A desperate paper plea coming to a Facebook page near you...

If you're young, you probably won't print this blog post. But you really should. Print five copies for your friends, even. And please, don't feel guilty about the environmental impact.

This is the message being put forth by one of North America's largest copy paper companies, Domtar. An article published in today's Globe and Mail details the new strategy being taken by Domtar. Quite simply, the company believes that the "think before you print"mantra endorsed by environmentalists is "just bull" and that people should not feel bad about printing. Indeed, it is very proud -- and it should be -- of its use of FSC Certified process and the fact that three trees are planted for every one used.

Domtar appears to be convinced that it is the environmental issue hurting its business -- sales are expected to slide significantly over the next several years -- and so it has put together a campaign called Put it on Paper to convince people that printing isn't nearly as bad for the environment as people make it out to be. Moreover, because young people don't seem to print too often, much of the campaign will be aimed at Facebook and Twitter, where most young people live. Don't worry, printed material will also be part of it.  

Domtar is right, the environmental issue is hurting its business. And I'm glad it is, as it means that more recycled paper is being used and, more importantly, less paper is being used overall. Its 'green' practices should not overshadow the underlying fact that using virgin materials is rarely, if ever, more environmentally sustainable than recycled products.

But where I think Domtar is wrong is in its targeting of the environmental issue as its main enemy. Paper is being used less frequently not because of its environmental impact, but because the alternative is so much more convenient. It has little to do with telling people printing is OK.

Why don't kids print out all the emails from their friends, Domtar asks? Because their square foot laptop can store as many emails as would fill their house if all of them were printed. And specific messages can be found in less than a second. Filing cabinets just can't do that.

Clutter is a problem, too. I'm in the process of moving out of my rental house and I've been rifling through piles of old pages I was encouraged to printout in earlier years. All of it is going to the recycling bin. Electronic forms of that stuff would be much more convenient.

We should not get rid of paper entirely. It most definitely has its place. I have been raised by a family with a vested interest in the printed word and still enjoy reading the newspaper, magazines and books in printed word over their electronic versions. But Domtar is a copy paper company and is encouraging the increase of printing things like emails. Sure, some things should be printed, specifically those things that are very important, and multiple copies should be made in the same way that we use backup drives on our computers. But printing with the mindset or in the volume proposed by Domtar seems ridiculous.

It is nothing more than a desperate plea from a company that sees its future going down the toilet. That, unfortunately for Domtar, is the nature of capitalism. As more and more industries start to grind to a halt, I just hope that the pleas are at least somewhat accurate and realistic, and more importantly, that alternatives can be found so as few as possible jobs are impacted.

Photo Credit: MSNBC

Poll results: Planning your community...

This past week's poll question pertained to planning. The poll question was: You are asked to plan the potential use of a large plot of land outside of the downtown. Would you...

Plan a sub-division. People need housing and lots of space 1 (4%)
A golf course. Outdoor recreation is always appealing 2 (9%)
A condominium with over 600 units 3 (13%)
A Casino. Potential revenue generator and
source of entertainment for the community 4 (18%)
A city park offering recreation and green space for the community 10 (45%)
None of the above 2 (9%)

Total votes = 22

The main motivation for this poll question is my interest in urban planning. The question pertains to fundamental urban planning but is nonetheless an important one considering how complex and multidisciplinary planning is. Enviro Boys suspects that many of our readers and followers are environmentalists and/or progressive in their environmental thinking. Planning a city park offering recreation and green space for the community had the most votes (n=10). The casino, condo, golf, sub-division and none of the above were not as popular.

While the benefits (aesthetics, health, nature and protection of native species) are clear with the creation of parks and public spaces, they are not always a priority for a city's planning department. Planners are faced with stiff challenges endeavoring to facilitate development and ensure that numerous stakeholders are satisfied. Green spaces and parks are needed for any growing city, however, developers are not shy to propose condos, sub-divisions and even casinos to occupy the potential space and reap economic benefits from this. Such commercial, entertainment and housing options also increase the city's tax revenue base which is certainly appealing in a time when city's have constrained municipal budgets.

As a city urbanizes, arable land and resources become scarcer. Thus, when an open plot of land is available, planners are consulted to determine how they can best optimize the land use while looking at environmental, economic and social considerations. So, a condo, while contentious to many, can be appropriate given the city's growth patterns and housing market. It would lift with the property values of homes within the area and potentially make the local real-estate market more appealing. However, it could also cause car congestion, block off sunlight from reaching parts of the city and use more surface area for parking thereby creating more impervious surface and increasing the potential for flooding.

Every plot of land in a city is valuable. How we plan it is totally contingent on whose interests are part of the equation. As citizens, we always have a role to play in planning our respective communities. If a plot of land is being examined for best use (whether commercial, public, residential, industrial etc) we can throw in our opinions and thoughts regarding how it could be planned to maximize the best interests of the community. We can attend city council meetings and write letters to propose recommendations on how the plot of land could be better planned.

