It must be pretty damaging for any industry’s reputation to be labeled Dinosaur of the Year. And that’s what the Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (NABU) has called the cruise ship industry. NABU, which is based in Germany, singled out cruise lines AIDA and TUI to get their yearly trophy, which goes to people or companies with “the most ridiculous statement or anachronistic decision in connection with Nature and the Environment.”

According to NABU, cruise ships emit particle pollution that equals the amount released by five million cars driving the same distance as the cruise ship tears through the ocean. The organization said the luxury cruise ship industry has made no investments to move away from heavy fossil fuel oil or to install filters to reduce the pollution they dump into the oceans. It added that the 15 largest cruise ships emit as much sulfur dioxide pollution annually as all 760 million cars in the world. Not much glamour or luxury in that, is there?

Figures revealed by environmental NGO Friends of the Earth are alarming. A large cruise ship on a one week voyage is estimated to generate:

210,000 gallons of human sewage,
1 million gallons of gray water (water from sinks, baths, showers, laundry, and galleys),
25,000 gallons of oily bilge water,
Up to 11,550 gallons of sewage sludge, and
More than 130 gallons of hazardous wastes.

The NGO says most of this waste is dumped directly into the ocean, treated or not. Luxury liners also spew a range of pollutants into the air that can lead to acid rain and contribute to global warming. On top of all that, they can spread invasive species by dumping untreated ballast water in coastal zones.

To add to the problem, as more people pursue traveling as a leisure activity, the number of cruise ships in U.S. waters, as well as across the seven seas, has triggered a cruise ship pollution crisis. FoE says environmental laws have not kept pace with the industry’s growth, which reaches pristine waters, leaving a rotten track in its trail.

Back in 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed to respond to a petition filed by 53 groups and issued a draft report assessing discharges from cruise ships. “Now that EPA has finally agreed to release this report, the public must submit comments compelling the EPA to regulate these floating cities and protect the very places people are paying to visit,” Teri Shore of Friends of the Earth said at the time.

The EPA draft report found that cruise ship discharges contain concentrations of bacteria, chlorine, nutrients, metals and other pollutants that often far exceed federal effluent and water quality standards and are harmful to human health and the marine environment. The report estimated that cruise ships produce an average of 21,000 gallons per day of sewage and 170,000 gallons per day of raw graywater that can contain as much bacteria as sewage. Large volumes of highly concentrated sewage sludge are also routinely dumped overboard. The report found that even the Advanced Wastewater Treatment systems required in Alaska were far from perfect.

At a time when the health of our oceans is seriously threatened, it is distressing to see an industry turning its back on sustainability. Consumers have a role to play by refusing to participate in this vandalization of the oceans.

Article by Antonio Pasolini, appearing courtesy Justmeans and 3BL Media.

Related posts:

• Cruise Ship Environmental Issues
• Could Boats Plug In to the Electricity Grid?
• Solar Power to Cut Colossal Cruise Ship Emissions
• Seawater Scrubbing Technology Tested to Cut Emissions from Ocean Vessels
• How will Regionalized Global Growth Affect Sustainability Planning?

When we say at DOT that safety is our number one priority, we are not kidding around. And today, as part of that important goal, President Obama signed into law the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act. 

Last April, following several fatal pipeline accidents, we called upon U.S. pipeline owners and operators to conduct a comprehensive review of their oil and gas pipelines to identify areas of high risk and accelerate critical repair and replacement work.  We also convened a Pipeline Safety Forum with state officials, industry leaders, and other stakeholders to discuss steps for improving the safety and efficiency of America's pipeline infrastructure. 

In one of their final actions for 2011, the House and Senate passed a pipeline safety bill consistent with the legislative proposal we submitted to Congress last year.  This legislation gives the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, an important part of DOT, stronger enforcement tools and increases civil penalties for pipeline operators who do not meet safety regulations. It's another terrific step forward for greater pipeline safety. 

Not only will this legislation help keep America's communities safer; it also helps give pipeline operators the certainty they need to run their systems more effectively.

