox council.

This week’s council meeting saw Coun. Ken Grant, who is staunchly in favour of the fast-food fixtures, question Coun. Patti Fletcher’s motives in wanting to rid Comox of future drive-thrus.

Fletcher owns a bike shop in town and Ken Grant pointed to the store’s participation in the B.C. SCRAP-IT program – an incentive that invites motorists to trade in old cars for new bikes – as a conflict of interest.

The council is considering banning future drive-thrus as a means to curb greenhouse emissions and dependency on gas-guzzling vehicles.

In response to his accusation, Fletcher excused herself from further discussions and voting on drive-thrus, but requested that town staff seek out a legal opinion on the matter.

Coun. Ray Crossley made a motion to defer voting on the rezoning application that would see drive-thrus banned from future developments until legal advice was heard.

The delay was accepted by all but Couns. Ken Grant and Tom Grant.

Coun. Tom Grant argued the council was trying to expedite the demise of drive-thrus without taking into account input from community stakeholders, like the accessibility committee or parents with children.

He said he couldn’t imagine a mother trying to pack a car-full of kids into a Tim Horton’s to buy a half a dozen Timbits.

“That’s just not convenient for them,” he said.

He called for staff to research how other Canadian municipalities have dealt with bans on drive-thrus and for a report to come back to the council.

“I think we can sit back and research things until the cows come home,” said Coun. Russ Arnottt.

“But I think what we need to do is what’s right for our community… In keeping in tune with cows coming home, we need to take the bulls by the horns and be proactive in this.”

Ken Grant went on to call for feedback on the potential ban from the town’s accessibility committee, a motion that was moved unanimously.

“I want to hear what they have to say on the issue,” he said. “We send everything else we do to them… I’m at a loss why we didn’t send this one.”

After the April 15 meeting, Mayor Paul Ives said he was surprised the heated issue was still up for debate.

“I would still like us to look at an anti-idling bylaw. That’s the real issue here,” he said.

“(Idling) is a personal thing that people have to take care of whether they’re in a drive-thru lane or stopping at a store.”

emitropoulos@comoxvalleyecho.com

http://www.canada.com/Drive+thru+debate+divides+council/1506616/story.html

Posted in Hot off the Press | Media | Drive-thrus Tagged: council, Drive-thrus, environment

Tim Hortons Continues to Block Environmental Initiatives Behind Closed Door Meetings

corymorningstar — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:51:08 +0000

Mind numbing statistics, just coffee cups and lids.

WASTE DEBATE

City may delay day of reckoning for coffee-cup recycling

JEFF GRAY

April 7, 2009

The city is considering pushing back a deadline it had already extended to June for Tim Hortons, the fast-food industry and its own officials to solve the caffeine headaches that have come with trying to recycle the one million takeout coffee cups used in Toronto every day.

A working group of city waste officials and industry representatives was briefed yesterday in a closed-door meeting on three consultants’ reports – which cost $50,000 – on the difficulties of including the cups in the blue box.

The reports, obtained by The Globe and Mail, and a provincial review of blue-box legislation may force the city to extend the deadline again, Geoff Rathbone, the city’s general manager of solid waste, said yesterday.

The city ended up in a fight with coffee shops last year after it threatened to ban the current standard takeout coffee cup, which it said it could not recycle.

The city said the cups’ plastic coating and plastic lids would contaminate its paper recycling stream, unless it spent at least $3-million on new equipment and $1-million in new operating costs for its sorting plants.

The city also said it would mandate a 20-cent discount for all coffee-shop customers who bring in reusable mugs, but agreed to new talks with the industry. A previous April deadline was pushed back to June.

The latest possible delay was welcomed by Stephanie Jones, the Ontario vice-president of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association and a member of the working group.

Ms. Jones, who points to smaller Ontario municipalities that recycle coffee cups, said she was encouraged by the consultants’ reports: “This is really the first time that we have clearly seen that taxes and bans are not the only two pieces under consideration.”

The Globe obtained PowerPoint slides summarizing the three consultants’ reports.

