Using Nature to Sell Housing Part 2...

I had some time last week to bike around Peterborough and photograph some of the newer sub-divisions being constructed on Greenfield sites. I have a group presentation next week and we are going to present these pictures and provide some analysis. The picture to the right illustrates the marketing of a sub-division project called “natural habitat”. If you live in Peterborough, or take the East Bank bus to the university, you can’t miss it. It’s just off Armour Road about 1.5 kilometres south of the university’s campus.

It is evident in the picture that the housing development features nature in some sort of way: Waterfront setting, golf and conservation lands. I wonder if the people who purchase property here actually know what conservation lands mean. A golf course is nearby the development and presumably, with more growth, another golf course will be developed in the coming years. Of course, being on the waterfront setting (next to the Otonabee River) is always an added bonus for aesthetic reasons and recreational activities. So, if you are trying to escape the city (because it is polluted, congested, dirty and so on), and if you are looking for a sense of community, then these sorts of sub-divisions might fulfill your needs.

I am not going to delve into the social exclusivity of these sub-divisions, but it is important to understand the inherent paradox. Having access to nature can give us a chance to embrace it, cherish it and ultimately protect it. We could be good environmental stewards when we move into these sub-divisions but it eventually becomes a hard battle to beat the housing market and its eager developers. Demand for these sub-divisions (in Peterborough) appears to be really good. Developers are quickly jumping on this opportunity to build more and more to meet the demand in the market.

So, residents are seeking nature and open communities yet, more and more sub-divisions are being built on these Greenfield areas which can certainly compromise the natural environment. Runoff from construction, paved surfaces and other can contaminate the water and displace native species and plants in the area. If more of these sub-divisions are built, then Big Box stores might come about to provide everyone with their basic commercial needs. Big Box stores do not encourage walking, biking and alternative modes of transport, they encourage the use of automobility which requires massive parking lots. This takes people away from “getting closer to nature”, both physically and mentally.

Developers are using nature to selling housing, they have been successful not matter how hypocritical they are. Dolores Hayden will tell us that these people move to residential developments on these Greenfield areas because they provide a quieter lifestyle, they are good for raising a family, provide a sense of community and they are close to nature. Getting closer to nature is one thing, actually looking after it is a completely different discussion.

More to come on this…

The Fun Theory...

I think the last time I had fun recycling a product was tossing a glass bottle into a recycling bin like a basketball, which quickly turned to guilt-ridden fear as the bottle shattered and I ran away. But for the most part, activities like recycling or cleaning up litter are far from exciting. A self-induced pat on the back is probably the most many people get when they toss their can in the recycling bin.

German auto manufacturer, Volkswagen is trying to change that. As part of an initiative known as the Fun Theory, Volkswagen has launched a website filled with videos that are dedicated to making mundane but important activities fun. According to the website, "This site is dedicated to the thought that something as simple as fun is the easiest way to change people’s behaviour for the better. Be it for yourself, for the environment, or for something entirely different, the only thing that matters is that it’s change for the better."





Some of the videos I have attached showcase how fun is being used to engage people to take part in activities that they might not otherwise engage in. For example, bottle return stations -- not used in Ontario and some other jurisdictions because of curbside pickup programs -- are about as thrilling as watching paint dry. But when they are turned into a flashy arcade game, people flock to it.





Or how about waiting for the bus? In some cities it might be difficult to know whether the bus is actually on its way. And standing around awkwardly not talking to other people is all too common. But this all changes when a street periscope is built at the station. People can look through the periscope to see if their bus is on its way, and can also explore other parts of the city. Plus it gives them something to talk to others about at the station.





And when you are coming off the subway, why would you take the tiring and boring stairs when the elevator doesn't require you to really do anything? To play a song of course! When the stairs are turned into a piano, use of the stairs increases significantly. 


