• about
  • Projects
  • Writing
    • Blog
    • Publications
    • Resources
  • Speaking
  • Testimonials

Lilly Woodbury

  • about
  • Projects
  • Writing
    • Blog
    • Publications
    • Resources
  • Speaking
  • Testimonials

Getting Granular: Uncovering the Environmental and Social Maladies of Sand Mining

Living in the PNW, It’s hard to imagine a shortage of sand when you’re constantly tracking it into the house and then finding it in the crevices of your belly button, highly anticipated snack and beloved bra. Sand gets granular about boundaries; it would rather seep in everywhere. Finally, you think you’re in the clear. You’re on the couch and you open your book, and then a stream of old beach falls onto your lap. And your cat, who is now pissed, which was the last thing you needed. It turns out the war on sand is much cruder than this experience we face here on the west coast.


Some fun freaky math experts estimate that there are between 2.5-10 sextillion grains of sand on the planet. 10 sextillions?! I didn’t even know this number existed, but I want to say it with every opportunity I get now (next time at coffee shop: barista “would you like sugar in your oat milk latte?” me: “id like 10 sextillion [grains of sugar]”.

Sand is in more places than we could have ever imagined, beyond beaches, we find sand in every house, skyscraper, glass building and product, bridge, airport, sidewalks, electronics, toothpaste, powdered food and even in our wine..and that which holds our wine. Up to 50 billion tonnes of sand and gravel are mined each year to meet soaring demand from construction and land reclamation – making this form of mining the most exploitive in the world, as it’s responsible for 85 percent of all mineral extraction. So, what are the issues of sand mining, and should we be trying to sell the sand from our crevices to the dark web?

unsplash-image-_Hely2YN314.jpg


Sand mining is a cause for river and coastal erosion, and in many places, this has led to the retreat of beaches and shrinking of river banks - which further impacts a coastline’s ability to buffer against storms. If this wasn’t enough, the physical impact to these systems alters groundwater reserves and water quality, leads to the loss of fertile land and increases flooding. Regarding the latter consequence, according to World Atlas, “Beaches, dunes, and sandbanks act as barriers to flooding. When sand mining removes such barriers, areas near the sea or river become more prone to flooding. As a result, beachside communities in areas subjected to indiscriminate sand mining are thus more vulnerable to the forces of nature.” It’s often communities that are already vulnerable to climate change and other environmental threats that are further impacted by sand mining, as discussed below.

Like any resource extraction activity, wildlife and their habitats are also compromised from sand mining. This encompasses the loss of nesting sites for sea turtles, and the near threat of extinction of gharials, a crocodile found in India, who build their nests on river banks. Additionally, when seabeds are dredged, this destroys the habitat present as well as harms or kills benthic creatures like crabs and starfish. In addition, according to the World Wildlife Fund, sand mining can result in a reduction in diversity and abundance of fish in mined areas.

With the fossil fuels used to extract and transport the sand, this industry inevitably contributes to climate change. Socially, sand mining impacts local livelihoods, farmers, fishers, and those—typically women—fetching water for households. I first learned about this in the film, Lost Worlds, which follows a young woman, Phalla Vy, in her home of Koh Sralau. In this small Cambodian island, sand has been dredged beyond disaster beneath mangrove forests - which are essential for fishing and crabbing, which colours this community’s way of life. The foundation of communities are being literally pulled away by machinery, rendering homelands unrecognizable. Environmental Justice Atlas breaks down the socio-economical impacts of sand mining on local people further, using Kerala in India as a case study, which includes loss of traditional knowledge/practices/cultures, displacement, loss of livelihood, land dispossession, loss of landscape/sense of place. With 70% of countries reportedly experiencing illegal extraction of river and coastal sand, these adverse effects are becoming all too common (World Wildlife Fund)

As Cosmos Science states, “The damage caused by uncontrolled demand..is significantly exacerbated by the fact that in most parts of the world sand is considered a ‘common resource’ – easy to reach and prohibitively expensive to regulate.” Given the nuance of this material management, what solutions can be implemented to addressing this growing sand storm?

Though I’m not a huge fan of WWF and their practices and ways of operating, they seem to have the most salient recommendations around solving the issues caused by sand mining that I’ve been able to find, which are as follows:

“Europe has shown that developed economies can continue to prosper without resorting to river sand. Its supplies now come from crushed quarry rocks, recycled concrete and marine sand. The question now is what can be done to reduce the demand for sand in rapidly developing countries in Asia and Africa. As the review conclude, it will require systemic change:

  • The demand for sand is increasing and preventing or reducing likely damage to rivers will require the construction industry to be weaned-off river sourced sand and gravel, either through the substitution of materials or alterations to building designs and methods so that extraction is reduced to levels that are proven to be sustainable/have little negative ecological impact.

  • This type of societal shift is similar to that required to address climate change, and will necessitate changes in the way that sand and rivers are perceived, and cities are designed and constructed.

  • In most countries, sand mining is officially regulated through national mining and environmental protection legislation, with authority for regulation devolved to the State or District level. Legislation is frequently accompanied by non-binding guidelines to improve the sustainability of the activity. This governance structure results in many small administrative entities having responsibility for implementing and enforcing these regulations, hampering management at the catchment level. The lack of enforcement of regulations is a common issue identified by the mainstream media. Options for reducing the construction industry’s dependence on sand mining identified through a literature review, included recycling concrete, fixing rather than replacing concrete, researching the suitability of waste materials as aggregate substitutes, and developing new construction materials and design approaches.

unsplash-image-A0jpjwo_tts

And the review recommends some next steps:

  • Increase public awareness of the growing demand and finite supply of sand: Public awareness and acceptance will be required for any long term shift away from the present market system whereby sand underpins all development, yet is the cheapest of commodities;

  • Conduct research into economic incentives or certification schemes that could drive a reduction in the extraction of sand from rivers;

  • Conduct more scientific research into sand mining in rivers, including short-term ‘rapid’ assessments and longer term investigations to understand changes over the time-scales at which rivers and ecosystems respond to change. Rivers where sensitive or endangered species reside, and their habitat needs are known would provide good initial targets for research. Evidence of where economically valuable species are being lost would provide information on economic trade-offs.

  • The severe lack of information regarding rivers in developing countries must rapidly be addressed.

The World Economic Forum has also added to the conversation, they state, “What can be done?

While pressure on governments to regulate sand mining is increasing, more needs to be done to find alternatives for use in construction and for solving the world’s continuing housing crises.

In its 2014 report, Sand, Rarer Than One Thinks, the UNEP Global Environment Alert Service suggests optimizing the use of existing buildings and infrastructure, as well as using recycled concrete rubble and quarry dust instead of using raw sand.

Breaking the reliance on concrete as the go-to material for building houses, by increasing the tax on aggregate extraction, training architects and engineers, and looking to alternative materials such as wood and straw, would also reduce our demand for sand.

Beyond these points, we need governments and more environmental groups to address the environmental justice issues arising out of sand mining, as illuminated by the destruction of local economies and environmental services in Cambodia, India and many other developing nations. This includes stronger regulations, enforcement and monitoring around this form of extraction, protections for vulnerable communities, including communities at risk in policy making, compensation for affected communities, and restoring communities that have been degraded by sand mining.

