- The document discusses how convenience and comfort have both benefits and drawbacks. While they make life easier, we may have taken them too far to the point of excess and unsustainability. - Living a lifestyle focused on excessive convenience and comfort has environmental and resource depletion consequences. Our current path is not sustainable long-term if we continue prioritizing short-term comfort over ensuring civilization's survival. - However, it is possible to live a comfortable lifestyle that is also sustainable by making better daily choices around transportation, food, waste, and energy use. Small changes can significantly reduce our environmental footprint.

1. OPINIONSGUELPH MERCURY Thursday, July 6, 2006 A11
Convenience and comfort are dirty
words. Although they are largely
considered desirable criteria, make no
mistake — they have dark underbel-
lies. Certainly, they have made our
lives easier. Driving a vehicle to the
store takes much less time than walk-
ing; turning on the air conditioner
feels so much more comfortable than
sweltering in the heat; ordering a pizza
is much more convenient than slaving
over dinner, especially when you’re
starving. We have enjoyed convenience
and comfort, and why shouldn’t we —
they make life more enjoyable. Find me
someone who doesn’t want life to be
more pleasant.
That said, have we taken this enjoy-
ment too far? Does the soccer mom re-
ally need the Hummer to get her gro-
ceries? Do the newlyweds require the
four-storey mansion? Does the concept
of drive-thru really need to exist? In
short, are we living too high on the
hog? Herein lies one dark side of con-
venience and comfort — the prolifera-
tion of a culture of excess. We have
continued to push the envelope and
have made things increasingly more
convenient and comfortable, to the
point where it’s borderline ridiculous.
Living in a culture of excess is cushy
indeed, and few seem to be questioning
it. But what if we did question it? What
if we asked if there were any conse-
quences to this lifestyle of excessive
comfort and convenience? What if we
asked if this lifestyle was indefinitely
sustainable? What if we asked if we
were headed down the wrong path by
choosing short-term benefits over the
assurance of the survival of our
civilization?
Big questions to be sure, and ques-
tions that I have begun to ask myself.
As I asked these questions and slowly
uncovered some of the answers, I did
not like what I found. I found that there
are indeed consequences to this
lifestyle — depletion of our ozone layer
due to our love of CFC-laden hairspray
in the 1980s; extinction of certain
species by way of our love of the sport
utility vehicle; brownouts because we
like to have our thermostat just a few
degrees lower in the summertime. I al-
so found that we cannot sustain our
lifestyle in its current state. Icecaps are
melting from the rise in the global ther-
mometer; oil resources are drying up
but our appetite for them continues;
air is becoming unbreathable due to
the downtown commute; piles of waste
are accumulating at our landfills, so we
resort to sending our own across the
border. Our current path is one that
will become more and more difficult to
negotiate, as there will be greater po-
tential for severe weather events to
take place due to the climate changes
our convenient and comfortable
lifestyle has effected.
My next question was this: Could I
approximate the sustainability of my
own life? The answer was yes, and it
was at www.ecofoot.org. Through an
examination of my diet, my waste pro-
duction, my home and my methods of
transportation, I determined that if
everyone on Earth lived as I did, near-
ly five planets would be necessary to
sustain the global population. Five
planets. My total ecological footprint
is 8.8 global hectares — in line with
the national average — which is 4.9
times the number of biologically pro-
ductive global hectares per person on
the planet.
This frightens me. My current
lifestyle is not globally sustainable —
in fact, many Canadians are guilty of
this charge. Commuting, buying
processed foods, throwing out that ex-
tra bag of garbage, heating a larger
home — all of these things contribute
to a way of life that is not sustainable.
Commuting by car alone contributes
substantially to an unsustainable soci-
ety, if one considers the quantity of
biosphere — primarily forests and
oceans — necessary to absorb the car-
bon dioxide produced from the car in
order to avoid an increase in atmos-
pheric greenhouse gas content.
Thankfully, hope exists — through
choice. A life that is comfortable, con-
venient and sustainable can be had,
provided the proper choices are made.
These choices do not have to be monu-
mental ones, either. Choose meat alter-
natives, locally grown and un-
processed foods; buy products that
minimize packaging and take cloth
bags to the grocery store; install ener-
gy efficient devices in the home and
keep the thermostat at modest temper-
atures; live closer to work, carpool or
take public transit; and buy the hybrid
sedan instead of the SUV.
