Canada's new man in Washington...

Don't be too surprised if there are a few more beer summits at the White House in the next few years. Yesterday, Canada's current longest serving premier, Manitoba's Gary Doer, announced he would not seek office again in the province's next election.

As it turns out, it was not the desire to golf or sit around at the cottage after serving as premier for ten years that led Doer to step down, but instead his new appointment as Canadian Ambassador to the United States announced today. Doer will replace Michael Wilson, who has served since 2006 and is most recently remembered for his alleged leak to the Canadian media during the 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign that Barack Obama had no intention of carrying through with his promise to re-evaluate NAFTA. (So far, it seems as though he was probably right).

Gary Doer is by far one of Canada's most popular premiers and is very highly regarded in Manitoba. He and his NDP party have won three consecutive majority governments, a success which is often attributed to Doer's left-centrist approach. Much of his success is also chalked up to his pragmatic, very sociable approach to life. He is the type of guy you would share a few laughs with over a beer and is the farthest you could get from a run-of-the-mill, stiff politician.

For those of us in the green camps, having Doer represent Canada's interests in the US is something to excite ourselves over. Doer is a relatively pro-green politician. He has consistently been a strong supporter of the Kyoto Accord, enacted several water-protection and conservation laws and gotten together with several other provinces and states to form a series of international and interprovincial cap and trade accords. It is the latter accomplishments that will transfer to Doer's new post in the US.

He has been a supporter of a North American cap and trade system for some time and his presence in Washington is a signal that the Harper government is really serious about joining onto Obama's ambitious climate change strategy. This is of course, if Doer is given plenty of slack from the Prime Minister's leash. But the two of them seem to be pretty chummy already. Although something tells me Doer will have a lot more fun hanging out with the Obama gang. We can just hope his good-natured approach will offer some aid in the climate agenda.

Mexico City: The Great Water User…

Mexico City is facing an egregious civil engineering problem. The culprit: a depleting groundwater aquifer. People around the world have been hearing about these so called sinking cities; Venice, Mexico City and Los Angeles to a lesser extent. From a geophysical standpoint, these sinking cities are sinking because its residents pump copious amounts of water from its underground aquifer. This is done primarily through wells and happens usually because of a phenomenon called “absolute dominion” which is when residents can essentially pump as much water as they like because the state allows them to.

When you over pump an aquifer or in Mexico City’s case, have 8 million plus people drawing heavily from it… its hydro capacity becomes jeopardized. It is estimated that Mexico City has sunk as much as 30 feet over the course of the 20th century.

When the city was planned by engineers and architects, they did not forecast or predict such rapid population growth. A fast growing population ultimately exhausted its natural springs causing the subsoil of the land to degrade very quickly. Indeed, this land subsidence has consequently led to serious financial problems for the city causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to buildings and structures.

Sewer lines and subway tunnels have required serious revitalization after being damaged by a collapsing aquifer. Civil and Structural engineers have begun putting up scaffolding and more compact structural materials to protect important buildings like the National Cathedral.

This particular conundrum is by no means an easy one to solve. 70 percent of the water used in the metropolitan area comes from the main aquifer. People are thirsty and are living in a climate that has an average yearly temperature of 30 degrees Celsius. It is hot and the ubiquity of pollution and smog are only exacerbating matters.

In the early 2000s, the New York Times summed up Mexico City’s water issue very well: “The water difficulties have become a vicious circle: as the city grows, more water is pumped from the aquifer. As more is pumped, the city sinks further. The sinkage ruptures more underground water pipes, sending fresh water gushing into the sewers, aggravating the shortage, requiring more water to be pumped from the aquifer, and so on.”

Having an inadequate water distribution system is incredibly troublesome. About a third of every gallon of fresh water pumped into the system leaks out- over a year that is enough water to supply the city of Toronto!

From an optimistic lens, change is coming to the forefront. The city is building vast pipelines to bring water from rivers outside of the metropolis- this is good water demand management albeit expensive. And rain water harvesting is becoming more salient. So when it rains… people are trying to collect that water, self-purify it and then treat it, and then drink it. The city should also explore an infrastructure leak index to locate, quantify and repair the leakage within its water distribution system.

There are a plethora of issues surrounding Mexico City. But as this blog has identified in the past, there are numerous solutions for managing water including education about water efficient technologies to more equitable water allocation decisions to conservation.

Key message: Mexico City must start looking and learning from California’s water solutions, a state that has a massive population and a dwindling water supply. For more information on this topic see here:

Are Canadians becoming more conservationist-minded?

This is a question that someone recently posed to me. My answer, not backed by any sufficient statistics or anything is.... yes we are. I am hopeful at least.

Let’s start with some natural resource history. Canada has been regarded as a resource-based economy since Confederation in 1867. Natural resources or staples such as lumber, minerals, fresh water and fisheries have all played an instrumental role in shaping and developing this nation’s economy. Natural resource development has contributed to the creation of jobs in British Columbia through their forestry sector, mineral development in Central Canada and now oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The national economy is characterized by a low population/resource ratio which has given Canada a comparative advantage in resources and primary resources.

