100 quick facts on water...

"Water is life". These words have been echoed by hydrologists, conservationists, authors, bloggers, journalists, economists, academics and activists. More and more professionals are beginning to articulate the importance of conserving this natural resource for future generations. With uncertainty around climate change and continuing population growth, we know that the total amount of water available per person will inevitably decrease in the coming years.

Here in North America, we are quite profligate with our water consumption. The average Canadian uses 343 litres of water per day. That is absurd considering that the Israelis consume 135 litres per person per day and the Swedish, 200 litres. The geography of water resources does dictate water availability. For instance, water consumption is higher in Canada than in Israel because of the Great Lakes and ubiquity of rivers, streams, smaller lakes and aquifers. Israel has no water and has turned to the Mediterranean Sea for desalination (that process where salt water is converted into fresh drinking water).

Geography is critical, however, I think policy is just as important. If we are wanting to become more serious about water conservation in Canada over the next 25 years, policy is going to have to take an aggressive approach in pushing water metering, by-laws and incentives for residents to decrease their total amount of water use. Yes, it is true, Canada does have lots of water; 20% of the world's fresh water to be exact. Do not however, let this number deceive you as we only have 7% of the world's renewable fresh water- water that is naturally recycled through the water cycle.

4 months into my thesis project, and I have already learned so much more about this natural resource. Environment Canada has 100 facts about water that are quite revealing and informative. Some of these facts include:

1)Only 0.3% of total global fresh water is stored in lakes and rivers.
2)Fifty percent of the world's wetlands have been lost since 1900.
3)Almost two billion people were affected by natural disasters in the last decade of the 20th century, 86% of them by floods and droughts.
4)Annually, Canada's rivers discharge 7% of the world's renewable water supply – 105 000 cubic metres per second.
5)Almost 9%, or 891 163 square kilometers, of Canada's total area is covered by fresh water.

There are 95 more available at this Environment Canada link.

Key message: Water is life.

Carbon pricing vs. feed-in-tariffs: How should we really be spurring development of renewables in Canada?

Much praise has been given for Ontario’s Feed-in-Tariff program and its potential to develop renewable power generation to levels comparable in countries like Germany and Denmark, where FITs have also been used. But some have commented that a carbon pricing system (either through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system) would be far more effective. They are only half right.

They are right because a FIT is very expensive. Indeed, Ontario’s Green Energy Act has allocated $5B over the next five years, much of which will be put towards its FIT program. A carbon pricing system, on the other hand, is relatively cheap to maintain and (if done properly) a revenue generator. These people are also right because it effects traditional energy production, specifically fossil fuel generation like gas, oil and coal. The price of generation of these technologies increases and makes renewables more economically attractive. Moreover, for those with a particular appetite for freedom of choice, it doesn’t let governments pick and choose the technologies it wants. Indeed, the market decides.

In his book, Heat, George Monbiot struggles to find out how renewables alone could supply our current demand for energy. In short, they can’t. A carbon-pricing scheme would make energy conservation more attractive because we’d have to pay extra for wasting energy. Furthermore, even if we can’t get to the energy demand levels required for purely renewable power generation, a carbon-pricing system could make carbon capture and storage technologies economically viable without massive public subsidies.

But they are wrong because a carbon-pricing scheme alone won’t solve the problem of developing renewables. First, if the market has its way, only the cheapest renewables would get built, most likely hydro and on-shore wind power. But several other technologies would get left out in the dust. Solar PV, wave, tidal, offshore wind and even some biofuels wouldn’t be able to compete. This is not to say these technologies are not beneficial, but rather that they are immature. Considering that many in the renewable energy field believe we need a diverse mix of all technologies to properly reap the rewards of renewable energy, a carbon-pricing scheme might leave us with only a few options.

This would be fine if there were moving water and windy areas everywhere. But some places are very sunny and dry, some have massive tidal flows and other places really, really hate wind turbines. Specific technologies need to be brought up to par and sometimes a direct and exclusive financial incentive (ex. A technology-specific FIT) is necessary. And if you’re smart about it, like Ontario is trying to be, you can invest in the technology now and export it to the rest of the world for a nice chunk of change. Look at Vestas in Denmark, for example.

Now, it wouldn’t really matter what technology you picked if the carbon price was high enough. As long as a technology can make some money, it will be put into use. The problem is that we would need some very high carbon prices.

According to a New Energy Finance study mentioned in The Economist, onshore wind requires a carbon price of US$38/tonne to become economically viable without subsidy. This is not an outlandish price. Carbon taxes in some European countries are over US$100/tonne, so it isn’t politically impossible. But before you get too excited, let’s remember that Stephane Dion’s Green Shift platform ran alongside a $10/tonne tax on carbon and it was demolished. Even the relative success story of British Columbia’s carbon tax is fraught with political opposition, and it’s only hovering around the $15/tonne mark these days. The only large-scale attempt at setting a carbon price is the European Union’s Emissions-Trading-Scheme, which has the price set at US$22/tonne. These prices might eventually get around the $40/tonne mark, but that won’t do it for the more expensive technologies. Offshore wind requires a price of US$136/tonne and solar PV US$196/tonne. You want to set a carbon price to make that economically viable? Good luck.

But this entire post has offered us a false choice. What we really need is both a carbon price and subsidy programs. A price on carbon is absolutely necessary, even if it is as small as $10/tonne. It will at least give some indication to industry and consumers so they can include the carbon costs in their accounts. And any revenues taken from it can go towards subsidies. What’s really needed is the political will and more importantly, public recognition and understanding of why a price on carbon is needed and the necessity of renewable energy technologies.

Finally, I’ll end with a piece of advice frequently used by George Monbiot. No matter what we do to help out renewables or fight climate change, it’s all worthless if we keep feeding the fossil fuel industry with tax breaks and subsidies. Monbiot equates it to filling yourself up on fatty, unhealthy foods, but adding a salad and not expecting to gain any weight. But right now, we’re getting pretty fat.

Another bad movie about climate change...

Several years ago, the world had the pleasure of witnessing the potential calamities of climate change for $10 and a popcorn when The Day After Tomorrow came to theatres. That blockbuster saw cataclysmic storms and the flooding of New York City after the global ocean conveyor suddenly shut down. Chaos ensued, Dennis Quaid had to rescue Jake Gyllenhaal and in an ironic twist, the surviving Americans had to escape to Mexico.

This evening I encountered another climate change movie that was a little less blockbuster but just as doom and gloom. Released in 2006, The Last Winter is set in a remote Alaskan monitoring station. After an oil company finds a mammoth supply of oil under the permafrost somewhere in Alaska, they are forced to bring in a group of environmentalists to measure the potential environmental impact of drilling on the 'pristine' landscape. The environmentalists clash with the rugged oil company folk (led by Ron Perlman, though this time not donning his Hellboy look), but soon things start to get weird once one of the workers ends up frozen and naked by a mysterious oil pipe.

Now, before I go any further, I'll caution those that have any desire to see this film that I might give some of it away below. Read at your peril. But seriously, you shouldn't waste your time with the movie...

What seems to be happening is the permafrost is warming in Alaska at an exponential rate and perhaps some 'Sour Gas' is leaking. Then more things go wrong, people go crazy, lots of folks die and the last few seem to figure out that what is coming after them is an old dark spirit known by the Inuit as a Windigo, which in the movie is glowing green and resembles some kind caribou on steroids. More people die and some get lit on fire.

Eventually, the last survivor wakes up in a hospital bed somewhere else in Alaska, only to find the small medical station inhabited by a TV showing massive flooding in North America and the hanging corpse of a doctor that committed suicide. She goes outside and is standing in a major puddle with alarms going off. End scene.

We can only infer that it's the end of the world. After all, the film's tagline is "What if mankind only had one season left on Earth?". It was pretty depressing. I mean, you didn't see her escaping to Mexico.