A paper-mill survey by Amec Americas Ltd. says the cups must first be completely separated from other recyclables and could be turned into tissue. But it includes a long list of potential problems, including contamination from the ink, the cups’ coating, and those common cardboard insulation sleeves.

No mill contacted was willing to take the material without a trial run. Many said they would need city money to convert their facilities.

To sort the material by hand, according to a report by Entec Consulting Ltd., the city would need up to 40 more people picking cups and lids off conveyor belts in its recycling sorting stations, which would have to be expanded.

Using automated “optical” or “near infrared” sorting machines also poses problems, as they cannot separate the cups from other paper and may not be able to capture the dark-brown plastic lids used on some cups.

A third report summarizes the results from focus groups conducted by Ipsos Reid, and says almost all the participants wrongly believed they could throw their coffee cups in the blue box now, while others were “confused.”

With a report from Jennifer

Lewington

***

Fallout from takeout

1 million: Estimated takeout coffee cups generated in Toronto each day

152,858: Number that leave the city

336,883: Number brought in

1,184,025: Net daily that end up in Toronto’s waste

357,575,550: Annual total

4,291 tonnes a year: Weight of those cups

715 tonnes a year: Weight of their plastic lids

Source: Report for city by

Entec Consultng Ltd., obtained

by The Globe and Mail

Posted in Uncategorized Tagged: environment, Externalizing Costs, INDUSTRY | The Denial Industry | Greenwashing, Waste

Comox councillor unhappy with ‘drive-thru’ approval

corymorningstar — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:11:12 +0000

By Elaine Mitropoulos, Comox Valley Echo March 10, 2009

If Comox councillor Russ Arnott had his way, he wouldn’t let businesses pave paradise to put up a drive-thru.

Arnott, who sits on the community’s Business in Action committee, said businesses should be attracted to Comox for its “beauty.” Any corporations that demanded drive-thru accessibility, he said, could ultimately set up shop elsewhere.

“Is that really the business that we want?” he said during a March 4 council meeting. “I would just as soon say go on to the next town.”

Arnott’s comments come in the wake of the council approving a development that will see coffee giant Starbucks and the Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD Bank) housed next to the Shopper’s Drug Mart on the corner of Guthrie and Anderton roads.

Developer Moe Sihota of ACI Comox Ltd. told councillors that securing the corporate tenancies was contingent on installing drive-thrus that would allow for quick coffee breaks and convenient banking.

But Coun. Marcia Turner pointed to the environmental consequences of encouraging idling traffic, especially since the town was striving to meet its 2010 carbon-neutrality targets.

Turner motioned for the town’s planning department to prepare a report so that councillors could decide whether or not to ban drive-thrus from any future developments in Comox.

However, Sihota cautioned the council, saying that drive-thrus were an “economic reality” that drew in business in tough times.

A letter written to the town’s mayor from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association vice-president of Western Canada echoed Sihota’s concern.

“Not only would a ban on (drive-thrus) have a serious impact on jobs and investment in Comox, it would falsely blame (drive-thrus) as a leading contributor to poor air quality,” wrote Mark von Schellwitz.

The planning department’s report is slated for review by the town’s committee of the whole in about one month’s time.

emitropoulos@comoxvalleyecho.com

http://www.canada.com/Comox+councillor+unhappy+with+drive+thru+approval/1374858/story.html

Posted in Councillors Leading the Fight on Drive-thrus, Hot off the Press | Media | Drive-thrus Tagged: CRFA Greenwash, Drive-thrus, environment

Lung Association Supporting Drive Thru Moratorium

corymorningstar — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:59:16 +0000

Lung Association Supporting Drive Thru Moratorium
January 9, 2009

The province’s lung association has thrown its support behind the city’s moratorium on new drive thru’s. Spokesperson Greg Noel says they have been encouraging the public to limit vehicle use for some time, because of environmental and health concerns. Noel says while they may be pursuing change for different reasons, the association is pleased with the debate taking place. Noel notes it is not just drive thrus that cause the Lung Association concern. He says idling vehicles in general can have harmful health effects.

http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=33540

Former Ottawa City Director Applauds St. John’s Tim Horton’s Drive-through Ban

corymorningstar — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:09:21 +0000

From the Wires

Former Ottawa City Director Applauds St. John’s Tim Horton’s Drive-through Ban

By: Marketwire .

