Skip to content

Beyond Carbon – Extending the Offset Market

Today there is a large and growing market for greenhouse gas (GHG) offsets.  Companies and individuals have a wide range of options for offsetting the GHG emissions of just about any process, from the fuel a global company burns to produce industrial machinery to the carbon cost of a cup of coffee.  Consumers and CEOs alike are becoming more conscious of the need to seek offsets of acceptable quality: projects that would not take place if the offset funding were not available, and meet international standards that verify the amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere.

But the current offset market focuses exclusively on greenhouse gases.  There are other environmental issues that are at just as important, but are not as yet being offset with internationally recognized credits.  Consider the following…

Other Environmental Issues

  • Deforestation is indirectly addressed through certain GHG offset projects because increasing the total forested area of the planet sequesters carbon.  However, the impact of deforestation is not limited to an increase in atmospheric CO2.  Removing trees from a region increases soil erosion and reduces evapotranspiration (the process by which trees return moisture to the air).  These effects cause desertification, which has a negative impact on regional populations.
  • Soil depletion can result from deforestation and from other effects–including conventional agriculture.  Overuse of fertilizers and pesticides damages the nutrient balance of the soil and kills microorganisms and invertebrates, gradually turning healthy, organic soil into sand and gravel.  This process, along with over-tilling and stubble burning, accelerates erosion and desertification.
  • Fresh water depletion has numerous causes.  Deforestation and soil depletion accelerate runoff, returning fresh water to the ocean more quickly.  Irrigation removes groundwater more quickly than it can be recharged.  If the irrigated land is polluted by excess fertilizer and pesticide, it is not usable.  If this polluted irrigation water sinks back through the soil, the entire aquifer can be rendered unusable as a supply of drinking water.  Use of fresh water for industrial processes can make it unavailable for biological processes, or harmful to life when it is released.
  • Biodiversity depletion results from climate change, pollution, crowding out by introduced species, and over-hunting, fishing, etc.  In particular, the pollution of farms by fertilizers and pesticides is destabilizing the population of bees and other pollinators, which is disrupting the growth of many plants.
  • Marine pollution is possibly the most serious problem facing the planet.  Well over half the photosynthesis on Earth occurs not in tropical rainforest, not in the vast boreal forest, but as a result of the growth of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) on the continental shelves.  The continental shelves are the areas most affected by industrial and agricultural pollution.  Virtually all industrial effluent dumped into every river or stream eventually reaches the ocean,* where dissolved substances diffuse into the ocean as a whole, and suspended particles sink to the bottom of the delta and concentrate over time.  The oceans used to be thought of as a vast abyss into which our emissions could disappear without a trace, but many of the pollutants that come from modern industry are accumulating in the oceans, destabilizing the ecological balance of marine life and of our atmosphere.

Eco-Credits – How to Quantify?

While it is true that the above problems and GHG emissions are interrelated, offsetting GHG emissions does not replace groundwater, restore soil, or reduce marine pollution.  To address these issues, new offset systems must be developed.  I envision a global market in Natural Capital (a term coined by E. F. Schumacher in 1973).  A system of “Eco credits” would emerge with clearly defined quantities: tonnes of CO2 equivalent (the current credit market), megaliters of fresh water, tonnes of healthy soil, hectares of afforestation, megaliters of diverted effluent, and some quantity of biodiversity increase.

Some of the above quantities are easy to imagine.  The number of hectares of afforestation is a straightforward quantity that is already used for GHG credit projects.  Quantities of fresh water and healthy soil would require maximum thresholds of contaminants.  Soil would also require minimum thresholds of organic content and invertebrate populations.  Diverted effluent would have to be wholly recycled or treated to the quality of incoming water.

But how can you quantify biodiversity?  How can a project guarantee a species is preserved, or that another will evolve?  If a company uses gene modification to create a new species, would that qualify as an increase in biodiversity?  Because of the level of complexity and uncertainty, biodiversity should certainly be the last quantity to enter the offset market.