To advance pipeline safety, the bill doubles the maximum fines that pipeline operators face for safety violations. The Bill requires PHMSA to issue new pipeline safety standards requiring operators to install automatic or remote-controlled shut-off valves and excess flow valves in new or replaced transmission pipelines.  As U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller said, "Communities can rest a little easier knowing that Congress has implemented tougher safety rules."

The bill authorizes PHMSA to award $110 million in safety-related grants each year. These include state damage prevention programs, technical assistance to local communities, emergency response training, and one-call system improvements.  And PHMSA is authorized to add a number of new pipeline inspectors to support its investigation and enforcement obligations. 

To promote regulatory certainty for the pipeline industry, the new bill prohibits PHMSA during a two to three year Congressional review period, from issuing regulations establishing leak-detection requirements or expanding integrity management requirements beyond high-consequence areas.  However, this restriction would not apply if a condition poses any risk to public safety, property, or the environment. 

As the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee observed, "By providing greater regulatory certainty, the bill will help create a better economic environment for U.S. businesses to create jobs." 

This bill is a win for safety and a win for America's communities. And, by signing it into law on the first business day of the new year, President Obama has sent a clear message that this Administration believes we can achieve greater safety and stronger economic growth at the same time. 

I can't think of a better way to start 2012.

Related posts:

• Massive New Russian Gas Pipeline to Europe Now in Operation
• Oil Leak Is Latest Mishap for Alaska’s Troubled Pipelines
• Tar Sands Pipeline Passes Key Hurdle as Protests Continue
• First Pipeline-Fed Hydrogen Refueling Station Opens in the United States
• North Korean Leader Supports Russian Natgas Pipeline to South Korea

On Dec. 16, the Obama administration is expected to finally release new standards for protecting us from mercury and other toxic heavy metals from power plant emissions. All of us have reason to be glad, but parents (and anyone who might ever want to be a parent) should especially welcome this long overdue protection. My wife Mary and I co-authored a column for Sierra magazine that explains why:

It started before we even brought our first child home from the hospital. Electrical sockets needed to be covered, cabinet doors secured, knives stowed out of the reach of tiny hands. We live in earthquake country, so we finally got around to bolting our bookshelves to the wall.

Like any parents, we’ll do anything in our power to keep our kids safe. We know that our power has its limits, but that doesn’t stop us from trying.

Getting the house ready was just the beginning. We were also determined to protect our daughter from less-obvious dangers. Well aware of the toxic chemicals that increasingly find their way into our bodies, we shopped for the healthiest foods we could find — and still do.

Of course, not all Americans have the same easy access to fresh, organic, and healthy foods that we do. In lots of neighborhoods it can be hard to find decent produce. But even so, you’d think there’d still be plenty of nutritious alternatives to fast food, like the humble tuna sandwich.

Not anymore. Tuna, like many types of fish, is often contaminated with mercury, a neurotoxin that damages the brain and nervous system, particularly in fetuses and young children. Mercury in the bloodstreams of pregnant and nursing women can result in birth defects like learning disabilities, reduced IQ, and cerebral palsy.

We’ve known about the dangers of mercury for a century. (It’s what made the Mad Hatter mad.) We’ve also known how the fish get contaminated: primarily via coal-fired power plants, whose smokestacks spew almost 50 tons of mercury annually into the air we breathe.

A heavy metal like mercury does not stay in the atmosphere for long. It eventually falls to Earth, inexorably working its way up the food chain until it winds up in the tuna sandwich in some kid’s lunch box — or on the sushi platter ordered by a young woman who’s just become pregnant.

And that’s where we get mad — both as environmentalists and as parents: There is absolutely no reason our kids should be exposed to this poison. The EPA was first charged with limiting toxic air pollutants like mercury more than 20 years ago, during the George H. W. Bush administration. The technology to filter mercury from coal-plant smokestacks is widely available. But there’s still no national limit on how much mercury a coal-fired power plant can release into the air. It’s like debating what kind of childproof latches to put on the cabinets while the kids are playing with the knives.

