Smart-metering, peak-demand pricing and rising costs for electric heating...

Ontario is starting to set up its 'smart' energy system. Everyday, hundreds of homes throughout the province are being visited by the local utility company to switch out the old electricity meters with 'smart' ones.

These brainiac meters are different from the current ones in that they are capable of measuring electricity usage at different times throughout the day and have the ability to send these readings immediately to the utility company via a wireless signal. Moreover, with the appropriate additions, some of these meters will be able to also send this information to the homeowner, allowing them to view up-to-date information on their usage. Even Google has gotten involved, so we know the possibilities could very well be endless.

The installation of these meters will allow Ontario to implement a new pricing structure for electricity. When demand is high, the price to the consumer will increase. When demand is low, the price will be cheaper.

Currently, the Ontario pricing structure is a flat rate. No matter what time people decide to turn on their stoves or do their laundry, the price is the same. So people do that stuff when it's most convenient: often in the morning before they do to work or past 5:00 after work. This is fine for the homeowner, who pays the same rate. But for the province, which produces and purchases the power, it's not a flat rate.

The production of electricity comes from a variety of sources: coal, hydro, nuclear and some renewables. But the cost of producing electricity varies from source to source. Coal and hydro are fairly cheap, but nuclear and renewables not so much. So when demand is low, more power comes from the cheaper sources, and when demand is high, more has to come from the more expensive sources, costing the province (and ultimately, the taxpayers) more money.

Sometimes demand on the grid can be so high (see heat waves & air conditioning use in Toronto) that the province's total production capacity is not high enough. It then has to import power from out of province and even out of the country. This is even more expensive.

So if the province can make higher-demand times more expensive to the consumer, it hopes that people will start to do these electricity-sucking activities at different times of the day, thereby spreading out the demand and reducing the number of times that the province needs to use its really expensive power or import it. It's a great idea.

While this will give homeowners a beneficial increase in control over their electricity usage, those who use electricity consistently will get hit hard. The biggest group of consistent electricity users are those who use electric heating & cooling. If electric heaters are needed to maintain a consistent level of heat in a home, they will operate throughout the day, at both high and low demand times. In all likelihood, the higher demand times will be much more expensive than the lesser demand times cheaper, so these people will get hit.

And some people trying to be 'green' might also get hit. In a recent conversation with a friend of mine who had once considered getting a geothermal system, he pointed out that geothermal systems require an electric heat pump to circulate the air or water through the pipes underground and in the house. These will run all day and are anything but light on electricity use.

Despite these downsides, the smart metering system is a wonderful idea. I've come across several ideas that take the existing infrastructure several steps further. What if the appliances were smart enough to communicate with the meter and only operate a lower-demand times? What if heating units were able to optimize when they operate and strike that perfect balance of cost and home temperature?

The smart metering is a first step. Our electricity system is about to get a lot more futuristic. It should be very cool.

Community outreach and recycling on campus

A number of months ago Trent launched a new environmental program with a grant from the Ontario Trillium Foundation. Trent has officially partnered with a not-for-profit group called Community Living Peterborough to establish an innovative waste diversion program on campus. The Ontario Trillium Foundation has agreed to provide funding of $67,400 for this program which is centred on institutional and community interaction.

The recycling program on campus provides volunteer opportunities to people with intellectual disabilities and other individuals who use the services of Community Living Peterborough. This environmental partnership is an example of how communities can collectively play a role in waste reduction whether it is on campus, at elementary schools or community centres. Such a program can have social benefits and practical waste diversion outcomes. Moreover, with the support of community volunteers, Trent's waste diversion program is strengthened and gives Trent staff, students and faculty an opportunity to operate a sustainable program. This program will also create better awareness over efficient waste management practices that can influence the city’s waste diversion programs.

The waste diversion initiative, funded by the Ontario Trillium Foundation is a step forward with bottom-up planning. With the environmental partnership between the university and Community Living Peterborough, community volunteer positions are now created on campus giving these individuals an opportunity to be engaged with the university’s waste diversion process and have a hands-on education. This initiative is an example of how a community group, a group of students, faculty and staff can come together to increase waste diversion on campus. As our campus progresses on waste diversion, we may see more funding opportunities if we articulate the connection between education, waste management and community well-being.

Kelowna, BC: Growth accompanied with risk…

Kelowna is in a glorious geographical location. Situated right in British Columbia’s Okanagan valley surrounded by a vast array of forests, wilderness and natural environments. Climate conditions have always been variable in Kelowna- mild winters and warm to hot pleasant summers. Good climate conditions, spectacular scenery, and a non-congested environment are only some of the many benefits one obtains from living there. Additionally, it is very quiet and calm and simply ideal for any urbanite who has become tired of the congested city life. So people have been moving out of the cities into this area purchasing property that has a price tag over a million dollars.