The film's main message seemed to be twofold. First, whenever climate change hits us, it will hit us hard and it will be bad. Second, it carried a narrative of nature striking back against us, both in its weather-related form with lots of melting and in its spiritual giant caribou form.

Despite the clear budget differences between this and The Day After Tomorrow, Hollywood still seems to only be able to pull off alarmist climate change movies. If I were in the business, I would too. Copenhagen conferences and G8 meetings probably wouldn't make for box-office hits. Then again, throw in Denzel Washington as Barack Obama and add a few plot twists involving him kicking serious global public policy ass, and you might have something.

At least this movie wasn't as blatant about the climate change stuff until the end. But it still sucked. A lot. Don't watch it.

Domestic content requirements might be a pain, but Ontario needs them...

Ontario’s Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) program is one of the world’s most ambitious clean energy subsidy programs. Indeed, some of the rates it will pay for renewable electricity can hardly be found anywhere else in the world.

Of course, Ontario is not a pioneer in this regard. Unsurprisingly, the Europeans – who seem to do everything better than us in North America, at least when it comes to energy – have been expanding their renewable industries using FITs for a few decades. Wind and solar have seen significant expansion in Germany & Denmark using this economic tool, despite the relative lack of the necessary energy inputs (i.e. they are not the windiest or sunniest places on Earth).

Spain also toyed with a FIT to expand its solar photovoltaic industry in 2007. It offered 44 euro cents per kWh produced (~ CDN$0.66) and expected a growth of installed capacity around the 400 MW mark by 2010. The FIT was intended for projects of less than 100 kW, but developers quickly found a loophole and built several modules of 100 kW installations. Before the Spanish government knew what hit them, approximately 3 GW had been built and a lot more money needed to be doled out than had been allotted. The program fell apart shortly thereafter as the government lowered the FIT price significantly and ultimately made any new solar PV development uneconomical.

But it wasn’t economics alone that killed the program. Politically, it was a less than stellar subsidy. The FIT had no limits on where the solar PV panels had to come from and as a result the FIT unintentionally provided a boon to the German and Chinese manufacturers of solar panels, which lead the world in solar PV construction. While it also aided the domestic manufacturers in Spain, the Spanish government found itself footing the bill for a program that was helping its competing manufacturers in Germany & China, whose governments got to benefit free of charge.

That is the thing with subsidies. Since the taxpayers of a country ultimately pay for subsidies, they should be the ones who benefit. And politically, they are nice and easy. It is much easier to hand money out than take it away. So sometimes the policies guiding the subsidy are not completely thought out.

Ontario is aiming not to make this mistake. First, it is not guaranteeing FITs for every renewable producer. You first have to sign a contract with the government, thus allowing them to keep track of installed capacity. But what is more, it has placed stringent domestic content requirements on its subsidized solar PV projects. Currently, 50% of a project has to be from Ontario – this can include everything from the actual panels themselves, the installers, the feasibility analyses or even the bolts tying the panels down. According to some solar PV installers I’ve spoken with in Ontario, projects can barely meet the requirements, almost exclusively because there are no major PV panel manufacturers in Ontario. The idea with the requirement is to attract a manufacturer to set up shop in Ontario knowing the market will be there to sell. What will really provide the incentive is that in 2011, 60% of a project will need to be domestically sourced, which without a major domestic manufacturer will be impossible.

One company, Canadian Solar – which, despite its name and Canadian ownership does nothing in Canada -- has already answered the call and will be building a multimillion dollar plant capable of producing 200 MW of panels annually. But like Rome, these plants don’t get built in a day.

For now, it is a pain in the ass for solar PV developers in Ontario, but it is absolutely necessary if Ontario is to get the biggest bang for its buck and kick any free riders off its subsidy train.

Happy Holidays.

Who will history hold accountable for climate change?...

The climate change conference in Copenhagen is looking to be a bust. Without anything but a broad and unambitious target and a series of commitments to a potential $100B adaptation fund, the years of preparation, money and expectations have amounted to almost nothing -- pending some last minute super-deal.

The protests will continue. Environmental groups will hand out evermore awards to the world's worst polluters. The news might even give it some noteworthiness until Tiger's next disaster. Some delegates will go home uninspired and deflated, while some others will be happy to have that big climate thing out of the way. And the residents of Copenhagen will come out of their homes and finally be able to enjoy their pints of Carlsberg in peace.

Let's put on our doom and gloom hats for a second and fast forward fifty years.

Despite the efforts of local communities and regional governments, global emissions have scarcely fallen as a global agreement could never be hatched and short-term economic and trade interests proved dominant. Global temperatures have increased dramatically. Sea-walls are now among the main exports of the EU as fast-paced climate change adaptation measures are taken all over the world. Mitigation is a word forgotten, much like the once-magnificent offshore wind turbines lying at the bottom of the sea after being mangled by increasingly intense storms. Much of south-east Asia is underwater, billions of environmental refugees painfully roam the earth and countries are fighting wars to secure what's left of the supply of fresh water. Meanwhile, the world's elite are riding jet skis through the Northwest Passage and suntanning by Santa's North Pole Resort & Casino.

A frightening world and probably an unlikely one within the next fifty years. But say it happened. Say the worst climate fears came true. How would our current world leaders go down in history?

Would they be to blame? Would we look at the pending disaster of Copenhagen as the defining point?

Canada's leaders have been noticeably lacking in enthusiasm for preventing climate disaster, winning Fossil Award after Fossil award. George Monbiot thinks Canada is the biggest barrier to any global climate deal. Or should we shift the blame to the world's biggest emitters like China and the United States? Even the second-coming that is Barack Obama has managed to disappoint at the summit.

And will they feel guilt as the climate gets worse?

What about the deniers who have prevented action thus far? The administrations of George Bush and John Howard were notorious for exacerbating the more ridiculous climate change deniers. Are they more to blame than our leaders today?

Or should we be criticizing the 'promise but no delivery' policies of Clinton and Chretien, who got into a political pissing contest over Kyoto targets but showed little for it? These two certainly weren't the only ones to come up short on delivery.

Or is Harper right that the developing countries of the world are to blame? Have we even reached the defining point of the climate crisis?

Maybe the past 200 years of industrialization and excessive lifestyles in the developed world is to blame.

The point I'm trying to make is that pinning the potential climate crisis on one person or group is impossible. Blame can be thrown over so many parts of the world, over hundreds of years and over so many people. But not one person and not one instance. Unfortunately, that means people won't feel the necessary responsibility they hold, easily thinking it is someone else's fault. This makes it much harder to do anything about it.

Assuming I'm still around, I'd be very interested to read those history books fifty years from now...  

    

The Future of Cities in the U.S.

A number of months ago, I blogged about an article written by Edward Glaeser, a Professor of Economics at Harvard. Many of the arguments from his article are found in the youtube clip above. I don't agree with all of his points, but he makes many convincing arguments.

His research focus is on the economics of housing. On the environmental side of things, he has published papers on how climate should influence how cities grow. California for example, has the most temperate climate in the country and as a result, homes use less heat in the winter and less electricity in the summer. Yet, many environmentalists oppose any sort of development in these places because they want to preserve the natural environment.

To quote Glaeser, "a new building in California, as opposed to Texas, reduces America’s carbon emissions. Yet, instead of fighting to make it easier to build in California, environmentalists have played a significant role in stemming the growth of America’s greenest cities." Places like Houston are sprawling rapidly. Many of the homes constructed in Houston's suburban communities require air conditioning to run 24/7 because of the unbearable humidity. California, which is growing at 8%, has strict regulations regarding housing development. This is unfortunate because higher densities are needed in places like California (better climate) and not in places like Houston which use artificial cooling to keep everyone happy!

In the video clip, Glaeser contrasts California with places like Houston, Dallas and Atlanta; these three areas are both among the nation’s five most carbon-intensive living areas and among the three fastest-growing metropolitan areas.

To learn more about this topic, see the video.

