Good Environmentalism…

Edward Glaeser, Professor of Economics at Harvard writes about contemporary environmentalism and some of its flaws. He says “The old mantra “think globally, act locally,” is pretty silly. Local environmentalism is often bad environmentalism, because keeping one’s backyard pristine can make the planet worse off. Preventing wind farms leaves Cape Cod’s views untouched, but increases carbon emissions.”

I do not totally agree with this statement because practicing so called “good environmentalism” is always going to be challenging. Why? Because of zero sum scenarios, tragedy of the commons and a clashing of what environmentalism should be. In fact, environmentalism advocates renewable energy such as wind farms but reminds us that wind farms should be built in places where people are not going to be bothered by them. So, building wind farms is seen as green development in some peoples‘ eyes but a problem in others‘ who may say that it undermines the state of the natural environment and can kill some birds in the process. Who is right? This makes good environmentalism challenging.

Environmentalism is all about putting the social and humanitarian interests first. Building wind farms provides an alternative source of energy thereby minimizing our dependence on conventional sources of electricity from things like coal or hydroelectric dams. Additionally, they generate economic growth. Good environmentalism recognizes the merits of such alternative energy insofar as the people are not completed affected by the development.

Glaeser’s article provides many good points to consider. All of his points in some way or another focus on how environmentalism can function concomitantly with economic growth. Many of his examples refer to the United States such as comparing the environmentally progressive California to the brownest city in the U.S. - Houston. What his post boils down to is that environmentalists want too much green space. They want natural and pristine environments untouched. So much to the point where green development may not be wanted because it can change the landscape taking away from its natural beauty.

I agree with Glaeser here that we cannot be overly anti-growth when it comes to things like green cities or renewable energy. However, we still must think critically about the trade-offs in green development such as a hydro-electric dam. Hydro-electric power (which I am not a huge advocate for) provides this ostensible “green” electricity but usually at the expense of wiping out an entire ecosystem through siltation, flooding and natural disruption. Development in green cities like San Francisco or Curitiba is totally warranted because the people are probably demanding it.

So public transit expansion, increasing densities and minimizing automobile dependency are all good steps for environmentalism because it is the nature of our human development and the course of our future. Environmentalism and good governance is all about how city governments formulate and implement policies in response to environmentally related demands and inputs from society.

Key message: Good environmentalism still needs to preach “think globally and act locally”. But, it also needs to see the merits of green development including smart growth in cities, urban sustainability and renewable energy. Environmentalism must encourage growth but this can be done in a more holistic fashion and can dictate how that growth should be done.

Just enjoy the walk, Winnipeg...

I've returned to Winnipeg for a week and during my stay there is a particular restaurant that I would very much like to visit: The Pizzeria Gusto. It only opened a year or so ago, but it has quickly become one of Winnipeg's most popular restaurants, offering the best pizza I have ever had.

Aside from the food, this small restaurant is located on Academy Road, only a few blocks away from our home. Academy Road is a main passageway of the city and has amazing potential for small commercial development. Unfortunately, it is notorious for unsuccessful, poorly organized businesses setting up shop. Quite simply, no one really frequents Academy Road.

A number of different places have set up shop in the past few years that have made the road something more than a vehicular thoroughfare and Pizzeria Gusto is a wonderful addition. Conveniently, a small plot of land exists right beside the restaurant that is currently tended to as a public lawn and the Gusto has applied to place a patio on this property.

It's a terrific idea and would certainly liven up the area a bit. But a few local residents on the adjacent street are less than enthused and have appealed the patio, citing that it would disturb the peace by playing loud music, creating a raucous and would eventually lead to the road turning into the next Corydon Avenue (Corydon is a highly commercialized Winnipeg street full of nightclubs and rarely quiets down until the wee hours of the morning).

The restaurant has responded by claiming the patio would be small, play soft music and would close by 11:00 pm. In addition, the restaurant is fairly pricey, does not serve beer and isn't open on Sundays.

These residents are stuck. They're stuck in the traditional workings of the neighbourhood that is all too common throughout the developed world, where the regions of work, live and play are all distinctly separated and require a vehicle to get from one to another. When I grew up in Winnipeg, we were required to drive to go out for food, go to the movies and most other things because none of these were within walking (or even biking) distance. Only recently has Academy Road put in a decent pub, which somehow struggles on a strip located in one of Winnipeg's most dense and rich neighbourhoods.

Mainstream urban planning should consider the integration of residential and commercial areas to make our neighbourhoods and cities more sociable, less car-dependent, more livable and above all, more enjoyable. Refusing to allow something like Pizzeria Gusto to help in such a transformation is a major step in the wrong direction.

Also, if you're ever in Winnipeg, I highly recommend going to the Pizzeria Gusto.

I hope this is not the return of the Staples trap…

I am a big natural resource policy guy and after reading Jeffrey Simpson’s article in the Globe and Mail today, I am bit concerned about Canada's dependence on the U.S.

Simpson writes “In fields from border security to trade, from energy and the environment to Afghanistan, from economic recovery to university research, we Canadians are now following along or simply dependent on what happens in America.” In these very capricious times, it is hard to say where Canada stands on energy and the environment specifically. The “recapitalization” of the U.S. economy will have to overcome massive indebtedness and declining economic activity, and until that happens, Canada will be holding on to America's tail.

The Staples thesis was developed by an economist named Harold Innis in the 1920s. He said that Canada developed as it did because of the nature of its staple commodities: raw materials such as fish, fur, lumber, agricultural products and minerals that were exported to Europe and subsequently to the US of A. The search for and exploitation of these staples led to the creation of institutions that defined the political culture of the nation and its regions. With regards to contemporary Canada, has this dependence of exports returned? After all, ~86% of our exports go to the U.S. We are still exporting massive quantities of lumber, oil and minerals to the states and this will continue unabated until total economic recovery for both nations is complete, which will take a number of years.

Key message: the staples thesis allowed Canada’s economy to grow and establish educational, political and social institutions. Natural resource wealth has always been a catalyst for our economy, but how economically sustainable is this? Let’s hope that we continue to diversify our economy to avoid another staples trap, and to lessen our dependence on the Yankees.

Green Design: An industrial revolution…

A very insightful and highly informative documentary entitled “Waste Equals Food” discusses how sustainability is going to be the minimum in the 21st century. Cutting down on waste or recycling products more frequently or even driving a hybrid car (which is not the best option) are all sustainable activities that our planet is thanking us for, but we need do to more according to this documentary.

The documentary discusses China extensively because of their excessive materials consumption and booming population. In China, 200 million houses are going to be built with bricks in rural areas in the coming 30 years. Using bricks will take 25% of the top layer of the agricultural land and half of the coal reserves of the country to actually make these bricks. This is a problem that is only going to be exacerbated by population growth and rapacious industrialists who are relentlessly extracting aggregate for industrial development. On an optimistic note, there is a lot that can be done in China to alleviate pressures on the natural environment and use their natural resources more efficiently. How? You may ask. Watch the film.

