G&M Rejects: The Questionable Future of Ontario's Green Energy Act...

I've started taking it upon myself to submit pieces to the Globe & Mail. Anyone can do this, simply by submitting a 700-word piece to comment@globeandmail.ca on any topic they would like. However, the likelihood of actually getting published is fairly small. They get roughly 30 of these submissions per day and many of them come from people who frequently write for different news outlets. But it's worth a shot. They give you about a two week window to decide if they will print it. Sadly, my two weeks are up. So here it is: 

It may only be a few months old, but Ontario’s landmark Green Energy Act (GEA) legislation could soon find itself in hot water. Environmentalists and green energy advocates alike might very well choose to dispel such a statement amidst their victorious celebrations, but let us not ignore the political realities of the GEA. While much of the legislation’s content is not particularly controversial and quite popular, it faces pressure for a few key reasons.




The first such reason is cost. The government is allocating $5-billion over a three year period to the GEA, much of which will be put towards investment in the current electricity infrastructure. Investment in the system is absolutely necessary, but some might say that a few billion dollars in only a few years might be pushing it. Regardless of the appropriateness of the government spending, billions of dollars worth of investment in a new program will almost always breed critics. Furthermore, the significant conservation programs and hefty Feed-in-Tariffs that will spur renewable energy development – the other two fifths of the GEA budget – have left those in opposition to the act chomping at the bit, most notably Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives. The criticisms range from overvaluation of the conservation programs to the unfair market distortions that will be created by government subsidies, but it is clear that the GEA is not a political lovefest in Ontario.

Dalton McGuinty’s government could very well suffer from some of the GEA measures. This is what GEA proponents should really be worried about. It is not too surprising, as any large, progressive legislation is often fraught with political risk. From within the GEA itself, the risk stems from the centralized and streamlined approvals process for renewable energy projects that removes the autonomy of the local municipalities. While touted by its proponents as a mechanism of efficiency, this particular tool of the GEA could backfire as local opposition to green projects swells. Indeed, during a well-packed community meeting in October in Manvers, Ontario, a proposed wind farm was heavily scrutinized by the 500 strong crowd. But the criticism wasn’t just reserved for the wind project itself; the crowd, residing in a Liberal-controlled riding, took direct aim at the McGuinty government and its support for projects like this. Manvers is only one of a growing many places where the GEA will really touch some nerves.


The biggest risk lies within the factors the GEA has no control over. That is, the current state of affairs of Dalton McGuinty’s government. The E-Health scandal, high unemployment rates and a severely hindered economy have done little to raise the public confidence of the provincial government. Indeed, an unprecedented $25-billion move into the red could spell political disaster. Interestingly, this budget shortfall does not even account for the money expected to be doled out in the GEA. At best, several of the grand ambitions of the GEA will have to be revised or dropped outright for lack of funds. The next provincial election is not for another two years, but if a the PCs manage to regain power in Ontario, you can be sure that a good chunk of the GEA will be changed significantly, if not removed.

But the trouble for the GEA does not stop there. Its most vehement political supporter, Deputy Premier and Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, “Furious” George Smitherman, announced his plan to resign in March to run in Toronto’s mayoral race. If anything is proposed to happen to the GEA, he won’t be around to stop it. Eyeing the budget shortfall, some of his colleagues in Cabinet that he so passionately fought off when proposing the GEA will seek to cut up the more flexible and politically viable aspects of the act. Unfortunately, these pieces might be some of the most progressive.

The GEA is indeed a landmark decision and the Ontario government should be applauded for implementing it. The sweeping measures taken will help to ensure a beneficial and efficient transition to a green energy future for the province. But in today’s political and economic climate, nothing is completely written in stone. Take advantage while you can because the Green Energy Act might be a limited time offer.

A talk on how the economic crisis impacted food security....