What are your thoughts on this shady and underrated problem? No matter where we live, we benefit from sand, and all other materials that come from the earth that we use and depend on every day of our lives. As we work to address the climate crisis and environmental racism, we need to establish an equitable and circular economy for all materials, which requires stronger government regulations, private sector participation, and people getting loud about the changes needed. Let your MP know that you love sand and want all generations to experience the sublime that is beaches - keeping the global collection of beaches protected from climate change and sand mining. 



Saturday 04.24.21
Posted by Lilly Woodbury
 

That Which Flows - Soundscapes and Waterways: Noise Pollution and Why We Need To Be Talking About This and Taking Action 

You know that moment when you’re rolling around on the ground to your favourite Macy Gray song or going Xtreme on your Sunday beach run and then your phone gives you a warning “turn the sound level down to avoid hearing damage”..and if you want take care of your ears you head this message, or, if you’re like me, you quickly close the notification and keep going. If our cities and oceans had this same notification, it would be constantly triggered by the cacophony of sound present, displaying as a hologram warning for all of us to see and not so easily turn off.

All of our senses have thresholds, and the same applies for the planet and all the rest of its inhabitants. When we think about pollution, our mind strays to chemicals, plastics, greenhouse gases -  that which contaminates and contributes to climate change. However, pollution paints a broader darker stroke, from light pollution to noise pollution, the latter of which cannot be seen, only heard. Noise pollution is considered to be any unwanted or disturbing sound that affects the health and well-being of humans and other organisms (National Geographic). Unlike other forms of pollution like plastics, noise pollution, luckily, does not persist in the environment.

According to NOAA, “Not all sound is created equal. Sources of ocean noise vary in many ways, including how loud they are (intensity, measured in decibels), how long they last (fractions of a second to never ending), and their pitch or tone (frequency, measured in hertz).” Noise on land, from subways and construction in cities to rock concerts (not that we’ve had this type of exposure lately..on the bright side, our ears are benefitting), leads to stress, high blood pressure, and Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL). Below the sea, sound pollution is having an even greater impact on marine inhabitants. Water is the preferred medium for sound, as sound travels significantly farther in H20 over air. In one experiment from the early 1990s, researchers placed a speaker near Antarctica, played some low-frequency or deep-pitched sounds, and picked up those sounds near Bermuda—demonstrating that sound can literally travel halfway around the world (NOAA).

unsplash-image-VziuvwpGatM.jpg

The ocean has always been an aqueous symphony, a melodic mix of storms, earthquakes, and animals. Like many other issues I’ve discussed, this all changed with the advent of the industrial revolutions, with anthropogenic activities disrupting and overpowering this natural symphony, including ships, military sonar, seabed mining, construction, and oil drilling. This has had a particularly adverse effect on cetaceans, who rely on echolocation to communicate, navigate, feed, and find mates - which noise pollution intervenes with. Noise pollution can also cause behavioural change in cetaceans and has led to mass strandings of whales and dolphins on beaches. 

Strandings have increased since humans began taking record, according to the Guardian, “Unusual mass strandings, where multiple species of whale and dolphin beach at several locations at once, have soared since the introduction of military sonar in the 1950s and can be fatal.” One of the loudest and most significant sources of submerged noise comes from naval sonar devices. As stated in National Geographic, “Sonar, like echolocation, works by sending pulses of sound down into the depths of the ocean to bounce off an object and return an echo to the ship, which indicates a location for the object. Sonar sounds can be as loud as 235 decibels and travel hundreds of miles underwater, interfering with whales’ ability to use echolocation. Research has shown that sonar can cause mass strandings of whales on beaches”

I remember when I was working for Greenpeace New Zealand, and in February 2017, 300 pilot whales washed up and died overnight in Cape Farewell, the name of this place suiting this incomprehensibly sad happening. New Zealand also has some of the highest whale stranding rates in the world. I remember working that day in a somber haze, amidst learning more about noise pollution and other threats causing these tragic events. Not long after this incident, after months of lobbying and protesting, the New Zealand federal government instituted a moratorium on deep sea oil drilling in 2018

What can we do about this dire situation? Sonar and shipping are forecasted to continue increasing, but the oceans already cannot sustain the barrage of noise pollution occurring. Like coming home after a long day and kicking it in the calm, marine animals also require respite from anthropogenic clamorous chaos. Unlike climate change and plastic pollution which are difficult to reverse, we can quickly turn around the noise pollution levels in the oceans. According to Carlos M. Duarte, a biological oceanographer and marine ecologist, policy makers seeking to triage the earth’s injuries from human activity should treat marine noise first. “Ocean noise has always been in the hospital waiting room,” he says. “We need to get noise out of the waiting room.” (Scientific American)

unsplash-image-u9Mcu3X2vBQ.jpg

Solutions are coming into place, and there’s actions we can take to contribute to ending noise pollution, chronicled below → 

Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council have won lawsuits against the Navy for its damaging use of sonar and other practices in 2015. Following this, the Navy agreed to limit its use of sonar and other harmful training activities in critical habitats for whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals. The settlement, finalized by a federal judge in Honolulu, reconciles a decade-old debate about the Navy’s sonar practices. The agreement includes limits or bans on mid-frequency active sonar and explosives in specified areas, including Hawaii and Southern California (Huffington Post). Canadian ENGO’s have also gained legal standing in the US to legally oppose Navy sonar practices, as efforts to address noise pollution in Canada is not enough, marine mammals in Canada are inevitably impacted by sources of noise pollution taking place south of the border. From the research I’m doing, it sounds like we need more stronger policies across ocean nations to regulate the use of sonar. I’ve been researching ENGO’s in Canada and the United States working on this issue, and I would love to learn where this effort is at from Canadian groups who have worked on this (and thanks to these groups who have campaigned against the Navy over the noise pollution caused by their sonar): Georgia Strait Alliance, Wilderness Committee, Raincoast Conservation, and David Suzuki Foundation.

According to NOAA, measures can be taken to make shipping itself quieter, through the application of quieting designs - including propellers that produce less sound, and are actually more fuel efficient. This requires regulatory support from the government. With this, to help quiet the oceans and curb greenhouse gas emissions, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) suggests enforcing speed limits on ships. NOAA is working on this front with partners, including those within the shipping industry, to incentivize building new and retrofitting existing ships to be quieter.

We need to prohibit all mining, oil and gas activities in the marine environment, which includes implementing moratoriums on deep sea oil drilling across the globe, like New Zealand has done, which is MASSIVE for decarbonizing our economy and moving away from the dangerous and destructive extraction of fossil fuels in the oceans. In efforts to curb climate change, President Biden has also put a halt on all new offshore drilling projects. The public plays an incredibly important role in making these victories happen, as stated in The Narwhal in 2019, “After two years of advocacy and 70,000 letters sent, conservation organizations across Canada are celebrating the federal government’s decision to prohibit all oil and gas activities in marine protected areas.” Currently, Canada has protected 10% of coastal and marine areas, and has committed to increase this to 30% by 2030. As I’ve said numerous times, we need to make our voices heard and write to our Member of Parliament to let them know we need to end all mining, oil and gas activities in the marine environment within Canada’s jurisdiction.

According to Scientific American, marine noise could also be mitigated by strategically managing traffic on the water, the researchers point out. One nearby example is a voluntary program developed by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. It asks ships and tugboats to reroute away from the feeding areas of endangered southern resident killer whales and recommends slower speeds for large ships in specific waters in southwestern British Columbia to reduce underwater noise. They are creating incentives for shipping companies to figure out how much noise they make compared to other ships and reward those with good environmental status. 

