Water Security... What lies in Store for Canada?

Enviroboys recognizes the importance of continuing an on-going discussion on Canada’s water. This blog has covered water issues extensively albeit mostly on water quantity issues and the need to explore urban water conservation policy (the focus of my thesis next year). What we need to start talking about is water security in Canada.

Water security is measured in terms of access to adequate quantities of water. Similarly to urban water conservation, water security explores how stakeholders are involved and how to best appropriate water through establishing an agreement. Water security is particularly challenging in Canada because we share the 5 Great Lakes with the U.S. Eight states and two Canadian provinces (40 million people) border these vast bodies of water and therefore many stakeholders are involved.

With water shortages and the ominous unknowns of climate change, water withdrawals from the lakes are going to have be a tad more sustainable. Both states and provinces have increased their water withdrawals for uses such as irrigation, export/diversion and industrial practices.

Having agreements such as NAFTA and the WTO pose challenges to Canada for water security. Generally, these kinds of agreements can erode Canada’s sovereignty over water and can compromise the ability of the Canadian government to manage water resources. Moreover, under NAFTA, if water enters commerce by becoming a good or product, such as an ingredient in a food, or as bottled water, it will then be covered by the Agreement which means the other party can demand the product as much as it wants.

NAFTA prevents any member country from forbidding exports, once a good is traded it cannot be withdrawn from commerce by a political decision unless that decision applies and receives consent from all parties. Worse yet, Article 11 under the WTO, states “the use of quantitative export controls, such as a ban or embargo, on any product ‘destined for the territory of any other contracting party’ is prohibited.”

Such agreements sound frightening and have several implications for water security. One sigh of relief however is the Boundary Waters Treaty. The Boundary Waters Treaty, signed in 1909, is a critical transboundary institutional arrangement that promotes water security for Canada and the U.S. It was recently amended in 2001 with major amendments including the prohibition of the bulk removal of water out of the Canadian portion of boundary water basins. Another major player involved with mediating water security for both countries is the International Joint Commission (IJC), which is a bi-national commission that prevents and resolves water disputes between Canada and U.S.

The Boundary Waters Treaty and the IJC will serve to help us in our endeavors to formulate adequate water security strategies but real disputes are imminent. The Great Lakes (about 90% of America`s water) are indispensable for both economies and important for the well-being of preserving streams, smaller lakes and wetlands that lie within the natural environment. The U.S. has seen many of its aquifers and rivers deplete over the past ten years because of the overuse and unrestrained demand and pressure that accompanied extraction.

It is time that Canada develop a Water Security agenda with a clear policy and strategy on bulk water exports. We are seriously lacking federal legislation and a plan on water security. Climate change, increasing population and agricultural development provide a great deal of conflict and uncertainty in an era where we already have too much of both. Before I provide some strategies and ideas on a water security agenda, what do you think our federal government should do?

Key message: Water security is worth talking about. Let’s start a discussion on how we can navigate some of our contemporary challenges through NAFTA, the WTO and the U.S. government.

A naturalized swimming pool...

I saw this on TV a little while ago and was immediately fascinated. As you'll see from the video, this Peterborough resident decided to build a swimming pool in his backyard. But rather than building a regular concrete, chlorinated swimming pool, he built a naturalized one.

That is, rather than requiring chemicals like chlorine or salt, the homeowner planted different trees, bushes and other plants in on the edges of the pool that naturally clean the water. He also has a rock waterfall where the water is pumped up to the top of the waterfall and is slowly fed back through the rocks, which also helps to filter the water.

It has a rubber lining underneath which was covered by rock, gravel and plants to simulate a pond. It's deep enough the jump into from a well-hidden diving board and most importantly, blends into the backyard very well.

It's clean, green and looks very natural.

I'm personally intrigued by such a thing because I (like many other people) love swimming pools, but am fully aware of the environmental downsides of them. This type of thing could be a wonderful, guilt-free alternative. And he lives in the city. It's a little touch of the cottage or country in your urban backyard.

No word on cost, but maintenance sounds very low. No need to add chemicals or to unnecessarily heat it (it might be a bit cold, but perhaps you could look into heating it slightly, maybe with solar...) and no need to drain it in the winter. He just shovels off the snow and turns it into a make-shift hockey rink.

One bit of opposition to such a thing is that this particular pool has wildlife in it: frogs, water-insects and other little creatures. While it certainly makes it more natural, it can creep some people out...

Green Cities: Light-rail transit in Edmonton...