For every individual that gets involved with this process, eventually, it could lead to a more cohesive and unified community that is actively involved in shaping how the community is planned. This can help in reaching environmental, social and economic objectives.

Is Ontario quietly walking away from its renewable energy targets?

Ontario is driving the country's most ambitious renewable energy incentive program; its Feed-In Tariff that came as part of the landmark Green Energy Act. As with any ambitious government policy, equally ambitious targets accompany the program itself.

Several months ago I came across Ontario's new renewable energy targets under its FIT program and found them to be well beyond anything I had seen before. Ontario had committed to 15,000 MW of new renewable energy by 2025 and even hoped to exceed the targets. To put that in context, its current generating capacity is roughly 35,000 MW, primarily made up of nuclear, gas, coal and hydro.

Because solar projects are not usually very large and relatively few biogas projects are developed, most of the 15,000 MW would come from wind and hydro projects. Now, to be clear, 15,000 MW of hydro projects would produce a lot more electricity than 15,000 MW of wind projects because the wind doesn't blow all the time. But if even a third of that target is met by wind, it would mean a minimum of 2,500 new wind turbines scattered throughout the province. Regardless of whether or not you think that's a good thing, that is an immense number of turbines. It's actually more than you'd find all over Canada, Ontario currently included.

But I came across something very curious the other day. While looking to confirm those targets for my Honours Thesis, they were nowhere to be found. The government website I had used before was no longer available and a thorough review of the government's different department/agency websites (the Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Power Authority) brought up nothing.

Instead, the only solid numbers I could find were estimates of job creation and what Ontario has already done since October. In thinking I was perhaps going a little crazy, I went in search of these targets elsewhere. Luckily, I was able to find a few sites (here, here and here) that made reference to the government announcement of the targets.

Why these targets aren't available is quite a mystery. It is, of course, possible that I am simply too daft to find them, but I find it unlikely. At this point I won't begin to speculate further, but I feel that it might be appropriate to follow up on it.

I'll try to keep people updated...

Sustainable Transportation and Singapore:

A couple of weeks ago, I completed a term paper for my Philosophy of Geography class. I did research on Transport Geography (a sub-discipline in Geography) and found many groundbreaking transportation ideas from the literature. This post will feature one segment of my paper which explored Singapore and the successes it has had in achieving a sustainable transportation system. Good transportation systems will be key for the 21st century, especially for climate change mitigation.

This is a pretty lengthy post. For anyone wishing to read more about transport geography, you can access my paper here.

A general trend in Asian countries like India and China is that increased wealth means more production and subsequent purchasing of automobiles. This process is problematic from a socio-economic status perspective as more vehicles are being purchased and used by the wealthy which exposes the poor to even more emissions and pollutants, or as one scholar puts it: “mobility for some will be at the expense of immobility and disease of others”. It is difficult for the government to discourage automobility when mobility is perceived to be better and public transit might be unpopular because it is uncomfortable, dirty, inconvenient and less enjoyable.

The critical challenge is to balance motorization with public transit. Singapore has been successful with such an endeavour through bringing about a sustainable transportation system. Their system fosters mobility because it allows users to choose their mode of transportation subject to a range of well-coordinated policies to control car population and usage, and at the same time to provide high quality public transport facilities.

Roads have received substantial public investment; from 1986 to 1996 the road surface area increased 27%. Between 1996 and 2000 $3 billion was invested to construct a 300 km highway and from 2001-2005, another $570 million was used to further road expansions. Public investment in the public transit network has occurred simultaneously through the mass rapid transit (MRT) and the Light Rapid Transit (LRT) networks.

Promoting motorization and public transit has involved a set of innovative management policies to achieve a sustainable transport system. The first is a vehicle quota system (VQS) which combines state planning and market mechanisms to allocate vehicles to users and so manage the vehicle population. This management tool is effective in controlling the vehicle population in Singapore as it limits car ownership. Ownership of a vehicle requires a certificate of entitlement and the quota system is based on categories of vehicles differentiated by engine size. The VQS has reduced the annual growth rate of vehicles to three percent because citizens feel inclined to have more control over their transportation choices either through walking, busing, cycling etc.

The other innovative policy is road pricing. The country uses electronic road pricing (ERP) which is a sophisticated combination of radio-frequency, optical-detection, imaging and smart-card technologies. ERP is a method of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) which has gained popularity in places such as North America, Europe and South-East Asian nations like Singapore. These technologies have been championed by civil engineers but have required input from transport geographers and planners in terms of situating them in transportation networks. Pricing roads is a really effective approach to discouraging automobility.

With ERP, the share of private cars over total commuters declined from 48% to 29%. Public transportation has received many benefits from the ERP scheme. Indeed, buses have become faster, more efficient and have seen ridership rates go up. Singapore was the first city in the world to implement an electronic road toll collection system for purposes of congestion pricing.

Mobility has been advanced in Singapore because policies have promoted public transit. Policies have made the quality, frequency and diversity of the public transit system and its services a viable alternative to the car for a wide array of the population. One progressive and emerging idea is to install intelligent traffic lights to detect approaching buses so the lights turn green automatically, this will also come with more bus lanes. This is meant to increase efficiency and mobility as a bus carries more passengers than an automobile.

