Environmentalism as a luxury is not always a bad thing...

You're at the supermarket and faced with a very tough decision: do you go with the apples labelled 'organic' (we'll assume in this example that they actually are organic and also not of the GMO variety) or the regular ones? You've seen the news shows and read the books on the risks of non-organic foods and are fully aware that those apples were probably splattered in pesticides. If you continue to eat them you might be slowly killing yourself in one way or another. But the organic apples are twice the price. Decisions, decisions...

I am a student, and like a hefty number of people living in Canada, student or not, I do not have huge amounts of money to be spending on groceries. I already spend a great share of my income on food, but at the prices charged for organic products, I simply can't afford it, at least without giving up on other aspects of my spending.

This is certainly not news. The organics debate (at least the pricing aspect of it) has been charging along for quite some time now. The common conclusion is quite simple: eating organic foods is reserved for those of us who can afford it. It is a luxury. Sure, you can grow a wide range of organic foods in your backyard for a much cheaper price, but the reality is that the majority of people do not have the time, space or most importantly, the patience, to do so.

In my own experience I've certainly run into people who think having expensive organics is an awful thing. Price gougers; bourgeoisie; capitalist exploiters: some of the phrases I've heard associated with organics in Canada (you'll notice the rather socialist leanings of some of these remarks. For more, I highly recommend taking a tour of the Trent Campus...).

A month or so ago I visited the Carrot Common in Toronto, a grouping of 'green' stores, headlined by a massive grocery store where nearly everything was organic. While it was a nice place to be, I came to realize that although I could be healthier, my grocery bill would probably be three to four times more expensive if I shopped there.

But here's the thing. Having organics so expensive is not necessarily a bad thing. This is simply because it is a relatively new product trying to make its way into an already overfilled market. If we look at products that today are very common we can quickly realize that the organics market is only at its earliest stages. For example, when computers first became consumer goods and battled the typewriter industry, they were outrageously expensive and reserved only for those with a nice chunk of change. But now the majority of people in Canada have or have access to a computer. Cars, too.

This is all because of the law of economies of scale: as more of a good is produced overall, the marginal cost of producing each good falls. Quite simply, it's like buying bulk. The more you make, the cheaper each individual one becomes. Compared to 'regular' foods, organics are a tiny share of the market and therefore are more expensive. But as they become more popular, the cost will go down. But in the meantime, the market has to start somewhere.

The other argument I'd pose is that organics (at least the ones that aren't price gouged and also the ones that are local) reflect what the more realistic economic cost should be. Although we've gotten used to our food industry, being able to buy whatever we want and whenever we want at remarkably low prices is a function of a lot of dangerous processes we're now learning might be more trouble than they're worth. Globalization, pesticide use and agricultural subsidies are making our food overly abundant and overly cheap, at the expense of our health, the world's farmers and the environment. More expensive food is seen as a bad thing (which largely, it is), but maybe more expensive food is a reality if we want to be living sustainably.

The expensiveness of being 'environmental' or 'green' is not reserved for organics. Renewable energy systems, hybrid cars and 'green' clothing products are also expensive and largely out of reach for many people. Having a completely solar powered home is a nice idea, but few can afford it, right now. So yes, these environmental products may be expensive and out of reach, but soon enough they'll be in the market place so the common-person can afford them.

The danger is if we denounce these products as being too luxurious, effectively reducing their desirability in the market and leaving them to go extinct. Everything has to start somewhere and unfortunately, it often starts with the rich.

Conservation often makes the most economic sense...sort of...

I recently saw a presentation by an architect & professor of architecture, Michael Pelken, from Syracuse University, on integrated wind technologies. Among other things, his talk focused on a now notorious offshore wind farm proposed to be built off the coast of Cape Cod in the Northeastern United States. The proposal was met with so much opposition from the local community that external designers (Mr. Pelken's group) were brought in to revamp the project.

The new proposal was quite impressive, though a tad impractical (as conceptual designs always seem to be). But the biggest piece of the design that stuck out to me was the idea to minimize the number of wind turbines (from 130 to 50) and offset the lost power generation with energy conservation measures (better lighting, smart meters etc) in the surrounding communities. Building less turbines would be cheaper and so the leftover cash could be put into the conservation measures.

