I think everyone should be informed about electronic waste (e-waste) and how we treat it in this world. E-waste is perhaps one of the biggest waste problems due to its toxic ingredients that many people in South-East Asia get exposed to. Because I know more about E-waste in the US, I will briefly touch upon some facts and opinions that surround the E-waste debate. Firstly, E-waste in the US is disguised as recycling. All electronic products in the US after they have been used are ostensibly recycled within the country itself. But really, they have found an escape valve through exporting a lot of their E-waste to developing countries in South-East Asia. E-waste can be desirable for these countries because many of the locals can extract minerals and resources that lie within these electronic products and sell them in the informal economy.
Of course the problem with this is that the waste accumulates into a vast toxic dump possessing all of our favourite ingredients including mercury, cadmium, lead and beryllium. All of which pose numerous occupational and environmental health threats. This causes pollution into the land, water, air and exposes these vulnerable people to pernicious chemicals that they're probably not even aware of. Turning back to the US, 50 to 80% of the E-waste collected in the western United States alone is not recycled domestically, but is placed on ships destined for China. There is an international watch dog network called the Basel Action Network which calls on all countries to reduce their exports of hazardous waste to a minimum and deal with their waste problems within national borders. Like many international treaties including Kyoto, the US failed to sign the Basel Convention in 1989.
The US has been using domestic legislation to escape this international treaty. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act gives the US authority and control over hazardous and toxic wastes. Furthermore, E-waste is simply a part of the US's waste disposal strategy. These policies surreptitiously cover up their inherent problems, because they appear to be designed to promote E-waste but in actuality, they are sending the problem to countries in Asia.
Many of the EU countries have signed the Basel Convention and certain states have passed legislation that stipulates that all manufacturers are responsible for the entire life cycle of computers, and are legislatively required to take electronic parts back with the costs being born by the producers and must also agree to specific phase-out dates for toxic inputs. Such an initiative is known as Extended Producer Responsibility, which I have blogged about in the past.
Again, E-waste in the US runs contrary to all of the principles of environmental justice that they condone. They are not banning the exports to Asia because it is based on economics. That whole idea where if market forces are left unregulated, toxic waste will always run downhill on an economic path of least resistance i.e. poor countries with lax labour standards, and non-existent environmental laws.
Key message: Exporting E-waste stifles the innovation needed to actually solve this problem. Manufactures and producers within the US must be subject to EPR legislation that puts the economic and environmental onus on them. The EU model of strict legislation and the banning of toxic exports is an international example of sound environmental leadership. By failing to sign the Basel Convention, the US continues to undermine its legitimacy to the environment. Sure one can argue that the eletronic waste has some value in these developing countries because the people can re-use them and extract the valuable parts. However, this comes at the expense of their health and local ecosystems and groundwater in which these people depend on. It's a zero-sum game and international regulation needs to come to the forefront.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
How to value the environment?
Tim and I were recently graced with the presence of the new Socio-Economic Analyst at Ontario Parks, Will Wistowsky. During a lecture to our class and a subsequent lunch thereafter, Will, an economist, explained to us some of the methods, challenges and benefits of placing measurable values on different parts of the environment, particularly those of National Parks.
With regards to National Parks, Will argued that we (more directly, the government) do not properly value National Parks, despite some of the world's greatest natural settings and a societal recognition of the worth of these natural areas. The federal government only puts in approximately $250 million into the park system annually, 1/100th of the funding put towards national defence.
According to Will, the problem is that we don't measure the economic value of parks properly by only looking at the direct use benefits, i.e. recreation, tourism etc. However, a variety of other benefits should also be taken into consideration, such as the benefits accrued from research of the parks and property values near the park (try finding a cheap condo in Canmore, AB), but also the non-use values, such as the value of the ecosystem, the value of leaving the park to future and generations and even something as holistic as the value of a view. Taking into account all of these values produce what is called the Total Economic Value, which in some park cases, was 50% higher than the value given my government measurements.
The non-use values are tougher to figure out. How do you put an economic value on something like a plant or a view? It's difficult and perhaps unethical, but economists are willing to try. Economists use the concept known as Willing to Pay (WTP), whereby one can measure the value of something based on what people are willing to pay for it. Any total amount of WTP over the current price or value is known as the Net Benefit. For example, Will measured the value of a canoe trip. While Ontario Parks charged on average $2/day for canoe trips, the WTP was much higher, usually around $50-60/day, although the WTP would gradually fall over the number of days. Using WTP, one can infer a Total Economic Value of a certain environmental service, which when combined with other services, can give you the value of something as large as a park.
But why is this important? For one, parks don't receive enough funding. If the Total Economic Value was considered, park funding should increase to reflect that value. Often, parks are not completed, created or expanded because of the potential value of resources located on that land. However, if we were to properly value parks, we may find that the Total Economic Value of parks may actually be more than that of resource development.
True, the WTP concept and many other economic analyses of the environment are full of holes (are they truthful? how accurate is it? doesn't everyone have different values?), but Will made one very good point that should be remembered. Without placing some kind of comparable value on the environment, it gets a very low economic value, with which we subsequently use to treat it like crap.
At least with WTP and other value-based analyses, we can place a comparable value on the environment. It is merely a step in the right direction, but a very important step.
With regards to National Parks, Will argued that we (more directly, the government) do not properly value National Parks, despite some of the world's greatest natural settings and a societal recognition of the worth of these natural areas. The federal government only puts in approximately $250 million into the park system annually, 1/100th of the funding put towards national defence.
According to Will, the problem is that we don't measure the economic value of parks properly by only looking at the direct use benefits, i.e. recreation, tourism etc. However, a variety of other benefits should also be taken into consideration, such as the benefits accrued from research of the parks and property values near the park (try finding a cheap condo in Canmore, AB), but also the non-use values, such as the value of the ecosystem, the value of leaving the park to future and generations and even something as holistic as the value of a view. Taking into account all of these values produce what is called the Total Economic Value, which in some park cases, was 50% higher than the value given my government measurements.
The non-use values are tougher to figure out. How do you put an economic value on something like a plant or a view? It's difficult and perhaps unethical, but economists are willing to try. Economists use the concept known as Willing to Pay (WTP), whereby one can measure the value of something based on what people are willing to pay for it. Any total amount of WTP over the current price or value is known as the Net Benefit. For example, Will measured the value of a canoe trip. While Ontario Parks charged on average $2/day for canoe trips, the WTP was much higher, usually around $50-60/day, although the WTP would gradually fall over the number of days. Using WTP, one can infer a Total Economic Value of a certain environmental service, which when combined with other services, can give you the value of something as large as a park.
But why is this important? For one, parks don't receive enough funding. If the Total Economic Value was considered, park funding should increase to reflect that value. Often, parks are not completed, created or expanded because of the potential value of resources located on that land. However, if we were to properly value parks, we may find that the Total Economic Value of parks may actually be more than that of resource development.
True, the WTP concept and many other economic analyses of the environment are full of holes (are they truthful? how accurate is it? doesn't everyone have different values?), but Will made one very good point that should be remembered. Without placing some kind of comparable value on the environment, it gets a very low economic value, with which we subsequently use to treat it like crap.
At least with WTP and other value-based analyses, we can place a comparable value on the environment. It is merely a step in the right direction, but a very important step.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Ontario takes the green leap...
Dalton McGuinty's Ontario government recently announced their desire to pass the province's new green legislation, the Green Energy Act. The act itself is very much reflective of the types of things going on in the United States as part of Obama's massive stimulus packages, which are seeking to rebuild much of a dying manufacturing sector, repair the economy, get people back to work and save the environment all at the same time.
The act is full of a variety of interesting and commendable traits, including lenient debt financing plans for renewable projects, a community power corporation, full access to the power grid for renewable projects, and a myriad of ambitious goals for renewable energy production in Ontario, primarily in wind and solar power. You can imagine that this will involve a whole whack of government funding.