In other words, Canada’s abundance of natural resources and low population density has both historically and contemporarily been a battle between nature and civilization; anthropocentric ideals exploiting resources for economic growth. The vast size of this nation and its resource endowment, when measured on a per capita basis, has historically encouraged a sense of limitless potential and availability.

Most of the macro regions of Canada developed as they did because of their dependence on the extraction and utilization of staples commodities. Atlantic Canada, prior to its economic collapse, was reliant on cod as its main staple. Central Canada had an abundance of fur. The Prairies specialized in the wheat crop and finally, British Columbia possessed and continues to have copious amounts of timber. However, recently, forest fires and the mountain pine beetle have reminded British Columbians that they need to concentrate more attention on their main natural resource. Generally, I think we have learned that the relentless consumption of natural resources is economically devastating.

To the more contemporary: Canada has reaped significant economic benefits through the free market and through free trade with the United States. However, this consumption oriented ideology is slowly dissipating as the concept of ‘limits to growth’ has come to the forefront. Canadians have been increasingly aware of the need to conserve such resources to maintain the economy and quality of life.

Climate change along with mass resource depletion will directly impact Canada’s economy and impact the socio-economic well-being of millions of citizens. For instance, British Columbia is in transition from exploitation of old growth stands to harvest sustainability as a result of an overwhelmingly consumptionist mindset that has pervaded the lumber industry for many years.

With increased environmental awareness, Canadians are becoming more pro-active in fields like waste management, recycling and reduction of waste, pollution abatement initiatives, higher participation in city rebate programs and advocating greater protection of the Great Lakes Ecosystem Basin which is currently facing problems with toxic contamination, eutrophication and pollution runoff.

In sum, the scale of exploitation of Canada’s natural resources is slowly fostering this notion of sustainable development. In decades past, resource depletion was more characteristic of the economy rather than the conservation of resources, but with this new emerging salience of the environment, I think that conservation is becoming more characteristic of the Canadian populous.

Would you take the job?: Corporate Environmental Policy...

I posed this question to an environmental policy class seminar I was in during my third year: if on the day of your graduation as an Environmental Studies/Science student a person from a large oil company offered you a multi-year position as an environmental consultant with a $250,000 salary, benefits up the wazoo, a 40-hour work week and your choice of living location, would you take it?

Surprisingly, very few if any from the 15 person class said they would. The main argument was one of ethics, where the majority of my peers would be unwilling to 'sell their soul' to work for the groups we've all learned to despise.

Fair enough, but perhaps the naive optimist in me believes that not all big corporations are inherently evil and that they be wanting to at least do something pro-environment, if not for intrinsic reasons than at least for business purposes. To this a few said that such a position would simply be window-dressing, offering lip service for an organization that really doesn't care. Although you'd get a hefty paycheque, the frustration involved with such a position might be enough to drive you over the edge. Not to mention, of course, the degrading feeling that might come if you feel your role is only perpetuating the wrongs you seek to right.

Personally, I would take the job. Aside from the wonderful financial perks -- I might be an environmentalist but I certainly wouldn't decline a sweet boat or a Porsche -- I point to one particular argument I've explored before in a different arena: the law of diminishing returns. This simple idea says that as we put effort into something, the effect one 'unit' of effort will have will diminish over time.

If, for instance, you have a test to study for, the first hour you study may increase your potential grade from a 50 to a 70, but the next hour will only improve it from a 70 to an 80, then 80 to 85 and so on until each extra hour you study really isn't making a difference.

So if we take this idea into the grand context of say, combatting climate change, our efforts (financial, political, time-intensive, etc) would have a bigger impact if put towards aspects of the environment that are already quite bad. Putting efforts into improving the environmental performance of the traditionally poor environmental performers (fossil fuel firms, manufacturing, transport industry, etc) might have a much bigger impact than putting the same amount of effort into other already less-environmentally destructive performers, such as investing millions to make fuel-efficient engines slightly more efficient (which might be the equivalent of raising your mark from a 90 to a 91).

The question of individual effort should be raised. It is well and good that changing the behaviour of these 'dirty' firms would have a large impact in our climate struggle, but are these large conglomerates, like the oil companies, not already so large and influential that actually implementing this change from an environmental consultant's position would be next to impossible if not the most frustrating endeavour one might venture on?

Would it be frustrating? I imagine so. Next to impossible? Could be. But are they too big? No.

One of the world's largest financial institutions, the World Bank, was once without an environmental program or department. Unlike the majority of other major banks, the World Bank focuses much of its attention on development, first in post-war Europe and later in the less-affluent countries of the world. Its projects have had massive environmental impacts, yet it wasn't until 1971, 26 years after its conception, that it first developed any sort of environmental program. It was resourced by one person for many years, who was later able to increase the size of the department to six staff.

This was an incredibly frustrating time, especially since the World Bank did not require environmental assessments on any projects up until 1989, making the environmental reviews by even six staffers next to impossible. As you can imagine, the other departments were less than inclined to cooperate with the toothless environmental department. However, thanks to the diligence of the pioneer staffers, the World Bank's environmental department is now one of its biggest. Billions of dollars are invested in environmentally-focused projects. (Although the environmental benefits of some of these projects are quite controversial).

