Blogging part 3: Environmental communicators…

Last semester, I took a course titled “environment and communication”. We mainly learned about various techniques and approaches (i.e. blogging) that could be used to communicate science and environmental issues to the public. Through writing articles and making weekly presentations, we were challenged to communicate our topics in a way that a Grade 8 student would be able to understand. It had to be simple, effective and relevant. More than that however was our exposure to the media and how the media perpetually attempts to communicate science in a simple and thought-provoking way. We examined media sources that did a thorough job on reporting environmental issues and also media that was dreadful at it.

Some of these topics included climate change (the science, economics and politics of it), urban air pollution, geo-engineering and hazardous waste disposal just to name a few. These topics are by no means a simple equation that makes sense to everyone. They require a good level of understanding, application and research. This doesn't mean that we have to spend a day doing field research or looking through academic journals to understand them. It means reading online sources to understand the basics and be critical of what is being produced.

A positive trend indicating an improvement in communicating environmental issues is the increased use of internet. We are now living in a more digitalized world. Technology is all around us and the ubiquity of the media perpetually reinforces topics that citizens actually want to hear. Information about science and the environment is all around us. With blogging, online news sources and television, you can now read or view numerous topics that capture your interest. Sure, with this increase in information your level of critical thinking and scepticism should increase as well. What’s trash and what’s good? I am sure you can ascertain that yourself after 15 seconds of exposure to the article.

Some will share their latest findings on climate change so as to accept or reject human-induced climate change. Overall, the level of uncertainty regarding numerous scientific and environmental topics can really infuse dubiety but this forces us to seek out more information, learn and share our criticisms.

With the ubiquity of information and the glorious internet, all of us are gaining knowledge every single day. Some of this knowledge pertains to the environment and current affairs. My challenge for you is to start utilizing that knowledge and spreading awareness. Climate change continues to be a very critical environmental topic and current affair of our day. With the knowledge you learn about the subject matter, whether it is political or scientific, a great way to communicate it is to share information (blogs, news articles, youtube videos) with as many people as you can.

Ultimately, the more informed we are about these issues the more critical we can be of our elected officials and perhaps have more of an inclination to vote in our next election. To communicate environmental issues does not mean you have to have a Bachelor’s degree in the field, it means you have the passion and interest to spread the word just as much as Chris and I do on this blog. Not all of us are in a position to make policy changes on the environment. However, we are in a position to communicate as we are living in an era where access to information is easily accessible.

The experts don't always like sharing their stuff, they want their research to be published and usually it will stay within the academic community. Take what you can from what you learn (as we are all journalists in some kind of way) and start writing, sharing, telling and presenting what you know.... this can lead to more solidarity on the subject and lead to the government making more informed and fair decisions.

Key message: We are all environmental communicators in some sort of way. Continue to share your knowledge through the internet and media to get out salient information that the public needs to know more about.

A talk on "Making a Difference in Haiti: Longterm development and Human Rights"...

Chris recently wrote an insightful and thought-provoking piece about the importance of prevention and the lessons we could learn from Haiti. The blog post captured many critical points ranging from infrastructure renewal, aid, development and preparing for future disasters. I am in complete agreement with Chris on the importance of prevention especially in a time of great climate change uncertainty.

In my own discipline of Environmental Studies, time and time again we talk about how a lot of action on the environment is reactionary. We always wait until something happens before we take measures (either trying to avoid costs, policy or prevention in general). Sometimes we don't like taking precaution because of the unknown risks, we just assume everything is going to be ok. I always like to use the example of water conservation in Canada where an abundance of water re-assures everyone that we have enough. Water conservation and disaster prevention are two different things. But the precautionary aspect is what I draw you to. The more water we consume the more pressure we put on our water infrastructure which eventually costs millions of dollars to fix.

These costs are then reflected in our bills, and then we understand why it is important to conserve. Worse yet, over-consumption can lead to the depletion of the resource (we all know that). So taking the steps now on water conservation (short-term pain for long-term gain) will help us dramatically in the future. You have to take these small steps so as to ensure the problem does not intensify in the future.

On the note of the talk, it is titled "Making a Difference in Haiti: Longterm development and Human Rights". The speakers are Professor Haroon Akram-Lodhi, Chair and Professor of International Development Studies and Anthony Anirud, LLM, Human Rights Advisor and Educator. The event will take place Thursday January 28th at 7pm in the Champlain College Council Chambers.

Both guest speakers will provide an expert perspective on two critical aspects that entangle Haiti. Both topics are important to consider when thinking about what can be done in response to the earthquake and in the longer term recovery.

The talk is being sponsored by the Trent International Students' Association (TISA) and World Affairs Colloquium (WAC) and is being presented as part of “Colleges Connect Cultures”.

It will be interesting to see if either of the speakers touch on the importance of prevention.

An environmental military...

In my class this morning we watched clips from an episode of Whale Wars, a series that follows the radical anti-whaling actions of the environmental group, Sea Shepherd. The group uses a decades old sea-faring vessel, aptly named the Steve Irwin, to hunt down whaling fleets and stop them from hunting whales. A variety of tactics are used, including fire hoses, ramming and even non-toxic, environmentally friendly homemade stinkbombs that make it impossible to work on the deck of the ship.