One part of the act that has gained notable attention is the requirement to have an energy audit done before a home can be sold. This is a good idea, although many have been arguing that it's an added cost to the homeowner and it may reduce the value of the home, something that an already battered housing market doesn't need. But that's kind of the point. If your home looks nice but has no insulation, the potential buyers should know about it.
This facet could prove to be immensely costly to both the provincial and federal government. As it stands, the Federal government's ecoENERGY program provides around 70,000 audits per year across the country, with the average homeowner walking away with approximately $1500 from the Feds in grant money. Do the math. It's not cheap. And the province matches that amount. So if the province requires Ontario home-sellers to do the audit, the number of annual audits in Ontario alone could jump to 250,000. I wonder where that money is going to come from?
Mind you, just because these new mandatory audits are done does not require the homeowner to actually retrofit their home, so the grants may not be as high as anticipated. But with audits at $300 a pop, the homeowner might be tempted to do something. I certainly hope McGuinty's cronies have been in talks with the Feds because this program could explode.
The act has the potential to produce roughly 50,000 jobs and make Ontario one of the most energy efficient regions in North America. People might be complaining about the act, but at least the government is doing something. I've always maintained that government's need to make the tough decisions. Here's hoping this is one of those good ones.
The act is full of a variety of interesting and commendable traits, including lenient debt financing plans for renewable projects, a community power corporation, full access to the power grid for renewable projects, and a myriad of ambitious goals for renewable energy production in Ontario, primarily in wind and solar power. You can imagine that this will involve a whole whack of government funding.
One part of the act that has gained notable attention is the requirement to have an energy audit done before a home can be sold. This is a good idea, although many have been arguing that it's an added cost to the homeowner and it may reduce the value of the home, something that an already battered housing market doesn't need. But that's kind of the point. If your home looks nice but has no insulation, the potential buyers should know about it.
This facet could prove to be immensely costly to both the provincial and federal government. As it stands, the Federal government's ecoENERGY program provides around 70,000 audits per year across the country, with the average homeowner walking away with approximately $1500 from the Feds in grant money. Do the math. It's not cheap. And the province matches that amount. So if the province requires Ontario home-sellers to do the audit, the number of annual audits in Ontario alone could jump to 250,000. I wonder where that money is going to come from?
Mind you, just because these new mandatory audits are done does not require the homeowner to actually retrofit their home, so the grants may not be as high as anticipated. But with audits at $300 a pop, the homeowner might be tempted to do something. I certainly hope McGuinty's cronies have been in talks with the Feds because this program could explode.
The act has the potential to produce roughly 50,000 jobs and make Ontario one of the most energy efficient regions in North America. People might be complaining about the act, but at least the government is doing something. I've always maintained that government's need to make the tough decisions. Here's hoping this is one of those good ones.
Becoming more stringent on pollution standards...
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a lot of work to do on air pollution standards. The US court of appeals is coming down on the EPA calling for more stringent standards because of health related problems that can be attributed to air pollution. Asthma, lung disease and heart cancer to name a few. Check out the article here.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Water oh water...
I'm doing a tonne of research on water conservation policies in Canada. As previously mentioned, Chris and I are working with two other students in our public policy class and we're delivering a presentation on March 19th about contemporary water conservation issues in Canada. Specifically we're looking at urban water issues and how municipalities can use effective policy tools for water management. There are a few things I have got to share based on the research I have done so far because water, whether we admit it or not, is an indispensable resource that we must conserve.
From an economic standpoint, water contributes about $7 to $23 billion to the Canadian economy every year. With 7% of the world's renewable water we are quite privileged to have an abundance of it but we need not take complete advantage of this. Between 1972 and 1996, Canadian water withdrawals increased almost 90%, but the population grew by just 30%. Water withdrawals for thermal power and industrial uses are mainly concentrated around the Great Lakes. Our urban population has grown by 45% in the past 30 years leading to the so called "doughnut effect" which is when growth rates around and outside municipalities exceed those of the metropolitan centres themselves. This means that suburbanization is placing pressures on the urban centres through increased and relentless demand for water from the residents. After all, 52% of water in the municipal sector is used for residential or domestic purposes. Daily human activities like toilet flushing, showering and taking baths consume a lot of water, 65% of our water use in our homes can be attributed to these three things.
Water bodies like lake fronts, rivers and streams that run through municipalities are among a city's most important forms of natural capital. In other words, water is a precious natural resource that cities take complete advantage of often neglecting important policy tools for water conservation. Water leakages from inadequate infrastructure accounts for something like 15% of municipal use. Meaning that infrastructural investments are critical for maintaining water mains, distribution pipes and sewer systems for securing both water quantity and quality.
Urban centres have numerous problems with reducing urban runoff. Urban runoff is problematic because it can contaminate groundwater and surface water. Anyway, these are just some of the stats and facts regarding urban water issues. Forthcoming blog entries will specifically discuss which policy tools should be employed to manage water systems and conserve for future generations. Water demand management is an important component of water conservation. How can we manage our water supplies efficiently while informing citizens about the merits of conservation?
From an economic standpoint, water contributes about $7 to $23 billion to the Canadian economy every year. With 7% of the world's renewable water we are quite privileged to have an abundance of it but we need not take complete advantage of this. Between 1972 and 1996, Canadian water withdrawals increased almost 90%, but the population grew by just 30%. Water withdrawals for thermal power and industrial uses are mainly concentrated around the Great Lakes. Our urban population has grown by 45% in the past 30 years leading to the so called "doughnut effect" which is when growth rates around and outside municipalities exceed those of the metropolitan centres themselves. This means that suburbanization is placing pressures on the urban centres through increased and relentless demand for water from the residents. After all, 52% of water in the municipal sector is used for residential or domestic purposes. Daily human activities like toilet flushing, showering and taking baths consume a lot of water, 65% of our water use in our homes can be attributed to these three things.
Water bodies like lake fronts, rivers and streams that run through municipalities are among a city's most important forms of natural capital. In other words, water is a precious natural resource that cities take complete advantage of often neglecting important policy tools for water conservation. Water leakages from inadequate infrastructure accounts for something like 15% of municipal use. Meaning that infrastructural investments are critical for maintaining water mains, distribution pipes and sewer systems for securing both water quantity and quality.
Urban centres have numerous problems with reducing urban runoff. Urban runoff is problematic because it can contaminate groundwater and surface water. Anyway, these are just some of the stats and facts regarding urban water issues. Forthcoming blog entries will specifically discuss which policy tools should be employed to manage water systems and conserve for future generations. Water demand management is an important component of water conservation. How can we manage our water supplies efficiently while informing citizens about the merits of conservation?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
A February 2009 update on the Oil Sands...
For many of us who are concerned about the continued production of the oil sands, we may have even more to think about now. This excellent article courtesy of the National Geographic, discusses all of the contemporary issues surrounding oil sands development. From the tailing ponds, to severe ecosystem disruption to an overall exacerbation of environmental degradation, this article provides a comprehensive overview of what is happening as we speak. This is good time to start a discussion on the topic. The government of Alberta has proposed carbon capture storage as a viable technology to curb the greenhouse gas emissions that are emitted from extraction. Chris has blogged about carbon capture before and he has painted a good picture of its pros and cons. Some want production to continue unabated to keep the Albertan economy vibrant and competitive. But are we overlooking the social and environment costs associated with this? What is the future of oil sands development for Canada's economy or for Canada's environment? What do you think?
Green roof technology and its proponents...
Green roofs are fascinating. They are starting to be a good source of discussion in the environmental policy sphere. They are starting to take off in North American cities and have been popular in Europe for decades. Green roofs are mainly developed for storm water management. A lot of the roof tops on buildings found within urban centers have impervious surfaces. When precipitation falls on the roofs, it runs off into the sewer system on the roads below. When rain falls in heavy amounts, it gradually degrades the roofs and building infrastructure making it very expensive to replace over time. Local vegetation, reducing the urban heat island effect and managing storm water are all notable features of a green roof.