Our friend Kingsley -- who happens to originate many of the ideas that appear on this blog, although he never seems interested in writing anything himself (hint, hint, cough, cough) -- was telling me about can-crushing Plinko. Based on the famous game from The Price is Right, people crushed their cans and then dropped them onto a Plinko board and then settled into a recycling bin. You can only imagine how much of a hit that'd be.


One of the biggest problems with environmental programs is getting people to buy into them and become engaged. No matter how green they are, how convenient they might be, how healthy they are or how nice they are financially, people just might not care enough to get engaged. But if they are made fun and exciting, as the videos above indicate, people will participate.


Now of course, the novelty would quickly wear off if every set of stairs in a city all of a sudden allowed you to practice Beethoven's Fifth and get in your fitness workout at the same time. But there are undoubtedly countless creative and innovative ideas out there waiting to be unleashed on the unexciting but important aspects of our world. 


What is more, having these fun programs out in the public generates all sorts of community energy. Rather than having everyone walk past each other on the street without offering as much as a glance to one another -- as I have encountered far too many times when travelling through downtown Toronto -- people could share in the fun of these activities, talk with one another and generally just have a good time. A happy, lively and friendly community is a good community.


Being told to take part in things in order to evade guilt and simply getting beaten over the head with the negative consequences of our actions is not always the best way to get people to buy into something. Sometimes they might do the opposite just to spite you. But putting a positive spin on things is a win-win for everyone involved. Well done, Fun Theory.  

A greener and cheaper alternative to wakeboarding...

I've spent much of my life going to the cottage and spending time around boats. One of my favourite things to do is go wakeboarding. For those of you who are unfamiliar with it, it is basically a combination of waterskiing and snowboarding, where you get pulled behind a boat and ride a large board that you can use to jump off the boat's wake and do all sorts of tricks. Some footage can be found here. I am by no means anywhere near the calibre of the guys in the video, but I bet Tim could do all that and more...

Wakeboarding, unfortunately, has an environmental impact. Like many watersports, wakeboarders need a boat to pull them. And often, the bigger the boat, the bigger the wake, and the better the wakeboarding. But, the bigger the boat, the more fuel consumed and usually, the louder the engine. And boats are notorious for their impact on bodies of water, from oil and gas emissions into the water and also into the air.

I recently stumbled upon something very comparable that could serve just as exciting, but without the boat. It is called kiteboarding. You use a similar board, but instead of being pulled behind the boat, you attach yourself to a large kite that you use to pull you across the water. You can also use it to seemingly float in mid air after hitting waves, allowing you to pull off just as many, if not more tricks you could perform wakeboarding. While I have never tried it, the videos I have seen lead me to believe that it offers one a freedom similar to that found in cycling.

There are dangers, of course, the biggest being the wind sweeping you up and throwing you into hazards like rocks or other kiteboarders. But with practice and quickly developing safety technology, many of these dangers can be avoided. Finding places with major wind resources can be a challenge, but in most major lakes and oceanic coasts, winds can get high enough. Throughout the Great Lakes, for instance, there is a multitude of appropriate locations to go kiteboarding.

I'm certainly looking into kiteboarding as something I could do, especially since I have little access to a boat. I certainly can't afford one. But kiteboarding is a little more financially accessible. If you're into this kind of stuff, I suggest taking a look. Here's one of hundreds of videos online.  

Now I am certainly not denouncing wakeboarding or jumping on the proverbial environmental high horse. If someone offered me the chance to go wakeboarding behind a 28 foot ski boat, I would jump at the opportunity. But there would be some guilt attached to it. Several watersports are dependent on boats or other vehicles. Finding ways to get the same excitement without as much environmental impact and as  much as a hit to the wallet can be pretty rewarding.

Poll results: If you were to create a sustainable/green city, what's the first thing you would bring about?

The results are in. There were votes for all options with the exception of “none of the above”. A good subway system was quite popular with 5 votes, followed by 3 votes for the bus system, 3 votes for a city-wide recycling/composting program, and 1 vote each for an extensive bike path system and green roofs for all buildings.