Alas, the dismal side of the story is the region’s susceptibility to forest fires. It really boils down to a game of risks. Many residents in the region are completely cognizant of the forest fire risks but simply prefer to inhabit an area where natural beauty is ubiquitous. Forest fires, including the recent Terrace Mountain fire have caused tremendous damage to homes and infrastructure within the area.

Forest fires have destroyed hundreds of homes over the years due to drier summers and the recent phenomenon of pine beetles. The pine beetles have been chewing away at the lodgepole pine trees so rapidly that thousands of trees have become susceptible to devastating fires. Climate change is generally warming BC winters which allows pine beetles to proliferate because the temperature is not cold enough to kill them.

There are some serious planning and economic development challenges in Kelowna. Western Kelowna had the fastest population growth in Canada from 2001 to 2006. Housing development projects including sub-divisions and million dollar homes have been erected and continue to be built because of the sufficient demand and popularity of the region. All of this housing development has provided economic justification for big box stores to move in as well - Canadian Tire and Wal-Mart just to name a few.

Any developing or booming area will be accompanied with commercial outlets or stores to provide goods and services. But such commercial development should not be happening in the wilderness and natural areas of the Okanagan. People decide to leave more urbanized settings because they want a life that is not overwhelmed with housing and commercial development and congestion. However, despite this, population growth and development are now concentrating in these natural environments because of all of the aforementioned benefits. However, I do not think these people are being adequately advised on all of the risks that are posed to them. For instance, are they aware of the egregious pine beetle problem that is only being exacerbated by climate change?

Climate change has conflict and uncertainty written all over it. We know that climate change is making the region generally drier and therefore more prone to forest fires. Yet local planning departments continue to process an abundance of new residential and commercial building permits. Local economic development is prosperous but these planning departments cannot overlook the risks posed by climate change. What needs to happen is more dense and concentrated growth in the municipality of Kelowna (population 106,000). This would be much more appropriate especially for commercial development and safer in general.

Having commercial development in the more environmentally sensitive and pristine areas is irrational environmentally speaking. Residents can travel to the municipality to access these commercial amenities. It is dangerous to encourage such vast growth in this region because of the potential exacerbation risks of forest fires in the future.

Key message: Planning departments and economic development officers have to be more careful these days with issuing housing and commercial permits. Though anyone is entitled to live in the Okanagan region, the risks are quite high and climate change is only providing more uncertainty. This must be factored into the equation and planning departments should be encouraging growth in the municipality which is a safe distance from the dangers associated with forest fires.

Are you an environmentalist?...

I posed this question on our blog several months ago after watching the film Addicted to Plastic at the Peterborough Film Festival. The film's creator asked this of the many people he interviewed during his film, including farmers, sailors, scientists and entrepreneurs.


The results were mixed. Some were very happy to consider themselves environmentalists, including some farmers, citing their intrinsic tie to the environment, while others were vehemently opposed to the idea, such as an entrepreneur who reuses material to build large objects and some scientists who felt that shouldn't pick sides as it would ruin their research credibility.

So what exactly does it mean to be an environmentalist?

According to some dictionaries, an environmentalist is one who "advocates for or works towards protecting the natural environment from destruction or pollution". That's fairly vague, but such vagueness is entirely appropriate when looking at such a broad term.

The word is relative to each person. Some environmentalists will do anything and everything in their power to "protect the natural environment". Others may only make environmentally-focused decisions every once in awhile. Some may not even know they're doing something 'environmentally friendly'.

But it is this first group that seems to have grabbed the popular definition of what an environmentalist is. These are the granola-munching, Greenpeace flag-waving, ultra-vegan, reuse everything, 'don't bother that mosquito because it's a beautiful creature' types. Quite simply, they are the hardcores. And I should point out that there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, I'm quite impressed by the lifestyle that many of these people live. I certainly could never do it.

But the problem is that when the average person considers what it is to be an environmentalist, this is what first comes to mind. The entrepreneur wants nothing to do with a label that would associate him with the hardcores. And some others might simply feel they don't 'qualify' to be an environmentalist because they are not up to the standard set by the hardcores. Sally down the road might be very 'green', but since she still drives her Volvo to work and frequently watches movies on her Plasma TV, she thinks there is no way she could be an environmentalist.