With more gardens and vegetation on roof tops, more rainwater is retained. Some green roofs in British Columbia have little wells on the roofs that direct water into an underground aquifer. The water is trapped and saved for watering vegetation in droughts or dry seasons. Local vegetation provides for the local market providing fresh and organic alternatives. Local vegetation or quite simply growing food locally has numerous benefits and will be critical for our future. Cities like Hong Kong are really progressive with green roof technology. 50% of Hong Kong's vegetation is grown within the city limits on roof tops and high-rises.
Other cities like Berlin, Portland and even Toronto have been rapidly bringing about these urban sustainability solutions. Why is this even happening? Because urban areas often lack green space and biodiversity and are trying to think of innovative ways to integrate urban infrastructure with green space; and therefore green roofs are becoming viable options. 50% of German cities offer subsidies to building owners for installing green roof systems. For example, let's look at Berlin. Berlin’s subsidy program reimburses residents 50% for green roof construction costs and in 1997, resulted in 63,500 m² of green roofs built across the city. This has improved storm water management tremendously and has provided citizens with more local food options. One thing Toronto is doing is running pilot projects to see how viable they are. Toronto’s Green Roof Incentive Pilot program offers a grant of $10m² to eligible green roofs. Developers are finding this appealing because it will only save them on infrastructure costs in the future.
Key Message: Green roofs are an urban sustainability solution, funding from the local government to install them is a good first step. Providing market-based incentives, running pilot projects and involving the public in the process are the essential first steps. Regulation or a green roof bylaw, should only be considered if the first steps have not worked.
With more gardens and vegetation on roof tops, more rainwater is retained. Some green roofs in British Columbia have little wells on the roofs that direct water into an underground aquifer. The water is trapped and saved for watering vegetation in droughts or dry seasons. Local vegetation provides for the local market providing fresh and organic alternatives. Local vegetation or quite simply growing food locally has numerous benefits and will be critical for our future. Cities like Hong Kong are really progressive with green roof technology. 50% of Hong Kong's vegetation is grown within the city limits on roof tops and high-rises.
Other cities like Berlin, Portland and even Toronto have been rapidly bringing about these urban sustainability solutions. Why is this even happening? Because urban areas often lack green space and biodiversity and are trying to think of innovative ways to integrate urban infrastructure with green space; and therefore green roofs are becoming viable options. 50% of German cities offer subsidies to building owners for installing green roof systems. For example, let's look at Berlin. Berlin’s subsidy program reimburses residents 50% for green roof construction costs and in 1997, resulted in 63,500 m² of green roofs built across the city. This has improved storm water management tremendously and has provided citizens with more local food options. One thing Toronto is doing is running pilot projects to see how viable they are. Toronto’s Green Roof Incentive Pilot program offers a grant of $10m² to eligible green roofs. Developers are finding this appealing because it will only save them on infrastructure costs in the future.
Key Message: Green roofs are an urban sustainability solution, funding from the local government to install them is a good first step. Providing market-based incentives, running pilot projects and involving the public in the process are the essential first steps. Regulation or a green roof bylaw, should only be considered if the first steps have not worked.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
CCS gets a political boost...
One of the potentially most effective mitigating technologies in the climate change saga is gaining significant steam.
Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) could very well be the focal point of North American climate change strategy. In a CBC interview last evening, Barack Obama expressed significant interest in establishing a continental energy and environmental policy plan, much of which would involve capturing and storing carbon emissions.
Obama acknowledged each country's massive dirty energy arsenal: coal reserves in the United States are some of the greatest in the world and of course, Canada's Oil Sands, which constitute Canada's placement as second in global oil reserves. Coal and oil are the two sources of energy that CCS can be implemented most effectively against.
The Canadian federal government has been touting CCS as its main answer to climate change, but other than funding towards a few pilot projects, nothing serious has actually come along.
But if Obama is taking it seriously, CCS could soon see a massive boost. We're seeing how much money he's willing to throw around. And at least in his speeches, Obama means business when it comes to throwing around taxpayers' money. Harper and the rest of the federal government would certainly need to follow suit, especially if CCS is part of a continental plan.
Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) could very well be the focal point of North American climate change strategy. In a CBC interview last evening, Barack Obama expressed significant interest in establishing a continental energy and environmental policy plan, much of which would involve capturing and storing carbon emissions.
Obama acknowledged each country's massive dirty energy arsenal: coal reserves in the United States are some of the greatest in the world and of course, Canada's Oil Sands, which constitute Canada's placement as second in global oil reserves. Coal and oil are the two sources of energy that CCS can be implemented most effectively against.
The Canadian federal government has been touting CCS as its main answer to climate change, but other than funding towards a few pilot projects, nothing serious has actually come along.
But if Obama is taking it seriously, CCS could soon see a massive boost. We're seeing how much money he's willing to throw around. And at least in his speeches, Obama means business when it comes to throwing around taxpayers' money. Harper and the rest of the federal government would certainly need to follow suit, especially if CCS is part of a continental plan.
One Million Acts in which direction...
Last week, CBC's George Stroumboulopoulos was finally able to proclaim that his ambitiously lofty goal of One Million Acts of Green by Canadians had been reached.
The program involves regular ol' Canadians taking voluntary steps towards "greening" their lives, including everything from changing to a compact fluorescent lightbulb to giving up a car for a year. Everything is done online, where people can register their act(s) and immediately receive a calculation as to the level of CO2 emissions reduced as a result of their act of green.
What a great idea. And I offer my congratulations to the people at CBC and all those who registered their acts of green. But I've got a few issues with the Acts of Green.
Firstly, now that someone has talked the talk by signing up, are they really going to walk the walk? In many cases, the only incentive for these people to fulfill their act(s) of green will be a hearty pat on the back for being friendlier to the environment. Sure, that moment of inspiration where someone registers their act may be full of grand intentions, but how long will that last? One can hope everyone will fulfill their act, but hope isn't the most sturdy block to rely on.
Secondly, if everyone does fulfill their acts, what will be the overall effect? Will those who are not normally particularly environmentally-inclined change a lightbulb, for example, and move on feeling as though they have contributed greatly to the cause? This could reduce overall awareness of environmental issues (if people think they've done all they need to do), but could also result in a type of rebound effect. The rebound effect occurs when an act to reduce environmental impact is taken, but an opposite action that is of equal or greater force follows. For example, if somebody puts in a new, efficient furnace and uses the replacement as justification for making the home warmer and increasing the output of the furnace, the overall usage, energy used and emissions may actually increase compared to the levels prior to the new furnace, regardless of the increased efficiency. Any gains made by the act of green could be wiped out by acts of 'non-green'.
Furthermore, the act of green may steer people away from local environmental issues. For instance, here at Trent (which was recognized as the largest group in CBC's program) there are several environmental issues in play. A large hydro dam, the building of new residences and uranium mining are all on the local environmental table, but do not receive the rightful level of concern from the Trent community. Committing an act of green may well exacerbate this problem, as people turn a blind eye to their own backyard in place for one of CBCs acts of green.
I have serious issues with what the policy people would call 'voluntary policy tools'. That is, measures or programs implemented with no enforcement, regulation or serious incentive. These tools rely on the individual or group committing to the measure and fulfilling on a voluntary basis. One Million Acts of Green is a voluntary measure. While it has its problems, I love one specific aspect of it: it is not a government program.
Yes, I realize the CBC is heavily-funded by the federal government, but One Million Acts of Green is not a government program. Canada's federal government has traditionally used voluntary measures in place of effective measures, such as carbon taxes or regulations. Remember the One-Tonne Challenge? Probably not, but it cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars and amounted to nothing.
The One Million Acts of Green is great, as long as people fulfill their pledges and remember that this is only a step in the right direction.
Oh, and Harper, don't you guys even think about touching the One Million Acts of Green to try to appease the voters. Actually do something worthwhile with all your money for once.
The program involves regular ol' Canadians taking voluntary steps towards "greening" their lives, including everything from changing to a compact fluorescent lightbulb to giving up a car for a year. Everything is done online, where people can register their act(s) and immediately receive a calculation as to the level of CO2 emissions reduced as a result of their act of green.
What a great idea. And I offer my congratulations to the people at CBC and all those who registered their acts of green. But I've got a few issues with the Acts of Green.
