Making a buck from the environment (in a good way)...

People have been making a profit from the environment for centuries. Unfortunately, the environment has gotten the short end of the stick as (some) people pocket the cash and the environment is left severely degraded. This is not news to anyone.

But for those of you thinking a nice, long-term investment might be in order in the next few years, consider something I've been wheeling around my head for a little while. Consider investing in renewable energy.

The trend is a simple one. As climate change draws ever closer to the forefront of people's minds, the realization that unsustainable energy sources can not keep the world going will come to fruition. This, along with the fact that oil resources will eventually (if they have not already) begin to dwindle, will create significant demand for renewable energy resources. Technologies like wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, biomass and tidal will become very popular.

What is very important to realize is that we have not reached this point yet. In fact, we're not even close. Despite all the talk and news coverage about renewable energy, we're not about the hit the point where we can shut down the world's oil refineries. The likelihood that such a point will come within my lifetime (judge your estimated lifetime accordingly) is far greater. The David Suzuki fantasy of self-sufficient everythings could very well be a reality.

But it won't happen tomorrow. It won't happen next year. And when it does happen, it won't happen overnight. The transition to a clean energy world will take decades. That is why those of us in the younger generations might stand to make a killing from it.

Imagine a time when the world's biggest renewable energy firms (ex. Vestas in Denmark or First Solar in the USA) replace the world's big oil firms as the leading energy companies. While they might not be quite as profitable -- you can't own the wind the same way you can unrefined petroleum -- they might still be massive. Imagine when Vestas wind turbines are scattered throughout the world as plentifully as barrels of good ol' Exxon-Mobil crude.

This will happen. We just don't know when. As young people, several of us have the benefit of time. While a significant investment into a specific company or industry might not necessarily pay huge amounts in the short term, the long term growth of renewables will be tremendous. The shares you pay for today might be worth a whole lot more in the years to come.

Indeed, some people have invested a lot of money in the renewables industry hoping that the current 'boom' will pay off huge. But as we have seen, this is not necessarily the case. The economic or political climate has not yet reached the point where renewables can be seen as anything more than 'alternative'. Those looking for a quick buck might not find it here. But those looking to make a secure, long-term investment probably will make a nice chunk of change.

In terms of where to actually invest that money, I don't know. I'm not a financial planner. My guess would be the big companies like Vestas and First Solar, but renewables are still in their infancy and other, much smaller companies could very well grow much larger. Other options would include Index-funds, which would invest in an entire sector, such as solar, wind or even 'clean tech' to cover every renewable company around.

You won't make lots of money right away. But you might very well set yourself up nicely in the future. And hey, you probably won't hurt the environment all that much, either.

Water pipes leak a lot but there is a way to minimize this...

Leaking water systems waste a lot of water. Take any city in the world that has an extensive water supply system, chances are their infrastructure, pipes and water mains leak on a daily basis. This results in numerous inefficiencies including lost water, lost energy (energy is required to pump and pressurize water through pipes) and municipal capital.

Fixing these leaks have proven to be a nuisance and extremely costly. So, a lot of cities will simply resort to the easiest solution: reduce the water pressure to reduce water leakage. The World Bank estimates that 88 billion litres of treated water is lost from leaking urban pipelines every day.

Fortunately, thanks to the ingenuity of an Israeli company called “Curapipe”, there is now a system that aims to seal leaks cheaply with only a small disruption to the water supply.

Check out how it works at the economist here.

Trent University's New (Stupid) Parking Lot...

Every student campus in the country seems to have a parking problem. Trent is no different. Despite ever-increasing parking fees, more and more students, staff, faculty and visitors seem to drive to Trent. The obvious and easy fix for Trent's administration? Simply build more more parking lots.

Last week, a notice was posted on Trent staff accounts that the administration was considering building a new 25-space parking lot on the north-east end of the campus to deal with the influx of demand for parking spaces on the east side of the campus. The majority of classes are on the east side, most notably Trent's largest lecture hall, which seats between 300 and 400 people.

This got a few of us on campus fairly ticked off. One professor in particular was quite angered by the approach taken by the university. We quickly noticed several problems with the plan:

1) A new parking lot of 25 spaces will do little to actually satisfy the increased demand for parking,

2) Parking lots are less than environmentally friendly, especially when you take into account the ripped out trees and the fact that more cars will be driving to the school,

3) Parking lots are expensive! A typical surface-level parking lot is $4000 per space. This one parking lot will cost upwards of $100,000. That's outrageous.