The idea that environmentalists are limited to the hardcores is something that needs to change. It is certainly on its way. As the shopping list of environmental dangers is getting more and more attention, a growing number of people are starting to act 'greener'. And while government incentives are certainly helping out, there seems to be more to it than economics. People actually care.

Four years ago I didn't really care. I recycled because my parents told me to, left the TV on for hours after I left the room, had no idea what global warming was (and didn't care) and enjoyed spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere while doing donuts in a car.

But before you think I'm about to preach to you like an environmental convert, I haven't changed that much. I still love to drive, watch lots of TV, eat non-local, processed food and fly across Canada several times a year.

But I know the environment is important. I'm trying to do my part. I'm living a relatively 'greener' life. But I'm not perfect. But I consider myself an environmentalist.

You don't have to be a hardcore to care about the environment or to contribute in some way to helping it out.

Lastly, I would like to touch on the importance of using such a term. One might very easily toss aside this entire argument because self-labelling may not do anything when it comes to actual behaviour. This is true (cough, One million acts of green, cough), to a point. But feeling positive about your lifestyle is important. For years, the environmental strategy was to make people feel guilty about their behaviour. But it hasn't really worked and it may have exacerbated the problem.

But if people are more inclined to feel good about some of their actions rather than guilty about what they don't do, this whole environmental thing might be a lot more successful.

So ask yourself, even though you might hate the hardcores or don't strive to their standard, do you care about the environment in some way or another? Are you an environmentalist?

Winnipeg is going to privatize its water???...

It is heresy, they say. Blasphemy! Amongst environmental circles the sheer word is nary spoken without a plateful of disdain. Its polysyllables scathe one's ears, bringing forefront to the mind visions of fat cigars, corporate suits, a desertified planet and only the green found in your pocket.

The word--dare I say it?!-is privatization.

Melodrama is certainly not unique to environmentalists. Those of us who have gone through puberty know that all too well. It is not always warranted, but a growing coalition of Winnipeggers feel the drama unfolding around the word in their city is more than appropriate.

The city of Winnipeg (pop. ~650,000) needs massive upgrades of its drinking water systems in response to a crumbling infrastructure and new health regulations from the province. The city's estimated price tag is coming in at around $1 billion. That's a lot of money, especially for one of Canada's--it is the coolest one--'have-not' provinces.

The city is in a bind. The city's Mayor, Sam Katz, says the city can't afford it on its own. The solution appears to be to get somebody else to help pay for it: the private sector. The proposal, which is scheduled to be tabled to city council in the next few weeks, would create an independent utility to manage the city's water system and update the infrastructure. The controversy lies in the public-private partnership that would create the new utility.

Aghast! There is that word again. Private.

Many local residents, along with a slew of well-known observers including Maude Barlow, are concerned that the public-private partnership will ultimately transform into a completely privatized system where a private company could raise rates and restrict supply as it sees fit. Winnipeg being the landmark pioneer that it is, the domino effect would appear and the rest of Canada could be privatized. But in all seriousness, this is something we should be concerned about.

Many years ago, the Bolivian city of Cochabamba privatized its drinking water supply to an American company called Bechtel. Overnight, the price of water skyrocketed and before anyone knew what hit them they were putting a hefty chunk--almost equal to their rent--of their already small income towards drinking water. Riots ensued, people were killed and the company was kicked out. We don't want such a thing in Canada. Unlikely in Canada, but water is a special thing.

Katz has openly stated that this would not be a pure privatization of Winnipeg's water because 100% of the assets of this company would remain city-owned. However, other councilors and members of the public are criticizing the unclear language in his proposal he plans to table to city council. He doesn't dispute this fact and claims he'll clear it up by the time the meeting rolls around in a week or so. Several people, including many councillors, don't believe him and would like the proposal delayed until September so everyone can understand it properly.

There might even be a city-wide referendum on the idea. I wouldn't be surprised if the referendum ends up costing a pretty penny, too. Perhaps they should privatize that...I kid because I love.

Personally, I don't think they're planning to privatize the city's drinking water system. That would be insane. But I do think a public-private partnership could be dangerous. In these situations, the public ends of doling out taxpayer money and the private group makes a profit. But such a situation is not very surprising. After all, Canada's municipal water systems are all getting old and are in need of repair, but it gets more expensive every minute to do it. And in the more conservative, smaller-government mindset we find ourselves in, the governments throughout Canada are a little less trigger happy than they used to be with cash.

Establishing an independent, arms-length, city-owned utility to manage the city's system would be a smart idea. Several cities have done so. Peterborough, though not as large as Winnipeg, has had one for many years that handles water, sewage and electricity. Judging by the budget size of some programs I'm familiar with of theirs, I don't think they're struggling for much cash.

