What’s needed is a different model in the cycle of consumption. That does not mean abandoning capitalism as some suggest (which you can learn all about by buying Kovel’s book), nor any heavy-handed government involvement.

No, it can be accomplished through the forces of the market, without rocking the economic boat.

It requires simply a greater embrace of the repairable, the reusable and products of quality.

It’s catching on with the banning of disposable grocery bags in San Fransisco, but in Vancouver you’ve got to be pretty quick on the draw to stop your groceries from going into the plastic. But grocery bags are small potatoes. The concept has to be embraced on a grand scale.

No more buying disposable Ikea furniture, no more buying cheap appliances that can’t be repaired, no more building cheap houses that fall apart after 20 years.

It requires a greater investment in purchases, and so a shift in people’s perspective. But rather than buying abstract carbon offsets, spend more money on a vacuum that you can fix when it breaks. Re-sole a nice pair of shoes or reupholster a couch. If solid furniture and appliances are beyond the budget then buy quality used stuff. It’s not a sexy solution, but it’s practical and requires only a shift in outlook.

The economy will remain stable as people spend more money on quality goods while reducing their overall volume of purchases. The repair businesses will once again thrive. Well-designed, high-quality products are often still produced in North America, and so might reduce transportation pollution as well. Best of all, people can better enjoy the products they do buy, and that’s an easy sell.

Either you’re not ridiculously wealthy, or you just don’t care about the environment. Either way, places like the Clayoquot Wilderness Resort will probably remain a novelty, despite the growth of eco-tourism.

More common are places like the proposed Coquihalla Pass Resort, which is being criticized for the damage a full golf course and resort will do to the already threatened Coldwater River. As much as people are leaning more green these days, they still want convenience above all else while on vacation.

Why canoe into a beautiful lake when you can be flown in? Why trek up a mountain when a gondola can take you up? Why leave the room to drink when you can have have unlimited booze in the bathroom? People on vacation generally want things done as easily as possible, because, hey, they’re on vacation dammit.

There are disputes all over the place between convenient tourism and environmental groups.

There is currently a fight going on for snowmobile access to Yellowstone National Park. Environmentalists contend the machines disturb the wildlife and pollute the air, the snowmobilers say it’s fun.

The cruise ship industry continues to grow as people realize that exploring different cultures is overrated. But somehow, having the city move with you rather than flying to one is pretty polluting.

Mountains are harder to move than cities, so Dubai built one instead. In the desert. And then they added a roof and some snow. No word on the energy required to power this monstrosity, but needless to say it’s a lot.

Tourism is one of the biggest growth industries, as people become more mobile and have more disposable income. Hopefully the Clayoquot Resort becomes a model for the industry, at least in principle, before Whistler builds a 40C indoor desert play land.

That’s crazy. This guy is running for the leadership of the richest province in one of the richest countries in the world, and he can’t drop a token nod to the environment in his platform. Stelmach’s views are about as up-to-date as his website.

Hopefully the people of Alberta will take this opportunity to express their support for stricter environmental legislation.

It’s not as though the petroleum industry is exactly hurting. Across the board oil companies have been reporting record profits. Petro Canada reported a 36% jump in earnings to $522 million this last quarter, while Husky reported an 18.5% jump in profits to $3.2 billion.

And the big solution they have proposed for the environment is carbon sequestration, which apparently all of Canada will help pay for to the tune of $2 billion.

Ok, so talking about Alberta profits and pollution is getting to be as common as talking about the weather. But the combination of Alberta releasing a very weak climate plan last week, and then Stelmach going to the polls to increase his mandate this week is like daring Albertans to act.

He’s practically saying screw you to the rest of the country which is struggling to actually reduce emissions while dealing with the negative effects of a high dollar caused by Alberta oil.

We’ll see in a month if Albertans actually care about this issue, or if the country is really becoming so polarized that these issues don’t register in the land of plenty.

The link might not be evident at first, but most environmental solutions currently being pursued require lots of capital, either from business investments, government support, or public patronage. In all cases, money may begin to dry up in times of economic hardship.

Increased fuel economy regulations was sited as one of the reasons for downsizing a GM car plant in Oshawa, Ontario. Indeed, Autoworkers Union leader Buzz Hargrove has criticized the “insanity” of the green movement in the past. Increased electricity costs from hydro projects are partly to blame for several sawmill closures in B.C. Both excuses are weak, other forces are much more to blame, but using environmental regulations as a reason puts it in the mind of the public.

Governments and Businesses will hopefully be able to think far enough ahead not to abandon those pricey, beneficial projects. But individual consumers are much more fickle, and sales of roof-top solar panels and hybrids would surely decline. Editorials like this one in the Vancouver Sun illustrate public frustration over an increasing proportion of their money going to ‘green’ projects.

When money becomes tight, peoples real values emerge as they have to assign priorities for their money. For many people, being green is more a casual compliance with the popular values of today, rather than a conscious commitment.

The major advantage for the environment in a recession would be the drop in consumption. It’s bad for business, bad for jobs, but reduced consumption is probably the best thing we can do for the environment. It’s difficult to discuss, because people quickly dismiss the notion as politically unsound, but there’s something to be said for moderation.