This is a particularly attractive idea, especially for publicly-owned utilities. Instead of spending millions of dollars, time and other resources trying to site new renewable energy facilities (wind farms, solar farms, small-hydro dams), they could instead use the funds they would have put into the project into conservation measures, as the total energy saved could often equal or surpass the amount of energy that the project would have produced. This can also be a much cheaper process, both in money and time, as you won't have to deal with the same level of opposition that you might if siting a large project.

But it strikes me that this strategy would only be effective for public utilities, such as Peterborough Utilities (which already operates several conservation programs) and the Ontario Power Authority. The problem lies in the private and semi-private power generation companies (such as Ontario Power Generation).

The problem is quite simple. If your business is to produce energy, there is no profit in conservation. You want to build your project, make energy and sell it back to the grid. This is not always a bad thing. After all, it's now highly encouraged to build renewable energy systems.

And from a business and macro-economic perspective, power generation over conservation certainly works into the pro-growth model. And new projects can often look better politically, as people, companies and organizations become impressed with the project, especially in this new era of renewable development. But as we're seeing, unsustainable growth (a model without much conservation) is fraught with problems.

There will always be a hefty demand for energy in Canada, regardless of conservation and efficiency measures (we can only conserve so much), so this is certainly not a call for the cessation of energy projects. And we certainly need more renewables adding to the grid. But if the ultimate goal is to reduce GHG emissions while still being economically viable, perhaps governments should shift a portion of their immediate focus away from the often slow development of renewables and put those resources into conservation. It might not make millions of dollars, but it will certainly save millions of them.

A Recession should not post-pone EPR legislation…

In the past, I have blogged about extended-producer responsibility (EPR). In short, EPR is an environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility including physical and/or financial for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle. Because producers, importers and/or sellers have to internalize waste management costs in their product prices, they would have to be more efficient and less profligate when designing their products.

Some critics of the EPR model have discussed its futility in an economic downturn. I think the implicit assumption here is that manufacturers are already struggling to produce and sell their products because demand for goods has plummeted amid the recession. Therefore, they would be unwilling to invest in an EPR model because of their ostensible limitations and constraints. This however is absolute bogus and is delaying the indispensable legislative requirements that are badly needed to advance sustainability in waste management. Some of the cynics found within these manufacturing companies are completely overlooking the benefits that one can obtain from making simple switches through EPR.

Over the long-term, producers can profit by taking materials back and reusing them. By re-using products producers are effectively becoming less reliant on aggregate resources from the environment and therefore extraction costs go down and it makes the manufacturing process more efficient for them. Like many topics within the environment, an EPR model is highly interconnected. When manufacturers and producers jump on board, citizens begin to recognize their good habits and the government becomes more generous in terms of creating waste management funds and incentive programs to reduce total waste.

Though I am not always an advocate for regulatory measures, having legislation on EPR is absolutely critical. This is important because by transferring the costs from taxpayer funded municipal waste management systems to manufacturers and citizens, it can enforce the polluters pay principle where level of effort to conserve or pollute is reflected in the cost.

Fortunately, the recession has provided us with realization that rampant consumerism and neglecting the environment can be costly both economically and environmentally. There have been some minor funding cuts in renewable technology, environmentally friendly products, and highly innovative waste management models like EPR. However, I vehemently believe that the recession has not stifled but stimulated innovation for green design and development. And now we are going to see an upward trend in more funding allocation to the environment for research and development purposes (of course I am an optimist). Whether my hypothesis is accurate or not, the bottomline is that we will have to be cautious in our ambitious pursuits and start to better understand why environmental education is important for this era. Being educated on things like EPR or recycling programs for instance can take us along way and broaden our knowledge on sustainable development.

This is no time to gamble with risks for things like EPR, the advantages and cost-savings associated with EPR are extensive and wide-ranging. This is the time to bring about EPR legislation as British Columbia has so adequately done. We are going to have to be more forward thinking in this era of sustainable development. A recession should teach us about how to become smarter with green innovation and certainly a degree of collective accountability.

Key message: EPR is an effective method because it can stimulate innovation in manufacturing companies through reducing materials, resources and energy usage. All of which are important for optimal waste minimization.

Energy Conservation in Toronto…

On average, about 20% of your home electricity costs are attributed to lighting.

