This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
to david suzuki’s nature challenge
2 • the green guide to david suzuki’s nature challenge
Introduction 3 Home: Live Clean! 4
Environmental Impacts 4 What can we do? 6
Food: Eat local and Lean! 9
Environmental Impacts 9 What can we do? 10 Healthy Environment = Healthy Canadians 12
Transportation: Go Green! 14
Environmental Impacts 14 What can we do? 15 Healthy Environment = Healthy Canadians 17
Stay Informed, Get Involved! 19 Resources 21 Endnotes 22
The Green Guide was written by Catherine Pazderka, Ann Rowan and Eric Enno Tamm. Thanks to Dominic Ali, David Hocking and Corinne Rogers for review and editing.
Special thanks to Dr. Michael Brower of Truewind who generously provided background to the methodology of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) study and guidance in its applications to our research. Also very helpful in providing insights as well as information were Dr. David Cohen (Pace University School of Law), Dr. Jeff Carmichael (Sustainable Development Resource Institute), Dr. Hans Schreier (UBC), and Ralph Torrie (Torrie Smith and Associates). The bulk of the research contained in this report was gathered by a dynamic group of volunteers: Deanna Bayne, Ken Dircks, Cara Lachmuth, Yvonne Lau, Vanessa Lee, Catherine Pazderka, Sally Thorton and Kevin Willis.
introduction • 3
hat we do to nature we do to ourselves. Canadians increasingly realize that our personal well-being is inextricably linked to a healthy environment. We need clean water, fresh air and wholesome foods to nourish our bodies. And with more and more of us living in artificially built urban areas, we need nature – forests, mountains, rivers, lakes and beaches – to provide us with a relaxing, spiritual respite from our hectic lives. Nature sustains all life on earth and our economy. Reflecting on Canadian history we know that our economy was built on the use and trade of trees, furs, oil, fish, minerals, etc. This relationship is vividly captured in Canadian art and literature; in our very culture. But living in cities and relying on markets to provide for our needs and desires often separates us from nature. We quickly forget that healthy ecosystems are the very foundation of our mightiest cities. Air, water, soil and energy are the essential components of life on earth. These elements are bound through natural processes to continually recreate the “web of life”. In the past, we believed that human ingenuity could irrevocably damage nature. Problems like global warming, species loss, the accumulation of toxins in the environment, among others, illustrate why we need to protect nature. Individuals and households play an important role in building a sustainable future. Our lifestyle choices – where we live, how we heat our homes, what and how much we buy, how we travel – significantly impact nature. Each day we face a barrage of stories about environmental risks and disasters, vanishing wilderness and endangered species. We need straightforward science-based information to help us make the right environmental choices. The David Suzuki Foundation has worked with scientists and other experts to develop a list of priority actions for concerned Canadians. We hope this guide will illustrate how simple changes in our everyday lives can make a real difference in protecting nature. This list of priority actions was the result of research into the environmental impact of the average Canadian household. The heart of this research is an innovative and comprehensive model of the environmental impact of consumer decisions prepared by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The UCS study identified categories of expenditures by American households that caused the greatest environmental damage. Based on the results of their study, the coauthors, Dr. Michael Brower and Dr. Warren Leon, developed a set of guidelines to help Americans make better environmental decisions. The David Suzuki Foundation’s document The Science of the Challenge explains how we adapted the UCS research for Canadian households and how the top 10 list was determined for David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge. The Green Guide to the Challenge was designed for those interested in taking David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge. The choices we make today will help create a better future for our children tomorrow.
4 • the green guide to david suzuki’s nature challenge
HOME: live clean!
ur homes reflect our environmental values. Our daily activities – turning on light switches, adjusting the thermostat, watering the lawn, buying furnishings, washing dishes, killing pests and weeds in our gardens, flushing a toilet and taking a bath – have significant environmental impacts. When these decisions are multiplied by 11 million (the number of households in Canada) over 365 days a year, the effect is enormous. Once we think of our homes as being larger than the walls of our living spaces, it becomes obvious that we could be more energy conscious. But we don’t have to sacrifice comfort and warmth to save energy. The chart below identifies the main energy uses in the average Canadian home and explains which household activities have the greatest impacts. The amount of energy used to heat our homes is of greatest concern.
On a per capita basis, Canada is the largest consumer of energy in the world and the second largest producer of greenhouse gases. With a population of just over 30 million, we use as much energy as the entire continent of Africa, home to 700 million people,1 and contribute 2% to overall global emissions. Since the environmental impacts of home energy use depend on how electricity is generated, it varies by province. To find out how electricity is generated in your province see Map 1. You can learn about the environmental problems associated with conventional sources of energy in Table 1. Fossil Fuels. Electricity generated from coal and other fossil fuels results in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Greenhouse gas emissions from human sources are changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere, the thin layer of gases which blankets the planet and makes life on earth possible. Fossil fuels also produce acid rain and air pollution, such as oxides of nitrogen, which can lead to the production of ground level ozone, contributing to the increased incidence of asthma and other respiratory ailments.2 Nuclear Energy. Nuclear energy is non-renewable, highly expensive and introduces a new class of energyrelated pollutants in the form of radioactive materials, sometimes in extremely concentrated and volatile forms. It’s been estimated that Canada is storing approximately 1.3 million cubic metres of solid waste from nuclear plants, 203 million metric tons of lowlevel radioactive tailings and 17,000 metric tons of high level nuclear fuel waste.3
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY USE 1999
home: live clean! • 5
KILOGRAMS OF CO2 PER KWH 0.75 - 1.00 0.50 - 0.74 0.25 - 0.49 0 - 0.24 (NATIONAL: 0.23)
SOURCES: PROFILE OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION FOR EACH PROVINCE (1995 DATA) AND KILOGRAMS OF CARBON DIOXIDE PER KILOWATT HOUR (1999 DATA) BOTH FROM TORRIE SMITH AND ASSOCIATES. NOTE: NWT AND NUNAVUT HAVE THE SAME PROFILE BECAUSE THE LAST YEAR FOR A COMPLETE DATA SET WAS 1995.