Cities are going to lead the 21st century in innovative policies that are pro-active in addressing social, economic and sustainable environmental goals. As I have blogged about before, city transit initiatives are an excellent way to bring about all of the aforementioned goals. What we need to vigorously research and explore is light-rail transit.

Light-rail transit is a “public transit option that has a lower capacity and lower speed than heavy rail and metro systems but higher capacity and higher speed than street-running tram systems.” They are very similar to street cars in the sense that they operate mostly in private rights-of-way separated from other traffic. However, depending on the city, LRTs are sometimes mixed with other traffic on city streets.

Light-rail transit is taking off in the city of Edmonton. This city has realized that because the internationally accepted value for the cost of a subway per kilometre is $100 million, such infrastructural investments are not financially viable. Light right provides a less expensive transit system and is highly efficient with high ridership. One of the biggest cited examples of an LRT advantage is the fact that it reduces traffic congestion. More importantly however, it reduces future road construction because one commuter train can replace up to “15 lanes of traffic at peak periods.”

There are two more categories that the LRT sufficiently meets. One is community, the other, the environment. In short, and similar to Curitiba’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) model, an LRT can help in bringing about greater social cohesion and creating a more diverse and inclusive city. Because of its efficiency and reliability, an LRT usually discourages automobility in the inner city. This reduces traffic congestion and provides an incentive for citizens to explore other alternatives like walking and biking. It contributes to the livability of the space.

Also, as LRT systems become more efficient, urban amenities concomitantly became more commonplace with a push towards urban intensity and density. More and more citizens become attracted to the urban centre because of the numerous urban amenities available to them such as good transit options like LRTs. This creates a sense of community because of shared interests among the city’s populace. As demonstrated in Edmonton, an LRT system “reduces air pollution, contributing to the quality of our health and our environment, because it emits significantly fewer pollutants and greenhouse gases.” Also, “A transit rider creates 65% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than an auto user for the same trip.”

Key message: LRT systems as demonstrated in San Francisco, Edmonton, Manchester, Luas and Sydney are remarkably efficient, effective and energy smart. They cost significantly less than a subway and create a better sense of civic cohesion.

E-Bikes on Peterborough trails...

It's like a bike, but better. Well, maybe. E-bikes are just as the name entails: electric bikes. Originally designed as regular mountain bikes with a small electric motor mounted on the frame, the designation of an e-bike has since been extended to larger, wider "bikes" that are nearly identical to the electric scooters you might see people driving around the streets.

In Peterborough, these types of vehicles had been left only to travel on city streets - where the drivers of the e-bikes feel less than safe with cars flying by - and the city's bike and walking trails. Just like regular bicycles, e-bikes can not be ridden on city sidewalks. But in light of the growing danger of the larger, heavier and faster e-bikes on the trails, a few weeks ago city council elected to prohibit them on the city's bike trails. The infamous Segway was also included in the prohibition.

But last week the city changed its mind. In a lengthy, four hour meeting, many members of the public and council members fought out the e-bike issue. Very good points were made on both sides.

Those in opposition of the ban argued the environmental benefits of e-bikes (they use them instead of a car), the advantage they have for people who are less able-bodied (less pedalling is required), the dangers faced by e-bike riders on city's streets (the fastest e-bikes can only go up to 32 km/h) and the onus of responsible trail riding falling on the operator rather than the bike itself.

However, those in support of the ban consistently cited the dangers e-bikes might pose to others on the trail. The brakes on e-bikes are argued to be less than effective when travelling at speeds above 30 km/h, which is particularly dangerous on the heavily-travelled Peterborough trails where (this comes from much personal experience) some people are less than aware of other people or bikes around them. This is especially worrying with the larger e-bikes, that weigh several hundred pounds and could do severe damage to anything it might hit. The definition of an e-bike is also controversial, as the electric scooter types are only considered e-bikes because two small and nearly unusable pedals are inserted on the sides in order to fit with the legislative definition.

A local environmental group and a city councillor brought up the issue of this repeal of a bylaw as opening the door to other modes of transportation. Where does it stop? If a golf cart tacks a few pedals on, could it be allowed? What about a new Chevrolet Volt? It seems ridiculous, but laws have been exploited in worse ways before.

Furthermore, there are legitimate concerns that the e-bike speeds might be too fast for the trails. Proponents of the e-bikes argued that many road bike riders exceed 32 km/h, which is true, although the riders that travel at those kinds of speeds are often very experienced riders and tend to travel on the roads rather than the trails.

The province is supposed to come up with a provincial policy position on e-bikes and their appropriateness on city trails in the coming months, so many of those in favour of the ban argued that Peterborough's city council should wait to reverse the ban until that time. Makes sense. It is better to be safe than sorry.