This past March, the EPA finally proposed a standard that would require coal plants to keep more than 90 percent of their mercury emissions out of the atmosphere. The new rule would also apply to such cancer-causing metals as arsenic, chromium, and nickel. Filtering out these poisons would prevent hundreds of thousands of illnesses and up to 17,000 premature deaths each year. It would be the single biggest measure to save American lives in a generation.

Incredibly, it might not happen. As we write this, the EPA is under attack by politicians whose first allegiance is not to American children but to the polluters who don’t want to clean up their dirty power plants. Possible reason: The polluters shelled out nearly $30 million to these members of Congress who continue to vote for dirty air.

We know that it’s impossible to protect our children from every possible harm. Inevitably, knees will get scraped and probing fingers will get pinched in cabinet doors, and that giant leap off the porch might end in a tumble. But to endanger our kids solely for the sake of polluters’ bottom line? As parents, and as Americans, that’s something we can never accept.

Article by Michael Brune, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

Related posts:

• Mercury rising, controls next
• We Can Clean the Air, Create Jobs and Power the Economy at the Same Time
• Protecting Historic Progress on Clean Air
• EPA Proposes Transport Rule to Aid Downwind States
• EPA Finalizes Greenhouse Gas Reporting Requirements

The European Environment Agency (EEA) and Microsoft last week introduced a network of online sites that map air, water, and noise pollution levels across the continent based on government data and information uploaded by users.

The Eye on Earth network — unveiled during the climate talks in Durban, South Africa — includes three separate interactive Web-based services: AirWatch, WaterWatch, and NoiseWatch.

Using geospatial mapping technology, WaterWatch displays the 22,000 locations across Europe where the EEA monitors the quality of water at beaches, rivers, lakes, and other swimming areas.

By zooming in on flagged monitoring stations, users can compare government rankings with public comments on water quality. AirWatch provides information from more than 1,000 air-monitoring stations, while NoiseWatch allows users to instantly upload noise level readings from their own mobile devices.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Detailed View of Seafloor Depicted in New Google Earth Maps
• Data, Apps, and Maps: Working Toward a GreenGov
• Now on the Internet: Check the Environmental Status of Facilities
• Highway Barriers Stifle Pollution
• Web Application Allows Easy Analysis of Climate Pledges

The ability of the world’s estuaries, salt marshes, and mangrove swamps to sequester carbon has been seriously degraded by industrial activity, according to a study by Australian researchers.

Scientists at the University of Technology, Sydney, examined layers of estuary sediment in Sydney’s Botany Bay for the past 6,000 years. They found that sea grass abundance has declined sharply, while quantities of micro-algae have soared.

Increasing nitrogen deposition and pollution are the main culprits in destroying seagrass beds, which have the capacity to store as much as 100 times more carbon than micro-algae.

The researchers dated the sediments using radiocarbon dating and determined the plant makeup of the Botany Bay estuary by examining isotopic ratios of seagrass versus micro-algae.

Reporting in the journal Global Change Biology, lead researcher Peter Macreadie said the results show the importance of preserving and restoring so-called “blue carbon habitats” in the world’s wetlands and estuaries.

The partial loss of these carbon sinks has “severely hampered the ability of nature to reset the planet’s thermostat.”

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Carbon Emissions Dropped with Fuel Consumption, Report Says
• New Report Reveals Levels of GHG Emissions in 2009
• Oceans’ Ability to Absorb CO2 May be Diminishing, New Study Says
• Expansion of Cropland is Stretching Earth’s Ability to Store Carbon
• Nutrients From Deep-Sea Vents Key to Carbon Storage, Study Says

Another oil spill is taking place in the world right now from an off-shore drilling operation.

The incident was at Chevron’s deep-sea drilling operation off the coast of Rio de Janeiro state in Brazil. The country’s federal police says information released by Chevron does not match what they have seen, that is, the spill is larger, and they only saw one cleanup ship.

Chevron said the oil spill was between 400 and 650 barrels of oil and that it had contained the leak. But Brazil’s oil regulator National Petroleum Agency estimated 1,000 barrels had leaked to the surface and until earlier this week said it was not sure whether the well had been plugged (apparently, it has been by now).

