100 quick facts on water...

"Water is life". These words have been echoed by hydrologists, conservationists, authors, bloggers, journalists, economists, academics and activists. More and more professionals are beginning to articulate the importance of conserving this natural resource for future generations. With uncertainty around climate change and continuing population growth, we know that the total amount of water available per person will inevitably decrease in the coming years.

Here in North America, we are quite profligate with our water consumption. The average Canadian uses 343 litres of water per day. That is absurd considering that the Israelis consume 135 litres per person per day and the Swedish, 200 litres. The geography of water resources does dictate water availability. For instance, water consumption is higher in Canada than in Israel because of the Great Lakes and ubiquity of rivers, streams, smaller lakes and aquifers. Israel has no water and has turned to the Mediterranean Sea for desalination (that process where salt water is converted into fresh drinking water).

Geography is critical, however, I think policy is just as important. If we are wanting to become more serious about water conservation in Canada over the next 25 years, policy is going to have to take an aggressive approach in pushing water metering, by-laws and incentives for residents to decrease their total amount of water use. Yes, it is true, Canada does have lots of water; 20% of the world's fresh water to be exact. Do not however, let this number deceive you as we only have 7% of the world's renewable fresh water- water that is naturally recycled through the water cycle.

4 months into my thesis project, and I have already learned so much more about this natural resource. Environment Canada has 100 facts about water that are quite revealing and informative. Some of these facts include:

1)Only 0.3% of total global fresh water is stored in lakes and rivers.
2)Fifty percent of the world's wetlands have been lost since 1900.
3)Almost two billion people were affected by natural disasters in the last decade of the 20th century, 86% of them by floods and droughts.
4)Annually, Canada's rivers discharge 7% of the world's renewable water supply – 105 000 cubic metres per second.
5)Almost 9%, or 891 163 square kilometers, of Canada's total area is covered by fresh water.

There are 95 more available at this Environment Canada link.

Key message: Water is life.

Carbon pricing vs. feed-in-tariffs: How should we really be spurring development of renewables in Canada?

Much praise has been given for Ontario’s Feed-in-Tariff program and its potential to develop renewable power generation to levels comparable in countries like Germany and Denmark, where FITs have also been used. But some have commented that a carbon pricing system (either through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system) would be far more effective. They are only half right.

They are right because a FIT is very expensive. Indeed, Ontario’s Green Energy Act has allocated $5B over the next five years, much of which will be put towards its FIT program. A carbon pricing system, on the other hand, is relatively cheap to maintain and (if done properly) a revenue generator. These people are also right because it effects traditional energy production, specifically fossil fuel generation like gas, oil and coal. The price of generation of these technologies increases and makes renewables more economically attractive. Moreover, for those with a particular appetite for freedom of choice, it doesn’t let governments pick and choose the technologies it wants. Indeed, the market decides.

In his book, Heat, George Monbiot struggles to find out how renewables alone could supply our current demand for energy. In short, they can’t. A carbon-pricing scheme would make energy conservation more attractive because we’d have to pay extra for wasting energy. Furthermore, even if we can’t get to the energy demand levels required for purely renewable power generation, a carbon-pricing system could make carbon capture and storage technologies economically viable without massive public subsidies.

But they are wrong because a carbon-pricing scheme alone won’t solve the problem of developing renewables. First, if the market has its way, only the cheapest renewables would get built, most likely hydro and on-shore wind power. But several other technologies would get left out in the dust. Solar PV, wave, tidal, offshore wind and even some biofuels wouldn’t be able to compete. This is not to say these technologies are not beneficial, but rather that they are immature. Considering that many in the renewable energy field believe we need a diverse mix of all technologies to properly reap the rewards of renewable energy, a carbon-pricing scheme might leave us with only a few options.

This would be fine if there were moving water and windy areas everywhere. But some places are very sunny and dry, some have massive tidal flows and other places really, really hate wind turbines. Specific technologies need to be brought up to par and sometimes a direct and exclusive financial incentive (ex. A technology-specific FIT) is necessary. And if you’re smart about it, like Ontario is trying to be, you can invest in the technology now and export it to the rest of the world for a nice chunk of change. Look at Vestas in Denmark, for example.