Low fares in Singapore’s rapid transit system ensure that anyone can access public transport. Low-income commuters are assisted by the “many helping hands” approach, with the government, local communities and the public transport operators all extending their help in various ways such as government income redistribution schemes and transport vouchers. The rapid bus transit system provides low fares in general and continuously seeks input from the public about quality of service, price level, waiting and walking time in a trip. Last, road pricing has been effective because it controls usage of cars i.e. making automobility less attractive because it is more expensive and rapid bus transit more popular because it is cheaper and highly efficient.

Key message: Singapore provides a model for an excellent transportation system. While many cities and countries have their own unique geography, economy and public policies- there is always ample room to revamp transportation systems insofar as the political will is in place.

Gleick's new book on bottled water...

Peter Gleick is the President of the Pacific Institute based out of Oakland, California. Gleick is an engineer (PhD, Energy and Resources, UC Berkeley) and is an internationally recognized water expert. His new book "Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water" is all about the politics, economics and science of bottled water. Moreover, the book addresses marketing and advertising of bottled water, bottled water claims, the growing revolt against bottled water etc. Much of it is based on the United States.

In Peter Gleick's blog, he shares an excerpt from the book about contaminants in bottled water and it is pretty frightening. A number of contaminants have been found in bottled water including mold, kerosene, sanitizer and crickets. Crickets? That's right, according to Gleick:

"In 1994, a bottler in Nacogdoches, Texas issued a recall for sparkling water found to be contaminated with crickets. The water was distributed in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia and the recall notice wasn't issued until seven months after being bottled and distributed, making it unlikely that consumers were notified in time to avoid buying the contaminated bottles. Maybe they thought it was a bonus, like that worm in tequila, or the weird things sometimes found in flavored vodkas".

This really boils down to how we test and monitor our water, whether it is bottled or tap. Increasingly, we are seeing more experts and citizens asking questions around the implications of bottled water on our health. To read more, check out his blog.

Our first guest blogger!

Well, after countless hours of begging and Tim's midnight raids on children's piggy banks to fund our bribes, we have finally done it. We have found a guest blogger.

Emmalea Davis is an Environmental Studies student at Trent University, just like us. We met her in a couple of courses and it was quite clear that she had an expertise in areas that Tim and I will never come close to sharing. Luckily we were able to convince her -- through empty promises of fame and fortune -- to share her expertise on our site.

So I hope you enjoy our first guest post and hopefully it won't be the last, from Emmalea or anyone else interested in contributing...

Guest Entry: Does anyone know about Bill C-474?

By: Emmalea Davis

Does anyone know about Bill C-474, because it just broke a record in Parliament this past Wednesday, when it passed its second reading in the House? The Bill is a Private Members Bill, proposed by an NDP representative from British Columbia’s Southern Interior, Alex Atamanenko. Titled “An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations”, it proposes that all genetically engineered organisms are subject to a market analysis as part of the approval process undertaken by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) under the Seeds Act. On Wednesday after a close – 153 to 134 – vote, the Bill became the first proposing changes to the rules regarding genetically engineered (GE) organisms to make it past a second reading in the House.

Since 2001, more than ten Private Members Bills have been set before the House of Commons, with only two even being selected for debate (2001 and again in 2008). Both of these were regarding mandatory labelling of GE foods, and both were defeated (126-91 and 156-101, respectively). Wednesday was the first time a Bill regarding GE foods was voted on, and supported, twice. It has now moved on to the Agriculture Committee, for study and likely amendments, before it will once again be voted on in the House. 

If approved, the Bill would move onto the Senate for review and voting, and hopefully pass into law. Fingers crossed that Parliament doesn’t get prorogued again, before the House has time to consider the final draft coming out of the Agricultural Committee, which is what happens to far too many Bill these days.

Whether you are for or against, or don’t even care, about GE organisms, this Bill should interest you. Not only is it breaking Parliamentary records, but it is also the first time Parliament has acknowledged (through their support for a Bill like this) that perhaps Canada’s regulatory system regarding these “Novel Foods” isn’t perfect. 

The call for a market analysis before approving these new organisms comes out of the current problems faced by Canadian flax farmers. In September of 2009, Germany discovered GE contamination in flax shipped from Canada. By November over 34 countries were reporting contamination from our flax, and Europe and Japan (our largest and third largest flax export markets – with the US in second) closed their markets. Today, though the markets are open again, farmers have to pay for 3-tier testing, once in Canada and then again when the shipment gets to Europe. If any contamination is detected, the shipment is sent back. Canada is the world’s largest flax exporter, and flax farmers have seen prices drop over 1/3, while at the same time are having to pay for multiple tests to certify their seeds and harvest are contamination-free. 

Even worse, 2009 was a record year, and Canada now has a ridiculous surplus of flax which no one (aside from the US) wants. This same scenario played out in 1998 for Canadian canola farmers, and due to huge contamination issues Canadian organic canola farmers lost their certification – for good.