And once again - buy less - resist capitalism. Air freight prices continue to rise, so this means that many businesses - especially multinationals and businesses depending on goods made overseas, are increasingly relying on freight shipping, leading to more traffic in the oceans and greater noise pollution. We need to go back to just buying what we need, and buying what’s made and sold locally.

To learn more, an incredible documentary, which I need to rewatch is Sonic Sea, which has won countless awards from around the world, and is narrated by Rachel McAdams. According to Sonic Sea, “We can make a difference, compelling industry and the government to chart a more responsible course to protect countless marine animals — if we rise up together now and demand change.” Visit my linktr.ee to sign their petition, sign up for updates on how to address this issue and access this film!!

Saturday 03.27.21
Posted by Lilly Woodbury
 

How Algorithms Eliminate Nuance and How this Impacts Our Ability to Regenerate the Planet

If you live on the west coast then you’re no stranger to shades of grey. Both a colour and achromatic non-colour, grey deserves its own tone dictionary for its variance. We typically flee to the outdoors for sunsets, but we’re less likely to bathe in wonder over sheets of sleet. Yet, when I’m out in the surf and contemplating a full grey canvas, I often think that this scenario puts our brains into a meditative state - where the focus on the all-encompassing slate creates inner calm. Perhaps because there’s less to take in, we’re not overloading the grey matter in our brains, which processes stimuli into information.

I’ve been thinking about grey and its relation to the world we live in, and the reality that not everything is black and white. There is nuance everywhere in differing degrees, just like grey itself and the way it shows up. To achieve truly regenerative results on earth, we need a nuanced over a polarized approach to understanding issues and potential solutions. For instance, addressing unsustainable and unethical mining practices that are acquiring metals for clean energy infrastructure, the fact that a product can be certified organic but still abide by industrial practices that degenerate the land and soil, or that when done right palm oil can be sustainable as it requires less water, land, and energy than other plants that produce oil (but, for the vast majority of production, is massively destructive).

I’ve been learning about how algorithms impede our ability to have a multifaceted comprehension of issues. In social media, algorithms are largely designed to favour the elimination of nuance, and, instead, prioritize conflict as well as black and white thinking. According to Richard Reisman, “Social media algorithms favor viral content and conflict generation because that increases engagement — increasing ad views, and earning them added billions in revenue. How then to change the algorithms? Once the platforms are motivated to filter the content they distribute for quality, they will do better at it. Google’s original search algorithm proved decades ago that the internet can select for quality and nuance by harnessing the subtle signals of vast numbers of human users — and can do it at internet speed. But the obscene profits of the ad model were too seductive, so quality no longer mattered and was lost.” On top of supporting the capitalist system of exponential growth and earning corporations billions in revenue, studies also show how algorithms impact our ability to think freely, creatively, and redemptively.

 The algorithms themselves are not to blame, according to Hannah Fry, author of Hello World: Being Human in the World of Algorithms “Algorithms are being used to help prevent crimes and help doctors get more accurate cancer diagnoses, and in countless other ways. All of these things are really, really positive steps forward for humanity. We just have to be careful in the way that we employ them. We can’t do it recklessly.”

Leadership Coach Carey Nieuwhof outlines multiple challenges we face that current algorithm systems contribute to:

“1. YOU LOOP INTO DEEPER CONFIRMATION BIAS

As your choices narrow and you click more, your decision-making ability deteriorates because you see more of what you already like/believe/accept.

Algorithms don’t challenge confirmation bias, they fuel it. Essentially, the algorithm keeps feeding you more you.

2. YOU BECOME MORE TRIBAL AND EXTREME

So where is our current tribalism and extremism coming from? As the middle disappears from politics and people seem to be increasingly left or right, conservative or progressive and extreme.

You click on one story about the alt-right or socialism (pick your extreme) and five more appear next time you’re on the platform. Click on a few more, and descent down a wormhole begins.

Similarly, if you follow your more conservative or liberal friends, again, more suggestions of similar ideological/theological/philosophical pop-up.

Before you know it, your whole world thinks the same, believes the same and acts the same way you do, and perhaps in more extreme ways.

3. YOUR CHOICES USUALLY END UP BECOMING MORE LIMITED, NOT GREATER

Think back to the day when you had to purchase music, as in specific music, to listen to what you wanted to hear (or rely on radio to play your favourite song).

You saved up your money and purchased a physical CD, cassette or album and listened away. The iPod changed that a little bit as purchases moved from physical to digital, but what totally changed the game was streaming. Now, for a dozen dollars or so a month, you can theoretically listen to anything from anyone anytime.

Except, if you’re like me, you don’t.

The same is true of online shopping, video, TV shows, movies, social posts etc: you don’t actually get more choices, you get fewer because the algorithm is designed to feed you things it thinks you like so you’ll stay on longer, buy more, and click more often.

4. YOU LOSE THE ABILITY TO THINK FREELY 

All of this challenges your ability and my ability to think and choose freely.

Again, ask yourself whether your views have calcified or whether you’re still learning and growing from a variety of sources? If your world-view collapses because you’re open to dialogue and other ideas, your worldview wasn’t that strong to begin with. And if you have to defend it by getting angrier and louder, you’re probably speaking to an ever-dwindling circle of people.”

DSC_3907.jpg

WHAT CAN WE DO?

I believe we need more nuanced perspectives to regenerate the planet, to see all sides of issues, and to find common ground amongst each other - which has NEVER been so important.

  • Read, listen and watch far and wide! Embrace interdisciplinary learning by soaking up knowledge from different disciplines, genres, sectors, etc. This includes taking a chance to understand differing perspectives other than our own. It was suuuper hard for me to listen to a podcast on why a lot of clean energy is dirtier than we think, but I know I needed to do it to understand how we can make the green energy revolution truly regenerative.

  • I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - we need a system overhaul. This includes massive tax reform that taxes the extremely wealthy, which will disincentivize the current money hoarding system. This also means holding corporations accountable for the pollution, degradation, and exploitation they cause - which will also disincentivize an algorithmic system that favours sensational clickbait that’s purely cash motivated.

  • Holding respectful conversations with people who have differing opinions than us. I have a great article on how to have productive environmental discussions that you can read here. When we do this, we break out of silos and confirmation bias.

  • Not accepting what is widely assumed. This includes norms, stereotypes, and harmful narratives - like “we’re in the apocalypse” or that environmentalists and artists will always starve and be poor (I used to believe this and have since gotten out of this poverty mindset.) As Carey states, “again, widely accepted current thinking will get reinforced by algorithmically driven sources. It becomes a confirmation bias, a feedback loop that self-perpetuates.”

  • Be skeptical of social media and mainstream news, period, and be wary of how much time is spent on these channels. They are owned by massive corporations that are structured to increase their capital and fatten the pockets of their shareholders. As an alternative for gaining quality information, I love going for walks outside and listening to podcasts that host people with different trains of thought. This, paired with just being outside..brainstorming, feeling, and thinking for oneself is powerful and necessary for overcoming the limiting nature of current algorithms. It is, for instance, how I came up with this post hehe.

  • Richard Reisman also shares this solution: “change the incentives that will motivate platforms to redesign algorithms to filter for nuance — and against incivility and hate speech. As long as social media’s financial incentives favor engagement (or “enragement”) over quality, its filtering algorithms will be designed to be favorable to messages of hate and fear. As long as that happens at Internet speed, bolted-on efforts to add back nuance and limit conflict will be futile. We will waste time and resources with little result, and democracy may drown in the undertow. How can we swim out of this tide?

