A Toronto bylaw starting June 1st, 2009 will require all stores under the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers (CFIG) to bring about a 5 cent charge on plastic bags, meaning every plastic bag the store provides you, you pay 5 cents for. This would take effect in Toronto malls, retail stores, supermarkets and corner stores. The CFIG, representing over 4,000 stores has expressed a reluctance to get involved with the city plan because of the fear that grocery stores may lose customers. Toronto’s plan is to reduce plastic bags by 70 percent by 2012. Ambitious? Yes! Is it actually achievable? Depends on what kind of policy tools are used.
Several stores have already taken the initiatives to implement the 5 cent charge on plastic bags including No Frills and Price Chopper. The rationale of the 5 cent charge is to induce citizens to change their behaviour to cut down on their use of plastic bags. In general, a user charge can persuade citizens to make the investment in buying reusable bags which are sturdier, compact and can carry a higher volume of groceries. The revenue collected from this nominal charge will accumulate in the store’s budget, and it is expected that the money will be used for environmental projects. Sounds pretty nebulous to me.
I think this collaborative initiative between the city and the CFIG is remarkable, however, 5 cents is far too small. For example, let’s say a citizen buys $100 worth of groceries from Loblaw’s, and decided to use 10 plastic bags to carry their groceries from the store to their car. This would translate to 5 cents * 10 plastic bags/$100 worth of groceries. Folks, that means the total revenue from the bag charge is 50 cents. That is nothing. In other words, using 10 plastic bags at five cents each for a $100 grocery bill will only contribute fifty cents to the ostensible environmental projects and initiatives, whatever they entail.
What I suggest: Citizens need an economic incentive. Market-based instruments like rebates are highly advantageous. This would involve the industry or store to provide a rebate or refund of ten cents for every reusable bag brought in by the citizen. Although this would be difficult to regulate, it shows more responsibility from the company and provides the citizen with an economic incentive to be green. Additionally, the CFIG should be more resourceful seeking funding from the city and province so that they can invest money into biodegradable bags which would give citizens the option of using biodegradable bags or using a reusable bag. This way, virtually no waste is produced.
Key message: Similar to many of the conventional arguments put forth regarding carbon taxes or user charges on garbage, a small charge may not induce desired consumer behaviour. Increase the charge to at least 20 cents on plastic bags while concomitantly providing educational workshops on waste diversion, rebates to citizens who bring in their reusable bags, and the city can provide awards for environmental stewardship to recognize the company’s outstanding commitment to environmental protection.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Geography of Gentrification…
I have not entered a post on geography for a while. Geography as many of you know, is a very inter-disciplinary field. My interests lie with urban geography and housing. Specifically, how neighbourhoods are constructed in inner cities and the various factors that attract and repel urbanites.
We are having a debate on gentrification next week in my Urban Planning class. It is going to be organized in my seminar as a public forum simulation hosted by the city councilor (my Prof). I am responsible for presenting a 5 minute presentation representing anti-poverty activists and social service providers. The other groups involved in this debate include the City Economic Development Official and City Planner, and the Residents Association. Last semester I undertook research on the gentrification of South Parkdale (a neighbourhood located in Toronto, west of the downtown area). The research I did covered the social, economic and political dimensions of gentrification. But my main argument or thesis was that cities need to have a more active role in managing the gentrification process. The Province of Ontario sets out most of the legislation on housing including the Tenant Protection Act.
Is Gentrification good or bad? Depends on who you ask and what kind of policy tools are available. Anyway, representing the anti-poverty activists, here are my main points:
-we need more stringent municipal policies that guarantee minimal displacement i.e. strict rent control, rent supplements, and inclusionary zoning
-City needs to provide residents with information about their tenant rights and what policies currently exist on housing (what is vacancy decontrol for instance?)
- create more employment opportunities in the area that is being gentrified i.e. gentrification usually brings reinvestment to the neighbourhood. Blue collar jobs however need not be eliminated and should remain an option for the low-income citizens.
Key message: Gentrification can help cities develop economically, but it can also lead to income inequality. Check out this link, courtesy of the Centre for Urban and Community Studies, U of T.
We are having a debate on gentrification next week in my Urban Planning class. It is going to be organized in my seminar as a public forum simulation hosted by the city councilor (my Prof). I am responsible for presenting a 5 minute presentation representing anti-poverty activists and social service providers. The other groups involved in this debate include the City Economic Development Official and City Planner, and the Residents Association. Last semester I undertook research on the gentrification of South Parkdale (a neighbourhood located in Toronto, west of the downtown area). The research I did covered the social, economic and political dimensions of gentrification. But my main argument or thesis was that cities need to have a more active role in managing the gentrification process. The Province of Ontario sets out most of the legislation on housing including the Tenant Protection Act.
Is Gentrification good or bad? Depends on who you ask and what kind of policy tools are available. Anyway, representing the anti-poverty activists, here are my main points:
-we need more stringent municipal policies that guarantee minimal displacement i.e. strict rent control, rent supplements, and inclusionary zoning
-City needs to provide residents with information about their tenant rights and what policies currently exist on housing (what is vacancy decontrol for instance?)
- create more employment opportunities in the area that is being gentrified i.e. gentrification usually brings reinvestment to the neighbourhood. Blue collar jobs however need not be eliminated and should remain an option for the low-income citizens.
Key message: Gentrification can help cities develop economically, but it can also lead to income inequality. Check out this link, courtesy of the Centre for Urban and Community Studies, U of T.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
It's cold so I don't care...
A friend of ours brought up an idea in class today that I thought we could explore it further. His notion was Canada's climate has a direct impact on the level of thinking and care Canadians put towards important issues, particularly those of the environmental nature. Pretty interesting.
The underlying principle of this idea is that during the colder months many Canadians will effectively "shut down their brain" and stop caring about environmental issues, primarily because they're too busy thinking about other things, like staying warm, paying the higher winter bills and whatever else people do in the winter.