This past weekend I was working an event called “Spring Turn On” at a Home Depot location in Toronto. It is a two weekend event (May 23rd/24th and May 30th/31st) at Home Depot and Canadian Tire locations across the city. Toronto Hydro, the largest electricity utility in Canada, is the main organizer with aims to inform customers about the latest energy conservation programs available in the city. Summerhill Group, my employer is a company dedicated to transforming markets to achieve sustainability. They are running the event in conjunction with Toronto Hydro, Home Depot and Canadian Tire.

For both Saturday and Sunday, store customers found themselves wandering around curious to find the latest deals and bargains on new cool appliances. Once customers noticed our presence they were filled with excitement and irrational exuberance desperate to grab their free compact fluorescent light bulb. We provided 350 free CFLs to the first 350 customers which served as a great avenue to educate inform and discuss the numerous benefits that CFLs serve. There is more to it however, the customers were required to fill in a quick survey on energy conservation in Toronto so that Toronto Hydro can identify what part of the city their from, their knowledge on energy efficient strategies and how often they participate in these eco events. We are also providing $4 rebate coupons for all Energy Star Certified light bulbs, and $10 coupons for power bars with timers.

One of my responsibilities was to inform and educate customers on Toronto Hydro’s peak saver program. In short, only residents who have centralized air conditioners and/or water heaters are eligible. Why? In the summer months when residents profligately run their air conditioners, it contributes to peak demand because everyone in the city is doing it. So, Toronto Hydro figured that by installing peak savers on air conditioners for absolutely free and providing a $75 gift card in the process, residents would feel more inclined to have it.

How does it work? During peak periods, Toronto Hydro will send a signal to the AC or water heater to interrupt power to the appliance for a short time. Air conditioners are cycled off for 15 minutes out of every 30 minutes. This way, a lot of pressure is taking off of the hydro system thereby reducing demand and keeping the cost of power lower in the future. Additionally, this reduces the need to import electricity.

We are also informing people about “time of use” pricing. Both smart meters and time of use pricing help minimize peak demand. Let’s say for example you want to use your clothes dryer and it is 6 pm in the evening. Chances are a lot of people are using their dryers at this time and will have to pay the on-peak (highest price) of 8.8 cents per kWh. If you wanted to dry your clothes at 11:30 pm you would be paying off-peak (lowest price) of 4 cents per kWh. In other words, incentives do exist to encourage residents to think about when they wash and dry their clothes, use their AC and dishwasher.

Key message: “All electrical devices have two prices tags, the initial purchase price and the cost of operating it.”

Obama introduces new emissions laws...

Earlier this week, President Obama introduced new automotive legislation significantly increasing the level of fuel efficiency that new cars sold in the United States will be able to have. The legislation also curbs the level of harmful, toxic emissions that these new cars will be able to release.

The requirements are relatively simple: by 2016 all new cars and light trucks in the United States will have to have an average fuel efficiency level of 35.5 MPG (6.6 L/100 km; a 2009 Honda Civic coupe), up from an average level of 25 MPG (9.4 L/100 km; a 2009 Ford Escape SUV) today. Starting in 2012, carmakers will have to improve fuel efficiency by 5% annually.

According to the administration, this new legislation would reduce carbon emissions in the United States by 30%. Though you should not expect the changes to happen overnight. First, the goals of the legislation don't have to be met until 2016, which still leaves seven more years. Secondly-- and more importantly-- it will take quite a few years for the new, fuel efficient cars and trucks to diffuse into the market. Since car owners generally like to hold onto their vehicles for a number of years, many car buyers won't purchase the new, fuel efficient vehicles until much later. Especially since the new emissions and mileage targets will make new cars about $1300 more expensive. 

According to a group at MIT, the main benefits of the legislation won't really be felt until 2030. So the massive carbon reduction from this policy that Obama talked about may not actually take place for a good while. But there is a provision in the legislation that seeks to speed up that process, known as the 'Cash for Clunkers' plan.

The plan would provide financial vouchers for car owners to scrap or trade in their old vehicles for new, fuel efficient ones, thereby quickening the pace that the fuel efficient vehicles get rolled onto the roads. The plan is being touted as environmentally friendly and a help to car buyers. It is true that it could have benefits for climate change, but we must keep in mind that building new cars (and disposing of old ones) is certainly not an environmentally friendly activity, no matter which way you cut it. Germany has also adopted such a plan, but instead of aiming for the fuel efficiency goal (Europe already has some of the highest mileage standards in the world), its goal is moreso to re-ignite its ailing auto industry.

