The Canadian Solar Industries Association held its annual conference in Toronto this week and a more than doubling of attendance showed that solar technologies are being taken much more seriously in Canada, particularly Ontario. The province offers 42 cents for every kilowatt-hour of solar electricity produced from small generation projects as part of its European-style standard offer program, which has sparked a wave of announcements around multi-megawatt solar farms in southern Ontario. The provincial government has eliminated sales tax on solar equipment, and new zero-interest loan programs are being tested to encourage greater residential and business uptake of solar PV and thermal systems.

But many in attendance, while being careful not to overly criticize current policies, said more needs to be done. They’re arguing that the standard offer tariff for solar PV be increased to 80 cents. They want tariffs created for solar thermal systems. They want a stronger commitment to solar deployment as part of municipal, provincial and federal climate change plans, and building codes that make it mandatory for some solar — particularly solar thermal, where Canada seems to have more local innovation and need — in certain applications.

The reasoning behind this wish list is that Ontario’s standard offer, while ambitious when announced, still doesn’t pay enough to make solar PV economical to deploy. Many point to Michigan’s introduction of legislation that would offer 65 cents for solar PV power as a demonstration that Ontario’s program didn’t go far enough and could lose momentum. They also point to the fact that two local solar companies have invested elsewhere — ARISE Technologies is building a plant in Germany and Photowatt shut down its Ontario plant, sold its next-gen technology to Japan, and is expanding operations in France — as evidence that any momentum Ontario had has, in fact, been lost.

I’m not entirely convinced. Photowatt’s problems were largely attributed to mismanagement, not opportunity. Meanwhile, ARISE went to where the market was most mature and largest — Germany — so building its first plant in Ontario wouldn’t have been a good business move at this time.

As for increasing the rate to 80 cents, I’m also not entirely convinced or opposed. The problem with this year’s conference is that it didn’t adequately address the issues that, it would seem, continue to require consideration of such a high tariff. When, for example, will technology prices start coming down and why haven’t they already? Is the continuing high cost for solar PV a result of increased installation costs that are offsetting any reductions in technology costs? And if so, should ratepayers be subsidizing installers? We keep talking about the need for scale, and how this will drive down costs, but from where I sit demand for product isn’t at issue here — the industry can’t keep up with demand.

Yes, I agree as many argue that the market will need some time to sort these issues out, but how long do we expect Ontario for example to pay 15 times the cost of what we currently pay for electricity until market forces kick in? I’m not saying we shouldn’t pay 80 cents, I’m just saying I haven’t heard a compelling business case why we should, other than presentations that point to the successes in Germany and Spain, where it’s often difficult to make apples-to-apples comparisons.

The conference — at least the parts I attended — also dwelled a bit too much on R&D and public policy but didn’t address equally important issues like the role that home developers, construction companies, and the real-estate industry have to play to assure large-scale rollout of solar PV and thermal systems. I didn’t see a single representative from the building and construction sector, which is a key stakeholder with issues and concerns that need to be heard and addressed. I didn’t hear talk of the need to draw attention to residential solar and other renewable energy systems in the real-estate industry, where the MLS system lets you search for homes with fireplaces and backyard pools but not for solar PV or geothermal. Do we need to start pushing for energy ratings on homes? Definitely, I say — so why isn’t this being pushed for?

If we’re truly to see solar take hold in Canada we’ve got to engage these stakeholders and address these larger policy issues. Sitting around talking about how a net-zero home has been built at considerable expense by a bunch of unversity students is a nice touch, but it doesn’t strike at the heart of what needs to be done to stimulate industry growth, nor does relying on government incentives that benefit solar manufacturers and installers more than they do consumers.

I’m a huge believer in the potential of solar — more than wind, more than biofuels, more than CCS — but the industry needs to move beyond academic discussion and grow up a bit, at least in Canada.

I will point out one thing, however: exhibitors at the conference didn’t have all the fancy new thin-film stuff that we see at U.S. conferences, but we had a lot of great solar thermal applications. Solar thermal is a strength in Canada, it’s a market that’s ready today, and it’s an area we need to play up in a big, big way. Let Silicon Valley claim superiority with solar PV, but Ontario has a huge opportunity to play a leading role — the lead role — in the North American solar thermal market.

Oh yeah, and another Canadian strength to watch for: making solar-grade silicon. Stayed tuned on that….

Update: I saw a news report last night saying that Canada’s fur industry is now branding itself as natural, green and eco-friendly compared to synthetic furs. Ridiculous!