Firstly, now that someone has talked the talk by signing up, are they really going to walk the walk? In many cases, the only incentive for these people to fulfill their act(s) of green will be a hearty pat on the back for being friendlier to the environment. Sure, that moment of inspiration where someone registers their act may be full of grand intentions, but how long will that last? One can hope everyone will fulfill their act, but hope isn't the most sturdy block to rely on.
Secondly, if everyone does fulfill their acts, what will be the overall effect? Will those who are not normally particularly environmentally-inclined change a lightbulb, for example, and move on feeling as though they have contributed greatly to the cause? This could reduce overall awareness of environmental issues (if people think they've done all they need to do), but could also result in a type of rebound effect. The rebound effect occurs when an act to reduce environmental impact is taken, but an opposite action that is of equal or greater force follows. For example, if somebody puts in a new, efficient furnace and uses the replacement as justification for making the home warmer and increasing the output of the furnace, the overall usage, energy used and emissions may actually increase compared to the levels prior to the new furnace, regardless of the increased efficiency. Any gains made by the act of green could be wiped out by acts of 'non-green'.
Furthermore, the act of green may steer people away from local environmental issues. For instance, here at Trent (which was recognized as the largest group in CBC's program) there are several environmental issues in play. A large hydro dam, the building of new residences and uranium mining are all on the local environmental table, but do not receive the rightful level of concern from the Trent community. Committing an act of green may well exacerbate this problem, as people turn a blind eye to their own backyard in place for one of CBCs acts of green.
I have serious issues with what the policy people would call 'voluntary policy tools'. That is, measures or programs implemented with no enforcement, regulation or serious incentive. These tools rely on the individual or group committing to the measure and fulfilling on a voluntary basis. One Million Acts of Green is a voluntary measure. While it has its problems, I love one specific aspect of it: it is not a government program.
Yes, I realize the CBC is heavily-funded by the federal government, but One Million Acts of Green is not a government program. Canada's federal government has traditionally used voluntary measures in place of effective measures, such as carbon taxes or regulations. Remember the One-Tonne Challenge? Probably not, but it cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars and amounted to nothing.
The One Million Acts of Green is great, as long as people fulfill their pledges and remember that this is only a step in the right direction.
Oh, and Harper, don't you guys even think about touching the One Million Acts of Green to try to appease the voters. Actually do something worthwhile with all your money for once.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Urban sustainability as a new reality...
There is a lot of research being published these days on sustainable and green cities. In a previous blog entry, I wrote about the city of Curitiba, located in Southern Brazil. A city that has made outstanding progress on incorporating urban sustainability policies into planning the city. Urban sustainability focuses on how cities can work towards innovative policies that place the environment first on its priority list. It means that environmental governance is primarily administered at the local level. Why is this even important? Well we are facing a real urban challenge not only in North American but all over the world. The UN estimates that by 2019, 50% of the world's population will be living in urban areas. Cities will have to work towards sustainable development. And by the way, Mexico City, population 8.8 million, is not a good example of urban sustainability as the city has exhausted its main water aquifer in which millions depend on for basic water supply. Cities have numerous impacts on the environment including producing CO2 emissions in abundance. Degrading water fronts through effluents loads, sewage dumping and the formation of pernicious pollutants are just a few examples.
What can we do? I am sure numerous urban economists, planners and civil engineers have ideas but I will share a few based on the research I have done thus far.
1) let's start understanding the direct impacts urban areas have on the environment. Land use and transport planning can allow us to do this. Local transport plans (LTPs) are popular in Europe and include the city designing plans to reduce the forecast growth of C02 emissions from transport. They evaluate the impacts of things like expressways versus subways. They analyze the two from a cost-benefit analysis based on density patterns, usage, and aggregate materials i.e. how many resources are needed to construct it. And finally measure the environmental impacts.
2) Energy conservation design. Include passive solar energy in the design of new developments. Energy conservation standards would help too. Local legislation or bylaws can stipulate that certain buildings must have energy efficiency in their design.
3) Promote mixed land use development where you increase housing densities. Remember, the more dense a city is like London or Hong Kong, the less reliant its citizens are on petroleum usage which can reduce the impact on the environment by reducing travel-for-work distances into the city.
Multilevel governance for urban sustainability is critical, but let the local (city) carry out the initiatives. Urban sustainability is a process that requires partnerships and participation through the regeneration of development projects that prioritize sustainability. Just some thoughts.
What can we do? I am sure numerous urban economists, planners and civil engineers have ideas but I will share a few based on the research I have done thus far.
1) let's start understanding the direct impacts urban areas have on the environment. Land use and transport planning can allow us to do this. Local transport plans (LTPs) are popular in Europe and include the city designing plans to reduce the forecast growth of C02 emissions from transport. They evaluate the impacts of things like expressways versus subways. They analyze the two from a cost-benefit analysis based on density patterns, usage, and aggregate materials i.e. how many resources are needed to construct it. And finally measure the environmental impacts.
2) Energy conservation design. Include passive solar energy in the design of new developments. Energy conservation standards would help too. Local legislation or bylaws can stipulate that certain buildings must have energy efficiency in their design.
3) Promote mixed land use development where you increase housing densities. Remember, the more dense a city is like London or Hong Kong, the less reliant its citizens are on petroleum usage which can reduce the impact on the environment by reducing travel-for-work distances into the city.
Multilevel governance for urban sustainability is critical, but let the local (city) carry out the initiatives. Urban sustainability is a process that requires partnerships and participation through the regeneration of development projects that prioritize sustainability. Just some thoughts.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Green Cities: Toronto's city planning is changing...
into a more comprehensive and thorough process. In my Urban Planning class today, we had guest lecturer who just happened to be the chief city planner of Toronto. The speaker shared many fascinating stories about the history of Toronto and how planning has become much more sophisticated. As a Torontonian, I have witnessed several changes over the years including the development of condominiums, the expansion of the TTC, and a city that is becoming more culturally diverse every single day. With a population of 2.4 million that is always on the run, the city of Toronto's planning division has kept really busy.
What's changing according to the chief city planner? Environmental planning for one. The city is ostensibly exploring light rail transit . Light rail transit would be found across the city but especially in high traffic areas including Sheppard Avenue and Bathurst street. Light rail transit is expensive but the city is going to slowly start introducing it accompanied with more bike lanes. Don't forget, subway extension lines are exorbitantly pricey. An extension to the Toronto airport (which is ludicrous by the way) would cost 2.4 billion according to the chief planner. Ravines and green areas like the Humber river and Don Valley are going to be cleaned up as the city begins to work more closely with conservation authorities.
Even sidewalks are becoming more complex. Picture a sidewalk that is 15 feet in width that lies between the road and a store. The first 3 feet from the road would be designated as a waiting area for buses, taxis etc. The next 5 feet would be designated for furniture, lamp posts, bus shelter waiting areas, benches etc. The next 4 feet is the walking area for pedestrians. And finally the last 2-4 feet is for market store or commercial place. Meaning that the store has 2-3 feet and can use it for whatever they would like. This kind of planning is occurring, but mainly in downtown and in high traffic areas.
Surface parking lots are going to become more popular with gardens filled with good quality soil. This would help in reducing the urban heat island effect, minimize flooding and embellish the space. Public art is going to be legislatively a part of new development. In other words, any new development structure would have to have some component of public art so citizens can learn to appreciate the aesthetics of urban environments. For instance, integrating new buildings with older structures is not desirable by all, but adding some public art and other embellishing infrastructure can help.
Lastly, a green roof by-law. In short, the city would require green roofs on certain types of new buildings. This would establish a standard for green roof design and construction in Toronto helping with increased local vegetation, absorbing more precipitation and of course adding some aesthetic value.
Key message: These new sorts of innovative planning are going to make Toronto a more livable city. Having lots of high-rise buildings (second most in North America after NYC), is never a bad thing. New development is critical, but designing buildings with green standards like energy efficiency and green design will certainly help. Transportation is also becoming an integral part of planning cities, thankfully Toronto is realizing this.