Despite the worries over the proposal, several people are in full support of privatizing the system. It will improve the water quality, make the service more efficient and ultimately make everyone better off because the free market rules all, they say. Hogwash. If it were a competitive market they might have a case in an economics class, but this is water and a monopoly does not make the world a better place. Efficiency and quality are interesting points, but the government already has very high standards for water quality and the efficiency might come at a cost of very high rates. Not to say pricing water is necessarily evil, but something tells me a monopoly would take it too far.

But back to the actual proposal. What they should do is set up the utility, keep it completely city-owned, pay the private firm a management fee to keep them happy if they continue to be involved but revenue control will remain in the hands of the city where its answerable to the public and not shareholders.

Oh, and if cost is such a problem, didn't the federal government fork out a couple tens of billions of dollars for things like this?

Waste diversion programs are not cheap…

but we could be paying for them partially through revenue from landfill tipping fees. Within the past two years, the city of Toronto purchased the Green Lane Landfill in St. Thomas, Ontario for $220 million. A worthy investment considering that projected capacity is until 2034 (under current waste consumption patterns). Because the landfill has a decent capacity, and with the augmentation of waste diversion programs like composting, recycling and waste education, the city should institute a landfill tax also known as tipping fees.

Landfill tipping fees are fairly common in the U.K. and certain U.S. states like California. Tipping fees are like a tax levied in units of currency per unit of weight or volume; for example, $/yard or $/kg or $ $/tonne.

Toronto currently has no tipping fee policy but by introducing one at the Green Lane Landfill it can potentially induce more waste reduction efforts, resulting in a total decrease in the flow of waste sent to the landfill. Why landfill tipping fees? The main impetus for this policy would be to control and price external waste which could offset the city’s own waste management costs. For instance, through establishing a tipping fee to external users or municipalities, it could cover the landfill operating costs such as land taxes and property fees, environmental monitoring costs like repairing liners to prevent groundwater contamination, and service costs to offset payments for employees who work at the landfill.

Operating a landfill is costly especially one that collects waste from the city of Toronto. The city should not merely invite hundreds of municipalities across the region to use the landfill however, those currently using the landfill should be subjected to tipping fees based on how much waste they bring.

On the waste conservation side, having a tipping fee in place could provide a stronger incentive for external municipalities to reduce waste and reduce costs. In other words, let's say that Toronto’s tipping fee is set at a price such as $35/tonne of waste. This fee can act as an incentive for users to send less waste to avoid such a financial burden. Of course, this would mean that municipalities can simply use other landfills in the region that do not have such tipping fees. However, as waste management becomes even more of a salient issue, we may witness a good provincial policy decision to bring about legislation that require all landfills in Ontario have a tipping fee in place.

Toronto can benefit tremendously by charging these external users a designated tipping fee which can help offset some of its annual waste management costs. If municipalities continue to send their waste to the landfill because it is simply more convenient and efficient to do so, then Toronto can consider raising its tipping fee which can provide additional revenue to fund increased waste diversion activities.

Toronto’s waste diversion rate is hovering around the 60% mark and this can increase with more funding (which we know is limited right now). For instance, increased revenues can be directed towards Toronto’s Greenbin composting program, blue box recycling program or even for consumer education, teaching consumers about the merits of conservation and waste reduction effort.

The city has a goal of 70 percent solid waste diversion from landfill by 2010. Achieving such a rate would extend the life of the Green Lane landfill until 2034. However, waste diversion programs would require more funding in the range of $50 million annually to achieve this goal. While landfill tipping fees are not the be all end all solution to this, they can surely help raise some revenue to achieve the city's goal of 70 percent solid waste diversion from landfill by 2010.

Key message: Landfill tipping fees can provide Toronto with more economic flexibility when it manages waste diversion and provides waste consumer education. It can also discourage municipalities to send their waste to the landfill because of the exorbitant tipping fee in place.

Green Cities: Peterborough's expanding trail system...

Peterborough is known for its natural prowess. The streets are laced with trees and greenery, parks can be found all throughout the city and a sparkling, yet slightly polluted river runs right through it. It is justifiably regarded as the "Gateway to Cottage Country" in central Ontario and acts as a wonderful transition from the busier metropolis of south-western Ontario (Toronto etc) to the isolated wilderness of the Canadian Shield.

Over the past few years I've maintained that one of the best ways to travel and see the world is on a bicycle. Such a statement is very easily applied to seeing and getting around in Peterborough. The city of approximately 70,000 people (many of which are seniors and students) is filled with a picturesque and convenient trail system. The trail system runs all the way from the busy, box-store filled Lansdowne St all the way to Trent University at the northern tip of the city. It is a paved path that runs along the river most of the way and has very few crossings of major roadways. In addition the system goes west from downtown in the large and beautiful Jackson's Park.