    Change the incentives. What we need is a subscription model that makes the user the customer. People should pay for the services they enjoy, with some of that cost defrayed by compensation that is given for their data and their attention. Today, as is often said, users (and their data) are the product, and the true customers are the advertisers.”


Tuesday 02.16.21
Posted by Lilly Woodbury
 

Greening the Cloud: the Environmental Impact of the Internet

We are striving to lower our carbon footprints, seeking out answers, yet one way is sneaking around right under our noses. Literally. It’s our phones, internets, tablets and all other technological devices that keep us infinitely connected. Millennials will remember the dial up internet and the funny glitchy sound it made, and our outbursts of anger when it wouldn’t tether us to our neopets and MSN messenger. Now, the internet is instantaneous, it’s so woven into our day that we may not notice its omnipresence. The airiness of the Cloud and the magic of syncing across devices, this light virtuality makes the whole situation feel nebulous, so much that we often forget its environmental impact.

The internet relies on extensive physical infrastructure, including data centres and transmission networks for the mass transfer and storage of data, which continues to expand at an accelerating rate. According to BBC, the internet contributes around 3.7% of global greenhouse gas emissions annually, which is similar to the airline industry. 80% of this industry is also still reliant on fossil fuels, we need to lobby, campaign and advocate for this industry to decarbonize and become powered by clean energy. 

So, here’s some fun ways we can support this and offset our own internet use, so we can stay connected and continue using it for the greater good!

-Support campaigns that are pressuring big tech to break up with fossil fuels. According to Greenpeace, “to realize the climate commitments they have set, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon must continue to reduce carbon emissions throughout their own operations and publicly distance themselves from customers that are making the climate crisis worse.” Greenpeace is calling on cloud companies to make a public commitment to end problematic contracts with the oil and gas sector—those that explicitly aid in exploration or increased production of fossil fuels. A great success story is Greenpeace’s “Unfriend Coal” Campaign succeeded in getting Facebook to commit to phasing out coal and transitioning to clean energy. In 2018, Facebook committed to powering global operations with 100 percent renewable energy by the end of 2021, which they’re on track to meet - Facebook announced that in 2019 it achieved 86 percent renewable energy for its operations.

-Download and use the search engine Ecosia, which is run entirely on renewable energy and plants trees for our searches. At the time of writing this, over 117 million trees have been planted. 

-Stream fewer videos. According to multiple studies, video streaming accounts for over a third of greenhouse gas emissions from internet use. Within this, according to BBC, pornography accounts for a third of video streaming traffic, generating as much carbon dioxide as Belgium in a year. Embrace some sensuality with an erotic book, I’ve only heard positive reviews about this hehe

-Go through your online-based subscriptions and assess what you really need. What is draining time and contributing to a consumer lifestyle? Amazon Prime is a great one to send to the curb with the rest of our recycling and compost waste. I just cancelled my Netflix account and I'm now redirecting these funds towards BIPOC led environmental and social causes.

-This is a fun one that Forage and Sustain taught me. Our old emails take up data space which requires energy causes emissions. This includes unsubscribing from email newsletters we don’t read as well as deleting apps on our phones we don't use, and trashing old photos and documents. 


-Remember there’s a wide world outside of the web, let’s jump in and get wet, muddy, earthy, fiery and airy - all that elemental jazzy-ness. When we can detach from tools, we can own them and use them for the greater benefit. When we can’t detach - they own us, and this is the space where we can become manipulated, bought, and conditioned.


Saturday 01.16.21
Posted by Lilly Woodbury
 

Blueprint for the Coast: Enacting a Coastal Protection Act in British Columbia

I have this recurring dream about coastlines, where all the coasts I’ve lived on and visited are all just a short boat ride away from each other, nestled within BC. Instead of their disbursement around the world, like seeds in the wind, they’re all here. Maybe my subconscious pieces this puzzle together because of BC’s enormity, with over 25,725 kilometres of it, it’s as if it feels there is truly room for all of these disparate places. In reality, even thinking about traversing every (walkable..) mile of the whole coastline in BC seems incomprehensible..

However, what is tangible is the integral role coastlines play in our existence. According to WCEL, they are paramount for maintaining biodiversity and liveable coastal communities: “providing critical habitat, water quality protection, food and medicinal plants for harvesting, lessening of coastal erosion, resilience to climate change, and flood regulation. Perhaps less well known is that coastal ecosystems also play an important role in long-term carbon storage and sequestration. Protected and restored coastal ecosystems provide multiple benefits to coastal communities, such as flood protection, tourism and recreation” (pictured here )

British Columbia currently does not have a Coastal Protection Plan (CPA), making it one of the only coastal jurisdictions in North America without a united plan and law to protect it. The vitality of this province is inextricably connected to the coast, where some of us retreat to with our morning coffee and glean seaweed, and where others dream of travelling to more frequently in different times. No matter our orientation, the BC coastline is a ribbon that bonds this blue and green world and makes our way of life possible.

The recently re-elected NDP government has promised to develop a new strategy to protect coastal habitat, and they have just identified leaders in government who will work together to construct a coastal strategy. Now, we need to keep holding our government accountable by calling for the development of a robust plan that will protect and regenerate British Columbia’s iconic coastline, with far-reaching social, climate, cultural and economic benefits. 

So, we can support the development of a CPA in BC by writing to our MLA’s (find yours here: https://www.leg.bc.ca/learn-about-us/members) and letting them know this issue is important to u,. Hon. Josie Osborne is our MLA for the Mid Island-Pacific Rim. We can all also learn more about a BC CPA by visiting Blueprint for BC (link in bio), an initiative put forward by CPAWS and WCEL. We need this for the people of today, and those of tomorrow. For all the biotic and abiotic beings, that, together, make this province so spectacular, an apprized ornament on the holiday tree of earth.

Saturday 12.12.20
Posted by Lilly Woodbury
 

Ecofascism Explained and Why We All Need To Be Aware of it.

Humans are not the issue. Human nature is not the issue. Our systems are the issue, this is what needs dismantling, not people, not population.

I remember first learning about the idea of overpopulation in university, as we analyzed the findings of Paul Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb”, a 1968 best-selling book on how population growth would exceed available resources, and that population needed to be controlled. However, this idea was not birthed in the last half century, it dates back to 1798 with the Malthusian Theory of Population, which posits that populations need to be reduced by food shortages, famines, war and national disasters. This perverse idea lives on today, and has even infiltrated the environmental movement, pinning pollution, climate change and other ecological issues on the fact that there are too many people. Yet, which people become the focus of this lens? You can take a good guess that it isn’t privileged, affluent, and primarily white people. 

This overpopulation argument is utilized by a perilous ideology, ecofascism, which “blames the demise of the environment on overpopulation and immigration”, and, specifically, the accountability is placed on marginalized people over those that have privilege and power. This not only ignores the roots of our ecological collapse, it also perpetuates racism and economic injustice. Unfortunately, with the rise of ultra-right Authoritarian governments, this ideology is gaining more momentum, especially as corporate and political leaders can no longer deny the climate and environmental crisis.