Current Steps – Next Steps

While there is no global market for these quantities yet, work is being done by various organizations.  Since 1997, the country of Costa Rica has paid farmers not to harvest trees on their land, seeing the forests as “water factories”.  Mexico launched a similar project in 2003.  (See this article for details.)  Both countries have set their own arbitrary values for a hectare of forested land, so these projects would not qualify as verifiable credits, but it should be possible to study similar forested and deforested parcels of land to compare the amount of available fresh water that comes from each throughout the year.  Such a comparison would help develop a standard measurement for this particular ecosystem service.  Since a forest is a complex community of organisms, it would take some time to quantify all of the ecosystem services provided by one.

The Natural Capital Project, a joint venture of the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University, the Nature Conservancy, and the World Wildlife Fund, is a comprehensive attempt to quantify ecosystem services.  In other words, what does the biosphere do for us?  How much would it cost to provide these services ourselves?  The project works with governments around the world to promote an understanding of what the Earth does for us.  This project will most likely be the main source of defined quantities for the new offset market when it emerges, although defining marketable credits is not its mission.

When will we see the emergence of comprehensive eco-credits?  The carbon market has ballooned from its definition under the Kyoto Protocol in 1995 to a thriving market today.  A comprehensive eco-credit system would be much more complex, and take a lot of effort to design (and more effort to achieve consensus on international standards).  But the carbon trading market will serve as a framework around which to build the new system.  Companies that start planning for a general eco-credit system today will have a considerable advantage in the marketplace ten years from now.

If your company is interested in participating in such a system, or if you are already working toward one, please comment below, or send me an e-mail.

—-
*The exceptions would be suspended particles that sink to the bottom of lakes and remain in the soil, and effluent that reaches the world’s few inland deltas.

Posted in Global Issues.

No comments

By geobeck – March 18, 2010

Why Deceive Your Customers?

When shaping sustainability plans or corporate social responsibility strategies, companies usually focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing pollution, and ensuring that their products are produced without using child labour.  But corporate social responsibility goes beyond that.  It means being responsible to your customers as well as your supply chain.

This principle sounds obvious, but it’s easy to find examples of companies deceiving their customers to make their products more attractive–and it’s not just the stereotypical ’slimy’ salespeople who practice deceptive marketing.  Just the other day, I was in the produce section of my local Marketplace IGA.  I glanced at the prices of the various types of mushrooms: White mushrooms, $3.49; Oyster mushrooms, $2.99, Shitake mushrooms, $1.49.  It looked like a great deal on the more exotic types until I read the fine print.  The white mushrooms were priced per pound, while the other types were priced per hundred grams.  The intent to deceive was made obvious by the fact that the unit of measure was in very small print.

I used Marketplace IGA as an example, but I’ve seen similar pricing practices at Safeway, Save On Foods, and Superstore, where various bulk items are priced per hundred grams, per pound, or per kilogram, whichever unit of measure makes the item look less expensive.  Sometimes the unit of measure is written in a large, clear font, but the initial impression of the number is what an average shopper will see.  The effect?  The initial sale is made, but the shopper will wonder why the total price is so big, and probably not buy the item again.

Sell today, alienate tomorrow is not a sustainable sales strategy.  Honest pricing may deter initial sales to frugal shoppers, but it will not deter repeat customers who will feel cheated by dishonest pricing.  The mantra of business should not be to make a sale at all costs, but to create a profitable, lasting relationship with the customer.

Don’t get me started on cell phone carriers…

Posted in Corporate Social Responsibility, social responsibility.

Tagged with , , .

No comments

By geobeck – February 21, 2010

The Big Picture: Powered Bicycles

I was walking up the street the other day when a powered bicycle put-putted past me up the hill.  The owner was probably secure in the knowledge that he was helping reduce traffic congestion and his environmental impact.  If so, he would only be partially right.

Bicycles certainly reduce traffic congestion.  And they’re great for your health as long as you don’t use the motor for your whole trip.  But power-assisted bicycles aren’t as environmentally friendly as you might think.

Emissions from gasoline-powered engines can be separated into two main types:  greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and criteria air contaminants (CAC).  GHG emissions from gasoline engines consist mainly of carbon dioxide.  CAC emissions include carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and various substances that result from the partial combustion of the fuel.

The amount of GHG and CAC produced by a gasoline engine is determined by the amount of fuel burned, and the efficiency of the engine.  That’s where the similarities end.  CAC emissions can have nasty immediate effects on a local scale, creating smog, increasing the incidence of athsma attacks, causing respiratory distress in the elderly, among other effects.  The effect of GHG emissions is long-term and global, contributing to climate change.