Non-profit SkyTruth, which uses satellite imagery to detect environmental problems, went further and said the oil spill extended 918 square miles and on Tuesday on the spill rate was at least 3,738 barrels per day.

The organization wrote on its blog yesterday that it hopes that next satellite image it will get will reveal a much smaller spillage area now that the leak has been stopped. The last image was from November 12th as SkyTruth hasn’t been able to get new images since then due to cloudy weather.

Brazil’s federal police has launched an investigation into the incident while Brazil’s Energy Minister Edison Lobão said the company will “severely punished” if it has not done what it should have to contain the spill.

The incident illustrates once again the dangers of deep-sea oil drilling and why we should be moving towards alternative energy.

Article by Antonio Pasolini, a Brazilian writer and video art curator based in London, UK. He holds a BA in journalism and an MA in film and television.

Related posts:

• Chevron Ordered to Pay Ecuador $8.6 Billion for Environmental Damages
• Waxman-Markey’s Chevron Redux?
• Big, bad oil companies and energy efficiency
• Big Oil’s Collective Responsibility
• São Paulo To Have Brazil’s First Ethanol Bus Fleet

President Obama believes that American families should never be asked to choose between the health of their children and the health of the economy. That is a false choice. Four decades of success under the Clean Air Act have shown clearly that strong environmental protections and a strong economy can go hand in hand. 

To build on the tremendous success of the Clean Air Act, the Obama Administration has taken the most significant steps in a generation to reduce harmful pollution and promote public health. The new standards that we have issued or proposed – to curb interstate pollution, reduce mercury exposure, and make our cars more fuel efficient, just to name a few – will result in significant economic and health benefits each year. 

Just over forty years ago, the Senate did something that would be almost unthinkable today: It passed major legislation by a unanimous vote. That legislation was the Clean Air Act of 1970, signed by President Richard Nixon. Two decades later, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were passed, again with large bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress, and signed by President George H. W. Bush. 

But today, Republicans in Congress are trying to use our current economic climate as an excuse to roll back clean air protections that Americans have counted on for decades. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is currently leading an effort to block the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) that would save tens of thousands of lives each year. In doing so, Senator Paul is using the Congressional Review Act to repeal this important rule and prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting American families from cross-state pollution in the future. 

Let’s be clear – this brazen effort doesn’t just undermine the public health, it also undermines the judgment of the courts. In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. Circuit found critical flaws in the Bush Administration’s efforts on interstate air pollution and directed the EPA to issue a replacement rule as quickly as possible. After seeking and incorporating extensive input from the public, the states, environmental and public health groups, as well as industry, the EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution rule in July of this year. 

What does the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Do?

This rule is designed protect the health of millions of Americans by helping states reduce harmful air pollution through the deployment of readily available technologies that are already in use at many facilities across the country. By reducing dangerous pollution emitted by power plants, the rule protects residents in dozens of states who are unknowingly subjected to toxic emissions from plants often hundreds of miles away.

What benefits will the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule provide for American Families?

The emission reductions from this final rule will have significant and immediate public health benefits, each year preventing:

* 13,000 to 34,000 premature deaths,
* 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis,
* 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks,
* 19,000 hospital and emergency room visits,
* 1.8 million days when people miss work or school,
* 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and
* 420,000 cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms.

In addition, the benefits of this rule are expected to far outweigh its costs, producing over $100 billion in net benefits each year.

We will continue to take smart sensible steps that ensure we protect the health of our families, while also opposing efforts to undermine the Clean Air Act.

Article by Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change.

Related posts:

• Why Are Investors Bearish on Clean Energy?
• New Orleans Tells Resident Not to Install Solar Panels
• Nations Meet on Climate Cash, U.N. Sees Long Haul
• Developing vs. Developed Nations — A Climate Negotiations Dilemma
• Building Partnerships, Conserving Lands

The Canadian chapter of Greenpeace yesterday released a report that highlights the dangers of the large-scale use of wood and tree harvesting for heating, electricity generation or liquid biofuels. The report is called ‘Fuelling a Biomess’ and it argues that burning woody biomass on an industrial scale could severely harm Canada’s public forests and further contribute to the global climate crisis.