The documentary features two highly innovative and brilliant thinkers- Michael Braungart and William McDonough, a German chemist and American architect respectively. Both argue emphatically that materials are going through the industrial system and are not being returned to the biosphere, this is one of the biggest problems with design in general. Green design is the development of environmentally benign products and processes and a challenge to traditional design and manufacturing procedures. This design requires no non-renewable resources, minimal impact on the environment and has to relate people with the natural environment. There has been this push to Green design because of a general reaction to global environmental crises, the rapid growth of economic activity and human population, depletion of natural resources, damage to ecosystems and loss of biodiversity.

The film also explores the idea of the cradle to cradle (C2C) design approach. C2C is all about designing products that are first of all compostable, and secondly return rich nutrients and materials to the earth’s surface to continue life cycles. Further, with C2C, materials are viewed as nutrients circulating in healthy, safe metabolisms. Industry must protect and enrich ecosystems and nature's biological metabolism while also maintaining safe, productive technical metabolism for "the high-quality use and circulation of organic and synthetic materials".

It is a “holistic economic, industrial and social framework that seeks to create systems that are not just efficient but essentially waste free”. The model in its broadest sense is not limited to industrial design and manufacturing; it can be applied to many different aspects of human civilization such as urban environments, buildings, economics and social systems.

Both Braungart and McDonough advocate a phenomenon of Upcycling instead of Downcycling. Upcycling is the creation of a product with higher intrinsic value, manufactured from a material at the end of its service life, which had a lower initial end use value i.e. a purse made out of tin cans or candy wrappers. Whereas, Downcycling is the practice of recycling in such a way that much of its inherent value is lost i.e. recycling plastic in park benches.

Key Message: Green design is fascinating stuff. I encourage everyone to take 45 minutes and watch Waste Equals Food. Sooner or later everyone is going to be having a conversation about this and realize how momentous and relevant it is to our daily lives.

A Big Opening for Pesticide Policy in Canada...

The saga of the controversial cosmetic pesticide ban in Quebec is storming on. Amidst all the legal chaos taking place between DowChemical and the governments of Canada and the province of Quebec, the Ontario government's own ban on cosmetic pesticides came into effect today. 

Ontario's ban prohibits approximately 250 different products from being used for cosmetic purposes and is now considered the world's toughest regulation on cosmetic pesticides. There is no indication from DowChemical--the huge chemical company that is currently in a snit over Quebec's ban of one of its chemicals--as to whether or not it'll pursue similar legal action against Ontario's ban.

If it were to pursue legal action, it would have to go through the federal government because it is filed under NAFTA. As it stands, the lawsuit against Quebec's ban technically lists the federal government as the defendant. If Dow were to pursue action against Ontario, it would be a nearly identical case so it would make most sense for it to add the Ontario ban to its list of woes. This would, of course, raise the size of the NAFTA claim significantly because of the huge market share in Ontario that could be lost.

But Dow might not do that. It might see how the Quebec case goes and if they win, then they'll start hunting down all the other jurisdictions that have banned its product. We can only hope they don't win because if they do, governments will have little motivation to regulate on environmental issues.

But here's an opportunity. Two of the largest provincial economies in Canada have banned cosmetic pesticides. Since the lawsuit is going directly through the federal government, it is technically targeted at a 'Canadian' regulation rather than a provincial one specifically. All of the other Canadian provinces and territories should take this opportunity to implement their own bans of cosmetic pesticides. 

It might be risky in that if Dow wins, all the provinces that regulate the pesticides might be subject to a large fine. But if all the main jurisdictions of Canada were to implement similar bans it would certainly strengthen the case for the federal government in the DowChemical case. Furthermore it would indicate to the federal government how important such an issue is.

Most importantly, any type of potential ban like this would strengthen the case for jurisdictions to be able to regulate on important environmental issues, regardless of Chapter 11 and the rest of NAFTA.

Happy Earth Day, kids.  

Two sides to the climate change story...

Both these men acknowledge that climate change is happening, but are at odds over whether or not human beings are the central cause of it.

You probably recognize the first man, former Vice-President, Nobel-Prize winner and environmental crusader, Al Gore. He's of the camp that feels climate change is an impending doom and is by far the biggest problem the world is currently facing. He believes everything should be done to avert the dangers of climate change, which is primarily caused by human activities.

The second man is Danish political scientist and economist, Bjorn Lomborg, famed author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist". He feels that climate change is not nearly as serious as people like Gore make it out to be. It's a very important point because the measures needed to avert predicted climate change are going to be very expensive and that money could be spent on other problems throughout the world, such as HIV/AIDS. 

I tend to fall in line with Gore's camp, but it's very important to understand the views of all sides. I should also note that Lomborg is one of the more moderate climate change skeptics so he isn't completely representative of the anti-climate change extreme. He is however, a very bright guy and his ideas should be looked at.

It's very easy to jump on a bandwagon and ignore the other sides of the story. But to properly understand an issue, you should know as many of the perspectives as possible. Whether you're a Gore-like crusader, a skeptic or sitting somewhere in the middle, learning about the whole issue is worth a look. 

Wildlife and Community Based Natural Resource Management in Namibia…

This is our 100th post. Special thanks to all of our passionate readers, keen followers and avid "enviroboys" fans for continuing to read this blog. We appreciate the comments and input that you have provided to us to make this blog more exciting and more fun to read.

Among many of the aims of this blog, one is to maintain an on-going dialogue on several issues that pertain to the environment. Chris and I blog a lot about some of the contemporary environmental issues within North America and feel that providing some insight and analysis into issues from different parts of the world would be useful for our readers. This entry is about the successes of community based natural resource management in Namibia.

Wildlife management is always tricky business. As I alluded to with India, tigers are becoming more scarce and the state government wants to protect them by relocating people who are living within the park. An effective tactic, but not the most equitable. When it comes to actually preserving wildlife in national parks or game reserves, numerous challenges arise. Mostly due to the fact that wildlife is an open access resource meaning no one owns it and therefore there are little incentives to conserve them. Consequently, a lot of wildlife is lost due to excessive poaching.

Namibia is an exception however. The government principally relies on community based natural resource management (CBNRM), which is premised on the management of natural resources and wildlife through development that is economically viable, socially beneficial, and ecologically sustainable. There has been this push because the locals have witnessed uncontrolled poaching of wildlife. The locals also have cultural and spiritual connection to wildlife and the land. They do not control it, but they highly value it. With the starting of CBNRM policy approach in 1980, wildlife has been better protected and valued across the country. It has brought about a system that gives locals a chance to identify poachers and bring them to justice. These locals are like traditional authorities serving the interests of the common good. The country is slowly seeing a shift towards giving the local people land rights to manage natural resources and wildlife in game reserves.