CAC emissions can be reduced by using devices placed in a vehicle’s exhaust system.  For decades now, most engines have had catalytic converters that scrub most of the emissions from the exhaust that leaves the engine.  Producing cleaner fuels and making engines run more efficiently also reduce CAC emissions.  Unfortunately, there is no ’scrubber’ for carbon dioxide.  Carbon dioxide is the simplest substance that can result from burning a carbon-based fuel.  In fact, reducing CAC emissions by making engines more efficient increases the amount of carbon dioxide produced.

Therefore, while GHG and CAC emissions both increase with the amount of fuel burned, GHG emissions are greater for larger engines regardless of the emissions controls on the engine.  So small engines are always better, right?

Wrong!  Small engines can be much, much worse than large engines for short-term local pollution because engines under a certain size are not regulated under laws that require emissions controls (at least in Canada).  In fact, the 50cc scooter or power-assisted bicycle you see driving up Main Street tomorrow is probably emitting more than a hundred times as many CAC emissions as the Hummer racing past it.

Being green on the road is not as easy as it seems.  Evaluating alternative modes of transportation involves more than just the amount of fuel you burn.  If a large number of people traded in their cars for scooters and power-assisted bicycles, traffic congestion and GHG emissions would be reduced drastically, but our cities would become enveloped in deadly smog.

If you want to commute as cleanly as possible, walk, take public transit, ride a muscle-powered bicycle, or ride a motorcycle if you have a longer commute.  Drive your car if you have to, but find tips on how to drive as efficiently as possible.

More information about on-and off-road engine emissions is available through the following links:

Posted in Public Service Announcement.

Tagged with , , .

No comments

By geobeck – February 18, 2010

Product Review: Mother’s Choice Natural Hard Surface Cleaner

This product is just about the only thing I use to clean my bathroom.  According to the company website, it was originally intended as an oven cleaner so I tried it as such for the first time tonight.  It made short work of most of the minor stains in the oven, and only had trouble with one.  I let it soak into that stain for about a half hour, then applied some elbow grease, and the stain came off fairly easily.  On the other hand, my oven is quite new.  An older oven with tougher stains would probably require more effort.

But the characteristic that sets Mother’s Choice apart from other oven cleaners is what it’s made of, and how safe it is to use.  When cleaning my bathroom or oven, I don’t wear rubber gloves, goggles, or a mask, and I don’t worry about opening all the windows to ventilate the harsh chemicals found in most oven cleaners, and many bathroom cleaners.  The active ingredients in Mother’s Choice are plant-derived enzymes, which attack stains as effectively as the most caustic cleaning agents, but without significant respiratory and dermatological hazards.

The one significant downside to Pink Solution/Earthcare’s products is the lack of information on them.  They do not disclose specific ingredients, although they do publish a material safety data sheet (MSDS, PDF format) that states that the product contains “No Reportable Hazardous Ingredients”.  A conversation with a company representative several years ago revealed that one of the important ingredients in Pink Solution and Mother’s Choice is soda ash, a food-safe substance that is used to increase the pH of the cleaner, enhancing its cleaning power.

However, despite the lack of any claims of sustainable sourcing or fair trade, Pink Solution’s social responsibility is evident because of the safety of their products – safe for you to use, safe for your kids and pets to be around, and safe for the planet.  Price-wise, Mother’s Choice is very competitive.  A single container will last a long time, and will replace several of your current surface cleaners, including your very hazardous oven cleaner.

Responsibility Score

Environmental: Very good
Social: Very good
Quality: Very good
Price: Very good

Overall rating: Very good

Location

Pink Solution/Earthcare is located in North Vancouver, BC.  Zoom out for other Buy Right map locations.

View Buy Right map locations in a larger map

Posted in Product Reviews.

Tagged with , , , , .