I think there's something to this idea. The colder months offer several barriers. First of all, it's cold. There's less desire to go outside and more to stay huddled up inside. Your psyche will get hit as a result of this, as you probably have less contact with people and your general level of contentment probably takes a hit. After growing up in Winnipeg, nothing is more calming on the mind than the exit of those atrociously cold days. Your productivity might also fall, as you become less energetic and willing to do things.
This fall in productivity can have two broad effects: 1) You don't have enough desire to put what energy you do have into caring about and exploring environmental issues. 2) You may want to put your energy into considering environmental issues, but your overall decrease in productivity may lead to a detriment of your financial productivity (say, at work), so to counteract that fall, a greater proportion of your energy may go towards focusing on that bottom line so you can maintain that same financial productivity throughout the year.
Lastly, the cold months are more expensive: Heating bills, car maintenance, the increased length to get from A to B and even those wonderfully pesky consumerism-driven holidays. When your mind is focused on your own finances it can be very difficult to consider other issues. You'll put more time into concentrating on those factors, which will take away from your time to think about the ol' Spotted Owl.
So during the winter months, those bigwigs who are a little less environmentally-focused as some others (such as a large, evil multinational) may decide that it is a better time to push their agendas since less people will be opposed.
This theory is fraught with broad generalizations of people's behaviour, but I think there may be something to the general idea. Whether or not the big corps are actually playing according to this theory might be a stretch, but it's possible. We'll see what the conspiracy theorists think about it.
One question I have is why other countries with our climate don't suffer as well? Scandinavia is at the other end of the spectrum with regards to environmental issues, so there are obviously some flaws to the idea, but I'm curious to know what people think.
Let us know.
The underlying principle of this idea is that during the colder months many Canadians will effectively "shut down their brain" and stop caring about environmental issues, primarily because they're too busy thinking about other things, like staying warm, paying the higher winter bills and whatever else people do in the winter.
I think there's something to this idea. The colder months offer several barriers. First of all, it's cold. There's less desire to go outside and more to stay huddled up inside. Your psyche will get hit as a result of this, as you probably have less contact with people and your general level of contentment probably takes a hit. After growing up in Winnipeg, nothing is more calming on the mind than the exit of those atrociously cold days. Your productivity might also fall, as you become less energetic and willing to do things.
This fall in productivity can have two broad effects: 1) You don't have enough desire to put what energy you do have into caring about and exploring environmental issues. 2) You may want to put your energy into considering environmental issues, but your overall decrease in productivity may lead to a detriment of your financial productivity (say, at work), so to counteract that fall, a greater proportion of your energy may go towards focusing on that bottom line so you can maintain that same financial productivity throughout the year.
Lastly, the cold months are more expensive: Heating bills, car maintenance, the increased length to get from A to B and even those wonderfully pesky consumerism-driven holidays. When your mind is focused on your own finances it can be very difficult to consider other issues. You'll put more time into concentrating on those factors, which will take away from your time to think about the ol' Spotted Owl.
So during the winter months, those bigwigs who are a little less environmentally-focused as some others (such as a large, evil multinational) may decide that it is a better time to push their agendas since less people will be opposed.
This theory is fraught with broad generalizations of people's behaviour, but I think there may be something to the general idea. Whether or not the big corps are actually playing according to this theory might be a stretch, but it's possible. We'll see what the conspiracy theorists think about it.
One question I have is why other countries with our climate don't suffer as well? Scandinavia is at the other end of the spectrum with regards to environmental issues, so there are obviously some flaws to the idea, but I'm curious to know what people think.
Let us know.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
More on the economics of water...
Amid all of this blogging on water issues, it is vital that we become more familiarized on the economics of water. David Zetland is Post-Doctoral researcher in natural resource economics at UC Berkeley. He is an expert on the economics of water. See this brief video here, to learn more about how water is managed and allocated in the US.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Galactic Hippies...
We've got a lot of environmental problems going on right now on Earth. But it appears as though our problems are soon (if not already) going to extend past our atmosphere and into orbit.
Last month, two satellites collided while in orbit. One was a defunct Russian satellite, but the other was an American telecommunications satellite that was still in operation. Hundreds of thousands of people temporarily lost their signals.
It was considered a fairly big deal since this was the first time something like this has ever happened. Notions of another Cold War were even brought up. But the everlasting impacts of this are very notable. With the crash, at least 600 pieces of debris were created and now float freely in the atmoshphere.
Add that to the already 18,000 or so man-made objects in orbit and you've got one hell of a mess. Not only is this making satellites more vulnerable, but the space programs, which already face billions of different risks, are also now at greater risk of damage due to 'space waste'.
Space has the potential to become another victim of the Tragedy of the Commons. I wonder if the environmental movement will ever encompass space?
Last month, two satellites collided while in orbit. One was a defunct Russian satellite, but the other was an American telecommunications satellite that was still in operation. Hundreds of thousands of people temporarily lost their signals.
It was considered a fairly big deal since this was the first time something like this has ever happened. Notions of another Cold War were even brought up. But the everlasting impacts of this are very notable. With the crash, at least 600 pieces of debris were created and now float freely in the atmoshphere.
Add that to the already 18,000 or so man-made objects in orbit and you've got one hell of a mess. Not only is this making satellites more vulnerable, but the space programs, which already face billions of different risks, are also now at greater risk of damage due to 'space waste'.
Space has the potential to become another victim of the Tragedy of the Commons. I wonder if the environmental movement will ever encompass space?
It's a bird! It's a plane! It's...Water?
In the weeks before Tim and I's presentation on water conservation, I read a book aptly titled "Water". It's written by an ecologist from England, Julian Caldecott, and provides a wonderful overview of the topic.
In his chapters discussing the history of water on Earth, he describes a well-accepted theory on how water first appeared on Earth. It basically works like this. Comets and asteroids have been found to contain vast amounts of water, usually contained as ice. Throughout the Earth's billions of years in existence, comets and asteroids (many containing water) crashed into the planet, gradually filling up the Earth's oceans, rivers, lakes and aquifers.
