An angry wind is blowing around Peterborough...

"No more wind! No more wind!"

These were the fledgling cries flying from directly behind me last night. The source of the quickly defunct chant was an irate man attending a public meeting in Manvers, Ontario where a controversial wind farm is being proposed. After the initial and vague proponent-driven open house drew hefty criticism from the community, a second, more open meeting was held.

Manvers is only one of the many small towns sitting southwest of Peterborough that lies within the study area of the proposed Settlers Landing Snowy Ridge Wind Park, a hypothetical wind farm being developed by a group based out of Brighton, ON, known as Energy Farming Ontario (EFO).

The project was initially considering 30 2MW turbines over an area covering several thousand acres, but has since been reduced to several clusters of turbines.

I attended the packed meeting last night in Manvers and arrived to find a large room in the local arena packed with so many people that we were forced to stand by the doors -- where a photo similar to the one above was plastered -- for much of the meeting. Estimates of attendance were well over 500, a sure rise from the 150 or so that attended the open house earlier.

Although I have been studying these kinds of meetings all summer, I had never actually been to one. But it played out just as expected. The proponents, well-dressed out of towners and armed with fact-filled powerpoint presentations, went through the motions of describing the project, its numerous benefits and perhaps stealing some of the fighting energy from the crowd as it drew on and on and on.

After scoffs by the crowd in response to certain claims by the proponents -- surrounding property values might actually increase -- members of different 'wind awareness' groups informed the audience, several times inaccurately, about the dangers of wind power. This included a man who spent over thirty minutes associating decibel levels from wind turbines with a myriad of health and quality of life defects, prompting several people to leave as he droned on.

However, another presenter showed a very powerful video taken by a farmer in the US showcasing the effects of the shadows of the turbines on his property. The thought of these very significant light changes going 24 hours/day and 7 days/week was sure to ramp up the opposition to the project.

The most interesting, and exciting aspect of these meetings is the question period. The floor was opened to anyone, as members of the public took turns blasting the project, lambasting the province's Green Energy Act -- which will reduce the power of local governments -- and pushing the proponents for answers they were never really able to give.

As you may have gathered, the crowd was less the excited about the project and there were consistent hoots and hollers from the audience.

Several interesting talking points were raised in the car ride back. Are the developers naive? Did they not know what types of questions would be asked of them? Are they really bad people, or are they well meaning people dipping their feet into a sensitive issue? Is their out-of-town nature a severe hindrance?

What about the public? How many of them were really against it? Are they just selfish landowners expressing NIMBY attitudes in the face of climate change? Will they even stay interested in the project?

The questions are endless, but an especially important question needs to be asked. How much are we willing to risk the change of our livelihoods against that of the changes coming from climate change that will ultimately effect nearly everyone?

One last interesting piece were the politics at play. The local MPP, Rick Johnson, a member of the Liberal Party -- the majority government pushing the Green Energy Act through -- was quoted as wanting to defend his community's interests, although it was implied that this would involve some criticism of the Green Energy Act. Dalton McGuinty & George Smitherman might get a little upset with him.

Carbon tax in China...

Refresher: The carbon tax is among several market-based instruments that have the potential to spur incentives to develop and deploy carbon-reducing measures to mitigate climate change. Price increases on carbon emitting technologies can stimulate conservation measures, energy efficient investments, fuel and product switching and changes in the economy’s production and consumption structures.

While I have great hopes for China's rise in the 21st century, I am also somewhat dubious about their air pollution and environmental status. China`s economy is growing rapidly and this growth suggests that it will be one of the biggest economic giants of the world by 2030. With tremendous economic productivity, technological innovation and population growth, the country has numerous competitive advantages. However, air pollution and environmental degradation will do the country some severe harm and have multiple health implications. Air pollution for one can impede industrial productivity in the sub-urban areas due to health issues that the workers endure. Workers become ill and hence less productive. As factory workers learn more about air pollution issues, who knows how thing will turn out in these sub-urban areas.