The scariest piece about the flax issue is that the source of contamination (CDC Triffid Flax) was deregistered and thought to be entirely destroyed in 2001, when flax farmers protested its approval for sale in Canada due to fears that just this sort of scenario might take place. Though the flax was determined to be “substantially equivalent” (and therefore safe) to conventional flax, flax farmers were so upset that its creator, the University of Saskatchewan, agreed to its deregistration. (Call me cynical, but if it had been Monsanto or Dupont the farmers would likely have had a much bigger fight on their hands.) Regardless, eight years later, no one knows how the contamination by a strain thought to be eliminated has managed to ‘infect’ so many farmers’ fields – especially considering the seed was never sold commercially.

Bill C-474 is not about opposing GE technology, nor placing unnecessary red-tape in the approval process. It is about ensuring that farmers will be protected from this happening again, by forcing the CFIA or the proponent of the new organism to ensure that there will be a market for both crops (conventional and engineered), even if contamination occurs. If this assessment had been done in the case of flax, it is likely it would never have been approved for field testing (in open fields in Saskatchewan from 1989-1995). 

We know that pollen and seeds can’t be contained. We know that Canada is far more permissive with this technology than most of our trading partners, and we know that we are likely not going to change either of those facts anytime soon. The most important thing we can do, at this point, is to make sure our farmers, who are already under severe economic burdens, are protected. And that they no longer are responsible for paying the price when our technology gets away from us.

For anyone interested in seeing how their MP voted on Wednesday, click here. And you can find out more about the Bill and the flax issue here or from a more anti-GE perspective here. 

A Proposed International Convention on Water...

This semester, Chris and I took a course called Global Environmental Policy. A large part of the course was focused on researching and becoming an expert on an international convention. Our classmates became experts on conventions such as the Basel Convention of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species just to name a few. There were a diverse range of conventions presented in our class which illustrated the course's interdisciplinarity and the great mix of research interests. Most of our classmates did their research on an existing convention and provided their own critiques, analysis and recommendations.

Chris and I took a different approach. We decided to explore and create our own convention on water. A convention on water would be a multidisciplinary forum for dealing with a wide range of issues including water governance, water pricing, distribution and access, treatment and much more. Initially, we we were interested in exploring the possibility of an international convention on water as a human right. Our approach however, changed overtime as we realized the complexity and multidisciplinarity of water resources.

Managing water, for example, involves (or should involve) many different stakeholders including civil engineers, politicians, planners, economists and environmental scientists to name a few. The private sector is also very much involved in water resources management.

Over the past four months, Chris and I have learned a lot about the politics, economics, management, ecology and societal aspects of water resources. We wrote a ministerial brief (a component of the course) addressed to various Canadian and Provincial government ministries.

In our brief, we highlight the main issue at stake and provide recommendations on how Canada can respond to water policy both domestically and internationally. Importantly, we provide analysis and some direction for the government and its potential involvement in an international convention on water. To view our ministerial brief, please click here.

We also made a class presentation about our convention. One of the recommendations we proposed was derived from an economist named David Zetland from UC Berkeley. In our final class, we called David via teleconferencing and he elaborated on his concept (water as a property right) and students had the chance to ask questions and seek more information about this very relevant and increasingly significant natural resource.

A little much needed cooling for a few days...

The volcano that recently erupted in Iceland has been spewing swaths of ash and smoke into the sky. The ash is so thick that flights throughout Europe have been cancelled in a uniform grounding of planes of a scale not seen since the September 11, 2001 terrorism attacks. It is unclear how much longer the grounding will last, but one can guess it will last at least a few days. 

The combination of the eruption and the grounding of planes could provide a little bit of global cooling for the next few days. Granted, it will likely be a remarkably minute effect, but it is something. The thick ash and smoke will block the sun for quite a while and cool the land underneath it. Indeed, previous eruptions have had a profound impact. In 1991, a volcanic eruption in the Philippines is believed to have cooled the earth's surface by almost one degree fahrenheit. 

And to add to any cooling from the volcano, the grounding of flights will certainly help. Considering western Europe and Scandinavia is the world's busiest flight corridor and jets are significant contributors to climate change, cancelled flights could at least slow down some warming. Mind you, it will likely be even less influential than the volcano.

The downside, outside of people not getting on their flights, could be acid rain and serious air pollution. The ash will likely make its way towards the ground (though it hadn't yet when I write this) and have significant breathing problems. And ash is extremely acidic, so it could lead to acid rain or very acidic water supplies. Degradation of the ozone layer is also of concern.

The acidification is largely caused by sulfur-dioxide contained in the ash. Throwing sulfur-dioxide into the atmosphere is a solution to climate change being proposed by some that is encapsulated in the term "geo-engineering". But, as the risks around acid rain and the ozone layer are realized, it is very clear that there is no free lunch.      

Greening the greens...

Mark Twain once called it a good walk spoiled. Others have defined it simply as an endless series of tragedies obscured by the occasional miracle. No matter how poetic you get with it, there is no game quite like golf.