Personally I don't think a ban on the traditional e-bikes is in order because of the wonderful benefits they could have and the fact that they seem just as safe as any other bike. However, banning the larger, heaving 'e-bikes' is completely appropriate. The dangers are too high with such things on the trails and the way in which the manufacturers have put dinky little pedals on them to get around legislation is very bothersome.

I love using the paths in Peterborough and there are many nice, happy and responsible people who use them. But there's also a lot of idiots. Putting those 'bikes' on the trails will only lead to people being hurt or worse. It's true that it's dangerous using the roads on one of those things, but I've been doing it for years on my bicycle, which many would consider more dangerous. But allowing them onto the main paths could be more dangerous.

The solution I could propose is to license those who want to go on the road so only those who are confident on the roads can use them and people who don't want to use a larger one can use a traditional e-bike. Some might not be happy. Tough.

User Fees… The best option municipalities face right now?

Over the course of the year, I had the opportunity to explore user fees in various municipalities in Southern Ontario. I did research through my Waste Management and Public Policy classes and learned a tonne about their theory, implementation and widespread use. Most of the work I did was on municipal waste management and why cities should stop using property taxes for waste collection and why we should alternatively introduce a user fee system for conservation purposes, economic opportunity and optimal efficiency.

Looking at a user fee system for waste management would require city taxpayers (residents, companies, businesses) to pay for the pick-up of general waste based on volume or weight rather than through general tax levies (property tax) that are unrelated to quantities of household waste. They are great systems because they are flexible and allow the household to set out one or two bags for free before being charged for collection. This will of course depend on the municipality but generally there is some leeway. For those not familiar with these systems, the economic rationale for user fees is that by attaching a cost to each bag of garbage a household produces, the economic incentive will encourage householders to recycle more and to reduce the amount of waste they produce. And due to the cost involved, the household would theoretically re-think how much waste it produces.

Hundreds of municipalities across Canada including Toronto rely on property taxes for financing residential waste management costs. Ostensibly though, Toronto has introduced some user fees for its waste and has seen waste management costs and volume go down by as much as 15%. One advantage of financing a city’s waste management system through property taxes is the low administrative requirements that accompanies this and it also provides a secure and predictable revenue stream for the city. But again, the argument, which I vigorously support, is that property taxes are a general tax that does not affect demand for municipal services. In other words, property tax systems may lack a cost incentive to reduce the total amount of waste a household generates because residents can continue to produce waste and pay their taxes at a fixed rate.

A user fee system can replace a property tax mechanism thereby sensitizing residents about their waste generation practices and providing them with an incentive to reduce and divert waste. When there is a direct cost involved for each garbage bag a household creates, the household will have a better understanding of the actual costs of waste. As an example, Peel has become the largest municipality in Ontario to adopt a user-pay three bag system where the first three bags of garbage are free. The city charges $1.00 a bag after that. In 2005 alone, Peel generated 442,015 tonnes of garbage under a two-bag limit, diverted 60 percent of its waste from landfills through recycling, reusing and cutting down on household waste production.

Toronto’s waste management workers are currently on strike. What does this mean for the city? It means mounting frustration, chaos, diffusion of municipal and civic responsibility and a wake-up call to our extravagant and consumerist lifestyles. Maybe a strike will provide us with the realization that we generate too much waste. Maybe we will have to re-think our waste management and turn to user fee systems which are environmentally and economically smarter. Could this strike act as an impetus to explore user fees in more depth?

Key message: User fees can relieve pressure on municipal property taxes and ultimately reduce the quantities of waste requiring disposal. This means less waste being sent to landfills which we know have numerous environmental health implications.

A carpool permit system...

OK, so first let me say that this is only an idea and that the wheels are still spinning in my head. I also acknowledge that getting something like this to work might be incredibly complex and difficult, but so be it.

Much concern is often put on how we drive cars. Many would argue we drive them too much, they're too big and there are too many of them. The latter may very well be (among others) a factor of wanting to drive by one's self. If you have four people who don't want to share a vehicle, they could go out and by their own. Now there are four vehicles on the road instead of one.

That's four times the GHG emissions, four times the congestion, four times worse air pollution and probably four times of a lot more other stuff. But what if we could reduce that.

Carpooling is slowly becoming a popular, or at least encouraged, thing to do. Carpool lanes are common on the main thoroughfares in many of North America's major urban centres, although they are often not enforced properly. Carpooling is also encouraged by many workplaces and online carpool networks are in existence where people can find convenient ways to carpool to and from regions.