In China, 200 million houses are going to be built with bricks in rural areas in the coming 30 years. Using bricks will take 25% of the top layer of the agricultural land and half of the coal reserves of the country to actually make these bricks. These industrial processes will spew out an abundance of carbon emissions and worsen its air quality, particularly smog.

The coal fire power plants (one of their greater sources of energy) are also vehemently condemned by the international community. While incredibly lucrative for China, they pose health issues for many of its citizens and contribute to an egregious carbon footprint globally. So, how can they resolve their air pollution and carbon emission crisis? Do you think a carbon tax would work for this nation? For a critical economic and environmental analysis on this issue, take a glance at this post courtesy of the marginal revolution.

Trent University, Aramark and Bottled Water...

Venture into a university campus across Canada and, when you find yourself hungry, you will likely be directed to a food court operated by Aramark. Be prepared to reach into your wallet. Deep into your wallet.

Aramark is an American giant. It is the 19th largest employer on the Fortune 500 and routinely generates nine-figure profits. It is one of the largest food service providers in the world, supplying businesses, sporting events and hospitals. But it is its role in schools, specifically Trent University, that I will dwell on in this discussion.

At Trent, Aramark holds a near monopoly on food service. With the exception of a small, basically student-run cafe, Aramark operates all five cafeterias on campus, including a small Tim Horton's satellite. Students living in residence are almost forced to buy into an outrageously priced meal plan and others are commonly found trying to scrape together the nine dollars charged for a simple burger and fries.

Several controversies have stiffened Trent's relationship with Aramark over the past years, but because of its efficiency and well-managed size, it is seen as an actor Trent can not live without. Even as its contract expired amidst student anger, Aramark was signed on again last year and was even granted permission to raise its meal plan prices nearly $300 -- citing commodity price increases -- from Trent's seemingly pro-business Board of Governors, a topic out of the scope of this piece.

But as much as I dislike Aramark's involvement at Trent, I will offer them some credit in relation to the work they have done with Trent's environmental student group, Sustainable Trent, of which I serve as an executive member. ST has worked with Aramark to develop notable, popular and successful programs. The Lug-a-Mug program, whereby customers using a re-usable mug receive discounts for beverages has been a hit, as has been the implementation of 'Resource Recovery Stations', organized and well-labelled stations to deposit waste, compost and recyclable goods. These are only a few of the many joint-programs.

But ST is embarking on what might be its most difficult project with Aramark: the ultimate ban of bottled water from campus. And since Aramark is in charge of the sale of all bottled water on campus, removing the beverage from its shelves is necessary for such a task. Although we are unsure of bottled water's share of revenue for Aramark, judging by the number of bottles seen around campus daily, it is a fairly significant share. Convincing a multi-national giant to drop the sale of such a lucrative product in even one of its locations is a tall order.

An anti-bottled water sentiment is slowly moving over the school. This summer, Trent held Canada's first bottled water-free convocation. Posters proclaiming the downsides of bottled water are frequently seen on campus and stainless steel water bottles are attached to nearly every backpack or bookbag you pass in the halls. Even bottled water filling stations, essentially modified water fountains, are being installed on campus after years of resistance from Trent administration and, I speculate, some influence from Aramark, who might see a significant drop in drink sales as thirsty schoolgoers will refrain from paying the two bucks for a Coke.

Aramark has even agreed to work with ST to develop a bottled water education campaign, but my pessimism predicts that the ST version might be considerably watered-down once Aramark goes through it (pardon the pun).

But bottled water is rapidly becoming an eyesore in the eyes of the public. Some schools have already banned the sale of the stuff and municipalities throughout Canada are banning the sale in its public buildings. Despite the arguments of bottled water companies and their distributors, it appears as though the battle might be leaning in the direction of the opposition.

That being said, ST certainly has its hands full. Keep your eyes peeled.

