Why is Extended producer responsibility important for waste management?

Climate change, urbanization, conservation and bottled water are all among popular topics in environmentalism. What we do not always talk about is waste management. Waste management is a really salient field that is only becoming more important as we search for more efficient and environmentally friendly ways to dispose of our waste. Something that I find really interesting is extended producer responsibility (EPR). There are several approaches and techniques that municipalities employ when dealing with waste but extended producer responsibility is not always at the forefront.

Extended producer responsibility is a policy tool premised on the prevention of waste disposal involving the manufacturing industry and giving them the responsibility to collect their products after use by consumers. In short, the industry, not the government, is responsible for internalizing waste management costs in their product prices. The EPR strategy is best epitomized by the Beer Store. All beer bottles that are purchased at the store by the consumer can be sold back to the manufacturer as the Beer Store will re-buy the bottles that they have sold you. Although they buy the bottle back from the consumer at a low cost, it still encourages recycling and reusing.

I think the extended producer responsibility model should be adopted and enforced vigorously across the country. British Columbia is the only province that has been pro-active in implementing such a policy. Through British Columbia’s ‘full product stewardship’ legislation, all parties with a role in designing, producing, selling or using a product are responsible for minimizing the environmental impacts of the product over its life. Cutting down on waste will require legislation that stipulates that all industries have the obligation to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills, reduce the use of hazardous materials in products, and increase the recycled content of consumer products.

EPR teaches both producers and consumers about their waste habits and educates them about the steps needed for creating a sustainable society prone to high waste diversion. Finally, an EPR policy can stimulate innovation in manufacturing companies through reducing materials, resources and energy usage.

Key message: This is an efficient and recycling sound initiative that not only educates consumers about conservation and recycling, but provides them with an economic incentive to be greener. Waste management only becomes a more transparent and an environmentally friendly process when industries are on board. What better way to do this than through the implementation of an extended producer responsibility policy.

Maude Barlow: The Great Water Warrior

For those who missed Maude Barlow last night she was very impassioned and informative about the global water crisis. As the Senior Advisor on Water Issues for the United Nations, she brought a very global perspective to the issue. Fortunately, she is also the national chairperson for the Council of Canadians and touched on water issues at home. To get a taste of her eloquence and passion see this video. Also check out this video shot in California.

Moving away from the danger zone...

Living near the oceanic coast is a possibility that appeals to a great many people. Ocean views, the sounds of the waves and the fresh ocean air are some of the great attractions to such a location. In many areas, the climate is also wonderful. The west coast is stunningly beautiful, from the mountainous and mild coast of British Columbia, all the way down to the sunny beaches of California.

Out east, the Maritimes and north-eastern United States offer a unique coastal lifestyle, while Florida and the southern states have their own coastal appeal. Few would pass up an opportunity to live along the coast in the Caribbean, Mediterranean or Indian Ocean.

Climate change may change this appeal.

Two of the largest threats imposed by climate change are rising sea levels and the increased frequency of powerful storms. Several models have sea levels rising dramatically by the end of the century, the worst of which wiping out many of the coastal cities and towns that currently exist. Even in the developed world, cities could disappear. Bye bye, New York. See you later, Miami. Where'd Vancouver go?

In the short run, this does not present such a great threat, especially in the developed world. But in the developing world, sea level rises of at least one metre have dire implications. A few months ago, the newly elected President of the 1200 island-nation of Maldives in the Indian Ocean announced that he was going to have to buy a new homeland for his people as the islands face threat of submersion from climate change.

The short-run dangers will be felt more dramatically by the increased frequency of powerful storms. Hurricanes are appearing more frequently and causing more devastation in the Gulf of Mexico. Just look at Katrina three years ago. They are also reaching farther north, hitting the north-eastern United States and the Maritimes. It will only get worse.

Oceanic storms and droughts are making life on the west coast less than desirable, not to mention the ticking time bomb of a massive Earthquake that is supposed to happen any second.

So what could this mean for the future?

If we look at Canada, the west coast is one of the most expensive areas in Canada. Try finding a modest single family home in Vancouver or Victoria for under $500,000. But as the realities of climate change start to sink in, perhaps people may feel less than inclined to live that coastal lifestyle. Imagine a collapse of the housing prices on the coast and the implications that could have on the economy. And where would these people go?

Signs of this are already coming to fruition. Insurance rates along the coast have increased dramatically as the risks associated with climate change also rise. In the southern states along the Gulf of Mexico, some insurance companies have even elected not to insure properties because the risk is too high.

The glitz and glam of coastal living may soon take a turn for the worse.

Are You an Environmentalist?...

Ask yourself this question.

Green Cities: Let’s turn our heads to public transportation…

As a Torontonian, I see public transportation as one of the most important keys to a functional and livable city. Public transit in Toronto is not horrendous unlike other cities in Southern Ontario. Our subway system has its flaws but overall it operates quite well. In earlier posts I have alluded to climate change initiatives and how they should take place at the city level. Cities like Toronto are massive metropolises managing increased urbanization and population pressures.

Whether we’ll admit it or not, traffic congestion and air pollution problems are typically found within a city’s core. Mainly due to the heavy use of automobiles, more consumer activity and the urban heat island effect- something I discussed a couple of weeks ago. Cheap gasoline among other things will always increase our use of automobiles and provide more of a disinclination to use public transit. Public transit costs have only been increasing, however, increased costs have concomitantly led to more investment in transit infrastructure and services i.e. transit is becoming more efficient. Population growth will add more pressures to the public transit system and if it is not managed well, as in we see ridership decrease, then air pollution and the nasty symptoms of climate change are bound to worsen.

My optimism in all of this is with public transportation. Public transit i.e. using buses, light-rail transit (really expensive but can be effective given the resources), streetcars and trains are all viable options. When you increase ridership on all of these modes of transportation you significantly cut down on greenhouse gas emissions and volatile organic compounds that are spewed out of our vehicles. This is no simple solution and will take years to implement adequately. Large city populations must demand these services. How is this going to happen? Creating more public and green spaces in city cores can help for one. Nature is always the remedy for devastating urbanism. In other words, creating green space like parks, marinas and orchards dispersed around the city can motivate and compel citizens to take public transit. Green spaces and more nature areas will eventually lead to a cleaner city both environmentally and socially. Cleaning up transit for one is a great way to allure citizens to use it. Urban planning needs to address this more clearly. Civil servants and leaders of our cities must allocate more resources into public transportation.

Key message: Increasing the welfare of society requires civic leadership and public participation. Both of these things are important for public transportation initiatives. Public transit is undoubtedly expensive to implement at first, but the long-term savings and accumulated capital are noteworthy. Public transit is one of our strongest allies in the fight against climate change. Invest money in it and reap the environmental, economic and social benefits.