Golf has been around for centuries and is played by millions throughout the world. But it is certainly not without its critics. Apart from the myriad writers and many others who can't seem to hone their skills very well, golf has frequently come under fire as a sport for "rich, white guys". More recently, golf has been targeted as an environmental monster.

Golf uses huge amounts of land, outrageous amounts of fresh water and often large volumes of cosmetic pesticides to keep the course looking very green. They tend to be built on highly viable agricultural land and can have a detrimental impact on wildlife.

But before I continue, Tim and I have a confession to make. We, dare I say it, are golfers. And we hit the greens yesterday afternoon. We have spent many hours discussing the appropriateness of two guys who study the environment and write about it playing a game that has so much environmental impact. Consider it a guilty pleasure.

But as we were playing yesterday, I kept thinking about how golf could be made more environmentally friendly. So let's explore some ways golf could be made a little more 'green'.

Golf courses could start to use high grade compost instead of cosmetic pesticides and conventional soil. High quality compost can often be more fertile than synthetic treatments and as more communities turn to it, supplies could be plentiful and cheap.

Courses could also turn to using xeriscaping (or drip irrigation) to try and use as little water as possible without harming the quality of the game.

The courses could also work together with local conservation authorities and ministries of the environment to protect wildlife habitat and any special species. Indeed, the Audobon Society has a certification program that awards certain courses that meet their environmental standards.

Turning to energy use, the courses could use renewable sources to power things like the clubhouse and to charge the golf carts.

The Conservation Council of Ontario is looking at this and has developed a project that is examining all the facets of 'greening the greens'. I suggest looking at its site if you have more interest in exploring what can be done.

Some of this might be expensive, but the beauty of working with golf courses is that they tend to be -- as critics highlight -- played by those with considerable levels of income. Some of the private courses charge annual membership fees of thousands of dollars. For many golf clubs, money is not much of an object for their membership base.  

I admit that golf is intrinsically an environmentally unfriendly sport, just given the need for huge amounts of land and to keep the playing surface of good quality. The most environmentally friendly thing we could do is just shut them down and return them to their natural states. But that isn't going to happen, so we should try to green as much of what we do as we can.  

(Photo: Atwood Lake Resort)

Poll results: The Optimal waste management solution...

The poll results are in. We wanted to take this time to thank everyone for continuing to participate in the weekly polls. It is always fun for us to come up with questions and to see the subsequent results.

The poll question was "what is the most optimal waste management solution to you?"

My city should invest heavily into a composting program 3 (14%)
Implement policy that requires more products to be recyclable 1 (4%)
Make manufacturers more responsible for collecting their products after use 8 (38%)
Make residents pay for every garbage bag of waste they produce 8 (38%)
Send all of our garbage to waste incinerators 0 (0%)
Heavily tax our landfills to encourage conservation 1 (4%)

Total votes = 21

Disposing of municipal solid waste has historically been a challenging responsibility for cities across Canada. Municipal solid waste (MSW) has become an environmental issue pushing political agendas and having multiple implications for public policy decisions. I wrote a multi-criteria analysis on waste management options for a public policy course. It can be accessed here.

"Make manufacturers more responsible for collecting their products after use" and "make residents pay for every garbage bag of waste they produce" were the two popular options in the poll, each with 8 votes. They are both critical waste management options. Making manufactures more responsible is a process known as extended producer responsibility, which we have blogged about before. In short, the industry, not the government, is responsible for internalizing waste management costs in their product prices. The EPR strategy is best epitomized by the Beer Store. All beer bottles that are purchased at the store by the consumer can be sold back to the manufacturer as the Beer Store will re-buy the bottles that they have sold you. Although they buy the bottle back from the consumer at a low cost, it still encourages recycling and reusing.

Making residents pay for each bag of waste is known as a user pay system. Like most user charges (plastic bags for example) the minute you start paying for something, consumers start to think about conservation or simply using less because it saves them money. These are the shifts in behaviour that we need to see for a more sustainable planet.

Sending our garbage to incinerators had no votes. Incineration is a semi-popular waste management option in Canada (although very controversial), it is more widespread in Europe and Japan. Composting programs are expensive but very important. They require a lot of monitoring and enforcement. Landfill taxes are a great instrument, however, it all depends on how the revenue (from the tax) is used. Ideally, most of this revenue should go towards waste diversion programs (recycling, composting etc).

Key message: All of these options have merit. Such options need secured funding (which should be consistent) and the political will! As environmentalists, be sure to pressure your institution, school, city, company and/or organization to consider one of these waste management options. Take the time to gather some information about your preferred option and start raising awareness and advocacy for it.

Innovation and Progress in wastewater treatment...

One of the findings from the results section of my thesis was about emerging contaminants of concern in wastewater treatment plants. Things such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products (deodorant, soap, shampoo, perfume etc.) and illicit drugs are starting to be studied and worry many public health experts. After we use these products, we flush them down the toilet, down our sinks and even our bathtubs. Then they travel to wastewater treatment plants which presently (in Canada) do not have the technology/capacity to treat these products. The person I interviewed explained how more research is required on this topic along with good public education to inform the public about which products are harmful to our water supply.