And remember, tap water is just as good, often safer and a hell of a lot cheaper. Buy smart.

Blogging part 2: Taking blogging to another level….

One of the main objectives of this blog is to maintain an on-going dialogue about the environment. For a number of months, Chris and I have really got a grasp of what blogosphere journalism really feels like. It is certainly a wonderful break from the research papers we are accustomed to in our classes- where referencing is a requirement.

Learning about various environmental and urban issues in my classes has given me some level of optimism- at least an opportunity to communicate these issues through blogging to my friends, family and others who are genuinely concerned about the environment.

At this stage of my academic experience, I am by no means an expert on a given topic. However, my undergrad education thus far has really got me thinking about these issues and has provided me with an inclination to further explore them in a professional Master's program. Blogging has given me the chance to share my undergrad academic interests in a more fun, engaging and inclusive manner.

About 36% of the Canadian population is now reading blogs (this number is only increasing), which is 8.8 million people. People who read blogs as an alternative to newspaper articles may be looking for more in depth analysis of an issue. More opinionated and contentious writing is what the blogosphere is all about.

The blogosphere has certainly provided university students with an avenue to communicate their concerns- but how many actually do this? Whether it is the environment or Canadian Social Policy, blogging allows for an online discussion to exchange ideas and voice opinions.

Further, I hope this rise in blogging hits the university environment whereby professors and students can actively engage on more intellectual levels via online- making this information available to the public. Many university courses are structured through an online system called Web ct. Professors post links, course updates and relevant articles for students to read. There is also a discussion component which allows students to interact and post interesting articles of relevance to the course - a wonderful thing to have within the academy but exclusionary to those not in the courses. Blogging is an excellent alternative to this because everyone can read the academic discussions and engage in the material that they find interesting.

One professor of mine created a blog for his course. Students were required to submit one to two entries a semester about a subject relevant to urban geography. This counted for participation marks and created a great online forum (between students and others interested) with comprehensive commentary, high readership and inclusivity.

Key message: Blogging has the potential to do many things. They give people a chance to communicate opinions and ideas, they are inclusionary as anyone can contribute to them and they are informative. As blogging becomes more popular in our generation, hopefully we will see its acceptance in universities and as a trustworthy source of journalism.

Don't steal bikes...

This picture should serve as a warning to any potential bike thieves.

Is the environmental attack on the Oil Sands going to make any headway?

A recent article in the Globe and Mail signalled that the fate of the hyper-destructive and very profitable Alberta Oil Sands might well be tipping in favour of those opposed to them. The article outlines the role the Norwegian state-owned oil company, Statoil, who has invested over $2B in the Oil Sands, is having in the country's federal elections.

Norway, from an international standpoint, is widely regarded as a friendly, progressive country, similar to its counterparts in Scandinavia. And even its historic oil industry -- Norway is the world's first country to employ a one-way CCS project -- is among the more respectable groups in the sector.

So being involved in the Oil Sands is sure to raise some eyebrows and rustle some feathers. The negativity of Statoil's involvement in the Oil Sands is so heavy that it could play a major role in the federal election as candidates from nearly every party are promising to carefully examine the role of Norway's state-owned company. One prominent leader is already offering to create environmental laws that would make it impossible for Statoil to even come close to getting involved with anything like the Oil Sands.

Norway is not the only one rethinking its involvement in Alberta. Even the Chinese government, whose state-owned oil enterprise is heavily invested in the Oil Sands, is looking at what's going on. The article also mentions that several Chinese journalists are on their way to take a tour of the areas surrounding the Oil Sands to witness the environmental destruction of the place.

But before we start to think that the tables have really turned and the Oil Sands are on their way to being shut down, let's just put a few things in perspective.

