Early last month, Common Energy’s Zero Waste team conducted the second annual waste audit of the SUB. Common Energy UBC is an active, student-run organization on the UBC campus devoted to sustainability. The Zero Waste team was created to help promote the “Sort It Out” program that AMS Sustainability has implemented to “decrease the volume of waste sent to landfills, engage campus users through events or activities, and push to make all UBC events zero-waste”. This is all part of AMS Sustainability’s initiatives for a greener UBC campus. I was hoping that the waste audit results would be released by now, but it hasn’t yet so I won’t get to talk about the results. (And much to my dismay, last year’s data can’t be found either!)

Once again this year, they gathered student volunteers for a one-day trash sorting outside the SUB. My sister was one of them. Their role was to sort, weigh, and document a day’s worth of the SUB’s daily waste.

“Each year, AMS operations and businesses produce approximately 400 tons of waste.”

That’s a lot of garbage, and I’m not surprised, with the rate at which I see fellow students throwing perfectly recyclable content and food scraps into the garbage bin. Student waste consumption is a cringe worthy sight, and visibility was the basis for conducting the waste audit outside the SUB. Volunteers were sorting garbage bins right outside the SUB by the North entrance, facing Gage towers, intercepting many students as they passed by to reach the bus loop. This year featured increased foot traffic due to construction of the new aquatic centre blocking off pathways and creating detours around the SUB.

Students were able to see the volunteers at work and the resulting piles of incorrectly sorted waste their peers created. A desk full of unfinished food found in the garbage can sat in the open for all to witness.

Source: Myself.

Source: Myself.

How shameful, look at those untouched bowls of rice! Absolutely wasteful of perfectly edible food. If you aren’t going to eat it, at least compost it. This visual representation is a cue to call, an alarm or red flag more like, for students to recognize the impact they create with a single day of waste. Educational booths were also set up for students to learn about this annual waste audit and what they can do to reduce their waste production.

My opinion is that visual representations of the impacts of normalized actions such as throwing away garbage recklessly, driving, leaving lights on and faucets running, and so on, are extremely effective is causing consumers to stop and reassess their actions, yet also working to reaffirm positive behaviour. Hopefully with the new student union building, the Nest, students will be more inclined to keep it looking beautiful with proper trash sorting. No doubt, AMS Sustainability will improve and refine their Sort It Out program based on this year’s waste audit results.

Source(s):

http://amssustainability.ca/waste/

http://commonenergyubc.com/events/waste-audit/

A popular headline was floating on my news feed regarding the Keurig K-cups. As someone who doesn’t believe in throwing anything away until it is no longer useful in the foreseeable future (lots of grey area there), disposable and single-use items are the vain of my existence. “Single”-use items are sometimes actually durable enough to be used repeatedly if we were willing to treat them with care as we do with reusable products. Of course, single-serve coffee pods are not.

“K-Cup creator John Sylvan regrets inventing Keurig coffee pod system.”

That’s ironic. 20 years ago he never considered the environmental impact that his invention would have. It’s almost impossible for the consumer to properly recycle K-Cup packages due to their composition. It is difficult to separate the various components for recycling, and there’s no recycling program in place to address this issue even by the manufacturer. You cannot reuse a K-Cup by refilling it with coffee, and K-Cups are made of plastic, which is a petroleum product. This website breaks down the K-Cup life cycle step-by-step to show its environmental footprint. Unfortunately, K-Cups are a popular product and billions of them are sold annually. At least its company, Keurig Green Mountain, pledges to create fully recycable K-Cups by 2020.

Source: Keurig Green Mountain

Upon exploring the Keurig website, they have taken upon them various sustainability initiatives; sustainable products is just one of them. Their section on sustainability is prominently featured at the top of their website. These pages clearly delineate their green targets and reports relevant statistics and metrics. I encourage you to take a look at the thoroughness of their content and explore the many green programs they are taking on. To me it looks like honest commitment by a company aiming to rectify their coffee pod monstrosities. Having clearly defined goals and devising mechanisms for assessing impact is the first step towards effective monitoring of performance, and documenting those results in reports is the last. Indeed, Keurig produces annual sustainability reports!

While Keurig works hard to clean up its mess, what can current coffee drinkers do to reduce their waste, if quitting isn’t an option? This CBC article suggests some consumer solutions to the coffee pod issue. For example, recyclable and compostable alternatives are being tested and refined by brands called EcoCups and OneCoffee. There’s only 5 more years until 2020. No matter who finishes this race first, it’s a win for Mother Nature.