It’s not like we never expected this would happen, but it’s a sad reality that many companies looking to jump on the “green” bandwagon are doing so in a deceptive fashion, going so far as to lie to customers about the eco-friendliness of their products. It’s far too easy to spot in the TV ads — SUVs driving on old-growth forest trails alongside deer and other wild animals; so-called organic shampoo made from natural ingredients (whatever that means); and major events (sports, awards, entertainment, etc.) claiming to be carbon offset just so everybody driving back home in their Porches and Hummers don’t feel guilty about screwing the planet. I always love the commercials from oil companies trying to emphasize their green initiatives, which are a tiny sliver of their overall spending (and, of course, you always see a token windmill in the background whenever an executive is speaking). Ugh.

A new study by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing sheds some light on this phenomenon called “greenwashing.” TerraChoice surveyed 1,018 consumer products — everything from toothpaste to caulking to printers — and found rampant greenwashing. How rampant? Of 1,753 green claims 99 per cent were bogus to some degree, committing one of what TerraChoice calls the Six Sins of Greenwashing.

The sins are:

1. Bad tradeoffs. In other words, you can claim something is green in one way — i.e. more energy efficient — but you neglect to mention that achieving this creates an offsetting sacrifice somewhere else, such as increased toxic materials. TerraChoice found that 57 per cent of products committed this sin.

2. Zero proof. A claim of being “green” is not backed up with any kind of proof or certification to verify it. It was found that 26 per cent of products committed this sin.

3. Vagueness. Emphasizing one characteristic of a product that makes it appear green — i.e. it’s all-natural — but neglecting to point out that it’s still not good for the environment. It was found that 11 per cent committed this sin.

4. Irrelevance. A product claiming to be green when this aspect of the product does not distinguish it in the marketplace. For example, biodegradable coffee filters. This was seen in 4 per cent of products.

5. Flat out lying. I think this speaks for itself, but an example would be a company claiming to be certified organic or rated Energy Star when in fact it’s not. Fortunately less than 1 per cent committed this sin.

6. Lesser than two evils. That is, “evil” products like cigarettes, leaf blowers, Hummers, and bottled water that are given a green tweak to justify green marketing campaigns — i.e. organic cigarettes, electric leafblowers, hybrid Hummers and biodegradable plastic bottles.

I want to make clear that I see no problem with companies marketing their green activities to win votes from the buying public, as long as those companies are actually doing what they’re saying. Wal-Mart is, from what I can tell, really doing what it’s saying. Is General Electric? I believe it is to some degree, but when the company talks about its green product portfolio it’s not like it suddenly created green products. It basically did an inventory of what it has and decided it could get away with branding certain products green. I’m seeing this increasingly in cleantech marketing. Press release from companies that haven’t change their product at all but, because it incidentally improves efficiencies in some applications, gets promoted as clean tech.

It’s certainly making my job tougher. More press releases, more pitches, more information overload to filter through as I try to get a sense of what’s real, what’s just marketing, and what’s likely to have a measurable impact.

Perhaps it’s one of those good problems to have. But I have one warning to companies thinking about committing a greenwashing sin: watch out. It just might come back and bite you in the ass.

Update: I saw a news report last night saying that Canada’s fur industry is now branding itself as natural, green and eco-friendly compared to synthetic furs. Ridiculous!

It’s not like we never expected this would happen, but it’s a sad reality that many companies looking to jump on the “green” bandwagon are doing so in a deceptive fashion, going so far as to lie to customers about the eco-friendliness of their products. It’s far too easy to spot in the TV ads — SUVs driving on old-growth forest trails alongside deer and other wild animals; so-called organic shampoo made from natural ingredients (whatever that means); and major events (sports, awards, entertainment, etc.) claiming to be carbon offset just so everybody driving back home in their Porches and Hummers don’t feel guilty about screwing the planet. I always love the commercials from oil companies trying to emphasize their green initiatives, which are a tiny sliver of their overall spending (and, of course, you always see a token windmill in the background whenever an executive is speaking). Ugh.

A new study by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing sheds some light on this phenomenon called “greenwashing.” TerraChoice surveyed 1,018 consumer products — everything from toothpaste to caulking to printers — and found rampant greenwashing. How rampant? Of 1,753 green claims 99 per cent were bogus to some degree, committing one of what TerraChoice calls the Six Sins of Greenwashing.