Jan. 8, 2009 09:20 AM

OTTAWA, ONTARIO — (Marketwire) — 01/08/09 — Back in 2003, the City of Ottawa established an aggressive policy to restrict the proliferation of drive-through restaurants because of their direct impact on traffic congestion along main arteries, resulting in road rage and potential delays for police, fire and ambulance services. Drive-throughs encourage car idling creating air pollution. Tim Horton’s challenged Ottawa Council’s decision and the Ontario Municipal Board sided with Tim Horton’s in 2006.

“I am very pleased to see that Canadian cities are fighting back, says Dennis Jacobs, the City of Ottawa’s former Director of Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy, and the staff member who lead the fight in Ottawa. “Recently, Toronto has also stepped up to the plate adds Jacobs, by looking at ways to make Tim Horton’s and other fast food outlets, responsible for their direct impacts on the environment, in view of the disproportionately high amount of garbage that is strewn in and around city neighborhoods.”

“What we need however, says Jacobs, is a coordinated effort as individual municipalities cannot expect to make a difference on their own. Fast food is a part of our lifestyle, but the industry must also be environmentally responsible as a retail business. As evidenced in Ottawa, a piece meal approach results in many small battles that can be lost. What we need is a national approach.

Dennis Jacobs is a Registered Professional Planner, a past president of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners. Since leaving the City of Ottawa in 2007, he has continued to practice land use planning in the Ottawa area as a consultant with the firm Momentum Strategic and Creative.

Contacts:
Momentum Strategic and Creative.
Dennis Jacobs
613-862-0799 or 613-729-3773
Dennis@momentumservices.org
www.momentumservices.org

Published Jan. 8, 2009

Posted in Endorsements | Who Supports a Moratorium?, Hot off the Press | Media | Drive-thrus Tagged: ban, Drive-thru, environment

Drive-thrus are bad for you, city argues

corymorningstar — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:10:22 +0000

Vaughan

November 06, 2008 08:26 PM

Bank drive-thru approved, but sparks debate about merits
By: Caroline Grech

If you like to get your coffee or do your banking at a drive-thru, you might have to change your ways if some Vaughan councillors get their way.

An application by York Major Holdings Inc. and Metrus Properties to build a bank with a drive- thru sparked debate amongst councillors about the need for drive-thrus.

While council approved the application in the end, the ensuing debate provided insight into how Vaughan might look in the future.

The approved proposal would see a bank with a drive-thru built at Major Mackenzie Drive and Dufferin Street.

But some councillors don’t want to see more drive-thrus in the city.

“It’s a bank. Drive-thrus are not critical. I prefer that a drive-thru not be allowed at this corner,” Councillor Alan Shefman said.

If Vaughan is looking now at a plan to make the city more sustainable, drive-thrus don’t fit the bill, Mr. Shefman argued.

He wasn’t alone. Regional Councillor Joyce Frustaglio called for a hold on drive-thrus in new projects.

“Drive-thrus are harmful to your health. You’re forced to sit in your car and breath in fumes from other cars,” Ms Frustaglio said.

Councillor Peter Meffe also heaped criticism on drive-thrus, but offered the idea that the drive-thru might only operate when the bank was closed.

“It isn’t more convenient. These things (drive-thrus) are hindering human contact. They’re making us worse people. I can’t support it,” Mr. Meffe said.

But before council got too far ahead with ideas to ban drive-thrus, planning commissioner John Zipay issued a cautionary tone on the issue.

“The zoning bylaw permits certain places to have drive-thrus. This council could not put a temporary ban on them. You would have to change the bylaw,” Mr. Zipay said.

He also noted the area where the bank would be located is not a pedestrian area, but one that people travel around in their cars.