A short climate change debate between Krugman and Lomborg

This CNN video, features a climate change debate between Paul Krugman and Bjorn Lomborg. Paul Krugman is a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. He is a columnist and blogger for the New York Times and received the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics.

Bjorn Lomborg wrote the infamous book titled "The Skeptical Environmentalist". Bjorn Lomborg is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School.

Lomborg's main argument: We should not spend too much money on global climate change because the problem is really not that severe and money could be going towards things like poverty alleviation efforts in the developing world. If we do embark more aggressively on global climate change, we should put money into research and development for green technology and not cap and trade systems which he thinks are ineffective.

Krugman: Putting money into carbon reduction efforts will not be that expensive; the time for action is now. Studies are suggesting catastrophic changes will bring about major risks. He says that we have to insure ourselves for the possibility of catastrophic change. We need to provide the right incentives for people to do the right thing.

The debate is 10 minutes long, it is a great study break. Check it out here.

Call for guest bloggers...

When Tim and I started envisioning this blog nearly a year ago, one of our visions was that of other folks chipping in with a post from time to time. In the words of nearly every modern fundraising campaign, Make our Vision a Reality.

Lame. I know.

But seriously, it would be cool.

Feel free to respond to this post or simply email myself or Tim and we can set it up.

Hope to hear from you.

Mixed land uses: Downtown Peterborough...

As part of a class assignment, I recently submitted a letter to Peterborough’s Director of Planning and Development Services. It was a letter regarding Peterborough’s downtown and how it can greatly benefit from incorporating mixed land uses. By mixed land uses, I mean combining commercial and residential units together to optimize space and make the downtown more compact. Below, you will find a compressed version of the letter:

As a student studying geography and the environment and learning about the importance of urban densification for sustainability and economic efficiency, the present growth in Peterborough concerns me. I recommend that the city use an intensification strategy to bring about more mixed land uses in the downtown area. Intensification is a common urban planning strategy for achieving compactness, using land more efficiently by increasing the density of development and activity.

I believe that such an undertaking will help boost the economic vibrancy of the local economy and increase the densification of the urban growth centre, ultimately benefiting both the environment and the economy.

Without stifling the city’s housing market, new commercial development in the city should be mixed with residential units. Mixed land use reduces the probability of using a car for commuting, shopping and leisure trips because jobs, shops and leisure facilities are located nearby. This would be a win-win for Peterborough’s local economy as residents would be living closer to local business and retail stores and farther away from the Big-Box stores like Wal-Mart and Future Shop.

As an example, Harvey’s fast food restaurant at the corner of Sherbrooke and Water Street has tremendous potential to turn into a mixed land use development. Located next to the Otonabee River and in the heart of downtown, it can integrate local businesses, retail, restaurants and residential uses. In addition, such a development would replace the eye-sore that currently occupies the land and turn it into a more compact, liveable and sustainable form.

By mixing commercial and residential units, not only would the city increase the densification of the downtown, but it would be ensuring that many services are within a reasonable distance, thus encouraging cycling and walking. Other environmental benefits to this would include a reduction in air pollution and traffic congestion, as well as to stimulate the interaction of residents, by increasing pedestrian traffic and generally improving neighbourhood charm.

By mixing land uses, we are increasing the number of people concentrated within an existing urban area, and thus these people are now living closer to businesses, public amenities and even recreational activities. Recreational activities would include parks, beaches and campgrounds. Therefore, this might generate more revenue for the restaurant, and stimulate more business activity for other services and commercial establishments, thereby directing a greater flow of capital towards Peterborough’s local businesses and less towards Big-Box stores around the sub-divisions.

One of the main objectives of Peterborough’s new amendment to their Official plan is to provide greater choice in housing types to meet the needs of people at all stages in life. I would challenge developers by saying that housing and commerce will increasingly be concentrated in the urban area; so exploring multi-unit housing complexes near the downtown can be profitable.

As other cities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe increase their urban densities through more compact and mixed use development, Peterborough will face pressures to follow suit.

Key message: Developing Peterborough into a more economically and environmentally sustainable city is a process that might take many years; however, engaging private developers on this matter is a good first step.

Stupid Green Ideas: Climate Change Chocolate...

Several weeks ago while attending a conference and trade show in Toronto, I stopped by the booth for a small but prestigious downtown Toronto law firm. After chatting with the young articling student tasked with the poor duty of standing around all day, she handed me a chocolate bar.

I'm used to getting free stuff at these things, but never an entire chocolate bar. Moreover, this was no ordinary chocolate bar. It was a Climate Change Chocolate Bar.

For each chocolate bar produced, a carbon offset group known as TerraPass will offset 133 pounds of carbon dioxide production in one of their projects somewhere in the world. The 133 pounds is not meant to offset the environmental impact of the chocolate bar itself, but rather the average daily carbon impact of an American person, although I'm not sure how verifiable that figure is.

So basically, when you bite down into the chocolate -- which wasn't half bad -- you can happily pat yourself on the back knowing that any carbon emissions you produce that day will be taken care of by someone else.

Wow! This is fantastic. All of these 'green' folks keep telling me all the things I need to do to reduce my personal carbon emissions. You know, turn off my lights, ride a bike, put solar panels on my roof and other things that will inconvenience my life. Screw 'em! I don't need to change anything. I'll just jump back in my Escalade, eat my chocolate bars and let someone else take care of it. Plus, the labels contain different environmentally-friendly things people can do, just in case you don't feel the chocolate is enough.

Apart from the fact that carbon offset groups aren't seriously regulated, their offset projects don't always work and the actual offset calculations are often arbitrary, I don't see anything else wrong with this.

I may have produced a pound or two of carbon while writing this. Good thing I have this chocolate bar...

 

Water meters coming to Peterborough…

Water metering is becoming a popular municipal water conservation strategy. For those unfamiliar with water metering, it is when the utility company of the city measures the volume of water usage for your household. So essentially, running your tap for 5 minutes, taking 20 minute showers, or watering your lawn excessively will now cost you substantially.

The Peterborough Utilities Commission (PUC), the utility company that provides water and electricity to the city and its residents, has announced that they are going to install water meters in the near future. The exact date has not been officially confirmed but the installation process will take a number of months. They are going to install 25,000 meters (Pop of Peterborough ~78,000). This will cost $10 million and the costs will be built into water rates. This means that we will be paying for the installation of the meter and the meter itself.

Currently in the city, billing for water is based on the number of rooms in your house plus the size of your lots, plus an additional charge for those with a pool. The main rationale for metering in Peterborough is to minimize stress on the wastewater treatment plant. In short, with less water being used in your household, the amount of wastewater entering the city treatment plant will be reduced. This takes pressure off the system and decreases infrastructural costs (which are really expensive).

I have done extensive research on water metering for my honours thesis and I personally think that the PUC is installing meters because of Peterborough’s egregious water consumption rate. The average Peterborough resident consumes roughly 487 litres of water per day- the Canadian average is 343 litres per person per day. Other municipalities are raising their eyebrows with Peterborough`s rate, knowing that it should come down.

The city’s water consumption is well over the national average. Other cities that have had high water consumption rates have turned to metering to lower that consumption rate to something more sustainable. Stats Canada will tell us that cities with pricing structures have an average water utilization of 269 litres per person per day. Conversely, those with flat or fixed water rates use 457 litres per capita. Considering Peterborough currently has a fixed water rate structure, we are not too far off from the 457 L mark.

Because I am a big proponent of water metering I am not going to go on and on about its significant advantages. In short, with metering, residents are paying per unit of water consumed. Therefore, for many people the potential money savings will be an incentive to use less water. Residents can actually see their water consumption on their monthly bill and if it is excessive, then there is a great incentive to consume less to save money.

When you pay for water based on how much you consume, people raise the question of water privatization and social equity. Low income families of five or six people who use more water may find it hard to pay for their water as they are now paying based on units consumed. Other citizens may just be against the idea of paying for water because it is seen as “privatization”.