While it is true that the 'Cash for Clunkers' plan could be effective, a number of critics are worried that the savings accrued by vehicle swappers may not be as high as everyone perceives. This is because of the Miles Per Gallon Illusion, a phenomenon I've described before, where the marginal increase in gas savings falls rapidly with higher levels of fuel efficiency. The authors of the MPG Illusion blog have researched the plan heavily and are concerned the savings may not be economically or environmentally viable. 

But regardless of the minor problems with the legislation, it is still a masterful and landmark piece of policymaking. It will certainly have serious benefits from an environmental point of view. Although the carbon emissions cut will not happen for some time, a 30% reduction is still very significant and very realistic, especially in an industry that accounts for a hefty share of the U.S.'s GHG emissions. 

Such legislation has been fought by automakers for many years. When California adopted its stringent efficiency limits a few years ago, automakers were less than excited and very quickly launched lawsuits that exist today (although they will be dropped as a result of the new legislation). A national policy similar to California's was called for, but was crushed at the powerful hands of the then 'Big Three' (GM, Ford & Chrysler). Since the 'Big Three' are all on the verge of collapse, their lobbying powers in this case were not all that powerful. 

In fact, what makes this legislation so impressive is the fact that the auto industry is actually in support of it (although I wouldn't be surprised if even more stringent rules were watered down in exchange for their support). And it probably doesn't make it all that easy for them to say no since one of the main stakeholders in GM and Chrysler is the federal government.

This will have important implications for Canada since the federal Conservative government has no serious environmental policies and has openly stated its waiting for the US to make some moves so it could join up and follow the leader. Don't be surprised to hear Canada adopting similar efficiency standards and emissions limits within the next little while. 

Perspectives on municipal water: Private or public…

In a time of great uncertainty over the use, consumption and trade of fresh water, municipalities are increasingly being plagued with tough water policy decisions. In Canada, there are numerous municipalities that have public water infrastructure systems meaning that water is managed, delivered and treated by a public body. Historically, municipalities relied on public water infrastructure because the private sector could not be relied upon to deliver a quality service at a price that all residents could afford. With 7% of the planet’s renewable fresh water, Canada could choose to position itself to profit through the privatization and commercialization of water resources municipally, provincially and federally. But should we really?

With municipal budgets only becoming more constrained, privatizing water infrastructure is only becoming more appealing. The U.S. Southwest has seen its fair share of egregious violations of water quality standards from corporations who have been negligent in water treatment. Moreover, many municipalities in the U.S. Southwest have privatized water infrastructure because water is scarce and can be profitable for private utility companies to charge for it at a higher rate. Further, privatization is presented to municipal governments in a pretty package, their proponents eager to capitalize on the difficult budget binds municipal councils often find themselves in.

Toronto finds itself in a precarious situation. It will have to pay ~$800 million to repair and upgrade its municipal water infrastructure. Let’s not forget that this cost can easily go up due to degrading infrastructure that is only exacerbated by population increases and unrestrained demand. The city of Toronto does not have $800 million right now to spend on upgrading and fixing its water infrastructure. However, a private company can do it for them with the condition that they have control over the delivery and allocation of water. This becomes tricky because the risks are not always known at this point of time. Privatization is appealing but what are the long-term effects? With water infrastructure or public infrastructure in general, the local governments pays about 50%. The province will chip in 40% and the federal government around 7%.

Personally I am an advocate for publicly owned and monitored systems. Provinces need to chip in however, municipalities cannot do it alone. Historically and contemporaneously, appropriate funding is not accompanying the downloading of provincial responsibilities to municipalities for a range of essential health and social services. Public capital investment has not kept pace with economic growth or population increases. Retaining public control allows governments to make appropriate investments for better water quality to protect people in their communities for the long term.

Finally, infrastructure construction and refurbishment could be funded through debt financing. Cities have an opportunity to arrange debt financing that maximizes benefits and services to the public while minimizing costs, thanks to having access to the lowest available borrowing rates.

Key message: Sometimes, when private operators move in, rates go up, quality deteriorates and accountability suffers. Should we then turn to public-private partnerships?

Getting the most bang for our buck...