Now, it wouldn’t really matter what technology you picked if the carbon price was high enough. As long as a technology can make some money, it will be put into use. The problem is that we would need some very high carbon prices.

According to a New Energy Finance study mentioned in The Economist, onshore wind requires a carbon price of US$38/tonne to become economically viable without subsidy. This is not an outlandish price. Carbon taxes in some European countries are over US$100/tonne, so it isn’t politically impossible. But before you get too excited, let’s remember that Stephane Dion’s Green Shift platform ran alongside a $10/tonne tax on carbon and it was demolished. Even the relative success story of British Columbia’s carbon tax is fraught with political opposition, and it’s only hovering around the $15/tonne mark these days. The only large-scale attempt at setting a carbon price is the European Union’s Emissions-Trading-Scheme, which has the price set at US$22/tonne. These prices might eventually get around the $40/tonne mark, but that won’t do it for the more expensive technologies. Offshore wind requires a price of US$136/tonne and solar PV US$196/tonne. You want to set a carbon price to make that economically viable? Good luck.

But this entire post has offered us a false choice. What we really need is both a carbon price and subsidy programs. A price on carbon is absolutely necessary, even if it is as small as $10/tonne. It will at least give some indication to industry and consumers so they can include the carbon costs in their accounts. And any revenues taken from it can go towards subsidies. What’s really needed is the political will and more importantly, public recognition and understanding of why a price on carbon is needed and the necessity of renewable energy technologies.

Finally, I’ll end with a piece of advice frequently used by George Monbiot. No matter what we do to help out renewables or fight climate change, it’s all worthless if we keep feeding the fossil fuel industry with tax breaks and subsidies. Monbiot equates it to filling yourself up on fatty, unhealthy foods, but adding a salad and not expecting to gain any weight. But right now, we’re getting pretty fat.

Another bad movie about climate change...

Several years ago, the world had the pleasure of witnessing the potential calamities of climate change for $10 and a popcorn when The Day After Tomorrow came to theatres. That blockbuster saw cataclysmic storms and the flooding of New York City after the global ocean conveyor suddenly shut down. Chaos ensued, Dennis Quaid had to rescue Jake Gyllenhaal and in an ironic twist, the surviving Americans had to escape to Mexico.

This evening I encountered another climate change movie that was a little less blockbuster but just as doom and gloom. Released in 2006, The Last Winter is set in a remote Alaskan monitoring station. After an oil company finds a mammoth supply of oil under the permafrost somewhere in Alaska, they are forced to bring in a group of environmentalists to measure the potential environmental impact of drilling on the 'pristine' landscape. The environmentalists clash with the rugged oil company folk (led by Ron Perlman, though this time not donning his Hellboy look), but soon things start to get weird once one of the workers ends up frozen and naked by a mysterious oil pipe.

Now, before I go any further, I'll caution those that have any desire to see this film that I might give some of it away below. Read at your peril. But seriously, you shouldn't waste your time with the movie...

What seems to be happening is the permafrost is warming in Alaska at an exponential rate and perhaps some 'Sour Gas' is leaking. Then more things go wrong, people go crazy, lots of folks die and the last few seem to figure out that what is coming after them is an old dark spirit known by the Inuit as a Windigo, which in the movie is glowing green and resembles some kind caribou on steroids. More people die and some get lit on fire.

Eventually, the last survivor wakes up in a hospital bed somewhere else in Alaska, only to find the small medical station inhabited by a TV showing massive flooding in North America and the hanging corpse of a doctor that committed suicide. She goes outside and is standing in a major puddle with alarms going off. End scene.

We can only infer that it's the end of the world. After all, the film's tagline is "What if mankind only had one season left on Earth?". It was pretty depressing. I mean, you didn't see her escaping to Mexico.

The film's main message seemed to be twofold. First, whenever climate change hits us, it will hit us hard and it will be bad. Second, it carried a narrative of nature striking back against us, both in its weather-related form with lots of melting and in its spiritual giant caribou form.

Despite the clear budget differences between this and The Day After Tomorrow, Hollywood still seems to only be able to pull off alarmist climate change movies. If I were in the business, I would too. Copenhagen conferences and G8 meetings probably wouldn't make for box-office hits. Then again, throw in Denzel Washington as Barack Obama and add a few plot twists involving him kicking serious global public policy ass, and you might have something.