Any sustainable or green city in the world must have at least one of these components. Public transit is absolutely critical especially if the city has a population over 1 million people. Subway systems are expensive...the internationally accepted value for the cost of a subway per kilometre is $100 million. This cost accounts for construction, labour, maintenance and so. By contrast, the more efficient and well financed bus route systems such as the one in Curitiba, Brazil cost about $1.3 million per km. What’s more effective? They both work well but international evidence suggests that subway systems are simply more efficient, have high ridership rates, and are well-financed i.e. London, Paris and Berlin. They all work pretty effectively if you ask me.

Composting and recycling are becoming more popular programs for growing municipalities. Indeed, usually when a Canadian municipality hits a certain population (usually over 100,000), the city has an easier time starting a curbside composting program. Recycling can be found in most municipalities in Canada because it is a practical and smart approach to waste management. Finally, green roofs and bike path systems. Well Toronto recently passed a by-law to require and govern the construction of green roofs on new development in the city. Their benefits are extensive and enviroboys has talked about them before. Cities that have been progressive with green roofs (Berlin, Chicago, Portland) have had tremendous success.

Bike paths are also desperately needed for any green metropolis. Why? Because they are an excellent green alternative to driving. Bike paths need to be properly maintained and need to be plentiful! They should feed into cities just as main arterial roads and highways do. Let’s keep our cyclists a safe distance away from the motorists as best as we could.

Key message: Green cities are full of innovation and opportunity. If you are living in a city with even one of these components, be grateful... but learn about the numerous benefits accrued from other green options too.

Waste-to-energy is a heated topic these days…

Waste-to-energy is a euphemism for incineration, which is that process where a plant will burn municipal solid waste using thermal treatment which in turn can be used to generate electricity. At the “Waste-Based-Energy” industry conference in November 2009, delegates learned about several new incineration plant proposals including one in the Durham/York Region (not too far from Peterborough). The facility’s price tag is roughly $272 million and will be operated by New Jersey based Covanta Energy Corp.

There are some advantages to this plant that I should note. Considering the large population growth of the Durham/York Region, and given the implications of their growing electricity demand, the incinerator could very well provide electricity for thousands of homes. It could also be a solution for neighbouring municipalities who are currently stressing over their landfill sites due to overuse and leachate problems (i.e. when a lot of organic wastes end up in the landfill, sometimes they can leach from the landfill carrying other toxic wastes into the groundwater supply). Other parts of Canada including Metro Vancouver, Ottawa and Edmonton are all on the path to building more incinerators, many of which are being done by public-private partnerships.

So, I have touched on the “good” and now I turn to my cynicism and pessimistic take on the proposed incinerator. Firstly, there are numerous health issues associated with incineration. The burning of waste releases thousands of toxic emissions implicated in asthma and respiratory illnesses, autism, dyslexia and Parkinson’s disease just to name a few. These sites are often built on Greenfield sites or in agricultural communities thereby eroding the viability of the farmer’s land and well-being. Tens of thousands of tonnes of toxic ash are generated annually from the burning of waste, and o yeah, that ash is often sent to the landfill.

These sorts of projects are highly controversial because the companies that operate them do not often account for their negative externalities. For example, when these plants spew out toxic emissions, those living within close propinquity suffer great respiratory illnesses. Indeed, the Durham/York Region is growing tremendously and an incinerator is bound to pose health issues which can potentially add even more pressure to a health care system that already has too much.

I think the Province should mandate that all new incinerators built in Ontario have “scrubber systems”. These systems are a diverse group of air pollution control devices that can be used to remove some particulates and/or gases from industrial emissions. This would account for some of those externalities and put the accountability right on the company that operates the plant.

Finally, the plant is proposing to have a $140 per tonne tipping fee (the charge for accepting waste at the site). I think that 50% of this fee should go directly towards the region’s recycling and composting programs. This would be imperative because empirical evidence suggests that when a city sees the construction of an incinerator, there is less of an incentive for keeping a well-maintained recycling system because incinerators are expensive! Also, taxpayers pay for them.