Water fountains are a scarce resource on campus…

This bottled water debate is starting to be clearly manifested on campus. I was around our school's library yesterday and noticed a few students with large posters advocating tap water and condemning the use of bottled water. They were asking students about bottled water and trying to gather common perceptions and attitudes towards tap water on campus. Firstly, tap water or simply water fountains are scarce on campus. According to an article published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, university campuses across the country are witnessing dwindling access to drinking water. See article here: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/News/2008/09/PressRelease1949/

Some students, including ones in my residence are scared at even the thought of drinking tap water. Tap water being a scarce resource on top of being stigmatized spells out to an egregious problem, that of the over-consumption of bottled water. I am not going to be overly critical of bottled water but there should be options on campus for those students who prefer tap water. Water fountains need to be invested in and placed in all buildings on campus. Cost savings among other things should be the main impetus. Investing in water fountains would not only save the university money but would also alleviate the frustrations that students have towards its disinclination to implement them. Additionally, students are paying something like $2-5 for a bottle of water from the cafeteria when they can be paying zero dollars on perfectly purified municipal water. Alternatives must be available.

Key message: Invest resources and capital into water fountains so students, faculty and staff have water stations to refill at. Water fountains also complement a university’s green image, and if Trent does not want to compromise its green image, then the merits of tap water and fountains should be considered.

Maude Barlow is coming to Peterborough...

For those of you who happen to live in or around Peterborough, Maude Barlow will be coming to town on Friday, January 30th. The talk, which is taking place at 7:00 pm at the Market Hall, is primarily focused on bottled water and the issues surrounding it.

Maude Barlow is a fairly well-renowned figure in environmental circles, as an author of several books, the national chairperson for the Council of Canadians, and most recently the UN's Senior Advisor on Water Issues. She's a pretty big name. And the show is free, so get there early.

Tim and I do have several issues with some of Maude Barlow's views on water issues, which we will undoubtedly write about in the weeks to come, but she is a terrific and powerful speaker. I highly recommend that everyone try to attend the talk.

Plan B...

Excuse the pessimism, but say the world policy leaders don't listen to the scientists and activists urging them to implement a variety of climate change mitigation techniques right away.

As we might expect, the more disastrous consequences of climate change may start to take effect. The ice caps will melt, sea levels will rise and storms will rip apart pieces of human civilization. Species will become extinct, droughts will occur and our ability to make food and drink water will become increasingly limited. It's not looking good for humans. Shit.

But guess what? We're humans, and we love to survive and control things, no matter the cost. Even when all looks in doubt we can even save ourselves from the big impacts of climate change if need be. At least according to Dr. David Keith at the University of Calgary.

It's slightly frightening, but I highly suggest you take a look:

Text: http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2107

Video: http://sciencestage.com/v/459/david-keith-climate-change-global-issues-science-technology-engineering-china-business.html

Campus composting...

Composting is one of those environmental initiatives that has the potential to be very effective. Composting on Trent's campus has been around for a couple of years but has been vigorously pushed of late. We now have a comprehensive campus wide composting program that collects things that you would not expect your typical compost to collect i.e. waxed paper, paper sandwich wraps and paper plates. In the 2006-2007 academic year our campus composted something like 15,000 kg, an adequate yet relatively small amount given our student population. On the plus side, our composting trends have improved and are starting to look more hopeful. We composted about 56,000 kg last year alone.

I am conducting a campus composting survey this week for one of my classes and in collaboration with the Sustainability Office of our university. The questions are quite eclectic but mainly revolve around common attitudes and perceptions to composting i.e. advantages to such a program, is it well advertised? Which buildings on campus have the highest trends of composting etc. The results are going hopefully reveal a lot of critical data and information- information that we're going to put into a report to make recommendations on how to make the composting program more efficient and effective provided that resources are made available. Composting is one of those things that requires mutual responsibility from the producer and consumer and to a certain degree, it requires social solidarity. Students, faculty and staff are only going to compost if they are aware and informed about its advantages, and if they understand the merits of conserving waste and making waste diversion a more thorough process.

The survey will have a variance in responses and attitudes to composting. I will share them as time progresses.

British Columbia's Carbon Tax...

Ever since BC introduced its Carbon Tax way back in July 2008, it has faced a lot of opposition and disapproval. The government of BC has made it explicit that the carbon tax is forecasted to generate an estimated $1,849 million over three years. This number is being bashed left, right and center from carbon tax opponents around the country. Some of the more common arguments are that it is a "tax grab" and that it negatively impacts consumers and lower income residents who are disproportionately affected by it. For those unfamiliar with BC's carbon tax, here's a quick synopsis of it. The tax is currently enacted in British Columbia’s legislature, it taxes carbon-based fuels including natural gas, diesel, gasoline, and home heating fuel at a rate of $10 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions generated. The tax is revenue neutral. Revenue neutral is when you set higher taxes for things that are bad like pollution, and corresponding reduce taxes on things like income and businesses, which are good for the economy.

Ostensibly, the Climate Action Credit is not even adequate enough. This credit is meant to help lower-income and working families and provide them with an annual payment of $100 per adult, and $30 per child per year. This initiative is designed to provide credit to offset the cost of the tax and encourage households to use the credit for energy efficiency, home retrofitting and vehicle fuel costs, but it cannot be guaranteed that the money will go towards these activities. Heck, even the NDPs of BC have complained and stated that the tax will force cuts to vital health services, as Ambulance costs are projected to rise.

Amidst this whole carbon tax debate, industries and households are criticizing each other over who emits more carbon. Industries "need" to continue producing in order to maintain competitiveness. They claim that the carbon tax will damage their profits and in turn affect the domestic economy. In short, they are not happy. Residents of northern British Columbia are particularly discontented with the tax, stating that because they rely more on automobility and home heating, the costs will be exorbitant and financially burdensome.

A couple of solutions to this problem and ideas from Europe: 1) introduce compensation measures. Compensation measures use part of the fiscal revenue from the tax, to compensate those most affected by it. Compensation measures such as lump-sum redistribution to the population can alleviate the negative impacts on low income households. Lump-sum redistribution can provide low income and average families with a single payment, rather than a series of payments. This can help households make the necessary consumer changes all at once and assist them with budgeting for less carbon intensive products and making more efficient use of energy. However, this can only happen with regulation. 2) require industry to introduce less emitting technologies that could compensate industrial polluters for additional abatement costs.

In other words, the government can help industry pay for technological improvements so less carbon dioxide is emitted. Also make them invest a portion of their income into research and development in renewable energy and energy efficiency to mitigate total carbon dioxide emissions. Partial exemption to the industries of British Columbia could also spur investment for research and development, thereby maintaining competitiveness and forcing industry to adopt more environmentally friendly practices.

I did extensive research on BC's carbon tax for my public policy class. These are just a few ideas.

Riding the subsidy wave...

In an earlier post, Tim mentioned the Federal government's Energuide for Houses Program, which has since been scrapped in favour of the nearly identical, but differently named EcoEnergy Program implemented by Stephen Harper's Conservative government.

Both of these programs are examples of subsidization programs; a particular type of economic tool used by governments to change people's behaviour. The Canadian federal government (both Conservative and Liberal) has traditionally taken a liking to the subsidization strategy as a means of dealing with environmental issues.

Along with the EcoEnergy and Energuide for Houses Program, the federal government has launched several programs offering subsidies to the general public, including the infamous EcoAuto program whereby car-buyers were offered rebates for purchasing vehicles with better fuel economies.

Apart from being expensive and often very difficult to revoke, some subsidies, such as the 'Eco' programs, aren't always as effective as they could be. Much of this is attributeable to the 'free rider' problem.