At least this movie wasn't as blatant about the climate change stuff until the end. But it still sucked. A lot. Don't watch it.

Domestic content requirements might be a pain, but Ontario needs them...

Ontario’s Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) program is one of the world’s most ambitious clean energy subsidy programs. Indeed, some of the rates it will pay for renewable electricity can hardly be found anywhere else in the world.

Of course, Ontario is not a pioneer in this regard. Unsurprisingly, the Europeans – who seem to do everything better than us in North America, at least when it comes to energy – have been expanding their renewable industries using FITs for a few decades. Wind and solar have seen significant expansion in Germany & Denmark using this economic tool, despite the relative lack of the necessary energy inputs (i.e. they are not the windiest or sunniest places on Earth).

Spain also toyed with a FIT to expand its solar photovoltaic industry in 2007. It offered 44 euro cents per kWh produced (~ CDN$0.66) and expected a growth of installed capacity around the 400 MW mark by 2010. The FIT was intended for projects of less than 100 kW, but developers quickly found a loophole and built several modules of 100 kW installations. Before the Spanish government knew what hit them, approximately 3 GW had been built and a lot more money needed to be doled out than had been allotted. The program fell apart shortly thereafter as the government lowered the FIT price significantly and ultimately made any new solar PV development uneconomical.

But it wasn’t economics alone that killed the program. Politically, it was a less than stellar subsidy. The FIT had no limits on where the solar PV panels had to come from and as a result the FIT unintentionally provided a boon to the German and Chinese manufacturers of solar panels, which lead the world in solar PV construction. While it also aided the domestic manufacturers in Spain, the Spanish government found itself footing the bill for a program that was helping its competing manufacturers in Germany & China, whose governments got to benefit free of charge.

That is the thing with subsidies. Since the taxpayers of a country ultimately pay for subsidies, they should be the ones who benefit. And politically, they are nice and easy. It is much easier to hand money out than take it away. So sometimes the policies guiding the subsidy are not completely thought out.

Ontario is aiming not to make this mistake. First, it is not guaranteeing FITs for every renewable producer. You first have to sign a contract with the government, thus allowing them to keep track of installed capacity. But what is more, it has placed stringent domestic content requirements on its subsidized solar PV projects. Currently, 50% of a project has to be from Ontario – this can include everything from the actual panels themselves, the installers, the feasibility analyses or even the bolts tying the panels down. According to some solar PV installers I’ve spoken with in Ontario, projects can barely meet the requirements, almost exclusively because there are no major PV panel manufacturers in Ontario. The idea with the requirement is to attract a manufacturer to set up shop in Ontario knowing the market will be there to sell. What will really provide the incentive is that in 2011, 60% of a project will need to be domestically sourced, which without a major domestic manufacturer will be impossible.

One company, Canadian Solar – which, despite its name and Canadian ownership does nothing in Canada -- has already answered the call and will be building a multimillion dollar plant capable of producing 200 MW of panels annually. But like Rome, these plants don’t get built in a day.

For now, it is a pain in the ass for solar PV developers in Ontario, but it is absolutely necessary if Ontario is to get the biggest bang for its buck and kick any free riders off its subsidy train.

Happy Holidays.

Who will history hold accountable for climate change?...

The climate change conference in Copenhagen is looking to be a bust. Without anything but a broad and unambitious target and a series of commitments to a potential $100B adaptation fund, the years of preparation, money and expectations have amounted to almost nothing -- pending some last minute super-deal.

The protests will continue. Environmental groups will hand out evermore awards to the world's worst polluters. The news might even give it some noteworthiness until Tiger's next disaster. Some delegates will go home uninspired and deflated, while some others will be happy to have that big climate thing out of the way. And the residents of Copenhagen will come out of their homes and finally be able to enjoy their pints of Carlsberg in peace.

Let's put on our doom and gloom hats for a second and fast forward fifty years.

Despite the efforts of local communities and regional governments, global emissions have scarcely fallen as a global agreement could never be hatched and short-term economic and trade interests proved dominant. Global temperatures have increased dramatically. Sea-walls are now among the main exports of the EU as fast-paced climate change adaptation measures are taken all over the world. Mitigation is a word forgotten, much like the once-magnificent offshore wind turbines lying at the bottom of the sea after being mangled by increasingly intense storms. Much of south-east Asia is underwater, billions of environmental refugees painfully roam the earth and countries are fighting wars to secure what's left of the supply of fresh water. Meanwhile, the world's elite are riding jet skis through the Northwest Passage and suntanning by Santa's North Pole Resort & Casino.