Source(s):

http://www.carbondiet.ca/green_advice/food/k-cup_coffee_maker_garbage_an_environmental_issue.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/k-cup-creator-john-sylvan-regrets-inventing-keurig-coffee-pod-system-1.2982660

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/kill-the-k-cup-video-aims-to-show-environmental-impact-of-coffee-pods-1.2899027

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/03/the-abominable-k-cup-coffee-pod-environment-problem/386501/

http://www.keuriggreenmountain.com/en/Sustainability/SustainableProducts/OurProducts/ReducingProductWaste.aspx

http://www.keuriggreenmountain.com/en/Sustainability/SustainabilityOverview/OurTargets.aspx

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/keurig-and-its-competitors-seek-guilt-free-ways-to-dispose-of-coffee-pods-1.3016753

http://www.keuriggreenmountain.com/en/Sustainability/ReportsAndDisclosures/Reports.aspx

As sustainability marketers, we have to make value a priority of our marketing communications. It is absolutely crucial to the success of a product or initiative to be able to let consumers see the benefits that it provides. One common household fixture has lately been on my mind: toilets. Namely, low flush toilets.

Low flush toilets have been around for some time now, since the 1990’s. As we all know, low flush toilets are promoted for their reduction in water consumption when flushing, saving consumers money on their water bill and making them feel good for helping the environment by lowering their levels of water usage. These toilets were once met with much criticism for their inefficiencies, requiring a second or third flush to get the job done.

Naturally, the value consumers saw were the cost savings from decreased water utility bills. In Vancouver, water is a utility attached to property taxes. I’ve never heard of anyone receiving a bill for water, unlike for electricity and gas. In a city where water is abundant, are we then able to expect the same attitude towards water conservation? We see ample rainfall throughout the year. Water shortage isn’t exactly a concern readily on our minds. Vancouverites may not see the same cost value in saving water per flush, so we need to communicate instead the value in preserving the precious fresh water supply we have been blessed with.

Water conservation still remains a concern today, with climate changes causing droughts in areas where argiculture is now under threat. That issue hasn’t exactly hit close to home, yet. However, I was shocked to find that although commonly found low flush toilets use significantly less water than full-flush toilets, they still require several litres of water to make a single flush. One label on a low flush toilet during a recent visit to a newly renovated public restroom read that this toilet “only” used 4 litres per flush. 4 litres is still a lot of water!

“Effective October 3, 2011, the British Columbia Building Code regulation was amended to require the installation of 4.8 litre or less high-efficiency toilets and urinals in all new residential buildings and renovation projects involving toilet replacements in British Columbia.”

BC has made it the law for all new residential buildings to use water-efficient toilets, but there should be stricter regulations to use even less water per flush. It should also be made into a requirement for old, water-guzzling toilets in older residences to be retrofitted. In addition, this law only applies for residential buildings. Industrial, institutional, and commerical buildings are not yet required under law due to drainline issues, so currently their flush cycles use up to 6 litres of water. With all the emphasis on gas-guzzling vehicles, we should look into improving something we use more often daily. Have you ever wondered how many liters of water are used in toilets on campus? At restaurants? In your house? What other daily products do you think have been over shadowed?

Source(s):

http://www.rdosmaps.bc.ca/min_bylaws/building_inspect/forms/low_flow_brochure_withlogo.pdf

http://housing.gov.bc.ca/building/green/het/index.htm

Today in class we discussed companies partnering on sustainability initiatives. The collaboration I brought to discussion was Coca-Cola, P&G, Ford, Heinz, and Nike’s strategic alliance aimed at accelerating the development and use of 100% plant-based PET materials and fibers in consumer products and focusing on petroleum-free alternatives. They call themselves the Plant PET Technology Collaborative (PTC). In case you’re not familiar with what PET is, here’s a definition from Sustainable Brands:

“PET, also known as polyethylene terephthalate, is a durable, lightweight plastic that is used in a variety of products and materials including plastic bottles, apparel, footwear and automotive fabric and carpet.”

So far, we’ve come across partially plant-based PET bottles, “PlantBottle”, on store shelves thanks to Coca-Cola’s pioneering efforts. However, while 100% plant-based PET is actually possible with current technologies, it isn’t yet commercially viable, meaning it’s too costly to produce on a large-scale basis.

Coca-Cola’s PlantBottle packaging has 30% of its plastic derived from sugarcane and molasses, which reduces up to 25% of carbon emissions compared to conventional PET plastic (which uses a significant amount of fossil fuels, water, and energy). Heinz has already licensed the technology for use in some of its ketchup bottles. Nike plans on leveraging the technology to create plant-based fibers for use in althetic apparel. I predict P&G would begin applying the technology first to the many containers of their CPG products that heavily use plastic.

