Buy bottled water and you get a free water bottle...

I took a picture of this Volvic ad because I thought it was hilarious. It's posted right outside a grocery store near my place. If you purchase bottled water (four to be precise) you are eligible to receive a “Free” water bottle. That seems a bit odd in that water bottles (which are a perfect way to carry around your water) are also used because they are reusable and better for the environment than bottled water. But, the store will only give you the water bottle if you buy four un-recyclable, over-priced, energy intensive and wasteful bottles of bottled water.

Let’s do some quick math: if twenty customers, on average, everyday over one week were attracted by this bizarre incentive and went ahead with the deal, we would have the following:

20 persons/day x 4 bottled water = 80 bottles of water/day in aggregate or 4 per person/day.

80 bottles/day x 7 days = 560 bottles per week.

The price of one 500 ML bottled water at the store is 15 HK dollars ($2.02 CAN). So you need to spend $60 HK dollars in order to receive the free water bottle that probably costs the same price but, alas, is harder to find.

Not to totally criticize the Volvic deal, but it’s pretty horrendous for the environment. We have blogged about bottled water and its unfortunate realities numerous times. Sadly, drinking water from the tap in Hong Kong is simply not the same as it is in Canada because the water is not treated as adequately. I have been advised not to drink tap water so I have been consuming bottled water here at my place. Indeed, I am somewhat of a hypocrite, but truthfully, I have no other option.

It makes me think how fortunate we are in Canada to have clean, affordable and environmentally-friendly drinking water right at the turn of the tap.

Hong Kong: Geography, Climate and Population

Image of Hong Kong from Victoria Peak (552 meters in height).

Seeing as I'll be in Hong Kong for the next two months, many of my posts will be about this City and its progress and challenges surrounding the environment. Don’t worry though, every so often I’ll post something that isn’t entirely focussed on the “environment” so you don’t get too bored.

This post is a general overview of Hong Kong’s geography, climate and population. Yes, this information is widely available on Wikipedia but I figured I could break it down so you know a little bit more about this very vibrant and dynamic place. As someone who studied the Environment and Human Geography for the past four years, the least I could do is provide some information about place, location, demographics and density.

To begin, Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China. This means that it is a part of Mainland China but has its own economic and political system "one country, two systems".

Hong Kong has the fourth highest population density in the world in terms of special regions/countries (Macau, Monaco and Singapore are first, second and third respectively). The population of Hong Kong is just over 7,000,000 people with a total land area of 1,104 square kilometers; this puts its population density at 6,480 persons per km² (Toronto's is 3,972 persons per km²⁾.

Hong Kong’s 1,104 square kilometers is spread out over three regions that constitute the City, these regions include New Territories, Kowloon and Hong Kong Island. New Territories is the most northern region located just below Mainland China. It is the biggest by land size but has the smallest population density at 3,820 persons per km². Hong Kong Island (where I work) is the smallest by land size and has a density of 16,220 persons per km². The airport is located on Lantau Island which is another island of Hong Kong.

Finally, I live on Kowloon Peninsula which has the highest density at 43,970 persons per km² (it’s intense but I love it). If you look at the map, there is an area in Kowloon called “Mong Kok”. The population density is intense, I reckon it has the highest density in Hong Kong and is one of the most dense places in the world.

Hong Kong has a humid sub-tropical climate (very humid and wet in the summer, very dry in the winter). Right now, the average temperature has been around 30 degrees Celsius with intense humidity and lots of rain. Victoria Harbour is the body of water between Kowloon and Hong Kong Islands. The City is also surrounded by a number of mountains and peaks which you can view here. Hong Kong is just south of the Tropic of Cancer. The South China Sea is immediately south of Hong Kong Island which is excellent for its exports and international trade.

The former airport, Kai Tak, was located on Kowloon side right in the urban area. As the city’s population started to grow (immensely) residential space became more limited and thus justified the re-location of the airport on Lantau Island, just West of Kowloon and immediately south of New Territories. The International Airport on Lantau Island has much more land and is quite far from any residential developments. The previous airport (Kai Tak) is prime real estate and City Planners are currently zoning the plot of land into various uses which I’ll blog about in the coming weeks.

All three regions of Hong Kong are very different in terms of density, development and infrastructure. The New Territories has a lower population density and has lots of agricultural land. The district is under more pressure to develop residential units so as to accommodate Hong Kong’s growing population. The City however, is not growing as fast as it once was. Population growth slowed 0.3 percent from 2008 to 2009.

I hope this has furthered your knowledge of Hong Kong just a little bit. More to come.

The wacky world of wind energy opposition...

 So what do you hate about wind turbines?

Are they too imposing? Too loud? Do they kill too many birds and bats? Maybe you're worried that the low-frequency vibrations will cause headaches, faint or even cancers? Or maybe you're pissed off that the Ontario government is happy to give wind developers extra revenue directly from your wallet?

I bet it's because a list of bird mortalities from Ontario's Wolfe Island reads strikingly similar to a list of the dead at Auschwitz.

Sadly, this is an actual -- and outrageously distasteful -- comparison I have come across this summer from the representative of a major anti-wind community group. The development of wind energy in Ontario has generated a lot of opposition to wind. Unfortunately, passionate opposition brings out the worst in people. Or, as the case may be, brings out the worst people.

Ridiculous claims are not uncommon in the growing world of wind opposition. I have personally come across a story from a woman who claimed that her friend, who lives next to an industrial wind turbine, had to shovel up hundreds of dead birds every few mornings from her yard. Sure. Others I have spoken to have come across people who compare the impact of new wind turbines with the rape and murder of community members. Some of the members of these groups even suspect that the OPP and RCMP have tapped their phones and track their emails. Something tells me that they're a little too busy with real life. Oh, and the G20.