The World Affairs Colloquium is hosting a talk next Wednesday (December 2nd) at 3pm in Trent's Alumni house. For those of you who have not been to the Alumni house, I would say it is the most prestigious building on campus so you should check it out. It is located in Champlain College next to the residence staircases.

The title of the talk is "Local Insight, Global Outlook" - How the Economic Crisis has Impacted Food Security on a Local, National, and Global Level. This talk will feature a panel of three speakers. For the local perspective, our panelist is Dave Ralph from the Kawartha Food Share. Our speaker on the national perspective is Paula Anderson from Peterborough Green-Up. Finally, Professor Tom Hutchinson will speak to the consequences that the economic crisis produced on the global scale.

More information about the speakers:
Prof. Emeritus Tom Hutchinson, Department of Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University, is one of Canada's leading ecologists. Tom has extensive knowledge of sustainable agricultural systems and the biodiversity of old-growth forests. His distinguished international reputation is rooted in his extensive expertise and research as an ecologist.

Paula Anderson is the Waste Reduction Manager for Peterborough Green-Up, a local environmental charitable organization. Paula also teaches an undergrad course at Trent entitled "The Canadian Food System: A Community Development Approach".

Dave Ralph is the Chair of Kawartha Food Share, a broad-based community effort that coordinates community resources to provide emergency food in the City and Country of Peterborough.

Nature Provides, Industry Develops...Really?

Walking past Peterborough's City Hall this evening I happened to see a flag raised with the logo of Vancouver's Winter Olympics. I decided to peruse the event's website and found out that the Olympic Torch will be coming through Peterborough on December 15th & 16th. This is kind of cool, but I also noticed something else on the site. It listed Peterborough's city motto: "Dat Natura, Elaborant Artes". 

In English, this translates to "Nature Provides, Industry Develops".

So maybe I'm simply a jaded Trent student that sees things through a certain lens, but even so, this is completely ridiculous. Peterborough repeatedly touts itself as the "Gateway to Cottage Country" and a wonderfully green city. Indeed, it was recently listed as one of Canada's most walkable cities. But such a city motto emanates everything that is wrong with how we approach our relationship with nature.

I decided to look it up on Wikipedia and found that the motto -- also titled on its Coat of Arms -- is supposed to mean "Nature gives bountifully and the crafts and energy of the people elaborate nature's gift". Forgive me, but that's a load of BS.

What it really means (and is very much reflective of) is the belief that nature has provided us with wonderful things that we can develop and exploit at our will. We can take from nature, but we don't care too much about giving back, or at least not taking too quickly.

Now before you roll your eyes and ride this off as simply a broken-recordesque hippie rant against "the establishment", I have nothing against development as a whole. But there is a right way to do it and a wrong way. For the large part, we've been doing it the wrong way. And such a simplistic view that is very much reflected in the Peterborough motto only perpetualizes this.

I understand that such a motto might be traditional and untouchable in the eyes of some, but going with what is traditional has left us with a lot of problems to deal with. 

Let's take a second look at our official mottos and rethink how we really want to represent ourselves.    

Is climate change really about risk management?

This post is a sequel to Chris's post about the Munk debates on climate change.

According to Greg Craven, climate change is a game of risk management. As he explains in the video, we can take action on "global warming" and spend trillions of dollars doing this. But, what if global warming is "false"? Then we run ourselves into a global depression. Or we spend trillions of dollars and we benefit through this as it greatly minimizes the risks associated with global warming. Or we do nothing (status quo) and global warming does not prove to be as catastrophic as it was predicted to be. Here we do not take action, nothing significant happens and we save $$$. And if we don't take action and it actually happens.... well, then we are screwed.

I am just summarizing the video. Watch it with a critical eye. There is so much controversy surrounding this issue, how much thought have you given climate change? For you, is climate change a question of risk management? Or is it more of a science issue or political problem? Feel free to share thoughts about the video on enviroboys. We always welcome comments.

If you want to know more about Greg Craven, see here.