These companies are not in competing sectors, which of course, is what allowed them to team up for improving this technology for the benefit of the environment, but more importantly, for their individual competitive advantages. No matter how the alliance came about, we’re happy to see companies working together to improve business practices for the benefit of the environment and Earth’s future.

“According to a release, PTC members aim to drive the development of common methodologies and standards for the use of plant-based plastic including life cycle analyses and universal terminology.”

This quote is a perfect example demonstrating the advantages of sustainability partnerships. By collaborating resources to develop technology and set common standards and terminology, the global marketplace will not only receive a better result faster, but also benefit from a clear consensus of what plant-based PET really is, how it benefits the environment, and why consumers should choose it. I can’t wait for the day that plant-based PET products completely replace conventional PET products on our store shelves.

Source(s):

http://www.ecouterre.com/nike-coca-cola-pg-team-up-to-boost-100-plant-based-pet-plastic/

http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/collaboration/coke-ford-heinz-nike-pg-collaborate-plant-based-pet

http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20140204/NEWS/140209984/a-commercially-viable-100-percent-plant-based-pet-bottle-may-be-near

It’s not news that voting begins next week for increasing transit funding in the Metro Vancouver area in the form of a new consumer tax. The question on these mail-in ballots ask votes: “Do you support a new 0.5% Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax, to be dedicated to the Mayors’ Council transportation and transit plan?”

It’s a controversial topic, with heavy cases supporting both the “yes” side and the “no” side. Apparently, as a student, I should be voting yes, but to be honest, I don’t have much of an opinion on this matter from that standpoint, because I don’t have the confidence in Translink as a company to make good use of that funding. However, I do support transit in general as a mode of transportation.

Public transit, as we all know, benefits the environment. It improves our surrounding air quality by lowering air pollution and reducing road congestion. Quality, accessible transit attracts users, meaning fewer cars on the road, leading to cleaner air. Here’s some statistics quoted from the Divison of Waste and Hazardous Substances of the State of Delaware:

• Buses emit only 20% as much carbon monoxide per passenger mile as a single-occupant auto.
• Buses emit only 10% as many hydrocarbons per passenger mile as a single-occupant auto (hydrocarbons are VOCs – an ozone precursor).
• Buses emit only 75% as many nitrogen oxides (another ozone precursor) per passenger mile as a single-occupant auto.
• Trains emit only 25% as many nitrogen oxides per passenger mile as a single-occupant auto, and nearly 100% less hydrocarbons and carbon monoxides.

VOCs stands for volatile organic compounds, which, of course, are harmful to our environment. Another blog article I found had even more optimistic projections for the emissions reductions transit alleviates in comparison to cars.

As you can see, transit is far superior for the environment than a car. Transit reduces overall energy usage and conserves energy, that is, if sufficient ridership exists for transit to truly be fuel-efficient. (A bus transporting 1 rider doesn’t make any sense.) The number of passengers on a bus impacts the effectiveness of transit. So the more users of transit, the more positive the effect, and the better proof of why public transit is necessary in any community.

Public transit also reduces the need for roads and freeways, allowing for more green space (or reducing the need to destroy existing green space to accommodate for city development). And of course, transit is less costly! For the general public, that means they have more dollars in their wallets. These funds could go towards opting to purchase more environmentally friendly products, which, at the moment, tend to cost more than traditional products. That money can also go towards supporting green initiatives or charities.

The case for improving transit has been made over and over (not just in Vancouver) and I honestly hope that although Canada isn’t a population dense country, we can see the need towards better transit in order to protect our environment for a better future. We should always take transit whenever possible! (Now we just need a more reliable transit system to convince Vancouverites of that.)

Source(s):

http://www.citywindsor.ca/residents/transitwindsor/rider-programs/green-initiatives/pages/environmental-benefits-of-transit.aspx

http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/dwhs/info/Pages/OzonePublicTrans.aspx

http://acogblog.org/2013/11/14/why-transit-matters-environment/

http://www.apta.com/gap/policyresearch/Documents/facts_environment_09.pdf

An article we read for class on the 7 Sins of Greenwashing piqued my interest on the variety of companies I could find committing those sins. Naturally, great marketing efforts effectively persuade consumers to overlook the faults of their product and message.

The ability to recognize against these greenwashing sins gives us the opportunity to reject purchasing these products as smarter consumers. Two sins I feel are the most important to see through.