4) It's a band-aid solution that does nothing to account for the actual source of the problem: people driving cars.

The professor quickly contacted those who might be interested, particularly those in the administration, as well as local green groups. He proposed instituting programs that might reduce the demand for driving, such as bike-friendly programs, car-pooling and public transit initiatives. These types of projects could certainly reduce the demand for parking by 25 people per day and at a far lesser cost than the parking lot.

One particular problem at Trent is not the total influx of cars, but rather the demand to park on the east side of the campus. The west side has tons of parking spaces that are frequently only half-filled. But they are so far away from everything that people are willing to pay the extra cost to park closer to the school. The solution may simply lie in playing with the prices of parking to such a degree that it becomes much more attractive to park on the west side of campus.

Even the parking authority got back to us asking for ideas because (they claimed) they don't want to build new parking lots.

This week, we were surprised to see construction crews ripping out trees and preparing to level out the land to put in the new parking lot. Clearly, the notice posted was not intended to be a request for consultation, but rather a statement advising us that it will be noisy for the next while.

Despite the enthusiastic dialogue with the administrative departments, this project had been approved ages ago, since it isn't that easy to approve a $100K project one day and have it constructed a few days later.

Trent has been doing a lot of silly spending these days -- no thanks to the inflow of cash being doled out for infrastructure projects under the federal stimulus. It has also taken a lot of flack for its involvement in a wide range of projects that have arguably lacked consultation. Hopefully it will soon slow itself down, talk to people and think about some of the decisions it is making.

Climate change contrasts: The frustrating reality...

Trent University recently launched its Centre of Knowledge in the Environment, which consisted of two days of speakers and environmentally-focused events throughout the community. I had the pleasure of taking part in several of these events, most notably a meeting with Bharrat Jagdeo, the President of Guyana.

Mr. Jagdeo was speaking later that evening as the keynote speaker for the launch, but a group of students and faculty were able to meet with him earlier in the day to discuss some of his initiatives, particularly what he and his country are offering in the global climate change arena.

Guyana sits in the northern part of South America and is largely made up of rainforest. The destruction of the rainforest in South America has been one of the key tenets of the global environmental movement for decades and as the global climate change debate unfolds, it is becoming clear that deforestation is one of the biggest players. Indeed, approximately 20% of the world's GHG emissions are a result of deforestation, as huge amounts of CO2 are released to the atmosphere through the process of cutting them down. More importantly, the forests, which use CO2 to grow, can no longer capture and sequester large amounts of CO2, leaving more to sit in the atmosphere and warm the climate.

Guyana, however, is providing the world with an unprecedented offer. Rather than making an absolute killing on its rainforest resources and harvesting all of it, it is offering to conserve its rainforest in exchange for a substantial amount of funding from the developed world. Using a variety of variables, Guyana estimates that the amount of funding required would be equivalent to $4/tonne of CO2. If put on some of the world's pre-existing carbon markets (ex. EU) it would be a steal, as a tonne of CO2 is currently trading in the $20 range.

What Mr. Jagdeo is really offering is a different way to value our environment. The true costs of exploiting our environment have long been evident, but these days it is really being brought to the forefront of the mainstream mind. If we can put a formal economic value on something that has up until now been without a one, it will allow things like forests to be integrated into our economies and hopefully discourage unsustainable environmental exploitation.

It was certainly an inspiring discussion. Here in front of us was a real-life world leader talking about real-world stuff. This man will be going to Copenhagen and meeting with other world leaders to try to convince them to buy into this system. Some called it refreshing to hear a world leader being so proactive about the climate issue. Indeed, it is certainly better than what you hear about in Canada.

Just today, the Globe & Mail reported that Canada's Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, has effectively quashed any hope of Canada signing on to any global GHG reduction agreement that many are hoping will be forged in Copenhagen this December. Instead, Prentice considers the meeting act as a catalyst to smooth out future meetings where an agreement can be formalized. Considering the success of the last big climate agreement, Kyoto, Copenhagen may very well turn out to be a bust.

The Canadian federal government's position is not unique. Plenty of other countries are not prepared to legally commit to significant emissions reductions.

It is certainly disheartening to realize that the inspiring Guyanan President you meet one day will be pitching his wonderful ideas to the likes of unenthusiastic Jim Prentice types.

Should we be thinking about urban containment policies?