The trail system, which is home to walkers, runners, cyclists etc, is expanding. The city is ripping up abandoned railway lines and putting in smoothly paved trails, connecting the southern end of the city, much of which is a large industrial park, to the trail system. There are several abandoned rail lines throughout the city that are expected to be replaced with concrete, making the trail system more user-friendly and accessible for those around the city.

Additionally, the city has put in bike lanes on some of the busier streets that connects some of the separated trails, allowing for a much more continuous system.

Having a connected, easy-to-use and naturally aesthetically pleasing trail system will encourage people in cities to try alternative modes of transportation--most notably, bicycles--by making the rides easy, convenient and enjoyable. Good on 'ya, Peterborough!

Desalination: The San Diego Way…

Proposed desalination plants on the coast of California.

Southern California is being plagued with water shortages. Already an incredibly populous region, population growth is placing more pressure and stress on the region’s water supply. San Diego County in particular (population 3 million), which virtually imports all of its fresh water, faces a tricky natural resource quagmire that leaves all of its residents worrisome about future fresh water supply. With the rising cost of importing water along with the infeasibility of actually meeting water demand (due to increasing population), San Diego has started a massive desalination project. The county figures that taking advantage of its geographic proximity to the ocean would be beneficial for obtaining lots of water- of course it has to be desalinated first.

The project is called the Carlsbad Desalination Project and will be the nation’s biggest plant by 2011. Its purpose is to supply water for the drought-prone county of San Diego. You are probably wondering what the numbers are like: Costs $300 million and is being built by Poseidon Resources Inc. of Stamford, Connecticut. It will produce ~50 million gallons of drinking water each day which is enough to supply 112,000 households in the San Diego County area.

Progress on desalination around the world has hitherto proven to be controversial. Here is my analysis on the Carlsbad Desalination Plant:
Firstly, the plant would be a state driven natural resource management solution and therefore be more locally controlled. This means that once the various water agencies collect the water from the plant, it will be easier to allocate it to the users (residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural). Mainly because water agencies will be closer to the supplier and can help set more rigid standards for allocation purposes which inherently fosters a conservation ethic.

Importing water from upstate can be complicated because water agencies continue to fight over what constitutes “reasonable allocation”. The County currently imports its water at a cost of $526 per acre-foot (1 acre foot equals 1,233,481 litres). Desalinated water would cost $900 per acre foot. A bit more expensive but again, it is more local. Quantity fluctuations and allocation disputes always accompany imported water as reported by water managers in the area.

Importing water also requires an abundance of trucks for transportation. As discovered in the energy usage of bottled water, it takes a lot of energy to move water whether it is bottled or tanked. Smog levels are egregiously bad in the county already, and more carbon emissions in the air would simply exacerbate air quality. Minimizing imported water would help a little bit with climate change stabilization in Southern California.

More on energy: between 60 and 75 gallons of water would be generated per kilo watt-hour, this translates into 4,700 to 5,400 kWh per acre-feet. Water imports from the Colorado River require 2,000 kWh per acre-foot for water delivery and water from the state water project consumes 3,000 kWh per acre-foot to deliver water to Southern California. Therefore, it is more energy intensive to desalinate water but San Diego could be powering its main plant with energy from wind turbines and solar power as an option.

While I believe that water conservation is the most important consideration for any densely populated region, technological projects can provide some relief. A desalination plant in San Diego County, though highly criticized, will set a precedent for other cities to learn from. San Diego has regulations on lawn watering, water metering and water withdrawals that are indispensable for conserving water. Desalination should also face some sort of legislative requirement in terms of how much can be allocated to the users. Moreover, the county should be very strict about how desalinated water is used.

Key message: Water shortages are going to continue to plague the region and if the merits of desalination will help mitigate these shortages, then it is a solution worth pursuing.

Green Cities: Bundanoon-The Australian town that banned bottled water...

Well, it looks as though someone has finally conquered the industry and managed to ban the bottled stuff in a municipality.

Last week, the small Australian town of Bundanoon voted nearly unanimously to ban the sale of bottled water in its stores. This legislation is thought to be the first of its kind in the world. Up until now, the most notable bans of bottled water were within public buildings, including several Canadian cities.

Banning bottled water in public buildings appears to be quite a tough battle in Canada. At this point it's the most attainable jurisdiction for public bodies to enact such a ban. But banning within an entire municipality is a whole other ball game. Not only are government-owned buildings prohibited from selling it, more importantly, privately-owned businesses are prohibited from doing it as well.