A frightening world and probably an unlikely one within the next fifty years. But say it happened. Say the worst climate fears came true. How would our current world leaders go down in history?

Would they be to blame? Would we look at the pending disaster of Copenhagen as the defining point?

Canada's leaders have been noticeably lacking in enthusiasm for preventing climate disaster, winning Fossil Award after Fossil award. George Monbiot thinks Canada is the biggest barrier to any global climate deal. Or should we shift the blame to the world's biggest emitters like China and the United States? Even the second-coming that is Barack Obama has managed to disappoint at the summit.

And will they feel guilt as the climate gets worse?

What about the deniers who have prevented action thus far? The administrations of George Bush and John Howard were notorious for exacerbating the more ridiculous climate change deniers. Are they more to blame than our leaders today?

Or should we be criticizing the 'promise but no delivery' policies of Clinton and Chretien, who got into a political pissing contest over Kyoto targets but showed little for it? These two certainly weren't the only ones to come up short on delivery.

Or is Harper right that the developing countries of the world are to blame? Have we even reached the defining point of the climate crisis?

Maybe the past 200 years of industrialization and excessive lifestyles in the developed world is to blame.

The point I'm trying to make is that pinning the potential climate crisis on one person or group is impossible. Blame can be thrown over so many parts of the world, over hundreds of years and over so many people. But not one person and not one instance. Unfortunately, that means people won't feel the necessary responsibility they hold, easily thinking it is someone else's fault. This makes it much harder to do anything about it.

Assuming I'm still around, I'd be very interested to read those history books fifty years from now...  

    

The Future of Cities in the U.S.

A number of months ago, I blogged about an article written by Edward Glaeser, a Professor of Economics at Harvard. Many of the arguments from his article are found in the youtube clip above. I don't agree with all of his points, but he makes many convincing arguments.

His research focus is on the economics of housing. On the environmental side of things, he has published papers on how climate should influence how cities grow. California for example, has the most temperate climate in the country and as a result, homes use less heat in the winter and less electricity in the summer. Yet, many environmentalists oppose any sort of development in these places because they want to preserve the natural environment.

To quote Glaeser, "a new building in California, as opposed to Texas, reduces America’s carbon emissions. Yet, instead of fighting to make it easier to build in California, environmentalists have played a significant role in stemming the growth of America’s greenest cities." Places like Houston are sprawling rapidly. Many of the homes constructed in Houston's suburban communities require air conditioning to run 24/7 because of the unbearable humidity. California, which is growing at 8%, has strict regulations regarding housing development. This is unfortunate because higher densities are needed in places like California (better climate) and not in places like Houston which use artificial cooling to keep everyone happy!

In the video clip, Glaeser contrasts California with places like Houston, Dallas and Atlanta; these three areas are both among the nation’s five most carbon-intensive living areas and among the three fastest-growing metropolitan areas.

To learn more about this topic, see the video.

A short climate change debate between Krugman and Lomborg

This CNN video, features a climate change debate between Paul Krugman and Bjorn Lomborg. Paul Krugman is a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. He is a columnist and blogger for the New York Times and received the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics.

Bjorn Lomborg wrote the infamous book titled "The Skeptical Environmentalist". Bjorn Lomborg is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School.

Lomborg's main argument: We should not spend too much money on global climate change because the problem is really not that severe and money could be going towards things like poverty alleviation efforts in the developing world. If we do embark more aggressively on global climate change, we should put money into research and development for green technology and not cap and trade systems which he thinks are ineffective.

Krugman: Putting money into carbon reduction efforts will not be that expensive; the time for action is now. Studies are suggesting catastrophic changes will bring about major risks. He says that we have to insure ourselves for the possibility of catastrophic change. We need to provide the right incentives for people to do the right thing.

The debate is 10 minutes long, it is a great study break. Check it out here.

Call for guest bloggers...

When Tim and I started envisioning this blog nearly a year ago, one of our visions was that of other folks chipping in with a post from time to time. In the words of nearly every modern fundraising campaign, Make our Vision a Reality.