The Munk Debates: Climate Change...

As a lead-in to the historic climate change summit in Copenhagen, the Munk Debates in Toronto will be holding one of its famed debates on December 1st. The question: how should the world respond to climate change?

In the pro-corner (that is, supporting significant action against climate change) are the leader of Canada's Green Party, Elizabeth May, and the famed British journalist and author, George Monbiot.

Taking them on will be the Danish professor, Bjorn Lomborg, author of the wildly popular Skeptical Environmentalist, and Lord Nigel Lawson, a former British journalist and parliamentarian.

The debate itself will begin at 6:45 pm and continue until 9:00 pm and will be held in Toronto's Royal Conservatory. Tickets are available to the public starting at $20, but space is limited. If you're like me, and can't find the time to get down to Toronto, the debate will be broadcasted online at www.munkdebates.com .

I highly encourage you to watch the debate. The Munk Debates only happen a few times per year, but are very successful and wonderfully popular. The most recent debates have touched on topics like foreign aid and world security and have included the likes of Stephen Lewis, Rick Hillier, Niall Ferguson and Sam Power.

Happy debating...

Imagine cars as an investment...

When you buy a new car, it is said that it loses half of its value as soon as you drive off the lot. Unless you collect rare cars, vehicles are one of the poorest economic investments anyone can make.

Sure, they provide drivers with the independence to go where they want, when they want and with the comforts of heat, shelter, music and most importantly, cupholders. And yes, some might argue there is value in the opportunities a car can give you, such as being able to get to a job. But when you pay for that car, the value consistently falls over time, especially as you dump money into repairs. And at the end of its life, you can sell it for a much lower value or just scrap it altogether.

But imagine this: What if you could use your vehicle as its own source of revenue, enough so that it could pay for itself? This is a possibility being brought forth by electric cars.

It would work quite simply. When you charge your electric car, you can do so at the low-peak hours (i.e. throughout the night while you sleep while electricity will be cheaper) and then any amount that was unused or regenerated can be sold back to the electricity grid at peak hours (i.e. weekday evenings when everyone gets home from work). The vehicle acts as a storage for electricity that can be sold back for a profit while also levelling out the peak demand on the electricity system.

That, in conjunction with the up to $10,000 the Ontario government has proposed, could make vehicles profitable and, over time, pay for themselves.

For those of you familiar with this futuristic view of our electricity system, the benefits of electric cars might be well known already. However, I had never come across the idea that the cars could pay for themselves and be their own source of revenue.

What an exciting plethora of possibilities we have for the future...

Ontario's 1st Annual Community Power Conference...

In November of 2008, CBC's Fifth Estate aired its hugely successful documentary, The Gospel of Green, that explored the wonderfully successful development of renewable energy in Europe and relatively dismal performance of the technologies in Ontario. A year later, things have changed.

As if Ontario's provincial government had just watched the documentary, its Green Energy and Economy Act was passed this past summer as North America's first uber-progressive energy-related legislation, essentially mirroring the innovative policies adopted in countries like Germany and Denmark. The act will certainly spur the rapid development of renewables in Ontario through the Feed-in-Tariff program, but it also emphasizes a lesser-known approach to renewable energy development known as community power.

Community power is the ownership, development and management of renewable energy projects by the local community. Rather than having big companies come in and rent out the land to put up, say, ten wind turbines, the landowners instead opt to do the project themselves. These types of projects have significant local economic benefits (local jobs and the revenue stays in the local economy), environmental benefits (after all, they are renewable energy projects) and very importantly, create a greater understanding of the technologies, which aids in the social acceptance and uptake of renewable projects.

You will often find community power projects developed in the form of community co-operatives, First Nations groups, municipalities and local utilities, farmers and most commonly a combination of these groups. Unfortunately, by the end of 2008, less than 1% of Ontario's renewables were community-owned. The Green Energy Act hopes to change that raise the share to levels found in (surprise, surprise) Denmark and Germany, which have community ownership rates of ~90% and ~50%, respectively.