The report is based on recent peer-reviewed scientific literature, and challenges the claims that simply burning forest biomass is green, clean and carbon-neutral. It’s on such claims that current bioenergy boom is based, it says. As demand for biomass grows, it can no longer be met by traditional waste stream sources, such as the bark, sawdust and other residues from pulp and paper plants or sawmills.

“Forest bioenergy, as it is currently being developed in Canada, threatens the health of our forests and will harm the global climate for decades to come,” said Nicolas Mainville, Greenpeace Canada forest campaigner. “The amount of wood being burnt in power plants or turned into liquid fuels is growing exponentially without the public’s knowledge and little government oversight or regulation.”

Greenpeace said that in some jurisdictions forest biomass is increasingly consisting of elements essential to functioning forest ecosystems, including standing trees, naturally disturbed forests and remains of traditional logging operations that were previously left in the forest. The amount of wood and other tree parts cut from Canadian public forests could more than double under new policies that support the expansion of forest bioenergy production.

The organization added it is concerned that the growing demand for trees associated with the bioenergy boom will drastically increase pressure on forests and out compete the traditional forest products sector, particularly with respect to available wood supply and the development of new products and jobs.

“Using woody biomass to produce energy should be restricted to local, small-scale uses of mill residues” said Mainville. “Before we continue to approve new projects, public hearings, a full accounting of the climate and biodiversity footprint and life-cycle analyses of those projects are needed.”

In 2010, Canada exported 1.2 million tonnes of wood pellets to Europe, resulting in a 700 per cent increase in less than eight years. Canada alone releases approximately 40 megatons of CO2 emissions annually from forest bioenergy production, an amount that exceeds the tailpipe emissions of all 2009 Canadian light-duty passenger vehicles.

The release of the report was timed with the opening of the first European Biomass Exchange in Amsterdam.

Article by Antonio Pasolini, a Brazilian writer and video art curator based in London, UK. He holds a BA in journalism and an MA in film and television.

Related posts:

• What Color Is the Cloud?
• Russia Decides to Take a Step Forward with Biofuels
• Growth of Wood Pellet Industry Driven by Clean-Energy Demand in Europe
• Mattel Vows to Stop Using Paper from Accused Asian Clear-Cutter
• Emissions from Tar Sands Will Dwarf Carbon Cuts in Canada

Electronic waste, or “e-waste“, is a major problem of the information age. As consumers continually upgrade their electronic devices, the old devices are discarded and usually end up in a toxic e-waste dump, usually located in a poor developing country. Such a dump is located in the capital city of the African country, Ghana. Toxic chemicals from the dump, known as the Agbogbloshie scrap metal site, have affecting the nearby community market, church headquarters, and school. Contaminants include lead, cadmium, and others, some at levels over 50 times higher than risk-free levels.

Electronics are incinerated at the Agbogbloshie site, and the copper is usually recycled. Soil sampling was done from the surrounding properties, and the samples were tested for iron, magnesium, copper, zinc, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and lead, all metals that can be found in modern electronics. Dangerously high levels were found at the school and local market.

The Ghanan researcher, Atiemo Sampson, reported the results at the Solving the E-Waste Problem Summer School, hosted in Europe by Philips and Umicore to a group of dedicated graduate students. Mr. Sampson stated that similar e-waste sites are being developed in other locations in Ghana. Much of the e-waste is brought in from overseas, particularly North America and Europe.

“Until now, Ghana has not regulated the importation and management of e-waste,” said Mr. Sampson. “Although Ghana is a signatory to the Basel Convention (which regulates the import and export of hazardous wastes), rules are only now being incorporated into our national legal framework. The government hopes to have new rules in place next year.”

One problem is that operating an e-waste site can be highly lucrative. The metals recovered can be worth a lot of money, such as gold, copper, and silver. “The sheer number of people engaged in informal recycling in the Agbogbloshie scrap yard makes it increasingly unthinkable politically to eject them from that location,” added Mr. Sampson. “The livelihood of many people now depends on the income generated by these activities at e-waste scrap yards. Therefore any solution must recognize their role and focus on improving health, safety and environmental standards.”