What's changing according to the chief city planner? Environmental planning for one. The city is ostensibly exploring light rail transit . Light rail transit would be found across the city but especially in high traffic areas including Sheppard Avenue and Bathurst street. Light rail transit is expensive but the city is going to slowly start introducing it accompanied with more bike lanes. Don't forget, subway extension lines are exorbitantly pricey. An extension to the Toronto airport (which is ludicrous by the way) would cost 2.4 billion according to the chief planner. Ravines and green areas like the Humber river and Don Valley are going to be cleaned up as the city begins to work more closely with conservation authorities.
Even sidewalks are becoming more complex. Picture a sidewalk that is 15 feet in width that lies between the road and a store. The first 3 feet from the road would be designated as a waiting area for buses, taxis etc. The next 5 feet would be designated for furniture, lamp posts, bus shelter waiting areas, benches etc. The next 4 feet is the walking area for pedestrians. And finally the last 2-4 feet is for market store or commercial place. Meaning that the store has 2-3 feet and can use it for whatever they would like. This kind of planning is occurring, but mainly in downtown and in high traffic areas.
Surface parking lots are going to become more popular with gardens filled with good quality soil. This would help in reducing the urban heat island effect, minimize flooding and embellish the space. Public art is going to be legislatively a part of new development. In other words, any new development structure would have to have some component of public art so citizens can learn to appreciate the aesthetics of urban environments. For instance, integrating new buildings with older structures is not desirable by all, but adding some public art and other embellishing infrastructure can help.
Lastly, a green roof by-law. In short, the city would require green roofs on certain types of new buildings. This would establish a standard for green roof design and construction in Toronto helping with increased local vegetation, absorbing more precipitation and of course adding some aesthetic value.
Key message: These new sorts of innovative planning are going to make Toronto a more livable city. Having lots of high-rise buildings (second most in North America after NYC), is never a bad thing. New development is critical, but designing buildings with green standards like energy efficiency and green design will certainly help. Transportation is also becoming an integral part of planning cities, thankfully Toronto is realizing this.
This is too early...
I don't like the cold. Winter has it's highlights, but warmer weather is much more my cup of tea. If you live in the Centre of the Universe (southern Ontario), you'll notice that the weather is not very wintery. In fact, it's spring-like. In early February.
The weather outside is currently hovering around the 9 degrees C mark, and is supposed to stay within range for the next few days. Even the long-term forecast has the average daily high sitting around zero.
It's nice. Warmer weather is great, but there is no real net benefit out of this weather. It could simply be a tease, leading us to go outside in sweaters and see everyone's mangled lawns, only to be dumped on by piles of snow and bitten by a harsh freeze (harsh relative to southern Ontario).
If it's not a tease, then we probably have a bigger problem on our hand. That ol' climate change thing could be looking us straight in the eye. Sure, weather has cyclical patterns and has done stuff like this before, but it's a frightening thought nonetheless.
Other parts of Canada have been experiencing some bizarre weather as of late as well. You might remember the snowfall that hit B.C. and Washington, eventually resulting in massive flooding.
And the past few days in Winnipeg have turned Manitoba upside down. In an ironic twist of fate, the region known for its resilience to cold has been shut down by unusually warm weather, complemented by freezing rain that has turned the province into Canada's largest skating rink (seriously, skating is now most efficient form of highway travel).
Again, I'm not completely chalking it up to climate change, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's playing a part. We can only hope Mother Nature is playing around with us. Otherwise, we're in a heap of trouble.
The weather outside is currently hovering around the 9 degrees C mark, and is supposed to stay within range for the next few days. Even the long-term forecast has the average daily high sitting around zero.
It's nice. Warmer weather is great, but there is no real net benefit out of this weather. It could simply be a tease, leading us to go outside in sweaters and see everyone's mangled lawns, only to be dumped on by piles of snow and bitten by a harsh freeze (harsh relative to southern Ontario).
If it's not a tease, then we probably have a bigger problem on our hand. That ol' climate change thing could be looking us straight in the eye. Sure, weather has cyclical patterns and has done stuff like this before, but it's a frightening thought nonetheless.
Other parts of Canada have been experiencing some bizarre weather as of late as well. You might remember the snowfall that hit B.C. and Washington, eventually resulting in massive flooding.
And the past few days in Winnipeg have turned Manitoba upside down. In an ironic twist of fate, the region known for its resilience to cold has been shut down by unusually warm weather, complemented by freezing rain that has turned the province into Canada's largest skating rink (seriously, skating is now most efficient form of highway travel).
Again, I'm not completely chalking it up to climate change, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's playing a part. We can only hope Mother Nature is playing around with us. Otherwise, we're in a heap of trouble.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Ethanol from corn = inefficiency
The previous Bush administration had an outstandingly bad position on ethanol subsidization. Under Bush, something like $9 billion was allocated in subsidies to farmers and ethanol producers. Generous subsidies under Bush were advantageous for corn farmers and ethanol producers, but problematic for consumers of corn, and for farmers in developing countries. Just from a socio-economic standpoint, ethanol production was a mess. In late 2006, the price of tortilla corn flour in Mexico, which gets 80 percent of its corn imports from the U.S., doubled because of a rise in corn prices in the United States. Also, Bush`s poor sighted plan led to a dramatic increase in domestic corn prices going up 60 percent while world corn prices increased by more than 50 percent.
Many think that ethanol is an environmentally friendly alternative with ostensible justification for reducing the amount of carbon dioxide that would normally be released with the burning of oil. However, this is false. Corn-based ethanol has to be trucked over long distances which results in more CO2 emissions released. You are also taking land away from wilderness and not growing food locally. Growing crops for fuel instead of food. This is even worse for the environment because it encourages consumers to keep buying crops that were cultivated thousands of kilometers away. At the UN climate change conference 2007 in Bali, Indonesia, a survey of 1,000 climate change professionals in 105 countries found low faith in ethanol as a low-carbon technology.
The Obama administration has a lot of work to do. But Obama has pledged to invest in cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is manufactured from woody plant matter (cellulose) from sources such as grasses, trees, rapeseed, switchgrass and agricultural waste. Unlike corn, these things are not traded internationally and thus do not raise food prices. If Obama follows through, he will invest federal resources like tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing two billion gallons of celluosic ethanol by 2033. Also, increasing the renewable fuel standard whereby cellulosic fuel becomes more widely available for American automobiles.
Key message: Why can`t Canada learn from Obama`s well thought out fuel policy? Cellulosic ethanol is more efficient to produce and more environmentally friendly. It is time the Minister of the Environment wakes up and time to start planning ahead.
Many think that ethanol is an environmentally friendly alternative with ostensible justification for reducing the amount of carbon dioxide that would normally be released with the burning of oil. However, this is false. Corn-based ethanol has to be trucked over long distances which results in more CO2 emissions released. You are also taking land away from wilderness and not growing food locally. Growing crops for fuel instead of food. This is even worse for the environment because it encourages consumers to keep buying crops that were cultivated thousands of kilometers away. At the UN climate change conference 2007 in Bali, Indonesia, a survey of 1,000 climate change professionals in 105 countries found low faith in ethanol as a low-carbon technology.
The Obama administration has a lot of work to do. But Obama has pledged to invest in cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is manufactured from woody plant matter (cellulose) from sources such as grasses, trees, rapeseed, switchgrass and agricultural waste. Unlike corn, these things are not traded internationally and thus do not raise food prices. If Obama follows through, he will invest federal resources like tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing two billion gallons of celluosic ethanol by 2033. Also, increasing the renewable fuel standard whereby cellulosic fuel becomes more widely available for American automobiles.
Key message: Why can`t Canada learn from Obama`s well thought out fuel policy? Cellulosic ethanol is more efficient to produce and more environmentally friendly. It is time the Minister of the Environment wakes up and time to start planning ahead.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Making the tough decisions...
One of Tim's most recent posts discussed five simple ways in which we can all be 'greener'. It was a great post and I highly encourage everyone to take any or all of those five steps.