 As activist Michaela Loach states, “For example, with the overpopulation argument, they'll often cite countries in the Global South and say: ‘Because they have high population growth rates, they're the cause of the climate crisis. And what we need is have their populations’ growth slow down or decrease because too many humans is the problem.’”

I see a common example of this in my work all the time. If I had a dollar for every time someone mentioned to me that doing anything about plastic pollution in Canada is futile because a majority of marine debris comes from 10 rivers in Asia and Africa, I’d have enough to make all my animal husbandry and hot air balloon dreams come true. Yet, here I am, no animals, no hot air balloons, and still having to dismantle this broken argument. So, because consumerism produces mass amounts of waste, ecofascists incorrectly condemn developing nations, BIPOC and folks with a lower socioeconomic status for using single-use plastics and other cheap disposable products, yet fail to mention the damage executed by polluting petrochemical based corporations that heavily market their cheap products to developing nations. They also fail to mention the systems of oppression that keep people locked in poverty and having to rely on cheap consumer goods that are packed, wrapped, and packaged in plastic.

Now, let’s look at the facts. The lowest consumption rates and footprints are found in countries with higher populations. Again, it’s industrialized countries that comprise 20% of the world’s population but devour 80% of the earth’s resources. In Canada alone, we waste 40% of the food we produce. We produce enough food to feed the planet over, and this would skyrocket if we implemented regenerative agriculture on a global scale. So, the issue is not of populations, but of our systems that waste materials, degrade ecosystems, pollute, and privilege the richest in society to become even richer through systems of oppression and resource extraction. Oxfam released a study that found the richest 10% of people produce half of the planet’s individual-consumption-based fossil fuel emission, in addition to this, 100 companies are responsible for 70% of global emissions.

What’s nuts is that while the most affluent countries in the global north, again, namely multinational corporations and the richest sector of our society, it’s BIPOC and folks in the global south who suffer the most from the climate crisis and environmental degradation. Consider the people living in the south pacific islands like Tuvalu, whose homes are getting swallowed up by rising insurmountable seas. Or Indigenous communities in Northern Canada whose way of life is drastically changing as the climate warms, impacting hunting, fishing, culture, and all other aspects of people’s existence. It’s also BIPOC and lower socioeconomic communities that end up living closest to landfills, incinerators, mines, plastic refineries, and other polluting and environmentally degrading industrial activities, meaning they face disproportionate threats to their health and wellbeing.

We’ve also seen an ecofascism narrative emerge from the pandemic, with animals returning to ecosystems in the absence of humans and how this got spun to paint humans beings as the virus, and that nature will regenerate if we’re not in the picture. Again, this is a fascist logic because a pandemic taking the lives of over a million people, many of whom were vulnerable and marginalized, is not good for nature. Us being locked up in our homes is not good for nature. To truly address climate change, we need to address systemic racism and oppression, which is woven into the population argument, which, at this point, is a waste of time, puts at risk people in even greater danger, and distracts a lot of people from taking systems changed based action. We cannot let ourselves be detracted by this elitist fictional story, we must continue to spark systems change and ensure that justice is at the centre of our efforts as we work to decarbonize our society and shift to a more circular and equitable world. We need to denudate our cynical understanding of human nature as selfish and greedy. We need to embrace the truth that human communities can be active co-creators in a more biodiverse planet, again, as seen with the fact that 80% of the world’s biodiversity exists on Indigenous People’s land.

As Naomi Klein states, “We’re at a crossroads, where it’s not about who denies it anymore. I mean, I think that within a few years climate change denial as a force is going to have disappeared. The question is: In the face of this crisis, are we going to — we, in the wealthy world — hoard what is left, lockout everybody else, see this resurgence in these abhorrent ideologies, that never went away, and are would just going to take care of our own, as they say? Or are we going to recognize that our fates are interconnected? Are we going to completely reimagine borders? And are we going to share what’s left? And this is at the heart of the tremendous responsibility of our moment.”

Sunday 10.18.20
Posted by Lilly Woodbury
 

Climate change is a driving factor of forced international migration, why isn't this written into refugee law?

As the ninth-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, Canada has a multifaceted part to play in reconciling our global crisis. This country has a responsibility to step up and dramatically prevent emissions -  to be a greater leader in the clean energy movement, which includes taking subsidies out of the fossil fuel industry and directing this to green infrastructure. There is also another essential step: for the damage Canada has caused, there needs to be provisions made to existing refugee regulations in regards to accepting climate refugees. These individuals are often from countries who have contributed the least to the climate crisis, like Kiribati, but now have to abandon their roots - the site of their history, families, cultures, and languages, because of this crisis caused by industrialized nations. As Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party stated last year, “By geography, we’re one of the biggest countries in the world, by population one of the smaller. We have an obligation; we’ve been one of the biggest polluters."

A 2010 report by the federal government, entitled Climate Change and Forced Migration: Canada's Role, deduced that "best estimates suggest that hundreds of millions of people could be on the move in the coming decades due to the impacts of climate change. Canada has an opportunity now to plan an orderly and effective response to the coming crisis."

Despite arriving at this knowledge, there is still no plan, and this has to do with the definitions surrounding the word “refugee” and the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which doesn't recognize climate threats as a cause for a person fleeing from their country. This convention states a refugee as “someone who has crossed an international border owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” This parameter does not include climate change, which has become an increasingly driving factor of war and disputes that cause persecution - from droughts to resource scarcity. In order to be considered for resettlement in Canada, people need to be a Convention refugee as stated in Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This leaves a protection gap for millions of people are in a vulnerable position due to climate change and related issues: the International Organization of Migration (IOM) predicting that there could be as many as 200 million Climate Refugees by 2050.

According to CBC, “in 2018, Canada was one of 167 countries that signed the UN's Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, which sets out that participating countries need to ‘identify, develop and strengthen solutions for migrants compelled to leave their countries of origin due to slow-onset natural disasters, the adverse effects of climate change.’” However, like many UN agreements, this is not legally binding.

As we attempt to structure a society that’s safer for the future of all people, we need provisions made to international and national refugee regulations that are legally binding. With this, we also need policies to protect domestic climate migrants, which we’re already seeing as people in wildfire hotspots, like Alberta, are forced to flee from their homes to livable locations within the nation. We all need to write to our Members of Parliament and demand this - use this post as a template for this email, and ask them for provisions in refugee law to include a comprehensive definition of climate refugees. We also need to urge our MP’s and other political leaders to end subsidies to fossil fuels and invest in a just recovery by funding clean energy - so that we can prevent more people from forced migration due to climate change in the first place. 

Saturday 07.11.20
Posted by Lilly Woodbury
 

Self-Isolation: Environmental Resources & Actions to Take at Home

We find ourselves in an unprecedented global situation that is coloured by the planet’s pandemic and our response to this growing public health crisis. Just as we see with social and ecological justice issues, it’s compromised individuals who are and will end up suffering the most from the COVID-19 virus. For those of us that have healthy and safe places to isolate and have extra time on our hands, I’ve put together a resource list below of petitions, reading lists, articles, and other environmental goodies. This crisis is both a cause and a reflection of the state of imbalance on the planet and is yet another wake-up call for us to change our act: to instate environmental justice, to invest in a low-carbon economy, to address widespread pollution, and work towards climate justice.