In addition, they have established “conservation conservancies” which are land titles held by the government but give the locals the opportunity to manage wildlife through ensuring adequate protection of these species. Conservancies disallow poaching on these lands which makes it easier to control and monitor hunting. With a population of about 2 million people, 220,000 (10%) are living on these conservancies. The people are very connected so much that there are annual general meetings so that people can vote on the future course of action for wildlife preservation. Folks this is a democratic process for wildlife protection and preservation, something we are not accustomed to in North America. Tourism has also been on the rise in Namibia employing the locals with jobs that they are generally content with because they know that they are contributing to the betterment of their natural environment. Moreover, they are getting trained through these jobs and many go on to start their own local businesses (developing human capital).

Through a CBNRM approach, and with the implementation of conservation conservancies, the people have been given appropriate incentives to protect wildlife and this has avoided the tragedy of the commons. The country understands that you do not need PhD wildlife biologists to manage these game reserves and conservancies. The locals can manage them just as well given the right incentives, rights and laws that permit them to do so. CBNRM has also given women a chance to get closer with land rights ultimately providing them with an avenue to look after endangered species and not worry about being forcefully relocated by the government.

Key message: CBNRM provides incentives to conserve natural resources and protect wildlife. Legislation that gives communities the power to create their own conservancies is very progressive and equitable. Allowing local communities to create conservancies to manage and benefit from wildlife on communal land is a step in the right direction.

GHG's now fall under the Clean Air Act...

The United States' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has formally recognized a number of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (which contribute to climate change) as "endanger[ing] public health and welfare". This has huge implications for climate change policy in the United States, as these gases will now fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Air Act which prohibits the discharge of some of the world's most dangerous polluting chemicals into the air.

This is being recognized as the first step in the United States towards a significant climate change policy. Unlike his predecessor, Barack Obama is pursuing relatively ambitious climate change policies, even in the face of a tremendous economic downturn.

Interestingly, this move by the EPA may not sit well with Obama. With the new rules, the EPA would be able to regulate emissions of the GHGs. Obama, on the other hand, does not seem as interested in regulation as he does in implementing a cap-and-trade system, which would instead rely on economics rather than governmental laws. Depending on the level of regulation from the EPA, a cap-and-trade system is generally considered to be less harmful to business than regulation.

In any case, it is a very important step in a long process to establishing an effective climate change policy. 

The Illusion of Miles Per Gallon...

So you're looking to buy a new car, eh? You've got two options: You could replace your five year old Honda Civic that gets about 35 MPG with a brand new one, which gets about 45 MPG; Or you could replace your old handy pick-up truck that gets 15 MPG with a new pickup that gets about 20 MPG. You want to do your part to help the environment and save as much money as you can. 

Well, this one seems like a no brainer. By replacing your Civic you gain 10 MPG as opposed to the 5 MPG you'd get from the truck, plus you don't want to replace an inefficient truck with another one that's inefficient. Your choice is obviously the best for both the environment and your wallet, right?

Wrong, according to researchers at Duke University (go Blue Devils!). In an article released in a 2008 issue of Science, titled The MPG Illusion, the researchers argue that using MPG as a measure of fuel efficiency is flawed and that its use could have serious implications for car buyers and public policy.

The basis of their argument is that when you measure fuel efficiency in MPG, it is not a linear improvement, but rather a curvelinear improvement (see the figure below). So contrary to popular belief, an improvement in efficiency from 15 MPG to 25 MPG, is not equally effective as an improvement from 90 MPG to 100 MPG. In fact, the former upgrade is actually far more effective when it comes to reducing gas consumption.

As you can see in the graph, as you increase your MPG, the rate at which you decrease your gas consumption decreases significantly. For example, when comparing the amount of gas used per 10,000 miles, an increase in MPG from 42 to 48 would only result in a decrease of 29.8 gallons. But with an increase of MPG from 16 to 20, you actually save over four times more gasoline: approximately 125 gallons.

Who would've thunk it?

In a series of surveys, the researchers found that the majority people assume the MPG measure is linear. The amount they'd be willing to pay for an increase in MPG from 30 to 40 is equal to the amount they'd be willing to pay for an equal increase in the lower range of MPG. In actual fact, the value of the vehicle increases a lot more with an increase at the lower levels of MPG.

The researchers recommend switching the formula around. Instead of measuring distance over volume, you can measure volume over distance: GPM. In Canada, it is fairly standard to use Litres per 100 km as a measure (although a hefty majority of people still use MPG).

Too often, people have made car buying decisions based off inaccurate linear thinking and have undervalued the small improvements in the lower range of MPG. So yes, we should switch to a common measurement like L/100 km or GPM, but we should also focus many of our overall efforts on improving the efficiency of those vehicles at the lower end of the MPG range rather than pouring millions of dollars into transitioning a 50 MPG car into a 52 MPG car. 

Many thanks to my cousin for sending me the article.

Do not rush into regulation...

Toronto is ostensibly considering a green roof by-law according to Green Inc, a blog of the New York Times. This proposed green roof by-law would make such installations mandatory on certain new developments with a gross floor area exceeding 54,000 square feet. “The measure, which is a component of Mayor David Miller’s environmental strategy, proposes greening 30 to 60 percent of the roof area, depending on building size. Exemptions include schools, industrial structures, low- to mid-rise apartment buildings and affordable housing.”

Here is my take on this. Cities like Chicago, Berlin and Portland started their green roof initiatives with market instruments and incentives. These cities ran pilot building projects to evaluate the efficacy of green roofs in meeting sustainability goals. They would then provide incentives to developers for installing green roof technology and would articulate the numerous benefits of doing this. Through pilot projects, knowledge and experience is gained and the city becomes more familiarized with how green roofs operate. These steps are important for bringing about green roofs because everyone benefits through increased knowledge.

Even Toronto’s Green Roof Incentive Pilot program offers a grant of $10/m² to eligible green roofs. These sorts of policy instruments are more effective for environmental change than simply resorting to regulation. While regulation is important (it sets a precedent for the city’s commitment to sustainability) it is too precipitous to implement right now and does not provide the developer with sufficient incentives. As a policy tool, by-laws can target behavioural and social changes. However, using regulation for meeting green roof technology standards can stifle innovation if developers are bound to restrictions and rigid criteria for each green roof they install.

Key message: Do not rush into regulation through enacting a city by-law. Continue with the Green Roof Incentive Pilot program to ascertain the economic viability of green roofs while concomitantly informing the city's residents and businesses about what they are and why they are important for sustainability.

DowChemical vs. Quebec Continued...

It's on like donkey kong.

A few days ago, the DowChemical company filed an official lawsuit against Quebec. Technically, since it is an international trade issue, the defendant is the federal government, but we all know the action is really aimed at Quebec, which has officially banned several pesticides used for cosmetic purposes.

I blogged about this issue earlier and DowChemical was uncertain whether they'd go through with the lawsuit. But now they've made up their minds and they're going to take on them ol' Canadians.

Dow is citing "insufficient scientific evidence" as its reason for opposing the Quebec ban. Hopefully Quebec and the feds have a better argument.

I hope Dow loses this because their winning would open up an environmentally-destructive can of worms.

Fight on Canada and good luck, eh.

The unfortunate truth of GMOs...