But unfortunately, not every part of making our lives 'greener' can be accomplished on our own, even if we think they can. Humans are not perfect and we will often do things that will harm the environment (even though we might think it awful), especially if there is no incentive for us to do otherwise or if that incentive is not large enough.
I will use myself as an example. My shower in my rented house is pretty crappy, so when I find myself in a very nice shower (say, at a hotel or my parents' home), I tend to take much longer showers than normal. They're too long, waste lots of water and I know it. But I really love it.
It's almost like a guilty pleasure, except rather than potentially doing harm to me, it's also doing harm to other people and the environment.
So what can we do about it? Self-discipline is the most obvious option, but clearly it doesn't work. If someone who is an advocate of water conservation can't help himself sometimes, then how on Earth can we expect the majority of the population to also do so, even though they may also be aware they're probably doing harm to the environment?
The problem is that the incentives to not harm the environment are not there, at least in Canada. We have abundant resources and loads of space. From an environmental point of view, we're sitting pretty. We know we're wasting water, but we can't see the effects. The same goes for climate change. We can have these consequences of our actions drilled into us for eternity, but until we actually see it with our own eyes, we won't take it as seriously. That's human nature. But then it might be too late.
What we need are incentives. And they would need to hit us immediately, rather than a delayed consequence, like climate change may bring. Be it regulations, economic incentives or something else, we as relatively well-off Canadian human beings need someone to make those hard decisions for us. I certainly wouldn't take such a long shower if it cost me as much as lunch.
The stuff we can do on our own is great, and if you can change those things in your life, do it, but not everyone has the self-discipline to shift their lives around in the 'green' direction. So if government or any other policymaker decides to implement a policy that may make life a little more difficult in the name of the environment, don't immediately fight it. Take a second look because they might be making the decision you haven't been able to make on your own.
But unfortunately, not every part of making our lives 'greener' can be accomplished on our own, even if we think they can. Humans are not perfect and we will often do things that will harm the environment (even though we might think it awful), especially if there is no incentive for us to do otherwise or if that incentive is not large enough.
I will use myself as an example. My shower in my rented house is pretty crappy, so when I find myself in a very nice shower (say, at a hotel or my parents' home), I tend to take much longer showers than normal. They're too long, waste lots of water and I know it. But I really love it.
It's almost like a guilty pleasure, except rather than potentially doing harm to me, it's also doing harm to other people and the environment.
So what can we do about it? Self-discipline is the most obvious option, but clearly it doesn't work. If someone who is an advocate of water conservation can't help himself sometimes, then how on Earth can we expect the majority of the population to also do so, even though they may also be aware they're probably doing harm to the environment?
The problem is that the incentives to not harm the environment are not there, at least in Canada. We have abundant resources and loads of space. From an environmental point of view, we're sitting pretty. We know we're wasting water, but we can't see the effects. The same goes for climate change. We can have these consequences of our actions drilled into us for eternity, but until we actually see it with our own eyes, we won't take it as seriously. That's human nature. But then it might be too late.
What we need are incentives. And they would need to hit us immediately, rather than a delayed consequence, like climate change may bring. Be it regulations, economic incentives or something else, we as relatively well-off Canadian human beings need someone to make those hard decisions for us. I certainly wouldn't take such a long shower if it cost me as much as lunch.
The stuff we can do on our own is great, and if you can change those things in your life, do it, but not everyone has the self-discipline to shift their lives around in the 'green' direction. So if government or any other policymaker decides to implement a policy that may make life a little more difficult in the name of the environment, don't immediately fight it. Take a second look because they might be making the decision you haven't been able to make on your own.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
5 easy acts of green
1) Use public transportation whenever possible. Buses, trains, streetcars, light-rail transit. Your community, town or city may not have all of these modes of transit but as a citizen you can encourage and inform your city councillors and planners about the merits of public transit. Gas prices are cheap now, but this is temporary so start making these transitions.
2) Use a travel mug whenever possible. This may seem like a nominal change, but travel mugs are so important for cutting down waste. Some coffee shops will give you a discount on your hot beverage if you bring a travel mug. Disposal coffee cups create a lot of waste and are ubiquitous in our environment. People litter them because they are not recyclable. Let's avoid using them and start using travel mugs.
3) Compost! The recent compost survey that I conducted has revealed astonishing results which I will share soon. Not all municipalities have compost programs but your household can still do it. Set one up in your backyard and let nature run its course as your food scraps will bio-degrade over time. Eventually the organic waste will become very fertile soil making your plants stronger and healthier, reducing the need for fertilizers and chemical pesticides. This cuts down on your waste significantly.
4) Plant trees in your yard and community. This may sound very simple, but given what we know about carbon sequestration and CO2 emissions, trees are the earth's lungs and are indispensable for our well-being. Trees cool your home, reducing the energy used for cooling. Trees improve mental health. Trees increase property values. Trees reduce urban runoff and capture dust particles from the air. Trees reduce noise pollution.
5) Use ceiling fans versus air conditioning. Ceiling fans are more economical and more efficient. They circulate the cool air around your house much more fluidly. A few ceiling or regular fans strategically placed in your home can reduce the amount of time you spend with the air conditioning on. Air conditioning is inefficient, puts a lot pressure on the electricity grid and is simply a profligate and unnecessary piece of technology.
Key message: start making these easy changes to improve the health of our environment and the well-being of our society.
2) Use a travel mug whenever possible. This may seem like a nominal change, but travel mugs are so important for cutting down waste. Some coffee shops will give you a discount on your hot beverage if you bring a travel mug. Disposal coffee cups create a lot of waste and are ubiquitous in our environment. People litter them because they are not recyclable. Let's avoid using them and start using travel mugs.
3) Compost! The recent compost survey that I conducted has revealed astonishing results which I will share soon. Not all municipalities have compost programs but your household can still do it. Set one up in your backyard and let nature run its course as your food scraps will bio-degrade over time. Eventually the organic waste will become very fertile soil making your plants stronger and healthier, reducing the need for fertilizers and chemical pesticides. This cuts down on your waste significantly.
4) Plant trees in your yard and community. This may sound very simple, but given what we know about carbon sequestration and CO2 emissions, trees are the earth's lungs and are indispensable for our well-being. Trees cool your home, reducing the energy used for cooling. Trees improve mental health. Trees increase property values. Trees reduce urban runoff and capture dust particles from the air. Trees reduce noise pollution.
5) Use ceiling fans versus air conditioning. Ceiling fans are more economical and more efficient. They circulate the cool air around your house much more fluidly. A few ceiling or regular fans strategically placed in your home can reduce the amount of time you spend with the air conditioning on. Air conditioning is inefficient, puts a lot pressure on the electricity grid and is simply a profligate and unnecessary piece of technology.
Key message: start making these easy changes to improve the health of our environment and the well-being of our society.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Optimal ways to conserve water...
Chris and I are currently working a project for our public policy class. We are researching water conservation through a public policy lens. We're in a group of four and each of us are undertaking research on how various stakeholders are involved with water conservation. Stakeholders like the industrial/commercial sector, agricultural sector, government, and most importantly residential and households. We are coming across some pretty fascinating stuff. A lot of research has been done on water quality issues but necessarily on water quantity. From a Canadian context, water quantity is not a pressing issue. Remember we do have 20% of the world's water and our municipalities allocate it pretty evenly.
Now, Canada does have an abundant amount of water, but a lot of the precipitation that falls from our sky runs off to the north. 60% of this water supply flows north and is not readily available or easily accessed where it is needed. 84% of Canada's population lives within a 300-kilometer band along the southern border. What we have discovered through our research thus far, is that water pricing in municipalities across Canada to encourage water conservation, is not very common. Typically, water pricing or metering can encourage households to conserve water. Municipalities that have introduced water pricing, have seen a reduction in residential water usage.