I am heeding my own advice and re-
evaluating my daily choices, paying
close attention to how sustainable they
truly are. My goal — and I hope yours
as well — is to reduce my footprint
such that only one planet is required.
Seeing as one is all that we do have, it’s
a goal that makes sense.
• Mark Hallman is a graduate of the
University of Guelph’s environmental
engineering program and works for
Zenon Environmental. He can be
reached at mhallman@gmail.com. This
column will appear the first Thursday
of every month.
Questioning the environmental impact of our choices
BY JOHN H. REDEKOP
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and
the Conservatives have been in of-
fice five months. Here is a report card.
• Cabinet Development and
Performance
The cabinet appointed by Stephen
Harper was balanced in all important
respects. It has proven to be generally
competent, focused and well-disci-
plined.
The appointment of David Emerson
as trade minister, while defensible on
the basis of competence, was done too
quickly. Similarly, the appointment of
Michael Fortier, as senator and public
works minister, while also defensible,
disappointed many Canadians, given
Harper’s strong statements against
such action.
Mark: B
• Performance in the House of
Commons
The Conservatives have done amaz-
ingly well, especially in contrast to the
official Opposition which was often
largely absent, disunited on several
major policies, and preoccupied with
the leadership race. Their own mostly
mediocre record made them vulnera-
ble to hard-hitting counter-criticism.
When all opposition parties voted
absent-mindedly for the Conservative’s
$187-billion budget, they showed their
weakness. The Conservatives, led by
the prime minister, have been skilful
and effective in Question Period and
debate.
Mark: A
• Social Policies
The $100 a month child-care grant,
while laudable, is flawed given that an
employed single mother earning
$30,000 keeps much less than an unem-
ployed mother whose husband earns
$100,000 a year.
The rejection of the $5.1-billion
Kelowna Accord made sense, given its
inadequate accountability. But the
Conservative rejection was not ex-
plained well. The quick provision of
clean water for Aboriginals and the
$450-million housing initiative provid-
ed credibility.
Raising the age of consent for sexu-
al intercourse from 14 to 16 with some
exceptions, was commendable.
Mark: B+
• Economic Policies
The one per cent GST reduction
was widely welcomed. In contrast to
the Liberal tax reduction, it will bene-
fit low-income earners who pay no in-
come tax. But it may not always be
passed on to the consumer.
The budget included 29 tax reduc-
tions which, in total, brought more tax
relief than the previous four budgets
combined. It lowered the corporate tax
rate, eliminated the Federal Capital
Tax, and permits the donation of equity
shares to charities without tax pay-
ment. Unfortunately, the budget rolled
back half of the Liberal income tax
reduction.
Mark: B+
• Foreign Affairs
The Conservatives have improved
relations with the U.S. and brought
Canada much closer to a softwood lum-
ber pact. Unfortunately, they over-stat-
ed their achievement when the lumber
deal was first announced.
The prime minster’s Afghanistan
trip was a great success. Unfortunately,
the House of Commons vote commit-
ting the country to a two-year exten-
sion was too rushed. Insufficient time
was allotted for debate and the debate
itself should have been held later when
the nature of the involvement would be
much clearer. Bringing order and
democracy to Muslim Afghanistan will
be extremely problematic.
Mark: B
• National Unity Policies
The conciliatory attitude toward
Quebec has weakened support for
sovereignty. Giving a voice to Quebec
in certain international organiza-
tions is fully defensible. Quebec vot-
ers now have a second federalist op-
tion. Harper may yet go down in histo-
ry as a key leader who “saved the
union.” But he apparently promised
more than he now seems willing to de-
liver concerning the so-called fiscal
imbalance.
Mark: A-
• Environment Policies
The rejection of the Kyoto Accord is
of little consequence. Given its lack of
action, the previous Liberal govern-
ment had already rejected it. The Lib-
eral policy of buying so-called pollu-
tion credits from other countries
would have cost millions while improv-
ing nothing.
The Conservatives are taking a long
time to develop their alternate pro-
gram. Also, while axing the EnerGuide
Program can be justified, given that
half the costs went to administration,
it should have been reformed, not
abolished.