As Environmental Defence stated, “According to the Globe and Mail, the federal and Alberta governments will soon announce a multibillion-dollar bailout to support the oil and gas sector. We agree that financial support is needed for employees across the country right now. However, we can’t allow the COVID-19 crisis to make us blind to other massive challenges that we faced before this crisis began and will still exist after its over, like fighting climate change, ending plastic pollution, keeping our water clean, and removing toxic chemicals from the products we use. 

We still need to act. And if we start to create plans and fund them now we can build an economy and society that are stronger and more resilient than before the crisis began.”

Now is the time for us to use this time constructively to deepen our awareness, advance our effectiveness as citizens and/or activists, to show up more for each other and the planet, and use this forced pause as a global reset for reaching equilibrium. I also realize this may not be at the top of people’s priorities, but if we have the capacity to be more involved, then let’s use this time constructively and strategically because, at the end of this, we will still have all of our environmental flooding our porches.

This is also a living document, so I’ll continue to add to this, feel free to send me more resources, too!

Online petitions & At-Home Actions:

Principles for a Just Recovery from COVID-19 - 350.org

Letter to Prime Minister Trudeau about oil package bailout midst coronavirus crisis - STAND.earth

TRUDEAU: BAIL-OUT WORKERS NOT OIL AND GAS MILLIONAIRES AND CEOS - Greenpeace

Strengthen the Canadian Environmental Protection Act - David Suzuki Foundation

Protect the Oceans: Add your name to help cover our planet in ocean sanctuaries, and call on governments to agree a strong Global Ocean Treaty at the UN - Greenpeace

Urge the federal government to increase budget for environment and climate - Environmental Defence

More Governments Must Follow China's Example in the Fight Against Coronavirus - Ban All Wildlife Markets! - One Green Planet

Take Action to Stop Plastic Pollution, Plastic Pollution Coalition

Boreal caribou need your voice The iconic species is in danger of disappearing - Ecojustice

Everyday Actions - Rainforest Alliance

Resources:

Read, Watch, Listen - Surfrider Pacific Rim Resource Report - (ALL ENCOMPASSING!!)

ALL ARTICLES - Ethical Unicorn, seriously, just read everything on her website if you can.

Surfrider Foundation Coastal Blog - Surfrider Foundation

Increasing green living practices as we spend more time from home - The Ecohub

CELEBRATING SPRING EQUINOX FROM SELF-ISOLATION, HOLLYROSE.ECO

Zero waste living tips - Going Zero Waste

Sustainable practices and living - Forage and Sustain

*Check the resource page of this website for more documentaries and books!

Information on COVID-19, Climate Change, and the Environment

How Canada can build an environmentally sustainable future after the COVID-19 Crisis, Environmental Defence

Coronavirus Capitalism - and How to Beat It (video) - Common Dreams

Coronavirus poses threat to climate action, says watchdog, The Guardian

Coronavirus could weaken climate change action and hit clean energy investment, researchers warn, CNBC

Coronavirus Is the Perfect Disaster for ‘Disaster Capitalism’, Naomi Klein Interview in Vice

'Tip of the iceberg': is our destruction of nature responsible for Covid-19? The Guardian

Coronavirus response proves the world can act on climate change, The Conversation


Free Online Environmental Courses

Global Volunteer Leadership Training, Greenpeace. People can join until March 31st, I’m in this one now!

Circular Economy, Ellen Macarthur Foundation

Soil Advocate Training Course, Kiss the Ground

Human Rights, Amnesty International

Introductory e-Course on Climate change - United Nations

Make Change Happen. The Open University and Oxfam

Monday 03.23.20
Posted by Lilly Woodbury
 

How to Unravel Common Environmental Arguments

Exasperated from having ecological discussions with people who respond with arguments that attempt to quiet all constructive conversation? Like a roadblock in the pouring rain that prevents you from exploring down a path of productivity and exploration, these types of exchanges attempt to dampen and end environmental discussions. People are not usually Ill-intentioned that do this, but I've noticed from experience, that the people I have these encounters with are usually quite privileged and are not invested in finding solutions to environmental issues. To debunk and demystify the factual errors of these points, I've put together a report on common environmental arguments and how to unravel them so that we can expand awareness, inspire broader and more critical ways of thinking, as well as provide education on the deeper reality of the issues at hand. 

You can use the logical responses below to puncture the flaws of these common environmental arguments:

The Car Argument: “you drive a car so you’re a hypocrite if you advocate for environmental change”

Jamie Henn from 350.org summates the response to this argument to this well: “To say it is hypocritical to divest while still using fossil fuels is equivalent to telling parents they must remove their children from class while advocating for better schools. We must fight in the world we have, not the world we want.”

Harvard historian Naomi Oreskes also points out the flaws of this fossil fuel argument:

“Of course we do, and people in the North wore clothes made of cotton picked by slaves. But that did not make them hypocrites when they joined the abolition movement. It just meant that they were also part of the slave economy, and they knew it. That is why they acted to change the system, not just their clothes.”

Another great quote from Ethan Cox from Ricochet Media: “If members of society were disqualified from advocating for change while participating in the systems they want to alter, we’d still be bashing rocks together to make fire. Humans have always had to use one source of energy while transitioning to the next. No doubt many of the early oil barons of Pennsylvania in the mid-19th century conducted some of their business using whale oil lamps.”

The Bottom Line: don’t let someone call you a hypocrite for fighting for a world that’s better than the one we’re in now. We should all be driving less as much as possible, and we should also be working change the goddamn system, not just our personal transportation habits.

The 10 Rivers Plastic Pollution Argument: “But 90% of plastic pollution comes from 10 rivers in Asia and Africa so what we do in Canada is pointless”

Oh, joy! If I had a dollar for every time I’ve been asked a question about this or been told this.

First of all, in BC, most of the plastic we find is from BC and the coastal US, not these 10 rivers in Asia and Africa. So, before we displace the blame on places and situations we actually know nothing about, we need to look at our own systems that are causing destruction locally. 

Secondly, multinational western corporations who produce all of these plastics that end up in the rivers forcefully market their products to underprivileged communities in these countries. 

Then, to add to this storm, a lot of these countries do not have proper waste management infrastructure to capture materials, including plastic products and packaging. Individuals who are already suffering the effects of plastic pollution and climate change then get blamed, not the companies who are truly responsible. Aiden Wicker told well  - “ Multinationals like @kraft_brand, @nestle, @generalmills, @cocacola, @dannon, @pepsi, @mondelez_international, @unileverusa are aggressively marketing disposable junk food and plastic products to the underprivileged in these countries, where there is no infrastructure or cultural know-how to properly handle the waste."

The Bottom Line: We need to take responsibility for the pollution caused by our own countries, understand this issue through a global perspective, and hold the rich multinational corporations responsible for the mass destruction they are causing, not people who are barely getting by everyday.

The China Argument: “If China isn’t going to change, then it doesn’t matter what the world does”

Writer Francesca Willow from Ethical Unicorn has an INCREDIBLE article on this, so I'm not going to reinvent the wheel. Here's her quotes, visit this page to read the full article. I've said it before and I'll say it many times over her, follow her and read everything she publishes!

“However, it is not the only large polluter, and reducing China’s emissions alone will not stop the climate crisis. Together China, the EU and the US are responsible for more than half of total global emissions, while the bottom 100 countries are responsible for 3.5% of emissions.

If we instead look at this data in terms of per capita emissions, China drops to 12th place. The US is third, behind Saudi Arabia and Australia, and the UK is 13th. Considering the drastic differences in population between these countries (China has 1.386 billion people while the US has 327.2 million, Saudi Arabia 32.9 million, Australia 24.6 million and the UK 66 million), this already shows how pointing fingers at other countries based on one set of data alone is, at best, problematic.”