I recently attended the Ontario Centres for Excellence (OCE) Discovery conference in Toronto. It was attended by 2000+ people and a host for hundreds of exhibitors from the world of technological innovation, commercialization and revolutionary thinking. Canadian universities, research groups, small businesses and large technology-focused conglomerates showed off their arsenal of gizmos, business catalysts and multimedia watchamadoozles.

One university's engineering department was showing off a hybrid car that had solar panels splattered all over the roof to help run the battery. Wonderful idea. A few other groups had innovative ideas to capture energy, such as smaller wind-capturing technologies and a process to use energy from grapes. There was even a small float plane being touted as the next-big-thing.

It was like looking into the future. One of the beauties of such a conference is its ability to bridge the gap between ideas & commercialization and actually take some of these great innovations and put them to use in the real world.

However, as I'm discovering with some of my research this summer, this gap is often much wider than many people believe. As Prof. Stephen Hill of Trent University (the prof I'm doing much of my summer research with) outlined in his brief discussion at the conference, a great deal of these innovations are technologically and economically feasible (often by a wide margin) but are not widely implemented in the world. 

As he says, this is because of social and political opposition. What might be economically feasible might not be socially or politically feasible. For example, a large solar farm in the outskirts of a medium-sized town might be able to produce enough electricity to power the entire town with clean, emissions-free energy at a relatively low cost. But the residents near the proposed farm might be vehemently opposed to the proposed project, be it for a variety of reasons, making it a non-feasible project overall. 

Much of our research is directed towards the renewable energy sector, where much popular talk revolves around economic incentives for these technologies (wind, solar, small-hydro etc) so they can compete with traditional energy sources. But while much time, money and research is being put into making these technologies economically feasible, a far lesser proportion is being put towards making them socially and politically feasible.

As technologies become increasingly efficient and governments provide incentives to make them cost-effective, the economic barriers are essentially eliminated. But the socio-political barriers are still standing and are very, very strong. 

While putting millions of dollars into getting that extra few miles per gallon out of our hybrid vehicles (which is not as effective as many think) is a great technological leap, perhaps we would get more bang for our buck if we put that money towards safely and effectively implementing the wonderful technology.

The money and resources could be put into research of social acceptance, making stakeholder involvement in projects more inclusive and widely distributed, the training of specialists (ex. engineers and other designers) to include social and political aspects of their work and even an established framework for standardizing project development processes to make them more socially and politically acceptable. 

This is certainly not a call to withdraw funding from technology research and development. That would be idiotic. But if our goal is to actually implement this technology, we should probably divvy those funds up a little bit.  

Getting stuff done... Academia versus policy-making

I watched a bloggingheads video yesterday that featured two academics discussing how there are not too many academic political scientists within the Obama administration. Daniel Drezner, Professor of Political Science at Tufts University’s Fletcher school and Joseph Nye, University Distinguished Service Professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University discuss extensively how academia and policy sometimes do not match. For instance, academia usually focuses on the more theoretical concepts and applications.

In international relations and political science, if you want to publish something that is policy related, it may have some utility value in government but is not widely embrace in the academy. The academy will always prefer highly abstract statistical and mathematical models that require a lot of rigor and analysis. There is a lot more to this discussion and if you are interested I encourage you to watch this 45 minute clip of Drezner and Nye.

When thinking of the environment in academia I think of the theories that have been constructed over the years. When I do research for my environment classes, I always read the scholarly journals published on things like green neo-liberalism or green theory. I use these journals for my research papers but I also look at the publications of think-tanks and institutes that have done some work on public transit initiatives and climate change policy tools, and everything in between. Overall, I find both the theoretical (academia) and more policy-based work (think-tanks, government agencies) to be useful for my understanding and for actually writing the research paper. What is more applicable to society and government?

Nye will tell you that within academia and within his very own department at Harvard, there are profs who are more theoretical and some who are more practical. In fact, he uses the illustration of a bell curve where one side has the really theoretical thinkers who publish extensively within the academy, and other profs who are more policy-oriented and produce a lot of good work for government and foreign affairs.

You may be wondering why such a topic is even worth exploring. Well the Obama administration for instance has academic scientists and economists but is lacking these scholars in international relations and politics. But think about this: the administration still has many bright individuals that are advising national security and foreign affairs, albeit not all academics. However, an anomaly exists with Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Samantha Power and Professor of Law Cass Sunstein (Harvard as well). Both will be highly influential people on the environment. But oh no, policy professor and lawyer? What are we thinking? Both come from academia and are generally more practical, but how theoretical are they?