For many businesses, in Canada at least, such an idea would hit a giant wall laced with barbed wire and laser cannons. After all, bottled water is one of the most popular and profitable products sellers can dish out. And since the health authorities haven't found anything that would pose significant danger to humans--other studies contradict that thinking--the businesses don't feel they'd have much reason to ban bottled water.

But the shopkeepers in Bundanoon felt quite differently. They voted unanimously for the ban, citing environmental concerns and the attempt by a bottling company to pump water from one of the town's groundwater reservoirs back to its bottling facility in Sydney. Undoubtedly, the bottled water would be sold back to the town's residents. It's not particularly surprising that something like that might bother people.

The lone voices of opposition during the vote came from (unsurprisingly) a representative from the bottled water industry and one resident who was concerned that tourists wouldn't have anything to drink. Instead, the town proposes to build additional water fountains and supply re-usable canisters labeled "Bundy on Tap".

It's true that this town might be in a unique position. It is very small (approximately 2,500 people live there), Australia is suffering from a very significant drought so any available water supplies probably shouldn't be touched by the bottled water industry, and it was subject to an 'invasion' by a bottling company. But this type of thing has to start somewhere.

Soon enough other municipalities will start to realize that they are not all that different from Bundanoon. Freshwater supplies are expected to dwindle in the coming decades, even in water-rich Canada, and bottled water companies will start to take from riskier sources of water. That is, sources that entire towns or cities rely on (some do this already).

The ban has already picked up some steam in Australia. The premier of New South Wales (the province Bundanoon is located in) is in full support of the ban and has banned bottled water in all public facilities. Hopefully, such a ban can be applied to a larger area.

This ban is a huge step. On its own, it won't do too much, but it will undoubtedly pick up momentum and start spreading to other areas. Perhaps it'll stay in Australia for awhile, but inevitably such a thing will migrate to the rest of the world. But don't be surprised to see the bottled water industry fire up its marketing arsenal for what will probably be the fight of its life.

The G8 adds to the list of ambitious targets, but something is missing...

(Picture from the Globe & Mail)

During this year's G8 summit in Italy, the eight leaders of (supposedly) the world's most important eight industrialized economies (Canada, U.S., Russia, Italy, France, England, Germany and Japan) created ambitious targets to reduce GHG emissions by 80 percent by 2050. This applies to the world's 32 'industrialized' countries. They had previously agreed to a 50 percent reduction in the same time frame, but since their ultimate goal appears to keep the world from warming more than 2 degrees Celcius, they had to ramp it up a bit.

Many will applaud and praise the G8 for setting these historic and ambitious targets. It's true, these are big and fancy, but when you read into it a bit more carefully, you'll realize, just like other big target announcements, that it's probably no more than a source of political bragging rights.

Targets are great. After all, you have to know where to shoot before you pull the trigger. But the problem for the G8 is that (for the most part) they don't really have a gun, let alone a trigger. Climate change-focused targets have been the popular thing over the past few years. In Canada, Stephen Harper's government pledged to reduce GHG emissions by 20% by 2020 from 2006 levels. The indicators thus far point to a big ol' negatory in the success of reaching those goals.

The most notable climate change target has been the epic failure that is the Kyoto Accord. Many countries signed it, but few have achieved the relatively limited targets of a 6% reduction by 2012 from 1990 levels set out to be achieved in three years time. Canada, during the Chretien years, actually stated it would exceed the Kyoto targets. But instead the country's emissions rose by nearly 27%. Good on us.

Targets with no plan, such as the G8 plan, are basically useless, especially when made toothless from a disconnect to any form of binding law. It's no different than the hungover teenager making a vow to themselves to never drink again. Guess what? They will. And so will the G8. Without almost anything but pure moral obligation (sure, some countries have slowly instituted cap-and-trade plans...) the G8 will probably keep on pumping the GHG emissions into the atmosphere.

Furthermore, these ambitious targets are full of many holes. What base year should we use? No doubt the U.S. and Canada will recommend we use 2005 or 2006 as the base years, which would make for quite a different outlook compared to using 1990 levels. What about the newly-industrializing economies, like China, India and Brazil? They don't want to commit to anything until the 'developed' nations have done so, thereby recirculating the cyclical debate over whether the developed or developing world should reduce first.

Targets can be a step in the right direction. Often, they are the first step after identifying a problem. But we have known what the problem is for decades and, as per my earlier analogy, should have had targets long ago to fire our yet to be purchased gun at.