For these reasons, when cities introduce pricing structures to replace the conventional fixed rate system, guidance and education to residents must follow suit. Residents must be fully informed about the benefits of metering on the environment, the local economy and for future generations. The utility company does not have to carry out this public education, but other community organizations can step up to inform the public.

Key message: Water metering is great.. but it better be accompanied by public education otherwise people may not see its benefits, purpose and be angry because they are now paying for water. With water meters in Peterborough, it is estimated that water usage based on consumption should reduce city water demands by ~15-20%.

On another note, this is our 200th post. Thank you everyone for your ongoing interest in reading this blog. On Tuesday of this week, Chris and I presented our blog to my Environment and Communications class. We talked about our experiences with blogging, why we do it and how much fun we have.

It's not always windy outside...

You may have noticed the spinning wind turbine on the front page of this blog. It displays the total amount of energy being produced by Ontario's wind power system every hour of every day.

The graphic -- which is courtesy of Ontario's Independent Electricity Systems Operator (IESO) -- provides a very good example of perhaps the greatest barrier of wind: capacity factor. You'll notice that sometimes several hundred Megawatts (MW) of electricity is produced during the hour and the turbine spins quite quickly, while at other times (like as I write this post) it is less than 100 MW.

Ontario has nearly 1,100 MW of installed capacity of wind power. That basically means it has the potential to produce 1,100 MWh of power each hour for the length of its existence. The trouble, of course, is that this is only theoretical. What the tag might say on the turbine is not what it will produce in reality.

The main reason, of course, is because it is not always windy outside. As a result, sometimes you get the turbines sitting motionless and, despite having nearly 1,100 MW in generating capacity, only producing 35 MW on a day like today. Indeed, I've seen the turbine as Exhibition Place in Toronto lie motionless more than I've seen it moving.

In reality, wind turbines are only about 20-30% efficient from what they are capable of producing. Add to that the inevitable loss of electricity from transmission and distribution and wind doesn't look super hot.

This is not a criticism of wind power, but rather a focus on the need to understand how it works. When its proponents speak about its wide potential, they sometimes exaggerate its true potential, which is often more limited. Indeed, we could toss thousands of turbines over Ontario that would replace the installed capacity of the current electricity generation system. But when it's not windy, the amount of electricity produced would be negligible.

Moreover, because of its variability, wind power alone will not fix our energy problem. And neither will solar because it isn't always sunny and we don't have terrific battery technology. But the combination of these technologies, along with several other renewables and a focus on conservation could fix our system.

Where'd the Otonabee River go?...

Well, it has finally happened. All the Maude Barlows and Tim Shahs of the world were right all along about the water crisis. Peterborough has run out of water.

I kid, of course. But considering the state of the Otonabee River over the past few weeks, it wouldn't be too surprising.

I was probably as surprised as anyone else when I walked downtown by the waterfront to find a dainty little stream where the mighty Otonabee River used to be. The water levels were down drastically, as the few small islands of the Otonabee all of a sudden looked like overbearing mainland. Worst of all -- aesthetically, at least -- was the unfortunate state of the exposed ground that had formerly been river-bottom. The weirdly coloured muddy surface was not a particularly desirable replacement for the river.

But more of a problem was the fact that there was very little water left. So where did it go?

Well, as it turns out, some emergency repairs had to be done on one of the locks south of Lansdowne. Clearly the necessary repairs warranted more than a couple folks hopping in with SCUBA gear with a hammer and nails in hand, so the federal authorities (who manage the lock system) decided to drain the thing. Apparently, this involves draining the river several kilometres upstream, too.

The pictures I've included are from outside my house just north of downtown on the Otonabee. The river was down between two and three metres and looked considerably different. Some islands have been exposed, a big patch of mud lies covered with seagulls and ducks and the river's edge has a tidal feel to it. The river looked much worse farther south. Compare the third with the fourth, which are taken from the same area.

Draining a river several metres is not without its risks. In an interview with the Peterborough Examiner, Trent professor Tom Whillans outlined several of the environmental effects this could have. Many of the concerns are focused on the impacts it might have on wildlife. According to Whillans, all sorts of creatures are at risk, but only if the river bed area freezes for an extended period. Lucky for the fishes and turtles, this December has been usually warm. I knew there was a silver lining to the Tar Sands projects.

The water levels appear to be back to normal now and the timing couldn't be better. The snow is finally coming down and it is expected to stay, for a few days at least.

So the crisis is averted. Phew. That I know our water is OK, I think I'll go water my driveway for the day...  

How Green roofs can increase the health and well-being of urban residents…

Enviroboys has blogged about green roofs before, citing their numerous advantages for urban environments. The main environmental benefits associated with them include minimizing air pollution, reducing the urban heat island effect and improving stormwater management. Noting these benefits, Toronto recently adopted a by-law to require and govern the construction of green roofs on new development in the city. The bylaw is quite comprehensive and rigid leading Toronto in a sustainable direction and demonstrating its commitment to urban greening projects.

A PhD student at U of T is doing research on how urban greening projects like green roofs can increase the health and well-being of employees in the workplace. One major dimension of the PhD student’s research is whether employees in workplaces can actually see green roofs and roof top gardens from their workplace windows. Just being able to see greenery can have important health benefits.

Rachel and Stephen Kaplan have done extensive research on the “role of nature in the context of the workplace”. What has emerged out of this research is the indispensable fact that employers need to invest in programs that are oriented to prevention and enhancing well-being of their employees. In workplace settings, employees experience stress, mental fatigue and occasionally burnout when things get really overwhelming. What becomes fatigued is one’s capacity to focus attention to demands that require effort, thus decreasing their level of productivity… in theory.

Rachel and Stephen Kaplan came up with a theory called attention restoration theory. This theory emerged out of their 1980s book "The experience of nature: A psychological perspective”. This theory asserts that people can concentrate better after spending time in a wilderness, or even looking at scenes of nature. Thus, natural environments have a restorative function for human-beings and we don’t always realize this. In one of their studies of an office environment they reported that “almost 50% of employees thought that the lack of windows affected them or their work adversely”. Job satisfaction and work attitudes were significantly related to the presence of windows for their sample of 123 office workers and health care providers.

In throwing together a nice interdisciplinary analysis of green roofs, we know that they have the potential to improve the health and well-being of urban residents. They have important environmental benefits and from an economic point of view, they can help minimize the energy costs associated with building heating and cooling. The health benefits though, are still nebulously defined, but we can speculate that they do play a role based on the work from the Kaplan’s. Parks and gardens have long been noted for their restorative effects on both mental and physical health. Toronto’s new bylaw can gain way more popularity from developers, residents and hospitals if the health benefits are made clearer.

Finally, if green roofs do corroborate “attention restoration theory” just think about the economic advantages workplaces would accrue. Less stress and mental fatigue among employees can undoubtedly lead to better workplace productivity and job satisfaction. But above all, if green roofs do take off because of their ostensible health benefits, employees would have to have access to them. On breaks and lunches, employees could go to these urban green sites and interact with colleagues.

Key message: Nature can help reduce a person's stress, as well as improve attention. Do green roofs constitute nature? And if so, how do workplace employees perceive them? Interesting how this will play out for Toronto considering its new green roof bylaw.

George Monbiot argues that Canada is the major factor that will impact a new major climate agreement...

Tyler Hamilton, author of the Clean Break blog and Toronto Star columnist, posted a link to a column written by the famed environmental activist George Monbiot. In the column, titled "The Urgent Threat to World Peace is...Canada", Monbiot identifies Canada as the major threat to any potential climate agreement at this month's meetings in Copenhagen. It is strange that Canada could play such an important role, but it very well might.

Hamilton recommended we read it and pass it along. I suggest you do.

Carbon credits & Ontario's FIT...