Sea Shepherd is one of a select few environmental groups that go to such radical and violent lengths to take action and get their message across. Indeed, its founder, Paul Watson (the original founder of Greenpeace and senior member until they kicked him out for his violent strategies) has long said that the traditional forms of protest often lead to no action whatsoever.

The tactics employed by Sea Shepherd are indeed dangerous, but they are also fairly militaristic. Some members of the crew of the Steve Irwin have formal naval experience. In a way, Sea Shepherd represents a very small navy (it has some other ships as well) and it has even titled its fleet, Neptune's Navy.

It has got me thinking. What if Sea Shepherd could grow bigger? What if donations swelled to such a degree that they could purchase even more ships and even more advanced equipment? Soon enough, Sea Shepherd could have itself a solid fleet capable of holding considerable influence. Theoretically, it could have a navy larger than most other countries in the world (mind you, the sophistication and militaristic specialization of the vessels might be lacking).

And what if some other environmental groups with similar radical action plans got involved and their budgets expanded hugely? They could amass the equivalent of a small air force with planes and helicopters. Sea Shepherd already has at least one helicopter. Again, theoretically, some kind of informal environmental military could be established.

Of course, what the intentions of such a force would be would certainly influence the rest of the world's response to it. For instance, Sea Shepherd's actions on whaling and fishing vessels have resulted in arrest warrants been put out in particular countries, though not in its home base of the United States. It has yet to attract enough attention to be considered overly dangerous and require a global response. Of course, if this hypothetical military force started doing more than hassling whalers, more people might start to take notice.

And whether or not such a force could actually find a market in which it could do its work is also an important question to ask. Much of the success of Sea Shepherd has come because it is working towards a specific cause and also working primarily in the global policy grey zone: international waters. This hypothetical force would probably want to expand its mandate, but expanding too far could get it into trouble, especially if much of its work didn't happen outside national boundaries.

It is an interesting proposition, but is marred by countless factors: How would you finance it? Where's the line between 'direct action environmental group' and 'dangerous vigilantes'? What happens if it actually goes to battle with another major force, like a private security force or even a national government?

Now, I would imagine it highly unlikely that the world's globalized security forces would let something like that form. After all, Sea Shepherd is not a sovereign state and national governments would not have to go through the same international process to shut it down -- not that sovereignty always stops them, but that's beside the point. Moreover, who knows whether groups like Sea Shepherd would even want to participate in something that grew beyond its current mandate, size and scope. And I very much doubt that any force of this nature would want to kill anyone.

In light of such an unlikely formation, I can see two semi-legitimate uses for this hypothetical environmental paramilitary force. First, it could serve as a private security force. The United States government, for example, has been using a private security force in Iraq for several years, although it is subject to a great deal of controversy. Theoretically, the environmental force could do contract work for organizations or causes that it sees fit to help. Say some e-waste activists can't get a certain government to stop shipping its e-waste to China even if it is blocked under international law, so instead it decides to stop the ship using direct action by blockading the ship with the paramilitary fleet. But considering that Paul Watson prefers volunteers for Sea Shepherd work -- volunteers have a greater interest and aren't doing it simply for the paycheque, he argues -- he probably wouldn't want to contract his work out for money.

The second application I could see for such a force would be as the de-facto enforcers of international laws. Sea Shepherd already acts in that regard with specific international laws. One of the biggest problems with international laws, after they have been signed and ratified, is global enforcement. Other than groups like the United Nations Security Forces, there are few or no global security forces to uphold international laws. This hypothetical force could do that for environmentally-related international laws, at least to some degree. Of course, the formal complexities of such an idea are well beyond the scope of this post.

I'll finish by noting that by no means am I advocating for such an environmental paramilitary force, but merely exploring the idea. I certainly prefer peaceful and non-violent solutions to problems, but we all know that that doesn't always work.  

Oil sands in Venezuela...

Venezuela has always had an abundance of oil. In fact, at one point in the early 2000s, gasoline sold for as little as 5 cents a litre. Venezuela, like Alberta has some of the world’s biggest deposits of oil sands. It’s been expensive to extract the thick bituminous oil because it requires a lot of money, natural resources (water, natural gas) and sophisticated refining methods which have high labour and technology costs. Using more water for the process pushes up the price of the resource making it financially inaccessible for locals.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) recently reported that 513 billion barrels of oil are technically recoverable from the oil sand deposits. That’s ludicrous considering the oil capacity of Alberta, Saudi Arabia and Russia. All of this oil lies in the Orinoco oil belt which is estimated to be one of the world’s biggest oil reserves- substantially larger that Saudi Arabia’s 264 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The difference between Venezuela and Saudi Arabia is not necessarily the oil capacity but the oil itself. As mentioned, the oil sands are “unconventional” oil which require substantial foreign investment (because they are so lucrative) and more resources for production in general, whereas the Saudis and other Middle-Eastern states extract conventional oil which requires traditional production methods- much cheaper by comparison.

This recent discovery has many implications- driving up competition in the oil market, potentially bringing in foreign investment from the growing economies of China and India, and of course, producing even more greenhouse gas emissions from extraction and production methods, and subsequent consumption.