This is a major concern but lots of innovative research is underway. A group of four Chemical Engineering students from Ryerson University have discovered a potential solution to the rising levels of pharmaceuticals ending up in the water supply. Hospitals and long-term care facilities are increasingly using more pharmaceuticals and we still do not completely understand their effects on our water systems. The group from Ryerson designed an advanced wastewater treatment system which would “remove 90 per cent of pharmaceuticals and endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) using commercially available technology”.

Why is this even a concern? In Canada, the government doesn’t enforce the removal of pharmaceutical drugs and EDCs, including Bisphenol A, from wastewater. As a result, municipalities don’t currently pursue removal, since it would cost a lot of money. However, if municipalities were to invest in systems that could treat and remove such chemicals, there could be significant savings in health care costs. Eventually, those chemicals enter the environment and the drinking water supply which could have so many negative effects on human health and biological function.

While there haven’t been any studies done to determine the long-term effects of these pharmaceuticals and EDCs on humans, concerns have nevertheless been raised. For example, some studies have "found that pharmaceuticals and EDCs have been implicated in such conditions as polycystic ovarian syndrome and hypospadias (a birth defect involving the male urethra)".

Without going into too much engineering technicalities (because I don’t completely understand every detail myself, here is how the group’s system works:

“The students’ proposed innovative design uses two processes in combination, both using commercially available technology. First, wastewater is subjected to membrane biological reactors. This activity increases the amount of bacteria already present in the treatment process and makes them “hungrier.” From there, sewage goes through an advanced oxidization process. Typically used to treat drinking water, this process works in the same way as an antioxidant does in the body: it destroys harmful toxins. But whereas most wastewater treatment plants use chlorine as a disinfectant the students proposed using ultraviolet light (UV) and hydrogen peroxide for the purposes of advanced oxidation and disinfection. Normally, UV light would be unable to penetrate murky wastewater, but after undergoing the membrane biological reactor, liquid waste in the students’ simulated wastewater treatment plants would be clear enough to permit the use of UV light. Afterwards, the students concluded, the wastewater would be clean enough to go straight into lakes and rivers”.

Key message: To see this kind of innovative research from undergrad students is incredible. As more research is being done on this critical topic, it is equally important to look at public education. Cities could use this opportunity to put together a list of pharmaceutical and personal care products that have negative effects on urban waterways. This list can take the form of a pamphlet or guide which can be distributed to the public. This is simply a precautionary measure but would go far in terms of raising awareness and education.

***The group’s project, Treating Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disruptors at the Source: An Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Design, placed 1st for Social Awareness and received an honourable mention for their innovative design of an advanced wastewater treatment plant at the 2010 Ontario Engineering Competition in Waterloo, Ontario***

Enviro Boys Visiting Statistics...

Although Enviro Boys began in January of 2009, it was not until April of the same year that we stumbled across Google Analytics. For about a month I had struggled to insert one of those 'hit counters' to track visits to the site, but could never wade through the website language. Google Analytics, however, as with almost everything Google, was very easy to use. Moreover, it is far more useful than a simple hit counter. In a nutshell, Google Analytics is a free piece of software you can use to track visits to your website and check it in real time. It tracks visits, the city of origin of people reading your site, time on the site, how people found your site, which pages are most popular, and much, much more.

We have been tracking Enviro Boys for exactly one year today: April 8, 2009. I thought today would be an appropriate day to report one year's worth of statistics.

A few things to mention before I go into detail: From May 15, 2009 to June 16, 2009, nothing was tracked because we changed the URL to enviroboys.com and did not update the Analytics until June 17, so really all of these stats are really representative of eleven months; Nothing was tracked for the first three whole months of the site being up and running; Google Analytics is very detailed, but we don't know stuff like your Social Insurance Numbers or banking information.

Since beginning tracking of Enviro Boys on April 8, 2009, we have found the following:

• 7,273 total visits, from 3,516 different visitors -- which means some people actually come back!
• 11,462 total page views - approximately 1.5 per visit
• Average length of visit is 1:30
• 48% of visits are new visits, meaning over half are from people coming back!
• Visits have come from 97 countries
• Most are Canada and the USA, but significant amount from UK and Europe
• Visitors used 52 different languages - sorry to the non-English speaking folk... 
• 58% have come from referring sites, 30% from search engines and 12% from direct traffic
• The most popular page outside of the main page has been Tim's post on Curitiba, which for a long time showed up on the front page when searching 'curitiba transit' on Google
• The most visits any one day was 66, on April 5th
• The number of visits per day has increased drastically from ~8 in the first six months of tracking to ~21 in the past six months and ~27 since the new year!

Thanks so much to everyone who continues to read Enviro Boys!  

There's no poop in our water...