No comments

By geobeck – June 15, 2009

Product Review: Method Squeaky Green Laundry Detergent

In a world where customers are accustomed to thinking that a larger package for the same price always equals greater value, it’s refreshing to see the revolution that has occurred in recent years thanks to companies like Method.  Today it’s difficult to find laundry soap that isn’t labelled as ‘concentrated’.  In this area, Method still leads the way.  Method Squeaky Green laundry detergent is very concentrated.  A 946 mL (32 fl oz) bottle is labelled as providing 32 loads, dispensed in a cap-cup that looks little larger than a thimble.

The benefit of highly concentrating any product is that you can ship it more efficiently.  A typical non-concentrated laundry detergent is mostly water.  It costs as much to ship a kilogram of water as it does to ship a kilogram of soap, but shipping extra water with the product has no benefit because the customer already has as much water as he or she needs – the valuable part of the product is the detergent.  A detergent concentrated three times requires three times less energy to ship per washload (which is the important quantity).  That means a third of the greenhouse gas emissions, and importantly for the producer, a third of the shipping cost.

A bottle of Method laundry detergent is considerably small than a bottle of non-concentrated laundry soap.  Although this means more packaging per liter of product, the result is less packaging per washload.  The bottle of Method laundry detergent I recently bought is made of ordinary polyethelene (used to make many plastic products) in a thin sleeve of polyethylene terephthalate (used to make soda pop bottles).  These are petrochemical plastics that require crude oil to produce, and the bottle is not marked as being produced from recycled plastic.

According to a recent article in Worldchanging, however, the company has begun to use recyclable and recycled plastic bags for many of its products.  There is no mention of whether the company plans to use bioplastics, but apparently the life cycle analysis they performed concluded that virgin plastic bags were the most environmentally efficient packaging to use.

Inside the package, the detergent itself is almost completely plant-derived.  The bottle lists all ingredients, and what plants most of them are derived from. including soy, coconut, and corn.  The last ingredient on the list (indicating the smallest amount) is purified water.

What Method does not say, on the package or on their website, is the relationship between the hardness of your local water and the effectiveness of a detergent.  Hard water reduces the effectiveness of soap, so detergent makers prescribe a dose for the worst-case scenario in their marketing area.  If you live on the Canadian prairies, or the American Great Plains, your water is probably sufficiently hard that you need a full dose as indicated on the detergent package.

However, if you live on the West Coast, you probably have much softer water.  For example, in Vancouver, BC, the municipal water is soft enough that you only need about half the amount prescribed on your detergent package; in fact, using a full dose will result in unrinsed soap residue in your laundry.  Thus if you live in an area with soft water, your one-liter bottle of Method detergent will probably last closer to 64 loads.

Half a cap full of Method Squeaky Green laundry detergent has plenty to clean any load of laundry I’ve used it for, although I do need to use more to pre-treat stains.  As a stain treatment, it has been effective against average food stains, but not so effective against heavy grease or heavily pigmented food stains.

Other highlights of Method’s products, according to their website:

  • Safety is one of their guiding principles.  Ceaning your house effectively should not harm your health.
  • They have employed a designer to make their product packaging stand out on the shelves, while still being efficient.
  • Method believes that flowers, not chlorine or ammonia, should be the fragrance associated with cleanliness.
  • They employ environmental scientists and toxicologists to ensure that their products are both safe and effective.

Responsibility Rating

Environmental: Very good
Social: Very good
Quality: Excellent
Price: Excellent
Overall Rating: Excellent

Location

The map below shows the location of Method’s headquarters.  Zoom out for other Buy Right map locations.


View Buy Right map locations in a larger map

Posted in Product Reviews.

Tagged with , , , , , , , .

No comments

By geobeck – June 7, 2009

How to Avoid Greenwashing

Green is in.  Most companies, from small local businesses to multinational giants, know that an increasing number of customers are concerned with how they interact with the environment and with people around the world.  The result has been a barrage of green claims on corporate websites, press releases, and corporate reports.

Not all green claims are valid, but many of the invalid green claims are not intentionally deceptive.  Companies try so hard to appear green, they will inadvertently claim they are being environmentally responsible in situations where they really shouldn’t.