It might not seem like much of a solution, but it sure is gaining popularity in the fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And despite some serious limitations, it might actually work.

The idea is to capture greenhouse gases as they emerge from the smokestacks, and then pump them down into various underground chambers such as empty oil fields or coal beds. It’s commonly called carbon sequestration, or carbon capturing.

This is no longer just an idea. Always edgy Saskatchewan already has one of the largest such operations going. Algeria (through British Petrol) and Norway also have projects under way. Just yesterday Abu Dhabi announced a $4 billion sequestration project that will be able to capture a whopping 15 million tonnes of gas annually. It helps that the process will also ease oil extraction by pushing the oil up.

Alberta and the Canadian government are looking into large-scale projects, but the costs of the system quickly increase over greater distances. Where this will work best is with the few major emitters in Canada, like the Sundance coal-fired power plant in Alberta that burns 250 rail cars worth of coal every day.

Carbon capturing will have many objecting on principle, that it’s not really solving the problem. But the science is fairly sound, and coupled with conservation it can help reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Crucially, it has the greatest value when tackling the worst polluters where there are few other opportunities to reduce emissions. With China opening a new coal plant every week or so, we need some real solutions; stopping growth just isn’t going to happen any time soon.

There are many unanswered questions, and a need to tread carefully, but maybe those ostriches are on to something.

But this sail was attached to a large cargo ship heading across the Atlantic, which is very remarkable. The sail could cut fuel use by 20 per cent. This is one of the most exciting advancements in an industry that is both terribly polluting and largely immune to regulation.

The shipping industry is estimated to produce six per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, which is even more than the aviation industry.

But these massive haulers of goods are the backbone of the globalized economy. They whisk products across oceans and keep trade humming along. The Vancouver port alone deals with about 53 billion dollars worth of goods each year.

Because of the economic importance of these ships, the competition between ports to receive them, and a system with flags of convenience that pretty much exclude the ability to regulate the industry, reducing emissions has been challenging.

The Vancouver port has been a bit of a pioneer by introducing incentives to reduce emissions, but even these are pretty soft. Ships get docking fee reductions of up to 20 per cent for reducing their sulphur emissions. There are also regulations regarding the emissions of the trucks that cart away all the cargo.

But the Port has not reported how many companies have deemed it worthwhile to reduce their emissions, ie, how effective it is. But punishing regulations are just not possible, the business is too big.

Which is why putting a big sail on a ship and have wind drag it along is exciting. It makes sense for the industry, because it cuts down on increasingly expensive fuel, and it makes sense for the environment, because it reduces emissions.

Now we just have to wait and see if it works.

If you said “save the environment,” then you’re part of a growing number of skeptics questioning the rapid growth of ethanol as a climate change solution.

Europeans, always ahead in the environmental game, are questioning the lifecycle benefits of ethanol. Just yesterday the Environmental Audit Committee called for an end to biofuel targets.

Here in Canada, the government calls ethanol “the road to a greener future” and has committed billions of dollars to help promote it.

They did this despite a government report that seriously questions the environmental benefits.

The heavy demand for corn to make fuel has also been a factor in the rapid increase in corn prices around the world.

It’s not that ethanol can’t work as a solution, it’s just that the government is taking the easy road on a difficult issue.

There are types of ethanol that produce a lot more energy, like cellulose- or sugarcane-based fuels. But people already grow corn in Canada and the US, and these alternatives are either more expensive, or grow much easier elsewhere like Brazil.

Hopefully corn is only the first step in a transition to more sustainable ethanol blends. But if millions are invested in factories that are reliant on steady supplies of corn, it will be a hard habit to shake.

Oh wait, that’s not quite right. The poll was directed at shoppers, and they just resolved to “be more conscious about the environment,” which is about as meaningful as a New Year’s resolution.

Having a smaller ecological footprint is de rigueur these days, and products abound that make people feel like they’re doing their part. But are people actually willing to commit to the changes needed to make a difference?

Looking at recent initiatives, it’s not that encouraging.

The recent announcement of a possible carbon tax in B.C. has many calling it a money grab and are fiercely opposed. But there’s hope! A number of businesses, like wineries and eco-tour guides, have welcomed a carbon tax. Well, if eco-tour guides are willing to help the environment, power plants and saw mills are sure to follow.

B.C. tried to impose a vehicle levy a few years back to improve transit, but public opposition stopped it. The recent transit spending commitments have many grumbling about the money possibly coming from property tax.

Energy prices are projected to rise significantly in the next few years, in no small part from investments in the low-impact (well, lower-impact) run-of-river projects sprouting up around the province. That too has found opposition.

So, it’s great that organic food and other “green” products are gaining popularity, and people are willing to spend a little more to help the environment. But paying an extra 20 cents a pound for banannas isn’t going to save the planet.

What’s needed is significant reductions in the use of the internal combustion engine, electricity, and construction materials (specifically cement). You know, three of the main drivers of the economy and the things around which our lives are based (transportation, everything, and housing).

So enjoy feeling good about buying products in green boxes, but remember that things that come easy are rarely worth doing.