Coal usage has declined since 2014 in China, sitting at about 60.4% of the country’s total energy use in 2017, however China still consumes more coal than the rest of the world combined. Most of this coal is consumed by the industrial sector: manufacturing, agriculture, mining and construction made up 67.9% of China’s energy use and 54.2% of China’s coal use in 2015. Power production was responsible for 41.8% of coal consumption.

China also manufactures half the worlds steel, producing around five times more than the EU. Each ton of steel produces 2 tons of CO2, with steel processing potentially accounting for more than 10% of China’s CO2 emissions.

While many of these materials are used domestically, it’s worth noting how much is used overseas. In 2017, around 25% of the cement and 9% of the steel produced in China was exported. If we want to blame China solely for emissions, we have to acknowledge that at least part of this is driven by the west pushing manufacturing of these carbon-intensive industries into China in the first place.” 

Overall, pointing at China’s emissions as an excuse to avoid dealing with the messes of our own countries doesn’t seem particularly smart to me. While China’s energy use and carbon emissions rose rapidly as it invested in factories and infrastructure, it’s also important to remember that China only became the top contributor to global warming in 2015 as it became a more developed country, and it is still nowhere near the highest polluter per capita.

Additionally, no one country can reduce emissions enough to stop climate breakdown. While China’s efforts are important, so are the efforts of other countries and companies too.

The Bottom Line: “So, all in all, I’d say keep protesting. Keep demanding politicians do better. Keep asking for system change. Pinning the blame on China for something that is a global problem driven by colonialism and exploitation is a waste of time. And any politician that wants to wait around for China to fix the problem has chosen a poor excuse.” - Ethical Unicorn

The Population Argument: "The world's vastly increasing population is the biggest issue and we aren’t going to be able to solve this”

The growing population of the planet is definitely a massive concern for managing resources as well as lowering pollution and emissions. However, we need to remind ourselves of the vast disparity that rules our global society: The UN Development Program reports that the richest 20 percent of the world's population consumes 86 percent of the world's resources while the poorest 80 percent consume just 14 percent. As populations grow, the privileged 20% need to consume a hell of a lot less, and so that the rest of the world can increase their quality of life without sacrificing even more of the planet’s ecological integrity. Project Drawdown states education as one of the biggest and most equitable ways to control population: "Kenya has made significant gains in education, with more than 80 percent of all boys and girls currently enrolled in primary schools. In secondary schools, the rate of enrolment drops to 50 percent for both boys and girls. Poverty is the main cause of low overall enrolment, and given socioeconomic norms, boys receive priority for higher education when there are financial constraints.

Education lays a foundation for vibrant lives for girls and women, their families, and their communities. It also is one of the most powerful levers available for avoiding emissions by curbing population growth. Women with more years of education have fewer and healthier children, and actively manage their reproductive health.

Educated girls realize higher wages and greater upward mobility, contributing to economic growth. Their rates of maternal mortality drop, as do mortality rates of their babies. They are less likely to marry as children or against their will. They have lower incidence of HIV/AIDS and malaria. Their agricultural plots are more productive and their families better nourished.

Education also shores up resilience and equips girls and women to face the impacts of climate change. They can be more effective stewards of food, soil, trees, and water, even as nature’s cycles change. They have greater capacity to cope with shocks from natural disasters and extreme weather events.

Today, there are economic, cultural, and safety-related barriers that impede 62 million girls around the world from realizing their right to education. Key strategies to change that include:

-make school affordable;

-help girls overcome health barriers;

-reduce the time and distance to get to school; and

-make schools more girl-friendly.

Out of the top 100 ways to reverse climate change, project Drawdown cites this as #6, preventing 51.48 gigatons of C02 reduced by 2050, which is MASSIVE. 

The Bottom Line: Improve quality of lives, manage resources better, lower emissions. PERIOD. 

The Weather Argument: “It’s snowing so climate change is obviously a big made up scam”

I love this quote from Rainforest Alliance: “OK, people, here’s the difference between climate and weather: Weather fluctuates day in, day out, whereas climate refers to long term trends—and the overall trend is clearly, indisputably, inarguably a warming one. Not to mention the fact that the logic in that sentence is a just a little shaky. Stephen Colbert summarizes it perfectly: “Global warming isn’t real because I was cold today! Also great news: World hunger is over because I just ate.”

 There’s hundreds of climate change arguments alone that could be listed here, so here’s some great resources that debunk arguments stating climate change is false, visit below to learn the facts and turn conversations around on this:

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/articles/five-common-claims-made-by-climate-change-skeptics

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/25/these-are-the-best-arguments-from-the-3-of-climate-scientist-skeptics-really

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-change-arguments-20170818-htmlstory.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals

Monday 12.23.19
Posted by Lilly Woodbury
 

Metro Vancouver’s 2019 Zero Waste Circular Economy Conference

Metro Vancouver’s 2019 Zero Waste Circular Economy Conference

Your questions answered! A synthesis of information from the conference, my own knowledge, and online academic publications.


1) If a business participates in making the switch to a circular economy, what are the figures or initial loss of profits? @nicholas.schippers

In its essence, the circular economy is about how things can be made smarter, cheaper and more resource efficient. This system cut costs and increases profit by improving operational efficiencies and creating new revenue streams.

examples: 

-The cost of remanufacturing mobile phones could be reduced by 50% per device, if the industry made phones that were easier to take apart, improved the reverse cycle and offered incentives to return phones. 
-A profit of US$ 1.90 per hectolitre of beer produced can be captured by selling brewers’ spent grains.

-In the UK, each tonne of clothing that is collected and sorted can generate revenues of US$ 1,975, or a gross profit of US$ 1,295 from reuse opportunities. These are the aggregate impact of clothes being worn again, reused by cascading down to other industries to make insulation or upholstery stuffing or simply recycled into yarn to make fabrics that save virgin fibre

-Denise Coogan, Subaru, “waste is money. It costs too much to not be environmentally friendly”.

From Ellen Macarthur “Power of the inner circle: In general, the tighter the circles are, the larger the savings should be in the embedded costs in terms of material, labour, energy, capital and of the associated rucksack of externalities, such as GHG emissions, water, or toxic substances (Figure 8). Given the inefficiencies along the linear supply chain, tighter circles will also benefit from a comparatively higher virgin material substitution effect (given the process inefficiencies along the linear chain). This arbitrage opportunity revealed by contrasting the linear to the circular setup is at the core of their relative economic value creation potential. Whenever the costs of collecting, reprocessing, and returning the product, component or material into the economy is lower than the linear alternative (including the avoidance of end-of-life treatment costs), setting up circular systems can make economic sense. With increasing resource prices and higher end-of-life treatment costs, this arbitrage becomes more attractive, especially in the beginning when the economies of scale and scope of the reverse cycle can benefit from higher productivity gains (because of their low starting base given that many reverse processes are still subscale today)”

2) What incentives are being used to convince orgs to switch to CE? @nicholas.schippers

Financial tools to support the switch includes grants, subsidies and public procurement.

However, consumers can also generate enough pressure to ignite the circular economy with their wallets. If companies win or lose market share because of consumer purchases (“votes”) in favour of sustainable products, producers would have an incentive to respond.”