Key message: Companies that run these incinerators must be held accountable for their emissions. Indeed, they should be required to have mandatory scrubber systems to really minimize the health impacts of emissions. Our health care system is already stressed, let’s keep our innovative waste management programs like recycling and composting which pose no real health effects, unlike incineration.

Canada's government tries to green up its Olympic climate impact...

Stop the presses! Canada's Conservative federal government is taking moderate steps to do something about climate change. Ok, ok, I'll remove my tongue from my cheek.

According to the Globe and Mail, Canada's Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, announced that the federal government is looking to offset the carbon emissions of federal bureaucrats working on the Olympics. Using the same carbon footprint method utilized by the Vancouver Organizing Committee to measure its own footprint, the feds estimate that the bureaucrats will create a total of 7,600 tonnes, largely from air travel, accommodation and the 45,000 km Torch Relay.

The price? $150,000, which it hopes (through a competitive bidding process) to be put towards some form of renewable energy generation or building envelope conservation in Canada.

I find several things very interesting with this move by the feds. First, I suppose some (but not too much) praise should be given to the federal government. After all, no one is forcing them to do this and it is certainly better than nothing. But let's not go too far. As I have said before and will say again -- to some dismay from a certain unprofessional representative of a company with a vested interest in it -- carbon offsets are stupid. They allow people to continue to engage in climate changing activities and simply buy their way out. Moreover, its voluntary, so you don't actually have to do it. But this is old news and I suggest reading the above hyperlink if you want a more detailed assessment of carbon offsets.

The two other things I notice are a little more political. Considering it is going to be delivered under a "competitive bidding process", expect to hear very little about it actually being completed any time soon. These processes can be exceptionally lengthy, especially with a government that is far from quick to move with its climate policies. What is important for them is that they can say that they have committed to it, which is a particularly valuable political tool.

The second political implication of such a move may not be as useful for the Conservatives. Let's do some quick math. $150,000 will buy 7,600 tonnes of carbon. That suggests a carbon price of $19.74/tonne. Not even the Liberals thought that price was politically acceptable when they introduced their Green Shift carbon tax platform. Now, a one time, $150,000 carbon offset is a little different than a national tax, but if I were any of the opposition parties, I would hold the Conservatives to that price anytime they talk about any carbon pricing policies in the future.

A cap-and-trade system -- likely coming within the next few years -- will limit the government's control over carbon pricing, but setting the cap level and issuing permits gives the government some influence.

The Conservatives will likely not associate this carbon offset manoeuvre with any broader climate policies, but they could be held accountable by opposition parties and political onlookers.

Lastly, 7600 tonnes?!?! As one commentator on the Globe and Mail put it, that's a lot of hot air. That's equivalent to the emissions generated from the total electricity used by 1000 homes in the US for one year, according to the EPA. I wonder how far the government explored reducing its initial carbon footprint, rather than simply buying its way out later (with taxpayers dollars, nonetheless).      

Using Nature to sell Housing Development

I recently started working on a project for one of my Geography courses titled “The Rural-Urban Fringe”. The focus of this project is on nature and peri-urban development. In essence, my group has to talk about how nature is used to sell and promote housing development in exurban areas. An exurb is a non-rural residential community located outside a city, beyond the suburbs.

Many could argue that Peterborough is an exurb. I would argue that it is a city (pop ~80,000). However, Peterborough’s fringe areas (located outside of the urban environment) are experiencing the construction of numerous sub-divisions. Growth in the sub-divisions? O yeah, those urbanites (many of whom lived in places like Toronto) are seeking housing outside of the urban area where they are closer to nature, have more lot space and the ability to develop a sense of community.