Statoil is state-owned. Generally speaking, state-owned energy companies have a lot more to answer to than their purely private contenders, especially in a country like Norway. The Chinese, although to a much lesser degree of social & environmental responsibility, are also state-owned. The downside is that the majority of investment in the Oil Sands is private. Private companies often, but not always, answer only to their shareholders who often, but again, not always, only want to make more money. The Oil Sands make money. Lots of it.

Secondly, keep in mind that it is election time in Norway. For those of us who have followed election campaigns, they are filled with promises. Often, these promises are politically charged and do not always come to fruition. Considering the length of time it would take to get out of there and the investment losses, the task of pulling out would be very difficult. I would not be surprised if this issue slowly fades away after election fever winds away.

Thirdly, and almost in summation, the Oil Sands are very, very lucrative. They are profitable for those involved and beneficiaries range from international partners (the United States) to domestic governments (Alberta). The Alberta government has certainly signalled more than once how little it really cares about the environmental consequences and its internal bureaucratic systems (see Andrew NikiForuk's Tar Sands) are far from being pro-environment. Furthermore, the Conservative stronghold of Alberta is almost insurmountable and if the current policies of both the Alberta and Federal Conservative government's is any indication, these policies are not going to change quickly.

And I wouldn't put too much money on Obama making a big deal about the Oil Sands anytime soon. His hands are full with his health care reform plan and any fight with the Oil Sands would surely have short-term economic consequences, which is the last thing he needs as the U.S. economy is starting to recover. Right now, he has bigger, more homegrown fish to fry.

I don't mean to sound like a pessimist, but the Oil Sands are big. Very big. I do not deny the environmental, economic and health damages due to the Oil Sands, but tackling such a beast is so complex and in my opinion, nearly impossible. However, I would urge those already fighting to shut down the Oil Sands to keep on doing what they're doing, as anything helps in the struggle against them.

But in some ways we need to be a bit realistic and make the best out of an already awful situation by looking more into conservation strategies, renewable energy markets and to pressure our elected officials. Perhaps we could at least reduce the demand for oil in this country. But really fighting the Oil Sands seems like a steep moutain to climb.

I can only hope I'm wrong.

Could a Congestion Charge Zone work in Mumbai?

A number of months ago I blogged about London’s Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ) which charges motorists 8 pounds when they enter the city's designated zone from 7am in the morning to 6pm in the evening. It has been heavily praised and vigorously condemned from citizens all over the city. Despite its contestation and political controversy, it has increased public transit ridership and has led to an overall decrease in traffic congestion in the city along with a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

The CCZ scheme is effective in London as the statistics clearly demonstrate. Could such a system work in Mumbai, India? Its population is about 13.9 million not to mention a population density of 21,000 people per square kilometer. Automobiles are ubiquitous. They are inexpensive and everyone has one. If Mumbai brings about a CCZ the state (not city) would charge residents a cost (to be determined). This is one solution however, the city is also looking at other options. For instance, it may build a metro system connecting the densely populated suburbs of east and west Mumbai. It may implement a Bus Rapid transit system similar to the one in Curitiba, Brazil. They are also exploring air conditioned train coaches.

Mumbai appears to have many options. The IT company Mastek, who was principally responsible for putting London’s CCZ into practice, is being turned to for solutions. The CCZ has proven to work in the massive metropolis of London but implementing such a system in Mumbai could face tremendous social and economic opposition. Public transit infrastructure desperately needs revitalization. Many of the city’s residents simply drive because cars are cheap, more convenient and more dependable than the eroding and dilapidated transit services.

The city has a documented propensity to spend a lot of capital on city infrastructure. The only problem is that this time around the capital is non-existent, and hence public transit has no money. The key point is that reducing aggregate emissions from vehicles will only take place with a good public transit system. An adequate transit system would have unambiguous advantages, the risk however is that the residents may not even use it- frustrated about how they are being taxed and they could even condemn it stating that driving is cheaper than taking the transit.