Here are a few examples of invalid green claims:

  • Following the law. If your company reduces its pollution to the amount required by law, you can’t claim your compliance as a green initiative.  Even if your competitors are getting away with non-compliance because they haven’t been caught, being less bad isn’t the same as being good.  However, if you maintain a higher standard in one area because it’s the law in another area, that’s a valid claim.
    For example, if the law says you have to use ultra-low-sulfur diesel in your on-road fleet, and you decide to use the same quality fuel in your off-road equipment, where you don’t have to, you can claim environmental responsibility for exceeding the standard in your off-road equipment.
  • When it’s really the other green. If you initiate a project to save money, and there is an incidental environmental benefit, you can claim that benefit only if you also state the economic benefit in your promotional materials.
    For example, many hotels tell you that they are being green by only washing the towels you put in the tub, and not the ones you hang on the rack.  What they usually don’t tell you about is the thousands of dollars they save in reduced laundry costs.  It is true that the reduced energy from doing laundry benefits the environment, but not telling you that it saves them money is deceptive, making this practice a very literal example of greenwashing.
  • When green here causes brown there. It’s too easy to focus on one way of being green and neglect other areas.  But it’s important to determine the full life cycle cost of your environmental or social improvement because of the complex interconnections between different environmental issues.
    For example, there is a company in Florida that sells water in bottles made of polylactic acid (PLA), a type of bioplastic.  The bottles are fully biodegradable, so from a waste perspective, they appear to be a responsible product.  But the main feedstock for PLA in the United States is corn, and in other parts of the world it’s sugar cane, so producing more PLA will compete with food crops, raising the price of food, and encouraging slash-and-burn agriculture to grow more.  Furthermore, these single-serving bottles are square, making them inconvenient to take on-the-go, which is the only reasonable place to use a single-serving bottle.
  • Claim jumping. You can’t claim someone else’s environmental benefit as your own, even if it results in better environmental performance for your company.
    For example, if your electrical utility shuts down a coal power plant because it has filled the demand using green power, your company’s indirect carbon emissions will be reduced as a result.  This reduction belongs in your annual report, but with an explanation that it results entirely from the electrical utility’s actions.  And you certainly shouldn’t send out a press release saying that your company reduced your carbon emissions by that amount.

To put a positive spin on this article, here are some dos to go along with the above don’ts:

  • Do follow the law, but more importantly, anticipate future legal requirements.  If your company complies with environmental regulations before they come into force, you will have a competitive advantage.  If you go one step further, and shape your environmental policies to comply with laws that may be passed in the future, you will be in the powerful position of helping shape future laws.  After all, if the government sees that you can be that green, and still be competitive, they’ll see it as reasonable that other companies can too.  And when they’re forced to do what you’ve already done, they’ll come to you for advice.
  • Do introduce energy efficiency programs that have both an economic and an ecological benefit.  But make sure you state both benefits when you publicize your results.
  • Do examine the full life cycle costs of your green programs, and choose initiatives that have the largest net positive benefit.  If you realize that one project isn’t as beneficial as you thought, it might give you ideas for a project you wouldn’t have thought of if you hadn’t explored the first one.
  • Do acknowledge the environmental successes of your partners – and if the benefit is great enough, offer to participate in their projects.  Often they will achieve a greater benefit than they would without your help, which will increase your indirect environmental benefit.

By following the steps above, you can turn a potential greenwash into a greater environmental success story.

Posted in Corporate Social Responsibility.

Tagged with , , , , .

No comments

By geobeck – June 1, 2009

Product Review: ReaLemon Lemon Juice

This is just a quick review of an ordinary product that has recently introduced a new twist.

I was at the supermarket tonight shopping for laundry soap when I noticed something out of place in the juice aisle.  ReaLemon is currently packaging a spray nozzle with its 945 mL bottles of lemon juice, along with a booklet explaining how to use lemon juice as a household cleaner.

This is a brilliant marketing idea that is also environmentally responsible.  Many household cleaners contain petroleum products (a non-renewable resource that is a huge source of greenhouse gases), ammonia (highly toxic, and plays havoc with older municipal water treatment systems), chlorine (don’t get me started on chlorine!), and other harmful chemicals.  ReaLemon’s product is 100% lemon juice from concentrate.

The downside is that the package contains no information about sustainable sourcing of the lemons, support for organic agriculture, fair trade, or other responsible business practices.  But substituting lemon juice for any of the chemicals above in your daily cleaning is definitely a positive step.