GMO: Genetically modified organism. A GMO is any animal, plant or other living thing that has had its genetics permanently altered, generally intentionally by humankind (although this definition is slightly up for debate). GMOs can be found in a wide range of products, but their presence is most pronounced and controversial in food.

Theoretically, GMOs could solve a wide range of the world's food production problems. The potential to improve the shelf life of foods, crop resistance to pests and bad weather and make foods grow quicker and in greater quantities are all benefits of genetic alteration. Concerns over fruits being bruised during transport, whole harvests being lost due to an early frost and drought-prone areas not being able to grow food could very well all be concerns of the past. What a wonderful world it could be.

But as Yogi Berra said, "in theory there is no difference between theory and pratice. In practice there is."

GMOs are not living up to the hype. The reason? A mercilessly oligopolistic industry. The majority of research and funding is provided by the private sector, which (despite what their spokespeople say) is not developing GMO foods for the public good. A small handful of companies have ownership title of almost all the GMO crops. Canadians will be familiar with the corporation Monsanto.

Having so few companies dominate one industry is rarely a good thing. Prices of GMO seeds and the products needed to grow the seeds (which are conveniently supplied by the same companies) are outrageously high and often are only applicable to cash crops consumed in the "rich" world. Some companies have even developed specific seeds that only work once, removing the ability for farmers to "save seeds" (a popular practice among farmers) and leaving farmers dependent on that company.

GMOs have environmental risks, too. As you make crops more resistant to pests, the pests adapt. As a result, increasingly potent levels of resistance are required and in all likelihood pests will continue to adapt. This resistance arms race could go on forever will devastating consequences (picture Mothra, the giant moth monster from Godzilla movies).

Furthermore, seeds tend to mix fairly easily, which is a natural occurrence on the planet. The natural ecosystems of the world have tended to adapt and often flourish with seed mixtures. But when genetically modified seeds start getting transplanted and mingle with everything, trouble brews very quickly. Several studies have confirmed that butterfly populations have fallen significantly after coming into contact with GMO crops. The ripple effects could be very large and a reduction in overall biodiversity would be a very bad thing.

I highly recommend everyone read Brian Halweil's "The Emperor's New Crops". It's short and is one of the best descriptions of the way GMO industries work, although it is slightly dated.
The question I ask is where we should go next with GMOs? The private sector will continue to exploit the industry. After all, it's a huge money maker. But governments in Europe require labelling of GMO products, which is sure to batter the industry. Canada doesn't have such a requirement, so perhaps we should start there.

Education is also a key. Very few people know the true nature of the industry, which can probably be chalked up to marketing campaigns from the company themselves.
But from a grander fundamental point of view, are GMOs something that we should even pursue?

We're able to grow our food in a sustainable manner (ex. organic, local farming), which could theoretically be applied throughout the world. Moreover, a great share of experts argue that the world's hunger problems are not an issue of food production (the world produces 1.5 times more food than needed for the world's population), but rather an issue of access and distribution. Considering GMOs might draw us away from considering the solutions to those problems and may, as the industry currently stands, actually exacerbate those access problems as farmers have less money to buy food after paying for the high-priced seeds.

Regardless of how difficult it would be from a realistic standpoint, should we simply ban GMOs altogether? I think it could be something to consider.

Collecting rainwater... Smart but illegal

"Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting."

This is good old saying in the US Southwest. I am not sure how applicable it is today considering the water shortages that these states face. In Colorado, home to the famous Joe Sakic and the Avalanche, water has become so scarce that catching water from the sky can make you a criminal. This article here, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal, discusses the significance of rainwater for a dry state like Colorado and provides an overview of the laws that permit and prohibit the capturing of water from the sky. Here is an excerpt from the article:

“It is, in fact, illegal in Colorado to collect rainwater. State law is vague about the penalties, except to say that violators can be taken to court and ordered to pay damages. The state lacks the resources for vigorous enforcement and fines are extremely rare, officials say. Still, the law is the law -- and so Ms. Looper has set out to change it. This might just be her year.”

I have blogged about rainwater harvesting before talking about its numerous advantages because of the decentralized component of it. Remember, municipal water is often a common pool good where everyone has access to the resource and control over the water resources is decentralized. This is both good and bad. Collecting rainwater can allow residents to trap, store and use their water accordingly making them think more about the salience of water conservation. If access to water is too decentralized, then there is the risk of the tragedy of the commons where we’ll see people over using water and wasting it on things like washing your driveway or car. This leads to the over-exploitation of the resources which is highly problematic for places like Colorado.

With respect to the article, prohibiting people from collecting rainwater is simply absurd. If you want to enact laws that stipulate a certain amount of water withdrawals from the Colorado river or local streams, that would be appropriate. However, when rain water falls from the sky (which is a rare occurrence in Colorado) people are going to have to be smart with installing rainwater collection systems to trap this water and use it when it is most necessary. When I hear water is a human right I think of rainwater. No matter how scarce water is in the state of Colorado, laws should be enacted based on conserving regional water supply and avoiding the exhaustion of valuable water resources. The minute you start disallowing citizens to collect water that falls from the sky, you will start to see mounting political pressure, mass opposition and revolt.

Key message: Rainwater collection is an innovative approach to water conservation. Do not enact laws that prohibit such an activity. If you truly want the citizens to start caring more about water conservation and regional water issues, then allow them to take on initiatives that save water, take pressure off of water utilities companies and become one step closer to sustainable development.

Adding value to first-year university education…

In 2009, universities across the country offer a plethora of disciplines giving you (the student) an opportunity to study whatever you would like from the sciences to the social sciences to programming to the more practical/professional programs like Nursing, Engineering and Commerce. There is so much variety and choice these days and we often do not know what are major is going to be until the end of our first or second years. As an Arts student I have had the flexibility to take various courses that either directly pertain to my major, or courses that I am just generally interested in. However, I think two courses must be made mandatory for all first-year university students irrespective of what you are studying.

The first we’ll call Personal Finance 101. This course would not be a "business" one by any means, but a course that allows students to explore personal financial decision-making. The benefits of such are extensive and wide-ranging but mainly comprise learning good money management skills, how investment works, how we issue stocks and bonds, credit cards, insurance etc. Students are financially illiterate. Considering that ~ 55% of undergraduates students in Ontario are on OSAP, it is critical that everyone learn about how loans work, how to be smart with bursaries and grants, and how to put money into a savings account for starters. Learning how to budget personal finances can teach students a lot of useful information about checking and savings accounts for instance. It also teaches us how to set goals, devise a financial plan, and how to execute our plan. This gets us thinking about how we earn our money, and how we can start spending it more wisely or saving it for that matter.

We need to better understand personal balance sheets which lists the values of personal assets (e.g., car, house, clothes, stocks, bank account), along with personal liabilities (e.g., credit card debt, bank loan, mortgage). Such knowledge goes a long way. Even with the recent government tax form (T2202) or the T4, students were so confused and ambivalent about how to complete them and send them in. Such a course can review personal income statements and how taxes operate in this country.