I think that's pretty cool. So here's something to ponder: The Earth is running out of fresh water. What if we were to somehow access that water on those galactic rocks? Perhaps by landing on them and steering them to Earth and safely getting the water from inside. Or even directing them to hit Earth's surface. The human and environmental costs of that would be massive, but at least we'd get some water. There's all this talk regarding comets destroying the Earth and whatnot, but maybe it could have some benefits.
I think it's quite the idea.
Outlandish? Yes.
Expensive? Absolutely.
Technilogically feasible? Not even close (yet...).
Necessary? Probably not.
But it does have the makings of a ridiculous Hollywood motion picture. Let's see what you got, Spielberg.
In his chapters discussing the history of water on Earth, he describes a well-accepted theory on how water first appeared on Earth. It basically works like this. Comets and asteroids have been found to contain vast amounts of water, usually contained as ice. Throughout the Earth's billions of years in existence, comets and asteroids (many containing water) crashed into the planet, gradually filling up the Earth's oceans, rivers, lakes and aquifers.
I think that's pretty cool. So here's something to ponder: The Earth is running out of fresh water. What if we were to somehow access that water on those galactic rocks? Perhaps by landing on them and steering them to Earth and safely getting the water from inside. Or even directing them to hit Earth's surface. The human and environmental costs of that would be massive, but at least we'd get some water. There's all this talk regarding comets destroying the Earth and whatnot, but maybe it could have some benefits.
I think it's quite the idea.
Outlandish? Yes.
Expensive? Absolutely.
Technilogically feasible? Not even close (yet...).
Necessary? Probably not.
But it does have the makings of a ridiculous Hollywood motion picture. Let's see what you got, Spielberg.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
March 22, 2009, World Water Day
Chris and I delivered a presentation on water conservation policy last week. It was a group presentation of four students for our public policy class. We had to identify what the policy problem was, and then outline the policy directions we could take. In short, we identified that in Canada, a municipality usually has either an economic or environmental impetus to conserve water. Economic being that distributing water through pipes and water infrastructure is becoming more expensive because the infrastructure is deteriorating and will cost the municipality a lot of money to fix. The environmental impetus usually involves a municipality being concerned over a depleting aquifer because so many people are drawing their supply from groundwater but are doing it unsustainably. Hence water conservation. We proceeded to discuss the various policy tools that can be used for water efficiency and ultimately what tools can be brought about to conserve this precious resource. For anyone interested in our power point presentation, please ask us in the comment section.
Today is World Water Day and I think everyone should take the time to sit back and reflect over this precious resource that we take for granted in North America.
Water is undoubtedly the world`s most precious resource and will be the indispensable natural resource of the 21st century. Start getting educated on it.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Green Cities: The Artificial Greening Metropolis…
Masdar City folks, will be the centre of attention in the next ten years. Masdar city is going to be Abu Dhabi’s green metropolis- a zero pollution, zero waste, car-free city based on sound sustainable architecture. On the public transit front, the Emirate of Abu Dhabi is going to install an electric light-rail system that will be linked to the centre of Abu Dhabi. The expectation is that every single city resident will be using the light-rail system or other forms of public transit because cars or vehicles are simply not allowed within the city limits. For more details see here.
Abu Dhabi`s ambitions get even better. They plan on installing a desalination plant for their main water supply system, and all of their wastewater will be purified and recycled to grow plants for biofuels. Remember, this city is geographically located in a desert, growing plants for biofuels sounds pretty ludicrous and unnatural to me. All of this development and construction is going to take place over the next ten years. How is Abu Dhabi paying for all of this? Mostly with oil revenue.
Unlike other green cities including San Francisco, Curitiba, Portland and Minneapolis, Masdar will be created and manufactured from the Emirate in a completely top-down approach. Some of the aforementioned green cities have progressively incorporated greener governance which has brought about more sustainable policies. Citizens of these green cities also play an indispensable role in terms of civic engagement and decision making power.
This city is going to operate on renewable resources and energy from wind farms, solar photovoltaic modules, and geothermal plants. It cannot be overlooked that cheap oil, natural gas and power will still be used for Masdar. Emission intensive industries will rely on this energy and consumption of these renewable resources will still be profligate. This is not a green city because the citizens are not contributing to the environmental policy options. In addition, green cities contain a substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of social and economic integration at the core. Bringing about shopping malls, artificial ski hills and Formula One tracks are great for tourism but serve an economic impetus, not an environmental one.
Like Dubai, Masdar will develop numerous entertaining complexes for tourist attractions like a Formula One track. A mall is eventually going to be constructed along with a massive aluminum smelter. Worse yet, the purpose of designing this ``green metropolis`` is to improve Abu Dhabi`s green image. Masdar would also export excess electricity to Abu Dhabi which is growing rapidly. This will eventually put more pressure on Masdar City to supply more electricity which runs contrary to smart growth and green urbanism, two things that Abu Dhabi is striving for.
Key message: Green cities are not centred on massive urban growth and entertainment. They focus on practical and achievable ways to work with citizens to bring about social cohesion. Moreover, they identify what the citizens want, and involve them in the planning process. There is no plan for density with Masdar, it is being created to enhance Abu Dhabi`s green image and to supply them with electricity from renewable energy.
Abu Dhabi`s ambitions get even better. They plan on installing a desalination plant for their main water supply system, and all of their wastewater will be purified and recycled to grow plants for biofuels. Remember, this city is geographically located in a desert, growing plants for biofuels sounds pretty ludicrous and unnatural to me. All of this development and construction is going to take place over the next ten years. How is Abu Dhabi paying for all of this? Mostly with oil revenue.
Unlike other green cities including San Francisco, Curitiba, Portland and Minneapolis, Masdar will be created and manufactured from the Emirate in a completely top-down approach. Some of the aforementioned green cities have progressively incorporated greener governance which has brought about more sustainable policies. Citizens of these green cities also play an indispensable role in terms of civic engagement and decision making power.