Say you're a homeowner with an oil furnace. You're starting to feel guilty about burning oil and its contributions to global warming, while the price of oil in the summer skyrocketed and even though it's gone down since, it'll probably go back up. It's time for a change. So you elect to replace your dirty old oil furnace with a high efficient natural gas furnace. It's cleaner and will save you a bundle in the long run. Oh, and look at that, the federal and provincial governments, along with the gas company are offering subsidies to cover almost half the cost of the furnace. Bonus.

Let's look at this situation. I coordinated a program under the EcoEnergy program this past summer, and such a scenario was incredibly common. It wasn't the subsidy that convinced these people to change their behaviour, but other factors. The subsidy was just an added bonus. The people are free riders'; people who are getting money at the expense of taxpayers to do something they would have done anyway.

The same story exists with the EcoAuto program. Was it the subsidy that was making people buy the fuel-efficient cars, or is it concerns over climate change and high gas prices?

Several subsidy programs can be effective and curb people's behaviour, while also spurring innovation in certain industries, such as solar and wind subsidies in Germany. But numerous subsidy programs suffer greatly from the 'free rider' problem and are ineffective in seriously changing people's behaviour. They are also costly and take the place of other funding programs or strategies to deal with environmental issues.

I would also argue that subsidy programs are a key political ploy. So next time a subsidy program is announced, take a second look and see how effective it might actually be and the context it's being offered in.

Local action on climate change...

Action on climate change needs to start happening at the local level. Cities in particular have the potential to be the biggest leaders on climate change action given that there is a willingness to bring about initiatives. While it is understood that city budgets are often constrained and limited in terms of spending, they need more access to funding from other levels of government. There are numerous things that I can speak to but I want to draw on the region of Waterloo.

Cities in the Waterloo region (Cambridge, Kitchener, Waterloo) have been very pro-active on climate action initiatives. After all, these cities were among the biggest promoters of the EnerGuide for Houses Program. In short, the EnerGuide for Houses program was formally launched in 1998 and administered by the Office of Energy Efficiency. The impetus for this audit program was to inform homeowners about how much energy they were consuming, and subsequently provided steps to the homeowner about how they could improve the energy efficiency of the house and the expected energy savings. All those who participated in the program noticed energy savings of $750 every year.

Through establishing demand-side management with the local electric utilities company, the region of Waterloo has been effective in tackling climate change. Over the years Waterloo did encounter challenges with obtaining money from the federal government to continue the program. However, all three municipalities in the region have continuously been strong advocates of energy efficiency. Citizens were actively engaged in the program and worked with their local utilities. With civic leadership at the forefront, homeowners were informed about how to retrofit their homes to make them more energy efficient. In essence, this is sound municipal and citizen collaboration. The program just needed money to be administered. Remember, cities do not have a large source of revenue and are financially strained when introducing new programs.

Key message: cities need to have access to funding, especially for administering energy audits to ensure that the actions stimulated by the cost incentive are most appropriate or provide the best return for homeowner investment. Local climate action from cities and municipalities are indispensable for raising awareness of the issue and informing people about the merits of energy conservation and the cost savings associated with it. Local programs like EnerGuide for Housing are important for taking meaningful action on climate change.

The plight of environmental student groups...

Being part of an environmental student group is certainly a mixed bag. It can be both a wonderful and terribly frustrating experience. If you have ever been part of one of these groups (or any student group for that matter), you may fully understand this experience.

Environmental student groups are often characterized by a variety of obstacles that can inhibit the overall success of the group. Firstly, they are often comprised of student volunteers. While these people are often hard-working and energetic, it is still a volunteer position. Especially for a student, who may have a variety of extracurricular and school-related activities going on, putting a great deal of time and effort into a group may be quite difficult. This is a plight shared by nearly every small student group. Many of the students involved in the group may have differing commitments to it, which could result in levels of infighting between those who put in lots of time and those who don't.

One particular problem related to environmental groups in particular is the image portrayed. Environmentalism is often seen as something for hippies and children of the counter-culture, rather than being open to those who may be slightly more mainstream. As a result, the public and the general student body may have predetermined opinions of a group, potentially reducing interest in the group and its activities. Those who may have some interest in joining such a group may feel inclined to pass if they don't believe they're 'green' enough to be part of the group.

The environment is a fairly broad topic, encompassing everything from trees and 'nature' to broader aspects of human processes and sustainability. Determining where a group stands in its approach to the environment can be a difficult one, as members may want to focus on specific issues, while others may think it unfair to ignore the broader aspects of the environment.

This is the primary barrier of the environmental student group. What should it be trying to do?

Students are naturally full of zest and vigour and this may eminate into ambitious notions of what can be achieved. Unfortunately, student groups are limited in their resources and may often shoot too high. This is especially common in student groups that are small and getting on their feet.

Are environmental student groups bad? Not at all. At Trent University, the sustainability group Sustainable Trent has achieved a variety of notable goals. From the implementation of recycling facilities on campus, to large conferences and Lug-a-Mug programs, the group is highly successful. It is comprised of hard-working and diverse volunteers. It also managed to obtain a great deal of levy funding in order to increase its abilities, from guest speakers to funding student sustainability projects.

But even this group is not immune from the plight of student groups, like wavering volunteer commitments, membership turnover due to graduation and determining the scope of goals for the group.

Environmental student groups may have high levels of ambition, but getting carried away and shooting too high can be the downfall for many groups. As Sustainable Trent has demonstrated, success can be met through smaller and achievable goals. This is often the best course of action for groups that suffer from many of the aforementioned limitations. Recognizing the realities of being a student group can be the most important aspect, otherwise you might want to kiss the group goodbye.

Environmental Gangsters...

This whole discussion and dialogue on environmentalism has got me wondering. In this environmental movement, who are the good guys and who are the bad ones? We’re all in this to make some meaningful change to the environment, whether it’s through pollution control initiatives, carbon taxes or planting trees in our backyards. All of these actions will have some impact on the environment albeit small on the overall scale. As Chris mentioned in an earlier post, the Earth has been around for about 4.7 billion years. It adapts tremendously overtime and continues to adapt with the onslaught of our profligate industrial activities. Whether the Earth can handle our anthropocentric pressures is another story. But as environmental policy becomes more progressive and stringent, we are going to see more action taken on the environment because we have collectively agreed to do so. Policy instruments like carbon taxes, congestion pricing schemes and the polluter pays principle will all come to the forefront.

Who are the environmental gangsters? I would argue not people exploiting or abusing the environment, but people who do good for the environment. Environmental gangsters are people who take a fond interest over their natural environment. Just like neighbourhood gangsters who take great pride in protecting their community, albeit through more aggressive means, environmental gangsters really are the protectors of our planet. Individuals who recognize its intrinsic value and people who are willing to protect it from industrialists or people who only see the environment for its monetary value. In spite of the negative connotation attached to this to this label, it is a message that comes with passion and conviction.

Do environmental gangsters need more policy control to implement tools that will protect the environment? Sure! The merits of pricing and taxation can induce positive consumer changes like conservation and environmental awareness. Environmental gangsters are the real catalysts of change. With power and vision, they could administer extraordinary initiatives that would protect the environment and embrace it for its natural beauty and inherent value. More will follow on environmental gangsterism...

Nucular. It's pronounced nucular...

Nuclear energy is undoubtedly one of the more controversial choices amongst the carbon-emissions-free toolbox.