The best part is that ReaLemon didn’t have to change their product at all.  It’s already 100% natural and biodegradable, and therefore very responsible.

Responsibility Score:

Environmental: Very good
Social: No claims evident
Quality: Very good
Price: Very good
Overall rating: Good

Posted in Product Reviews.

Tagged with , .

No comments

By geobeck – May 20, 2009

Product Review: Navitas Naturals Cacao Power

Like the organicfair chocolate bars in my previous review, this is definitely not your average supermarket chocolate.  But while organicfair specializes in providing unique flavour combinatons, Navitas Naturals aims to provide ’superfoods’ in their purest, raw form.

I sampled a number of Navitas Naturals products at EPIC, but I completely fell in love with their raw cacao.  Being raw, this line of products (raw powder, nibs, and whole beans) is not for those who only crave sweet chocolate.  It has a sharp taste that many would find bitter.  But as you chew raw chocolate, the rich aroma fills your sinuses in a way that true chocolate lovers dream about, without the distraction of excvessive sweetness.  For those who prefer a bit of sweetness in their chocolate, Navitas Naturals also sells cacao nibs lightly sweetened with cane sugar.

Price-wise, Navitas Naturals products are actually quite competitive when purchased in bulk.  I bought a 454 gram (1 pound) bag of raw cacao nibs for $18 CAD at EPIC (regular website price is $18 USD).  At this price, the cacao nibs are almost 30% cheaper than the fair trade chocolate bars I usually buy.

Navitas Naturals has several goals in producing and distributing their products:

Provide foods that contain essential nutrients in their natural form. Over the last few decades, North Americans have consumed an increasingly processed diet, with essential nutrients destroyed during the processing.  The reaction of our techo-industrialized society has been to provide nutritional supplements as pills, with each nutrient pure and isolated.

More recently, researchers have discovered that certain nutrients cannot be absorbed in isolation; for example, calcium cannot be absorbed without magnesium.  Fortunately, the nutrient combinations your body is able to absorb tend to be found in raw, natural foods, which are packed with flavonoids, phytonutrients, and the vitamins they support.

Support ethical trade and food production. Navitas Naturals sources their products from individual growers around the world.  By not going through commodities brokers whose only concern is finding the lowest price for jobbers and distributors, the company provides steady support for organic agriculture and fair trade, and provides reliable employment for indigenous peoples in the countries where their products are grown.

Conduct an environmentally responsible business. By supporting organic agriculture, Navitas Naturals helps increase the amount of agricultural land that is free from synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.  This reduces the greenhouse gas footprint of the farms, and eliminates the harmful pollution typical of industrialized agriculture.

Educate customers in the preparation of natural, raw foods. The Navitas Naturals website includes an extensive list of recipes featuring their products.  Browsing this section reveals enticing creations such as Chocolate Moose, Acai Catsup, and Crispy Chocolate Chip Cookies.

In addition to cacao, Navitas Naturals’ product line includes goji, acai, chia, camu, flax, goldberries, mulberries, hemp, and more.  See their website for their entire product line.

Responsibility rating

Environmental: Excellent
Social: Excellent
Quality: Excellent
Pricing: Excellent
Overall rating: Truly Excellent!

Location

The map below shows Navitas Naturals’ California and BC locations (in addition to other Buy Right map locations)


View Buy Right map locations in a larger map

Posted in Product Reviews.

Tagged with , , , , , , .

1 comment

By geobeck – May 18, 2009

Product Review: organicfair chocolate

Pure chocolate decadence. That’s the best way to describe the chiapas chocolate bar I bought while I was at EPIC. I’ve been rationing the bar, savouring each rich, spicy mouthful, but I finally finished the last rich, dark square this morning.

This is not your average supermarket chocolate.  There is no hydrogenated oil, lecithin, artificial flavour or colour.  The ingredient list on organicfair chocolate is short and simple, and full of asterisks that indicate the ingredients are certified organic (certified by Pro-Cert Organic, Canada’s primary organic certification board).