Yes I know that water pricing is highly controversial. We are not living in the South West United States where water is scarce. But in general, pricing and/or metering provides a financial incentive to householders to use less water. Alternatives to pricing do exist, and can be pursued at full swing provided that there is a willingness from the municipality and households. Do not forget, municipalities or urban areas have thousands if not millions of residents who use anywhere from 300L to 500L of water everyday. Education and technological improvements in water infrastructure are the best alternatives to water pricing. I am not a huge advocate of water pricing although I think it works well. Technology has been promoted as a means to conserve water through the use of ultra-low-flow toilets, restricted shower heads, and water efficient washing machines. Low flow shower heads are great too.
In sum, households in Canada use a fair bit of water. According to the OECD, Canada ranks 29th among the 30 OECD nations in terms of per capita water consumption. The US is the only country that's worse than us. Outdoor water usage is the most egregious. Things like car washing, lawn watering excessively, pool filling and washing our driveways. Again technology exists to help us with this, things like efficient lawn water devices and xeriscaping. Xeriscaping simply refers to landscaping that does not require a lot of irrigation where you're using more indigenous and drought-tolerant plants in your garden. The government can certainly come to play and provide incentives and rebates to households who show interest in making improvements to their water infrastructure. Even tax credits where the resident receives a direct reduction in tax liability for installing technology can eventually cut water usage in half.
Key message: Pricing water in Canadian municipalities has not yet been fully implemented at a large scale. Some municipalities have introduced it and water consumption has dropped significantly. Water pricing is one way to go, but educational campaigns that inform residences about how much water they are using can be equally as effective. Technology is also good and can make a big difference. What should we do?
Now, Canada does have an abundant amount of water, but a lot of the precipitation that falls from our sky runs off to the north. 60% of this water supply flows north and is not readily available or easily accessed where it is needed. 84% of Canada's population lives within a 300-kilometer band along the southern border. What we have discovered through our research thus far, is that water pricing in municipalities across Canada to encourage water conservation, is not very common. Typically, water pricing or metering can encourage households to conserve water. Municipalities that have introduced water pricing, have seen a reduction in residential water usage.
Yes I know that water pricing is highly controversial. We are not living in the South West United States where water is scarce. But in general, pricing and/or metering provides a financial incentive to householders to use less water. Alternatives to pricing do exist, and can be pursued at full swing provided that there is a willingness from the municipality and households. Do not forget, municipalities or urban areas have thousands if not millions of residents who use anywhere from 300L to 500L of water everyday. Education and technological improvements in water infrastructure are the best alternatives to water pricing. I am not a huge advocate of water pricing although I think it works well. Technology has been promoted as a means to conserve water through the use of ultra-low-flow toilets, restricted shower heads, and water efficient washing machines. Low flow shower heads are great too.
In sum, households in Canada use a fair bit of water. According to the OECD, Canada ranks 29th among the 30 OECD nations in terms of per capita water consumption. The US is the only country that's worse than us. Outdoor water usage is the most egregious. Things like car washing, lawn watering excessively, pool filling and washing our driveways. Again technology exists to help us with this, things like efficient lawn water devices and xeriscaping. Xeriscaping simply refers to landscaping that does not require a lot of irrigation where you're using more indigenous and drought-tolerant plants in your garden. The government can certainly come to play and provide incentives and rebates to households who show interest in making improvements to their water infrastructure. Even tax credits where the resident receives a direct reduction in tax liability for installing technology can eventually cut water usage in half.
Key message: Pricing water in Canadian municipalities has not yet been fully implemented at a large scale. Some municipalities have introduced it and water consumption has dropped significantly. Water pricing is one way to go, but educational campaigns that inform residences about how much water they are using can be equally as effective. Technology is also good and can make a big difference. What should we do?
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Green Cities: London’s Congestion Charge Zone…
I have been meaning to blog about this for a long time. This is where climate change and urban planning intersect. London’s Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ) came into effect on February 23, 2003 with strong civic leadership and citizens advocating taxes on automobile use. It extends from parts of Central London to parts of West London covering a massive area. What are its objectives? Of course, the main impetus for such a policy tool is to reduce congestion in the downtown area and use a majority of the funds for the city’s transit system.
How does it work? The designated zone, see map, requires a motorist to pay £8 ($14 Can) when they enter within the zone from 7am in the morning to 6pm in the evening. If you want to drive through it because it is more convenient than taking public transit, you pay the cost. The rationale is that over the long-term, a motorist will spend so much money going through this zone that it may reduce their automobile usage. £8 may not seem like a whole lot, but if the motorist tries to evade this fee and not pay it, they can face a fine of £60 to £180. It’s a stringent penalty but has the power to significantly alter the behaviour of a motorist. Since the CCZ was introduced, public transit ridership has increased because the city has simply provided more buses and has invested more funds into the transport system. Traffic congestion levels have decreased about 25% and this has had numerous benefits for the environment , road safety, public transit and even business activity.
Although London’s Mayor Boris Johnson has threatened to reduce its zone coverage, the CCZ will only become more popular both nationally and internationally, as citizens recognize the importance of cutting down on automobile use and using public transit more frequently. The Mayor claims that the city’s “transport for London” initiative will lose millions of dollars from the CCZ because the city's transit service has received all of the funds and they can raise the fares if they really wanted to.
As a relatively dense city, London's petroleum usage in relation to its density is pretty good. Meaning that its urban development density does not have a high petroleum use because of things like the CCZ and the use of public transit which significantly cuts down on petroleum use per capita. The evidence of reduced congestion is compelling. Nitrogen dioxide, carbon dioxide and particular matter levels have all dropped since the introduction of the CCZ. In spite of criticism from the city’s own mayor and other sceptics, the total expenditures as a percent of the city’s operating budget in 2006 allocated 82% to bus network improvements, 4% to road safety including research and campaigns, 2.5% for walking and cycling programmes and publicity and finally 11% for road and bridge maintenance and upgrades. In other words, when citizens have the inclination to drive to work or through the CCZ, they are contributing more revenue to the aforementioned green initiatives.
Key message: Cities can lead by example. They may not have a lot of capital to expend because of budgetary constraints, but effective initiatives like London’s CCZ not only ameliorates the functionality of the city, but reduces congestion, creates more awareness over protecting the environment, and induces citizens to re-think transport options i.e. public transit. London’s CCZ is a model for cities to follow.
How does it work? The designated zone, see map, requires a motorist to pay £8 ($14 Can) when they enter within the zone from 7am in the morning to 6pm in the evening. If you want to drive through it because it is more convenient than taking public transit, you pay the cost. The rationale is that over the long-term, a motorist will spend so much money going through this zone that it may reduce their automobile usage. £8 may not seem like a whole lot, but if the motorist tries to evade this fee and not pay it, they can face a fine of £60 to £180. It’s a stringent penalty but has the power to significantly alter the behaviour of a motorist. Since the CCZ was introduced, public transit ridership has increased because the city has simply provided more buses and has invested more funds into the transport system. Traffic congestion levels have decreased about 25% and this has had numerous benefits for the environment , road safety, public transit and even business activity.
Although London’s Mayor Boris Johnson has threatened to reduce its zone coverage, the CCZ will only become more popular both nationally and internationally, as citizens recognize the importance of cutting down on automobile use and using public transit more frequently. The Mayor claims that the city’s “transport for London” initiative will lose millions of dollars from the CCZ because the city's transit service has received all of the funds and they can raise the fares if they really wanted to.
As a relatively dense city, London's petroleum usage in relation to its density is pretty good. Meaning that its urban development density does not have a high petroleum use because of things like the CCZ and the use of public transit which significantly cuts down on petroleum use per capita. The evidence of reduced congestion is compelling. Nitrogen dioxide, carbon dioxide and particular matter levels have all dropped since the introduction of the CCZ. In spite of criticism from the city’s own mayor and other sceptics, the total expenditures as a percent of the city’s operating budget in 2006 allocated 82% to bus network improvements, 4% to road safety including research and campaigns, 2.5% for walking and cycling programmes and publicity and finally 11% for road and bridge maintenance and upgrades. In other words, when citizens have the inclination to drive to work or through the CCZ, they are contributing more revenue to the aforementioned green initiatives.