I don't mean to be cynical about the whole thing, but we need more than targets. We need a decent, well-made plan that will work. If only policy-making weren't so complicated...

A battle of solar proportions...

The promising future for solar energy in Ontario is in danger of taking a solid knock backwards in the next few months. A powerful lobby from the agricultural sector is trying to ban solar power development on prime agricultural land. This could very well sink the solar industry in Ontario.

Under the province's ambitious new green legislation, the Green Energy Act, solar energy is being provided with large subsidies under the Feed-In Tariff program. Solar power can be sold back to the electricity grid for nearly eight times the price of normal electricity, making them quite an economical option. Connecting to the grid, a traditionally difficult achievement, is also streamlined and made easier for producers of solar energy.

But one of the best ways to produce significant levels of solar electricity is by building large, dense solar farms. These solar farms, which typically consist of several hundred solar panels, require large pieces of land, usually over 100 acres. Often, the most attractive type of land for these farms are land designated as prime agricultural land: farms.

Farmers and others in the agricultural industry argue that this type of land should only be used for growing food. Concerns over the spoilage of the wonderful, but lessening topsoil from things like stray voltage also add fuel to the fire.

In Canada, and Ontario especially, agriculture often gets the ear of big politicians when it beckons it. In this case, members of the Ontario government, after hearing the case of Ontario farmers, are considering the option of banning all solar development on prime agricultural land in the province. Since these areas are often some of the only economical options, solar developers are cringing at the thought of being banned from these lands.

In response, solar proponents have argued that in order to meet the goals of the Ontario government, only 1/10th of 1% of the province's prime agricultural land would be needed for solar. It is true, this might not be very much land, but food is important and with a growing global population, we'll need to produce as much as we can. Furthermore, the billions of dollars being put towards corn-based ethanol subsidies are already encouraging many farmers to move away from food-intended crops.

With a climate change-focused future, we'll have to make a lot of mutually-exclusive decisions. In this case, it's food vs. green energy. Each option will not be simple. Each will have social and political implications that will always have to be recognized. I guess we'll have to figure out where our priorities really sit.

Central Ontario's Multi-Use Loop Trail...

A number of days ago I elected to ride my bicycle from Peterborough to Haliburton, ON for a large family gathering at a lakeside resort. I estimated the ride itself to be between 130 and 140 km. I've ridden to Lindsay, ON many times, which is only 45 km from Peterborough and connected via a wonderful multi-use trail that was once an old CN rail line. In doing my research to bike to Haliburton, I discovered that the trail from Peterborough to Lindsay was only part of a larger system known as the COLT (Central Ontario Loop Trail).

Just like the Peterborough-Lindsay section, much of the trail is made from an old, abandoned CN rail line. This is particularly advantageous for cyclists as it allows for the evasion of the large rolling hills scattered across central Ontario. In planning my trip I figured the quality of the trail would remain the same after Lindsay and I would be able to arrive in Haliburton in due time. I was wrong.

The route from Peterborough to Lindsay is quite enjoyable and the path is composed of well-packed and solid limestone. This is good enough for most bike types, although road bikes and some touring bikes with very thin tires might find it a bit too cumbersome. However, the quality of the trail (for biking purposes) plummets north of Fenelon Falls, a wonderful lakeside town 20 km north of Lindsay. I had been warned of this change, but elected to give it a go anyway rather than moving to the highway.

This particular section of the trail was now open to ATVs (all-terrain vehicles). And you could tell. The trail is a dream ride for ATV riders, complete with kilometres of very large rocks, swampy soil and sandy ground. For a cyclist, however, this terrain is remarkably frustrating. After about 30 very long km on this path I switched onto the highway.

The highways are especially kind because of the flat concrete. But the hills, passing cars and lack of a paved shoulder can make it quite harrowing. The particular day I went was characterized by lots and lots of rain, making it even more difficult. Upon reaching Kinmount, I foolishly assumed the trail would get better, which it did for about one kilometre. However, sand and rocks were soon again the theme of the trail and I once again had to jump onto the hilly, wet and dangerous highway. But soon enough I was in Haliburton.

I have several other summer weekend bike trips planned in Central Ontario that all revolved around that trail, but judging from what I've experienced this past week I am less inclined to rely on the trail to get around.

The rail trail is a wonderful addition to the area and has been around for quite some time. While most sections are quite fitting for walkers, hikers, mountain bikers and ATV enthusiasts, they certainly are not yet ready for long-distance cyclists. This, I feel, will come with time. After all, a few years ago the Peterborough-Lindsay section wasn't much better. But with hard work, funding and dedicated people (often from non-profits, volunteers and conservation organizations) these trails can be enjoyable and well-usable for everyone.