PROFILE OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN CANADA
TABLE 1: Environmental Impacts by Energy Source in Canada
Energy Source Amount in Canada Major Environmental Impacts
Hydroelectric Nuclear Coal
59% 19% 16%
• Dams, water diversion: aquatic ecosystem contamination (mercury), methane emissions and habitat alteration • Radioactive waste: toxic contamination, health impacts • Greenhouse Gases • Air Pollution: Mercury emissions, sulphur • Mining operations
• Greenhouse Gases • Air Pollution • Pipeline construction: wildlife habitat disruption
Source: NAFTA Commission on Environmental Cooperation
6 • the green guide to david suzuki’s nature challenge
Hydroelectric Power. Compared to fossil fuels and nuclear power, hydroelectric power releases no direct emissions and is often referred to as “clean” energy as a result. However, the development of hydro power and its operation contaminates ground and surface water and alters the habitats of fish and other wildlife through river diversions, land flooding and changes in water flow.4 In Canada alone it has been estimated that 20,000 km 2 of land has been flooded for hydroelectric reservoirs – an area almost the size of four Prince Edward Islands. In addition, there are growing concerns about the amount of methane released from large reservoirs. Methane is a critical source of greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Impacts of Homes. Cities represent such large concentrations of energy use that they glow brightly on infrared photographs taken from space. Although there have been many improvements in the energy efficiency of many appliances, the trend in energy use in the typical Canadian home is on the rise.5 While the size of the average housing unit is increasing, the average number of occupants has decreased. Other factors, including an increase in the number of appliances and other electrical equipment used in the home, also explain this trend. But the environmental impact of our homes is not restricted to energy use. Within Canada, new residential developments have led to the loss of wildlife habitats and valuable agricultural lands. What may seem to developers and planners to be “undeveloped land” near urban areas is land may be important habitat for birds and other wildlife or prime farmland. Experts researching urban development trends in and around Toronto estimate that unless current trends change, an area twice the size of the city could be converted into new residential development, roads, and shopping centres within 30 years.6 About 92% of this area is classified as prime agricultural land meaning valuable farmlands and ecologically important wetlands could be lost forever. This conflict is symptomatic of urban development across Canada since the vast majority of our farmland is located within 160 km of our largest cities.7 Daily activities associated in our homes are also a major source of water pollution. Of particular
importance are the volume and composition of sewage flows, the use and disposal of cleaning solvents and other chemicals, and the use of pesticides and fertilizers in residential gardens. Indeed, the most serious problem linked to yard care is water pollution. During heavy rainfalls excess fertilizers and pesticides are washed away in runoff into local streams and estuaries. Residential pesticide use accounts for about 8% of all pesticide applications in Canada. Concern about health effects on children and pets, who come into contact with pesticides on playgrounds and lawns, have led a number of Canadian cities to ban pesticides for cosmetic purposes.8 Canadians are also prolific water users and during the summer our water use increases by 50% or more while people keep their lawns and gardens watered. To meet demand, urban water systems are withdrawing more water from reservoirs, lakes and rivers when natural flows are lowest. This adds significant pressure on aquatic habitat and near stream environments.
What can we do?
Find ways to reduce your home heating & electricity use by 10% this year.
At present, home heating in Canada accounts for nearly 60% of the energy used. This figure is rising because the size of our houses has been growing steadily since the 1950s. Bigger homes use more energy because there’s more space to heat, cool and light. There are also more windows that can account for a larger proportion of heat loss. Consequently, one of the best ways to reduce energy use is to increase heating efficiency within your home. There are a number of ways to reduce energy consumption without sacrificing your comfort or budget. Start by checking the walls, doors and windows for drafts as up to 40% of heat lost is from these areas. According to one study, energy used for space heating can be reduced as follows:9 • Applying weather stripping and caulking Up to 25% reduction • Improving roof insulation Up to 15% reduction
home: live clean! • 7
• Insulating floors and basements Up to 15% reduction • Installing storm windows/doors Up to 15% reduction Although some of these improvements may not be practical for everyone, there are other simple yet creative ways to reduce heat loss. These include: • Using drapes or blinds that completely cover your windows. • For large patio doors or windows, using plants as an attractive means to insulate and shade your home. • If you live in a house, planting trees and bushes can accomplish the same thing. Beyond stopping leaks, there are other ways of increasing heat efficiency, such as upgrading your thermostat and your furnace. One inexpensive way to reduce home heating is to install a “set-back” thermostat that automatically lowers the temperature to 13C at night and/or during the day if the house is empty. This simple technique can reduce your household energy use by as much as 10%.10 You can also replace your old furnace with a newer high-energy efficiency model. Switching from a conventional oil furnace to a natural gas model can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 40%.11 Studies done by Canada’s Office of Energy Efficiency show that although new appliances are more energy efficient, total home energy use has increased because of the usage and number of appliances and electrical equipment we own has increased. To reduce home energy use, look around your house. Do you really use all the things plugged into your wall? Once you unplug various items you may notice how little you actually use them. There are other ways to save energy: • Microwave ovens tend to be more efficient than conventional stoves and ovens. However, energy savings from using microwaves may be diminished if frequently used for defrosting and warming. • Give your clothes dryer a break by using a clothesline during the summer and a drying rack in the winter.
• Only use your dishwasher, clothes washer and dryer when you have full loads. • Turn off appliances, lights and electrical equipment such as computers, when not in use. You can also unplug appliances with electronic displays until you need them. In Canadian homes, 57% of hot water heaters use electricity while 38% use gas. New natural gas water heaters are more energy efficient than electricity but the best option is to install a hot water tank which heats water as you need it, or “on demand”. Another great alternative is to use solar energy to supplement your current hot water system – it can also be integrated into your space heating system. Cutting back on your hot water use is an important step in reducing your home energy consumption. The amount of hot water you use affects how hard your water heater works. Baths and showers account for about 40% of household hot water use. Installing lowflow showerheads and faucets can reduce water use by 20 to 40%. Also, turning down the water heater to the hottest temperature you need reduces unnecessary heating. Try washing clothes in cooler water. In provinces that depend on coal-generated electricity, these changes could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 400 kg per year.12 When considering a move, don’t buy or rent a home any larger than you need. Smaller living spaces require less lighting, heating and cooling and that saves energy and money. Single detached homes, for instance, use an average 27% more energy than attached housing such as condos and duplexes.
Choose an energy-efficient home and appliances. Check to see if homes meet R-2000 standards and appliances are Energy Star approved.