The second course should be titled “environmental appreciation”. Such a course can expose students to the university’s natural environment, nature areas, gardens, rivers, streams or bodies of water. The point of the course is to inform students about their natural environment in a way that makes them critically review their connection with the environment and how they treat it. Such a course would not be overly scientific, but instead introduce students to the names of the local trees around their university, the birds that hover over campus, how the university gets its water and electricity, how the university composts its waste etc. This generates awareness and fosters a space that can teach students to embrace the natural environment with harmony and grace.

Key message: Knowledge on personal finances and the natural environment are seriously lacking. Confusion over how to pay your credit card and consequently being charged 18% interest is a problem that many students encounter. Neglecting the environment which connects everything in our life is also a problem. Incorporating these topics into first-year education certainly has some merit. If not a course then at least consider running on-going workshops and nature walks throughout the year to generate that awareness.

The NDP is fighting the wrong fight in BC...

Ever since the implementation of B.C.'s controversial (but very necessary) carbon tax in July of 2008 by the Liberal government of Premier Gordon Campbell, the opposition NDP party has been voraciously opposed. The leader of B.C.'s NDP party, Carole James, even adopted the wonderfully memorable "axe-the-tax" phrase to complement her campaign.

She, and the rest of the NDP in B.C. are still at it. This is a fatal mistake.

From an environmental point of view, a carbon tax is a good thing. It works a lot better than other measures currently in use by Canadian governments and it is arguably (and I'd argue in favour of it) more useful than a cap-and-trade system. Unfortunately, it's a very large political risk. You can easily upset a greater wealth of voters who will be negatively affected (albeit relatively marginally and shortly) by the tax. 

Putting forth such a tax makes a party as vulnerable as a duck already cooking itself (never mind the need to catch it) and opposition parties are bound to have a bite. Unfortunately, the wrong party is doing the biting. 

Last week, the NDP released their party platform, which revolves around eliminating the carbon tax. The NDP should be supporting the carbon tax, rather than demanding it be burned at the stake.

The NDP's position is simply political. By attacking the tax, they might buy votes. But in the long run, they'll just lose them. Gary Mason's piece in the Globe & Mail outlines this argument in detail (he beat me to the punch, despite my having started writing this post a day before his publication. I suppose it is what I get for watching episodes of Lost online...).

The NDP has often been the party of the marginalized. If you take a look at Canada, there's a lot of different people with a lot of different problems. Unfortunately, the NDP continues to try to solve everyone's problems at once. Do the math and you quickly realize that much of it becomes a zero-sum game: you help some, but hurt others.

Despite growing up in one of the most pro-NDP provinces and having been raised among the strong NDP faithful, the NDP has been falling in my books for quite some time. Getting rid of the tax is another step in the wrong direction.

The NDP (both federally and provincially in B.C.) should follow the new mantra of the Leafs. Get rid of the underachieving, overpaid old guys, pick up some promising young blood and hire Brian Burke.  

National park debate…

There are 1400 tigers presently in India. The country has 28 tiger reserves and 8 more are being added within the next 10 years. India’s population already at 1.1 billion, is going to probably surpass China’s 1.3 billion in the near future. We cannot forget that India's population rose by 21.34 % between 1991-2001. With 1400 tigers left in the country and with population pressures mounting one has to ask… is there a future for tigers in India?

Or....."What price should India pay to save its rapidly diminishing forests, and for whom, a trophy animal like the tiger, or its original inhabitants?" This is proving to be a difficult question to answer. Nagarhole National Park located in the southern state of Karnataka is facing a big conundrum over their tiger population. You can read the article here, but the main point is that the park has both a small tiger population and original tribal people living there. There are 1000 families living in close proximity to the tigers and other wildlife, this is problematic because it poses numerous threats to them. Some of the preservationists and government officials are worried about having the human population there because of the destruction of the tiger habitat, forest fires, logging, wood collection, and modern development etc.

The government is now relocating people outside of the park because they want the tiger population to be free from anthropogenic pressures. Ecologists are in support of this action claiming that nature comes back dramatically once you remove the pressure and stress, it is naturally resilient. Moreover, tigers are a species that reproduce in great numbers but cannot do so under great pressure. What is contentious here is that the government included in the land rights law a measure that allowed for the expulsion of settlements from areas deemed critical wildlife habitats, but with explicit consent of villagers. It is always challenging to receive consent from the villagers because some are in favour but the vast majority are in opposition to the proposal. About 1/3 of the 1,000 families who live inside the park have moved out.

What should we think about? According the article, compensation for these people is insufficient. Monetary benefits do not always solve the problem, these people have a close and intimate connection with the land and live off of it. Essentially, such an approach removes them from their natural capital. India`s economy is now booming with 9 percent economic growth, does it even enough have room for these tigers? This is a problem faced in places like Botswana as well. In Botswana, parks and game reserves are developed with an ostensible justification to protect species and wildlife.

As I learned from a talk last week delivered by a Botswanan scholar, diamonds are usually located in these parks and are difficult to get to with a human population living around them, the solution: move the people out. The hidden message here is that governments use this justification to evade the political controversy that accompanies natural resource extraction in parks. In other words, saying they are going to protect species when really they are developing parks and zoning areas for the purposes of getting to the natural resources.

Key message: Lots to think about here but in relation to India, is the government going to continue creating tiger reserves? The human population is expanding rapidly and this will indirectly affect the tiger population. It seems like a win-win situation for the government. They can create and preserve parks through relocating the Tribal population (who receive little benefits from the state) and protect tigers while concomitantly exploring natural resources. Because the people have been relocated, they cannot contest and oppose these actions because they are no longer living there. Always think critically about national park development not only in developing countries, but in developed countries like Canada.

Canada may hop on the American bandwagon...

Stephen Harper's Conservative government has rarely been one to budge in the face of opposition, even as a minority government. When the Canadian public, international organizations and even the United States brought an issue to the table, Harper's government has usually been quick to quash it or simply ignore it.

Climate change policy has often fell victim to Harper's my-way-or-the-highway approach. But legislation being tabled in the United States could change that. The bill would impose border duties (tariffs) on products coming into the United States from countries whose climate change policies are deemed to be too lax. 

Canada, with its sneaky intensity-based measurements and laughable overall GHG reduction targets, would fall under the rules of the new legislation.

It strikes me that this type of legislation might have implications under NAFTA, or at least the WTO, two free trade agreements that Harper is usually quick to reference. But the initial reaction from the Harper camp has not been one of disagreement, but one of conciliation. Jim Prentice, the federal Minister of the Environment has conceded that Canada must now adopt climate change strategies "comparable" to those that will be passed in the United States.

This brings up an important point. As it stands, the United States has no large, formal strategies or policies for combating climate change, despite the heavy rhetoric of the Obama administration. Considering Obama's political power these days, it is expected that something will get passed relatively soon.

He favours a national Cap-and-trade system (something Canada would be smart to partner with), but getting this passed through Congress might be an uphill battle, even for him. This is because a cap-and-trade system would severely hinder the coal industry and particularly the Midwestern states reliant on that industry. To Obama's dismay, these states are largely Democrat, so upsetting them would not bode well politically. As a result, a hefty portion of Democrats are prepared to shoot down any proposed cap-and-trade system.