Mr. Zipay warned councillors that any decision on drive-thrus has to be consistent.

“It has to be done on a comprehensive basis. You can’t say one type of business can have drive-thrus but not another,” he said, adding it was a revelation to him that this might be on the table.

But some councillors had no problem with the bank drive-thru proposal.

“To say no to this application would be inappropriate because it is allowed. I can’t support the change right here,” Regional Councillor Mario Ferri said.

Council approved the application, but Ms Frustaglio requested a report to deal with the issue of drive-thrus for the next committee of the whole meeting.

http://www.georginaadvocate.com/News/Vaughan/article/83947

Posted in Hot off the Press | Media | Drive-thrus Tagged: Culture, Drive-thru, environment, Urban Planning

Tim Hortons | Lobbying against Environment | Conundrum

corymorningstar — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:58:41 +0000

INFLUENCING CITY HALL

City watchdog set to probe coffee giant over lobbying

Firm’s spokesman argues he’s on city registry

JEFF GRAY

November 11, 2008

Toronto’s lobbyist watchdog is investigating whether doughnut chain Tim Hortons – battling the city over a proposed environmental ban on its coffee cups – is following city hall’s new rules as the firm tries to influence councillors.

Lobbyist registrar Linda Gehrke, who oversees the online registry that tracks meetings between lobbyists and city officials, said yesterday she will investigate why Nick Javor, Tim Hortons senior vice-president of corporate affairs, does not appear on the city’s list as a registered lobbyist.

Ms. Gehrke, who said she is exercising leniency as the registry is still getting established, said a report in The Globe and Mail on Saturday that Mr. Javor was meeting with city councillors prompted her to look into the matter: “That was my first inkling that there was lobbying going on.”

In a brief interview in a corridor of councillors’ offices yesterday, Mr. Javor said his staff had told him he was a registered lobbyist and that he would look into the problem.

Tim Hortons has also hired consultant Kim Wright of lobbying firm Sussex Strategy Group – accompanying Mr. Javor yesterday – to help make its case against plans to force the chain to switch to coffee cups that the city’s recycling system can handle and to mandate a 20-cent discount for customers with their own mugs.

Ms. Wright is listed as a registered lobbyist for Tim Hortons, but her entry on the city’s website as of yesterday afternoon did not detail with whom she has met on the doughnut chain’s behalf.

Lobbyists have three business days after a meeting to update an entry. But Ms. Wright said that last Monday, she actually submitted a list of four councillors, all members of the works committee set to debate the recycling issue tomorrow. She said she didn’t know why the registry had not updated.

Ms. Wright also said the rules were unfair, since non-profit environmental groups are exempt.

The lobbyist registrar said it was “quite possible” that the fact the website was taken down Monday and part of Tuesday for a software update was the reason Ms. Wright’s entry was not updated.

Under the city’s complex rules, the question of whether Mr. Javor needs to be registered as a lobbyist could hinge on whether he attends meetings only as Ms. Wright’s client. According to Ms. Gehrke, if Mr. Javor was actively lobbying during these meetings, he should be registered as well.

But Mr. Javor has also had at least one phone conversation with a city councillor on his own. Councillor Frank Di Giorgio (Ward 12, York South-Weston) said yesterday that he returned a call from Mr. Javor on Friday about the issue.

Mr. Javor also met with Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker (Ward 38, Scarborough Centre) – the works committee chairman pushing for the coffee-cup changes – and Councillor Howard Moscoe (Ward 15, Eglinton-Lawrence) about a month ago, Mr. De Baeremaeker said, adding that he had assumed Mr. Javor was registered.

The new lobbyist registry website, which has been years in the making and was bogged down by delays and confusion as council slashed its budget, is the first of its kind run by a Canadian municipality. It was called for in the inquiry into the city’s MFP computer-leasing scandal. Bernie Morton, another lobbyist with Ms. Wright’s firm, actually helped city officials draft the rules.

Under the city’s lobbying rules, a representative of a corporation who tries to influence city officials without registering and properly disclosing the names of the officials being approached could face a fine of up to $25,000 if convicted for a first offence.