If you‘re building or buying a new home, choose one that meets the R-2000 standards set by the federal government to promote energy efficient construction in residential housing. A new home built to R-2000 standards uses two-thirds the energy of a conventional home. In addition to conserving energy, R-2000 standards consider indoor air quality and occupant health. Although building to R-2000 standards costs
8 • the green guide to david suzuki’s nature challenge
more, the investment will lower utility bills and increase resale values. Lighting and home appliances account for 18% of Canadian home energy use. The choices we make about new appliances and electrical equipment have environmental implications. To reduce home energy use, choose the most energy efficient models. Newer models generally use less energy so buying models with an Energy Star trademark means you’ll actually save energy and money in the long term. Did you know that a new refrigerator can use 40% less energy than a model produced before 1993? Since this appliance is constantly in use, a new fridge will greatly reduce the impact your home has on the environment. To identify appliances that help conserve energy, look for the Energy Star trademark. It’s a simple way for consumers to identify products that are among the top energy performers on the market.
TABLE 2: Lifetime Savings in Energy Bills
and Carbon Dioxide Emissions 12 from New Appliances
Appliance Savings ($) Emissions Avoided (kg CO2)
Clothes Washer Dishwasher Refrigerator Clothes Dryer Range Freezer
1,227 487 385 328 252 184
14,100 5,600 4,400 3,800 2,900 2,100
Source: Pembina Institute. Taking Charge: Personal Initiatives. David Suzuki Foundation. 1997, p. 13.
Replace chemical pesticides on your lawn, garden & houseplants with non-toxic alternatives.
You share your backyard with a variety of bugs, birds, small animals and insects. But most Canadian gardens are full of imported plants that require fertilizers, pesticides and water to aid their growth. Many of these chemical agents are toxic, and harmful to bugs, birds and other organisms that contribute to the growth and diversity of plants and vegetation. Luckily, there is an easier way: go native. By designing your garden with native – indigenous plants and vegetation – you’ll reduce the need for fertilizer, pesticides and extra water. Native plants are the trees, bushes, flowers and grasses that have grown wild in your area for centuries. Native pants are already adapted to the local environment, so they require less care. During dry summer months, household water use increases by 50% primarily due to lawn watering.13 Overall yards and gardens account for about 14%
of the average Canadian home’s annual water consumption. Well-designed native gardens are also less susceptible to diseases and pests because the plants have evolved with local insects, plants and climatic conditions. In comparison, imported plants require constant intervention. Another benefit to native plants is that they provide food sources and shelter for local wildlife. If you need to kill bugs, use non-toxic alternatives. According to a recent study on pesticide use in Alberta, the greatest exposure to pesticides may be in our own backyards. The study found that the amount of pesticides applied within homes and gardens can be more than three times the intensity (kilogram per hectare) applied within the agriculture and commercial sector, and six times that applied on city parks 14. Exposure to pesticides can lead to health problems for those working and playing in your garden, especially small children and pets who are more likely to get dirt and other contaminated materials in their mouths. By designing a garden free of pesticides, you’ll protect backyard biodiversity and the health of those who enjoy your lawn and garden.
home: live clean! • 9
FOOD: eat local and lean!
ur current industrialised food system consumes enormous amounts of fossil fuels, water and topsoil each year, and contributes to many forms of environmental degradation.15 Impacts range from air and water pollution to the loss of biodiversity and soil. The Union of Concerned Scientists study, which our work is based on, concluded that food is second only to transportation as a source of environmental problems.16 Our decisions about food have important environmental implications. Food consumption can be broken down into two main classes: meat and poultry; and fruits, vegetables and grains. Each has different and varying impacts on nature.
pigs (26.4%), chickens (23.4%) and sheep (46%).19 This astonishing growth in livestock means that the production of cereal crops raised for feed must increase. This only increases the burden on land and water. Erosion is one of the greatest problems facing land resources today. It’s been estimated that only 6 to 8 inches of topsoil separate much of the world from starvation.20 Erosion disperses toxic chemicals such
TABLE 3: Estimated quantity of water and
grain required to produce various foodstuffs
Food Source Litres/kg Water Litres/10 oz
Meat and Poultry. Most of the world’s water is used for agriculture. However, production and processing of meat requires a disproportionate amount of water compared to any other form of food production.17 Industrial-scale feedlots can house hundreds of animals, thereby creating enormous pressure on local water supplies. According to our calculations, water used for meat production and processing accounts for 14% of the environmental impacts the average Canadian household has on aquatic habitat. (See The Science of the Challenge for these calculations.) In arid regions, livestock competes against humans for water. To illustrate the relative impact of meat consumption on water resources, Table 4 provides some estimates for the quantity of water and grain required in the production of a range of foods. The second greatest impact of meat production is on land. Meat production is the world’s largest user of land, for pastures and through the use of arable land for fodder crops.18 In Canada, livestock numbers have increased over the last five years for cattle (4.4%),
Potatoes Corn Rice Soybeans Chicken Pork Beef
500 1,400 1,900 2,000 3,500 6,000 43,000
138 385 526 550 963 1,650 11,825
Source: Quantities are listed for 1 kg and 10 oz, based on the assumption that the average Canadian consumes 10oz of meat a day (FAO 1999). Water and grain data from Pimentel (1997) and Pimentel personal communications (2002).