Sin of Vagueness: My immediate first thought to this sin was all of the companies touting “natural” or “wholesome” food products. I realize that consumers often more apply this to the quality of an ingredient than the sustainability aspect of food sourcing, but that term is used so extensive in green marketing jargon that consumers don’t essentially see a difference. As someone who has been heavily involved in shopping for her household CPGs for the past 5 to 6 years, (I’m the one who keeps track of sales and restocking in my family. I coupon too, yeah, call me old) the claims of all-natural or wholesome products I’ve seen way too many of. (i.e. “Made with natural ingredients” or “Made with naturally-sourced ingredients”.) Consumers don’t really know what that means. There’s no true definition for the word “natural”. Consumers believe that they are making a positive purchase when the truth is just shrouded by a generic word with no basis for claims. How about “biodegradable”? While there are specific guidelines for what constitutes as biodegradeable, it doesn’t help when there are no collection programs for biodegrading products. Not everyone is aware that biodegradeable products cannot just be thrown in the compost. There are regulations for what is accepted by every municipal waste disposal program. If the product doesn’t belong, it still ends up in the landfill. So then what was the point of your green purchase?

Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off: We are easily directed into focusing on the green aspects discussed on labels that we neglect those that aren’t spoken of. Here’s an ironic example: bottled water. No matter how bottled water brands try to convince consumers of how sustainable they are being with “ethically-sourced” water and “sustainable” plastic water bottles, the truth is, a lot of resources, especially water, go into producing these plastic bottles. The irony is that tons and tons of water go into producing plastic bottles meant for bottling water. Consider all the water that has gone into production of a product meant to contain itself. I feel there needs to be a PSA on bottled water. Personally, I feel strongly against this product category. If we eliminated bottled water, couldn’t there be an increased supply of water for other industries, or for, hmm, drinking?

This CBC article provides some very good examples of greenwashed household products, you should definitely get familiar with some of the common claims in the marketplace! And while you’re at it, also check out this list of top 25 greenwashed products in America.

Source(s):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/10-worst-household-products-for-greenwashing-1.1200620

http://sinsofgreenwashing.com/findings/the-seven-sins/

http://www.businesspundit.com/the-top-25-greenwashed-products-in-america/

Method and Clorox’s Green Works are just two of a growing selection of natural or sustainable household cleaners on shelves in today’s market. Green Works is certified by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under its Design for Environment (DfE) partnership program for safer chemistry and Method is known for its responsible sourcing, recycled plastic packaging, and overall company business transparency. Both companies are incorporating green chemistry into its business objectives and promoting a more natural alternative to the harsh, environmentally unfriendly chemicals commonly found in household cleaning products. These chemicals are a source of concern to most household keepers more for their damage to the human body, but they are equally as damaging to the environment we live in.

So what is “green chemistry”? Green Works acknowledges that there is currently no standard for what “natural” is in household cleaning agents. They’ve set their own standards for what it should be, but critics are still harsh on the reality that these supposedly greener alternatives to traditional household cleaning chemicals are still damaging to the planet. As one blogger claims, these “natural” household cleaners are “completely unnecessary” because they still require resources and energy to manufacture, if not more.

Truly natural household cleaners can be created right at home using actual natural ingredients commonly found around the house, as this blogger goes on to explain. Things like baking soda and vinegar can perform the same cleaning abilities as manufactured cleaning agents do.

The idea of “green chemistry” made me realize that while certain industries receive more attack for sustainable practices, every aspect of the products we use in daily life can be pitched into more sustainable conversations. It never used to occur to me that there are environmentally damaging chemicals in household cleaners that can ultimately end up in our resources streams, such as toxins and pollutes in local rivers and lakes.

While businesses are looking to capitalize on the sustainability trend, some consumers, such as the blogger at Sustainable Baby Steps, reminds us that we don’t need specific products (and consume even more) in order to lower our environmental impact. “Old school” tried-and-true methods, even from before the Industrial Revolution, can still get the job done. Household cleaning products are just one of those examples. Biking as a form of transportation is another. Wind energy (turbine now vs. windmill before) is another. Can you think of any others?

Source(s):

https://www.greenworkscleaners.com/about-us/design-for-the-environment/

https://www.greenworkscleaners.com/about-us/

http://methodhome.com/beyond-the-bottle

http://www.sustainablebabysteps.com/natural-household-cleaners.html

Recently I was indulging away on a McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish sandwich when I noticed that the side of its box had this sustainable fish labelling. “Wow”, I thought, “when did McDonald’s quietly get any sort of sustainability certification?” I never would have thought that McDonald’s, of all companies, would engage in sustainable sourcing, when their focus has been promoting a “healthier” menu? (Healthy fast food, I know, it’s ironic.)