It’s also not just about incentives, but about disincentives:

“Much like changing consumer behavior, regulation and associated costs of non-compliance can pressure producers to reduce waste” - World Economic Forum. This can be in the form of an eco-tax on products and packaging that do not contain recycled material or are not easily recyclable, and putting a cost on pollution.

3) With the technical side, how much actually gets recycled into new product and how much is byproduct and/or waste and what is being done with the waste? 

This is totally dependent on the type of material, business, and/or industry. Ideally, in a true circular economy, all materials will be recycled and all byproducts captured and used. In a CE, all products and packaging are designed to be recycled, reused, or upcycled and not lose value in this process. In this sense, the entire life cycle of products and packaging are considered, so waste is designed out of the system from the beginning.

4) For small biz w/ circular economy practices in place, is there aid to ensure biz big does not shut them out? @nicholas.schippers

-There will always be a level of competitiveness, but smaller businesses are more flexible and can 100% lean into innovation, so bigger biz will actually continue to look in their direction for ideas and trends.

-Subsidies for start-ups and smaller businesses who are leading the way in innovation.

-Evaluations need to happen at the level of local and national governments to ensure transitions to a circular economy are just for all businesses and all sectors.

-Putting a higher cost on pollution and reward businesses working towards a CE.

5) What steps do we need to take to realign the system as it stands to one of CE? @nicholas.schippers

-Managing our way properly and locally, not shipping it around the world to countries with less infrastructure and who also shouldn’t be spending their lives dealing with western’s consumptive mess. This also includes sparking innovation in turning waste streams into resources. 

-Accelerating the scale up of CE across global supply chains.

-Global int’l treaties, binding agreements on resource use and waste management.

-Rethinking business models: 

  • Working toward sharing, learning and rental systems

  • Subscription based access

  • Pay per use

  • Sale of durable, long lasting goods

  • Sale of refillable or exchangeable components

-Retraining workers, from fossil fuels to renewables.

-Implementing strong and consistent policies to support a CE.

-Increase investments in CE based industries and businesses.

-Investing in waste management infrastructure which supports circular systems for materials.

-Harmonizing systems across industry, institutions and commercial businesses, which includes establishing concrete ways for the public and private sector to work together.

-Redirecting subsidies from fossil fuels and inefficient material systems like virgin plastics to renewables, intelligent and circular management of materials.

-We need metrics and measurements to produce circular indicators to measure circularity in business and industry in a consistent way.

-Realizing the potential of CE also requires radical whole value-chain collaboration.
-“Ownership” of packaging needs to shift from consumer to the corporation.

-In regards to our political and economic ideologies, the idea of “growth” needs to be decoupled from resource extraction.

-From the World Economic Forum, Vision of 2030: “By then, we are living in a global circular economy that has become ‘intentionally transparent’. This open mindset has released a surge in trust throughout the world’s supply chains that encourages higher visibility and greater control over responsible sourcing. We now have ethical and sustainable circular supply chains in which the rewards are shared equitably, right from local communities through to the primary consumer and beyond.”

6) Can circular economy become the law/mainstream practice or are there too many barriers? @ _thegrubgarden

There are barriers, including lack of political will, corporate lobbying, lack of leadership and public knowledge, as well as market conditions. However, CE can absolutely inform a wide array of policies. It does not look like one law, it looks like many interconnecting regulations that govern all aspects of our relations with materials and the natural world. To create a greater impact, we also need to harmonize regulations across nations, and ideally, across the globe. Some examples of CE in policy include:

-Recycled content standards for materials, which creates a market for recycled materials.

-Banning waste streams from landfills, including organics and construction waste.

-Banning unnecessary single-use plastics.

-Establishing “bring your own” container policies.

-Establishing energy efficiency standards for all new buildings.

-Requiring new buildings to use renewable energy and/or have a green roof.

-Increasing the deposit rates for all consumer bottles.

-Expanding extended producer responsibility to ALL corporations who produce plastic products and packaging.

-Establishing policies for low carbon plastic standards (LCPS).

To learn more about CE policies, read more at Ellen Macarthur Foundation. 

7) What’s an impactful and feasible policy shift to push our municipal governments on for more CE? @elena.jean

-Establishing zero waste policies: composting, recycling and upcycling, free stores, implementing wastewater treatment.

-Implementing strong waste and climate targets.

-Implementing public transport policies to lower GHG’s.

-Municipalities can have CE inform procurement policies.

-CE policy frameworks for land planning and urban structures.

-Municipalities can support economic instruments to harness market dynamics to influence behaviour and decisions by changing prices, imposing or exempting taxes or mandating carbon accounting. Examples of economic instruments are: subsidies, grants or public procurement.

-Educating the public, for example, the City of Barcelona, “promotes green and circular behaviour amongst citizens and businesses by means of a multitude of measures, such as environmental education and information at Green Points in the city, distributing maps with sustainable shops and restaurants in the city, and seminars for more sustainable offices”

-Next to that, municipalities can provide loans for residents investing in energy efficient housing, and has set up an investment fund for projects in the areas of climate, sustainability and air quality (Amsterdam Climate & Energy Fund and the Sustainability Fund). 

-Municipalities and cities are key in working towards a CE, but need massive change to also happen on provincial, national and global scale, which we need municipalities and cities actively advocating for.

8) In what way is the Canadian government doing to adopt to CE? @forestandfeather

It’s not, the Canadian government very much supports a linear way of operating. To move to a CE, the Canadian government needs to cut subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and redirect subsidies to green energy, mass transit and electric transit, electric vehicles, regenerative agriculture, waste management infrastructure as well as supporting businesses and industries that are adopting circular models of operation. We NEED to put pressure on the federal government to meet climate targets, implement the national plastics plan, and stay on track for protecting more land and ocean.

9) How do we get involved? @ _mpena_

This looks different for every person depending on their situation and circumstances, but there is a great array of options on the spectrum of the personal to the systematic, including:

-Learning more about how a circular economy works, visit the resources below!

-Eat foods from companies practicing and/or supporting regenerative agriculture.

-Work to avoid plastic packaging, bring your own containers, bags, bottles, mugs, buy bulk and join the refill revolution!

-Influence your workplace to eliminate unnecessary waste like plastics, to compost, to implement renewable energy, to divest from fossil fuels and other extractive industries.

-Halt the buying! Moving towards a circular economy means a shift in selling products to selling services. This includes transitioning away from “owning” a gregarious amount of objects, to renting or sharing: bikes, books, tools, carpets, furniture, event equipment, even clothing!

-When you do buy for necessities, support businesses that are implementing circular models, support start-ups, support innovation, support local and boycott big multinationals.

-Banish food waste, in your own life, from your workplace, and disrupt food waste in the municipality you’re in and ensure any food leftovers are being composted.

-Talk to your local elected officials and member of parliament and let them know you support a circular economy: of rapidly transitioning to renewable energy, of eliminating plastic waste, of turning waste to resource, and all other details mentioned in this report!

-Get involved in local environmental restoration projects.

Resources:

https://www.c40.org/researches/municipality-led-circular-economy

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/how-to-build-a-business-in-the-circular-economy/

https://unbuilders.com/

https://medium.com/circleeconomy

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/10/heres-how-a-circular-economy-could-change-the-world-by-2030/

https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/


Saturday 11.02.19
Posted by Lilly Woodbury
 

Powered by Squarespace.