This question also applies to Canada and who we should turn to for climate change policy advice, or renewable energy. Should we turn to the person who has their PhD in physics, or the person who has their Masters in Public Policy and works for a think tank?

Key message: We are only going to make progress once academia and government work exceptionally well together.

Trent's Green Roof...

A Trent student recently wrote a detailed and highly informative 6 page overview of Trent's rooftop garden. As I have blogged about before, green roofs are innovative solutions for urban sustainability. However, people are only going to see the advantages of having them through the creation of market incentives, rebates and pilot projects. The report on Trent's rooftop gardens in available here.

Green Cities: Montreal’s Bixi… Not quite the Parisian Model

Montreal, known for its vehement and wild Habs fans, high levels of vandalism and great city life is going to bring about a public bike rental system. Known as bixi, which is a combination of bike and taxi, is going to be implemented with the $15 million made available from the Montreal parking authority. For details see here.

The only difference between Paris’s bike rental system and Montreal’s is that Paris’s system is owned by a private company. Montreal will have a city-owned bike rental system. Paris and other European cities have had great success with such a system in place. Why? Because the streets and urban environments are much more conducive for biking and scooters. Plus, automobiles are not as ubiquitous in European cities as they are in North American ones.

There has always been sufficient demand for bike rental services in Montreal, and the city plans on bringing about 800 kilometres of bike routes by 2013. This city initiative is the epitome of New Urbanism and smart growth. Montreal’s public transit system, albeit popular, is not as established as cities like Curitiba or San Francisco. Nonetheless, having a public bike rental system in place adds to urban amenities, attracts tourists and will undoubtedly mitigate smog and pollution levels in the inner city.

A city-owned bike rental system is good for urban planning as well. Transportation initiatives in cities across the world are sometimes privatized such as a bus system, subways, and even bike rental services. A city-owned system though more expensive, is better from a planning and policy lens. Firstly, accountability with a private company may not be as adequate as a city-owned system. Secondly, policies and incentive programs for encouraging cycling can be easier to implement through municipal government.

Key message: Montreal is en route to becoming one of Canada’s greener cities. Let’s celebrate this new initiative, track and study its development and think about how we can make our very own cities more environmentally-friendly.

Environmental irony...

Sometimes the green guys can't always win.

An ambitious 5,000 mile carbon-neutral sailing trip took a turn for the worst when stormy weather rendered the 40 ft. sailing boat disabled. 

The boat, Fleur, was on a long journey from Plymouth, England to Greenland, where the two crew members would reach Greenland, ski across the ice cap and back to the boat, all with minimal environmental impact. The boat would be powered through solar panels and of course, wind. The intention of the trip was to show that some of the most extreme trips could be taken and remote areas explored in such a manner that only required environmentally-friendly technologies to get there.

Great. Except that within the first month of travel, everything went wrong. An intense storm capsized the boat, destroyed the solar panels and sailing capabilities of the boat. Oops. Luckily, the ocean is so awash (pun completely intended) with ships that they were very quickly rescued. They may have been thankful and happy to be alive, but the adventurers may not have been as excited to find out that their rescuer was a massive oil tanker carrying nearly 700,000 barrels of crude oil.

Nobody says it better than Alanis: Isn't it ironic?

Green is good, but it isn't perfect.   

The Navigable Waters Protection Act changes could mean big problems for Canada's waterways...

The Harper government never ceases to vex environmentalists. As part of its Budget Implementation Act 2009 (the act that must pass to put the year's budget into place), the government attached an amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). The trouble is, the amendment was essentially hidden deep within the bill, which is among the year's largest and most likely to pass through parliament. Very sneaky.

The NWPA is a key piece of environmental legislation dating back to 1882 that is designed to protect the public's right to navigate the country's waters. These waters--although no clear definition actually exists, which is a subject of much controversy--can range from the oceans and Great Lakes to small rivers, streams and creeks arguably, only four inches deep.

From an environmental point of view, the NWPA is an important tool in the fight to protect the country's waters and broader environment because it often includes formal environmental assessments. Whenever someone wants to build something like a bridge or a dock that might impact a body of navigable water, an application must be submitted to the government, where it often requires an environmental screening if not a more stringent environmental assessment.