The chiapas bar in particular is a powerful combination of flavours, spiced with cinammon, cardamom, and chipotle chile.  As the description on the website indicates, this chocolate bites back!

organicfair does offer two plain varieties of chocolate: a 70% cacao purist bar and an 83% forte variety.  But what makes this company’s chocolate stand out is the wide variety of unique and exquisite flavour combinations, from the silk road variety with peppermint and mandarin, to the provence bar with lavender, rosemary and sweet orange, to the kashmir bar with masala chai essences.  These bars will take you on a flavourful journey to destinations you never anticipated.

organicfair makes its chocolate bars and other products by hand at its farm near Cobble Hill, British Columbia, north of Victoria (see map below).  They grow many of the ingredients they use, and ethically source their other ingredients locally and abroad.  Their commitment to fair trade is shown by the Direct Fair Trade Fund logo on their products, signifying that 1% of their sales revenue contributes the the fund, which helps develop fair trade around the world. In addition to their organic ingredients, their commitment to environmental sustainability is shown by the 1% for the Planet logo, indicating that 1% of their sales revenue contributes to environmental projects around the world.

Of course, this level of quality does come with a price.  A 72 gram chocolate bar is $4.75 CAD, making it slightly more expensive than the fair trade chocolate I usually buy at the grocery store.  (It’s significantly more expensive than a Snickers bar, but mass-market candy bars are really not a valid comparison, as they contain little cocoa and much filler.)

So what does the extra $1 per 100 grams compared to a Cocoa Camino or Endangered Species bar buy you?  It buys you some of the highest quality chocolate you’ll find anywhere, and certainly the most unique, wonderfully surprising flavour combinations you’ve ever tasted in a chocolate bar.  If you’re on Vancouver Island, pay them a visit at their farm, or order their chocolate and other products from their online store.

Responsibility rating

Environmental: Excellent
Social: Excellent
Quality: Excellent
Pricing: Very Good
Overall rating: Excellent

Location

The map below shows the location of organicfair’s farm on Vancouver Island. Zoom out for other Buy Right map locations.


View Buy Right map locations in a larger map

Posted in Product Reviews.

Tagged with , , , , , , .

2 comments

By geobeck – May 18, 2009

EPIC Redux – What’s coming at Buy Right

I spent most of the afternoon at EPIC today, and talked to a lot of representatives of truly responsible businesses.  In general, I was very impressed, more so than at last year’s exhibition.  I came home with a bag full of information and products, some of which I will feature on these pages in the coming weeks.

I also had a long chat with Adrienne Carr of the Green Party of Canada.  In North America, the Green Party suffers from a considerable public misconception that it is a one-issue party, or “a bunch of environmental nuts”, as someone I know said.  I would encourage everyone who thinks of the Green Party only as the party of the environment to read the information on the websites of the Green Party of Canada and the Green Party of BC.  For those in other provinces (or states, or countries), the Wikipedia article on the Green Party is a good place to find more information on the Green Party in your region.

Here is a list of the Responsible Companies I may feature in coming weeks:

  • Bokashi Cycle – Produces an anaerobic ‘composting’ system that ferments organic waste, resulting in a soil amendment more easily degraded in soil than aerobic compost.
  • Ha-Ra – Produces environmentally friendly, non-toxic cleaning products.  The company’s founder, Hans Raab, is the inventor of the microfiber cloth.
  • Green Planet Parties – Produces durable, reusable goods for children’s parties.
  • Honey Candles – Produces 100% beeswax candles.
  • Level Ground Trading – Imports organic, fair trade coffee from specific plantations in Africa.
  • Manitoba Harvest Hemp Foods and Oils – Produces naturally grown and certified organic hemp products.
  • Navitas Naturals – Produces ’superfoods’ from traditional Central- and South American seeds, nuts, and fruits.
  • organicfair – Produces organic, fair trade chocolate, herbs & spices, coffee and tea, and body care products.
  • Rain Coast Trading – Produces sustainably harvested tuna and salmon.
  • Saje Natural Wellness – Produces aromatherapy products for health and well-being
  • Salt Spring Coffee – Imports organic, fair trade coffee from specific plantations around the world.
  • Translink – Greater Vancouver’s transportation authority, responsible for the regions roads, bridges, and public transit.

Watch for reviews of these companies coming soon – and if you have experience with any of the companies featured at this year’s EPIC expo, e-mail me; I’d love to add your experience to my review!

Posted in Buy Right Site News, Events.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , .

1 comment

By geobeck – May 9, 2009