TABLE 4: Water Needed to Maintain Typical
Diets Around the World
North America Latin America Chinese African
5,020 2,810 2,530 1,760
Sources: Gleick .P.H. 2000 The World’s Water 2000-2001, The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources, Island Press, Washington, D.C. p. 315
10 • the green guide to david suzuki’s nature challenge
as heavy metals and pesticides contained in the soil, which further contaminates the air and water that leads to health problems.21 Globally the demand for meat is growing. This is due to increasing populations but also to the fact that per capita consumption of meat is growing. To satisfy this demand, livestock operations have changed substantially in the last 40 years. 22 Giant livestock feedlots, or “factory farms”, housing hundreds of thousands of pigs, chickens or cows, create huge amounts of manure that must be stored or treated. This is in contrast to the role livestock had in traditional farms where their manure helped build the fertility of the soil. With factory farms, the manure output overwhelms the capacity of local croplands to absorb it. Improperly stored manure can result in the release of a variety of contaminants leaching into aquifers or running into nearby streams – putting at risk drinking water sources of nearby communities and fish habitat. Contaminants range from nutrients like nitrogen and phosphates to pathogens and veterinary drugs, including antibiotics. Livestock operations contribute a disproportionate share of the pollutants entering the environment from the agricultural sector. 23 For example, producing one pound of red meat results in almost 18% more non-toxic water pollution and 5% more toxic water pollution than producing a pound of pasta. Non-toxic pollutants related to red meat production include phosphates and nitrates that leach into aquifers or run-off into streams from improperly stored manure. The toxic pollution results primarily from chemicals used to produce feed grains.24 In one analyst’s view, animal production has become so intensive that these feed lots can no longer be considered agriculture but should be treated as meat factories with inputs of raw materials and outputs of animal product and waste.25 The amount of excess waste produced at these factories can’t be applied to fields in an environmentally safe manner so a common result is runoffs and spills to surrounding ecosystems. Containing both animal and chemical wastes, contaminated water can become a serious threat to human health, as pathogenic microbes infect people26. Fruits, Vegetables and Grains. Growing food crops requires a lot of water. But this is not a reason to stop
eating fresh produce. We just need to make better choices about what we buy and eat. Based on findings from ten U.S. studies, the food system accounts for almost 16% of total U.S. energy consumption.27 While similar studies have yet to be done in Canada, it’s safe to assume that our current system is also a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Starting in the field, heavy reliance on chemical fertilizers and pesticides contributes to air and water pollution. Crop processing, including packaging, is also energy intensive. In fact, almost 75% of the food you consume has been processed in some way.28 Once processing and packaging is completed, food is often shipped long distances until it reaches our table. Food transportation accounts for 6 to 12% of every dollar spent on food consumed in the home.29 It’s estimated that elements of a basic North American meal travel 2,400 km (1500 miles) – to get from the field to table.”30 Another way to look at the modern food system is to count calories – a measure of energy burned. When fossil fuels related to food production and distribution are included in calculations, 10 to 15 calories of energy are expended for every calorie of food energy produced. Locally produced (and less processed) fruit, vegetables and grains have a much smaller environmental impact.31 A fresh Okanogan peach eaten in Vancouver, for example, is less damaging to the environment than a can of peaches processed and shipped thousands of miles from Georgia.
What can we do?
Choose at least one day a week to eat meat-free meals in your household.
Canadians are meat lovers. Along with Americans and Australians, Canadians are among the top three meat consumers. We eat more than twice the global average. In 1999, we consumed 101.1 kg of meat per person, which amounts to an average daily consumption of about 276 grams (10 ounces) by the average Canadian or about 5-6 servings per day.32 This is three times the 80 grams per day recommended by the World Cancer Research Fund. Although conventional meat production and processing leads to several environmental problems,
food: eat local and lean! • 11
Meat Consumed (kg/yr)
you don’t have to become a vegetarian to make a difference. By designating one day each week to be meat-free, you’ll conserve valuable water, energy and land. Changing your diet to reduce meat, and eating more fruits, vegetables and grains will improve your health and help the environment. When you do eat meat and fish here are some good rules to follow: • Organic meat is best since organic farms are generally smaller and don’t use the antibiotics and hormones conventional livestock operations do. • Don’t eat farmed salmon. Like red meat production, salmon feedlots consume a huge amount of energy in the form of feed while releasing antibiotics into marine environments. Escaped fish from salmon farms can also compete with wild stocks for important habitat. • If you eat seafood, make sure you’re not buying endangered species or fish from areas where harvesting causes other environmental problems. The best source of information is Sea Food Watch: www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp
MEAT CONSUMPTION BY CONTINENT
Source: FAO 2000
Prepare your meals with food from local farmers and producers for one month this year.
The most important environmental criteria for buying food in Canada is to minimize the distance between field and table. It’s best to buy locally grown organic food. But given the choice between imported organic and local produce, buying local is better. Buying local produce helps support Canadian farms located near urban areas and reduces the environmental costs associated with food transport. Buying local produce also helps conserve precious farmlands and wildlife habitats. In Canada, the best agricultural land is located near our largest cities. Keeping this land in production instead of converting it to strip malls and suburban housing will conserve fertile land and preserve biological diversity for the future. The closer consumers are to their food producers, the greater the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants from food transportation. In a recent British study, buying local apples resulted in
87% lower greenhouse gas emissions than buying apples imported from New Zealand.33 Similarly, by increasing local production and decreasing transportation by only 10%, researchers in Iowa estimated that savings could range from 280 to 346 thousand gallons of fuel and from 6.7 to 7.9 million pounds of CO2 emissions.34 While these are foreign examples, they would seem to be applicable to Canada. To eat locally grown and seasonal produce, Canadians need to either shop at farmers’ markets or ask grocers to bring in local fruits and vegetables. Buying local generally means the produce is fresher and healthier. The vitamins and minerals in fruits and vegetables start breaking down after they are picked. An additional benefit associated with buying locally includes the increase in local employment. One study estimated that 50,000 new jobs, both in farming and food processing, could be created if households in Ontario ate the same proportions of local food today as they did in the early 1970s.35 As consumers of local produce, we need to convey our desire to eat healthy food – healthy for us and healthy for the environment – to local farmers. At the same time, provincial and federal agricultural policies
12 • the green guide to david suzuki’s nature challenge
should promote and support farmers who are acting as stewards of our land and water resources. The growth in organic farming in Canada should be embraced by consumers and enhanced by government action. A great way to obtain local produce is to grow it yourself in small home gardens. This will reduce your food bill and help you learn more about the connections between food and nature.
health. A suspected carcinogen, methyl bromide also contributes to the destruction of the ozone layer.40 According to the U.S. Food and Drug Agency (FDA), approximately 35% of purchased foods have detectable pesticide residues, with one to eight percent of these with levels above the legal limit.41
The growth of organic farming is a promising trend in Canadian agriculture. While standards for organic farming vary, the intent of organic farming is to produce grains and other food items in a sustainable manner. In addition to the environmental benefits, there are also health benefits to consuming organic foods. In a recent study which compiled information from 41 studies and almost 1300 samples, it was found that organic crops contained significantly more vitamin C, iron, magnesium and phosphorous than conventional crops.44 For all these reasons, the researchers of the UCS study concluded that buying organic food is the best environmental choice for U.S. households. But the Canadian situation is different because much of the organic produce available here is imported, so the impact of transportation offsets some of the environmental benefits. In addition, in Canada we believe it is critical to keep valuable farmland in production. As the bonds between urban dwellers and local farmers and producers are strengthened, these producers will be more responsive to consumer demands for more sustainable agricultural practices and healthier foods. When you can, buy local organic foods and tell your grocer why you’ve made the choice and why you’d like to see more. Another benefit to buying local organic food is that you will avoid consuming irradiated or genetically engineered food. Unfortunately, there are presently no labelling laws in Canada indicating that the food you are buying has been irradiated or is the product of genetic engineering. With organic food, you’re safe!