Still, such methods seem to be of little match for the beast that is North Americans' feeling of entitlement to driving a car by themselves. It is a freeing experience. You can listen to your own music, go where you want, be safe from the weather and ultimately feel in control of your journey.

So what if the government were to implement an aggressive program to not only encourage carpooling or taking alternative transportation, but also severely discourage driving by one's self?

I propose a tax or penalty system. That is, people who drive by themselves would be taxed or fined. A law could be written that would require a special permit to drive by one's self, which could be set at a specific price. If people feel the need to drive by themselves, they could pay for a permit. Vehicles could be identified as having a "single-occupant" permit by placing tags on the license plate, similarly to insurance tags.

If one is caught driving by themselves without a permit, they could be fined at rates similar to speeding tickets or even harsher depending on the level of disincentive needed to change people's behaviour. The program could also recognize the need for people to drive by themselves sometimes, such as an emergency, and each non-permit vehicle could be allocated a series of 'emergency' coupons whereby they wouldn't get fined. However, if found to have been used in a non-emergency matter, serious penalties could be applied as to discourage misuse.

I can immediately tell that criticism to such an idea might stem from the issue of enforcement. It is true that such a policy might be difficult to enforce. But if tags are clearly displayed, police officers on routine patrol would easily be able to tell whether or not someone is legally driving by themselves.

All the permits sold could be put directly into alternative transportation projects, such as public transportation or bike lanes/paths. The revenue from fines could also be allocated to such programs but also be shared with the police service as to encourage effective enforcement.

Special exemptions could be made for particular businesses that are deemed to require travelling by one's self, such as electricians' vehicles or other workers who may need to carry a lot of equipment.

This could be done as a municipal bylaw (which would be difficult to enforce because of out-of-town travellers) or as a provincial or national law (which would work well with the car licensing programs).

I imagine there would be a lot of opposition (automakers, for one) to such a policy, but it could be effective.

What do you think?

Bill McKibben, mobilizing America on climate change action…

American environmentalist and author Bill McKibben, has and continues to vehemently spread awareness and education over global climate change. We don’t hear much about McKibben in Canada because of David Suzuki’s ubiquity, but McKibben has raised some really important questions around climate change and America’s energy challenge.

Among many of his noble efforts in the climate change movement, he has created a website called 350.org which is campaign dedicated to raising awareness over this salient issue. 350 refers to 350 parts per million. Climate change experts have identified this number as the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide emissions in our atmosphere. We are presently at 385 parts per million and as McKibben continues to exclaim “climate change is not a problem for the future; it’s a crisis for this moment". Anyone can join 350.org and become a member of this movement. More to come on local initiatives and groups you can join to further your knowledge on climate change and how you can educate and mobilize others in your community to think more seriously about it.

Marketing bottled water...

So where is the real fight in the bottled water debate?

It really depends on who you ask. Pose the question to an environmentalist and the answer is clearly a battle between tap and bottled water. But if you pose the question to the industry, you get quite a different answer. The bottled water industry would not compare the two but would instead consider it a battle between bottled water and other packaged drinks, like soft drinks or juices.

This is a very important distinction to recognize and respect. Not because it's necessarily the right one (the differences between bottled and tap water are great and weigh largely in favour of tap) , but because it is a view that is held by a very influential and highly resourced group: the bottled water industry itself.

While some may go as far as to say the industry is evil, from a marketing perspective the industry is masterful. After all, they manage to convince millions of people every year to pay a few bucks each for something they could get for higher quality at less than 1/10th of a penny.

There was a time when some of the main facets of the industry's arguments encompassed the advantages of bottled water over tap, citing convenience, taste, quality and, most of all, safety (I would imagine Walkerton boosted the sales of bottled water significantly). But as more and more reports and studies came out chastising the industry's activities related to bottled water, the industry has seemingly taken a step towards comparing itself not with tap water, but with other soft drinks and packaged beverages.

The reasoning behind this is fairly straightforward: bottled water looks better than the rest of the packaged beverages. It is marketed as a healthy alternative to traditionally sugar-filled and caffeinated drinks like Coke and Pepsi, which certainly hits consumers. An industry-wide push to recycle and use better shaped bottles has led to bottled water having better "environmental performance" (depending on your definition) than its competitors in the soft drinks industry.

Recognizing this argument is incredibly important. I first strongly encountered it when dealing with a municipality in Ontario that is considering banning the sale of bottled water in public buildings. One of the nation's biggest suppliers of bottled water was adamantly opposed to the potential ban and in its communication with the municipality it never once compared itself to tap water. The entire argument was based on how much of a great alternative it is to Coke, Pepsi and the like and how they really encourage recycling.