Bottled water companies are notorious for the multitude of reasons they use to convince consumers of the desirability of their product. The usual suspects include pictures of pristine freshwater springs -- though lots of bottled water actually comes from municipal sources; lulling descriptions of filtering processes -- "triple distilled through reverse-osmosis, oxygenization, and vapourization and cold-filtered with minerals for taste"; and report after report chastising the health risks of municipal tap water -- even though tap water is regulated to a much higher standard in much of the world.

But today I saw something I had never seen before. A particular bottled water company (whose name escapes me) had a poster up in one of Trent's cafeterias with a bountiful list of the wonderful benefits of its product. At the bottom of the list was the cartoon of a small orange fish with little drops coming out of its backside. Beside the picture read, "No fish swam here".

Wow.

I know the bottled water industry is under attack, but I've never seen anything so desperate to claim that there is no fish poop in the product, let alone that no fish swam in the source water. If there were no fish, where did they even get the water? And is there any life in the water? If not, it might be an indication that the water isn't all that healthy.

Of course, now I'll take an extremely cautious approach to any drink that is not labelled with a "no fish swam here" logo. I don't know about you, but I don't want to drink fish poop...

Toronto and commuting times...

As a Torontonian, I am embarrassed to say that my city has an egregious commuting problem. A new study by the Toronto Board of Trade reported that the average commute time (round trip) for a Torontonian is 84 minutes. That is horrendous in comparison to cities like Los Angeles which is at 56 minutes, or New York City at 68.1. When I think of LA I think of highway congestion and commuting problems. Well, apparently Toronto is worse.

Of the 19 cities that were surveyed for the study, we take the gold for worse commuting times. Toronto is a vast metropolis in the heart of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. There are over 6 million people in the GTA alone and many commute from GTA municipalities to Toronto's downtown or even commute great distances within the GTA. One of my geography profs tells me that 86% of the commutes in the GTA are from the automobile, only 14% are on the GO train and other non-automobile forms of transit. Toronto itself desperately needs public transit renewal. Alas, the province is delaying the $4 billion in planned transit spending.

The transit plan is going to bring about several Light-Rail Transit routes which will make the city more sustainable and diverse in terms of transit choice. The city is going to have to think of several policy tools that it could use to bring in some money. It is understood that the province has a massive deficit, however, the city need not be completely dependent on the province for transit funding.

There are a number of tools that can be used (although many are controversial). Electronic road pricing or highway tolls would certainly have merit. Considering how congested the Don Valley Parkway (DVP) is, it can use some sort of toll to reduce congestion and raise revenue for public transit expansion.

Key message: Toronto is a growing city. While most of the population growth is occurring in the GTA, such growth (and high automobility) puts tremendous pressure on the city's transportation networks. As a result, commuting gets worse. I think Toronto should consider a highway toll (as a kick start initiative to sustainable transport) and apply this toll to the DVP.

More to follow about this DVP highway toll recommendation including potential revenue and how revenue could be spent.

Poll Results: Wind turbines in your community...

Question: A company wants to put a few wind turbines in your community, do you...

Welcome it with open arms? We need more green energy -- 12 Votes (50%)

Learn more about them and get a community group together that could possibly invest in the project? Community power has its advantages -- 10 Votes (41%)

Go about your usual business? Who really cares anyway -- 3 Votes (12%)

Vehemently oppose it and fight the project to the death? They are an eyesore and could be dangerous to my health -- 1 Vote (4%)

Get the hell out of dodge? There's no way I'm hanging around near those behemoths -- 0 Votes (0%)

As expected, most people voted in support of the project. This is fairly common throughout Canada, as the majority of Canadians are generally supportive of wind power. However, things might change if it is in your community. Studies have found that support for projects can be very high initially, but as the details of the project come closer to reality, support can often drop drastically. Even the most staunch environmental supporters can find themselves opposing a project, especially when they didn't expect to in the first place -- which helps to explain why so few are opposed to any project.

The second most popular choice was to learn more about wind power projects. Most people don't know the ins and outs of these things and know only things through word of mouth. In many cases, these things can be false and exaggerated, be it supportive or oppositional to wind power, so it is very important that people get involved and start to learn the facts about that particular project. One of the best ways to do that is to get involved in the project itself by gathering up community members to invest in the project. Community ownership can influence the design of the project to make it more socially acceptable and appropriate in your community.

Just leaving it to others and going on with your own routine was also popular for some. While we at Enviro Boys are fascinated by this stuff, it is likely that many people just don't care whether or not there are any wind turbines put up. This is completely fair. Everyone has their priorities.

Only one person elected to fight it vehemently. This is gaining ground in Ontario as more wind projects are being put up. Some wind developers have undercut communities over the years and left an unappealing mark on the industry, resulting in an all out battle against wind power in Ontario, regardless of the project type. Other regions face this, too. While it is important to recognize the drawbacks of projects, sometimes this opposition can get a little carried away and reject any type of compromise.

No one decided to leave, but it is a reality. Some people can't stand the sight, the sound or even develop health issues related to wind energy -- although the latter is still up for debate. Some also leave before their property values plummet.

Being supportive of wind in general is nice, but the game can change drastically when it becomes a reality in your community.