As part of the project, I intend on biking around the fringe areas of the city to collect and document evidence of nature being used to market housing developments. The sub-division that I’m biking to tomorrow is called “Natural Habitat”. The developers have used this title because it’s catchy and will probably sell more and more homes. Underneath the title it reads “conservation lands”, “golf courses”, and “waterfront setting”. So, if you live in this sub-division you will have access to all of these wonderful things.

Empirical evidence suggests that residents of new large lot subdivisions (natural habitat for example) on once rural land have become worried about more residential growth opposing condos, apartments, theatres, restaurants and shopping malls near their homes. These residents escaped the urban setting to get away from these things. However, new growth is happening all over Peterborough as evidenced by the construction of sub-divisions.

This new growth is accompanied with various amenities which makes the rural life congested, chaotic and begins to see some attributes of the urban. Having said this, the housing developments are still selling because residents can enjoy their large open spaces. Being close to Big Box stores is just a bonus, although it will eventually erode any sense of community and pull people away from the downtown (thus eroding the local economy).

Sometimes families are attracted by a small town’s charm and will choose to buy a house distant from the city- only to find that the town’s physical character was soon compromised by excessive new development. The danger is that once one sub-division is built (near nature), this provides more of an economic impetus to develop another one because housing demand is good. Alas, this defeats the purpose which is to find a small community that can provide social and economic needs for these “exurbanites”.

Key message: Humans have always been in touch with nature. Over the years, we have and continue to witness mass urbanization which compromises nature, the environment and our access to green and open spaces. Thus, when sub-divisions are built in places like Peterborough (relatively close to Toronto), and when they use images like golf courses, trees and rivers, people are immediately attracted to it because it will ostensibly provide them with a healthier and more enjoyable lifestyle. There are burning ironies here that I will not discuss. They will be shared as I progress into my research.

Trent's new Masters in Sustainability Studies...

In the fall of 2010, Trent will begin its brand new Master's Program in Sustainability Studies. According to Trent, the program will "carry out interdisciplinary graduate education and research that will improve our understanding of environmental sustainability, economic prosperity, and social responsibility. Program faculty are united by a common vision that environmental protection, resource conservation, positive social change, and sustainable economies are complementary rather than antagonistic processes. By integrating the efforts of business, government and civil society, we seek to promote an understanding of social, environmental and economic sustainability."


This interdisciplinary approach to the world's increasingly important social, economic and environmental issues is something that Trent University has emphasized for several years in many of its programs. Indeed, Dr. Don Markwell, Warden of Rhodes House at Oxford University and visiting Ashley Fellow to Trent, recently spoke to interdisciplinarity being the keystone to a liberal arts education, something Trent is renowned for.


There are very few other programs like this throughout North America and only a handful in Canada. With a relatively high acceptance standard -- the minimum GPA is set at 80% -- and a unique, yet highly applicable curriculum, this program is likely to attract top students throughout Canada and the rest of the world. 


What is particularly advantageous about such a program is its applicability to the real world. Firms and organizations in the private, non-profit and government sectors are increasingly looking for people to deal with environmental issues, but who also have a working knowledge of the economic and social issues associated with it. For example, if I am the CEO of Exxon-Mobil and I am looking to fill some kind of environmental policy-related position, it is difficult for me to know whether someone with a degree in simply Environmental Science, which is relatively specialized, will have the skills necessary to deal with the business realities of an oil company. A degree in Sustainability Studies would indicate to me that such a person has a well-rounded, yet educated skill set to meet my needs.


Quite simply, this program will be filling a job market that is in high demand, growing very quickly and increasingly important.


But I see one other area where such a program will bring huge benefits to Trent, and that is within its undergraduate programs. Trent is currently known for its spectacular graduate program known as the Environmental and Life Sciences (ELS) program. It houses some of the most dynamic and accomplished academics in the field. Students in the program are given teaching assistance positions for courses at the undergraduate level and those students in the undergraduate environmental science courses and provided with highly knowledgeable TAs.