So you would think that with such an unlikely chance of the bill getting through that the usually staunch Harperites wouldn't take it seriously? Well, somehow or other they've opened their eyes and can see the writing on the wall. 

Obama is powerful and lots of people like him, including Canadians. The cap-and-trade system will eventually get passed in the U.S. (even if it's slightly watered down), probably before December during the post-Kyoto conference in Copenhagen. And NAFTA disputes tend to warrant in the favour of the United States. He and his policies are fairly dangerous to oppose, especially as the popularity of the Harper government slowly falls.

Clearly, conceding to the potential rules is a political move by the Tories, but environmentalists can applaud such a move. For once, having a government that seeks to mirror our older sibling to the South may actually be beneficial. 

How do you fix some environmental problems? Put a price on it...

Many of the world's environmental problems are very clear and not debateable. Freshwater is running out. Human-produced carbon dioxide is warming up the atmosphere. Deforestation is ruining soil and reducing biodiversity.

We know the problems, so why haven't we really done much to deal with them? The answer, of course, to such a question is at best long-winded, complicated and perhaps even non-existent. But a common thread does exist in most of our current environmental problems: pricing.

There is very little consideration of pricing for many of the world's environmental factors. What is the price of the boreal forest? How about Lake Superior? Particulate matter in the air?

I certainly don't know, and even if I did, very few people would agree. People value all of these factors differently, so determining a price (like one might do for a car) is very difficult. Some might even say impossible (how can you put a numerical price on something like a spotted owl?).

But the fact of the matter is that we live in a capitalist, market-based economy. Despite our non-market valuations of environmental factors (prices are only one aspect of value), these valuations are rarely and inaccurately accounted for in economic decision making. And in this global economy, it (sadly) ultimately comes down to money. So rather than even under-valuing the environment, it is simply not valued at all. And that's where the problem starts.

We know we need fresh water to live. Yet we toss our waste into our lakes and rivers. It's because our value of water is a non-market value and dealing with waste can be given a market value. We may take both seriously, but 99 times out of 100 the market-based values carry the trump card. The harm we might do to our drinking source may not hit us quite as hard as having to pay to deal with the waste sustainably. It's a hard but usually true pill to swallow.

If we want to do something about the environment, we need to start incorporating it into our economic formulas and make it part of the equation. 

Yes, it might be hard to place a value on these things. It might even be unethical. But it needs to be done. The market-based, capitalist system isn't going to be overthrown. Even calls for socialism during a massive economic downturn haven't taken the capitalist beast off its path. 

The prices may not be accurate, but at least something should be tossed into the equation. Pricing carbon at $10/tonne like they do in B.C. has been balked at by environmentalists and economists alike for being too marginal, but it's certainly better than $0/tonne. Most importantly, an accountant certainly notices the number 10 over 0. 

So where should we start? Put a price on carbon and put a price on fresh water. Intrinsic values can be priced through willingness to pay, hedonistic valuing and other ecological economic value strategies. 

It may not be right and it may not be accurate. But at least it would be a start.  

There's walleye in the Otonabee?...

I just received a public notice from the utility company, Peterborough Utilities Inc. (exciting name, eh?), warning me not to be afraid of the team of flashlight-wielding intruders running up and along the banks of the Otonabee River during the next few nights.

It turns out these suspicious assailants are not robbers or even secret FBI agents searching for a downed alien spacecraft, but actually investigators from an environmental firm. They're checking out the spawning activities of the walleye that gather near the hydro generating station directly beside our neighbourhood.

Apparently it's all part of the "new Species at Risk legislation". That legislation is the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), which is six years old, which I suppose might be considered "new".

In any case, it's nice to know that they're looking out for the walleye. As a fisherman, I might be tempted to take advantage of these spawning areas. But there's little fun in that. And it's not like they interrupt me in the bedroom.

Thanks for the notice, PUI. It's a lot better than the military regiment located down the road. They seemed to overlook the fact that residents might be afraid of camouflaged warriors darting through the neighbourhood at night with assault rifles. It might have only been "exercises", but I had my spatula ready to combat any would-be assailants.

Blog Update...

Hey Y'all,

Tim and I have stepped the blog up a notch. No longer will we be chained by the lame URL of "enviroboys88.blogspot.com", but will now simply exist as "www.enviroboys.com". Pretty cool, eh?

For those who continue to the original URL, it will continue to be updated, but once everything is finally finished in a few days, it will automatically redirect them to the new site (which isn't different in any way, just has a new URL).

Woohoo.

Drip Irrigation has its place…

I am reading more these days on the latest technological innovation for water conservation. Specifically, I am looking at the agricultural sector of Canada and California. Agriculture accounts for ~ 70% of Canada’s water supply which means that a vast amount of water withdrawals are from farmers mostly for irrigation purposes. However, water is more abundant in Canada than California and shortages in this populated state have driven technological innovation in the area of water conservation.

In California, irrigation use constitutes a massive share of the water withdrawals from the Delta and San Joaquin River - the Delta and San Joaquin river make up the biggest water distribution system for the state. In fact, it provides drinking water for 25 million people and supports California’s trillion dollar economy and $27 billion agricultural sector. With current water shortages in southern California, the importance of actually conserving water has become an omnipresent reality. Farmers are looking at ways in which they can optimally conserve their water resources to maintain adequate supply. A quick solution: drip irrigation.

The conventional methods of water irrigation include flood and sprinkler irrigation. However, the irrigation efficiency for both methods ranges from ~ 40-65% because some water is lost in this process as runoff occurs through percolation and evaporation because the surfaces or soil cannot drain vast amounts of water at a single time. But generally, flood irrigation is inefficient because a lot of water is used and not all of it is drained or absorbed by the soil but instead runs off into rivers and is lost. By contrast, drip irrigation systems reduce percolation below the root zone and increase soil absorption of water. Water is delivered closer to the soil and plant roots and this reduces evaporation losses that would normally be lost in a flood irrigation process.

It saves ~ 25-95% of water compared with flood irrigation. How does it work? It requires rigid plastic pipes that are laid on the surface or buried below ground in each crop row at the root line. Small holes allow the water to drip from the pipe directly to each plant root system. The amount of water applied is regulated by the hole size in the distribution tubes and the water pressure in the system. For a diagram, see here.

Places with large agricultural sectors like Israel and California have started using this technology. Tomato farmers in the famous San Joaquin Valley of California have installed drip irrigation systems. Farmers found that yields increased 5.4 tonnes per acre to 10.1 tonnes per acre using drip irrigation technology. Sure it is expensive, but any novel water conservation technology these days ain’t cheap. This is why state governments in the US are allocating more funding and providing subsidies to farmers who use this technology. In sum, drip irrigation allows you to use less water for your crops and plants but allows you to increase your yields because every drop of water is being used and very little is lost.