Key message: A CCZ in Mumbai would undoubtedly raise the necessary capital to expend on public transit revitalization. It would also help with Mumbai’s pollution challenges. But it may be economically burdensome on the city’s residents who are highly dependent on using the roads.

Green Cities: Peterborough is one of Canada's most walkable cities...

Nevermind the fact that Westjet and walking are at the opposite sides of the spectrum, but the airline's magazine, Up, along with the Canadian Federation of Podiatric Medicine (foot doctors) recently announced what it believes to be Canada's most walkable cities. Vancouver took first prize, followed by Toronto, Victoria and Halifax.

But in fifth place and the highest ranked small city is our very own Peterborough.

Peterborough's walkability is certainly something it can be proud of. I have been here for three years and have walked much of it. There are over 62 km of walking & hiking trails in the city limits that make it very comfortable and easy to get around.

Unlike many other cities, Peterborough's downtown core is located within easy walking distance to a series of diverse neighbourhoods, making it very easy for those from all walks of Peterborough life to walk downtown. And it is downtown where much of the action is.

Many of the city's trails are very well-maintained and link to all sorts of landmarks in the city, including the large Liftlock, Trent University even the Wal-Mart (if you so desire...). As a result of its wonderful walkability -- and perhaps income also plays a part -- there is only an average of 1.4 cars per residence in the city.

Walking is important, especially in a city. I often talk about the advantages of using a bicycle, but sometimes a walk can be much more appropriate. What a wonderful, sociable and clean way to get around.

Way to go, Peterborough.

Preston Manning's changing climate and some right wing bashing...

I was as surprised as the National Post's Peter Foster.

Last week, Preston Manning teamed up with the CEO of a "green" investment company, Andrew Heintzman, to deliver a piece of writing all too rare a sight to the eyes that commonly scan the pages of the National Post. Their editorial, 'Our (quality of) life depends on it', is an all-encompassing argument for investment in renewable technologies and the need for Canada to significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

To those of us who regularly wander through the pages of environmentally progressive newspieces and blogs, this kind of story is nothing new: Canada needs more renewables; the oil sands are bad; market-based instruments and government intervention is needed; Canada can harness all of this and benefit economically. But two things make this editorial stand out.

First, it appears in the National Post. The National Post is widely considered to be the more conservative of Canada's national newspapers and its columnists and guest editorialists are frequently known to bash government intervention and environmentalism at any chance they get. Some might even say the paper -- which is currently in dire financial straits -- is one of last relatively reputable safehouses for those who still believe anthropogenic climate change is a hoax.

Secondly, it was co-authored by Preston Manning. His involvement in the piece might be the only reason the National Post published it. Many of us, myself included, might be too young to remember Preston Manning in the public spotlight. My main recollection was that he reminded me a lot of Mr. Rogers and while watching the news or election coverage, my parents would continue to remind me that he and his buddies are on the bad team.

Well, for those of us with a more progressive view, Preston Manning and his buddies -- The Reform Party -- were the bad team. The party evolved throughout the late 1980s and had even gained the position of the Official Opposition in the late 1990s, although much of its strength lay in Western Canada and the Prairies, which continue to be a conservative stronghold. The party was often seen as an extremist right-wing party, advocating for everything from prohibiting abortions, taking a stance against homosexuals and other intolerant views to reducing the role of government and significantly cutting taxes. Its members were incredibly controversial, often referred to as xenophobes, homophobes and racists. Quite simply, these were not the folks preaching environmental protection, especially if the government were involved. (Thank goodness for Google).

But Manning was slightly out of tilt with the rest of his former party. He wasn't quite as intolerant as some of his fellow members and was quite the pragmatist. One elder family member of mine -- a well-entrenched left-winger -- told me Manning was much smarter than the rest of his party and, just as my Mr. Rogers comparison foresaw, was someone you would picture as your kind neighbour you talked with over the fence.

That being said, the former leader of one of Canada's most right-wing federal parties calling for government investment in renewables and the establishment of a price-setting cap-and-trade system is out of this world.