As a means to get the ball rolling on community projects, the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association (OSEA) recently held the 1st Annual Community Power Conference in Toronto. Despite the steep $1000 conference fee (I'll discuss this later) I was able to attend for free thanks to a generous donation from David Suzuki (pictured below).

The conference brought together a broad range of delegates: folks from the renewables industry, government officials, consultants, representatives of different lobby groups, First Nations members and some small start-up companies. Of course, some Europeans came across the pond to give us an idea of how successfully this model had worked in Europe. The talks were very informative (several future blog posts will relate to the conference) and the networking opportunities were quite substantial. And of course, getting to sit beside David Suzuki for a $200 banquet dinner (covered, thank goodness) wasn't too shabby either.

But there were some big things missing from the conference. You might have justifiably gasped at the size of the conference fee. How many community groups can afford to dish out $1000 to attend a conference for two days? Not many, apparently. There was only a handful of individuals from community groups considering putting together a community project. This bothered me. But much emphasis at the conference was put on partnerships between developers and community groups, so we may very well see a series of community partnerships pushed forward by big developers. It looks good on their part (usually actually is good if done properly) and actually makes projects more profitable (the Feed-in-Tariff includes bonuses for community or First Nations involvement).

I've attended a few of these conferences the past summer and have come to realize that excessive hobnobbing is quite commonplace. Fortunately, the level of 'community' participation in this conference does not reflect the true potential for community projects in Ontario. What the conference indicated very clearly is that the potential benefits of these projects are immense in Ontario and more importantly, there is a wealth of excitement building up in the province to put renewables all over. It is a very exciting time for Ontario.  

Special talk on eco-psychology next week....

This coming Wednesday, the World Affairs Colloquium at Trent is hosting the 2009 Jack Matthews fellow, Douglas Blakey. The talk is titled "Eco-psychology and Educational Leadership: Bridging the Gap". It will be hosted in the Camp Kawartha Environment Centre (2505 Pioneer Road) on November 18th from 3-5pm. The centre is just south of Gzowski College. For a map of the centre in relation to the university, see here.

Douglas Blakey spent over 30 years as a teacher and principal of Upper Canada College in Toronto. Mr. Blakey has recently worked as an advisor on environmental sustainability for independent schools. Using a unique pedagogy approach based on “Learn it By Living It” concepts, Mr. Blakey uses these concepts to upgrade facilities and grounds with environmental technologies and integrates them with curriculum and organizational behaviour. Also working with local communities, Douglas Blakey has recently developed a fascination with eco-psychology and is interested in the interplay between eco-psychology and its positive impact on inspiring educational leadership.

The Jack Matthews Fellowship was created in 2008 to honour the founding contributions Jack made to to Trent University, Lakefield College School and the Canadian Canoe Museum.

It's going to be a great talk that you definitely don't want to miss.

Dyer's gloomy and doomy perspective on the world...

I attended Gwynne Dyer’s lecture last night and was blown away with both hope and despair. The title of his talk entitled “Climate Wars” inherently has that feeling of global desolation. Dyer revealed many important points about the numerous implications of climate change. These included its impact on global food production, the melting of permafrost, depleting groundwater aquifers, population growth, warming oceans and their eventual inability to absorb carbon dioxide emissions and many more.

His 1 hour lecture was filled with compelling arguments albeit scary, wit and humorous jokes and stories of his visits to and interviews with numerous political leaders, scientists and military generals around the world.

He organized and structured his talk with five conclusions. This would make for an excessively long blog post if I went into detail for each one, so instead I will just tell you what I thought was interesting and frightening at the same time. Firstly, Dyer says that a global temperature rise of two degrees Celsius (note this is important) can have cataclysmic consequences for world. Take food production in sub-tropical states for example, with increased droughts creating less favourable climate conditions for crop production and irrigation, countries can face massive food shortages. A two degree rise can cause India to lose up to 25% of its food production, that’s equivalent to roughly 250 million of its inhabitants becoming hungry.