Healthy Environment = Healthy Canadians
Eat Lean! What is good for the environment can also be good for you. Reducing meat consumption not only saves valuable water, energy and land resources but also reduces the risk of heart disease and strokes. One study showed that in comparison to meat eaters, vegetarians had a 24% reduction in mortality from heart disease even when all other lifestyle factors such as smoking, exercise and socio-economic class were considered.36 Increasing the amount of vegetables, fruits and whole grains you eat also improves cardiovascular health and reduces the risk of obesity, diabetes and cancer.37 According to the American Institute for Cancer Research, eating five or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day could help reduce cancer rates by more than 20%.38 By reducing meat you’ll also limit your exposure to chemicals and antibiotics. Toxic chemicals found in the environment – called persistent organic pollutants – include DDT, PCBs and dioxin. These toxins accumulate in fat and end up in meat and fish. They can also accumulate to high levels in body areas rich in fat such as breast tissue. Conventional livestock operations also use large quantities of antibiotics to prevent infections among cattle, which contributes to drug-resistant microbes 39 that build up in humans. Eat Locally! In general, local food is more likely to be fresher and better for you than food shipped long distances. The largest loss of nutrients comes from picking unripe fruit so it can withstand long transit times. Moreover, chemicals that prevent the growth of moulds and fungus during shipping, such as pesticides or methyl bromide, can be harmful to your
food: eat local and lean! • 13
Some food imported from developing countries may also be contaminated with restricted pesticides like DDT.42 The continued use of these chemicals, as well as many others used in developing countries, damages the health of workers, consumers and wildlife. Allowable levels for pesticide use are currently
not health-based and may not adequately protect children and the elderly who are much more sensitive to pesticide exposure. 43 The use of these toxic pesticides is potentially very dangerous. Eating local produce will help reduce your risk of exposure to some of these chemicals.
14 • the green guide to david suzuki’s nature challenge
TRANSPORTATION: go green!
utomobiles have a bad reputation when it comes to the environment – and deservedly so. Looking at our estimates, transportation accounts for almost half of toxic air pollution, more than a third of greenhouse gas emissions, a quarter of common air pollution and almost one-fifth of toxic water pollution. (See The Science of the Challenge for these calculations.) In Canada, passenger travel accounts for over 50% of fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector as a whole.45 Of all transportation modes (automobiles, planes, buses, trains and ferries), cars are the biggest culprits, contributing the most CO2 emissions, causing urban blight with enormous road infrastructure, and polluting our water and air through exhaust, road runoff and waste from auto maintenance and manufacturing.
The combustion of fossil fuels on a massive scale is increasingly responsible for atmospheric changes on earth. Environmental damage is classified two ways, according to how it affects humans:46 First, at the ground level, a number of substances like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, hydrocarbons and airborne particulates directly damage our health through air pollution. They also affect the environment through acid rain. We generally call this air pollution. Second, gases which have little or no direct adverse effect on the human body accumulate in the atmosphere, gradually de-stabilizing the climate and disrupting the delicate ecological balance which is critical for maintaining life. Although cars are becoming lighter, more fuelefficient and less polluting, the contribution of vehicle emissions to climate change and pollution continue
to rise.47 Canadians are driving more often and for longer distances. Approximately 69 megatonnes of greenhouse gases were released into our atmosphere in 2000.48 Almost a third of these emissions come from light-duty trucks – a category that includes sports utility vehicles or SUVs, passenger vans and pickups. The popularity of these vehicles has grown tremendously. Today, there are approximately 17 million light-duty trucks on the road and alone they are responsible for about 15% of Canada’s total carbon dioxide emissions.49 One study estimates that a family of three living in suburban Ontario produces over 2 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by driving their car approximately 25,000 km/year.50 That means each person contributes about 10 times their body weight each year to CO2 emissions. By contrast, a single public bus takes 40 vehicles off the road during rush hour, saves 70,000 litres of fuel and reduces air pollutants by 9 tonnes a year.51 Automobiles are also related to water pollution. During storms, rainwater washes oils, gas and other pollutants off the road and into storm sewers leading to streams and rivers. This problem is aggravated by the runoff from driveways and auto maintenance sites. The salting of roads during winter also contaminates water supplies. Research has demonstrated that when it rains, stormwater runoff into urban streams contains levels of trace metals that exceed the limits considered safe for protecting aquatic life.52 Then there are the indirect impacts from automobile manufacturing and maintenance. Auto production plants consume an enormous amount of energy, steel and other material, and produce waste as well. Junkyards and used batteries and oil are also environmental pollutants.
transportation: go green! • 15
What can we do?
Check the Canadian Government’s Auto Smart ratings for the next car you intend to buy to make sure it’s fuel-efficient and low polluting.
If you’re buying a vehicle, select a type and size of car that reflects your daily needs. Buying a larger vehicle wastes gas and results in more greenhouse gas emissions. Switching to a smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicle for driving in urban areas will also save money on gas. Keep in mind, for every litre of gasoline saved, the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere will be reduced by 2.4 kilograms.53 A compact car, for instance, requires half the fuel of an SUV to operate in the city. After deciding on the size of vehicle that best suits your needs, look for one that’s fuel-efficient and has the lowest emissions in its class. Performance varies. There can be a 50% difference or more between the most and least fuel-efficient vehicles in a class. Remember, if you’re planning a vacation that involves driving in rugged terrain, you can rent an SUV. But base your purchasing decision on your daily in-town driving needs. It will save money and reduce your environmental impact.
public transit you’ll also more time to relax on the way to work or school. Driving is also much more expensive than the alternatives. In 1999, the Canadian Automobile Association estimated the annual cost of owning and operating a subcompact car was $7,500 compared to $11,500 to operate a full-size one. An alternative commuting plan will cost much less. A Toronto study estimated that the annual cost of alternative transportation was $5,600, 56 which included an unlimited TTC pass, car rental for two weekends a month and two taxi rides a week.