This city is going to operate on renewable resources and energy from wind farms, solar photovoltaic modules, and geothermal plants. It cannot be overlooked that cheap oil, natural gas and power will still be used for Masdar. Emission intensive industries will rely on this energy and consumption of these renewable resources will still be profligate. This is not a green city because the citizens are not contributing to the environmental policy options. In addition, green cities contain a substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of social and economic integration at the core. Bringing about shopping malls, artificial ski hills and Formula One tracks are great for tourism but serve an economic impetus, not an environmental one.
Like Dubai, Masdar will develop numerous entertaining complexes for tourist attractions like a Formula One track. A mall is eventually going to be constructed along with a massive aluminum smelter. Worse yet, the purpose of designing this ``green metropolis`` is to improve Abu Dhabi`s green image. Masdar would also export excess electricity to Abu Dhabi which is growing rapidly. This will eventually put more pressure on Masdar City to supply more electricity which runs contrary to smart growth and green urbanism, two things that Abu Dhabi is striving for.
Key message: Green cities are not centred on massive urban growth and entertainment. They focus on practical and achievable ways to work with citizens to bring about social cohesion. Moreover, they identify what the citizens want, and involve them in the planning process. There is no plan for density with Masdar, it is being created to enhance Abu Dhabi`s green image and to supply them with electricity from renewable energy.
Friday, March 20, 2009
The Green Municipal Fund and Cities…
Amidst this agonizing recession, cities are becoming even more selective with approving municipal projects that are centered on sustainability. Municipal budgets and spending power is becoming even more restrained and revenue allocation schemes seem to be more opaque these days. Public transit, waste management programs, wastewater treatment are all important municipal services in which thousands if not millions of citizens depend on. This blog has shared some of the on-going innovations in technology for urban sustainability including rainwater harvesting, green roofs, waste diversion programs and even climate change initiatives. But again, cities are struggling at times to implement these novel initiatives because of tight budgetary constraints. Rainwater harvesting is exorbitantly priced and costs the city a lot of money.
Citizens pay for municipal services through taxes. Property taxes cover a large portion of waste diversion programs, waste water management and to a lesser extent, public transit. When it comes to green projects like green roofs or water conservation, cities are responsible for running rebate programs and providing incentives to citizens who make good responsible choices. Even water distribution and supplying municipal water can be highly expensive. It is going to cost Toronto about $500-800 million to fix, ameliorate and replace its water system infrastructure because demand has been so high placing numerous pressures on the pipes.
Cities need to start aggressively exploring the Green Municipal Fund (GMF), which is provided by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. In short, the GMF is a program that funds municipal initiatives that embrace and benefit the environment, local economies and quality of life. Funding generally focuses on energy, transportation, waste and water- these are all areas of concern that cities like Toronto need to seriously improve. Green roofs for one, fit the criteria of a project that is worthy of receiving funding from the GMF. Toronto can benefit tremendously from this because their current Green roof pilot project has thus far determined that there is sufficient demand for green roofs on commercial and residential buildings in the city. Incentives and rebates are acting as the catalyst for widespread adoption of green roofs and other innovative forms of efficient technology. But cities like Toronto simply do not have the capital to continue funding and subsidizing these programs.
The GMF can provide financing for up to 80 per cent of costs to a maximum of $4 million in loans combined with $400,000 in grants. Also, the GMF offers interest rates 1.5 per cent lower than the Government of Canada bond rate for the equivalent term. Any municipality wanting funding has to fill out application forms to clearly outline the project and how it will embrace the environment or more broadly sustainability.
Key message: Cities need to start becoming more resourceful and pro-active in obtaining their funding for green initiatives. Not many municipalities are aware of the GMF but need to take advantage of it to reach optimal urban sustainability and the efficient use of resources.
Citizens pay for municipal services through taxes. Property taxes cover a large portion of waste diversion programs, waste water management and to a lesser extent, public transit. When it comes to green projects like green roofs or water conservation, cities are responsible for running rebate programs and providing incentives to citizens who make good responsible choices. Even water distribution and supplying municipal water can be highly expensive. It is going to cost Toronto about $500-800 million to fix, ameliorate and replace its water system infrastructure because demand has been so high placing numerous pressures on the pipes.
Cities need to start aggressively exploring the Green Municipal Fund (GMF), which is provided by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. In short, the GMF is a program that funds municipal initiatives that embrace and benefit the environment, local economies and quality of life. Funding generally focuses on energy, transportation, waste and water- these are all areas of concern that cities like Toronto need to seriously improve. Green roofs for one, fit the criteria of a project that is worthy of receiving funding from the GMF. Toronto can benefit tremendously from this because their current Green roof pilot project has thus far determined that there is sufficient demand for green roofs on commercial and residential buildings in the city. Incentives and rebates are acting as the catalyst for widespread adoption of green roofs and other innovative forms of efficient technology. But cities like Toronto simply do not have the capital to continue funding and subsidizing these programs.
The GMF can provide financing for up to 80 per cent of costs to a maximum of $4 million in loans combined with $400,000 in grants. Also, the GMF offers interest rates 1.5 per cent lower than the Government of Canada bond rate for the equivalent term. Any municipality wanting funding has to fill out application forms to clearly outline the project and how it will embrace the environment or more broadly sustainability.
Key message: Cities need to start becoming more resourceful and pro-active in obtaining their funding for green initiatives. Not many municipalities are aware of the GMF but need to take advantage of it to reach optimal urban sustainability and the efficient use of resources.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Earth Hour: The Friend and Foe of Climate Change...
Last March, the inaugural worldwide adoption of Earth Hour took place, as millions throughout the world turned off their lights for one hour to create awareness about global climate change. While much awareness was created, there was also a significant reduction in electricity consumption, as high as 8.7% in Toronto.