The United States circa 1975, had 95% of its population growth occur in suburban areas outside of cities. Even today, many cities like Los Angeles or even Miami have a vast portion of their populations living in suburban areas and commuting to work (downtown) thanks of course to the automobile.

Urban sprawl has allowed for low-density development and commercial strip malls in the suburbs. More importantly, the automobile has allowed this to happen and consequently, this has emerged as the common development pattern in the United States. Can urban containment policies help encourage increased urbanization, high-density development, public transit improvement and overall better city living? Some experts believe so, but it is always hard to tell because the citizen ultimately makes the final call and influences the decision.

An urban containment policy would impose geographical constraints on urban growth to contain sprawl. What's more, it prevents the outward expansion of the urban field and forces the development market to look inward.

The rationale of an urban containment policy is to preserve natural landscapes, encourage urban development and reinvest in existing urbanized areas. In terms of the policies themselves, there are regulatory urban growth boundaries, the implementation of greenbelts and restricting new residential development in agricultural areas. The interesting one I find is regulating urban growth boundaries. Their rationale is a simple one: to curb sprawl, protect open space and encourage redevelopment of inner-city neighboourhoods. This may work well for large American metropolises but not in a city like Peterborough.

Much of Peterborough's population growth has occurred on these "urban growth boundaries" not within them. That's where the demand is- for single detached housing away from the urban growth centre and usually on open space. Developers know that the housing market demand calls for these types of development which are low-density and inefficient from a mixed land use perspective.

While regulating urban growth boundaries can theoretically encourage more pedestrian friendly cities, they should only come about if the economic rationale is a good one. Regulating urban growth boundaries in Peterborough would be impractical because that is where the population is growing. Alternatively, the city should encourage developers to construct mixed use (commercial and residential) units in the city to optimize space and be more attractive for the suburbanites.

Key message: Urban containment policies can do many things.... above all, they help minimize automobility.

Raaawwwwrrrrr! Me eat wind turbine...

The opposition to wind power is becoming increasingly diverse. The disdain for the industry is no longer reserved for upset property owners, saddened bird and bat lovers, low-frequency electromagnetic wave health worriers or the powerful fossil fuel industry.

No, the newest threat to wind power is a giant, four-armed monster. Where these monsters can be found is so far uncertain, but warnings are being issued to the world on value-brand tissue boxes.

I took this picture of my sister's tissue box. At first (and still) am not sure whether the tissue company is advocating the destruction of wind turbines, or whether it is highlighting how these monsters will soon rid the world of all its trees and wind turbines. Unless of course, an unnamed band of green superheroes are able to fend it off with large orange balls.

If the latter is indeed the case, a certain irony can be found in the message: the monster is destroying trees and tissue paper is made from trees. So who is the box really attacking?

Whatever the reason, be prepared to see a few of these monsters at any upcoming town hall meetings on a wind power development. Just make sure to pack your orange balls.

Gwynne Dyer is coming to town...

On Wednesday, November 11th, Gwynne Dyer will be coming to Peterborough. Mr. Dyer is famed for his syndicated columns appearing all over the world and for his work as a political and military historian, as well as an all around expert on international affairs. I had the pleasure of seeing him speak several years ago on a different topic, but he is a fantastic speaker.

He will be talking about the subjects in his new book, Climate Wars, which explores the geopolitical battles (and wars, hence the title) that might come about as a result of climate change. It should prove to be an eye-opening, frightening and highly interesting experience.

Admission is free, but limited. Contact (705) 748-1011 ext. 6205 or email dyerlecture@trentu.ca to reserve your tickets.

The implications of population growth on water resources...

Peter Gleick is the President of the Pacific Institute out of Oakland, California. The Pacific Institute is a non-partisan research group that does policy analysis on water issues, climate change, sustainable development etc. They make policy recommendations to municipalities of California and ultimately to the state. The President, Gleick, is also a blogger and wrote a highly informative piece today on population and water. Please read his post.

In brief summary, his main points are the following:

-as populations grow, the water policy approach should be demand focused, not supply. For example, using water pricing and by-laws for controlling demand versus building desalination plants and reservoirs to expand water capacity

-Technology has made water use more efficient, however this will not be enough to deal with drastic population increases

-water use per capita has decreased since the 1970s.... do not let this deceive you. It has gone done not necessarily because of greater conservation efforts, but because the population has increased making overall water supply less per capita

To read more, check out the post.

