The power of going green

A MACLEAN’S EXCLUSIVE: Employers are finding new purpose, and plenty of profit, in environmentalism

by Nancy Macdonald on Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:00pm - 2 Comments

Holden, who’s been a staunch supporter of alternative and renewable energy sources since taking the helm of Enmax in 2005, admits that, in Alberta, where the provincial government remains “strongly committed” to coal development if it can be made clean, he’s “really pushing against tradition.” Enmax, which last month announced $2.6 billion in revenues for 2008, and net earnings of $181.1 million, runs into “lots of opposition” when tabling plans for cleaner energy, he adds.

Still, Holden sees a future, 50 to 100 years from now, in which micro hydro stations, wind farms, solar panels and co-generation plants will gradually diminish the need for coal and nuclear power. “If you can conceptualize such a future in your mind, then it’s just a question of how to create policy to drive to that endgame.” Change, he says, “absolutely” has to be driven by utilities and power corporations.

“To say the electricity sector is changing dramatically is an understatement,” says Toronto Hydro president and CEO David O’Brien. The publicly owned utility will soon begin allowing consumers to sell locally generated power—such as wind, solar, photovoltaic (PV), renewable biomass, bio-gas, bio-fuel or landfill gas—“back into the grid.” By subsidizing solar panels and solar hot water heaters, he says, Ontario’s Green Energy Act is providing consumers with incentives to begin doing just that, he adds.

“The whole system of providing electricity is being re-thought,” says O’Brien, noting that the utility has now completed the installations of so-called “smart meters” in 88 per cent of Toronto homes. (The advanced meters, which detail consumption on an hourly basis, allow the utility to vary pricing according to hourly demand; it is believed that consumers will adjust their consumption habits accordingly, which may delay the need for new energy projects.)

“A major paradigm shift is under way,” says O’Brien. “Just don’t call it a greenhouse gas issue—even if you get greenhouse gas benefits,” says Holden. “Make sure it’s a conversation about conservation and efficiency.” De Jong agrees. The best environmental arguments he’s ever made in the Whistler boardroom he did without using the word “environment” at all. “We’re losing money,” he said. “Our brand is being diminished. We’re missing a great recruitment opportunity.” That’s how you sell it, he says. Avoid alarmism and “the motherhood pitches.”

However, De Jong admits that urgency may be more acutely felt at Whistler. The resort is already seeing the effects of climate change and glacial retreat, and has had to make adaptive changes: increasing its snow-making capacity and placing lifts on higher ground, he says. The resort is also doing summer grooming—flattening ski trails, removing boulders and other obstructions—so that, come winter, “it takes less snow to open runs.” In the worst case scenario, he says, the resort may have to look at land exchanges with the provincial government, trading lower acreage for higher, alpine glacier zones. “But we don’t want to go there.”

That’s what is motivating the resort-wide goal of achieving a net zero footprint within its operating area, he says. This year, the resort, which has an extensive recycling program in place, began composting in all restaurants and cafés, bringing down the amount of waste they send to the landfill by 60 per cent, with the ultimate goal of zero waste and zero carbon emission within 10 years.

That’s the kind of spirit that’s animating the 30 members of this year’s Greenest Employers list, and if it keeps up, the list will only get bigger in the years ahead.

Bookmark and Share
  • Pingback: The power of going green : Centre Flow

  • Ian

    Something the fact checkers missed. 540,000 tons of emissions does not equal taking 15,000 cars off the road. Maybe 150,000 cars would be more accurate? Why is it that journalists so frequently get their numbers wrong?

From Macleans