By changing the nature of the argument, the industry is able to effectively argue against anyone trying to do something about them, especially 'tap water advocates'. Rather than trying to counter them, the industry simply ignores them, which is far more lethal since tap water just gets left out of the conversation.

If people want to really promote tap water and discourage bottled water, the nature of the conversation with industry needs to be changed. Environmentalists and policymakers discussing tap water amongst themselves is only so effective when the dialogue switches gears when you actually talk to industry.

So just be aware.

How much energy does it take to produce bottled water?

I am reading a highly edifying book these days called “Bottlemania: How Water Went on Sale and Why We Bought It” written by a journalist named Elizabeth Royte. It discusses bottled water as a multifaceted issue that has entered disciplines such as economics, environmental science, ecology, engineering and business. It is an excellent book and I recommend it to anyone interested in the hitherto numerous controversies surrounding bottled water.

I have been doing some reading on the energy side of bottled water and let me tell you, there are some really striking stats. A lot of the data in this blog post is derived from the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California. So, we all know that bottled water costs a lot more than tap water. Somewhere in the range of 3,000 to 10,000 times the price you pay for tap water according to may experts on the economics of water. The numbers are not even worth sharing here because it has been statistically proven time and time again that bottled water simply costs a lot more than tap water. Anyway, this is what you should know about bottled water:

In the U.S., about 33 billion litres of bottled water are purchased every year. This is equivalent to 110 litres per person every year just for drinking purposes. The only beverage category with larger sales is carbonated soft-drinks aka CSDs. Yes this means that bottled water sales have surpassed beer and milk. Amid this exciting bottled water discussion there is a distinction we must make between two types of bottled water. Royte in her book makes this explicit in the first ten pages. “Purified water” includes municipal tap water that has received further treatment through distillation, deionization and reverse osmosis. “Spring Water” is derived from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the surface of the earth. This is how corporations access this water and subsequently bring it to the marketplace. And by the way, most of the purified water sales come from the three largest producers of bottled water including Coke (Dasani), Pepsi (Aquafina) and Nestle (everything).

ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY. This is the fascinating stuff. So energy is required in every step of the bottled water process. It takes energy to make the plastic materials used in bottles, then we have to fabricate the plastic into bottles, process the water prior to the bottling stage, fill and seal the bottle, transport the “product” and chill it. That requires copious amounts of energy. Combined, this is somewhere in the range of 5.6 to 10.2 megajoules (MJ). To put this in perspective, to produce tap water it requires about 0.0005 MJ of energy. Notice the massive disparity in the total energy used, about 2000 times the energy cost of producing tap water.

I am not going to delve into all of the stages of bottled water that require energy but the transportation aspect I must share. Firstly, air cargo and heavy trucks are common methods of transport for bottled water and are both really energy intensive, air cargo being the most. Using LA county as an example, think about this, the spring water that arrives in Southern California that has traveled close to 9000 KM all the way from Fiji has a huge energy cost. It is transported on ships and once it arrives in LA county it has to be locally transported on heavy trucks which are egregiously congesting and polluting the area. Combine the shipping and local trucking, we are looking at a total energy cost of 5.4 MJ.

All of the bottled water that comes from France uses a lot of energy in the transportation process. The French spring water is transported by truck from the source to the French ports, then it travels by ship across the Atlantic ocean, and then trained from the Northeast U.S. to LA county and then locally by truck. Add this together and you have used 5.8 MJ of energy just for transportation.

Key message: Bottled water is energy intensive, expensive and environmentally degrading.

Hmmm, do I want to be a Maserati or an F-16?...

Out of all the topics dominating the discussions over the adoption of electric cars these days, it's a tad surprising that one of the most talked-about has nothing to do with climate change, a revamping of the near lifeless American auto industry nor reducing the dependence on foreign oil. Instead, a good deal of talk is hovering around the amount of noise the cars will make (or lack there of).

If you've been in an electric car (or more probably a hybrid) you've probably noticed that they are remarkably quiet. The engine noise is significantly lower in an electric engine than in a combustion engine. For a quick example, simply compare the noise of an electric mower to a gas-powered one. Big difference. My mother once rented a hybrid and repeatedly forgot whether or not the car was one since it gave no clear indication.

Of course, the main concern over the lack of engine noise is not immediately directed at the driver being able to hear the engine, but moreso the people outside of the car. While having all the cars on the road run silently would have wonderful significance for noise pollution, it is not very safe.

When cars are loud you can hear them coming and stay away. After all, in a fight between human and moving vehicle, the moving vehicle often wins. If all cars ran silently, an upsurge in collisions with people could almost be guaranteed. Furthermore, other cars wouldn't necessarily be able to sense the quiet cars either.