Key message: Water will be the indispensable resource of the 21st century. Population challenges will only make it more precious.

Stern on contemporary issues surrounding climate change...

Does everyone remember the Stern review on the economics of Climate Change? It was a 700-page report produced by Nicholas Stern, an economist in Britain. Released in October 2006, Stern wrote this paper to convince the British government and the world in general, that not taking action on climate change will have serious repercussions on the world economy. His two big buzz words were “mitigation” and “adaptability”.

Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions could be done through environmental taxes, carbon trading schemes and the more technological carbon capture and storage (CCS), which Chris has touched on in the past. Adaptability refers to the sustainable changes that we (mainly developed world) must make to our lives to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. This includes everything from driving less to minimizing our use of air conditioning. Adapting to new conditions brought about by climate change can be difficult, but these changes are critical for the well-being of our planet.

This video features an interview between Allan Greg and Stern. It is quite lengthy (27 minutes) but I encourage you to briefly look through it. Stern talks about his new book "The Global Deal" and gives insight into some of the real issues that surround climate change today. There are several interesting points that come out of the interview but the only one I will touch on is Canada’s role (Canada's role in the video starts at 21 minutes and 15 seconds). In brief, Stern says that Canada’s must have more of a leadership role on the equity aspects of climate change.

Being more vocal on deforestation for instance (deforestation accounts for 20% of global emissions) can set an example for developing countries who clear cut their forests. Canada’s abundance of forestry is highly advantageous from an economic point of view, but adopting more sustainable policies and showing the world that we actually care about our trees, can go a long way.

Stern also points to the massive renewable energy potential for Canada, especially for wind. Developing technologies in Canada like carbon capture or more efficient automobiles can demonstrate the feasibility of these technologies and create an impetus for other countries to explore them. Why should we explore them? We have money for research and development in Canada. Alas, money is not sufficiently allocated to these areas.

I guess anyone can ignore Canada’s leadership seeing as we are one of the highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. Nonetheless, collaborating with other countries and being more vocal on the numerous problems associated with deforestation can be highly useful. Maybe Canada’s role on deforestation policies will be better solidified at Copenhagen.

Key message: Climate change is complex. Collaboration on this issue is of fundamental importance.

A quick history of Toronto's urban development...

I just read a really interesting paper for my urban environments class. The article was written by a Trent Professor. It is all about Toronto’s urban development from 1940 to 1970. Importantly however, the article discusses the role that urban expertise played in developing the city.

Because Toronto was growing so rapidly in these thirty years, it was vital to draw on the knowledge of planners, engineers, scientists and property developers to find ways that were economically productive and environmentally sound. This thirty year period was also quite tumultuous for the city as certain professions were favoured over others. Over time however, cohesion was better reached.

Historically, we have witnessed a clash between expert authority and political authority. Take the example of the urban planner in the 1950s. The urban planner might have said that bringing about a green space in an urban community can have health and aesthetics benefits. However, it may be challenging for them because they lack political authority to get these decisions passed by a municipality.

This has changed ever since, but it must have been so frustrating for planner then, who had good ideas for community improvement but was neglected because of the infrastructural solution proposed by the engineer. The city government always approved the solutions in which they perceived had immediate economic benefits. As the progressive environmental era emerged, city planners and scientists were given more voice.

The conventional view to resolving environmental problems in the 1950s and 60s was engineering solutions. Making sewers and water supply systems more efficient for example. But, a key point of the article that I wanted to share with you is that rapid urban development creates the impetus to draw on diverse expertise. Urban problems are far too complex to solve for any one profession. Floods for example, require diverse response teams for adequate remediation.

Toronto’s urban development approach was different than many of its American counterparts. Toronto for example, realized the importance of creating highways to allow suburban residents to travel from home to work. The construction of these roads and highways did not obliterate or destroy neighbourhoods (mainly low-income) while being built- something that has happened in the U.S. Take the cross-Bronx expressway in NYC for example.

The amalgamation of such expertise led to the creation of the metropolitan Toronto council. This represented a diverse body and helped find practical solutions to deal with Toronto’s rapidly growing population. Even the creation of suburban developments like the famous Don Mills suburb, was carefully thought out in design to avoid severe environmental damage and providing populations with a chance to settle in non congested areas.

Key message: The history of city development is interesting. Rapid urban development in Toronto not only led to more cohesion amongst professions (and expertise) but led to practical environmental and economic solutions.