Lame. I know.

But seriously, it would be cool.

Feel free to respond to this post or simply email myself or Tim and we can set it up.

Hope to hear from you.

Mixed land uses: Downtown Peterborough...

As part of a class assignment, I recently submitted a letter to Peterborough’s Director of Planning and Development Services. It was a letter regarding Peterborough’s downtown and how it can greatly benefit from incorporating mixed land uses. By mixed land uses, I mean combining commercial and residential units together to optimize space and make the downtown more compact. Below, you will find a compressed version of the letter:

As a student studying geography and the environment and learning about the importance of urban densification for sustainability and economic efficiency, the present growth in Peterborough concerns me. I recommend that the city use an intensification strategy to bring about more mixed land uses in the downtown area. Intensification is a common urban planning strategy for achieving compactness, using land more efficiently by increasing the density of development and activity.

I believe that such an undertaking will help boost the economic vibrancy of the local economy and increase the densification of the urban growth centre, ultimately benefiting both the environment and the economy.

Without stifling the city’s housing market, new commercial development in the city should be mixed with residential units. Mixed land use reduces the probability of using a car for commuting, shopping and leisure trips because jobs, shops and leisure facilities are located nearby. This would be a win-win for Peterborough’s local economy as residents would be living closer to local business and retail stores and farther away from the Big-Box stores like Wal-Mart and Future Shop.

As an example, Harvey’s fast food restaurant at the corner of Sherbrooke and Water Street has tremendous potential to turn into a mixed land use development. Located next to the Otonabee River and in the heart of downtown, it can integrate local businesses, retail, restaurants and residential uses. In addition, such a development would replace the eye-sore that currently occupies the land and turn it into a more compact, liveable and sustainable form.

By mixing commercial and residential units, not only would the city increase the densification of the downtown, but it would be ensuring that many services are within a reasonable distance, thus encouraging cycling and walking. Other environmental benefits to this would include a reduction in air pollution and traffic congestion, as well as to stimulate the interaction of residents, by increasing pedestrian traffic and generally improving neighbourhood charm.

By mixing land uses, we are increasing the number of people concentrated within an existing urban area, and thus these people are now living closer to businesses, public amenities and even recreational activities. Recreational activities would include parks, beaches and campgrounds. Therefore, this might generate more revenue for the restaurant, and stimulate more business activity for other services and commercial establishments, thereby directing a greater flow of capital towards Peterborough’s local businesses and less towards Big-Box stores around the sub-divisions.

One of the main objectives of Peterborough’s new amendment to their Official plan is to provide greater choice in housing types to meet the needs of people at all stages in life. I would challenge developers by saying that housing and commerce will increasingly be concentrated in the urban area; so exploring multi-unit housing complexes near the downtown can be profitable.

As other cities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe increase their urban densities through more compact and mixed use development, Peterborough will face pressures to follow suit.

Key message: Developing Peterborough into a more economically and environmentally sustainable city is a process that might take many years; however, engaging private developers on this matter is a good first step.

Stupid Green Ideas: Climate Change Chocolate...

Several weeks ago while attending a conference and trade show in Toronto, I stopped by the booth for a small but prestigious downtown Toronto law firm. After chatting with the young articling student tasked with the poor duty of standing around all day, she handed me a chocolate bar.

I'm used to getting free stuff at these things, but never an entire chocolate bar. Moreover, this was no ordinary chocolate bar. It was a Climate Change Chocolate Bar.

For each chocolate bar produced, a carbon offset group known as TerraPass will offset 133 pounds of carbon dioxide production in one of their projects somewhere in the world. The 133 pounds is not meant to offset the environmental impact of the chocolate bar itself, but rather the average daily carbon impact of an American person, although I'm not sure how verifiable that figure is.

So basically, when you bite down into the chocolate -- which wasn't half bad -- you can happily pat yourself on the back knowing that any carbon emissions you produce that day will be taken care of by someone else.

Wow! This is fantastic. All of these 'green' folks keep telling me all the things I need to do to reduce my personal carbon emissions. You know, turn off my lights, ride a bike, put solar panels on my roof and other things that will inconvenience my life. Screw 'em! I don't need to change anything. I'll just jump back in my Escalade, eat my chocolate bars and let someone else take care of it. Plus, the labels contain different environmentally-friendly things people can do, just in case you don't feel the chocolate is enough.