Ontario's uber-progressive Feed-in-Tariff program is wonderful for someone wanting to produce renewable energy. Solar PV producers can get as much as $0.802 per kWh produced, which is almost twenty times greater than the market rate for electricity in Ontario.

At the same time, much talk is happening provincially, nationally and globally about a possible cap-and-trade system: Ontario has mumbled about a potential interprovincial program with Quebec; Stephen Harper's government is bound to join up with any system that comes out of the American government (which I assure you, will be a cap-and-trade system); and the climate change summit in Copenhagen in just a few days will have a large cap-and-trade facet to it. For renewable energy project developers, this could mean cashing in on the carbon credits they'd receive for their "emissions-free" projects. They could sell their credits to the less-green folks out there.

Renewable energy developers should be licking their chops. Serious money could be made from two different angles.

But hold your horses. Ontario's independent energy manager, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA & delivery agent of the Feed-in-Tariff) has a nice little clause written into the FIT contract. Under section 2.10 of the contract it reads that "the supplier hereby transfers and assigns to...the OPA who thereafter shall...retain all rights, title, and interest in all Environmental Attributes associated with the Contract Facility during the Term of this Agreement."

In layman's terms, the OPA keeps everything that might contribute to potential carbon credits, which in its terms is an "Environmental Attribute".

You could easily criticize the OPA for doing this, especially for no direct cost in exchange. But the OPA claims that no price can be put on it at this time because their is such uncertainty in what the carbon credits could be worth.

But really, who can fault them? The government is providing huge swaths of money for these projects, so any chance of reclaiming some of that without really harming anyone isn't really out of the question. Furthermore, it could inevitably end up making the FIT program considerably cheaper, if, say in a few years, the government decides to sell its carbon credits on a carbon market to recoup some of its costs.  

This is not a new policy from the OPA. Some of its conservation-demand management programs -- like the Power Savings Blitz program where $1000 worth of lights are given to businesses for free -- have the same "Environmental Attribute" clause written into them.

For now it is not a problem, mostly because a significant carbon market does not exist and nobody really knows about the OPA contract clause. But give it a few years and you can be sure that some people might be a little up in arms when they decide to sell their carbon credits only to find out they don't own them.   

  

G&M Rejects: The Questionable Future of Ontario's Green Energy Act...

I've started taking it upon myself to submit pieces to the Globe & Mail. Anyone can do this, simply by submitting a 700-word piece to comment@globeandmail.ca on any topic they would like. However, the likelihood of actually getting published is fairly small. They get roughly 30 of these submissions per day and many of them come from people who frequently write for different news outlets. But it's worth a shot. They give you about a two week window to decide if they will print it. Sadly, my two weeks are up. So here it is: 

It may only be a few months old, but Ontario’s landmark Green Energy Act (GEA) legislation could soon find itself in hot water. Environmentalists and green energy advocates alike might very well choose to dispel such a statement amidst their victorious celebrations, but let us not ignore the political realities of the GEA. While much of the legislation’s content is not particularly controversial and quite popular, it faces pressure for a few key reasons.




The first such reason is cost. The government is allocating $5-billion over a three year period to the GEA, much of which will be put towards investment in the current electricity infrastructure. Investment in the system is absolutely necessary, but some might say that a few billion dollars in only a few years might be pushing it. Regardless of the appropriateness of the government spending, billions of dollars worth of investment in a new program will almost always breed critics. Furthermore, the significant conservation programs and hefty Feed-in-Tariffs that will spur renewable energy development – the other two fifths of the GEA budget – have left those in opposition to the act chomping at the bit, most notably Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives. The criticisms range from overvaluation of the conservation programs to the unfair market distortions that will be created by government subsidies, but it is clear that the GEA is not a political lovefest in Ontario.

Dalton McGuinty’s government could very well suffer from some of the GEA measures. This is what GEA proponents should really be worried about. It is not too surprising, as any large, progressive legislation is often fraught with political risk. From within the GEA itself, the risk stems from the centralized and streamlined approvals process for renewable energy projects that removes the autonomy of the local municipalities. While touted by its proponents as a mechanism of efficiency, this particular tool of the GEA could backfire as local opposition to green projects swells. Indeed, during a well-packed community meeting in October in Manvers, Ontario, a proposed wind farm was heavily scrutinized by the 500 strong crowd. But the criticism wasn’t just reserved for the wind project itself; the crowd, residing in a Liberal-controlled riding, took direct aim at the McGuinty government and its support for projects like this. Manvers is only one of a growing many places where the GEA will really touch some nerves.


The biggest risk lies within the factors the GEA has no control over. That is, the current state of affairs of Dalton McGuinty’s government. The E-Health scandal, high unemployment rates and a severely hindered economy have done little to raise the public confidence of the provincial government. Indeed, an unprecedented $25-billion move into the red could spell political disaster. Interestingly, this budget shortfall does not even account for the money expected to be doled out in the GEA. At best, several of the grand ambitions of the GEA will have to be revised or dropped outright for lack of funds. The next provincial election is not for another two years, but if a the PCs manage to regain power in Ontario, you can be sure that a good chunk of the GEA will be changed significantly, if not removed.

But the trouble for the GEA does not stop there. Its most vehement political supporter, Deputy Premier and Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, “Furious” George Smitherman, announced his plan to resign in March to run in Toronto’s mayoral race. If anything is proposed to happen to the GEA, he won’t be around to stop it. Eyeing the budget shortfall, some of his colleagues in Cabinet that he so passionately fought off when proposing the GEA will seek to cut up the more flexible and politically viable aspects of the act. Unfortunately, these pieces might be some of the most progressive.

The GEA is indeed a landmark decision and the Ontario government should be applauded for implementing it. The sweeping measures taken will help to ensure a beneficial and efficient transition to a green energy future for the province. But in today’s political and economic climate, nothing is completely written in stone. Take advantage while you can because the Green Energy Act might be a limited time offer.

A talk on how the economic crisis impacted food security....

The World Affairs Colloquium is hosting a talk next Wednesday (December 2nd) at 3pm in Trent's Alumni house. For those of you who have not been to the Alumni house, I would say it is the most prestigious building on campus so you should check it out. It is located in Champlain College next to the residence staircases.

The title of the talk is "Local Insight, Global Outlook" - How the Economic Crisis has Impacted Food Security on a Local, National, and Global Level. This talk will feature a panel of three speakers. For the local perspective, our panelist is Dave Ralph from the Kawartha Food Share. Our speaker on the national perspective is Paula Anderson from Peterborough Green-Up. Finally, Professor Tom Hutchinson will speak to the consequences that the economic crisis produced on the global scale.

More information about the speakers:
Prof. Emeritus Tom Hutchinson, Department of Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University, is one of Canada's leading ecologists. Tom has extensive knowledge of sustainable agricultural systems and the biodiversity of old-growth forests. His distinguished international reputation is rooted in his extensive expertise and research as an ecologist.

Paula Anderson is the Waste Reduction Manager for Peterborough Green-Up, a local environmental charitable organization. Paula also teaches an undergrad course at Trent entitled "The Canadian Food System: A Community Development Approach".

Dave Ralph is the Chair of Kawartha Food Share, a broad-based community effort that coordinates community resources to provide emergency food in the City and Country of Peterborough.

Nature Provides, Industry Develops...Really?

Walking past Peterborough's City Hall this evening I happened to see a flag raised with the logo of Vancouver's Winter Olympics. I decided to peruse the event's website and found out that the Olympic Torch will be coming through Peterborough on December 15th & 16th. This is kind of cool, but I also noticed something else on the site. It listed Peterborough's city motto: "Dat Natura, Elaborant Artes". 

In English, this translates to "Nature Provides, Industry Develops".

So maybe I'm simply a jaded Trent student that sees things through a certain lens, but even so, this is completely ridiculous. Peterborough repeatedly touts itself as the "Gateway to Cottage Country" and a wonderfully green city. Indeed, it was recently listed as one of Canada's most walkable cities. But such a city motto emanates everything that is wrong with how we approach our relationship with nature.