But this setup is far from advantageous for the "studies" half of the ERS undergraduate program at Trent. That is, the people studying the policy, law, philosophy, economics and social issues related to the environment (of which both Tim and I are included). Because there are so many students in the ELS program, many of them are given TA positions in classes from the "studies" section, of which many of them have very little knowledge. Over my four years at Trent, I have taken several classes that were TA'd by students that were very bright, but knew next to nothing about what we were discussing in class. As you can imagine, this was not particularly helpful.


The other major graduate program related to the ERS program at Trent is the Frost Centre for Canadian Studies, which does not offer an environmental specialization. From time to time, a student studying at the Frost Centre will get a TA position in a "studies" class, but since there are so few of these students, such events are rare. However, I have had the luxury of taking classes with such students as TAs and they have been among the most effective and helpful TAs I've ever had.


With the new Arts-based students coming to study in the Sustainability program, I expect that the undergraduate program at Trent will improve enormously as a result of the introduction of this program, especially if the calibre of incoming students is as high as I predict. And while I will be graduating from Trent this spring and missing the chance to reap the rewards of this program, I look forward to seeing the Environmental Studies program at Trent, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels, grow immensely successful.         


Information about the program can be found at: http://www.trentu.ca/sustainabilityma/

Poll results: How much would you be willing to pay for water?

Dear readers,

The poll results are in. We had a total of 13 votes (not bad for the first poll). Chris and I will be posting poll questions more regularly now to provoke thought and some debate. Our first poll question was "How much would you be willing to pay for water?". This question was based on paying for water on a monthly basis:

$1.00= 0 votes
$5.00= 2 votes (15%)
$20.00= 5 votes (38%)
$50.00= 0 votes
Nothing. It should be free= 6 votes (46%)

Total votes = 13

While the sample is small it still speaks to some variation in the results. Every household in Peterborough pays roughly $18-$45 a month for water. I pay $18 a month but a house on a larger lot with more "rooms" might pay a lot more than me. As mentioned in the past, the water rate for Peterborough operates on a fixed amount i.e. you pay the same amount for water every month so consuming 10,000 litres or 15,000 litres of water will not make a difference to the amount you pay because you are not metered.

Enviroboys recognizes the fundamental importance of water. Some people think we shouldn't pay anything for water (because Canada has so much of it). That's true in theory, but it all depends on where you are getting your water from. The other side to that argument is that water is a human right and everyone should be entitled to it. Also a valid point but how realistic is this in a future where water supplies are dwindling and people are fighting over it?

For those who responded to the poll and are water metered, I envy you. Because ultimately, both you and I can be consuming the exact same amount of water monthly but I pay $18 and you pay $10 (based on whatever the price is on units consumed). Because I pay a flat rate, I am not rewarded for using less water (in fact I could use as much as I want).

Sooner or later, everyone in Canada is going to start paying for how much water they consume i.e. water metering. This can allow for sustainability and the conservation of Canada's most precious natural resource.

The environmental movement is killing the mood, but there is still hope...

The world is facing an epidemic. Every year, people are having less and less sex in cars. The time honoured tradition was once rampant with the bench seat featured in the massive American vehicles of the 1960s, but has been stifled by a combination of bucket seats, heavier traffic and smaller cars -- largely driven by the environmental movement. But all is not lost.

In this hilarious article in the Globe & Mail, Andrew Clark describes how vehicular sex can be salvaged, even in these troubling times. Just in time for Valentine's Day, too.

For those of you looking for a really good laugh (rare in the G&M) and maybe some 'driving' tips, I highly recommend reading "Your Valentine's Day guide to vehicular sex".

Getting businesses on board with the environment...

This morning Tim and I had the pleasure of speaking with one of Canada's most influential and political businessmen in our environmental policy course. Speaking to us all the way from Switzerland after a day of skiing, the Hon. Hugh Faulkner spoke to our class about the role of the private sector in global environmental policy.