However, as Benjamin Dachis indicated in his 2008 special piece to The Globe & Mail, there was an unexpected and counter-productive side effect of Earth Hour, in Ontario at least. While logical thought would provide a correlation between electricity reduction and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, it was actually the opposite that occurred. Earth Hour actually produced more greenhouse gas emissions than during non-Earth hour times.
Wait. What? How?
It has everything to do with the way the Ontario electricity grid works. Ontario relies predominantly on a mix of nuclear, coal and hydroelectric power. Nuclear and hydroelectricity produce roughly no carbon emissions, while coal is one of the dirtier villains (Premier Dalton McGuinty has promised--many times--to shut down the province's coal plants).
Nuclear and coal plants generally run quite consistently and changing the amount of output from these plants can be expensive. Shutting down a nuclear plant for a day (and subsequently starting the thing up) could cost millions of dollars. Hydroelectricity, on the other hand, is much more cost-effective to change output. All you need to do is turn off the turbines and the water will keep flowing anyways.
So when demand on the grid changes (like when hundreds of thousands of people turn off their lights for an hour), it isn't the dirtier, carbon-emitting coal plants that get turned down, but the emissions-free hydroelectricity. As a result, the proportion of power coming from coal increases and often the absolute levels of coal-sourced power actually increase as well (as high as 18% in Ontario during Earth hour, primarily as a result of exports to the U.S. that night).
March 28th is the date of this year's Earth Hour. So when all the lights go out, just remember that there is a small price for the wonderful awareness campaign that is Earth Hour.
However, as Benjamin Dachis indicated in his 2008 special piece to The Globe & Mail, there was an unexpected and counter-productive side effect of Earth Hour, in Ontario at least. While logical thought would provide a correlation between electricity reduction and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, it was actually the opposite that occurred. Earth Hour actually produced more greenhouse gas emissions than during non-Earth hour times.
Wait. What? How?
It has everything to do with the way the Ontario electricity grid works. Ontario relies predominantly on a mix of nuclear, coal and hydroelectric power. Nuclear and hydroelectricity produce roughly no carbon emissions, while coal is one of the dirtier villains (Premier Dalton McGuinty has promised--many times--to shut down the province's coal plants).
Nuclear and coal plants generally run quite consistently and changing the amount of output from these plants can be expensive. Shutting down a nuclear plant for a day (and subsequently starting the thing up) could cost millions of dollars. Hydroelectricity, on the other hand, is much more cost-effective to change output. All you need to do is turn off the turbines and the water will keep flowing anyways.
So when demand on the grid changes (like when hundreds of thousands of people turn off their lights for an hour), it isn't the dirtier, carbon-emitting coal plants that get turned down, but the emissions-free hydroelectricity. As a result, the proportion of power coming from coal increases and often the absolute levels of coal-sourced power actually increase as well (as high as 18% in Ontario during Earth hour, primarily as a result of exports to the U.S. that night).
March 28th is the date of this year's Earth Hour. So when all the lights go out, just remember that there is a small price for the wonderful awareness campaign that is Earth Hour.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Blogging part 1: Blogging is great, you should do it...
After blogging for a couple of months now, I have begun to understand why so many individuals these days have become fascinated with this hobby. Blogging is an excellent way to share and exchange ideas. Further, ideas become more solidified when readers make comments and expand and build on knowledge.
Some of the blogs I follow are managed by university professors out of the United States. Anyone can read them and they also give students a chance to gain more insight into their beliefs, opinions and arguments. And reading these blogs by university profs are not too academic, but are written in a more journalistic format making the blog more fun and enjoyable to read. I think blogs are ideal for the university environment as students can elaborate on concepts, theories and ideas learned from their respective courses. But unlike a Web CT system, blogs are open to everyone and anyone can contribute to them.
As university students continuously learning and building on knowledge, blogging gives you the opportunity to communicate what you have learned and apply the critical thinking by making persuasive arguments to friends, peers and professors. Another great thing about blogs and blogging is that the material is never too esoteric. Blogs always have a unique context to them which explains the material very well making it open to individuals from various backgrounds.
I think Seth Godin said it best "The best measure of a blog is not how many people it reaches, it’s how much it changes what you do. Changes your posture, your writing, your transparency, your humility. What blogging has done for me is made me think. I get to think about how the outside world will understand something I’m trying to do, for example."
Some of the blogs I follow are managed by university professors out of the United States. Anyone can read them and they also give students a chance to gain more insight into their beliefs, opinions and arguments. And reading these blogs by university profs are not too academic, but are written in a more journalistic format making the blog more fun and enjoyable to read. I think blogs are ideal for the university environment as students can elaborate on concepts, theories and ideas learned from their respective courses. But unlike a Web CT system, blogs are open to everyone and anyone can contribute to them.
As university students continuously learning and building on knowledge, blogging gives you the opportunity to communicate what you have learned and apply the critical thinking by making persuasive arguments to friends, peers and professors. Another great thing about blogs and blogging is that the material is never too esoteric. Blogs always have a unique context to them which explains the material very well making it open to individuals from various backgrounds.
I think Seth Godin said it best "The best measure of a blog is not how many people it reaches, it’s how much it changes what you do. Changes your posture, your writing, your transparency, your humility. What blogging has done for me is made me think. I get to think about how the outside world will understand something I’m trying to do, for example."
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Campus water fountains revisited…
In my Urban Planning class yesterday, we discussed Urban and Water Governance. It seems that water is permeating many disciplines these days as we are starting to understand that it is going to be the most important natural resource of the century. In our seminar, we discussed and debated several issues that surround water governance and privatization. Amid our discussion, we started to have a conversation about water fountains on our very own campus. How this relates to water governance is something that we collectively discovered. In short, if we had more water fountains on campus, the university would be more involved with the administration and operation of water supply. They would have to regularly check the fountains to ensure they are working and any leaks or dysfunction with the pipes, would result in the university paying a lot of money to fix it. So instead of going through this expensive process the university can delegate to the campus food service provider, who can then supply bottled water. Cheaper for the school, more expensive for the students.