He kept making reference to how a two degree rise in global temperature can have drastic consequences. Consequences such as disasters causing environmental refugees to seek new places for food and water and face governments who are themselves concerned with feeding their own populations. Mexico and Central America have a combined population of 200 million people, food and water shortages can send these people north to the U.S. says Dyer. The U.S. has been somewhat pro-active with upholding security at the Mexican border, but things can get a lot more defensive in the future.

There are many other examples that Dyer draws on including potential water/nuclear conflicts between India and Pakistan, or Iraqi refugees on the Saudi Arabian border. Point being, that armies or the “generals” as Dyer puts it, are going to have lots of work coming their way in terms of protection and natural security against potential refugees.

On Copenhagen, Dyer is cynical but realistic. In short, he thinks it will be an utter failure. He expects nothing positive to come out of it because Obama has not made any federal commitments to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Not yet at least. The U.S. has to have a solid plan or proposition for a conference like Copenhagen, otherwise the prospects of creating a global climate change binding agreement is hopeless.

Same goes for Canada, realistically we would have to cut our national emissions by as much as 40%, yeah sounds absurd doesn’t it? The average Canadian emits 21 tonnes of carbon emissions annually, gargantuan in comparison to China’s 4 tonnes per person or India’s 1.5 per person. A global agreement on climate change is only possible if nations like Canada, the U.S. and France are willing to make major cuts.

The world is presently at 390 ppm of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. We are adding about 3.2 ppm every year which over 20 years will bring us to 450 ppm. 450 ppm is considered the tipping point! Crazy how 4 out of every 5 Americans own a car. This number would be higher but the other 20% of the nation is either too old or young to drive, or find themselves in prisons says Dyer.

Key message: In order to stay below 450ppm and avoid a global temperature increase of two degrees, Canada and the U.S. are going to have to step up. We are going to have to make major emission cuts which means more significant changes to our lives… driving less, spending more on energy efficient appliances and eating more locally. Sounds pretty easy to me, but harder to pitch to North America as we know it.

Vancouver should be more pro-active with green roof development...

Vancouver is a “great opportunities city”- it has enormous potential to revitalize its environmental and economic environment. Vancouver’s city policies have thus far supported numerous urban sustainability solutions such as increased urban density, mixed-use developments, buildings that preserve special green space and infrastructure for transit, cycling and walking to provide non-automobile options for living in and moving between Vancouver.

What the city needs to do is bring about green roof technology through policy tools such as market-based instruments. Why? Vancouver receives a higher than average amount of precipitation than other Canadian cities. Climate change, in particular excess rainfall, can pose numerous challenges for Vancouver in the future.

Vancouver’s urban hydrologic system will have to cope with a highly fluctuating amount of surface runoff water, which can become extremely high during periods of rainfall. Climate change has the potential to intensify rainfall patterns resulting in increased risks with flooding.

When a high percentage of the city’s residents live in these compact urban areas, flooding will cause massive displacement and be an economic nightmare. Market-based instruments such as direct financial incentives, serve as the necessary policy tools to promote this technology and make it affordable. Green roof technology will serve to help the city with stormwater management and reducing risks of floods.

Market-based instruments like direct financial incentives can help make them popular and environmentally attractive. More importantly, the utilization of market-based tools can help determine if there is sufficient demand for green roof development and the economic viability of them.

Toronto recently adopted a by-law that will govern the construction of green roofs on new development. However, before this regulatory requirement came about, the city ran a program called “Toronto’s Green Roof Incentive Pilot program”. This program offered a grant of $10/m² to eligible green roofs and proved to be popular. Vancouver should run a similar program.