For those who like it, they probably like it a lot. Firstly, it is free of carbon-emissions and doesn't emit any other airborne pollutants that may contribute to poor air quality the same way a coal-fired plant or oil refinery may. From the climate change point of view, this is a big deal.

The energy can also be produced domestically, allowing countries to be free from foreign influence, which has been a boon of the American energy supply. It's relatively easy to do and much more advanced since the Three Mile Island or Chernobyl days. The plants also produce necessary radio-isotopes used in radiation treatment.

Most importantly, it wouldn't require a massive societal shift in electricity consumption. One of the implications of climate change mitigation is that our consumption-based way of life may have to take a hit. Imagine if we didn't have to and kept the air clean. Sounds pretty good.

Many look at the downsides. It's expensive and not always reliable. Nuclear plants shut down from time to time, often take too long to build and generally go over-budget. Not to mention the size of the facilities necessary.

They're also not completely emissions free. While the air may be free from nuclear impact, the land and water may feel the effects of disposing the toxic waste produced by nuclear plants. Storing this waste is costly, slightly dangerous and the waste takes thousands of years to breakdown. Getting the uranium needed for nuclear production is also less than an attractive activity, requiring mining that has been shown to have detrimental effects on the surrounding areas. Near Peterborough, an environmental battle has erupted over the mining of uranium.

The safety of nuclear is also a concern. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were serious events, and Chernobyl especially showcased the devastating effects a nuclear disaster can have. Such a disaster is possible with any nuclear facility.

Nuclear is potentially dangerous and expensive, but it has the potential to power our lives without requiring we drastically change the way we live. The latter may be too tempting to refuse.

Drive-Thru Milk...

I stumbled upon a conversation at work today where the topic of a new dairy products store was being discussed. The company, Kawartha Dairy, is building a new store in Peterborough, but with a little twist: it will have a drive-thru.

Kawartha Dairy is famous in Peterborough and the surrounding area as being one of the best producers of milk products, especially ice cream. In addition to its high quality of products, many feel inclined to purchase from Kawartha Dairy because it is a local company as they can contribute to the local economy and forego the environmental detriment that would come as a result of purchasing products being shipped from the other side of the world.

But there has also been a serious environmental push away from drive-thrus. Drive thrus encourage the use of cars and also lead to a significant level of idling emissions as cars slowly make their way through drive-thru lines. Not to mention the fact that drive-thrus might be considered a tad lazy.

Sure, simply driving to the store and picking up milk without leaving the car may be quite convenient, but the environmental costs may outweigh those conveniences. I expect to hear more of this in the coming weeks, as environmentalists galore start to toss in their two cents. I'll keep you posted.

A few words can go a long way...

Barack Obama has got a lot on his plate. And the expectations placed on him are pretty extraordinary. Will he accomplish everything he has set out to do? Probably not. This is a function of the economic crisis and the wide range of issues he wishes to deal with in the next four to eight years. 

But it is important to take note of the issues that he frequently mentions. In many of his speeches, he usually begins by making reference to four main subjects: fixing the economy; the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; energy independence; climate change.

The fourth subject might be of greatest interest to us. You'll notice he often refers to a 'planet in peril' among numerous other terms to describe climate change. Addressing climate change is a complex issue and would require far more than the participation of the United States, but as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions it certainly plays a key role. How Obama addresses climate change is still a little up in the air and whether or not he will be able to do very much is still quite uncertain.

But the fact that climate change gets mentioned along with the other big three during Obama's speeches is a sign one can be hopeful of. We'll just have to keep our fingers crossed that serious climate change policy in the United States doesn't solely remain in speeches.    

Bottled water debate...

David Zetland, blogger of Aguanomics and researcher at UC Berkeley discusses the bottled water issue. Courtesy of Bloomberg.com:
http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/Economics/On_Economy/vGBtvsfu8Ofg.mp3

What ever happen to Bloomberg's Windmill plan?

In August 2008, NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a windmill power plan. His ambitious plan would involve putting windmill turbines on city skyscrapers, bridges and coastlines to generate renewable energy. It seems like a good idea in theory, but has faced a lot opposition. Bloomberg's plan is to place these wind turbines on the windy coast off Queens, Brooklyn and Long Island with hopes of generating 10 percent of the city's electricity needs in 10 years. see article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/nyregion/20windmill.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=Wind%20turbine%20New%20York%20City&st=cse&oref=slogin

It is hard to be overly optimistic about this plan. Firstly, the idea was proposed over five months ago and has not received much attention ever since. Secondly, Bloomberg has pushed other ambitious proposals in the past like the congestion pricing plan for Manhattan that never came through. A windmill power plan may prove to be more unrealistic than a congestion pricing plan but has the potential to be extraordinary with state and federal support. I wonder though how other stakeholders are responding to this. We cannot forget that Quebec is New York state's main electricity supplier. Quebec's electricity is overwhelmingly powered by hydro-electric dams which has faced a lot controversy over the past 10 years.

Key message: Bloomberg's plan needs better foresight. Placing wind turbines on bridges, skyscrapers and coastlines is feasible but needs more support. Nothing like this has ever been attempted in North America before. Will it change NYC's image as a green city? Only time will tell and Bloomberg has some work to do.

CCS Battlefield: CNN Advertising Airtime

                                                                                 vs.

The commercial breaks between CNN shows have become the latest battlefield in the adoption of controversial Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. For many weeks, the folks over at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) had been serving up commercials trying to cozy viewers up to the idea of a continued use of coal as a primary source of electricity generation in the United States. 

The commercials (found here) focus on the importance coal plays in the American electricity supply (approximately 50%), the cheapness of coal-produced electricity, the abundance of coal in America (take note of the whole energy independence issue in the US) and the prevalence of CCS as a means of capturing all the environmentally harmful emissions produced from coal. The last factor was the real sticking point.

As climate change gets more important, the coal industry has taken a real beating. Because coal is one of the dirtier energy sources (dirtier than oil and natural gas) in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, many are trying to get away from coal-fired electricity generation. Even in Canada, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has pledged to shutdown all of Ontario's coal-fired plants in due course. But if all the harmful emissions from coal could be captured and stored safely, the United States would be looking at a pretty nice energy supply for the next few hundred years.

This is where the folks at Reality.Org have decided to step in. Over the past month or so, the group (which is comprised of several environmental organizations) has been putting together commercials (one found here) showcasing the lack of CCS technology in the US. According to Reality.org, there are no CCS projects up and running in the US for clean coal.

This is true, but several are in the works. Whether or not they ever get completed is questionable.

I certainly don't back either organization, but they each have some decent points. The ACCCE is right that clean coal could be a very effective and dependable source of electricity in the United States, if it works. CCS is outrageously expensive and would lower coal's affordability significantly. Not to mention that CCS plants are not proven to capture 100% of emissions from any energy source, including coal. On the other hand it seems that Reality.Org is primarily focusing on the lack of CCS projects. If CCS starts to be implemented for clean coal facilities, the Reality.Org argument may be significantly weakened. 

The most important aspect of this battle is to look at the organizations themselves. The ACCCE is formed by the corporate coal industry who see that their dominant industry is in danger. Reality.Org is made up of a coalition of environmental groups who have traditionally been very opposed to CCS and are in complete favour of renewable energy, sometimes offering unrealistic rhetoric on the viability of renewable technologies. It should all be taken with a grain of salt.