The National Post faithful were quick to fight back. Peter Foster wrote a scathing commentary titled, 'Manning turns to the dark side', that included the typical bashing of governmental intervention and price-setting policies, as well as the word 'wonk' -- in reference to people looking to combat climate change from the less conservative side of things -- more times than I've ever seen.

Another letter to the editor ended with a simple statement, "Preston, clearly, we hardly knew ye."

But Preston is doing more than writing in the Post. He is also an active member of the Steering Committee for the rapidly growing Sustainable Prosperity. Foster, unsurprisingly dismisses the group, its tag line being 'making markets work for the environment', as a "lobby for radical environmentalism."

But it is nice to know that even the most conservative, anti-government of folks can look beyond partisan ideologies to see what is probably much better for us. Even if they have to take a bit of heat from their former brethren.

Peterborough and the Greater Golden Horseshoe:

Cities within the Greater Golden Horseshoe are growing rapidly. In fact, these cities are the fast growing cities in the country located between Windsor (to the west) and Quebec City (to the east). Most of their growth is occurring in their urban growth centres (UGC) which are areas located within the downtown region. Peterborough's UGC is located within the horseshoe though is statistically one of the smallest. Its population grew about 5 percent from 2001 to 2006. 5 percent in five years is not that significant and it is no surprise that it is the most spatially isolated UGC in the horseshoe.

Peterborough relies less on economic synergies with neighbouring UGCs to achieve its growth. Toronto, Hamilton and Guelph for example, all rely on each other through economies of agglomeration as services, manufacturing and production are all interconnected. Being spatially isolated is somewhat problematic. Unemployment is hovering around 8 percent in the city, and if population density and growth do not rise then companies/corporations will have less of an inclination to be here.

Analyzing Peterborough from a geographical density lens would explain its uniqueness from other UGCs. Existing density of Peterborough’s UGC has been estimated at 100 residents/jobs per hectare- nothing significant but keep in mind the city's total population is 75,000. The ostensible goal is to reach 150 residents/jobs per hectare by 2031.

Achieving 150 residents/jobs per hectare by 2031 would require an additional 4,800 jobs and residents. But city planners have indicated that this growth will have to occur in the built area boundary and not in the outskirts of the city otherwise known as designated Greenfield areas. The idea is to concentrate population growth in areas where employment opportunities are high.

Is density really going to increase in Peterborough? Not sure. Forecasted growth is 14,000 people and jobs between 2006 and 2031. For one, housing will have to be revitalized and incorporate smart growth in the process. The urban growth centre has an abundance of single-detached houses which reflects the strong market demand for lower density housing in the city. If the city wants to remain competitive with other UGCs in the horseshoe, it will require more multi-unit residential developments like row housing, multi-storey buildings and better water infrastructure.

Among many of the benefits cities obtain from higher density- transit and water efficiency are the most notable. Transportation always becomes more sophisticated and efficient when density allows it to. Density usually correlates with higher transit ridership- this in turn means that the city would obtain more funding from the government to ameliorate its transit services.

On the water front, higher density housing helps lower the costs of piping installation for new residential housing units. It also reduces the maintenance costs for actually pumping the water through it. If low density units (single detached housing) continue to be built, then the water department will lose money because it costs more to deliver water to these units.

Key message: The city is growing albeit very slowly. If the city focuses on density development i.e. concentrating growth in its downtown area, then it can obtain more economic, environmental and social benefits. Being spatially isolated can be economically troublesome, but as the city becomes more dense, employment should concomitantly rise and urban amenities will improve as well.

Deep lake water cooling: an urban solution

Have you ever heard of deep lake water cooling? I just learned about it today. In an effort to minimize energy intensive air conditioning in the city of Toronto, the city is now turning to its lake water to obtain really cold water to cool its office and commercial buildings.