This particular issue has a special significance for me that is probably shared by millions of others throughout the world. I'm a cyclist; both urban and distance. City roads and highways are already dangerous enough for cyclists, but imagine what it would be like if cyclists couldn't hear any of the cars coming by. A few days ago I went on a bike tour on the highways near Peterborough and cars, trucks and trailers went whizzing by me quite often. Because they are loud, I was able to prepare myself for having a semi-trailer fly-by inches away from me. If it had been silent, I would not be expecting it and I could very well be lying flat on the highway right now.

This is not a secret. So policymakers have been tossing about ideas as to what to do about it. The most common and popular choice seems to be requiring that each car be equipped with a sound making device. A letter to the editor in the most recent issue of The Economist took it one step further. A man from Victoria, BC (whose name I've forgotten) expressed the idea of "Vroomtones". Similar to ringtones for a cellphone, Vroomtones could be customizable noises your car could make. The possibilities are endless. Want to sound like a Ferrari? Or maybe a motorcycle noise is your thing? How about a tidal wave or a series of small explosions?

Electric cars might not be the fastest things on the road, but they'll sure sound like it.

Re-visiting that national parks conundrum…

Managing parks can always be challenging. As previously discussed, India and Botswana have serious political pressures with their park management. In India, state governments in the south are adding more zoning laws to protect the endangered tiger species. The creation of this zoning has led to the displacement of thousands of Indigenous peoples living within these vast parks. In Botswana, people are forcefully removed from parks because the government ostensibly wants to protect and preserve species. Removing human pressures is seen as an optimal goal. But remember, there is always that hidden agenda of actually getting to the natural resources that are overwhelmingly concentrated in these parks.

Is this really a problem though? Well, yes because natural resource extraction produces winners and losers. In natural resource management theory there is a concept called Pareto Optimality. The Pareto Optimality principle suggests “a state in which the resources of the environment are being used in such a way that no individual can be made better off without some other individual being made worse off. In other words, it describes a ‘zero-sum’ situation because new benefits that one individual receives must be compensated by losses experienced by another individual. So with context to parks and wildlife, time and time again resource interests from companies supersede those of community and wilderness interests. The benefits of resource extraction for instance, always favour the company because of collected capital or wealth, however the loser continues to be the community at large and the various species affected by the process of resource extraction.

Namibia seems to understand how to minimize this through their policy of Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) but this problem continues to be manifested in parks around the world.

So, the primary economic decision is always associated with extracting the resource in abundance to generate higher returns for the end product. The result, there is no concept of a conservation culture or wilderness recognition and at times, the environment is simply ravaged, leaving no room for regeneration.

This may not seem like a big issue but it certainly is. Canada will face numerous challenges in the future with its national and provincial parks. As natural resources dwindle in supply, we are going to turn to areas that we have not adequately explored yet because of rigid zoning laws. Those areas are parks. We need to take pro-active measure to ensure that those laws do not vanish. I think we need to have a stricter biosphere reserve zonation policy. The biosphere reserve concept was first introduced in 1968 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Its primary aims at that time were threefold- promote ecological sustainability, minimize biodiversity loss, and enhance linkages between cultural and biological diversity.

The biosphere reserve zonation concept is an effective and rational tool for park management. It has three zones- The core zone monitors natural changes and serves as a conservation area for biodiversity. Human influences are limited because of its rigorous protection standards. The next zone is equally as important for the park- a buffer zone which allows for low-impact activities such as research, environmental education and recreation. Finally, the transition zone, as stated by UNESCO, allows and encourages sustainable use of resources by local communities.

Key message: Biosphere reserves are crucial for advocating the protection of ecosystems and striving towards protecting the rights of the species found therein. They involve and heavily draw upon the community for consultation and advice.
They also limit natural resource extraction because the rights of wildlife supersede those of the companies.

Trent University's summer endeavours...

Universities are interesting things. The idea of one probably brings thoughts of learning, knowledge and especially at a liberal-arts school like Trent, progressive policies. While we could bat around the actual definition of progressive for days, I use the term to describe policies that are more holistic, perhaps edgy and certainly less than holistic.

Environmentalists should be familiar with the idea of progressiveness. After all, environmentalism in its modern form is a component of progressiveness.

University's are often at the forefront of developing or at least implementing new technologies and ideas. I'm currently working at Trent University over the summer and I'm witnessing a whole swath of these new technologies and ideas being put into place.