But this amendment would change that. The government has argued that these environmental considerations are delaying development projects throughout the country and stifling the recovery of the economy as the stimulus money can't diffuse as easily. Under the changes, any projects deemed 'minor' or affecting 'minor waters' would be issued a pre-approval and would not require any review from the federal government. These reviews often lead to the environmental screenings or assessments. In addition, the changes would give unprecedented authority to the minister of Transport to exempt any project he/she sees fit, without a possibility for appeal.

The government argues that by amending the act, small projects like a private dock (which require review under the old act) would be streamlined through so the department's resources could be better spent on larger projects. Furthermore, they don't want to bother doing stringent reviews on projects that only effect negligible bodies of water.

Sure. That makes sense. But there are some major problems. First of all, how is the department going to know if a project is actually minor if they don't do a review? As one witness at a hearing described, an applicant could write they're adding on to their private dock, but the dock addition could actually cover 6,000 square feet and have huge environmental consequences. How could the government tell the difference?

Critics are also upset with the authority given to the minister, especially the clause that disallows appeals to the minister's decisions. The lack of an actual definition of 'navigable waters' is also worrying, as it would allow the government to arbitrarily decide what would and wouldn't be reviewed.

A big problem has been the process itself. Members of the government have been wanting to update the act for many years and last summer it really got going and some consultations were held. Unfortunately, the occurrence of an election, the winter prorogation and an economic crisis interrupted the consultation process and as the government argues, required the amendments to be rushed through.

Lots of people and groups were not consulted, including environmental groups, First Nations, hunters, fishers and paddlers: people who would have a direct interest in 'navigable waters'.

Luckily, the issue has gotten enough attention from different stakeholders that a series of Senate Hearings have been scheduled and are currently in session. Although the amendments have been passed in parliament, they still need to be approved by the Senate to become law, so these hearings could have a significant impact.

This issue is particularly important because it highlights the fight over economy and environmentalism. From the federal government's point of view, environmental protection is getting in the way of the economy. And this is not their only strategy. They are also trying to exempt thousands of projects receiving funding from the stimulus package from environmental assessments.

Yes, foregoing time-consuming, detailed environmental assessments can be good for short-term economic recovery. But ignoring environmental concerns could be devastating for the economy in the long-term. And hiding these important amendments in a budget bill (which is not going to be opposed by the parliament in these economic times) is not the best way to go about it.

Wisdom way solar village...

Who would have ever thought about subsidizing green housing in a recession? This short and highly informative 5 minute video, courtesy of the NY Times, shows a small housing area called "Wisdom Way Solar Village" in Western Massachusetts that is devoted to green housing development. Specifically, highly efficient zero net energy homes that are powered by solar energy. All of the extra power generated is sold back to the grid thereby providing residents with an economic impetus to install more solar panels. Of course, this revitalizes a conservation ethic which is badly needed right now.

Sunlight is plentiful in this area making solar energy viable and economical. Housing units are between $210,000- $240,000 - which is reasonable considering the real estate market of Massachusetts. However, the subsidized units sell for $110,000 and are meant to attract low to middle income buyers. This novelty is very progressive, extremely practical and a wise undertaking. Homeowners of wisdom way solar village are saving money through the use of solar energy. Usually however, this is dependent on whether they are conservative in their energy use.

Renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal, and the dubious hydro-electric have trade-offs. There is no perfect solution. But the subsidization of green homes through the installation of solar units is conservation to its finest. It also helps with climate change mitigation and adaptation which will become even more pressing in the next 15 years. Biodiversity is not being affected by such development, unlike hydro-electric dams which cause flooding, siltation and other problems. Two thumbs up for the progress of wisdom way solar village.

Tsk Tsk, Mr. Gates...

A brief tidbit in the journal from the very leftist, progressive Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) reports that The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation--the multibillion dollar charity funded through Bill's not-so-modest stake in Microsoft--has given $5.4 million to a technology firm funded by Monsanto.

The money is to be put towards lobbying African governments and promote the entry of genetically modified crops (GMOs) to the continent, which, in all likelihood, will largely be provided by Monsanto. As I've blogged about before, GMOs can be beneficial. But as I also mentioned, it is the nature of the GMO industry that should be very concerning for the world's population and Monsanto's presence in this group is quite worrying.