If you are moving, choose a home within a 30-minute bike, walk or transit ride from your daily destinations.
The location of your home is important. Living close to work, school and shopping reduces the time spent in your automobile and frees up more time to spend on things that matter to you. It’s been estimated that the average person spends 32 hours a month driving and 27 hours a month paying for their car use.57 Using your car less may also enhance your relationship with your community, since you’ll get to know your neighbours and local shopkeepers better. Making a decision about moving involves a number of considerations. An environmentally sound choice requires thinking about how your new house, condo or apartment will affect your transportation choices. Living in new residential areas outside city limits involves a greater dependence on automobiles while access to alternative modes of transportation is greater in more established neighbourhoods. To save the landscapes we cherish and the agricultural land needed to grow the food we eat, new residential construction should be concentrated in existing urbanized areas. Preserving wetlands, streams and green spaces in urban areas also gives local wildlife a chance to thrive while providing human residents with valuable spots to relax and learn about nature. By living closer to your daily destinations and reducing your reliance on the car you’ll reduce your environmental impact.
Walk, bike, carpool or use transit to get to one of your regular destinations each week.
According to the 1996 census, a majority of Canadians commute seven kilometres to work one way. By living close to work it’s possible to use alternatives to the car. If a typical family living in suburban Ontario reduced their annual 25,000 km car travel by 25% and used public transit instead, each person would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 437 kg or 17%. The average car makes 2,000 trips each year of three kilometres or less. Many of these trips could easily be done on foot or bicycle – a far healthier alternative for you and the environment.54 Carpooling also reduces greenhouse gases. According to one study, if you and three neighbours, who each commute 20 km per day, travelled together, you’d reduce your CO2 emissions by 75% and save up to $360 per person annually.55 By carpooling or taking
16 • the green guide to david suzuki’s nature challenge
Support alternatives to the car. Contact your local media or government, urging improved public transit and bike paths.
The next time you’re standing on a street corner, watch for the single passenger cars. That’s the most common form of transportation in our cities. As long as automobiles burn fossil fuels, the earth’s atmosphere will suffer and so will people from pollution-related illnesses. In addition, roads and parking lots eat up valuable urban lands; pedestrian-friendly European cities devote less than 10% of the land to transportation, while automobile-oriented North American cities devote up to 50% or more to roads and parking.58 More cars mean more roads and parking facilities with less green spaces and recreation areas. Traffic congestion is every city dweller’s worst nightmare. How do we solve this ongoing problem? Cities haven generally taken one of two strategies: building more roads and parking garages or investing in more efficient public transit. Yet the first strategy – building more auto-related infrastructure – is no solution at all. New roads means an increase in use, and eventually the result is more traffic congestion once again. Table 6 demonstrates how road supply (metre of road per capita) is clearly related to higher levels of private vehicle use. The formula is straightforward: more roads mean more cars and the result is more greenhouse gas emissions and urban air pollution. Imagine a more liveable city: there would be a mix of housing, shopping districts, and green and public spaces within neighbourhoods. This would be a city
where street culture was not oriented to cars but to people. Streets should work for pedestrians and cyclists as well as cars. Better urban planning could also lead to more efficient transit systems for commuters. Public transit must be planned in order to knit various neighbourhoods together. Alternatives to the car exist but they won’t be used unless they’re safe, direct and convenient. To achieve this, municipal governments could support mass transit lines such as buses, subways and light rail, while instituting traffic calming measures and greenways that make walking and biking more attractive. Better transit requires better urban planning. In Canada, we have been doing a relatively better job than in the U.S. For instance, Vancouver is far superior to its U.S. counterparts, Seattle and Portland, in building a less auto-dependent city. This was the result of public investment in transit and better urban planning which promoted more concentrated growth within already developed areas over unplanned urban sprawl.59 To make cities more pedestrian- and transitfriendly, local governments could make compact urban planning and investment in alternatives to the car a top priority. It would reduce the heavy toll cities impose upon nature.
Healthy Environment = Healthy Canadians
Sitting in traffic can be a stressful experience. It is also bad for your health. Researchers in California found that the air we breathe inside our cars can be as
TABLE 6: Annual Travel by Private and Public Transportation (passenger km per capita) in
Global Cities, 1990
Annual Travel in Country Averages Private Vehicle Annual Travel in Public Transit Total % of Total on Transit Road Supply*
US Australia Canada Europe Asia
16,045 10,797 9,290 6,601 2,772
474 882 998 1,895 2,587
16,519 11,679 10,288 8,496 5,359
3% 8% 10% 22% 48%
6.9 8.3 4.7 2.4 1.1
* Road Supply is metres of road per person Source: Newman, Peter and Jeffrey Kenworthy. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Island Press. Washington, DC. 1999, p. 82.
transportation: go green! • 17
much as 10 times more polluted than air outside.60 Sitting behind a big diesel truck is particularly dangerous since up to half the pollution inside your car comes from the vehicle directly in front. Commuters probably get their biggest hit of air pollution every day when they drive to and from work. Given the small size of particulates, there is little you can do to prevent these pollutants from seeping into your car. Transportation is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, which cause serious health problems. In fact, in Canada alone, at least 16,000 premature deaths can be attributed to air pollution. Many more people suffer from respiratory ailments such as asthma, which is
aggravated by air pollutants.61 Unless we reduce our reliance on personal vehicles, conditions will only get worse. As global warming intensifies, air pollution is likely to worsen because heat and sunlight are critical factors in smog production. Living close to your workplace will also keep you out of congested roadways, reducing stress and keeping you away from noxious exhaust fumes. Cleaner air and less time commuting are obvious ways your home’s location can contribute to your quality of life. Walking or cycling to work are excellent ways to incorporate exercise into your daily routine, which will improve your fitness, burn calories and help reduce stress. A healthy environmental choice is often a healthy personal lifestyle choice.
18 • the green guide to david suzuki’s nature challenge
stay informed, get involved! • 19
STAY INFORMED, get involved!