Meanwhile, three city councillors – Peter Milczyn (Ward 5, Etobicoke-Lakeshore), Karen Stintz (Ward 16, Eglinton-Lawrence) and Mr. Minnan-Wong – said they would push to have the works committee refer the city’s controversial packaging crackdown back to city staff in order to continue talks with the industry and draft a compromise.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081111.wtrash11/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20081111.wtrash11

Posted in Hot off the Press | Media | Drive-thrus, INDUSTRY | The Denial Industry | Greenwashing Tagged: Denialism, environment

Greenwash makes its way to green Guelph …

corymorningstar — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:50:56 +0000

http://greenguelph.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/to-idle-or-not-to-idle-that-it-the-question/

A few months ago I blogged about drive through’s here in Guelph. It was one of the most looked at blogs on my site for some time. Our mayor has also started to discuss this. It’s an interesting topic for debate.

As I said in my previuos blog, I use them only if I feel I have to. I have the kids in my car, I can see that I’m the only one in line etc…

Environmentalists are usually very quick to denounce these drive throughs and to quickly judge those that use them.

I will admit that I have curbed the use of them myself over the last year.

Anyways, check out these findings to help launch us into another debate about those drive through’s!

Every day, millions of Canadians enjoy the convenience and safety of drive-through restaurant service. Parents with infants, people with mobility challenges, seniors…for these groups the drive-through is a vital service. It’s also a safe option for anyone traveling at night or in bad weather.

Some people are concerned about the environmental impact of drive-throughs and want to see them banned or restricted. But the facts tell a very different – and perhaps surprising – story: Drive throughs are an environmentally responsible option for restaurant customers.

Five Facts About Drive-throughs

A restaurant with a drive-through creates fewer smog pollutants and greenhouse gases than a comparable restaurant with a parking lot and no drive through. (Source: RWDI Air Inc.)
When cars idle for 10 seconds to 10 minutes they create the same or fewer emissions compared to shutting down the engine and restarting it. (Source: GW Taylor Consulting for Natural Resources Canada)
Emissions created at drive-throughs are very small in relation to other common emissions sources. During a peak hour, smog pollutant emissions from vehicles using a busy drive-through are about the same as a single chain saw operating for one hour. (Source: RWDI Air Inc.)
Drive-throughs generate little in the way of new traffic. Most people use drive-throughs as a stop-off on trips they’re already taking.
With today’s modern engines, drivers are better off idling their engines at the drive-through than turning the engine off and on again. (Source: Automotive expert Doug Bethune)

Restaurant operators work closely with municipalities across the country to design and run drive-throughs that respect and meet the needs of each community. They continually strive to reduce service times and improve drive-through locations.

Related Information

There are several scientific studies and expert commentary on the issues of idling and drive-throughs. The findings may surprise you:

1. Is it better to shut off my engine and restart it, or idle the car for a few minutes? This study for Natural Resources Canada finds that idling for anywhere from 10 seconds to 10 minutes creates the same or slightly lower emissions than stopping and restarting your car engine:

Research Report — Review of the Incidence, Energy Use and Costs of Passenger Vehicle Idling, Final Report (March 2003). Prepared for Office of Energy Efficiency, Natural Resources Canada. Prepared by GW Taylor Consulting, Woodlawn, ON
Download PDF

2. Are anti-idling laws really better for the environment? This expert warns of the unintended consequences:

CBC Radio Interview – Shelagh Rogers speaks with automotive expert Doug Bethune about idling cars.
Read transcript (PDF)

3. What is the environmental impact of drive-through bans? This 1997 report from Sierra Research found that drive-through bans for air quality purposes are counterproductive and may actually result in higher emissions.

Research Summary — An Analysis of the Effect on Emissions of Allowing Drive-Thru Service Lanes (Nov. 1997). Conducted by Sierra Research, Sacramento, CA, for the California Business Properties Association.

Response to the drive through’s – What do you think?