Although I did not have incredibly detailed knowledge about the Gates' foundation, I did think of it as a wonderfully beneficial group. Their work in the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other diseases has been particularly notable. But this new donation strikes them down a few notches on the 'awesome pole'. 

The trouble with such a situation is the deep respect, resources and connections the Gates' foundation has. Warren Buffett (now the world's third richest man, but last year topped the list) provided the foundation with nearly $30 billion worth of shares (paid over time) from his investment company, Berkshire Hathaway. That'll be one hell of a tax receipt. But I can't think of any other charity in the world that would be getting anything close to $30 billion.

So if people think the Gates' foundation is doing good in the world, then they're sure to follow suit. In this case, they're following in the wrong direction. As the CCPA said, the floodgates could open up wide. Very wide. 

Looking for a skeptic? Check the comment box...

You may have noticed over the past few months that I frequently read the Globe & Mail online newspaper. According to the hundreds of comments received by most articles and columns, many others read it too.

The ability to publicly (and instantly) comment on the posted specials, articles and columns is one of the highlights of most online news sites. Some of the biggest online news sites (The New York Times, CTV, The National Post, The Globe and Mail) consistently receive thousands of comments daily. The Globe & Mail actually touts this ability in some of its advertisements, using cartoon bantering heads to showcase the comment area as an intellectual forum of sorts.

I used to think that there was a positive correlation between the number of comments received and the importance or relevance of an article. Often, this may be the case. However, when reading the increasingly common articles on climate change (and this phenomenon is not unique to climate change) I have come to realize that the commenting space is less of an intellectual forum and more of a politically-charged open house for skeptics.

Prior to the federal election in 2008, Stephane Dion's plan for a national carbon tax received much media attention and more comments online than I had ever seen. While going through many of the articles for some research, it became apparent that the majority of comments were from anti-climate change folks, who preached a business-first chorus and were often full out deniers of human beings' influence on climate changes. Some even denied the existence of climate change, offering up unfounded or inaccurate evidence for their beliefs.

However, at that point there were still some people who tried to have a reasonable discussion, skeptic or not. But since then, the number of comments from people wishing to have an open forum or even promote good climate change policy has significantly declined.

It's not a particularly surprising turn of events, considering the level of conversation taken by the skeptics. Rather than trying to talk with someone, they often (and I only marginally generalize) talk at them and ignore any view other than their own. This could also be said of the non-skeptics, but as the evidence crushing down skeptics' beliefs increases, the non-skeptic tends to warrant much greater credibility. Many probably feel it is a futile effort to try to have a decent discussion on the comment section, so no decent comments are actually left anymore.

The views held by the comment-dominating skeptics were once those of the world's policymakers and more importantly, shared by the general public. But these skeptical views are becoming less and less popular and are often dismissed for a variety of justified reasons. As a result, the extreme end of these views can only be found in the smallest, darkest pockets of popular media. Unfortunately, they're poisoning the wonderfully ideal notion of an online intellectual forum.

If you're looking for a decent laugh, I highly recommend a quick tour through some of the online comments received by the major news media articles on climate change.

The Battle Continues: Perception versus Reality

This image says a lot. Water consumption is profligate and a pervasive issue across this country. If we think that we use 66 liters of water per day per person, then our thinking is completely skewed. A conventional toilet uses 13 L of water when you flush it. Many of us drink upwards of 2 liters of water per day. Showering, cooking and washing our dishes easily adds well over 100 L of water used per day. Add up the facts and stats and we're already well over 66 L of water. As much as Maude Barlow would disagree with the pricing and metering of water, it certainly enforces a conservation ethic which is badly needed.

Water consumption habits are egregious across urban centres in Canada. Managing water and knowing how much it costs to be delivered to our homes allows us to see the true value of it. Environment and economics are crucial here as we must recognize water as a vital and finite natural resource and as a human right, but additionally we must think about its scarcity and how pricing the resource in urban settings can allow citizens to re-think their water consumption habits.

Key message: Cheap water leads to more demand. Canadians have the highest per capita consumption of water in the world. 66 L of water per day is completely different than 439 L of water per day per person. Our perception of water consumption must change in order to conserve our water resources and maintain an adequate supply for future generations.