Learn more about conserving nature and share what you’ve learned with family & friends.
Each of us can reduce the environmental impact of our homes, food and transportation by consuming wisely. The Nature Challenge is a great way for all Canadians to take personal responsibility for protecting nature. Yet we are limited in what we can do as individuals. On a broader scale, governments and industry make critical decisions that determine society’s impact on the environment. For instance, while we often make purchases based on price, the prices we pay for many good and services do not necessarily provide us with enough information to make good choices. Many people choose not to buy organic foods because the price is so much higher. The price of food is kept artificially low because conventional farmers do not have cover the full environmental costs of irrigation, soil erosion, water pollution and pesticide use. In some, but not all circumstances, government regulations force businesses to absorb some environmental costs. If the price we paid in the market reflected the full cost of production, we would likely make better environmental choices. Although the range of goods and services in the Canadian marketplace seems vast, there are many environmentally sound products which aren’t widely available. There are many reasons for these “missing products” including the fact that governments haven’t encouraged cleaner energy options or “greener” products through tax breaks, subsidies or strict enforcement of pollution prevention. In our democratic society, we must look beyond our role as consumers and start playing an active role as informed citizens. The range of options is endless. In your community there are committees, groups and organizations working on a number of important issues related to protecting nature and more sustainable lifestyles. These groups always need new energy, ideas and resources. You could also become more involved in local politics, writing letters to local politicians and/or newspapers, signing petitions, attending meetings, supporting politicians who are doing the right thing or even running for office. All levels of government must integrate environmental conservation into their public policies. Through land use planning, municipal governments can encourage more concentrated development that conserves valuable farmland and wildlife habitat. By expanding and supporting alternatives to the automobile, they can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. New building codes can mandate energy efficiency and urban greening schemes to make cities less environmentally damaging. The federal and provincial governments can also be much more ecologically responsible. Ecological tax reform can shift the tax burden from companies pursuing green technologies and products to companies and industries that cause environmental degradation. Governments can also cut subsidies for fossil fuel research and production while boosting it for renewable energy sources like solar, wind or hydrogen power. Governments can also use regulations to prohibit bad practices, thereby encouraging better fisheries and forestry management, capping carbon dioxide emissions from industry, or increasing energy efficiency in cars and appliances. By shaping the decisions we make, corporations and governments play an integral role in the web of life. Current economic policies reward many wasteful and destructive practices. Changes made in corporate boardrooms and in the chambers of government must reflect a new commitment to conserving nature and Canada’s natural legacy.
20 • the green guide to david suzuki’s nature challenge
stay informed, get involved! • 21
HOME: live clean!
www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca – Office of Energy Efficiency, Natural Resources Canada www.nesea.org – Northeast Sustainable Energy Association www.consumerenergycenter.org/flex/ winterize.html – Winterising your home www.energyaware.bc.ca – Energy Aware BC www.r2000.chba.com – Canadian Home Builders Association, R-2000 site www.geoexchange.org/residential – Geothermal Heat Pump Constorium
TRANSPORTATION: go green!
autosmart.nrcan.gc.ca – AutoSmart Program, Natural Resources Canada www.cleanair.ca – Clean Air Canada www.best.bc.ca – Better Environmentally Sound Transportation www.pollutionprobe.org – Pollution Probe www.commuterchallenge.net – Commuter Challenge www.metrocu.com/download/AutoService/ Do_You_Need_A_Car.pdf – Cost comparison between car ownership and alternatives www.carsharing.net – Car Sharing www.cooperativeauto.net – Cooperative Auto Network Vancouver www.autoshare.com – Autoshare Toronto www.vrtucar.com – Care-share service Ottawa www.communauto.com – Car sharing Quebec www.web.net/~cce – Car Sharing Coop of Edmonton www.sustainable.org – Sustainable Communities Network www.smartgrowth.org – Smart Growth
www.natlands.org/library/friendlawn.html – Natural Lands Trust www.eartheasy.com – Earth Easy www.torontoenvironment.org/pesticides/ index.html – Toronto Environmental Alliance www.wildaboutgardening.org/index.asp – Wild About Gardening www. goforgreen.ca/gardening – Go For Green Canada www.cityfarmer.org – City Farmer
FOOD: eat local and lean!
www.ffcf.bc.ca – Farmfolk / Cityfolk www.agr.gc.ca/policy/crop/cr2001/ 2crop_e.html –Seasonal harvests, Agriculture Canada www.foodshare.net/gfbox.html – Food Share, Toronto www.allorganiclinks.com/ – All Organic Links www.proorganics.com/plantsprod.html – Links for organic plants and produce.