Water fountains are not abundant on campus, in fact, all of the Ron Thom buildings including Champlain College, Lady Eaton College and the Bata Library really lack water fountains. One student, who has studied Trent’s architectural history in great detail, reported that when the buildings were being designed, they did not plan for water fountains.
Alas, 40 years down the road we’re starting to feel the effects. We are also drinking a lot more water these days. Some facts, courtesy of David Zetland’s aguanomics have reported that lack of water is the #1 trigger of daytime fatigue. Preliminary research indicates that 8-10 glasses of water a day could significantly ease back and joint pain for up to 80% of sufferers. A mere 2% drop in body water can trigger fuzzy short-term memory, trouble with basic math, and difficulty focusing on the computer screen.
These are just some of the facts and compelling reasons why we need to keep hydrated all day long. Sadly, when water fountains are scarce we are obliged to buy bottled water at a cost of $2-5 which is totally ludicrous. Other students in my class reported that some of the taps in the library have little signs posted on top of them that read “please let water run for 30 seconds before drinking”. That is certainly frightening and provides no real encouragement to drink Peterborough’s ostensibly clean and safe drinking water.
Key message: We need to keep hydrated especially when we are busy studying and working away with rigourous and at times arduous tasks. Our minds need to be freshened from time and time again; water fountains can serve our needs and save us money. Many students these days are carrying their canteens (not many use Nalgenes anymore because of Bisphenol A) and are trying to refill them. If not water fountains (because they are an expensive infrastructural investment), let’s at least consider water coolers.
Water fountains are not abundant on campus, in fact, all of the Ron Thom buildings including Champlain College, Lady Eaton College and the Bata Library really lack water fountains. One student, who has studied Trent’s architectural history in great detail, reported that when the buildings were being designed, they did not plan for water fountains.
Alas, 40 years down the road we’re starting to feel the effects. We are also drinking a lot more water these days. Some facts, courtesy of David Zetland’s aguanomics have reported that lack of water is the #1 trigger of daytime fatigue. Preliminary research indicates that 8-10 glasses of water a day could significantly ease back and joint pain for up to 80% of sufferers. A mere 2% drop in body water can trigger fuzzy short-term memory, trouble with basic math, and difficulty focusing on the computer screen.
These are just some of the facts and compelling reasons why we need to keep hydrated all day long. Sadly, when water fountains are scarce we are obliged to buy bottled water at a cost of $2-5 which is totally ludicrous. Other students in my class reported that some of the taps in the library have little signs posted on top of them that read “please let water run for 30 seconds before drinking”. That is certainly frightening and provides no real encouragement to drink Peterborough’s ostensibly clean and safe drinking water.
Key message: We need to keep hydrated especially when we are busy studying and working away with rigourous and at times arduous tasks. Our minds need to be freshened from time and time again; water fountains can serve our needs and save us money. Many students these days are carrying their canteens (not many use Nalgenes anymore because of Bisphenol A) and are trying to refill them. If not water fountains (because they are an expensive infrastructural investment), let’s at least consider water coolers.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Here comes climate change. I hope you packed your Advil...
It is commonly known as 'clinical folklore', but many have believed for years that there was a link between headaches and the weather. Well, it's fair to say it's no longer just a piece of folklore. Researchers from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston just published a study in the journal Neurology demonstrating a link between weather conditions and the incidence of headaches and migraines.
Interestingly, warmer weather and changes in atmospheric pressure are shown to significantly influence headaches and migraines. The researchers estimate that each 5 degree rise in temperature can increase the risk of severe headaches by 8% compared to colder weather. Lower barometric pressure also appeared to be associated with more headaches.
While air pollution didn't indicate any changes, nor did the researchers prove strong causation, there was a definite evident linkage between the two. And I'm going to guess that our headaches aren't the ones influencing the weather. Humans have impacts, but that might be pushing it.
So why do I bother writing about this? Well, with warmer air temperatures come more headaches. Climate change is certainly expected to increase average air temperatures, as well as the frequency of the extremely high temperature changes, like the heat wave seen in Western Europe in 2003. There could be a lot more headaches in our future.
Oh, conspiracy theorists, here's something to consider. Maybe the drug companies are causing climate change. Oooooooh. I see a straight-to-video movie...
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Government sees the light, but makes sure its pockets will be full...
At Peterborough Green-Up, an environmental not-for-profit in Peterborough, the Energy Efficiency Department runs a program aimed at small commercial buildings designed to reduce their total demand on the grid by retrofitting the old lighting. The program, aptly titled the 'Power Saving Blitz' provides business owners with $1000 worth of lighting upgrades. No catch.
The program has been a hit and has excited the main funders [Peterborough Utilities and the Ontario Power Authority (OPA)] so much that funding for the program has been extended until 2010. Read the fine print on some of the official contracts issued to participants of the program and it becomes clear that the OPA may very well see a massive source of future income.
One section of the contract reads:
"The customer transfers and assigns to the OPA, unconditionally and absolutely, all of its right, title and interest in and to all benefits or entitlements associated with decreased environmental impacts now or in the future, direct or indirect, arising as a result of, relating to or in connection with this Program."
Translation: Any future revenue from carbon credits due to improved efficiency belongs to the OPA. The business owners won't be entitled to any of it.
Sneaky, but effective on the part of the OPA. Don't be surprised to see an increase in the frequency of these forward-looking reservations by governments and other stakeholders.
The program has been a hit and has excited the main funders [Peterborough Utilities and the Ontario Power Authority (OPA)] so much that funding for the program has been extended until 2010. Read the fine print on some of the official contracts issued to participants of the program and it becomes clear that the OPA may very well see a massive source of future income.
One section of the contract reads:
"The customer transfers and assigns to the OPA, unconditionally and absolutely, all of its right, title and interest in and to all benefits or entitlements associated with decreased environmental impacts now or in the future, direct or indirect, arising as a result of, relating to or in connection with this Program."
Translation: Any future revenue from carbon credits due to improved efficiency belongs to the OPA. The business owners won't be entitled to any of it.