Key message: Hurray for geological innovation and discovery. We now have more oil to consume! Pollution and environmental degradation are the unfortunate result.

A report on Trent's Sustainability Performance...

This past summer, I worked in a team of three Sustainable Trent interns to research the social, economic, technical and environmental dimensions of sustainability for Trent’s campus. Using a multi-disciplinary and holistic approach, our team examined the challenges, successes and opportunities our campus faces with sustainability.

We just recently put together a 12-page summary report outlining most of our research findings. We submitted the report to Trent University's President.

To read about the project and our recommendations please see here.

Goodbye US Climate Bill, Hello Carbon Tax?...

Barack Obama and the Democrats were sent a hefty blow the other day when, in a surprising turn of events, a Republican nominee was able to win the Massachusetts Senate seat left vacated by the late Edward Kennedy. Having a Democrat win the seat was initially seen as an inevitability, but it was not to be so.

The big talk these days is that this win for the Republicans could sink the huge health care bill currently being put together by congress because this Republican win puts 41 Republicans in the Senate, enough to filibuster any bill.

But the next big ticket item on Obama's agenda is a climate bill in the Senate, which's main component is a cap-and-trade system. Considering how long it has taken the health bills to get this far, most aren't expecting the climate bill -- one barely got through the House of Representatives -- to get too far in the next year. That year-long time frame is very important. In November, the Americans go to the polls for the Midterm elections, where several Senate and House seats are up for grabs. Considering how much popularity Obama (and by association, the Democrats) has lost over his first year, many are expecting the Republicans to gather up most of those seats.

The US climate bill is almost by definition guaranteed to be disliked by Republicans -- to be fair, some are very willing to do something about climate change -- but many Democrats (especially those from the coal-producing states) are opposed to the climate bill. Such contention makes passing the bill especially difficult, and even more so to pass something that will be in any way moderately effective. Indeed, the most optimistic of realists are expecting something very watered down, with multiple exemptions for certain emitters and low emissions reduction targets.

To many, the climate bill might as well be off the table, at least until after the midterm elections. Stephen Hill, a professor at Trent, thinks it could possibly return in a year or so without a cap-and-trade system, but rather a carbon tax. Americans are even less encouraged by new taxes than Canadians, and we all saw how the carbon tax went over here in the last federal election. But interestingly, some of the most environmentally-unfriendly companies in the US, like Exxon-Mobil, are in support of a carbon tax.

To the naked eye, this seems highly unlikely. But these companies see the writing on the wall and some kind of climate-related legislation is bound to come into play relatively soon -- if anything, the EPA will use its power to regulate greenhouse gases. Under a cap-and-trade system the price of carbon fluctuates and businesses can never be too sure how hard it will hit their balance sheets each year. For companies that are huge and have less than impressive carbon emission histories, such fluctuation could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. A carbon tax, however, is predictable, which is highly valuable to businesses. Moreover, the cost of the tax is borne both by industry and consumers, so businesses don't take as much of the hit. And for the more cynically-minded, it is much easier to influence the price of the tax when the government controls it (see coal, gas & oil lobby) than when the market has control.

But Obama likes the cap-and-trade, and so do the Democrats (for the most part). For now it looks like very little will come about, but who knows about the future? We can only hope the EPA starts to wield its axe or Congress puts something together. I'm not feeling too optimistic about the latter...      

The Importance of Prevention: Lessons from Haiti...

The tragedy occurring in Haiti as a result of the devastating earthquake is absolutely heartbreaking. No one deserves such a fate and my heart goes out to the millions that have been adversely impacted by the disaster. Moreover, the outpouring of support coming from around the world is somewhat inspiring.

But you are going to have to forgive my forthcoming cynicism.

As inspiring and necessary as the support is, I was left with a sick feeling in my stomach as soon as the media started publishing all sorts of stories about the rapid deployment of disaster relief complemented by a series of politically-opportunistic photo ops. This is both typical and frustrating, but not my main point of contention. My greater concern is how the world approaches Haiti and its disaster, and more broadly, how we approach the prevention of disasters.

(I will preface this by saying I am by no means an expert on Haiti nor an expert on international development, but have a relatively decent grasp of both subjects). Haiti has been falling apart for decades, if not centuries. Even prior to the disaster, it was among the most impoverished countries in the world with outrageously high rates of infant mortality and disease. A series of brutal dictatorships, coups and interference from influential foreign powers have left the country in political ruin for years and consistently ranks near the top of the world's most corrupt countries. There is very little money for the majority of citizens and the physical infrastructure (roads, well-built houses, emergency services) throughout the country is awful.

And how has the world helped? Some countries have thrown money at them and expected great things, although the success of purely financial foreign aid is far from high. Basically, we turn a blind eye.

But when the country physically starts to fall apart, we run in like the white knight without even thinking about it. Governments throughout the world are pledging hundreds of millions of dollars in support and sending in their militaries to help out as soon as possible. Different workplaces are collecting money to donate and even professional sports leagues like the NHL are reaching into their pockets to help out. I just walked by a booth at Trent where a bake sale is being put on the help quake victims. Again, this is touching and it is nice to see all sorts of people helping out.