Key Message: Water conservation requires all stakeholders to be involved. The agricultural sector is an indispensable player and recent initiatives like drip irrigation need to be actively pursued. Conserving water is economically advantageous but requires some initial investment to get the ball rolling.

A comparative argument for GHG mitigation...

The Heart & Stroke Foundation has a series of disturbing and provocative advertisements running that display the consequences of smoking. They all end with the thought-provoking line, "Quitting is hard. Not quitting is harder."

This sentiment rings true for climate change and many other environmental problems. Many are comparing the current economic downturn to the economic declines that would occur if the world had to reduce the recommended level of GHG emissions in the future. Rex Murphy's rather pessimistic and frankly, largely inaccurate argument for this case was printed in this weekend's Globe and Mail.

To those who think we won't be able to reduce our emissions to ultimately save ourselves from a warming world, take a look at the Heart & Stroke Foundation's message. It will be hard, but the alternative could be devastating.

And perhaps those well-funded climate change groups could learn a thing or two on how to market their ideas...

Green Cities: GO goes to Peterborough...

It has been a unique characteristic of Peterborough for decades: only sitting an hour and a half's drive from downtown Toronto but without any solid connection to Toronto or the GTA. Peterborough has been a weirdly isolated city with few similar traits of its counterpart to the south-west. No rapid expansion, relatively stable and low housing prices and a much slower lifestyle. This could soon come to an end.

Peterborough's MPP, Jeff Leal, announced this weekend that GO Bus service will be extended out to Peterborough by the fall of 2009. This is all part of the GO expansion coming as a result of increased funding to public transportation from the federal government. During the October, 2008 election campaign, Peterborough MP, Dean del Mastro, had committed to extending GO Rail service to Peterborough. The bus service would act as a temporary service until the train line is put into full force.

This could have a whole whack of benefits. For one, it'll be cheap and convenient service into Toronto. When I took the GO service from Oshawa to Hamilton, it cost me around $9. This is much cheaper than the Greyhound, which is currently the only cheap form of public transit going into and out of Peterborough. For commuters, this could mean wonders. No more having to drive hours upon hours waiting in traffic along the 401. For students, getting into Toronto will be much easier.

Businesses are very happy as more people from Toronto and the GTA area will now have easy access to Peterborough. Tourism could boom as GTA folk may wish to escape the urban jungle and explore the natural wonders of Peterborough and the Kawarthas.

From an environmental standpoint this could be great. Canadians often complain about the need for more public transit. It'll take cars off the road and put cash back in people's pockets.

But some people won't be happy about this. Peterborough's isolation can be a very nice touch. It doesn't deal with the rushed lifestyle of the GTA nor does it feel very big. Peterborough has a small-town feel about it. The worry is that by extending the GO service, Peterborough could slowly become more similar to the GTA. From my perspective, this is bad. The natural features of Peterborough could be lost to the need to 'develop' the area.

But if you're looking to make a quick buck, I'd recommend purchasing some property in Peterborough. As more people come and commuting from Peterborough becomes easier, housing prices will probably climb.

Having the GO could be a great thing, but as long as the characteristics of the GTA don't come to Peterborough. If so, you could wave goodbye to the title, "Gateway to the Kawarthas". What a terrible shame that would be.

DowChemical vs. Quebec

When Barack Obama made the commitment to re-open the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during his presidential campaign, environmentalists' ears perked up. Under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, private companies have the ability to sue governments (even foreign ones) if they feel that the government is in any way hindering their products.

The logic is quite simple. By putting forth any regulation that may reduce the sales or presence of a corporation in any way, a government (federal, provincial or municipal) can be considered to be artificially expropriating (the mandatory removal of property) the corporation from the area. Operating in an area is essentially considered a right of the corporation and any harmful regulation requires adequate compensation.

Of course, if the regulation is put in place for an important reason, such as protecting people's health or protecting the environment, then the corporation doesn't have a case. The trouble begins when governments need to prove the product being regulated is harmful. This is what is going on in Quebec.

Roughly a decade ago, the town of Hudson, Quebec (pop. ~5000) banned the use of pesticides used for cosmetic purposes--such as fancying up your lawn or making your flowers look better than your neighbours'. After being challenged by a chemical company, the town's by-law was held up by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2001. Hudson's success launched a wave through Quebec, which finalized its ban on cosmetic pesticides in 2006, setting the standard for tough regulation on pesticides in North America.

Though wildly popular with the public, the chemical industry was less than enthusiastic. DowChemical, a multi-billion dollar chemical company is threatening to sue the Quebec government (though formally it has to go through the federal government) for $2M under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, citing that there is insignificant evidence proving the damage caused by the pesticides.

Both the federal government and Quebec are prepared to hold their ground. Good. Even though the Harper government is fairly weak when it comes to environmental policy, this is one worth fighting for. For one, letting Dow get through would set a dangerous precedent for companies to come in and claim more from the government, both in this case and future ones. Secondly, and probably most important from the Conservative government's perspective, is the firestorm that would be set off in Quebec if the feds stood on the sideline. Losing much of the Quebec vote was what kept Harper from grabbing the majority last October and the last thing he needs is another Quebec blunder.

Even though many of the claims brought on by companies against the Canadian governments under NAFTA are rejected, at least one has gotten through. In 1997 an American company, EthylCorp, challenged a Canadian regulation and was eventually awarded $13M (US) after a gasoline additive it provided was banned in Canada. This set a dangerous precedent. We don't need anymore.

Chapter 11 was one of the worst things to happen to environmental policy making in Canada. It severely limits the powers governments have over their own territory, which is dangerous for human health, the environment and Canadian sovereignty. This case better get dropped. Otherwise, any future Canadian environmental policy might simply be put on the "we're too scared to enact this" shelf. That would be scary.

Oh, and B-Rock, once you're done fixing the world's economy, repairing the American education and health care systems and figuring out that whole terrorism thing, please make good on your promise and fix this stupid agreement.

Tension within the triple bottom line...

The triple bottom line comprises social, environmental and economic factors. It is discussed in various disciplines but is primarily analyzed and studied in the social sciences and humanities. A recent article in the New Yorker entitled "economy vs. environment" provides an insightful analysis into the contemporary debates surrounding the environment and the economy. One thing that particularly stuck out in the article was the reference made to Barack Obama's administration in creating "green jobs" amidst this recession. Here is an excerpt from the article:

"Creating “green jobs,” a key component of the agenda, is different from creating new jobs, since green jobs, if they’re truly green, displace non-green jobs—wind-turbine mechanics instead of oil-rig roughnecks—probably a zero-sum game, as far as employment is concerned". Are we more concerned about economic growth right now, or are we more concerned with protecting the environment? What is the priority? Even the bio-fuels industry these days is suffering tremendously from the plummeting demand and interest to buy renewable and environmentally friendly fuel. Oil is cheaper these days providing little incentive for consumers to buy bio-fuel. I would suggest that every reader and follower of enviroboys read this article from the New Yorker, as it discusses some of the most salient issues that surround the economy and environment today.

Composting at Trent Part II…

A few months ago I conducted a survey with a classmate of mine on composting on Trent's campus.