Apart from the fact that carbon offset groups aren't seriously regulated, their offset projects don't always work and the actual offset calculations are often arbitrary, I don't see anything else wrong with this.

I may have produced a pound or two of carbon while writing this. Good thing I have this chocolate bar...

 

Water meters coming to Peterborough…

Water metering is becoming a popular municipal water conservation strategy. For those unfamiliar with water metering, it is when the utility company of the city measures the volume of water usage for your household. So essentially, running your tap for 5 minutes, taking 20 minute showers, or watering your lawn excessively will now cost you substantially.

The Peterborough Utilities Commission (PUC), the utility company that provides water and electricity to the city and its residents, has announced that they are going to install water meters in the near future. The exact date has not been officially confirmed but the installation process will take a number of months. They are going to install 25,000 meters (Pop of Peterborough ~78,000). This will cost $10 million and the costs will be built into water rates. This means that we will be paying for the installation of the meter and the meter itself.

Currently in the city, billing for water is based on the number of rooms in your house plus the size of your lots, plus an additional charge for those with a pool. The main rationale for metering in Peterborough is to minimize stress on the wastewater treatment plant. In short, with less water being used in your household, the amount of wastewater entering the city treatment plant will be reduced. This takes pressure off the system and decreases infrastructural costs (which are really expensive).

I have done extensive research on water metering for my honours thesis and I personally think that the PUC is installing meters because of Peterborough’s egregious water consumption rate. The average Peterborough resident consumes roughly 487 litres of water per day- the Canadian average is 343 litres per person per day. Other municipalities are raising their eyebrows with Peterborough`s rate, knowing that it should come down.

The city’s water consumption is well over the national average. Other cities that have had high water consumption rates have turned to metering to lower that consumption rate to something more sustainable. Stats Canada will tell us that cities with pricing structures have an average water utilization of 269 litres per person per day. Conversely, those with flat or fixed water rates use 457 litres per capita. Considering Peterborough currently has a fixed water rate structure, we are not too far off from the 457 L mark.

Because I am a big proponent of water metering I am not going to go on and on about its significant advantages. In short, with metering, residents are paying per unit of water consumed. Therefore, for many people the potential money savings will be an incentive to use less water. Residents can actually see their water consumption on their monthly bill and if it is excessive, then there is a great incentive to consume less to save money.

When you pay for water based on how much you consume, people raise the question of water privatization and social equity. Low income families of five or six people who use more water may find it hard to pay for their water as they are now paying based on units consumed. Other citizens may just be against the idea of paying for water because it is seen as “privatization”.

For these reasons, when cities introduce pricing structures to replace the conventional fixed rate system, guidance and education to residents must follow suit. Residents must be fully informed about the benefits of metering on the environment, the local economy and for future generations. The utility company does not have to carry out this public education, but other community organizations can step up to inform the public.

Key message: Water metering is great.. but it better be accompanied by public education otherwise people may not see its benefits, purpose and be angry because they are now paying for water. With water meters in Peterborough, it is estimated that water usage based on consumption should reduce city water demands by ~15-20%.

On another note, this is our 200th post. Thank you everyone for your ongoing interest in reading this blog. On Tuesday of this week, Chris and I presented our blog to my Environment and Communications class. We talked about our experiences with blogging, why we do it and how much fun we have.

It's not always windy outside...

You may have noticed the spinning wind turbine on the front page of this blog. It displays the total amount of energy being produced by Ontario's wind power system every hour of every day.

The graphic -- which is courtesy of Ontario's Independent Electricity Systems Operator (IESO) -- provides a very good example of perhaps the greatest barrier of wind: capacity factor. You'll notice that sometimes several hundred Megawatts (MW) of electricity is produced during the hour and the turbine spins quite quickly, while at other times (like as I write this post) it is less than 100 MW.

Ontario has nearly 1,100 MW of installed capacity of wind power. That basically means it has the potential to produce 1,100 MWh of power each hour for the length of its existence. The trouble, of course, is that this is only theoretical. What the tag might say on the turbine is not what it will produce in reality.