Coal-loaded ship runs aground on the Great Barrier Reef...

If the rapid development of coal-fired power plants in China wasn't enough to piss off the environmental community, the crashing of a Chinese coal-carrier on the Great Barrier Reef certainly won't help.

The ship ran aground late last night and is carrying 72,000 tons of coal, as well as 1000 tons of oil. Some of the oil has started to leak and local officials are very worried that the ship is on the verge of breaking apart. A break could spell significant environmental disaster on one of the world's most fragile ecosystems.

Australia's Great Barrier Reef is in serious danger from climate change, as rising ocean temperatures tend to cause significant coral bleaching, which, if occurring annually, could very well kill the Reef.

For more information on the story, go here.

This has not been a good week for China's coal industry. In addition to the Reef incident and the constant criticism of its coal plants by environmentalists, 153 miners have been trapped inside a coal mine in China for nearly a week.

Despite all the wonderful economic and energy benefits of coal, there sure are many downsides. Hopefully these downsides start to be taken more seriously before it's too late.

Photo: Guardian Newspaper

The Tories pull a few quick ones...

Environmental politics don't seem to emanate too widely here in Canada, and the Conservatives would love to keep it that way. The two most recent happenings on the environmental front are case in point.

Although publicly released earlier in March, the intricacies 2010-2011 budget were not fully released until a few days ago. In these new details, it was revealed that the federal environmental assessment process was, in almost every sense of the word, being gutted.

When projects are applying for federal government approval, they are normally required to complete an environmental assessment. These assessments, though not free of problems, tend to take at least one year and review each nitty, gritty aspect of a project's impact on the environment. The process is in many ways the strongest line of defence against environmentally unfriendly projects. The new regulations, which were tacked on to the bottom of a budget bill in a particularly sneaky fashion, gives the Environment Minister authority to reduce what parts of a project need to be subjected to an assessment.

Quite simply, the most damaging parts of projects like those in the Oil Sands, wouldn't need to go through a full environmental assessment. This has undoubtedly been a keen interest of the governing Conservatives for some time, so to some this is not all that surprising. However, it is the fact that this aspect wasn't publicly released that is very bothering.

The second dent of the day came when the government announced that the possibility of entering into its extremely popular ecoENERGY home retrofit program was coming to a close. Most programs come to an end, but it was especially alarming that the deadline to enter the program was midnight of the same day the deadline was announced, leaving people to scramble to have assessments done that day. The date was arbitrary and largely unforeseen. For service providers, this means a lot of their clients -- many of which had scheduled months before for a home visit -- will be left without a home visit.

This is also mischievous because the program itself does not end until March of 2011, so the government will still brag about the program. It is true that the program can take over a year to complete in its entirety, but a little more notice would have been nice. Cancelling the program, which has been extremely popular since its creation under the previous Liberal government, has always been controversial (and delayed) because of its popularity. Cancelling it in concert with its very popular Home Renovation tax credit is sure to piss some people off, especially in this time of 'economic stimulus'.

It is not a secret that this government does not consider the environment a priority, but they should at least be upfront about it, rather than pulling sneaky tactics like this.  

The five cent charge on plastic bags in Washington D.C.

A number of months ago, I wrote about plastic bag charging in the City of Toronto. As of June 1, 2009 the city passed a by-law requiring all stores under the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers (CFIG) to bring about a five cent charge on plastic bags. I do not know the specific statistics, but I would imagine that plastic bag use has dropped with the introduction of the charge.

What I do know is that Washington D.C. has been very successful with their plastic bag charging initiative. The five cent disposable bag fee took effect this January 2010 and like Toronto, it received a tonne of opposition off the bat. The Office of Tax and Revenue reported that the city brought in $150,000 in bag fee revenue in the month of January alone! The big question for all of these charging schemes is what you do with the revenue raised from the charge. What the revenue is spent on in Toronto is quite nebulous, ostensibly it goes to "environmental projects".. whatever that means.

In D.C., the $150,000 will go towards cleaning up the Anacostia River. That is a wonderful initiative and it is good to know that D.C. cares about its natural environmental features. In terms of the plastic bags themselves, about 3 million of them were purchased in January, a drop from the average 22.5 million per month that the city is accustomed to.

We know that the rationale of the five cent charge is to induce citizens to change their behaviour to cut down on their use of plastic bags. In general, a user charge can persuade citizens to make the investment in buying reusable bags which are sturdier, compact and can carry a higher volume of groceries. D.C. provides evidence that such a five cent charge has actually been working and has changed consumer behaviour tremendously.

More fascinating to me is the city's inclination to use the revenue on cleaning up the Anacostia River. The river is something that everyone could relate to. It is a natural environmental feature that has only become more polluted and inundated with things like plastic bags. With a clear vision to clean up their own environment, I think we should applaud D.C. for its hitherto successful five cent charge initiative.

Key message: Changing consumer behaviour, getting D.C. residents to think about the river and cutting down on plastic bags are all positive endeavors for the present and for the future.