But there is only so much help all of this can do right now. Much of the aid can't even get into the country at this point and some donation groups have even been swindling the folks who have trusted them with their money.

As great as all the support is, it could have been considerably more effective if used to prevent much of the devastation rather than clean it up. True, as a friend pointed out to me, you can't predict the future. But natural disasters often wreak similar havoc. The damage may not have been much more different had it been a massive hurricane or flood.

The infrastructure is particularly important. A reporter on the CBC was comparing the damage to that seen in L'Aquila, Italy recently from another strong earthquake. But unlike there, where the buildings were modestly strong and emergency services could easily get to the sites, Haiti's buildings are weak and domestic emergency services essentially non-existent.

And I want to make it clear that when I say support, I do not just mean money. Money has been thrown at Haiti for years, but that doesn't go very far when it is given to a corrupt regime, or coming with strings attached. Indeed, development practices are tricky things, but surely something could have been done to create stable infrastructure several years ago.

Moreover, the amount of support coming in from members of the public is important, but how many of these people really cared about Haiti prior to the quake? Would they have been as willing to stand in the halls selling baked goods if you told them the proceeds might one day prevent such a high level of devastation? Or does the actual event have to take place before people care?

I should also make it clear that my use of prevention is to describe preventing such a high level of devastation. Indeed, you can't prevent an earthquake, and with one of such magnitude, there is inevitably going to be damage, but the amount of damage could have been reduced significantly.

The problem with only helping out once the damage is done is that it is often considerably less effective overall. And it is more expensive. How much do you think it'll really cost to return Haiti to its former self prior to the quake? And how expensive has the entire disaster relief effort been? It certainly isn't cheap and it certainly isn't any cheaper than what might have been needed to prevent such tragedy.

So why is this appearing in an environmentally-related blog?

Because if the climate scientists are right, natural disasters are going to get more frequent and more powerful as the planet warms. True, climate change won't influence earthquakes, but as I said earlier, natural disasters often wreak havoc in a similar fashion. How many more Haitis could we prevent over the next 100 years if we thought about this properly and invested in prevention rather than the clean up?

More broadly, our entire approach to climate change and the environment is centred around this phenomenon. We spend years trying to figure out where to put our waste rather thinking about how to reduce the production of it. If we don't do enough to prevent the damages we're bringing upon ourselves, we could all be screwed. After all, there comes a point when it's impossible to clean up.        

A talk on El Salvador: Exposing Canadians to Conflict and Development

The upcoming World Affairs Colloquium at Trent features David Morrison who will be speaking about El Salvador: Exposing Canadians to Conflict and Development. A discussion will follow the 70 minute film which is the product of an educational trip to El Salvador. It illustrates reflections and images of the civil war in the 1980s and demonstrates how this experience continues to shape and scar contemporary development.

The event will take place this Friday January 22nd from 2:30 to 4:30pm. It will be held in the Lady Eaton College (LEC) Pit, located next to the LEC dining hall.

Refreshments will be provided to all of our attendees. We encourage you to come to this talk with questions, comments and constructive criticism of the speaker’s topic.

About the World Affairs Colloquium at Trent:

The World Affairs Colloquium is produced by-weekly by the Trent International Program and Trent International Students Association. As a committee we bring in speakers to discuss topics as diverse as climate change to the global food crisis to post-conflicted regions in Africa. The World Affairs Colloquium is all about producing an insightful and informative dialogue between students, faculty and the community. The colloquium creates a forum for global citizenship allowing a dynamic conversation to take place within our university.

Should we still be debating the science of climate change?...

Climate change is happening. We all know it. The poles are melting faster than expected and 2010 is expected to be one of the warmest years on record. But the cause of climate change is still up in the air.

The latter statement might strike some as an environmental blasphemy. This blog must be endorsed by the big oil companies and whale nukers, they will say, simply prolonging this dangerously unnecessary debate. This would be an easy argument to agree with, at least until the famed 'Climategate'.

For those of you unfamiliar with Climategate, it is the title given to the series of leaked (after someone hacked in) emails between scientists at the University of East Anglia in England, one of the most prestigious climatic research centres in the world. The emails revealed how climate scientists played with the data in order to have it reveal that warming was occuring (which it originally had not).

This has sparked a renewed argument for the world's climate sceptics and thrown a giant screw into the already complex issue of dealing with climate change. But not only has it given hope to the sceptics, it has also led some to climb back on the fence. For example, The Economist, a very prestigious, yet business-friendly news magazine has since published several articles stating that the issue should still be up for debate, if only to hear both sides equally. Prior to the release of Climategate, the magazine was gung-ho about human beings' involvement in climate change. Now, they are a little more cautious.

Who can blame them and others sitting on the fence? After all, some sceptics have long argued that anthropogenic climate change is a meditated and manufactured crisis designed to advance the agendas of a select few. Climategate adds weight to that argument. Or at least, for the less radical believers, Climategate might lead some to believe that climate change won't be as bad as we think. It not only makes it easier to think we don't cause climate change (and therefore shouldn't do anything about it) but also leaves those with significant public influence to take a step back.