The main reason, of course, is because it is not always windy outside. As a result, sometimes you get the turbines sitting motionless and, despite having nearly 1,100 MW in generating capacity, only producing 35 MW on a day like today. Indeed, I've seen the turbine as Exhibition Place in Toronto lie motionless more than I've seen it moving.

In reality, wind turbines are only about 20-30% efficient from what they are capable of producing. Add to that the inevitable loss of electricity from transmission and distribution and wind doesn't look super hot.

This is not a criticism of wind power, but rather a focus on the need to understand how it works. When its proponents speak about its wide potential, they sometimes exaggerate its true potential, which is often more limited. Indeed, we could toss thousands of turbines over Ontario that would replace the installed capacity of the current electricity generation system. But when it's not windy, the amount of electricity produced would be negligible.

Moreover, because of its variability, wind power alone will not fix our energy problem. And neither will solar because it isn't always sunny and we don't have terrific battery technology. But the combination of these technologies, along with several other renewables and a focus on conservation could fix our system.

Where'd the Otonabee River go?...

Well, it has finally happened. All the Maude Barlows and Tim Shahs of the world were right all along about the water crisis. Peterborough has run out of water.

I kid, of course. But considering the state of the Otonabee River over the past few weeks, it wouldn't be too surprising.

I was probably as surprised as anyone else when I walked downtown by the waterfront to find a dainty little stream where the mighty Otonabee River used to be. The water levels were down drastically, as the few small islands of the Otonabee all of a sudden looked like overbearing mainland. Worst of all -- aesthetically, at least -- was the unfortunate state of the exposed ground that had formerly been river-bottom. The weirdly coloured muddy surface was not a particularly desirable replacement for the river.

But more of a problem was the fact that there was very little water left. So where did it go?

Well, as it turns out, some emergency repairs had to be done on one of the locks south of Lansdowne. Clearly the necessary repairs warranted more than a couple folks hopping in with SCUBA gear with a hammer and nails in hand, so the federal authorities (who manage the lock system) decided to drain the thing. Apparently, this involves draining the river several kilometres upstream, too.

The pictures I've included are from outside my house just north of downtown on the Otonabee. The river was down between two and three metres and looked considerably different. Some islands have been exposed, a big patch of mud lies covered with seagulls and ducks and the river's edge has a tidal feel to it. The river looked much worse farther south. Compare the third with the fourth, which are taken from the same area.

Draining a river several metres is not without its risks. In an interview with the Peterborough Examiner, Trent professor Tom Whillans outlined several of the environmental effects this could have. Many of the concerns are focused on the impacts it might have on wildlife. According to Whillans, all sorts of creatures are at risk, but only if the river bed area freezes for an extended period. Lucky for the fishes and turtles, this December has been usually warm. I knew there was a silver lining to the Tar Sands projects.

The water levels appear to be back to normal now and the timing couldn't be better. The snow is finally coming down and it is expected to stay, for a few days at least.

So the crisis is averted. Phew. That I know our water is OK, I think I'll go water my driveway for the day...  

How Green roofs can increase the health and well-being of urban residents…

Enviroboys has blogged about green roofs before, citing their numerous advantages for urban environments. The main environmental benefits associated with them include minimizing air pollution, reducing the urban heat island effect and improving stormwater management. Noting these benefits, Toronto recently adopted a by-law to require and govern the construction of green roofs on new development in the city. The bylaw is quite comprehensive and rigid leading Toronto in a sustainable direction and demonstrating its commitment to urban greening projects.

A PhD student at U of T is doing research on how urban greening projects like green roofs can increase the health and well-being of employees in the workplace. One major dimension of the PhD student’s research is whether employees in workplaces can actually see green roofs and roof top gardens from their workplace windows. Just being able to see greenery can have important health benefits.

Rachel and Stephen Kaplan have done extensive research on the “role of nature in the context of the workplace”. What has emerged out of this research is the indispensable fact that employers need to invest in programs that are oriented to prevention and enhancing well-being of their employees. In workplace settings, employees experience stress, mental fatigue and occasionally burnout when things get really overwhelming. What becomes fatigued is one’s capacity to focus attention to demands that require effort, thus decreasing their level of productivity… in theory.