Thanks in large part to a generous donation Montreal Canadien's GM Bob Gainey, Trent is currently constructing one of Canada's greenest buildings. Known as the Camp Kawartha Environment Centre, the straw-bale building will be powered by the sun, have innovative rainwater collection systems and have composting toilets.

Last week, this year's Trent graduates gathered with guests, faculty and staff for convocation. The convocation turned out to be a very "green" affair. Apart from grads sporting green gowns, free transit passes were given out to discourage driving to the ceremonies and encourage the use of public transportation and graduates were encouraged to take the "green pledge", an oath to take the environment into consideration during one's future endeavours. The most notable aspect of the ceremonies was the decision to not provide bottled water, which was a significant change from the norm at Trent and throughout North America. The move was expected to save thousands of bottles from being consumed. Appropriately, bottled water's worst nightmare and Canada's own Maude Barlow was awarded an honorary degree as well.

A significant addition is also being added to the Athletic Centre, which is supposed to be standardized at one of LEED's (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) highest bars.

But we must also acknowledge the institutional nature of Trent. It may be a wonderful breeding ground for progressive ideas, but every breeding ground needs an infrastructure. As such, the 'green' endeavours of our small university this summer may very well be overshadowed by the 'not-so-green' activities.

While the Camp Kawartha Environment Centre might be one of Canada's greenest, the DNA Building being built just north of it is anything but. Despite a multi-million dollar price tag, the facility is being built very quickly and the materials are fairly cheap in quality. There is no effort to make the buildings architecturally interesting or to even make them fit with the rest of the school. And because Trent is almost completely surrounded by Nature Areas, a good deal of greenspace has been removed for building and parking lots.

To the north of the campus, a highly controversial hydro dam is being built. While it will deliver greenhouse-gas free power to Peterborough, its construction has resulted in the clearance of acres of Trent's famous Nature Areas.

Roads are parking lots are being put all over campus. One such road, currently designated 'temporary', has gone over a wonderful piece of grassland by the athletic facility that once housed two beach volleyball courts. Unfortunately, I've learned over the years that nothing like that at Trent is really temporary. And even if it were, I highly doubt they'd put the volleyball courts back.

Even some of Trent's most modest 'green' efforts are being squashed. Literally. A month or so ago, landscapers started digging up tons of grassy area around the sides of the buildings to replant grass seeds. Just as that slowly started to get going, we find this morning that a construction crew brought all their trucks into the replanted area. Bye bye grass.

Trent is a wonderful place. It's full of greenery and is trying its best to maintain its 'green' reputation. Unfortunately, sometimes other forces are a little too strong. The worry is that these other forces will eventually remove so much of the 'green' that Trent will lose the majority of its natural environment. That environment, both physical and amongst the people, is what makes Trent unique and so great.

Gleick on Peak Water...

Peter Gleick is the President of the Pacific Institute out of Oakland, California. He is an engineer who specializes in energy and resources with a focus on water. I am reading some of his articles in preparation for my honours thesis. Anyone interested in desalination, peak water, climate change and water, and the human right to water, I encourage you to read some of his articles available at the Pacific Institute website. Even if you are not particularly interested in water issues at this point, I would still recommend you look into desalination and its controversies. Forthcoming blog entries will delve into this technological phenomenon and explore both its advantages and disadvantages from a social, economic, environmental and political lens.

This particular video clip discusses the concept of peak water. As you have noticed through this blog and through the media, water is only becoming more of a salient issue.

Key message: "Anyone who solves the problem of water deserves not one Nobel Prize but two: one for science and the other for peace." - John F. Kennedy

Green Cities: Eco cities and density…

I have blogged about green eco cities in the past particularly focusing on Curitiba, Montreal and a tad on Toronto. As an undergrad student who is planning on studying urban planning at grad school, this is a good time to continue a lively discussion on why green eco cities are critical for sustainable development in the 21st century. But really, green eco cities in the 21st century are those that are going to execute new initiatives that embrace and benefit the environment, local economies and quality of life.

There are many perspectives to the green eco city debate. Some believe that sound public transit systems are the most optimal way to reduce pollution and congestion and overall increase the efficiency and livability of city life. Some turn our attention to adequate waste management programs including recycling, composting etc. Some believe in taxes to reduce pollution like London’s congestion charge zone, which I have blogged about in the past. And the technological optimists point to green roofs on city buildings, wind turbines on the waterfront (assuming the city has one), solar panels including photovoltaic and micro-solar and finally geothermal power. I am a vehement advocate for all of these wonderful initiatives; however my interest lies with density.