The sins are:

1. Bad tradeoffs. In other words, you can claim something is green in one way — i.e. more energy efficient — but you neglect to mention that achieving this creates an offsetting sacrifice somewhere else, such as increased toxic materials. TerraChoice found that 57 per cent of products committed this sin.

2. Zero proof. A claim of being “green” is not backed up with any kind of proof or certification to verify it. It was found that 26 per cent of products committed this sin.

3. Vagueness. Emphasizing one characteristic of a product that makes it appear green — i.e. it’s all-natural — but neglecting to point out that it’s still not good for the environment. It was found that 11 per cent committed this sin.

4. Irrelevance. A product claiming to be green when this aspect of the product does not distinguish it in the marketplace. For example, biodegradable coffee filters. This was seen in 4 per cent of products.

5. Flat out lying. I think this speaks for itself, but an example would be a company claiming to be certified organic or rated Energy Star when in fact it’s not. Fortunately less than 1 per cent committed this sin.

6. Lesser than two evils. That is, “evil” products like cigarettes, leaf blowers, Hummers, and bottled water that are given a green tweak to justify green marketing campaigns — i.e. organic cigarettes, electric leafblowers, hybrid Hummers and biodegradable plastic bottles.

I want to make clear that I see no problem with companies marketing their green activities to win votes from the buying public, as long as those companies are actually doing what they’re saying. Wal-Mart is, from what I can tell, really doing what it’s saying. Is General Electric? I believe it is to some degree, but when the company talks about its green product portfolio it’s not like it suddenly created green products. It basically did an inventory of what it has and decided it could get away with branding certain products green. I’m seeing this increasingly in cleantech marketing. Press release from companies that haven’t change their product at all but, because it incidentally improves efficiencies in some applications, gets promoted as clean tech.

It’s certainly making my job tougher. More press releases, more pitches, more information overload to filter through as I try to get a sense of what’s real, what’s just marketing, and what’s likely to have a measurable impact.

Perhaps it’s one of those good problems to have. But I have one warning to companies thinking about committing a greenwashing sin: watch out. It just might come back and bite you in the ass.

Toronto-area company StormFisher Biogas has partnered up with Ontario winemaker Inniskillin on a venture that will see the seeds and skins of grapes — basically the by-product of winemaking — collected and processed in an anaerobic digester that will produce methane fuel. That renewable fuel will be burned in turbines to generate electricity, presumably to be sold into the Ontario grid through the standard offer program for 11 cents per kilowatt-hour. Vincor Canada, the parent company of Inniskillin, says the winemaker produces up to 2,000 tonnes of grape by-product annually.

StormFisher also has a partnership with Gordon Food Service Canada, a unit of North America’s largest privately held food distributor, which will have its food by-products converted to methane gas for power generation. Another partnership with Gencor Foods will see beef processing by-products generating electricity.

“Electricity producted from biogas brings about the dual benefit of inhibiting the release of methane — a greenhouse gas 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide — into the atmosphere while displacing energy production from non-renewable sources like coal,” according to a company background document.

StormFisher says it will develop 15 megawatts of generating capacity in its first five years — a modest goal, but certainly a model that could easily be replicated across Ontario and the rest of the country as other provinces introduce their own standard offer programs, which is inevitable.

My friend and colleague Eric Reguly, perhaps the best example of an environmental capitalist worried about his children’s future, wrote this column in the Globe and Mail about how, despite all our talk of renewables, conservation, and even nuclear, the demand and money is flowing to coal — a bad sign all around. A three-word summary of his article: we are screwed.

Hmmm… maybe we can all feel good about ourselves by applying for a new MBNA Canada credit card (MasterCard) that, instead of offering air miles on purchases, now offers carbon offset credits, “offering a simple way for consumers to reduce their environmental footprint.”

Simple, maybe… but reduce?!?! There is just something wrong about this. How can it be considered “reducing” by encouraging consumption under the illusion that we’re helping save the planet?

I have to say, these days I’m seeing less and less value in the concept of offsets, and worry that they may be making things worse, not better. To top it all off, the Ontario Power Authority is investigating how to measure and extract value from the CO2 emissions resulting from the province’s policies on renewables, conservation and perhaps even nuclear. It’s looking at carbon credits, among other options. But can we truly consider our policies and actions in Ontario green if we sell the green benefits to another jurisdiction? As others have pointed out to me, this smells of double accounting and would rob Ontarians of their green bragging rights.

Let’s hope the power authority is doing this purely as an intellectual exercise.

Okay, rant ends here…