International shipments of e-waste are outlawed, but occur nonetheless by unscrupulous handlers. Students at the conference in Europe agreed that the e-waste problem requires technological, behavioral, economic, and political solutions. Manufacturers also need to incorporate life-cycle analysis in their products.

Article by David A. Gabel, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Mexico City Closes Dump in Push to Boost Recycling and Reuse
• Green Law: Supreme Court Decision on Wastewater Dumping
• South Africa’s Solar Power Potential
• Africa goes solar… (if the utilities let them, and if they find money)
• $2.7 Million Solar Panel Factory Opens in Naivasha, Kenya

Editor’s Note: This blog introduces readers to Ralph Izzo, Chairman, President and CEO of Public Service Enterprise Group.

As one of the largest electricity generators in the U.S., we, at Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), believe that EPA’s air pollutant regulations should be viewed as an opportunity to modernize the nation’s electric power infrastructure. PSEG has been a long-time advocate of these Clean Air Act regulations and has put its money where its mouth is, investing over one and a half billion dollars in improvements to its coal-fired plants. These regulations will not only improve air quality for our nation’s citizens, but will also create jobs and an active marketplace for emissions trading.

Frankly, action is long overdue. The air pollutant regulations proposed by EPA are in response to the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of two rules (the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the Clean Air Mercury Rule) originally proposed by the Bush Administration. Thus, these regulations do not come out of the blue. The regulatory process for regulating toxic air emissions commenced over two decades ago, and the court concluded CAIR was “fundamentally flawed” in 2008.

For our part at PSEG, we believed it made good business sense to be proactive in positioning our generation fleet to meet what the rules would require.  During the past five years, we have invested more than $2 billion to replace inefficient, older generating units and upgrade our existing facilities in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. These air quality standards are achievable with the appropriate investment. For example, nearly 60 percent of all coal-fired boilers that submitted data to EPA are currently achieving the Utility Toxics Rule’s proposed mercury standards. Existing pollution control technologies have demonstrated their mettle, and they need to be further deployed throughout the nation.

Our experience shows that it is possible to clean the air, create jobs, and power the economy at the same time. For example, our New Jersey coal plants with their various pollution-control systems have been able to reduce, by over 90 percent, emissions of mercury, acid gases and soot. Installing the systems created approximately 1,600 construction jobs and enabled us to add dozens of full-time positions. We are proud of these results and proud to have facilities that are among the cleanest coal stations in America.

Reliability is a critical consideration at all times in the electric power industry. We believe our industry is capable of meeting these clean air rules while maintaining electric system reliability. The U.S. bulk power system, at an aggregate level, has adequate spare capacity to absorb potential retirements. Many of the uncontrolled units, which are most likely to retire, are smaller, inefficient units and companies are already making retirement decisions independent of the Utility Toxics Rule due to fundamental economics. Moreover, the electric industry has a proven track record of adding additional generating capacity and transmission solutions when and where needed and of coordinating effectively to address reliability concerns.

The Clean Air Act gives affected sources three years from the issuance of the final rules to comply with the regulations. Further, if there are isolated reliability issues in areas of heavy demand as a result of implementing the air regulations affecting the electric sector, existing risk management procedures under the Clean Air Act, the Federal Power Act, and other statutes already provide EPA, the Department of Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the President with tools to address unforeseen impacts on electric system reliability on an individual basis.

Simply put, the time is overdue to implement the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Doing so will help provide much needed certainty to invest in capital-intensive projects such as power plants that operate for 40 years or longer. Having these regulations in place will make it clear what the energy industry needs to do. In contrast, any significant delay for these rules will only perpetuate uncertainty where clarity is needed. The time for action is now.

Ralph Izzo is Chairman, President and CEO of Public Service Enterprise Group

Photo: Mario’s planet

Article appearing courtesy White House Blog.

Related posts:

• How Many Jobs are Truly Created in a “Green Economy?”
• The Energy of Entrepreneurs
• Celeb Campaign Pushes Clean Energy Economy
• The Glass is More than Half Full: Impact of Clean Technology on Job Creation
• Film Industry Meets Ontario’s Solar Economy