June 19, 2008 · Filed under Green Guelph

Scott said,

June 26, 2008 @ 8:32 pm

You really should disclose the fact that your source for this information is the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. In fact, you appear to have copied verbatim an entire page from CRFA’s web site: http://www.crfa.ca/news/bytopic/drivethroughs.asp.

I hardly think CRFA is an honest broker in this debate. I think you do your readers a disservice by not disclosing the source and by not pointing out that CRFA has an obvious self-interest in this issue.

June 19, 2008 · Filed under Green Guelph

Hi. I came across your posting below; may I try to shed a bit more light on the issue of drive throughs and emissions?

Re the five facts, I think there’s more to the story. Here are a few thoughts:
1. There is a difference between smog forming and greenhouse gas emissions. Most people don’t know that, or that cars produce both. Modern cars produce very low levels of smog forming emissions thanks to their catalytic converters. However, greenhouse gas production is directly proportional to fuel burned. If you burn 1 litre of fuel, you produce 2.4 KG carbon dioxide, period. So an engine that is running is always producing greenhouse gas emissions, and one that is shut off is not. To the point raised in #1: I’m guessing that the study is misquoted, and that only the smog forming emissions are equal whether you park and shut off an engine or use a drive through (again, mainly because smog forming emissions are such a controllable part of the emissions of a new car). It’s worth noting that the RWDI Air study was commissioned by Tim Horton’s, and isn’t public. I don’t know about you, but I’m always uneasy about that type of research scenario.

2. This is clearly a reference to smog forming emissions, not greenhouse gas emissions, but it doesn’t indicate that.

3. I think the logic of the first sentence is shaky: since so much fuel is used in regular traffic, it’s okay to burn a bit more in drive throughs? Would that mean because a ship spilled a million gallons of oil in the ocean, it’s okay for me to dump a hundred gallons in? As to the second statement, a chain saw is hardly a fair comparison to a modern car. Chain saws have 2 stroke engines that have oil mixed into their gas, which then burns with the gas producing a lot of smog forming emissions. They are, unfortunately, stinky polluters by design. Cars, with their catalytic converters, have virtually no smog forming emissions. The good thing, is that this statement does specify it’s referring to smog forming emissions. The bad thing is that it doesn’t consider greenhouse gas emissions.

4. I expect this is true, except maybe on weekends. But an engine that is running in a drive through always produces more greenhouse gases than an engine that is shut off in the parking lot.

5. I expect it’s true that if one makes the choice to go through a drive through, it’s probably not good for the engine to be shut off and started every time the line advances. That could add up to a lot of starts really quickly, and I’m thinking intuitively that’s probably not a good policy. But I’d suggest that, rather than choosing between idling through the drive through or starting and stopping the engine through the drive through, the more important choice is to not take the drive through in the first place.

It’s also interesting to note that most of the text in this blog post is copied verbatim from the website of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association – the group that represents all those drive through restaurants. Again, I think a rational person needs to wonder about the credibility of information that comes from a source with a clear vested interest. Try Googling “An Analysis of the Effect on Emissions of Allowing Drive-Thru Service Lanes” (in quotation marks), the title of one of the studies cited, and see how many hits you get.

I hope these thoughts are helpful in getting to the bottom of the drive through issue. Unfortunately, because drive throughs are such a formidable revenue stream for restaurants, they are fiercely defended.

Best regards,

Carl

Progressive Environmental Policy & Drive-Through Ban

corymorningstar — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:47:04 +0000

Palm Desert, California Celebrates Passage of Energy Independence Act

Sponsors unprecedented state bill allowing cities to provide low-interest loans to residents making energy-saving improvements to homes or businesses; strengthens citywide commitment to solar energy

Last update: 12:00 p.m. EDT July 28, 2008

PALM DESERT, Calif., Jul 28, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) — Already an innovator in its efforts to reduce its carbon footprint, the city of Palm Desert last week got one step closer to realizing its goal of reducing citywide energy consumption by 30 percent before 2011. Governor Schwarzenegger last week signed Assembly Bill 811 into law as an “urgency measure,” for the first time allowing city governments throughout California to provide loans to property owners planning home or business improvements that will reduce energy consumption. The bill, termed locally the Energy Independence Act, was written and lobbied for by Palm Desert’s civic leaders.