22 • the green guide to david suzuki’s nature challenge
3 4 5
Keating, M. and Canadian Global Change Program. Canada and the State of the Planet: The Social, Economic and Environmental Trends That Are Shaping Our Lives. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 2. Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Assessing Environmental Effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): An Analytic Framework (Phase II) and Issue Studies. Environment and Trade Series, 1999. Ibid. Ibid. Edwards, C., M.Adelaar, & K. Cooper. Residential Sector Climate Change Foundation Paper for the National Climate Change Secretariat Buildings Table. 1999. http:// www.sheltair.com/library/Buildings/Residential%20 Foundation%20Paper.pdf, pp37 –39. Neptis Foundation. Urban Futures: Growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe to 2031. (Progress Report, May 24, 2002). Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.ca/english/ads/ 16-200-XKE/land.htm Gram, K. “Peril in the Garden,” The Vancouver Sun. June 3, 2002, p. B7. Energy Retrofit Activity for Canadian Homes in 1995, Policy Development and Analysis Division, Efficiency and Alternative Energy Branch, Natural Resources Canada, 1998 Healthy Housing Factsheet. CMHC. http://www. cmhc_schl.gc.ca/en/imquaf/hehosu/hehofash/ hehofash_007.cfm Greenhouse Gas Miser Handbook, Environment Canada. Pembina Institute. Taking Charge: Personal Initiatives. David Suzuki Foundation. 1997, p. 13 Go for Green: http://www.goforgreen.ca/gardening/ Factsheets/Fact5.htm Overview of 1998 Pesticide Sales in Alberta. June 2000 Municipal Program Development Branch, Environmental Sciences Division, Alberta Environmental Service, 2001. http://www3.gov.ab.ca/env/protenf/ pesticide/publications/info/overviewof1998pesticide salesinabjun00.pdf Horrigan, L; Lawrence, R.S., and Walker, P. “How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental
18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25
29 30 31 32
and human health harms of industrial agriculture.” Environmental Health Perspectives, 2002, 110(5). Brower, Michael and Warren Leon, The Consumers Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Three Rivers Press. New York. 1999, p. 58. Horrigan et al; Pimentel, D.; Tort, M.; D’Anna, L.; Krawic, A.; Berger, J.; Rossman, J.; Mugo, F.; Doon, N.; Shriberg, M.; Howard, E.; Lee, S.; and Talbot, J. “Ecology of Increasing Disease: Population growth and environmental degradation,” BioScience, 48(10), pp. 817-826. FAO, 2000 http://www.fao.org/ag/aga/index_en.htm. StatsCan, 2001 Census “A World Transformed”. National Geographic map supplement. September 2002 Pimentel et al. 1998 Stats Can Agricultural 2001 Census Horrigan et al. 2002 Bower and Leon, 1999. Hall, Ken and Hans Schreier. “Urbanization and Agriculture Intensification in the Lower Fraser River Valley: Impacts on water use and quality”. GeoJournal. 1996. 40 (1-2) pp 135-146. Pimentel, 1998; Mallin, M.A. “Impacts of Industrial Animal Production on Rivers and Estuaries,” American Scientist, 2000, Vol. 88, pp.26-37. Hendrickson, J.A. “Energy use in the U.S. food system: A summary of existing research and analysis,” Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, University of Wisconsin, Maddison, 1996. Pirog, R; van Pelt, T.; Enshayan, K.; and Cook, E. Food, Fuel and Freeways: An Iowan perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage and greenhouse gas emissions, Iowa State University, Leopold Center of Sustainable Agriculture, 2001. Ibid. Hendrickson, 1996. Ibid. FAO, Food Balance Sheet, year 1999 for Canada. http:// apps.fao.org/lim500/wrap.pl?FoodBalanceSheet& Domain=FoodBalanceSheet
endnotes • 23
Jones, J.A. “The environmental impacts of distributing consumer goods: a case study on desert apples,” Ph.D. Thesis, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom, 1999. Pirog, et al., 2001 [ET0] Kneen, B. “Feed the family, trade the leftovers,” Ram’s Horn, 91 (1992), pp. 1-4. Key, T.J.; Fraser, G.E.; Thorogood, M.; Appleby, P .N.; Beral, V.; Reeves, G.; Burr, M.; Chang-Claude, J.; FrentzelBeyme, R.; Kuzma, J.W.; Mann, J.; and K. McPherson. “Mortality in vegetarians and non-vegetarians: a collaborative analysis of 8,300 deaths among 76,000 men and women in five prospective studies,” Public Health Nutrition, 1(1), 1998, p. 33-41. Heart and Stroke Foundation, http://ww1.heartand stroke.ca/Page.asp?PageID=33&ArticleID=928&Src= living&From=SubCategory ; Canadian Cancer Society, http://www.cancer.ca/english/RD_reduceriskof cancer.asp , 2002 American Institute for Cancer Research, 2002, http:// www.aicr.org/action.lasso?-Database=w005aicr.fp3&Response=pubsearchdetail.htm&-DoScript=articletext&MaxRecords=1&index=1521&-Search Pimentel, 1998; Khachatourians, G.C. “Agriculture use of antibiotics and the evolution and transfer of antibioticresistant bacteria,” Canadian Medical Association, Vol. 159: 1,129-36. 1998 Roberts, W., R. MacRae and L. Stahlbrand.Real Food for a Change, Random House Canada: Toronto. 1999, p. 55. Wilson, C. and C. Tisdell. “Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 39, pp. 449-462, 2001. Ibid. Eskenazi, B.; Bradman, A.; and R. Castornia. “Exposure of children to organophosphate pesticides and their potential adverse health effects,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 2002, 110(5), pp.445-456. Worthington, V. “Nutritional Quality of Organic versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains,” The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2001. vol. 7, no. 2, pp 161-173. Environment Canada. “Canadian Passenger Transportation,” in State of the Environment Bulletin No. 98-5, Spring 1998. Last, John; Trouton, Konia, and David Pengelly. Taking Our Breath Away. Vancouver: David Suzuki Foundation, 1998. Environment Canada, 1998 Schingh, M., E. Brunet, P Gosselin. “Canadian New Light . Vehicles: Trends in fuel consumption and characteristics (1988-1998) 2000. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/english/
49 50 51
programs/Doc5e.cfm Ibid. Pembina Institute, 1997., p. 7 Environment Canada. 2002. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ air_publicationse.shtml Hall, K.J.; Anderson, B.C.: The toxicity and chemical composition of urban stormwater runoff. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 15, 98-106 (1988). NRCan, 2000 Go for Green. 1998 National Survey on Active Transportation: Summary Report. Ottawa: Go for Green, Environics, 1998. Pembina Institute. Building Eco-Efficient Communities: A How-To Guide. 1997. Metro Credit Union fact sheet: Do you need a car? http:// www.metrocu.com/download/Autoservice/Do_you_ need_a_car.pdf Durning, A. T., The Car and the City: 24 Steps to Safe Streets and Healthy Communities. 1996. Northwest Environmental Watch. Seattle. P Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy. Sustainability and . Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. 1999. Island Press. Washington, DC., p. 88 Northwest Environment Watch. This Place on Earth 2002: Measuring What Matters. Seattle: Northwest Environment Watch, 2002. Rodes, C., L. Sheldon, D. Whitaker, A. Clayton, K. Fitzgerald, J. Flanagan, F. DiGenova, S. Hering, C. Frazier, California Environmental Protection Agency - Air Resources Board, and South Coast Air Quality Management District “Measuring Concentrations of Selected Air Pollutants Inside California Vehicles” 1998. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/indoors/in-vehsm.htm Canada’s Response to U.S. EPA Proposal on Transboundary Air Pollution, Government of Canada, 16 March 1998.
join david suzuki’s nature challenge today
Working through science and education to protect the balance of nature and our quality of life, now and for future generations.
Photos by Al Harvey/The Slide Farm; Getty Images Design by Alaris Design
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.