Green Cities: Curitiba, Brazil, one's of the world's most green cities

I have started researching the city of Curitiba for my Urban Planning class. I have ample interest in looking at this city because it leads the world in urban planning initiatives that revolve around sound environmentalism. Not many people have heard of this city but would be astonished to discover its outstanding achievements. A city of about 2 million people located 650 km southwest of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It has become a model for green cities through illustrating the powerful effects of public participation and the audacity to bring change. It has a comprehensive recycling program that has a high participation rate, 70 percent of the city's citizens use this program including people of the lower class and upper class. In fact, food and bus coupons are given out by the city in exchange for recyclable products. This provides the poor with an alternative to welfare while also protecting and embracing the environment. The money raised from selling recyclable materials goes into social programs and the city employs the homeless and recovering alcoholics in its garbage separation plant.

Its transportation system has a 75% ridership rate. Some of its special articulated buses can carry up to 270 people and travel on dedicated bus lanes. With high levels of public transit ridership, there is no need to implement a congestion tax similar to what other cities have done like London to control traffic congestion in the downtown area. Even more ingenious in its urban planning has been the initiative to provide a feeder network of small buses and vans that collect people from residential areas. Forthcoming blog entries will delve more into the phenomenon of "New Urbanism" which is centered on community functionality and livability.

A lot of the success to the city has been attributable to civic leadership and public participation. Giving the citizens a chance to work with their urban planners and politicians to design the city's layout, has resulted in great success. Children are educated at a young age about the merits of conserving energy like switching off lights at school and using less water. As my research progresses, I will share more edifying facts about this city and its outstanding accomplishments on environmental initiatives through planning. If this is not a good example of sound urban planning, then what is?

Is the Polar Bear the right posterboy?...

There is currently a conference going on in Winnipeg, MB concerning climate change and Canada's implications. One of the primary discussion topics will be that of the polar bear, which has found itself as the posterboy for climate change.

Images of the polar bear (which lives primarily in Canada's melting Arctic) struggling to hunt and falling in and out of the frigid ocean waters as a result of the increasingly thinning ice in the Arctic have been pasted all over mainstream media outlets; from major motion pictures like An Inconvenient Truth to book covers and climate change coverage from news broadcasters. Whether it likes it or not, the polar bear is the face we have put to climate change.

But is the polar bear the right image we want to portray in the effort to mitigate climate change?

The polar bear is a magnificent creature that many are willing to protect. To lose such a creature is a thought that bothers a great deal of people. And the loss of other animals like elephants and whales has prompted a level of concern to deal with other environmental issues. To Canadians in particular it is a symbol of our national identity (even though the United States placed it on their Endangered Species list before Canada did). 

But climate change is such a complex problem with a variety of impacts. If we want human beings (especially in the developed world) to start taking climate change seriously, should we really be placing a lot of emphasis on an animal? Or should we instead begin to really highlight the aspects of climate change that will have immediate and direct effects on human beings? 

Severe droughts in the south-eastern United States, the eradication of BC and Alberta forests from the Mountain Pine Beetle, more frequent and powerful storms, loss of fresh water resources and more heat waves are just a few issues that could be the main face of climate change. 

The polar bear is a magnificent creature and losing it would be devastating. But human beings naturally place concern over something to a much greater degree when it affects them directly, so should we really be holding the polar bear as the climate change martyr?  

The economic crisis and the environment...

The infamous housing and sub-prime mortgage crisis and the resulting massive economic downturn has had a multitude of impacts (both big and small) on several aspects of our lives. But to what degree has it had an effect on the environment?

I would expect much of the impact has been quite detrimental to the environment. Environmental programs put forth by government, businesses and other organizations may very well find themselves stuck on the shelves for awhile as more economy-centric programs are implemented in their place, or simply because the providers of the programs may be unable to afford to continue the programs. 

This could result in the curtailing of enforcement in several government environmental programs, which would be reminiscent of the Harris era in which numerous environmental programs were nearly eliminated and the frequency of illegal toxic dumping increased nearly 400%. This is a dangerous possibility. 

Households will also be less interested in 'greening' themselves as they become cash-strapped and focus primarily on the necessities. However, as households become less eager to spend, the demand for goods will also decrease, which in many cases may have negative effects. Take the price of gas for instance. It has sunk nearly 50% since the summer, prompting many to rekindle their love for driving and perhaps drive a little more than they did before the summer. Sadly, the atmosphere can't differentiate between cheap and expensive greenhouse gases.

But there is a tiny bit of hope. With the downfall of an industrial economy comes the reduction in industrial processes and therefore a fall in greenhouse gases. During the 1990s, Russia (an oil and gas giant) posted some of the most impressive reductions in greenhouse gases, making it one of the only large developed countries to even come close to achieving its Kyoto targets. Russia experienced massive unemployment after the collapse of the Soviet Union and a massive economic downfall, but once it got on its feet it began churning out the greenhouse gas and is now producing nearly as much greenhouse gas emissions as Canada (not something to be proud of).

But the revamping of the global economy doesn't have to have the same impact as in the Russian case. As governments deliver these massive stimulus packages, there is a window for significant environmental funding. Barack Obama has made it quite clear that he aims to take advantage of this, and one can hope other world leaders follow suit.

A wealth of problems have been created in the wake of the economic crisis. The fate of the environment lingers and we can only hope that it is still remembered as the world recovers and starts up again. 

We're not in this to save the planet...

I attribute much of this entry to the late George Carlin, whose comedic rant about environmentalists got me thinking:

For decades many environmentalists have been parading around encouraging others to help in the battle to 'save the planet'. Moreover, as part of the recent indulgence of business to 'green itself', a myriad of advertising campaigns speak about their desire to 'help save the planet'. I think we need to make something clear: the planet doesn't need saving.

In its 4.7 billion year history, the planet has dealt with quite a bit. Ice ages to warm periods, asteroids and comets and who knows what else. And with each change the planet has promptly dealt with it and refreshed itself, without anything or anyone else helping out. And now humans believe that the planet needs our help to save itself from the problems we've caused since our 15,000 years or so on the planet. A tad arrogant, isn't it? As far as the planet is concerned, anthropogenic problems are simply an itch that needs to be scratched; it's faced far more significant issues before.

So what are we really trying to save? Ourselves probably; or if we're trying to sound a little less selfish, trying to save an environment that will allow us to keep living fairly comfortably. And sure, perhaps some are looking to save certain animals, species or ecosystems for their intrinsic value, which is justified.

But it's an important question to ask yourself: in the whole environmental issue, who or what is it that you think we're trying to save? Because it certainly isn't the planet.

The Law of Diminishing Intent and its hindrance to effective decision-making...

This past summer I was asked to read a book for my August Don training session. It was one of those quasi-inspirational books that are a joy to read, but very idealistic and overly positive about life’s greatest challenges. Anyway, the book was full of fascinating ideas and concepts, some of which relate to making rational and practical policy decisions on the environment. I came across a term called the “law of diminishing intent”. Simply put, it means that when a leader has a great idea with popular support, they should put it into practice expeditiously. A solidified idea can always expand and get bigger and bigger the more you delay it. While this is all well and good, it may distract someone from implementing the idea and putting it into practice. Therefore, the longer you wait to carry out your leadership initiative, idea or policy approach, your intent and inclination will gradually diminish. You lose motivation over time and your enthusiasm also decreases because you have waited so long to do something with your idea.