For me, this whole case provides an interesting dynamic. Much of my coursework has included a theme of inclusive participation and respecting all sides to big debates. Indeed, ignoring the views of various stakeholders has gotten us into some of our biggest troubles throughout history, environmental or otherwise. Is ignoring the views of sceptics any different, especially when Climategate provides them with some fairly telling evidence?

But then again, if climate change is as dangerous as it's reputed to be, perhaps we should just press ahead and ignore the sceptics. Elizabeth May certainly thinks so. During the Munk Debates on the eve of the Copenhagen Conference, May repeatedly stated that the debate taking place (is climate change our defining crisis?) was the wrong debate and we should have moved on by now. After all, there is still overwhelming evidence in support of anthropogenic climate change from a whole whack of prestigious global societies and institutions.

That was a fact I have held strongly to since Climategate came about and, despite the aforementioned comments about The Economist, found some additional strength to that argument in the magazine's letters to the editor:

I agree with you that dissent and peer review should not be silenced, but “scepticism” and “consensus” must be evaluated by their true weight. Where is the dissent and alternative theories in your other science articles? Why don’t you present an alternative argument from Christian Scientists in your reporting on cancer therapies, for example? While it is true that whether or not I could make the Manchester United football team is a yes or no answer, that does not mean my chances as a 39-year-old flappy scientist are 50:50. My chances are less than 1%.


The vast majority of climate-change scientists hold that global warming is caused by burning too many fossil fuels. The consensus view of the American National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society and the respective groups of every advanced nation on climate change cannot be ignored while we wait for an unobtainable golden thread of evidence.


Lou Zeidberg
Monterey, California

Lou's argument is very strong and gives good reason to stop spending a great deal of our efforts in this debate. So to answer the question given in this post's title, no, we shouldn't be debating it, at least not to the degree we are now and even in the face of events like Climategate.

Let me finish with something we should always keep in mind when thinking about the climate question. If I'm wrong, it's not the end of the world. Literally. But if I'm right and we don't do enough in time to stop climate change, it very well could be, at least for human beings. Tim's post on Greg Craven's outlines this very clearly:


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.    


Of the two downsides, is a global depression worse than well, us being screwed? What's the bigger risk?

Can Brownfield redevelopment take off?

The Wikipedia definition of Brownfield sites is "abandoned or underused industrial and commercial facilities available for re-use." In certain parts of the U.S., Brownfield sites are becoming more popular and accepted in this era of environmental sustainability. With Brownfield sites, there is massive potential for increasing density and optimizing land uses in an urban environment. By re-using land that is closer to the urban core, you can effectively increase urban density, allow people to live closer to their workplace (assuming they work downtown) and minimize urban sprawl (which is environmentally disastrous).

Places like St. Paul, Minnesota have been highly successful at showcasing the economic and environmental benefits of Brownfield redevelopment. St. Paul expects that redevelopment of the city's 1,000 acres of Brownfields will create as many as 13,000 new jobs and $25 million in annual property tax revenues. That is super progressive and innovative.

So St. Paul has been successful with implementing Brownfields, but many Canadian cities have not been. With Brownfield redevelopment for housing, the liability and regulatory barriers are significant obstacles because the greater number of end users are exposed to potential risk. More importantly however, the bigger obstacle is the stigma around Brownfields themselves. There is a lot of stigma around Brownfield sites according to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), this is because the media and developers deem Brownfield sites as contaminated and unsafe and thus highly risky.

This stigma has been perpetuated and has worried many developers from putting in redevelopment projects- those perceived risks have stifled innovation in industrial design and construction. It is really unfortunate because the media does not showcase cities that have been successful with Brownfields, St. Paul being the prime example.

In Canada, the CMHC has been talking about having public outreach programs designed to educate participants in the Brownfield redevelopment process on the real risks and benefits of the process. Alas, this has not taken off as vigorously as many sought. With a weakened economy, developers have not taken many risks with Brownfields, instead, many continue to construct massive sub-division projects which only perpetuate that problem of urban sprawl. This is happening in Peterborough and in areas close to the Greenbelt.

Brownfield redevelopment can restrain urban sprawl. It’s like an urban containment policy. Brownfield redevelopment is really expensive though. There has been a reluctance of lenders to provide financing for brownfield redevelopment projects. Unless the risk assessment process is sound, the lender may not want to provide a loan because the land might be worth nothing down the road.

A Brownfield project is a way of providing affordable housing within existing urban areas while reducing expansion (in essence, it does work towards social justice and environmental sustainability).

It can also encourage economic development through concentrating more mixed commercial and residential uses in the urban core, however, this has to be popular and attractive for developers! Developers need to understand how such redevelopment can protect and improve human health, promote stronger live-work relationships and above all, maximize economic profitability.

Sadly, one of the biggest loopholes of this process is “the inability to transfer liability when land is sold”. This has caused some large corporate landowners to mothball their properties

Key message: Brownfields can alleviate the environmental repercussions of urban sprawl. Education and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities can both help make this process a heck of a lot easier.

Delivery Groceries: A greener approach to food shopping...

In his book Heat, George Monbiot talks about all the stuff we do as human beings that contribute to climate change and some of our craziest behaviour actually comes from our supermarkets.