The following is a list of the key findings from our research on composing at Trent:

-The university’s average waste disposal costs on an annual basis is between $90,000 and $100,000, and this is based solely on how much volume we produce

- The compost program on campus is well-established however, the program awareness, and the involvement of students, faculty and community is seriously lacking. Given the student population of 7,475 we are not doing too badly

-Based on our survey, a significant percentage of the sample group (130 participants) acknowledged and agreed that composting is an essential component of waste management- 31% of the sample said they compost “all the time”

- Based on the survey results, 87% of the participants said that they compost on campus
***Trent University composted 15,000 kilograms in the 2006-2007 academic year. In the 2007-2008 academic year, Trent composted 56,000 kilograms of organic waste, an increase of 273%*** We also noted that during this time there was a 9.6% decrease in the university’s waste disposal costs. This may be attributed to a higher composting rate.

- the university needs to obtain various community environment funds to operate a sustainable composting program. Environment funds from the Ontario Trillium Foundation, Eco-Action Canada, Nature Conservancy, Conservation Authorities, the city of Peterborough, the Sierra Youth Coalition and other organizations that value sustainability

-the campus must use materials for education and training including training manuals and posters, pamphlets describing the waste management system, as well as posters and emails distributed across the campus (only 28% of the sample agreed that Trent does a good job at promoting and informing students about waste diversion)

-use community-based social marketing to enhance the composting program. The rationale of community-based social marketing is to create cohesion through direct and personal contact among members of the campus community

-academic departments need to help build the composting program. More information and knowledge will be gained and this can provide the university with a better assessment of its waste management system. For instance, research projects administered by professors and students on studying the environmental impacts of the university's organic waste pile.

-The bottom line is that information dissemination is not enough for meaningful change to occur. Outreach and education programs need to engage and inspire students permanently to change behaviour. In other words, the main goal of compost education should be to explain the merits of why composting is important for the university and how it helps the environment.

-Compost can be sold to local businesses in the Peterborough community. Given that there is substantial demand for the compost, it would generate considerable revenue for the institution. Trent needs to identify the compost market in Peterborough; this can provide an outlet for selling the compost produced at Trent. McGill and UBC have already done this and run their composting programs completely off of the revenue gained from selling their compost to the community

Why hybrids are stupid...

A few years ago my mother and I happened to rent a Toyota Prius, the posterboy of the hybrid vehicle industry. It was wonderfully quiet, smooth and very futuristic with its myriad of touch screens and whatnot. And yes, it was very easy on gas.

We were so enamoured with it that upon reaching a computer we went to see how much one of these things would go for. What we discovered was discouraging. The base price for a Prius hovered around the $27,000 range and the nicely equipped models could go well into the 30k range. Not really a bargain when you consider we had just purchased a fully loaded Mazda Protege for $18,000 a few years earlier.

So what's wrong with hybrids? They're stupidly expensive. The price you pay for a hybrid generally won't be worth its weight in the gas savings. Depending on the price of gas, a Toyota Prius will take between 6 and 13 years to make itself worthwhile, which is only slightly worse than a Honda Civic Hybrid, the best performing of the hybrids when talking about cost-savings. A number of people have also pointed to the repair costs of these cars, which can skyrocket higher than a Volvo (Volvo owners know what I'm talking about), primarily because of the complex (or at least, different) engine system and the need to replace the electric engine (which will usually run you at least $5000).

Now, it is true that as gas becomes more expensive hybrids might start to make a better case. And the environmental benefits are generally clear: you use less gas so you'll produce less carbon emissions. 

But what happens (as we all know it will eventually) when gas prices really spike? And I don't mean a relatively measly $1.40/L, I mean prices higher than you get in Europe. A future where Canadian gasoline will cost over $3.00/L is not too far off. Everyone will want hybrids so they can save as much gas (and money) as possible. And here is where I worry.

From an environmental standpoint, the cost of gasoline and oil rising is a good thing. People will use less of it and less carbon will be emitted. With hybrids thrown into the mix, the danger of a rebound effect presents itself. The rebound effect (in environmental terms) occurs when the efficiency of a specific product or action is increased and people figure their use of this product can also be increased because now they're doing less harm, but their usage increases to such a point where the environmental benefits of the improvements in efficiency are overtaken by the increased usage. Your new lightbulbs are far more efficient than your old ones, so rather than turning out your lights, you leave them running all day convinced that the efficiency improvements make it OK, whereby you are actually increasing the absolute amount of energy used. 

It works similarly with hybrids. Fuel efficiency of cars goes up, so drivers become convinced they can drive more, so more gas and oil is consumed than before and soon the environment is actually worse off.

So what should we do? First and foremost, we should focus strongly on public transportation, especially in urban centres. Tim has posted numerous pieces on how to make this happen. Secondly, we might not be able to break our addiction to the personal vehicle, so we should make them as clean as possible, either through electric vehicles (Chevrolet Volt) sourced by renewable energy or hydrogen fuel cells (Toyota and Honda are leading that race).

These solutions are seemingly quite far off in the distance, but they are the real thing. Band-aid solutions like hybrids only lengthen the time gap getting there.

But if you want to buy a hybrid, here's how you should do it. Wait right until the economic downturn starts to make its way up. Hybrids are cheap when oil prices are low because no one needs them, but when oil prices rise, the price-tag of those hybrids will skyrocket. Grab one right before that happens. Then you can save loads of money and pat yourself on the back for being an 'eco-driver'.  

Green cities and urban amenities...

I just finished writing my research paper on Curitiba, Brazil. What I discovered through this research was that green cities thrive because of high density development along with adequate urban intensity. What does this mean? Generally, if the majority of a city`s population is living close to their work, recreational facilities, shopping centres etc. the city`s urban intensity will be high. Curitiba has a high-intensity urban core with lower density development further out. Citizens living in mixed-use development in the downtown area are living closer together and close to all of the urban amenities. They can walk, cycle or take public transit to access these services. This signifies low levels of automobile dependency because municipal services and amenities are physically close to residences.

A city like Houston has medium-intensity development concentrated in suburbs outside of the city. The average household gasoline consumption in Houston is 1,407.333 gallons per year. In short, high urban intensity can be associated with higher levels of public transportation ridership. The farther away citizens live from the city centre, the more likely they are (statistically speaking) to drive automobiles and consequently consume more petroleum. Generally, suburbanites in Houston drive more than center city or near-centre city residents.

Urban amenities including jobs, education, health services, public transit, commercial stores and open space are all provided in the urban core of the city. Curitiba’s high-diversity urban environment has created numerous employment opportunities, ultimately providing an impetus for citizens to live in closer propinquity to the urban centre. Transport and density planning has included infrastructure to support walking, cycling and public transit.

Key message: Green cities need to have urban amenities. Reducing aggregate emissions from vehicles will only take place with a good public transit system. Curitiba has established an outstanding public transit system and has seen a reduction in automobile dependency and an increase in higher density development closer to the core of the city. Folks, this is smart growth.