Mr. Faulkner served as an MP for many years and the Secretary of State under Pierre Trudeau, was a senior executive at Alcan, a major aluminum refining company and was the co-founder of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development(WBCSD), a group of some of the world's largest corporations dedicated to sustainable business practices.

He offered several important insights into the world of business and the environment.

When asked how you form a group of businesses like the WBCSD, he said you must find the right businesses. According to Mr. Faulkner, there are three types of businesses you'll find when an issue like the environment is brought forward: leaders, followers and naysayers. Leaders, which make up 10% of all businesses, are those that are willing to take serious steps forward to deal with environmental issues. Followers (40%) are those that are willing to do something, just as long as someone else will lead. And naysayers (50%) are the group that won't budge and claim that the environment isn't their problem and they have to be accountable to their shareholders.

This is extremely important to realize. For most environmentalists -- especially left-leaners at Trent -- all corporations seem to get clumped into the naysayer category. My experience in several seminars at Trent has been that most if not all corporations are met with strong cynicism. But it is good to know -- especially from a reputable source -- that there companies out there willing to make a positive difference. The leaders, Faulkner said, are the ones you have to identify if you want to get anything done with the private sector. Moreover, it is especially important to have business leaders participate, as getting other businesses to listen seriously to politicians or NGOs is very difficult.

The second main theme he talked about is something that I have been advocating for several years, and that is to place an economic cost on environmental factors. Without this, companies just won't get it. As much as moral and ethical responsibilities are important to business -- and found within the problematic voluntary codes of conduct -- they usually come second to the company's balance sheet. By incorporating the cost of environmentally-impacting actions into the balance sheet, such as carbon emissions, solid waste generation or water pollution, a company can't help but notice and do something about it. This is difficult because coming up with a firm and accurate price level is next to impossible, but giving it some value is extremely important.

According to Mr. Faulkner, it should be governments that put in place firm regulations requiring companies to measure these impacts, rather than companies doing it voluntarily.

The third piece of advice he offered is that when dealing with a business, under no circumstance should one ever lose sight of the fact that it is a business. Businesses are founded on economic growth and financial generation. Trying to tell them that they shouldn't follow that initial goal is a non-starter. Furthermore, one has to remember that when dealing with a business, they might not be as familiar with the environmental issues as you might be. For example, when Mr. Faulkner formed the WBCSD, none of the business leaders were aware of what sustainable business meant. Expecting the CEO of a multibillion dollar company and likely trained in management to know everything about environmental issues is unreasonable.

But he did stress that businesses want to learn more about it. At least the 50% made up of leaders and followers are interested. So for people in the environmental field or being trained in it at a post-secondary level, as we are, the private sector is a relatively untapped and attractive market for people looking for work. It was especially refreshing to hear him say that they genuinely want to do more. Such genuinity in the private sector is often questioned by onlookers, including myself, as I have written about before.

The role of the private sector in shaping global environmental policy is one of the most important yet controversial topics. Many don't want to include it in talks, citing the 'naysayers' and feeling it would only stifle progress. You can't ignore it. But bringing businesses onboard could be one of the most effective and influential moves policymakers could pull off in environmental decision-making.      

Some thoughts on air pollution in Toronto…

Air pollution is an egregious urban health issue of our time. In Toronto, on-road and off-road vehicles are estimated to generate 38 percent of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 38 percent of sulphur dioxide (SO2), 74 percent of carbon dioxide (CO2) and 15 percent of volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions. These are all of the emissions that contribute to poor air quality and respiratory illnesses. Toronto has the highest summertime levels of fine particulates and the highest annual mean levels of nitrogen dioxide levels.

According to the Pollution Probe, smog alert days have been on the rise for the city and this is largely attributed to an increased number of vehicles on the road. There were 27 smog alert days in 2002, up from just 3 in the year 2000. Since the 1980s, there has been a steady increase in ozone levels in Toronto. Ozone triggers asthmatic attacks among those suffering chronically from the disease. Also over the last two decades, the number of vehicles entering the city each weekday morning increased by 75 percent.