For environmental decision-making around the world, the same principle holds. Our politicians placed at the top of the hierarchy continue to release highly contentious environmental policy plans that not only face opposition from the public, but from members of their own parties. The law of diminishing intent has the potential to be both productive and counter-productive. Well-thought out policies that are environmentally, socially and economically sound are rarely spoken of. Probably because our decision-makers are too caught up on how to optimally deliver a policy that guarantees adequacy in all three categories. Our leaders, politicians and environmental lobby groups need to consciously think about how to execute and deliver their plans or ideas. With regard to our natural environment, it is the law of diminishing intent that vaporizes all of the sensible and practical solutions.

Key message: Overcoming the law of diminishing intent will require our leaders to stop getting caught up in overly ambitious targets. Our leaders focus particularly on quantitative targets that may be too ambitious and unrealistic to achieve like meeting our greenhouse gas emissions targets. They need to consider other approaches that are more inclusionary and efficient. They can start with meaningful action that engages citizens to participate and become a part of the decision-making process. When engaged citizens are working together and become part of the decision-making process, you minimize the law of diminishing intent because you have established a more cohesive decision-making body.

A good joke for the day. Something that was passed on to me from a friend.

Why the USA has Crisis

A Swiss doctor says 'Medicine in my country is so
advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have
him looking for work in six weeks.'

A German doctor says 'That is nothing; we can take a
lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him looking for work in four
weeks.

A Russian doctor says 'In my country, medicine is so
advanced that we can take half a heart out of one person, put it in another, and
have them both looking for work in two weeks.'

An American Texas doctor, not to be outdone, says 'You
guys are Way behind, we recently took a man with no brains out of Texas, put him
in The White House for eight years, and now half the country is looking for
work.'

The Glorious Golden Horseshoe

The Golden Horseshoe is Canada's most densely populated region. With a population of about 8 million people, it constitutes 25% of Canada's population. I have studied the Golden Horseshoe extensively in some of my geography classes. A main and key question continues to be raised, how will the Golden Horseshoe cope with population increases while maintaining the competitive industrial sector? In addition, how can the region expand without compromising the environment by placing stresses on local ecosystems?

The horseshoe extends from as far south as the Niagara Falls to as far east as Oshawa. Thousands of people rely heavily on this region for employment in the manufacturing and service sectors. The region is projected to grow to 11.5 million by 2031. Increased urbanization cannot pass a certain capacity, and if this capacity is surpassed, the repercussions will be dire. As mentioned, it is a very industrialized region known as urban agglomeration where many manufacturing firms cluster together. These firms benefit tremendously by locating near each other mainly due to the lower costs of production.

This region has many features that are highly attractive for tourists and immigrants. Universities, service sector jobs, a culture of governance, business and health care just to name a few. With the recent economic downturn, the region's manufacturing sector has undoubtedly taken a hit. However, it still has the potential to revitalize itself and become an economic power house for the country. But it comes back to that central question of population growth and the environment. Smart growth will tell us that we must concentrate growth in the centre of the city to avoid urban sprawl. In other words, promoting the city as a place to live and creating efficient public transportation systems such as light-rail transit, bike paths and hybrid buses to accommodate the population. Citizens of the region can avoid making those long commutes from the suburbs to the city, where their jobs are overwhelmingly concentrated.

Main Message: We need to find sustainable solutions for managing population growth. It is clear that the Golden Horseshoe will only become more popular. Cities located within the Golden Horseshoe must act now, and invest money into public transportation, recognize and designate environmentally sensitive areas or bio-regions, and promote green spaces.

Delivering a dangerous message...

Two years ago, the renowned super-enviro, David Suzuki, came to speak at Trent University. He spoke very passionately on the importance of our environment and a myriad of other environmental topics, in particular climate change.

While the talk was quite uplifting and inspirational, there was one moment where Mr. Suzuki really lost me. He was going on a tirade against the atrocities brought on by capitalism, financial greed and an overdependence on neo-liberal economics. I had little issue with this part of the talk, but it was his summation of this issue that threw me over the top. He went on to describe economics as the enemy of the environment and that any association with economics would surely be the continued downfall of the environment. It was met by outstanding applause from the apparently naive audience. 

I was taken aback not only because I was a young economics student, but I also knew he was wrong and sending a very dangerous message. For decades there has been a perception that economics and the environment are on the opposite ends of the scale. Economic growth will hurt the environment and vice versa. There is considerable evidence against such a view, but Mr. Suzuki was feeding it. And his message was not even solely focused on economic growth, but economics as a whole.

Economics could very well be one of the greatest allies in the fight against climate change and other enemies of the environment, as long as it's used properly. True, the exploitive use of neo-liberal economics and capitalism can be detrimental, but these are simply forms of economics, not representative of the whole discipline. 

While economics may only be a part in abating climate change, it will still play a part. Ignoring it and inciting an encouragable public to think similarly is a dangerous game and will only delay abatement. Economics is not the enemy of the environment, but a friend, as long as it's used properly.  

Marc Jaccard on the Carbon Tax

Mark Jaccard is Professor of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University. He is one of Canada's leading experts on climate change policy. This is his take on the carbon tax

To Price or Not to Price...

The world is quickly running out of fresh water. The unsustainable use of fresh water has left many areas as deserts, a future that could envelop a much greater share of the world if fresh water supplies continue to dwindle. 

As Tim noted earlier, Canada holds approximately 20% of the world's fresh water. And when you live within Canada, it seems as though we could never possibly run out of our vast supply. But do not be fooled. Canada's greatest sources of fresh water, the Great Lakes, have been steadily declining in past years and continue to do so at increasingly higher rates.

The water needs to be protected. While there are several factors affecting Canada's water supply (climate change, pollution, oil development, NAFTA, etc), nothing is more influential than general consumption. The average Canadian uses nearly three times as much water as the average European. And it is not surprising. With seemingly unlimited supplies of fresh water at virtually no cost, why would Canadians feel inclined to conserve water?

Perhaps Canadian water suppliers should begin enforcing price controls. Similar to other utility usage, like electricity, a price could be put on a measurable amount of water and individuals could be charged for their usage. Or even a tax could be imposed, whereby users are taxed for consumption above a particular level. This would provide an economic incentive (one of the most powerful of incentives) to curb unsustainable water usage, ideally to the point whereby Canada's fresh water stocks could effectively replenish themselves.

A number of issues arise with water pricing, but here are two to quickly ponder:

If water is to be priced, who gains the revenue? If water is a public good, should water revenue be allocated to a particular party or shared among the masses?

Is it morally acceptable to price water? It is considered a universally-accepted human right. Should we be able to put a price on a human right, regardless of what it's intention may be?   

Water abundance and scarcity

The water issue is slowly starting to permeate many of our discussions in our classes. From a basic standpoint, we know that Canada has about 20 percent of the world's fresh water resources. This is plentiful considering our population of 33 million or so. However, be aware that only 9 percent of this amount is actually renewable water. A lot of the freshwater found within this country lies in the great lakes, rivers and streams. Many of the rivers and streams however, divert and carry water upstream to the north, away from Canada's dense southern population. Nonetheless, we are still managing our water resources adequately but must plan rationally for future supply.