Sneaky, but effective on the part of the OPA. Don't be surprised to see an increase in the frequency of these forward-looking reservations by governments and other stakeholders.
An idling Suburban...
A number of months ago, the City of Peterborough instituted a by-law prohibiting the extended idling of vehicles. It was met with much praise, but the results may not be worth it. The by-law is poorly enforced, expensive to implement (upwards of $80,000 for writing a few words in a book) and doesn't apply to all vehicles and areas (taxicabs are temporarily exempted and drive-thrus got themselves a free pass).
I work part-time with a local environmental charity in Peterborough and I just went outside to grab a bite of lunch. Outside of the building a giant blue Chevy Suburban was sitting there, idling away. One passenger was inside, I would assume enjoying the comforts of a mammoth on wheels while the driver was stopping off somewhere, probably our building.
Nothing says 'eco' like an idling Suburban outside an environmental charity's building.
I know they might not get pinned with an 'idling' fine, but at least have some decency. If anything should come of the silly by-law, it should be a recognition that idling is harmful to the environment and human health. An idling Suburban just isn't cool the way it used to be. No wonder GM is on the brink...
I work part-time with a local environmental charity in Peterborough and I just went outside to grab a bite of lunch. Outside of the building a giant blue Chevy Suburban was sitting there, idling away. One passenger was inside, I would assume enjoying the comforts of a mammoth on wheels while the driver was stopping off somewhere, probably our building.
Nothing says 'eco' like an idling Suburban outside an environmental charity's building.
I know they might not get pinned with an 'idling' fine, but at least have some decency. If anything should come of the silly by-law, it should be a recognition that idling is harmful to the environment and human health. An idling Suburban just isn't cool the way it used to be. No wonder GM is on the brink...
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Rainwater Harvesting...
In Canadian cities, the average precipitation rate is between 260 to 1500mm per year. BC, Manitoba and Saskatchewan typically have higher annual rainfall than other Canadian provinces. During wet years with high annual rainfall, a lot of the water runoffs into local streams, rivers and watersheds. Alas, we are not effectively trapping this water and using it in productive and efficient ways. Rainwater harvesting is simply gathering, accumulating or storing rainwater.
Rainwater harvesting significantly alleviates the pressures placed on municipal water systems. Outdoor water use in particular, contributes to peak demand and puts pressure on infrastructure capacity. Irrigation for example, draws heavily from municipal water systems in times of high demand and low supply. Municipalities should promote decentralized infrastructure to harvest rainfall and create outdoor xeriscaped spaces that rely on precipitation for irrigation.
Like green roofs, municipalities can create incentives for rainwater harvesting to ensure developers of new buildings, subdivisions and residential units include water efficient landscaping from the start. The common fact and statistic associated with this technological phenomenon is this: in a dry climate with only 20 to 30 mm of monthly rainfall, rainwater harvesting can collect enough water to irrigate 25 to 40 square meters of lawn or garden area. This saves roughly 121 litres per capita per day. More importantly however, and similar to green roofs, rainwater harvesting improves urban stormwater quality, reduces erosion and flooding associated with high rainfall and reduces demand on centralized municipal water systems.
Key message: As a country with a relatively high annual rainfall rate, rainwater harvesting must be actively pursued. We need to take advantage of the precipitation that falls on our landscapes. Canadian outdoor water use in the summer time is profligate, adopting rainwater harvesting technology is more of a decentralized approach giving the citizen more independence. Ultimately, the more decentralized a water system is, the more citizens recognize the merits of water conservation.
Rainwater harvesting significantly alleviates the pressures placed on municipal water systems. Outdoor water use in particular, contributes to peak demand and puts pressure on infrastructure capacity. Irrigation for example, draws heavily from municipal water systems in times of high demand and low supply. Municipalities should promote decentralized infrastructure to harvest rainfall and create outdoor xeriscaped spaces that rely on precipitation for irrigation.
Like green roofs, municipalities can create incentives for rainwater harvesting to ensure developers of new buildings, subdivisions and residential units include water efficient landscaping from the start. The common fact and statistic associated with this technological phenomenon is this: in a dry climate with only 20 to 30 mm of monthly rainfall, rainwater harvesting can collect enough water to irrigate 25 to 40 square meters of lawn or garden area. This saves roughly 121 litres per capita per day. More importantly however, and similar to green roofs, rainwater harvesting improves urban stormwater quality, reduces erosion and flooding associated with high rainfall and reduces demand on centralized municipal water systems.
Key message: As a country with a relatively high annual rainfall rate, rainwater harvesting must be actively pursued. We need to take advantage of the precipitation that falls on our landscapes. Canadian outdoor water use in the summer time is profligate, adopting rainwater harvesting technology is more of a decentralized approach giving the citizen more independence. Ultimately, the more decentralized a water system is, the more citizens recognize the merits of water conservation.
Friday, March 6, 2009
The ECO footprint and SARS
Does everyone remember the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic? It was a pretty big issue from November 2002 to July 2003. Toronto had to quarantine many of its citizens because of the threat of being diagnosed with SARS. Well, prior to this epidemic, I really don’t think we were discussing air pollution and smog related issues in urbanized settings. SARS just happened to come from the Guangdong Province in China, which has 467 people per square kilometer and does not have the best air quality in China. Poor air quality is often a good indicator of urban environmental quality. High levels of particulate matter, ozone, and other pollutants constitute poor air quality which come from our cars, factories and homes.
Our exposure to local air pollutants, dirty water and unsanitary landscapes can all promote disease. The connection to the ecological footprint? The ecological footprint measures the resources consumed and the waste produced by a given entity translated into the land and water area required to support this level of activity. Things that the Eco footprint measure that are important here for consideration include “how many kilometres per litre does your car get” or how much do you drive each year on average” or “on average, how many kilometres do you travel on public transportation”. All of these questions measure urban environmental quality to some degree which in turn can illustrate how bad air quality is in the city or rural area.