As mentioned, over the past 10 years, a large percent of the metropolitan region’s new housing units were built within the existing urban area. Such density is important for the city, but there must still be a sufficient amount of permeable surfaces to capture and drain rainfall so it does not runoff and cause flooding. Thus, stormwater management must be optimal to avoid flooding of a highly dense urban core.

Green roofs can help capture rainfall and ultimately improve the urban hydrologic system. This environmental reason alone should suffice and act as an impetus to begin a green roof pilot project program as done in Toronto.

Through pilot projects, knowledge and experience is gained and the city becomes more familiarized with how green roofs operate. These steps are important for bringing about green roofs because everyone benefits through increased knowledge. These sorts of policy instruments are more effective for environmental change than by simply resorting to regulatory measures. While regulation sets a precedent for the city’s commitment to sustainability, it is too precipitous to implement right now and does not provide the developer with sufficient incentives.

As stormwater management gains more salience, policy-makers will realize the benefits of providing incentives to developers and building owners to bring about green roof technology. Also, energy prices are increasing for building heating and cooling and green roofs have proven to be efficacious at minimizing these costs.

Key message: Green roofs will help Vancouver promote healthy and sustainable communities.

Water use per person in the U.S. is nearly 30 percent lower than in 1975...

This post is from Peter Gleick's blog: City Brights

Ponder this paradox...

"Water Number: 410 billion gallons per day in 2005 compared to 413 billion gallons per day in 2000. This is the total amount of water withdrawn in the U.S. for all purposes (residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, and power plant cooling). Despite continuing population growth, despite continued economic growth, total water use in the United States is effectively unchanged from five years ago. Even more remarkable? Water use today is lower than it was 30 years ago, in 1975. And on a per-capita basis, the drop is dramatic: Water use per person in the U.S. is nearly 30 percent lower than in 1975."

"It used to take 200 tons of water to make a ton of steel. Now steel plants in the U.S. use less than 20 tons of water to make a ton of steel. That is a 90% reduction."

To read more on this topic, click here.

As you read, keep in mind population growth as a major factor. U.S. population circa 1975: 215,000,000. U.S. population circa 2009: 305,000,000. Therefore, total water use per capita should theoretically be lower, given bigger population and less water available for each person. Water droughts and shortages have been more common over the past 20 years and climate change has reduced the quantity of water in major U.S. rivers.

Rethinking the single stream recycling system...

The waste management class I have the pleasure of taking this year has opened my eyes to quite a few of the waste systems that I had, largely until now, taken for granted. In particular, the blue box system in Ontario.

In addition to its storied political history as a product of industry implemented as an alternative to a deposit-refund system (perhaps Tim or I will tell that story in a later post...), the stream systems of the blue box are worth a second look.

When I say stream systems, I'm talking about the way the recycling is divided up. Indeed, many jurisdictions are multi-stream, meaning that the onus falls on the home or business-owner to divide up their recycling into its respective bins before the truck shows up to take it away. However, several jurisdictions in Ontario have employed single stream systems, meaning that you can throw everything into one bin.

Someone of considerable reputation told me a few years ago that Peterborough had moved to a single stream system. As a result, I elected to no longer separate my recycling, thinking that somehow this single stream system was a better recycling system. Nevermind the fact that this certain someone was wrong and that the truck seemed to take it anyway, I, like many other Ontarians, was quite wrong in thinking that this new, single stream system was great.

But why? What's wrong with it? When a city decides to change its recycling system, it must be in a progressive direction, right?

That is certainly what I thought. I pictured a hyper-futuristic recycling facility with different machines that could separate everything very cleanly and efficiently. Wrong. In fact, single stream is considerably less efficient, especially when it comes to recycling recovery rates.

Recycling facilities are from perfect and it is difficult to separate the different materials. When you can't separate materials, they can't always be recycled. Herein lies the problem of a single stream system.

So why have a number of Ontario municipalities moved to such a system?