Cities like San Francisco and Vancouver are firm believers in transport and density planning. Transport and density planning for these cities have included infrastructure to support walking, cycling and public transit. This means that city planning has focused on limiting outward growth and preserving large amounts of open space in their respective urban centres. This has in some way created a greater sense of community. Of course, density patterns will always be correlated with urban amenities meaning that areas with multiple services, green spaces, public transit access and educational institutions will have larger groups of people living in them. For instance, San Francisco and Bogota have high population densities and therefore the need to design neighbourhoods of high-density with urban amenities is justified.

The green eco cities that concentrate their energies on density planning are going to have both economic and environmental success. Let me take you through an example of density planning as it pertains to urban water systems: Sometimes a person living in a low-density neighbourhood pays the same rate for water as a person who lives in a high-density neighbourhood. In theory, the person in the high-density neighbourhood should pay less as they use a smaller amount of piping (because housing complexes are so much closer together) than individuals living in low-density areas. Higher density housing helps lower the costs of piping installation and reduces the maintenance costs for actually pumping the water through it. The water department loses money on low-density neighbourhoods; therefore causing high density areas to bear the burden of this financial loss through higher water rates and tax payments. Cities that begin to recognize these discrepancies and remedy them will gain tremendously.

Key message: Density planning is the indispensable component of green eco cities. High-density neighbourhoods can only be designed and built if citizens see the numerous economic, social and environmental aspects of doing so. Generally though, and as epitomized in Curitiba, a high-diversity and high-density urban environment creates employment opportunities, ultimately providing an impetus for citizens to live in closer propinquity to the urban centre.

Gee is a critic of Toronto’s new 5 cent plastic bag charge…

Marcus Gee, an international affairs columnist for the Globe and Mail, recently wrote an article criticizing Toronto’s new bylaw requiring all grocery stores to charge 5 cents for plastic bags. He writes “There is more sanctimony than sense behind this rule, which took effect Monday and which will require even the hard-pressed corner store guy to post signs explaining the five-cent charge.”

Other critics like Gee, also mention how plastic bags are recyclable and reusable anyway and serve multiple purposes. Marcus argues that they are especially useful for lining garbage bins. He thinks that we will have to buy plastic bags anyway whether from a grocery store or from another vendor to serve these various functions. One part of his article that is particularly irksome, erroneous and ill-informed is his discussion over landfills and waste diversion. “Modern landfills are marvels of environmental management that have next to no impact on the land around them. Impermeable, high-tech membranes prevent liquids from escaping into the groundwater. Methane is funnelled off and burned to produce electricity. “

Firstly, all modern landfills constitute “hazardous industrial waste landfill” and can be technical and scientific and therefore be exclusionary and esoteric to the general public. There are still a lot of uncertainties surrounding their impacts on groundwater, water quality and the environment generally. Further, they take up vast amounts of space, have no element of sustainability and produce a lot of social and environmental injustices. Additionally, many environmental law cases in Ontario deal with the controversies over landfills. The odour from the landfill site can permeate local farms and residential areas. Landfill odour can constitute a nuisance and unreasonable interference. It endangers life and health. Citizens have a lot of causes of actions (torts) that they can use for this very reason to sue and condemn the use of landfills.

Now, in terms of charging for plastic bags (something Gee thinks is preposterous), there are many benefits. In short, considering the number of shoppers in the metropolitan area, a five cent charge can induce citizens to change their behaviour. In addition, a user charge can persuade citizens to make the investment in buying reusable bags which are sturdier, compact and can carry a higher volume of groceries.

All the revenues collected from this five cent shopping bag charge will accumulate in the store’s budget, and it is expected that the money will be used for environmental projects. Again, “environmental projects and or funds” is quite nebulous. However, there can certainly be more regulation here whereby the municipal government monitors how these stores use their revenue. The biggest criticism of the 5 cent charge should not be its futility, but maybe how the 5 cents will be used. Economically, it makes sense. Chris and I both did some quick math on this in a previous post which you could see here.

Toronto wants to achieve a 70 percent diversion of waste from landfills by 2012. This is feasible. And achieving this will require a serious cut down on those ubiquitous disposable coffee cups, higher rates of composting, recycling and user charges like the 5 cent plastic bag fee. Regulatory measures are also significant for waste diversion and if the implementation of a bylaw reduces total waste generated, then a 5 cent charge certainly has merit. Marcus Gee may not approve of these various initiatives but they are all indispensable for achieving a higher waste diversion rate.

Key message: The real goal of such a bylaw is to promote sustainability through the use of reusable bags. Charging a small fee for plastic bags gets people thinking about the environment and provides an inclination and incentive to either consume less or make a switch to reusable bags.