Back in 2003, energy company Enwave was asked from the city government to innovate an environmentally friendly solution that can help take some pressure off of the electricity system. Air conditioning from office buildings can be incredibly profligate in the summer months and highly energy intensive. The innovation is based off of a district cooling system which draws from deep cold water (83 meters) in Lake Ontario. This is efficiency and water optimization to its finest. The deep lake water flows into Toronto’s water system at 4 degrees Celsius. It is sent through heat exchangers before entering the city's drinking water supply, and energy is transferred between two systems- the city's and Enwave's.

The city obtains a portion of the water for drinking (once it is treated), and Enwave gets a portion as well. Enwave transfers the cold temperature from the city water to its chilled water system. So all in all, you have two systems drawing from the same source and ultimately there are two uses - Enwave's and the city's which are maintained through heat exchangers that facilitate the transfer of energy.

This naturally cold water provides an alternative to the conventional air conditioning that is produced by coal-fired power plants. It is really intelligent infrastructure because it reduces the total electricity used in air conditioning systems by over 85 percent. Moreover, it also serves as a pollution abatement technique minimizing pernicious chemicals and emissions like CFCs and carbon dioxide (somewhere in the range of 40,000 tons a year). This innovation will undoubtedly help alleviate some serious urban pollution issues we have been facing of late- namely smog and acid rain.

Key message: Smart infrastructural changes are indispensable for the future of cities.

For more info about this technology, click here.

Stupid Green Ideas: hybrid parking spots...

A recent story in the Winnipeg Free Press, "Environmentally concious shoppers get prime parking spots", reports that a large local shopping mall has reserved several parking spots near the building for hybrid vehicles. The aim -- at least, from the mall's marketing director -- is to reward more environmentally concious drivers by giving them membership to the exclusive club previously limited to expecting mothers and the handicapped.

Apparently this is not the first of its kind. Larger box stores like IKEA and Whole Foods have dipped into these waters, too.

So is it a silly idea?

Well, enforcement is a bugger. Finding non-permit vehicles parked in handicapped spots is certainly not a rarity and such an offence probably strikes witnesses much more severely than parking illegally in a hybrid spot.

Secondly, the environmental benefits of hybrids over traditional vehicles is certainly not absolute. What if the hybrid driver drives tens times as much as the driver of an SUV? Which of these drivers should really be rewarded? And furthermore, hybrids are not always the most fuel-economic vehicles. Lexus has several hybrids, one of which has 438 HP V8 engine. Its fuel economy is worse than that of its parent company's Toyota Tacoma pickup truck. Even Cadillac's Escalade (pictured above) has a hybrid version. There is no way these vehicles should be given priority over non-hybrid, but more fuel-efficient vehicles. And what about an electric car? Would it qualify?

Thirdly, lots of people think poorly of hybrids because the drivers are sometimes perceived to be rich, snobby, self-righteous, do-gooding elites. They always aren't, but the perceptions will stick and this certainly won't help. Most people don't have a problem giving priority to the handicapped or expecting mothers, but they might think the hybrid spot a tad elitist.

Lastly, this seems like nothing more than a marketing ploy for those who employ such a strategy. It allows the stores to brand themselves as 'green' and attract more customers, without actually implementing an effective policy. It just looks good.

So yes, it is silly.

But then again, even if it is silly, at least it is something. The majority of hybrids out there are much more fuel-efficient than the rest of vehicles on the road. It probably won't hurt anyone, since angry drivers will soon drop their threats of switching supermarkets and just find another spot. And lots of corporations are employing 'green' strategies, so a harmless one like this can't hurt, right?

That is of course, if you live by the mantra 'an empty policy is better than no policy'.

I don't own a hybrid, but I do spot one in the parking lot across the way. I think I might steal the 'hybrid' logo on its rear end and attach it to my car so I can take advantage of this great deal.

Out of my way, soon-to-be mothers and handicapped, I'm saving the world!