Source: Google Images (because I can’t find the picture that I’d originally taken)

So I went and looked up what this “MSC certified sustainable fish” was all about. MSC stands for Marine Stewardship Council. They govern certification for sustainable seafood. Turns out that back in 2013, McDonald’s USA had become the first national restaurant chain in the United States to serve certified, sustainably sourced fish in all of its American* locations. In fact, they’ve been using sustainable fishing practices for 10 years already, and on this 10th year, decided to adopt the blue label that MSC uses, on its fish sandwich packaging. So now 100% of all fish products sold in McDonald’s is certified sustainable by MSC. The Filet-O-Fish sandwich uses certified wild-caught Alaska polluck. That’s the only fish product in McDonald’s Canada. Others exist south of the border.

I’m really glad that McDonald’s is taking a sustainable approach to their supply chain. To be honest, I have a secret soft spot for McDonald’s. When made “fresh”, the food actually does taste good. Take this sandwich I had the other day that allowed me to discover the MSC blue label; I had to wait an extra 5 minutes because they were making a new filets of fish. The resulting product was one of the juiciest, most tender Filet-O-Fish sandwiches I’d ever had. I’m not kidding. As a foodie, I have my standards! Continued innovation in sustainable ingredient sourcing will improve food quality and taste, as a result helping a stagnating market where healthy food trends are dipping in on fast food sales.

I also pondered why McDonald’s Canada had quietly placed these certification labels on their fish sandwich packaging. There wasn’t really any promotional material on this fast food giant changing to sustainably sourced fish. It just seemed to all of a sudden transition without a trace. Hopefully, it’s because McDonald’s realizes that this is something that should be done, as a responsibility or duty to society, rather than something to gloat about.

Kudos to McDonald’s for being a leader in sustainble sourcing in the food industry. With its thousands of restaurants globally, McDonald’s definitely has the power and presence to leverage a new movement in restaurant chains and the food industry.

*European locations already had MSC certification since 2011!

Source: http://www.msc.org/newsroom/news/mcdonalds-usa-first-restaurant-chain-to-serve-msc-certified-sustainable-fish-nationwide

…that we can no longer afford.

Our professor posed a very important question the other day, “Should consumers have a choice of sustainability, or should it be mandatory?”

My stance on this issue is two sides of the same coin. As a marketer, we should be offering consumers choice in order to appeal to different target segments based on varying psychographics, lifestyles, behaviours, etc.

However, consumers often are not entirely conscious and aware of what it is that they need, want, and require in their daily lives, and even when they do, they don’t fully understand where it is that they’re coming from. Why do they need and want it?

And that’s why marketers conduct so much research to try and understand what consumers don’t know about themselves. When that’s all said and done, as a marketer, our job entails us to convince consumers to choose a certain product, so wouldn’t our job be easier if there were no choices to begin with?

As a member of society living on this planet that we call Earth, we should all be caring for our home. Resources should not be taken for granted, because if everyone had taken Earth and Ocean Sciences courses as I have, they would understand how long it takes the Earth to replenish the resources that we consume in a day.

If we think about it, we’re all consumers of this Earth. As business people, we prefer and reward well-behaving consumers. Teachers reward well-behaved students. Parents love obedient children (as much as we don’t like to admit it, obedient children are more loved; it’s only human nature). Business plans that work well are the ones that get executed time and time again. Those who/that listen and perform to exceed expectations are the ones that succeed. As consumers of Earth, why are we not behaving to our advantage? Why do we not listen to Mother Nature, and understand that we are running out of time and resources, and if we don’t act now, society as we know it will suffer the consequences in time too soon?

Is not being able to purchase a “brown” good really so bad? If all that was available on retail shelves were green products, there wouldn’t be a second thought on whether one should buy green or not. Rather, the leading question when doing one’s weekly shopping then transforms into which green brand, which sustainability driven product line, which environmentally committed company, one should purchase from. Consumers would no longer be hesistating about paying a premium on green products, when they become the norm and are all that they can purchase.

When there is no choice between good and bad purchases; when there is only choice between what’s good and better for the environment, consumers cannot make poor choices. What we need now is innovation in retail goods and services, to convert currently loved “brown” goods and services into green ones, and more socially and environmentally conscious business people to enable and drive forth such a future.