About 80 countries in the world face impending shortages in their quantity and/or quality of their water supply. Contrary to popular belief, the United States is joining this list of water scarce countries. Urbanization, population demand, disease, poverty and rapid development are all exacerbating water supply conditions for these countries. The United States Southwest region for example, has put tremendous stress and pressure on the Colorado River leading to massive shortages in supply. Irrigation among other things, contributes to this problem of excessive water consumption.

Our blog will feature more information about the salience of water conservation and how conserving this precious resource will be key for future generations. To start with brief discussion of water usage in the US southwest, all states should emulate Arizona's water limitation system. Ostensibly, this state has imposed restrictions on water usage for households; this includes taking showers less frequently and cutting down irrigation for agriculture. In order to move forward and work towards a binding solution to the water crisis, states in the southwest must impose similar restrictions and endeavor to recycle their water resources at all costs. Priorities must be set; minimize the amount of water used for golf courses and the manufacturing sector, and consider conservation techniques like drip irrigation and state controlled water allocation. Provide water on a per demand basis, and consider the merits of imposing a cost for over-use and/or irresponsible use. More discussion will follow on the water crisis. Please feel free to contribute.

Climate Change or Global Warming...

Climate change. Global warming. They're the same thing, right? 

As the world warms, so the climate changes. No biggie. The terms are interchangable. Not quite.

From an environmental communication point of view, the term used has very differing implications. Because of its complex seriousness and potential impact on so many aspects of our current lifestyles, climate change has a solid following of skeptics who wish (for a variety of often selfish reasons) to discredit any relationship between human beings and climate change, let alone the fact that climate change is actually happening.

You will see these skeptics more commonly using the 'global warming' term rather than 'climate change'. It isn't hard to see why. Even though the world is warming on average, this doesn't mean that every part of the world is warming nor are the warming areas necessarily going to be warming all the time. As a result, it's easy for skeptics to quickly dismiss any evidence of climate change, claiming that it must be a false phenomenon because certain areas are not warming. 

For instance, a writer for the National Post repeatedly refers to his unusually cold and wet week at his Ontario cottage as strict evidence that climate change does not exist. Last year there were icebergs floating off the coast of New Zealand. That certainly doesn't provide much evidence of global warming.

'Climate change' on the other hand embraces the entire issue. It acknowledges that parts of the world will warm, but other parts will cool. It's considerably harder for skeptics to discredit such a term. 

To those who are more accepting of the evidence surrounding climate change, the two terms may be interchangable. But for the purpose of communicating with the public and limiting the abilities of climate change skeptics, perhaps we should put more emphasis on 'climate change' than 'global warming'.     

CCS: A double-edged sword...

One of the most promising and controversial solutions being offered to humanity's climate change problem is carbon capture and storage (CCS). Quite simply, the technology involves capturing the carbon-dioxide emitted from the larger industrial emitters (production factories, oil and gas refineries, etc), condensing the gas and sending it via pipeline to safe storage spots deep underground or underground. 

The technology has the potential to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions substantially, as high as 40% in some studies. This is higher than any other solution being offered, with the exception of voluntary reduction in consumption, which might be pushing it a bit.

Unfortunately, there are several downsides to such a technology. First of all, it's expensive. It requires huge capital investment, usually hovering in the billions of dollars. It's also a relatively new technology. Only two major projects are currently up and running (one being the Weyburn Project in Saskatchewan), but several others are starting up. Although there have been no reported problems in the two projects, research is still in its infancy. How can large firms be expected to invest in something that is so expensive and not yet proven to be fail-safe? Especially when it offers them very little benefit with the exception feeling good about keeping some carbon out of the atmosphere.

Nevertheless, government and industry have started to invest billions of dollars in the technology, including those in Canada and the United States. This does make CCS less costly, but it also diverts the already limited funding available for abatement technologies away from alternative technologies like renewable energy systems.

Then again, there has to be something said for a technology that allows us to continue living the way we do without being as detrimental to the environment. This is incredibly tempting and somewhat realistic. We're not going to suddenly drop our use of oil or other fossil fuels overnight. At least CCS will make the transition less harmful than otherwise.

But it may also delay the changes that we need to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. 

CCS has the potential to both contribute greatly to a reduction in our carbon emissions, but also delay the changes we need in the long-term. What to do? What to do? 

Looking into environmental law...

Environmental law is a growing field of law that is becoming increasingly important. More and more law schools have begun including environmental law courses and programs, and some have developed specializations in environmental law. I have been interested in law and environmental law for the past few years and have subsequently spent many hours researching the different law school opportunities in Canada, specifically with respect to environmental law.

It is important to consider the implications of studying at a particular law school. For instance, most law (particularly environmental law) is taught provincially, meaning that the law you learn in BC might be quite different from that in Ontario. As a result, many people who study law in a given province end up staying in the province they studied in. This is not to say you can not work in other provinces, but it may be more difficult to learn the different laws and to re-establish yourself, as many people make their most important connections in law school.

Because Canada has such a wide variety of climates and landscapes, each province and even each law school may have a different type of environmental issue that its environmental law courses focus on. For example, in BC much of the law may focus on forestry, fresh water and coastal wildlife. Alberta schools have a tendency to focus on the more industrial side of environmental law, such as oil and natural gas law, while the schools in the Maritimes focus primarily on marine environmental issues.

It is also important to note that going into environmental law does not necessarily require that you take numerous environmental law courses or that you go to a school that specializes in environmental law. This may be the case for people like myself, who are more interested in policy and government approaches to the environment and the law, in which case you may not necessarily have to take courses focused on environmental law, but rather bring an environmental perspective to other areas of law. Chances are, if have an undergraduate degree in something like environmental studies or science, you probably know more about the environment that most of the others in your law class.

This list largely focuses on Canadian schools, but there are hundreds of law schools in the United States, many of which focus on environmental law. But many of them are private (approx. US$40,000 tuition) and you can't practice law in Canada with a degree from the U.S. 

That being said, here is a quick summary of the schools I feel are noteworthy from an environmental law standpoint:

University of Victoria, Victoria, BC

• Small school (approx. 80 students in the first year class) right on the Pacific Ocean 
• Has an Environmental Law Centre and offers several env. law courses
• Relatively inexpensive tuition (approx. $7500)
• Incredible climate and progressive university (similar to Trent)
• Victoria is among the most expensive cities in Canada (pricier than Toronto) and usually has about a 1.5% vacancy rate. You'll be hard-pressed to find cheap housing
• BC has the highest average cost of living among Canada's provinces 

University of Calgary, Calgary, AB

• Focuses on natural resources law (oil, gas etc)
• Has a combined Law/Masters degree in Environmental Studies
• One of the easier law schools to get into
• Calgary is uber-expensive
• Maybe not the right school for those who want to save whales and whatnot

York University, Toronto, ON

• One of the most respected law schools in Canada
• Massive first year enrollment (approx. 300 students)
• Many environmental law courses offered and a combined Law/Masters Degree in Env. Studies
• Located in Toronto, so much of the law teaching is Toronto focused
• Difficult to get into
• One of the pricier schools in Canada (tuition is approx. $15,000) 

University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON

• Very large law school, offering a specialization in environmental law
• Many courses focus on policy and government (it is Ottawa after all)
• Has an Environmental Law Centre
• Ontario is very large and affordable, so the opportunities to live and work in Ontario comfortably are very promising
• Middle of the road admissions standards
• Ottawa, I feel, is a great city 

Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS

• Often considered the best environmental law school in Canada
• Focuses largely on marine law, but other aspects are included
• Offers the most environmental law courses in Canada
• Halifax is very affordable and an enjoyable city right on the Atlantic Ocean
• The Atlantic provinces are not as wealthy, so salaries as a lawyer may be slightly lower than those in other provinces

These are only my interpretations of the schools and I encourage anyone whose interested to look seriously into the schools on their own. Happy hunting...