I decided to look it up on Wikipedia and found that the motto -- also titled on its Coat of Arms -- is supposed to mean "Nature gives bountifully and the crafts and energy of the people elaborate nature's gift". Forgive me, but that's a load of BS.

What it really means (and is very much reflective of) is the belief that nature has provided us with wonderful things that we can develop and exploit at our will. We can take from nature, but we don't care too much about giving back, or at least not taking too quickly.

Now before you roll your eyes and ride this off as simply a broken-recordesque hippie rant against "the establishment", I have nothing against development as a whole. But there is a right way to do it and a wrong way. For the large part, we've been doing it the wrong way. And such a simplistic view that is very much reflected in the Peterborough motto only perpetualizes this.

I understand that such a motto might be traditional and untouchable in the eyes of some, but going with what is traditional has left us with a lot of problems to deal with. 

Let's take a second look at our official mottos and rethink how we really want to represent ourselves.    

Is climate change really about risk management?

This post is a sequel to Chris's post about the Munk debates on climate change.

According to Greg Craven, climate change is a game of risk management. As he explains in the video, we can take action on "global warming" and spend trillions of dollars doing this. But, what if global warming is "false"? Then we run ourselves into a global depression. Or we spend trillions of dollars and we benefit through this as it greatly minimizes the risks associated with global warming. Or we do nothing (status quo) and global warming does not prove to be as catastrophic as it was predicted to be. Here we do not take action, nothing significant happens and we save $$$. And if we don't take action and it actually happens.... well, then we are screwed.

I am just summarizing the video. Watch it with a critical eye. There is so much controversy surrounding this issue, how much thought have you given climate change? For you, is climate change a question of risk management? Or is it more of a science issue or political problem? Feel free to share thoughts about the video on enviroboys. We always welcome comments.

If you want to know more about Greg Craven, see here.

The Munk Debates: Climate Change...

As a lead-in to the historic climate change summit in Copenhagen, the Munk Debates in Toronto will be holding one of its famed debates on December 1st. The question: how should the world respond to climate change?

In the pro-corner (that is, supporting significant action against climate change) are the leader of Canada's Green Party, Elizabeth May, and the famed British journalist and author, George Monbiot.

Taking them on will be the Danish professor, Bjorn Lomborg, author of the wildly popular Skeptical Environmentalist, and Lord Nigel Lawson, a former British journalist and parliamentarian.

The debate itself will begin at 6:45 pm and continue until 9:00 pm and will be held in Toronto's Royal Conservatory. Tickets are available to the public starting at $20, but space is limited. If you're like me, and can't find the time to get down to Toronto, the debate will be broadcasted online at www.munkdebates.com .

I highly encourage you to watch the debate. The Munk Debates only happen a few times per year, but are very successful and wonderfully popular. The most recent debates have touched on topics like foreign aid and world security and have included the likes of Stephen Lewis, Rick Hillier, Niall Ferguson and Sam Power.

Happy debating...

Imagine cars as an investment...

When you buy a new car, it is said that it loses half of its value as soon as you drive off the lot. Unless you collect rare cars, vehicles are one of the poorest economic investments anyone can make.

Sure, they provide drivers with the independence to go where they want, when they want and with the comforts of heat, shelter, music and most importantly, cupholders. And yes, some might argue there is value in the opportunities a car can give you, such as being able to get to a job. But when you pay for that car, the value consistently falls over time, especially as you dump money into repairs. And at the end of its life, you can sell it for a much lower value or just scrap it altogether.

But imagine this: What if you could use your vehicle as its own source of revenue, enough so that it could pay for itself? This is a possibility being brought forth by electric cars.

It would work quite simply. When you charge your electric car, you can do so at the low-peak hours (i.e. throughout the night while you sleep while electricity will be cheaper) and then any amount that was unused or regenerated can be sold back to the electricity grid at peak hours (i.e. weekday evenings when everyone gets home from work). The vehicle acts as a storage for electricity that can be sold back for a profit while also levelling out the peak demand on the electricity system.

That, in conjunction with the up to $10,000 the Ontario government has proposed, could make vehicles profitable and, over time, pay for themselves.

For those of you familiar with this futuristic view of our electricity system, the benefits of electric cars might be well known already. However, I had never come across the idea that the cars could pay for themselves and be their own source of revenue.

What an exciting plethora of possibilities we have for the future...

Ontario's 1st Annual Community Power Conference...

In November of 2008, CBC's Fifth Estate aired its hugely successful documentary, The Gospel of Green, that explored the wonderfully successful development of renewable energy in Europe and relatively dismal performance of the technologies in Ontario. A year later, things have changed.

As if Ontario's provincial government had just watched the documentary, its Green Energy and Economy Act was passed this past summer as North America's first uber-progressive energy-related legislation, essentially mirroring the innovative policies adopted in countries like Germany and Denmark. The act will certainly spur the rapid development of renewables in Ontario through the Feed-in-Tariff program, but it also emphasizes a lesser-known approach to renewable energy development known as community power.

Community power is the ownership, development and management of renewable energy projects by the local community. Rather than having big companies come in and rent out the land to put up, say, ten wind turbines, the landowners instead opt to do the project themselves. These types of projects have significant local economic benefits (local jobs and the revenue stays in the local economy), environmental benefits (after all, they are renewable energy projects) and very importantly, create a greater understanding of the technologies, which aids in the social acceptance and uptake of renewable projects.

You will often find community power projects developed in the form of community co-operatives, First Nations groups, municipalities and local utilities, farmers and most commonly a combination of these groups. Unfortunately, by the end of 2008, less than 1% of Ontario's renewables were community-owned. The Green Energy Act hopes to change that raise the share to levels found in (surprise, surprise) Denmark and Germany, which have community ownership rates of ~90% and ~50%, respectively.

As a means to get the ball rolling on community projects, the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association (OSEA) recently held the 1st Annual Community Power Conference in Toronto. Despite the steep $1000 conference fee (I'll discuss this later) I was able to attend for free thanks to a generous donation from David Suzuki (pictured below).

The conference brought together a broad range of delegates: folks from the renewables industry, government officials, consultants, representatives of different lobby groups, First Nations members and some small start-up companies. Of course, some Europeans came across the pond to give us an idea of how successfully this model had worked in Europe. The talks were very informative (several future blog posts will relate to the conference) and the networking opportunities were quite substantial. And of course, getting to sit beside David Suzuki for a $200 banquet dinner (covered, thank goodness) wasn't too shabby either.

But there were some big things missing from the conference. You might have justifiably gasped at the size of the conference fee. How many community groups can afford to dish out $1000 to attend a conference for two days? Not many, apparently. There was only a handful of individuals from community groups considering putting together a community project. This bothered me. But much emphasis at the conference was put on partnerships between developers and community groups, so we may very well see a series of community partnerships pushed forward by big developers. It looks good on their part (usually actually is good if done properly) and actually makes projects more profitable (the Feed-in-Tariff includes bonuses for community or First Nations involvement).

I've attended a few of these conferences the past summer and have come to realize that excessive hobnobbing is quite commonplace. Fortunately, the level of 'community' participation in this conference does not reflect the true potential for community projects in Ontario. What the conference indicated very clearly is that the potential benefits of these projects are immense in Ontario and more importantly, there is a wealth of excitement building up in the province to put renewables all over. It is a very exciting time for Ontario.  

Special talk on eco-psychology next week....

This coming Wednesday, the World Affairs Colloquium at Trent is hosting the 2009 Jack Matthews fellow, Douglas Blakey. The talk is titled "Eco-psychology and Educational Leadership: Bridging the Gap". It will be hosted in the Camp Kawartha Environment Centre (2505 Pioneer Road) on November 18th from 3-5pm. The centre is just south of Gzowski College. For a map of the centre in relation to the university, see here.