Mark: B
• Crime and Justice Policies
Killing the long-gun registry was
long overdue. Apparently when Marc
Lapine murdered the 14 young women
in Montreal in 1990, he used a regis-
tered semi-automatic long gun. Regis-
tration does not prevent crime. Be-
sides, why would criminals register
their guns? Registering gun owners
makes more sense.
Action against street-racing, intro-
ducing tougher minimum sentences,
arming border guards, expanding the
RCMP by 1,000 members and restrict-
ing the use of house arrests all make
much sense. Why should criminals
spend their time watching TV and play-
ing games at home? The $26 million for
victims and the $20 million for crime
prevention are modest but important.
Mark: A+
• Defence and Military Policies
Liberal defence policy was little
more than a joke. Canada acquired
cast-off submarines that don’t work
and was forced to hire Russian planes
to ferry Canadian peacekeepers to the
Baltics. At last the country has a gov-
ernment which understands what de-
fence procurement means.
Mark: A+
• Parliamentary Reform
The Federal Accountability Act
marks the greatest reform in this area
that Canada has ever seen. Unfortu-
nately, because of the opposition par-
ties, it no longer includes accountabili-
ty for the billions given to the 600 Abo-
riginal bands. Canadian taxpayers
shall, apparently, not ask the tough
questions.
The eight-year term for senators
and the appointment of provincially
elected senators are laudable. Unfortu-
nately, if these key reforms are fully
implemented without a reallocation of
seats to the provinces, the result could
be a constitutional crisis.
Mark: A
• Specific Initiatives
In five months the Harper Govern-
ment has undertaken an array of com-
mendable policy initiatives concern-
ing secondary issues. These include
cancelling the “give away” sale of the
Prince Rupert Coal Terminal, the revi-
sion of Supreme Court appointments
and the appointment of Marshall
Rothstein to that court, the establish-
ment of a Public Appointments Com-
mission although the opposition de-
layed its implementation by their
churlish rejection of an outstanding
director, the unequivocal apology to
Chinese Canadians and the redress
commitments, the listing of the Tamil
Tigers as a banned terrorist organiza-
tion, and the termination of having
half-mast flags at the Peace Tower for
deceased soldiers.
Unfortunately there were also some
problematic decisions involving sec-
ondary matters. These include the
quarrel with the national media, not
letting the press question ministers af-
ter cabinet meetings, and not letting
Environment Canada scientist Mark
Tushingham speak at his own book-
launching event.
Mark: B
• Keeping Electoral Promises
The Harper team has done very well
in this area. Four of the five key priori-
ties have been enacted. The fifth, deal-
ing with health-care waiting times, re-
quires provincial co-operation and will
presumably be addressed shortly.
Where the Paul Martin regime largely
dithered, the Stephen Harper team has
mostly acted
Mark: A
• Harper’s Overall Leadership
Of John George Diefenbaker it was
rightly said that he was much more
successful as opposition leader than
as prime minister. For Stephen Harp-
er the opposite is true. He has been
much more impressive as prime
minister than he was as opposition
leader.
Granted, he has made some errors
in his relationship with the media, in
his handling of press coverage of mili-
tary caskets, and with his flippant
comment when informed that some
Muslim extremists wanted to behead
him but, by and large, he has been deci-
sive, focused and has handled himself
with dignity, aplomb and even with dis-
tinction. He has been a strong, articu-
late, energetic, bold, disciplined and vi-
sionary leader.
Mark: A
Overall mark after five months: A-
• John H. Redekop is a professor of
political science at Trinity Western
University in Langley, B.C.
Conservatives score high after five months
CANADIAN PRESS
Prime Minister Stephen Harper smiles as he speaks last month at a community event at St-Joseph-de-Beauce, Que. Harper
and the Conservatives have made commendable strides on issues such as keeping promises and their performance in the
House of Commons, writes John H. Redekop, giving the party an A- on a five-month report card.
MARK HALLMAN
ON SUSTAINABILITY
TORONTO STAR
Carpooling, including the use of high-occupancy vehicle lanes on Highway 403, is
a way to decrease your ecological footprint, writes Mark Hallman.