Rachel and Stephen Kaplan came up with a theory called attention restoration theory. This theory emerged out of their 1980s book "The experience of nature: A psychological perspective”. This theory asserts that people can concentrate better after spending time in a wilderness, or even looking at scenes of nature. Thus, natural environments have a restorative function for human-beings and we don’t always realize this. In one of their studies of an office environment they reported that “almost 50% of employees thought that the lack of windows affected them or their work adversely”. Job satisfaction and work attitudes were significantly related to the presence of windows for their sample of 123 office workers and health care providers.

In throwing together a nice interdisciplinary analysis of green roofs, we know that they have the potential to improve the health and well-being of urban residents. They have important environmental benefits and from an economic point of view, they can help minimize the energy costs associated with building heating and cooling. The health benefits though, are still nebulously defined, but we can speculate that they do play a role based on the work from the Kaplan’s. Parks and gardens have long been noted for their restorative effects on both mental and physical health. Toronto’s new bylaw can gain way more popularity from developers, residents and hospitals if the health benefits are made clearer.

Finally, if green roofs do corroborate “attention restoration theory” just think about the economic advantages workplaces would accrue. Less stress and mental fatigue among employees can undoubtedly lead to better workplace productivity and job satisfaction. But above all, if green roofs do take off because of their ostensible health benefits, employees would have to have access to them. On breaks and lunches, employees could go to these urban green sites and interact with colleagues.

Key message: Nature can help reduce a person's stress, as well as improve attention. Do green roofs constitute nature? And if so, how do workplace employees perceive them? Interesting how this will play out for Toronto considering its new green roof bylaw.

George Monbiot argues that Canada is the major factor that will impact a new major climate agreement...

Tyler Hamilton, author of the Clean Break blog and Toronto Star columnist, posted a link to a column written by the famed environmental activist George Monbiot. In the column, titled "The Urgent Threat to World Peace is...Canada", Monbiot identifies Canada as the major threat to any potential climate agreement at this month's meetings in Copenhagen. It is strange that Canada could play such an important role, but it very well might.

Hamilton recommended we read it and pass it along. I suggest you do.

Carbon credits & Ontario's FIT...

Ontario's uber-progressive Feed-in-Tariff program is wonderful for someone wanting to produce renewable energy. Solar PV producers can get as much as $0.802 per kWh produced, which is almost twenty times greater than the market rate for electricity in Ontario.

At the same time, much talk is happening provincially, nationally and globally about a possible cap-and-trade system: Ontario has mumbled about a potential interprovincial program with Quebec; Stephen Harper's government is bound to join up with any system that comes out of the American government (which I assure you, will be a cap-and-trade system); and the climate change summit in Copenhagen in just a few days will have a large cap-and-trade facet to it. For renewable energy project developers, this could mean cashing in on the carbon credits they'd receive for their "emissions-free" projects. They could sell their credits to the less-green folks out there.

Renewable energy developers should be licking their chops. Serious money could be made from two different angles.

But hold your horses. Ontario's independent energy manager, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA & delivery agent of the Feed-in-Tariff) has a nice little clause written into the FIT contract. Under section 2.10 of the contract it reads that "the supplier hereby transfers and assigns to...the OPA who thereafter shall...retain all rights, title, and interest in all Environmental Attributes associated with the Contract Facility during the Term of this Agreement."

In layman's terms, the OPA keeps everything that might contribute to potential carbon credits, which in its terms is an "Environmental Attribute".

You could easily criticize the OPA for doing this, especially for no direct cost in exchange. But the OPA claims that no price can be put on it at this time because their is such uncertainty in what the carbon credits could be worth.

But really, who can fault them? The government is providing huge swaths of money for these projects, so any chance of reclaiming some of that without really harming anyone isn't really out of the question. Furthermore, it could inevitably end up making the FIT program considerably cheaper, if, say in a few years, the government decides to sell its carbon credits on a carbon market to recoup some of its costs.  

This is not a new policy from the OPA. Some of its conservation-demand management programs -- like the Power Savings Blitz program where $1000 worth of lights are given to businesses for free -- have the same "Environmental Attribute" clause written into them.

For now it is not a problem, mostly because a significant carbon market does not exist and nobody really knows about the OPA contract clause. But give it a few years and you can be sure that some people might be a little up in arms when they decide to sell their carbon credits only to find out they don't own them.