Yes, these things are absolutely massive. But this is not unique to supermarkets; huge buildings can be found everywhere. But it is the inner workings of these things that are very astounding. When you first enter the building, you are normally smashed by a fan of either very cold or very hot air (depending on what the temperature is like outside). And when you get in, the lights are among the brightest available on the market. Why? All the food needs to look pretty and the best way is with pretty lights. And lots of them. Everywhere. That day-old fillet of tilapia not look so appetizing? Just toss some extra lights on top of it. Perhaps the most ridiculous thing you'll find at the supermarket are the open freezers & fridges (a friend of mine refers to them as bunkers). Do you ever leave your freezer open all day at home? It's probably the biggest waste of energy you'll find at a supermarket.

So Monbiot proposes something very different. Rather than driving to the supermarket, we could have it delivered to us. No more need for bright lights, high-powered entrance fans or open freezers. And no more need for such massive building footprints. Instead, there could simply be a warehouse with delivery vans. The energy savings would be enormous. According to a supermarket chain executive interviewed in Heat, the food storage section takes up only 5-10% of the entire building's energy usage. Wow.

Energy savings for the suppliers wouldn't be the only advantage of this type of system. People would no longer have to drive to the supermarket (gas & time), find a parking spot (imagine not needing those massive parking lots), spend valuable time in the grocery store (some spend hours) and stand in line. Rather, you could just have it delivered at a time that was convenient for you. Sure, there would be a fee, but it would certainly outweigh the hours spent driving, shopping and unloading. When both my sister and I were still living back home with our parents, my dad would go grocery shopping almost weekly and fill up the entire cart. He would be gone for several hours. Imagine if he were able to stay home, work more or just go out for the hours he would have spent shopping. And as a student with no car but a large appetite, I wouldn't have to go through the struggle of hauling all the food -- after buying far more than I can reasonably carry -- back by foot.

You would simply go online and shop like you would on Amazon.com and create your shopping list. You could submit your order and choose a time to have it delivered. A delivery truck would later come by with your delivery as it makes the rounds for other houses, too. The net energy benefit would be fantastic, as a fleet of delivery trucks would surely be more efficient than a ton of individuals driving their own cars. You could even develop a relationship with the delivery guy, like there used to be with the milk man.

So why don't we have these everywhere?

I'll first dismiss one argument I've heard. That is, the romantic notion that the supermarket is a place where the community gathers and you see folks from around town that you know. This is gone in most supermarkets in North America. I never see anyone I know when I go to the supermarket and I expect people might run into one or two people they know, but very rarely. And other than the proverbial cute girl you're supposed to meet in the supermarket, it certainly isn't the type of place that you make lifelong friends.

The bigger deal is that we, as a society, are bent on seeing our food before we purchase it. If it is delivered, how on earth will we know the quality of it. There is some legitimacy to this, but only some. Yes, with fruits, veggies and meat, I'd rather not have rotten or bruised food delivered to me. With some element of quality assurance, this could be easily be avoided. But the majority of other foods we buy are packaged and preserved in one way or another, so it doesn't really matter if we see it or not.

Whether it has to do with our understanding of freshness is another matter, as nothing in the supermarket is really as fresh as we might trick ourselves to think. All those glossy apples were picked by people or even machines somewhere relatively far away (depending on the season) and then shipped and stored somewhere else before finally being dumped in the apple bin. Meat is the same way. Personally, I'd have no problem if Safeway delivered me a few packages of ground beef without my seeing it beforehand. After all, it always looks fine in the actual store. Moreover, my good friend Kingsley frequently caters weddings and other large gatherings and has to buy food from industrial suppliers. Rarely, if ever does he get to see the food before it arrives.  

This is not a new idea and Monbiot (at least in this respect) is not a revolutionary. A group out of Toronto called Grocery Gateway has been doing delivery groceries for years, but it has taken a long time to catch on and it is still far from overtaking the major chains. They serve a rather niche market and serve only premium foods (thus allowing for quality control). And even greater niche markets exist for this. Throughout Peterborough, several groups exist that will deliver locally grown produce from nearby farms weekly to you. But again, these are niche and small operations.

Now I should also mention that not every store should do this. The small markets in the neighbourhood and the farmer's markets are wonderful. In these places, those romantic notions of community still exist. Going to the Farmer's market is one of my most pleasant experiences and such a view is shared by many I know. And you will frequently need to go to certain places to pick up only one or two items, which wouldn't be worth paying delivery for.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have supermarkets and we would all grow our own food. But then we couldn't have mangoes in January and some people wouldn't like that. The reality is that we have and are going to continue to have large, centralized food sources with a great variety of choice. People are too used to it to revert back to only community gardens and farmer Ed's cows down the road. We can't simply make a massive transition in how we purchase and grow our food, but we can certainly make our current system work a hell of a lot better.

Thorium: A cleaner, greener nuclear?...

My cousin and I were chatting a week or so ago and he brought up a bizarre-sounding chemical called Thorium that he had read about in an issue of Wired Magazine. I scoffed at the title of the chemical and jokingly brushed it aside as some strange fantasy blood from Thor. But my scoffing soon turned to curiosity when said that thorium is an alternative fuel source to uranium and could be considerably more environmentally friendly.