Douglas Blakey spent over 30 years as a teacher and principal of Upper Canada College in Toronto. Mr. Blakey has recently worked as an advisor on environmental sustainability for independent schools. Using a unique pedagogy approach based on “Learn it By Living It” concepts, Mr. Blakey uses these concepts to upgrade facilities and grounds with environmental technologies and integrates them with curriculum and organizational behaviour. Also working with local communities, Douglas Blakey has recently developed a fascination with eco-psychology and is interested in the interplay between eco-psychology and its positive impact on inspiring educational leadership.

The Jack Matthews Fellowship was created in 2008 to honour the founding contributions Jack made to to Trent University, Lakefield College School and the Canadian Canoe Museum.

It's going to be a great talk that you definitely don't want to miss.

Dyer's gloomy and doomy perspective on the world...

I attended Gwynne Dyer’s lecture last night and was blown away with both hope and despair. The title of his talk entitled “Climate Wars” inherently has that feeling of global desolation. Dyer revealed many important points about the numerous implications of climate change. These included its impact on global food production, the melting of permafrost, depleting groundwater aquifers, population growth, warming oceans and their eventual inability to absorb carbon dioxide emissions and many more.

His 1 hour lecture was filled with compelling arguments albeit scary, wit and humorous jokes and stories of his visits to and interviews with numerous political leaders, scientists and military generals around the world.

He organized and structured his talk with five conclusions. This would make for an excessively long blog post if I went into detail for each one, so instead I will just tell you what I thought was interesting and frightening at the same time. Firstly, Dyer says that a global temperature rise of two degrees Celsius (note this is important) can have cataclysmic consequences for world. Take food production in sub-tropical states for example, with increased droughts creating less favourable climate conditions for crop production and irrigation, countries can face massive food shortages. A two degree rise can cause India to lose up to 25% of its food production, that’s equivalent to roughly 250 million of its inhabitants becoming hungry.

He kept making reference to how a two degree rise in global temperature can have drastic consequences. Consequences such as disasters causing environmental refugees to seek new places for food and water and face governments who are themselves concerned with feeding their own populations. Mexico and Central America have a combined population of 200 million people, food and water shortages can send these people north to the U.S. says Dyer. The U.S. has been somewhat pro-active with upholding security at the Mexican border, but things can get a lot more defensive in the future.

There are many other examples that Dyer draws on including potential water/nuclear conflicts between India and Pakistan, or Iraqi refugees on the Saudi Arabian border. Point being, that armies or the “generals” as Dyer puts it, are going to have lots of work coming their way in terms of protection and natural security against potential refugees.

On Copenhagen, Dyer is cynical but realistic. In short, he thinks it will be an utter failure. He expects nothing positive to come out of it because Obama has not made any federal commitments to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Not yet at least. The U.S. has to have a solid plan or proposition for a conference like Copenhagen, otherwise the prospects of creating a global climate change binding agreement is hopeless.

Same goes for Canada, realistically we would have to cut our national emissions by as much as 40%, yeah sounds absurd doesn’t it? The average Canadian emits 21 tonnes of carbon emissions annually, gargantuan in comparison to China’s 4 tonnes per person or India’s 1.5 per person. A global agreement on climate change is only possible if nations like Canada, the U.S. and France are willing to make major cuts.

The world is presently at 390 ppm of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. We are adding about 3.2 ppm every year which over 20 years will bring us to 450 ppm. 450 ppm is considered the tipping point! Crazy how 4 out of every 5 Americans own a car. This number would be higher but the other 20% of the nation is either too old or young to drive, or find themselves in prisons says Dyer.

Key message: In order to stay below 450ppm and avoid a global temperature increase of two degrees, Canada and the U.S. are going to have to step up. We are going to have to make major emission cuts which means more significant changes to our lives… driving less, spending more on energy efficient appliances and eating more locally. Sounds pretty easy to me, but harder to pitch to North America as we know it.

Vancouver should be more pro-active with green roof development...

Vancouver is a “great opportunities city”- it has enormous potential to revitalize its environmental and economic environment. Vancouver’s city policies have thus far supported numerous urban sustainability solutions such as increased urban density, mixed-use developments, buildings that preserve special green space and infrastructure for transit, cycling and walking to provide non-automobile options for living in and moving between Vancouver.

What the city needs to do is bring about green roof technology through policy tools such as market-based instruments. Why? Vancouver receives a higher than average amount of precipitation than other Canadian cities. Climate change, in particular excess rainfall, can pose numerous challenges for Vancouver in the future.

Vancouver’s urban hydrologic system will have to cope with a highly fluctuating amount of surface runoff water, which can become extremely high during periods of rainfall. Climate change has the potential to intensify rainfall patterns resulting in increased risks with flooding.

When a high percentage of the city’s residents live in these compact urban areas, flooding will cause massive displacement and be an economic nightmare. Market-based instruments such as direct financial incentives, serve as the necessary policy tools to promote this technology and make it affordable. Green roof technology will serve to help the city with stormwater management and reducing risks of floods.

Market-based instruments like direct financial incentives can help make them popular and environmentally attractive. More importantly, the utilization of market-based tools can help determine if there is sufficient demand for green roof development and the economic viability of them.

Toronto recently adopted a by-law that will govern the construction of green roofs on new development. However, before this regulatory requirement came about, the city ran a program called “Toronto’s Green Roof Incentive Pilot program”. This program offered a grant of $10/m² to eligible green roofs and proved to be popular. Vancouver should run a similar program.

As mentioned, over the past 10 years, a large percent of the metropolitan region’s new housing units were built within the existing urban area. Such density is important for the city, but there must still be a sufficient amount of permeable surfaces to capture and drain rainfall so it does not runoff and cause flooding. Thus, stormwater management must be optimal to avoid flooding of a highly dense urban core.

Green roofs can help capture rainfall and ultimately improve the urban hydrologic system. This environmental reason alone should suffice and act as an impetus to begin a green roof pilot project program as done in Toronto.

Through pilot projects, knowledge and experience is gained and the city becomes more familiarized with how green roofs operate. These steps are important for bringing about green roofs because everyone benefits through increased knowledge. These sorts of policy instruments are more effective for environmental change than by simply resorting to regulatory measures. While regulation sets a precedent for the city’s commitment to sustainability, it is too precipitous to implement right now and does not provide the developer with sufficient incentives.

As stormwater management gains more salience, policy-makers will realize the benefits of providing incentives to developers and building owners to bring about green roof technology. Also, energy prices are increasing for building heating and cooling and green roofs have proven to be efficacious at minimizing these costs.

Key message: Green roofs will help Vancouver promote healthy and sustainable communities.

Water use per person in the U.S. is nearly 30 percent lower than in 1975...

This post is from Peter Gleick's blog: City Brights

Ponder this paradox...

"Water Number: 410 billion gallons per day in 2005 compared to 413 billion gallons per day in 2000. This is the total amount of water withdrawn in the U.S. for all purposes (residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, and power plant cooling). Despite continuing population growth, despite continued economic growth, total water use in the United States is effectively unchanged from five years ago. Even more remarkable? Water use today is lower than it was 30 years ago, in 1975. And on a per-capita basis, the drop is dramatic: Water use per person in the U.S. is nearly 30 percent lower than in 1975."

"It used to take 200 tons of water to make a ton of steel. Now steel plants in the U.S. use less than 20 tons of water to make a ton of steel. That is a 90% reduction."

To read more on this topic, click here.

As you read, keep in mind population growth as a major factor. U.S. population circa 1975: 215,000,000. U.S. population circa 2009: 305,000,000. Therefore, total water use per capita should theoretically be lower, given bigger population and less water available for each person. Water droughts and shortages have been more common over the past 20 years and climate change has reduced the quantity of water in major U.S. rivers.

Rethinking the single stream recycling system...

The waste management class I have the pleasure of taking this year has opened my eyes to quite a few of the waste systems that I had, largely until now, taken for granted. In particular, the blue box system in Ontario.