It had to start somewhere. So it could certainly start with grabbing such a position, especially with such cushy benefits -- not unrealistic either, considering many environmental assessment folks at the publicly-owned Ontario Power Generation make over $125,000.

Corporations aren't necessarily evil, but they can be a tough nut to crack. But the benefits of cracking such a nut could be more influential than any of us know. I wouldn't, however, count on such a cushy job being offered right after graduation, but you never know...(hint, hint ExxonMobil).

Would you take the job?

The importance of the potato in the 18th century...

How do places urbanize? Usually people migrate to cities because of the multiplicity of choice… You have quick and easy access to public transportation, numerous urban amenities and tonnes of housing options to choose from. When places urbanize, the population concomitantly increases… naturally. For hundreds of years we have been studying population growth examining factors that depopulate and populate areas. This has always been a curious humanitarian question and it is only gaining more research interest as our population surpasses the 6.8 billion mark.

Over the course of civilization, diseases like Black Death, malaria and other deadly epidemics have obliterated populations. However, we have also seen tremendous population growth since the 1950s particularly in India, China, Brazil, the United States and Europe. What exactly has been the cause of such population growth? Is it natural resources, is it the aforementioned urban amenities or is it something else?

The contemporary population question is being studied widely across the world. Interestingly, if we look at the world in the 18th and 19th century, the discovery of the potato not only led to a 22% rise in population, but a 47% rise in urbanization. Nathan Nunn and Nancy Qian have done research on the importance of nutrition to economic development. Their findings on the potato are fascinating.

The discovery of the potato was interconnected through geography, the environment, economics and health. After all, potatoes are an inexpensive crop to cultivate and subsequently eat, highly nutritious and are geographically suitable to be cultivated in many parts of the world including Northern Europe, Asia and even Northern Africa.

The discovery of potatoes led to population growth and urbanization in the 18th and 19th century. In the 21st century there are numerous factors contributing to population growth and decline. It seems however, that the discovery of natural resources are far more important today than any one nutritional crop like potatoes.

This is because natural resources have much more economic value and wealth today because of scarcity issues - oil, water and timber just to name a few examples. But natural resource discovery has at times --both historically and contemporarily-- led to conflict and war… factors that lead to depopulation. I wonder if there will be a study that shows the correlation between natural resource discovery and depopulation. Anyway, see Nathan Nunn and Nancy Qian's study on the discovery of the potato and urbanization.

Green Bin Programs need to be better monitored…

Toronto's recent city strike revealed many things and one was a heap of facts surrounding its multi-million dollar Green Bin Program. Ostensibly, according to investigations, Toronto garbage workers have routinely and surreptitiously mixed regular garbage with compostable organic waste (stuff that is supposed to go in the Green Bin).

We have all the jubilation in the world to celebrate the ending of the strike, but we should not be too excited because of the Green Bin problem. Knowing that our composted waste actually ends up in landfills is a little unsettling. This is the most appropriate time to discuss Toronto’s compost program as many are under the impression that organic waste, recycling and regular garbage are all sorted separately. They may be according to investigators, but organic waste eventually ends up in landfills or dumpsites.

While all of this is simply speculation and vociferous allegations from past garbage workers, the city has to think about future steps in the area of waste management. Toronto diverted 94,000 tonnes of kitchen waste in 2008. This is good progress but nothing stupendous given all of the resources we get from the city including the green bin itself and curb side pick-up.

The unfortunate rationale for mixing green bin waste with regular garbage is that garbage trucks that transport waste to Michigan landfills have pressure to fill their load to the maximum of 35.7 tonnes. This is done for "efficiency" purposes. This is hard to do when you only truck regular garbage which is much lighter than organic waste by comparison. When you add organic waste like meats, fruits, vegetables, diapers- then the truck gets a lot heavier and you can compact the waste a lot easier. Compostable waste is supposed to be collected from the transfer stations by a contractor and the city and then subsequently used as rich nutritious soil for gardens and environmental purposes. It is not supposed to go to Michigan's landfills!

As a multi-million dollar program that is ostensibly gaining more prominence, we need to ensure that it is properly monitored and enforced. Garbage workers can deny the allegations all they want but citizens are soon going to find out the truth behind them and be infuriated over two things- a wasting of property taxes to fund such a program and secondly, the fact that citizens take the time to compost waste and it ends up in places it is not supposed to, i.e. landfills.

Transfer station managers should report how much organic waste comes on site and they must also require the respective garbage truck worker to report what goes in his/her truck. The Green Bin program should have individuals that are positioned at these transfer stations to ensure that everything is sorted properly. False compliance must result in penalties. Reports can be issued monthly by these paid green bin program workers to update the city on the status of them and where the organic waste ends up. We are talking here about tracking every kilogram of organic waste.

Key message: If Toronto actually wants to achieve 70 percent waste diversion from landfills by 2012, then the entire city is going to have to be smarter about monitoring and expanding composting.