So I looked up the article and I began researching thorium (chemical symbol Th). It is quite an astonishing chemical. I should warn you that I am not a chemist and I would not want to bore you with my struggles to understand the actual chemical details of Thorium (I'll leave that up to you to research, if you so please), but I know enough to say it is very similar in nature to uranium. In fact, the two are only two spaces away from each other on the Periodic Table (Th is 90, while uranium is 92).

Uranium is the fuel of choice used in our modern day nuclear reactors (and has been used for decades). It is first mined from underground, then processed several times before being combined with its buddy plutonium to create what we understand as nuclear energy. It is radioactive, and while being relatively advantageous from an energy perspective, can be very damaging to human beings and the natural environment.

Once the uranium is no longer up to snub -- that is, it becomes inefficient to use as a fuel source -- it is replaced by more uranium. The depleted uranium then has to be stored. This is what we know as radioactive chemical waste. The trouble is, at this point, neither Canada or the United States (both among the world's leaders of nuclear energy production) have any long term solution outside of temporary storage in big holding vats, which are filling up fast. Because it is so harmful, nobody wants it stored near them, where it could potentially destroy the natural environment or poison the water supply.

The actual mining of uranium is certainly no happy walk in the park either. Mining companies tend to leave tailings behind that poison water supplies and demolish the surrounding environments, as has been witnessed near Elliot Lake.

And nuclear power is not cheap. Ontario's nuclear reactors have frequently run into cost overuns in the billions of dollars. The monitoring and stabilizing technologies are expensive and the size of the actual plants is usually 200,000-300,000 square feet. Tack on insurance and some other bells and whistles and you're looking at something that is not cheap.

To top it all off, uranium can be enriched to create nuclear weapons. Nukes are never a good thing.

So as you can imagine, I was astonished when I read that thorium could cure almost all these problems (I'm not sure about the mining process as I didn't come across anything about it). First, thorium is considerably more energy efficient. The amount of energy obtained from thorium is several times greater than the equivalent amount of uranium. Second, when thorium is done doing its thing, it contains only a fraction of the waste left to deal with from uranium. Third, thorium can be cooled without water, needing only a special salt bath to dissolve the chemical and is self-regulating. As a result, it doesn't need the massive cooling towers of uranium plants nor the same level of monitoring and stabilizing technology. Power plants, in theory, could be only a few thousand square feet big. The Toronto Star's Tyler Hamilton has mentioned the advantages of small nuclear in his blog, Clean Break. Fourth, when mixed with plutonium -- which is generally needed for nuclear energy -- and used in a reactor, the amount of plutonium left over is negligible and therefore can't be used for nuclear weapons. Plus, it's abundant throughout the world and can be found in many more countries than just Canada and Australia (where you find most of the world's uranium).

So what's the catch? Why isn't this everywhere?

The article goes through it in greater detail, but what it boiled down to was the investment in uranium took over. With the advantages of nuclear proliferation, uranium hit two birds with one stone. And with billions of dollars invested in uranium powered plants, there is a huge push to keep it that way.

These small power plants that use a salt bath can be extremely corrosive and therefore require very advanced holding tanks made out of expensive alloys, making the initial capital investment very high.

But that is not stopping some countries from exploring it. China, Russia, India, France and even the United States are looking seriously into thorium. One of its biggest benefits is that it can be used in today's reactors without much added cost to make the shift. Some have likened it to using biofuels in regular cars.

What I'm surprised about is that very little seems to be known about it. Several friends of mine have never heard of it and even my instructor in my waste management course, a man who has spent nearly twenty years at the forefront of nuclear waste siting, had never heard of thorium. But perhaps we will soon hear more...    

Oh yeah, and happy birthday Graeme!

What do we know about tap water? Lessons from the U.S.

City Brights blogger Peter Gleick, recently wrote a highly informative post about tap water in the U.S. Both in the U.S. and Canada we are very fortunate to access our drinking water from our taps, something many people in the developing world cannot do. With the possibility of contracting cholera, typhoid, dysentery, the risks are simply too high.

Interestingly, the U.S. has a federal act titled the "Safe Drinking Water Act", but it is outdated and in need for reform. The Safe Drinking Water Act regulates 91 chemicals. Yet there are tens of thousands of chemicals that can contaminate our waters and that haven't been assessed for their risks.

Gleick writes that "We have also known for a long time that research into the health effects of many contaminants has been underfunded, slow, and piecemeal. Such research is extremely hard to do because of the vast numbers of possible chemical contaminants and the difficulty of identifying health effects of exposures to low concentrations or complex mixes of different chemicals."

Last year, people in the U.S. purchased 33 billion litres of bottled water- an average of 110 litres per person. As enviroboys has explained before, people buy bottled water for all sorts of reasons; one of those reasons is fear of tap water because of the ostensible contaminants. There is always reason to fear this but we should know that our water is being treated with filtration, chlorination, and other modern water-treatment systems.