In addition to its storied political history as a product of industry implemented as an alternative to a deposit-refund system (perhaps Tim or I will tell that story in a later post...), the stream systems of the blue box are worth a second look.

When I say stream systems, I'm talking about the way the recycling is divided up. Indeed, many jurisdictions are multi-stream, meaning that the onus falls on the home or business-owner to divide up their recycling into its respective bins before the truck shows up to take it away. However, several jurisdictions in Ontario have employed single stream systems, meaning that you can throw everything into one bin.

Someone of considerable reputation told me a few years ago that Peterborough had moved to a single stream system. As a result, I elected to no longer separate my recycling, thinking that somehow this single stream system was a better recycling system. Nevermind the fact that this certain someone was wrong and that the truck seemed to take it anyway, I, like many other Ontarians, was quite wrong in thinking that this new, single stream system was great.

But why? What's wrong with it? When a city decides to change its recycling system, it must be in a progressive direction, right?

That is certainly what I thought. I pictured a hyper-futuristic recycling facility with different machines that could separate everything very cleanly and efficiently. Wrong. In fact, single stream is considerably less efficient, especially when it comes to recycling recovery rates.

Recycling facilities are from perfect and it is difficult to separate the different materials. When you can't separate materials, they can't always be recycled. Herein lies the problem of a single stream system.

So why have a number of Ontario municipalities moved to such a system?

One answer is cost. Actual collection costs are significantly lower for a municipality when they only have one bin to toss in and there trucks can easily crush everything together, rather than carefully dividing each material up. Collection is also faster, meaning less gas used and less employee hours needed.

The other is a function of the world's economy. As oil prices spiked over the past few years, more manufacturers moved to recycled inputs in their products because processing virgin materials cost outrageously more. The market exploded for recycled materials, even if they were slightly contaminated with other recycled materials, and municipalities made a killing. Demand grew and municipalities moved to single stream so they could collect as much recycling material as possible to sell off.

But then the market crashed. Oil prices plummeted and virgin materials became much cheaper to use as inputs for manufactured goods. Additionally, industry now only wanted the cleanest recycled products, which only the municipalities employing multi-stream systems could supply. The single-stream system was left in the dust, so many places (including Toronto) were unable to sell and of their recycling and had to store it until the market recouped.

As the market recovers, single stream might become more viable again. But don't be fooled, it is not the perfect solution. It is much, much, less than that.

Scientists and the blogosphere...

Scientists should write blogs. To quote from an article written by Nature (one of the world`s top science journals) "The standard scientific paper is irreplaceable as a fixed, archivable document that defines a checkpoint in a body of work, but it's static, it's very limited”. Scientists should continue to publish in journals, but they should provide a synopsis of their research via blogs.

When scientists communicate their research to the public, more of a discussion takes place. Whether it is climate change research or geo-engineering- people can formulate their opinions on the subject matter if it is made publicly available.

People from other academic communities learn about the research and about its applicability to society. As one author from Nature writes “academia is a marketplace of ideas”. As such, ideas can be more informally shared within the academy through wikis and blogs. Anyone can read them. Scientists produce material that is controversial at times and highly criticized by other members of the science community. Once scientists put a description of their paper on a blog, people far from the usual circle start thinking about the subject.

In the blogosphere, scientists analyze a topic and provide discussion over it- information that is educational and generally interesting. This discussion is usually more interactive, inclusive and engaging.

In terms of environmental debates, blogging is the ultimate information engine comprising arguments and opinions from various individuals. Environmental debates are current with blogging and the insight is more in-depth. A journal publication in a scientific paper, while highly scholastic, is limited to readers and analysis from other communities.

Blogging is also a challenge for some of these scientists because they have to communicate jargon and scientific terms to an audience that will understand them. This theoretically makes the scientist think more carefully about language and how to communicate more effectively to environmental debates. Generally we know that scientists are not the best communicators to the public. I think blogging can help with this.

One main risk identified by the Nature article is “many scientists don't blog because they fear it has a poor image and could damage their careers.” Blogging is not universally accepted in academia, supervisors caution their students not to share academic information because others may steal their ideas. Or, it may be dangerous to share your academic work online because others may publicly criticize it deeming the author untrustworthy, biased, ill-informed etc. These impede the process of blogging acceptability, but this will change over time.

The benefits of blogging are wide-ranging: sharing novel research ideas allows for collaboration. Scientists can work with others to produce ground-breaking scientific ideas. Blogging allows for other communities to read the work which can bring diverse opinions, knowledge and interests to the table.

Blogging in a sense does compromise the peer-review system (essential for journal publications). However, blogging is not meant to be an academic forum or research database, it is meant to generate discussion from all communities. Nature says “Once scientists come up with some sort of peer-review mechanism for blogs that increase their credibility, without diminishing their spontaneity, blogs will take off.”

Scientists may have their reservations about blogs but must understand its true purpose. A peer-review mechanism will add another dimension to the blogosphere ultimately making it more popular for the scientific community. But hopefully this does not transform blogging into an esoteric and inaccessible commentary base.

Key message: Blogging is for everyone. Scientists are researching very complex and salient topics that the public should be aware of. Keeping this information reserved in journals is not only exclusive, but disallows other academic communities to learn about the topic. Having said all this, please check out this science blog.

Making a buck from the environment (in a good way)...

People have been making a profit from the environment for centuries. Unfortunately, the environment has gotten the short end of the stick as (some) people pocket the cash and the environment is left severely degraded. This is not news to anyone.

But for those of you thinking a nice, long-term investment might be in order in the next few years, consider something I've been wheeling around my head for a little while. Consider investing in renewable energy.

The trend is a simple one. As climate change draws ever closer to the forefront of people's minds, the realization that unsustainable energy sources can not keep the world going will come to fruition. This, along with the fact that oil resources will eventually (if they have not already) begin to dwindle, will create significant demand for renewable energy resources. Technologies like wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, biomass and tidal will become very popular.

What is very important to realize is that we have not reached this point yet. In fact, we're not even close. Despite all the talk and news coverage about renewable energy, we're not about the hit the point where we can shut down the world's oil refineries. The likelihood that such a point will come within my lifetime (judge your estimated lifetime accordingly) is far greater. The David Suzuki fantasy of self-sufficient everythings could very well be a reality.

But it won't happen tomorrow. It won't happen next year. And when it does happen, it won't happen overnight. The transition to a clean energy world will take decades. That is why those of us in the younger generations might stand to make a killing from it.

Imagine a time when the world's biggest renewable energy firms (ex. Vestas in Denmark or First Solar in the USA) replace the world's big oil firms as the leading energy companies. While they might not be quite as profitable -- you can't own the wind the same way you can unrefined petroleum -- they might still be massive. Imagine when Vestas wind turbines are scattered throughout the world as plentifully as barrels of good ol' Exxon-Mobil crude.

This will happen. We just don't know when. As young people, several of us have the benefit of time. While a significant investment into a specific company or industry might not necessarily pay huge amounts in the short term, the long term growth of renewables will be tremendous. The shares you pay for today might be worth a whole lot more in the years to come.

Indeed, some people have invested a lot of money in the renewables industry hoping that the current 'boom' will pay off huge. But as we have seen, this is not necessarily the case. The economic or political climate has not yet reached the point where renewables can be seen as anything more than 'alternative'. Those looking for a quick buck might not find it here. But those looking to make a secure, long-term investment probably will make a nice chunk of change.

In terms of where to actually invest that money, I don't know. I'm not a financial planner. My guess would be the big companies like Vestas and First Solar, but renewables are still in their infancy and other, much smaller companies could very well grow much larger. Other options would include Index-funds, which would invest in an entire sector, such as solar, wind or even 'clean tech' to cover every renewable company around.

You won't make lots of money right away. But you might very well set yourself up nicely in the future. And hey, you probably won't hurt the environment all that much, either.