An increase in the number of vehicles entering the city has numerous implications. Toronto finds itself situated in the heart of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. As the region continues to grow in population, urban sprawl may lead to the worsening of air quality conditions for many municipalities.

It is estimated that 3.5 million people will join the Greater Golden Horseshoe by 2035; this will lead to an expanding transportation sector that is conducive to automobility and hopefully public transit. However, public transit will have to be given policy weight not only for reasons of smart growth and providing for densification, but alleviating the pernicious air pollutant sources derived from motor vehicles.

From an urban and regional planning perspective, we have to better optimize regional transportation. To obtain high efficiency and environmental quality, we have to start planning (increasing ridership rates) our alternative transportation systems i.e. Go Transit, Via Rail and light-rail transit. These transit services are gaining popularity in an era of high gas prices and highway traffic congestion- but we can do better especially if we are concerned about public health and air pollution issues.

Epidemiological research has conclusively proven that exposure to air pollution can exacerbate asthma conditions, induce heart attacks, reduce overall lung function, trigger cardiovascular diseases and bring about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), just to name a few. Air pollution is a complex issue; expanding regional public transit for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is something that must be aggressively pursued.

I provided some stats at the beginning of the post to really illustrate how automobiles contribute greatly to air pollution. Our elected officials have heard numerous arguments and have seen empirical examples of how public transit helps increase regional efficiency, transportation flow, create jobs and is "good for the environment". What is not heard as much is the air pollution argument and how regional public transit can drastically decrease "regional air pollutant output".

Key Message: Population growth will add more pressures to regional public transit systems and if they are not managed well, as in we see ridership decrease, then air pollution and the nasty symptoms of climate change are bound to worsen. Urban planning needs to address this more clearly. Civil servants and leaders of our cities must allocate more resources into public transportation.

An unlikely player weighs in on the climate debate...

Amidst all the controversy revolving around climate change policy and the science backing it, the world's most renowned and sought-after terrorist is weighing in on the debate. Osama Bin Laden, in his most recent audiotape, accused the United States and other industrialized nations of causing climate change. For once, I think I might agree with him.

He later goes on to say the solution is to destroy the United States economy, wean the world off the US dollar and stop buying American goods. I'm not quite sure I can find myself in agreement with him on those points, especially since I can only imagine what methods he might use. However, the fact that Bin Laden is weighing into the climate debate is very interesting and is worth a second look. After all, it might end up doing more harm than good with regards to climate change policy.

It is good that someone with such a strong following is bringing light to an issue that perhaps doesn't get as much attention in that part of the world. But blaming it entirely on the US while coming from a prominent and very rich Saudi family -- Saudi Arabia being among some of the world's biggest emitters of GHG emissions -- strikes a hypocritical chord. And unsurprisingly, his solutions to dealing with the crisis are not the most proactive or peaceful.

The greater concern is what might happen in the United States. The right-wing media has been jumping on this, as they can attack two things they hate at once: terrorism and climate change policy. Considering how outlandish some people in the industrialized world can get with regards to climate change, associations between Bin Laden and other advocates of climate action is dangerous. It might seem preposterous that such associations would be made, let alone carry any weight, but people who are fighting against climate change legislation in the developed world are prone to make such connections.

It's a pretty simple line: "You want to do what to stop climate change? You know who else wants to stop climate change? Osama Bin Laden. Are you saying you agree with a terrorist?"

It sounds ridiculous, but if Sarah Palin can get that close to becoming Vice-President, stuff like this is taken seriously by some.

But what we must remember is that Bin Laden's goal here is not to save the planet from climate change. He really just wants to go after the United States and the rest of the industrialized world. Climate change just happens to be one of the many subjects that make these countries look really bad, especially since the rest of the world will likely face harsh environmental consequences.

I suspect it won't even be a blip on the radar screen in a few days, if it even is today. Proponents of climate change action certainly aren't lining up to grab Bin Laden as an ally.