One answer is cost. Actual collection costs are significantly lower for a municipality when they only have one bin to toss in and there trucks can easily crush everything together, rather than carefully dividing each material up. Collection is also faster, meaning less gas used and less employee hours needed.

The other is a function of the world's economy. As oil prices spiked over the past few years, more manufacturers moved to recycled inputs in their products because processing virgin materials cost outrageously more. The market exploded for recycled materials, even if they were slightly contaminated with other recycled materials, and municipalities made a killing. Demand grew and municipalities moved to single stream so they could collect as much recycling material as possible to sell off.

But then the market crashed. Oil prices plummeted and virgin materials became much cheaper to use as inputs for manufactured goods. Additionally, industry now only wanted the cleanest recycled products, which only the municipalities employing multi-stream systems could supply. The single-stream system was left in the dust, so many places (including Toronto) were unable to sell and of their recycling and had to store it until the market recouped.

As the market recovers, single stream might become more viable again. But don't be fooled, it is not the perfect solution. It is much, much, less than that.

Scientists and the blogosphere...

Scientists should write blogs. To quote from an article written by Nature (one of the world`s top science journals) "The standard scientific paper is irreplaceable as a fixed, archivable document that defines a checkpoint in a body of work, but it's static, it's very limited”. Scientists should continue to publish in journals, but they should provide a synopsis of their research via blogs.

When scientists communicate their research to the public, more of a discussion takes place. Whether it is climate change research or geo-engineering- people can formulate their opinions on the subject matter if it is made publicly available.

People from other academic communities learn about the research and about its applicability to society. As one author from Nature writes “academia is a marketplace of ideas”. As such, ideas can be more informally shared within the academy through wikis and blogs. Anyone can read them. Scientists produce material that is controversial at times and highly criticized by other members of the science community. Once scientists put a description of their paper on a blog, people far from the usual circle start thinking about the subject.

In the blogosphere, scientists analyze a topic and provide discussion over it- information that is educational and generally interesting. This discussion is usually more interactive, inclusive and engaging.

In terms of environmental debates, blogging is the ultimate information engine comprising arguments and opinions from various individuals. Environmental debates are current with blogging and the insight is more in-depth. A journal publication in a scientific paper, while highly scholastic, is limited to readers and analysis from other communities.

Blogging is also a challenge for some of these scientists because they have to communicate jargon and scientific terms to an audience that will understand them. This theoretically makes the scientist think more carefully about language and how to communicate more effectively to environmental debates. Generally we know that scientists are not the best communicators to the public. I think blogging can help with this.

One main risk identified by the Nature article is “many scientists don't blog because they fear it has a poor image and could damage their careers.” Blogging is not universally accepted in academia, supervisors caution their students not to share academic information because others may steal their ideas. Or, it may be dangerous to share your academic work online because others may publicly criticize it deeming the author untrustworthy, biased, ill-informed etc. These impede the process of blogging acceptability, but this will change over time.

The benefits of blogging are wide-ranging: sharing novel research ideas allows for collaboration. Scientists can work with others to produce ground-breaking scientific ideas. Blogging allows for other communities to read the work which can bring diverse opinions, knowledge and interests to the table.

Blogging in a sense does compromise the peer-review system (essential for journal publications). However, blogging is not meant to be an academic forum or research database, it is meant to generate discussion from all communities. Nature says “Once scientists come up with some sort of peer-review mechanism for blogs that increase their credibility, without diminishing their spontaneity, blogs will take off.”

Scientists may have their reservations about blogs but must understand its true purpose. A peer-review mechanism will add another dimension to the blogosphere ultimately making it more popular for the scientific community. But hopefully this does not transform blogging into an esoteric and inaccessible commentary base.

Key message: Blogging is for everyone. Scientists are researching very complex and salient topics that the public should be aware of. Keeping this information reserved in journals is not only exclusive, but disallows other academic communities to learn about the topic. Having said all this, please check out this science blog.