Key message: Cities can lead by example. They may not have a lot of capital to expend because of budgetary constraints, but effective initiatives like London’s CCZ not only ameliorates the functionality of the city, but reduces congestion, creates more awareness over protecting the environment, and induces citizens to re-think transport options i.e. public transit. London’s CCZ is a model for cities to follow.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Urban renewal and environment: take one
For those not familiar with the term "urban renewal" it is a euphemism for gentrification. It is a large urban eradication project meant to demolish existing housing and infrastructure and construct new infrastructure like condos and high rises. In the social sciences, we learn that urban renewal has the potential to revitalize a neighborhood through bringing investment and redevelopment. But of course there is the displacement factor. Low-income citizens who predominantly inhabit these areas get displaced because they cannot compete with the rising property costs and competitive housing market that urban renewal creates.
But what about the environment? Urban renewal does have impacts on the environment but we tend to overlook them. Just the amount of aggregate and resources needed to construct these buildings is scary. What urban renewal needs to change is the green space of a neighborhood. When a community lacks green space and a natural environment, the rebuilding and redevelopment of it only becomes more attractive for a developer. Of course building a new condominium may be gleaned for higher and better use. But, the focus needs to be on creating healthy environments that have harmonious development and a sense of green character. Constructing new buildings to replace decrepit ones is understandable, however, we know that displacement of the low-income tenants and damage to the environment is the inevitable result.
Let's focus on adding a new green look to urban renewal where the natural environment is the most indispensable factor. Green spaces and preserving the environment will bring harmony to the neighbourhood that has only become dilapidated because of the city's unwillingness to invest resources into creating parks, nature areas and gardens.
Key message: Green urban renewal is what we are going to need for the present and for the future. The preservation of a neighbourhood is always dependent on how it maintains the natural environment. The city needs to invest more money into greening its neighbourhoods so that they become more appealing, less stigmatized and more cohesive.
But what about the environment? Urban renewal does have impacts on the environment but we tend to overlook them. Just the amount of aggregate and resources needed to construct these buildings is scary. What urban renewal needs to change is the green space of a neighborhood. When a community lacks green space and a natural environment, the rebuilding and redevelopment of it only becomes more attractive for a developer. Of course building a new condominium may be gleaned for higher and better use. But, the focus needs to be on creating healthy environments that have harmonious development and a sense of green character. Constructing new buildings to replace decrepit ones is understandable, however, we know that displacement of the low-income tenants and damage to the environment is the inevitable result.
Let's focus on adding a new green look to urban renewal where the natural environment is the most indispensable factor. Green spaces and preserving the environment will bring harmony to the neighbourhood that has only become dilapidated because of the city's unwillingness to invest resources into creating parks, nature areas and gardens.
Key message: Green urban renewal is what we are going to need for the present and for the future. The preservation of a neighbourhood is always dependent on how it maintains the natural environment. The city needs to invest more money into greening its neighbourhoods so that they become more appealing, less stigmatized and more cohesive.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The Bike Lane Battle...
As gas prices go up, environmental concerns increase and people realize how lazy of a society we've become, the popularity of cycling has been steadily climbing. With more bikes being sold (and coming out of the garage) and being put on the road, the need for appropriate lanes of travel has also increased.
A huge push coming from the cycling world is the desire for more bike lanes. These lanes are for cycling only and usually do not allow parking for other vehicles. Having bike lanes allows cyclists a relatively safe path of travel since they won't need to travel along busy roads with traffic whizzing by only a few inches away.
But bike lanes can not simply be tossed on the road by painting a few lines and throwing up a few no parking signs. Most existing roads were designed primarily for cars, with a specific width of the road and maybe shoulders for safety and/or parking purposes. Bikes were rarely taken into account. Adding in bike lanes onto these roads is anything but simple.
The car lanes would become thinner and more dangerous, perhaps making it impossible for larger vehicles to safely travel. Parking bans would require that parking be made available in a different location. You could always simply widen the roads to allow for bike lanes without messing up the car lanes, but that could be a massively expensive, labourous and disruptive undertaking.
A lot of the opposition for increasing the number of bike lanes is actually coming from cyclists themselves. Many argue that the funding for these lanes is being taken away from separate bike and walking paths, which, they argue, are more effective and safer for cycling. They also point to the limitations of bike lanes. When streets get swept, all the dirt and debris (including a cyclists worst enemy: glass) gets moved into the bike lanes, making it dangerous and inconvenient for cyclists. I, for one, have had numerous flats caused by crap sitting in the bike lane. In the winter, snow plows cover the bike lanes in mounds of snow, effectively wiping out the lanes altogether.
So what to do? Bike paths and trails are great, but can be expensive and generally require going through untouched land like forested areas. Bike lanes are one option, but they aren't without their own problems. But we better figure it out soon, before people put their bikes back in the garage.
A huge push coming from the cycling world is the desire for more bike lanes. These lanes are for cycling only and usually do not allow parking for other vehicles. Having bike lanes allows cyclists a relatively safe path of travel since they won't need to travel along busy roads with traffic whizzing by only a few inches away.
But bike lanes can not simply be tossed on the road by painting a few lines and throwing up a few no parking signs. Most existing roads were designed primarily for cars, with a specific width of the road and maybe shoulders for safety and/or parking purposes. Bikes were rarely taken into account. Adding in bike lanes onto these roads is anything but simple.
The car lanes would become thinner and more dangerous, perhaps making it impossible for larger vehicles to safely travel. Parking bans would require that parking be made available in a different location. You could always simply widen the roads to allow for bike lanes without messing up the car lanes, but that could be a massively expensive, labourous and disruptive undertaking.
A lot of the opposition for increasing the number of bike lanes is actually coming from cyclists themselves. Many argue that the funding for these lanes is being taken away from separate bike and walking paths, which, they argue, are more effective and safer for cycling. They also point to the limitations of bike lanes. When streets get swept, all the dirt and debris (including a cyclists worst enemy: glass) gets moved into the bike lanes, making it dangerous and inconvenient for cyclists. I, for one, have had numerous flats caused by crap sitting in the bike lane. In the winter, snow plows cover the bike lanes in mounds of snow, effectively wiping out the lanes altogether.
So what to do? Bike paths and trails are great, but can be expensive and generally require going through untouched land like forested areas. Bike lanes are one option, but they aren't without their own problems. But we better figure it out soon, before people put their bikes back in the garage.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Bashing of suburbia...
James Kunstler is an outspoken critic of suburbia. His 1994 book "The Geography of Nowhere" provided a critical overview of American suburbia and urban development. He may be deemed as a polemicist by some, but he has many valid points to share. He argues that urban development must happen in a more efficient and environmentally friendly way. Cities need to focus on better allocating their resources in order to cope with population pressures. He thinks cities need to emphasize a sense of place where citizens can have the chance to meet their neighbours and not live in fragmented and socially disintegrated places.
I do agree with him that we need to re-think how we plan cities and how we can become less reliant on automobiles. However, he argues emphatically that there is no alternative energy source that we can use that can replace oil. Technology is becoming more sophisticated and as more funding is invested in renewable energy we may find a few solutions. There is a general addiction to oil and finding an absolutely substitute will prove to be very challenging. But the emphasis should be on creating more green spaces in the city accompanied with good public transit to attract the so called "urbanites". Is living in a low energy world really possible? Can our cities be designed in such a way that minimizes automobile use and maximizes public transit use? I don't know. I am still learning, in the mean time we can maybe ask James. Check out this video
I do agree with him that we need to re-think how we plan cities and how we can become less reliant on automobiles. However, he argues emphatically that there is no alternative energy source that we can use that can replace oil. Technology is becoming more sophisticated and as more funding is invested in renewable energy we may find a few solutions. There is a general addiction to oil and finding an absolutely substitute will prove to be very challenging. But the emphasis should be on creating more green spaces in the city accompanied with good public transit to attract the so called "urbanites". Is living in a low energy world really possible? Can our cities be designed in such a way that minimizes automobile use and maximizes public transit use? I don't know. I am still learning, in the mean time we can maybe ask James. Check out this video
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)