Palm Desert’s City Council is working to formulate a strategy to put the bill into effect locally as quickly and simply as possibly. The city plans to provide loans for as little as $5,000, with no upper limit, for improvements such as efficient air-conditioning systems, lighting systems, water-heating equipment, refrigerators, or pool pumps; and installation of solar panels, white roofs, or insulation–anything that will reduce electricity consumption and is considered a permanent fixture. The city will provide low-interest loans requiring no credit checks or other qualifications other than a property title. The loans will be paid back as part of the residents’ tax bill–meaning if the home or business is sold, the loan stays with the property.

“Two years ago, we set a lofty goal of reducing our energy use by 30 percent, and now we have the means to accomplish it,” said Councilman Jim Ferguson, who spearheaded the passage of the Energy Independence Act. “During the summer months, when temperatures regularly reach over 100 degrees, Palm Desert residents can pay up to $1000 a month for electricity. This program will empower them to explore renewable energy sources and make meaningful changes for the environment as well as their own finances.”

The city has enlisted the expertise of EcoMotion, a consulting company that also advises cities such as Anaheim and Santa Monica on their environmental initiatives. Under the leadership of president Ted Flanigan, EcoMotion will coordinate and help facilitate the loan program. Flanigan will also work to document Palm Desert’s carbon footprint and suggest further improvements to the city’s already aggressive energy- and emissions-reduction programs.

“Palm Desert is unbelievably progressive,” said Flanigan. “I really salute them for having the creativity and foresight to change state law in this historic way.”

Classifying the reduction of a city’s energy consumption and carbon footprint as “public good” is a groundbreaking approach, and opens the door for cities across the state to adopt similar programs. AB811 updates sections of California’s Streets and Highways Code that allow cities to set up assessment districts to pay for public improvements such as sewers and roads. Mindful of the far-reaching possibilities, Palm Desert will work to create a program that can be easily replicated elsewhere. Berkeley, Santa Monica and Palm Springs are also researching similar programs, which will likely be modeled after Palm Desert’s Energy Independence Program.

Besides creativity, another major asset in Palm Desert is sunshine. With 350 days of sunshine each year and an average of 5.5 hours of high-quality solar insulation per day, the city far outperforms the national average and is an ideal site for sun-powered energy systems. Home solar systems last up to 40 years, so the Energy Independence Act allows homeowners to finance systems – using the good credit of the city – with long-term loans to match the long-term benefits of solar.

In a city so dependent on electricity for features such as air conditioning and pool pumps, energy-efficient improvements represent a long-term investment and increase the value of homes and businesses. Palm Desert aims to begin providing loans by the end of August, and plans to bring funding to the Energy Independence Program through the sale of municipal bonds–allowing investors across the country to bring a new level to their socially responsible investment plans.

The Energy Independence Program is just one more way Palm Desert is thinking green. In 2006, the city introduced a new government division, the Office of Energy Management, and unveiled Set to Save: its unprecedented plan to cut energy consumption by 30 percent–or 215 million kilowatt hours of electric energy–in five years. The plan is the most ambitious of its kind in California and provides incentives to businesses and residents engaging in energy-saving behavior. Palm Desert has since then opened 141 energy-efficient apartments for low- and middle-income families, including several that are partially fueled by solar energy.

That same year, Palm Desert passed a law requiring all new construction to surpass state energy requirements by 10 to 15 percent. It’s also banned drive-through restaurants, waived permit fees on the installation of photovoltaic solar systems in homes and businesses and declared electric golf carts street-legal. Palm Desert has the only LEED-certified visitor center in the United States and opened the country’s first environmentally sound public golf course 10 years ago. For more information, visit www.cityofpalmdesert.org.

SOURCE: Palm Desert

Nancy J. Friedman Public Relations
Gina Masullo, 212-228-1500
gina@njfpr.com