Canada's fall from grace...

Being Canadian is something that one has traditionally been able to be quite proud of. For years Canada has been internationally renowned and applauded for a variety of roles played both domestically and abroad. Canada has consistently ranked among the world's best according to the United Nations Human Development Index. Our education and health care systems along with its overall standard of living have often been the envy of the world. 

Canada has also gained the reputation as being a very "friendly" country. It has had a tendency not to go to war, but more so take the peacekeeping roles through NATO and the UN, such as Romeo Dallaire's heroics in Rwanda or Pearson's Nobel Prize-winning involvement during the Suez Crisis. Its immigration policies are among the most inclusive in the world and it is one of the most diverse countries in the world. Impressively, crime rates are generally quite low and gun usage is restricted to a much greater degree than many comparable countries, such as the U.S.

Canada is also a very rich country. There is no shortage of money in Canada, at least compared to much of the world. All in all, it is one of the most respected countries in the world. But it is becoming painfully clear that such success has come at quite a cost.

Canada has been able to succeed in all of the aforementioned areas at the expense of the environment. Because it is a very resource-dependent country, its economy (and subsequently its ability to afford its famed ventures) has hindered on natural resources, whose development has been less than sustainable. In British Columbia, parts of Ontario and Quebec, the lumber industry has taken a substantial toll on Canada's forests, as clear-cutting practices are quickly diminishing some of Canada's most precious natural areas. The downfall of resource exploitation has already been felt in the Maritimes, as the cod fisheries collapsed decades ago. 

Canada's more modern approach to resource exploitation has been the development of oil and natural gas, most notably in the Alberta Tar Sands. Not only has it contributed significantly to Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, but it has also used a wealth of fresh water resources and its pollution has killed hundreds of birds and is allegedly connected to cancer deaths in nearby communities.

The environmental issues in Canada have historically been overlooked as a mainstream issue, partially because of its once seemingly infinite size of natural areas and poor governmental policies (even the United States has more stringent environmental laws than does Canada). Furthermore, any recognition of these concerns has often been overshadowed by Canada's counter-balancing reputation of being a "friendly" and respected country. Quite similarly to Canada's atrocious treatment of Aboriginal peoples over the past centuries, its embarrassing treatment of the environment has flown under the radar with regards to Canada's international reputation. 

But as environmental issues become increasingly important in the public eye, Canada's relationship to the environment is not so easily overlooked and it is becoming painfully clear that much of the Canadian identity has been built on environmental exploitation. As Canada continues to release huge levels of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, cut down its forests and use up its quickly dwindling fresh water, its internationally renowned reputation may falter, as it has already begun to do (Canada was given the 'Fossil Award' by an environmental group during the Bali negotiations on climate change for its role as the world's worst contributor to climate change). Just how far and for how long its reputation will fall is unknown, but one can only hope it stops at some point. 

From Adversity and despair, to conservation and hope

Around the world, people are discovering the importance of preserving their natural environment. Southern India for one, has been adopting more conservationist ideals of late. Specifically, the Tamil Nadu region of Southern India has stepped up its environmental efforts since the devastating tsunami of December 2004. The amount of destruction caused by the tsunami has left millions of people, many of whom are enduring the troubling effects of poverty, in a worsened state of despair. Citizens of Tamil Nadu have started to overcome this calamity as conservation and ecological initiatives have become more commonplace.

M.S. Swaminathan, UNECSO’s chair in eco-technology, has drawn great attention to agro-biodiversity and bio-shields as a way to protect the coastal areas of Southern India from future storms, and more importantly to ameliorate the lives of farmers and community residents socially and economically. Much attention has been given to the significance of the Mangrove forests in the Tamil Nadu region. The eco-technology wing of UNESCO is currently fostering awareness by speaking about the importance of these forests as effective bio-shields against storms and tsunamis. Farmers are beginning to understand effective ways to achieve agro-biodiversity conservation.

UNESCO has emphasized the need to preserve the Mangrove forests. In essence, the Mangrove forests are highly dense and can act as a barrier to a fury of water. The forests reduce coastal erosion and mitigate the adverse impact of storms, cyclones and tsunamis in coastal areas. Throughout the tsunami of 2004, the villages that possessed thick mangrove forests were saved from the fury of the tsunami because of the speed-breaker role played by the mangroves. By contrast, communities that clear-cut the mangroves for fuel wood and aquaculture ponds, suffered great adversity and debilitation because the community was more exposed to the floods.

The people of Tamil Nadu have become more concerned about their livelihoods because they are dependent on the coastal areas and forestry for resources for economic interest and for subsistence agriculture. As a result of this sudden realization, mangroves are now being conserved. This in turn can very well serve as a protective tool in the event of drastic sea-level rises.

In light of this awakened optimism, farmers have become more conscious and more adamant to maintain ‘on farm conservation’. The ecological disaster caused by the tsunami has suddenly switched gears into an economic opportunity as farmers are more empowered and willing to take on a conservation movement, in spite of pervasive poverty along the Tamil Nadu region. The Chair of the eco-technology wing emphatically stated that “Preaching does not help. Enlightened self-interest, however, motivates people and leads to harmony with nature”.

Farming and fishing communities have collectively fostered an entire conservation movement that has inspired a whole community to take action and treat nature as a precious entity. The future looks promising for farmers and the people of Tamil Nadu. The lingering effects of poverty are slowly being minimized by enlightened self-interest for conservation farming and for a future with more hope.

Cities are getting warmer...

Ever wonder why a metropolitan or downtown area of a city is significantly warmer than its surrounding area? Well, due to rapid urbanization and increased congestion in downtown cores, we have been introduced to the concept of the "urban heat island enhancement". Such a concept explains why metropolitan areas are warmer than its surrounding area.

The elementary science behind it is as follows: cities possess large landscapes with buildings and infrastructure confined to an area. The pollution created from these urban areas stays within the city limits because of the compacted and confined landscape. Urban landscapes usually possess impervious surfaces like cement and asphalt, and when precipitation does not soak into urban landscapes, it isn’t available to absorb heat, evaporate and thus cool the environment. Cities then keep the heat inside, and the climate disallows the warm temperature to escape, this causes pollutants and air pollution to form, hover and reside over the city. Increasing urban temperatures and the extent of the urban heat island are projected to augment as a city's population booms.

I did a case study last year researching the water and climate conditions of California. Cities like Los Angeles and San Diego are experiencing the urban heat island enhancement. Does this mean that urban planners and engineers are going to have to install more water fountains and cooling stations within the city limits? Maybe, but mitigating pollution levels and other harmful pollutants is a whole other ball game.