Stupid Green Ideas: No pee on this plane...

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it sitting in my inbox. The headline said it all: "Japanese airline wants you to go before boarding".

A Japanese airline, All Nippon Airways (ANA), has introduced a pilot program (pardon the pun) asking its passengers to use the washroom before boarding for a flight.

The reason, you ask?

ANA believes that if every passenger chooses to use the washroom before boarding, the weight of the plane will decrease, ultimately increasing fuel efficiency and reducing the level of greenhouse gas emissions from the flight.

Here's the math they use. On average, a human being carries up to one litre in their bladder, which weighs approximately one kilogram. Each flight can carry 247 passengers. So if everyone goes to the washroom before boarding, in theory the flight should be 247 kg lighter. Over the course of one month and 42 flights, ANA hopes to achieve a 5-tonne GHG reduction.

Several issues arise with this policy. Firstly, most people already go to the washroom before boarding a flight, so the theoretical savings are probably well overshot. And they certainly don't do this for the environment, but instead for convenience because they don't want to go through the hassle of lining up to use the shaky in-flight toilets.

Secondly, this could be a pain for passengers. Along with all the security protocols people have to go through these days at the airport, the last thing many people will want as they present their boarding pass is someone asking them if they have gone to the washroom yet. This was common when I was a kid, but it was my parents asking me, not airline staff.

Thirdly, this gives a bad name to environmental policies all across the board. It's fairly condescending and any backlash would not be particularly surprising. Hopefully its sheer silliness and short life span (fingers crossed) will lead it to be ignored and fall into the forgotten gallows of time forever.

One reporter on CBC made a very good point when she asked what might be next? Are they going to ask you to eat beforehand, too? (This wouldn't be all that effective either, though, considering the reputation for the quality of airline food...).

Unsurprisingly, Canada's major airlines are making no such steps. Westjet even called it "a bit extreme".

Let's just hope ANA flushes this one down the toilet. Before getting on the flight, of course.

Meet Canada's new Big Green Giant...

It took a few months, but Alberta's largest electricity generator, TransAlta, was finally able to finalize its takeover of Canada's largest renewable energy generator, Canadian Hydro Developers (CHD).

This is big. As it stands, the development of renewable energy in Canada has been fairly scattered as a multitude of different companies, utilities and community groups are installing 'green' power, primarily from wind, hydro, solar and biomass. The largest of these companies is CHD, generating nearly 700 MW from 21 wind, solar and biomass projects in B.C., Ontario, Quebec & Alberta. Those in Ontario may be familiar with its largest and most controversial wind project, the Wolfe Island Wind Project.

But today, TransAlta purchased CHD for $1.6B to significantly add to its green portfolio. TransAlta is known for its large coal-fired generation plants that generate nearly 4000MW, although it also dabbles in gas and some renewables. But acquiring CHD will put a lot of money behind renewables in Canada and could lead to a massive influx of grandiose renewable power projects.

This acquisition has several benefits for TransAlta. First, it makes them look greener. Coal is not cool anymore and being known as a coal giant degrades its reputation daily. Being green, however, is cool and people may look more favourably towards it.

Secondly, TransAlta intends to cease expansion of coal-fired generation plants in the next few years. Since energy companies like to grow, it leaves a sizeable (and profitable) gap of potential development. The new renewable projects will fill much of that gap, but more importantly, they will launch TransAlta into a sector that has nowhere to go but up, made especially enticing by considerable government incentives.

Thirdly, it gives TransAlta the right to any 'green credits' that might come along with a large cap-and-trade system. That is, groups creating green power will be given credits -- as opposed to having to purchase credits for GHG emitting behaviour, like coal plants -- that they can sell to other firms, or in TransAlta's case, use to offset some of the damage done by its GHG emitting gas and coal plants.

With the arrival of such a giant in Canada's renewable energy sector, the development of renewable power is hit with a question: What is the best way to go about deploying renewable energy? Is it through large companies like TransAlta that will be able to take advantage of massive economies of scale and significant resources to establish very large generation projects with an increased likelihood of encountering public opposition? Or should governments be focused on deploying them locally, through community-based power projects?

The presence of TransAlta will certainly make things interesting. And with the Green Energy Act coming into place, TransAlta's green future looks even more promising. But if its future projects are anything like Wolfe Island, you can be sure we'll stand witness to a big, windy fight.