It is way too difficult for Environment Canada and the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate every single chemical in our water supply (because there are hundreds). Gleick calls for an upgrading in our municipal water systems with the latest, sophisticated technologies for treating water. Out of precautionary principle, we should be installing the sophisticated membrane and disinfection technologies capable of taking things out of our water.

A good way to pay for these system upgrades would be through water bills and imposing a fee on industries that release these chemicals. Water is fundamental to life and our existence, surely we can cut down on satellite tv or cable channels to pay for better treated water. The fee imposed on industry can as Gleick writes "support all the necessary research needed to evaluate the health risks they pose, to pay for remediating contaminated sites, and to help pay for sophisticated water-treatment systems to remove the contaminants they've released. In other words, the polluters must pay for their pollution as a cost of doing business".

Key message: Tap water is important and significantly cheaper than bottled water. Whether in the U.S. or Canada there should be strict legislation and funding in place to upgrade water systems to ensure a safe and adequate supply.

Looking ahead in 2010…

Copenhagen Conference = millions of emissions released into atmosphere + millions of dollars spent + non-legally binding targets + more cynicism in the climate change sphere.

Not to go on rant about the troubles and challenges of Copenhagen, but I vehemently believe that global targets on emissions are too hard to implement! For a long time, I have argued that cities need to play a much more active role in combating climate change. 50% of the world’s population now live in urban environments- growing cities around the world have their own problems with pollution, transportation and waste management, but they also have innovation, ideas and talent.

I hope this decade witnesses a rise in municipal leadership; especially in the Canadian environment. In Canada, we know that energy consumption and emissions reduction are subject to decisions by all three levels of government; the federal government sets environmental standards and impact assessments, provinces have constitutional authority over natural resources, and municipalities directly influence transportation, land use and housing. We should be trying to overcome this inherent complexity in multilevel governance relationships within Canada, specifically over climate change.

If cities were given more power and funding from the feds (because cities have no money) we could very well see some critical changes in our transportation systems, air pollution strategies, waste diversion programs like recycling and composting and housing design that incorporates energy efficiency and renewable resources. All of these endeavours are possible to administer at the city level, insofar as our municipal leaders actively engage with the private sector to advance change on the environment and economy. There are countless examples of cities that have gone the extra mile to address climate change, remember “wisdom way solar village”?

Also, whatever happen to energy audit programs that were once successful in cities such as Waterloo? Energy audit programs are just another example of how cities can significantly address climate change. Homeowners would love to learn about how they can live comfortably while concomitantly cutting down on energy usage.

I think cities need to have access to funding, especially for administering energy audits to ensure that the actions stimulated by the incentive are most appropriate or provide the best return for homeowner investment. Local climate action from cities and municipalities are indispensable in the fight against climate change. Cities must start forming partnerships with their utility companies, consulting firms and other stakeholders to share the costs and increase local awareness. This is how citizens at the local level can be more engaged and hence more willing to make changes to their everyday lives.

Key message: Progress on climate change action requires local participation where people feel engaged and learn about practical ways to do the right thing for the planet. This may be buying a more efficient dishwasher, making solar energy more viable or having access to waste diversion programs for example. The interests at the grassroots can only be sustained if the city is willing to provide resources, incentives and enact policies that are progressive for our planet.

Recognizing water as a human right...

Happy New Year! I hope you are all recovering from your respective New Year's Eve parties.

Our most recent post focused on the growing issue of fresh water. Tim's key message throughout the piece was that "water is life". Indeed, we as human beings are intrinsically tied to water in a way that is unlike any other bond we share with other substances on Earth. We drink it to survive; it helps grow the food we need to eat; it gives us aesthetic and recreational pleasure; it helps powers much of our economy; it is worshipped by nearly every religious, spiritual and cultural group in the world; etcetera.

But despite this connection, not everyone in the world has access to sufficient levels of clean water. We've all seen or heard the pictures and stories of regions in the world where disease, thirst and death run rampant because of a lack of access to fresh water. Even such problems exist in our own backyards in the 'developed' world. So, as part of myriad strategies to combat this problem, the United Nations put together a resolution in 2008 to formally recognize water as a human right.

It would change our unfair approach to governing our water resources throughout the world. Just as many countries have changed their laws when recognizing different human rights, so they would when recognizing water as one. It would make it harder for groups to privatize water resources and governments would have to put more effort into making clean water accessible for all their citizens.

The resolution was dismissed largely as a result of the Canadian federal government rejecting it. It argued that recognizing water as a human right would make it much easier for other countries to justify private bulk water exports out of Canada, especially under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

This is a very good point. Because Canada has so much of the world's remaining fresh water, it is in the unique position of potentially supplying the world of much its fresh water. If water becomes a universal human right, people all over the world would theoretically have access to Canada's water. This brings up all sorts of controversies with Canadian sovereignty. And while helping some of the world's more impoverished populations is noble, I wouldn't feel too happy if the folks in the Nevada desert keep watering their driveway (not that we're very sustainable users ourselves).

Of course, this is a global problem and recognizing water as a human right is not just about Canada. The benefits of recognizing access to water as a human right would be tremendous, but it is much more easily said than done. This is not to say that this issue should no longer be explored, but rather explored in greater depth. Noble causes are all well and good, but with something as integral and complex as water, nothing is simple.