Have cities in Canada even recognized the fundamental problems with air quality and smog? The reason why I allude to SARS is because SARS really woke people up. Not everyone understands its diagnosis, signs or symptoms but do recognize that it is a respiratory syndrome that can stem from poor air quality. My point, it unfortunately takes outbreaks like SARS to capture our attention and recognize the importance of public health issues. The Eco footprint is an excellent indicator of how sustainable you are, but one can easily take the test, view their results, and not make changes to become more sustainable. Unlike the Eco footprint, there are no free riders with epidemics like SARS. People living in urban environments cannot afford to take risks with these diseases because they are highly contagious and our bodies are very susceptible to them.
Environmental policy decisions are ultimately shaped on citizens’ perceived threats of health related issues. When we are more in touch or concerned about the health related problem like SARS, then policy suddenly influences things like enhancing public transportation, putting in congestion charge zones as done in London, or just generally cutting down on these pernicious pollutants that affect our respiratory system.
Key message: It should not take things like SARS to address air quality issues. Respiratory illness is easily exacerbated by heavy automobile use, limited use of public transit and inadequate air quality emission standards that regulate how many air pollutants go into our environment. People love to free ride the Eco footprint as they can measure their footprint and ostensibly take action on reducing it. We tend to have a reactive approach to environmental action, something must really shake us like a hurricane, tsunami or a flood for meaningful change to happen. When people are immediately affected by the problem i.e. SARS, it reinforces reality and brings us closer to the issue.
Our exposure to local air pollutants, dirty water and unsanitary landscapes can all promote disease. The connection to the ecological footprint? The ecological footprint measures the resources consumed and the waste produced by a given entity translated into the land and water area required to support this level of activity. Things that the Eco footprint measure that are important here for consideration include “how many kilometres per litre does your car get” or how much do you drive each year on average” or “on average, how many kilometres do you travel on public transportation”. All of these questions measure urban environmental quality to some degree which in turn can illustrate how bad air quality is in the city or rural area.
Have cities in Canada even recognized the fundamental problems with air quality and smog? The reason why I allude to SARS is because SARS really woke people up. Not everyone understands its diagnosis, signs or symptoms but do recognize that it is a respiratory syndrome that can stem from poor air quality. My point, it unfortunately takes outbreaks like SARS to capture our attention and recognize the importance of public health issues. The Eco footprint is an excellent indicator of how sustainable you are, but one can easily take the test, view their results, and not make changes to become more sustainable. Unlike the Eco footprint, there are no free riders with epidemics like SARS. People living in urban environments cannot afford to take risks with these diseases because they are highly contagious and our bodies are very susceptible to them.
Environmental policy decisions are ultimately shaped on citizens’ perceived threats of health related issues. When we are more in touch or concerned about the health related problem like SARS, then policy suddenly influences things like enhancing public transportation, putting in congestion charge zones as done in London, or just generally cutting down on these pernicious pollutants that affect our respiratory system.
Key message: It should not take things like SARS to address air quality issues. Respiratory illness is easily exacerbated by heavy automobile use, limited use of public transit and inadequate air quality emission standards that regulate how many air pollutants go into our environment. People love to free ride the Eco footprint as they can measure their footprint and ostensibly take action on reducing it. We tend to have a reactive approach to environmental action, something must really shake us like a hurricane, tsunami or a flood for meaningful change to happen. When people are immediately affected by the problem i.e. SARS, it reinforces reality and brings us closer to the issue.
To doom or not to doom...
As part of a class assignment over the past week, I was to analyze a peer-reviewed paper that has something to do with climate change. I selected a piece on climate change and future food security, presented it to the class and picked it apart.
Questions and comments followed, including one final one from the professor. He indicated that I had perhaps overlooked something when questioning the paper's necessity: the fact that it was simply a doom & gloom paper. He was right. I hadn't really considered that its only real purpose of existence was to scare people.
I later figured why it was that this didn't occur to me: I'm an optimist. From the climate change perspective, I think we'll be OK in the long-run. That, or I'm a closet ignoramus, who chooses to think we'll be OK so I can continue living a relatively blissfully ignorant life. There's a fine line between the two.
I also asked myself the value of doom & gloom papers. To some they may seem counter-productive and silly, only getting in the way of achieving progress, in this case, to averting serious climate change.
Others might see them as fully necessary, keeping us on our toes by indicating what could happen if we get complacent.
The final spectrum might view them as realistic and defeatist. If the paper makes a good argument for our devastation, I guess we're screwed. We might as well just keep up what we're doing already because any change will be meaningless. This is a tad dangerous, but hey, I'm an optimist.
Is there a value to these papers? Sure, but it matters where it is seen from. In my personal opinion, I think the more extreme doom & gloom papers and studies are counter-productive, especially those that are defeatist and at the most, call for adaptive solutions. And maybe they're right, but I'm not at that point yet.
Plenty of literature out there accepts the perils and challenges of climate change. Those papers keep us on our toes and are completely necessary. But they're not defeatist.
I think we've got a fighting chance of saving ourselves from this climate change mess.
But then again, I'm only an optimist.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Innovative progress on ethanol...
A couple of weeks ago, I blogged about the numerous disadvantages associated with corn-based ethanol. In short, I mentioned how the US has been irrationally excited about corn-based ethanol production as an alternative fuel source. Corn prices have increased as a result of this massive diversion of corn being used for fuel versus food. Anyway, this blog entry courtesy of the NY Times discusses the possibility of energy cane. For instance, using orange peels as an ethanol source. This blog suggests that energy cane has more fiber than syrup and grows taller than sugar cane. Which means you can yield more energy from the plant. Again, unlike corn which is an essential high value crop in which millions rely on for food, energy cane or cellulosic ethanol is manufactured from woody plant matter (cellulose) from sources such as grasses, trees, rapeseed, switchgrass and agricultural waste. These things do not necessarily affect international food prices and consequently do not affect food inflation. Check out the blog here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)