But until that happens, I would stick to highways if you feel like biking long distances in that area. More on trails in the area later...

Transit Benefits Programs…

Workplaces need to vigorously pursue green initiatives. Amid this era of progressive greenery, cities are seeing many changes from public transit and green roofs to carbon taxes and user fees. As we have blogged about before, public transit is perhaps the most optimal area for increasing the efficiency and greenery of a city. What we need to see however, is the active involvement of workplaces in the creation of public transit incentives. A vast percentage of employees in any city find themselves commuting to work everyday. Workplaces need to be offering their employees ample reason and incentives to take public transit.

In Chicago, there is a program called the Regional Transit Authorities Transit Benefit Fare Program. This program is an employee benefit program administered by employers. The intricacies of the program are not overly complex- it allows employees to pay for their public transit rides using “pre-tax dollars” up to $230 per month ($2,760/year). This is targeted for transit and/or vanpool commuting expenses as tax-free benefits. For the different options see here.

This program benefits both the employer and the employee. For employers, it provides tax savings up to 10% of what employees spend on transit. It helps increase workplace productivity and serves as a great recruiting tool. For the progressive and environmentally friendly employees, it provides tax savings up to 40% of their transit spend, reduces employee commuting costs and helps green the ethos of the workplace.

Certain cities like San Francisco have “tax-free transit benefit accounts”. Employees put aside up to $115 per month or $1380 per year in a tax-free transit benefit account. “This can save between $300 and $500 annually per person and companies can save over $100 per employee per year in payroll taxes by directly contributing to the account.” This of course depends on the tax bracket.

In essence, organizations that undertake this generally have more workplace satisfaction and less absenteeism. Long automobile and transit commutes can be tiring and expensive. If employees have the option of avoiding highway traffic and receiving tax incentives to take public transit, then there is less reluctance to miss work.

There are different ways of administering a transit benefits program for a workplace. The one I would support for an organization would be the pre-tax income option. For this option, employers allow their employees to use their pre-tax income to pay for transit or vanpooling. This does not mean that employers pay for the benefit but instead allow employees to take advantage of the tax savings by using their gross income to pay for qualified commuting expenses.

This could save employees up to $1066 in annual taxes by paying for transit with pre-tax income. And, “Employers see a reduction in their payroll costs on the amount set aside since they do not pay taxes on this amount.” This option would be appealing for numerous workplaces.

Key message: Transit benefit programs offer multiplicity of choice. They are cost effective, environmentally smart and excellent for workplaces of the 21st century. For more info on this topic, see Chicago's regional transit authority:

The Troubling Resource Curse…

In Human Geography, there is a whole subject area that examines natural resources and armed conflict. In March, I wrote a paper for my Environment and Development class titled “is internal conflict an inevitable consequence of the resource curse?” looking at the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. After researching this region for a couple of months, I came to discover many troubling facts. The resource curse has exacerbated conflict and political turmoil, formed an even more rapacious central government and has led to abject poverty.

The resource curse is a highly significant concept in Environmental Resource Studies. We learn that managing resources is a critical part of the political economy. Canada, despite its challenges with the staples trap, has progressively got better with its resource management albeit no where near perfect.

Countries with an abundant amount of natural resources have a lot of natural capital available to them. This is usually advantageous for international trade and energy self-sufficiency. But the dark side of this is what we call the resource curse or the paradox of the plenty which is when counrties with a lot of natural resources tend to have slower economic growth and worse development (and more corruption) than countries with fewer natural resources. Nigeria in particular has become completely reliant on oil for its major export- profitable in the short-term, economically and socially devastating in the long run.

To paint a picture for you, the resource curse has damaged virtually all sectors in the Niger Delta with the exception of the booming oil industry. Manufacturing and agriculture have become less appealing for workers because there is more money available to them in the extraction of oil. At least, that is what they are told.

With the curse in play, the government can surreptitiously create pools of oil wealth from its exports and not actually report how much money they have. This skews the picture and allows the government to be mendacious to its workers who are not paid the true cost of their labour. Not all of this money is passed down to the workers of the Delta and then inequality and oppression ensue. It’s totally disastrous. According to Collier and other West African scholars, the resource curse has created a whole underground economy in the Delta.

Weapons are being purchased along with drugs, and insurrections are coming about-all products of the resource curse and hence internal conflict. This is a serious environment and development issue of our time, natural resources are all well and good, but they are highly dangerous as well.

Key message: Anyone interested in this topic, I would recommend you read Philippe Le Billon and Paul Collier.