Unfortunately, these quacks are giving wind opposition a bad name. If a project is proposed, the looney tunes will headline the opposition, stirring up all sorts of anger, but ultimately eroding credibility and limiting the role of healthy, rational conversation and debate. The right wing Tea Party Movement in the United States is comparable.

You see, not all wind development is good. There is a good way and a bad way. Right now, lots of developers are doing it the bad way. Half-hearted public meetings; total ignorance of the local community; scoffs at concerned local governments and a purely economic focus. They, however, can not be entirely blamed for this. The provincial government, through the Green Energy Act, has made it perfectly legal to hold marginal public meetings and ignore municipal governments. In fact, it's almost encouraged, in the name of streamlined approvals and preventing any more climate change.

The major pro-wind groups, like the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA), immediately associate every bit of opposition with the wild claims held by the quacks I talked about earlier. Moreover, both CanWEA and the government have created an atmosphere of extremes: either you support wind power with us or you're against it along with the Holocaust comparison folks.

This isn't fair. Just because wind energy represents all sorts of good like 'green energy', energy independence and renewability, does not mean we can simply throw opposing arguments to the ground. There needs to be a reasonable conversation and the burden for such a transition falls on both sides. The government needs to stop being so antagonistic or it's going to find itself deeper in what is already a deep hole of political turmoil, and the crazy anti-wind people need to shut up and stay out of it. Do you really think anyone is going to listen to you if you compare wind turbine development with the Holocaust?

A professor at Trent once told me -- in a rather accusational way, I might add -- that I am pro-wind. I corrected her and told her that I am actually only pro-wind if it is done right. That means effective public consultation and even participation, designing the projects appropriately and making sure the risks and benefits of the project are distributed equally with both developers and the surrounding community. I'm not a gung-ho, wind at all costs kind of guy and I don't believe she is a crazy anti-wind whacko.

There is a right way to do it and a wrong way. Let's try to figure out the right way.

Image Credit: Soul Online

How walkable is your city?...

"Everything is walking distance if you have the time."

True as Steven Wright's quote may be on theoretical terms, most people would place their bets on a more conservative definition of walking distance.

I only moved a couple hundred metres away from my old house in Peterborough, but I have come to realize that such a distance can have a significant impact on my lifestyle. I first noticed this impact when my parents came to visit for convocation a few weeks ago. When they would visit in the past -- my old house was located just north of Peterborough's downtown -- we would walk downtown in the evenings to one of the city's many downtown haunts, frequently enjoying one or many pints with our meals. We could then walk leisurely back to the house and relax before the night's driver could legally get back behind the wheel so my parent's could go back to their hotel.

But this time it was different. What was once a comfortable ten minute walk downtown has since turned into something that takes almost twenty minutes. Even for someone in their 20s this is a fair jaunt, and far more tiresome for a couple hovering around their 60s. Instead of walking we drove downtown, making for a less pleasant and fulfilling Peterborough experience.

Even on my own it is a bit different. While I bike mostly everywhere I go, a quick walk to the grocery store to pick up some food is now a thing of the past. To meet someone for food or a drink downtown I take my bike whereas I might have walked in the past.

My new residence was considerably less walkable than my previous one. And this was confirmed by a piece of software called Walk Score. You simply type in your address and it finds what is nearby to your house, giving you a score out of 100. It is very simple and useful.

Programs like Walk Score have several other benefits. If you are looking to buy or rent property, you can measure the walkability of the location. Same thing for visitors and tourists looking to walk around rather than drive.

There is a strong focus these days on alternative transportation: cycling, public transportation, carpooling, etc. Walking seems to get left in the dust much of the time. After living in an area with an extremely high walk score, I know just how pleasant, convenient and healthy such an area can be.

Plastic Bags in HK

“Love Hong Kong, Use Less Plastic Bags”.

I was strolling around the Hung Hom market this past weekend shopping for groceries and cheap kitchen utensils. Walking around the market really confirmed the Hong Kong I envisioned, that of a super capitalist and hard-working society.

I was fascinated by the various merchants and their marketing techniques to entice both foreigners and locals alike into buying their products. This sense of capitalism is quite interesting and mixed with a bit of greenery.

While Hong Kong is a free market society, they are quite self-sufficiently green. I took this photograph to illustrate the City’s sense of environmental stewardship. Based on some observation, plastic bags are rarely used in the grocery stores; everyone brings their own backpack or reusable bags.

While Toronto and other international cities have recently started to charge for plastic bags (see here), Hong Kong seems to have convinced many of its citizens and tourists to strongly consider avoiding plastic bags. The store I shopped at had a nominal charge on plastic bags but overall, they used signs and their customers to foster a culture of conservation.

Reducing plastic bags significantly alleviates pressure on waste management systems. A culture of greenery and sustainable consumption is something that Hong Kong should pride itself on.

Key message: Hong Kong is committed to reducing the number of plastic bags used in the City. Good on you, Hong Kong.

The MTR in Hong Kong...

I recently arrived in Hong Kong to begin a two-month internship with a property development company called Cheung Kong Holdings. I start work on June 21st.

As someone deeply passionate about urban planning, my first observations in Hong Kong were: one, its high density environment and two, its extremely adequate public transit system, known as the Mass Transit Railway (MTR). The MTR is an integral part of Hong Kong's transportation system. I took the MTR from the Airport, located in the far west, to Hung Hom Station located in Kowloon (the station closest to where I am staying).

I had to switch trains a couple of times with my luggage (a pain to carry around) but was completely distracted by the MTR's efficiency, good ridership (approx 4 million trips made on the MTR on an average weekday) and intelligent technology. The trains have TVs that provide updates of transit delays, the weather and local news to name a few. Overall, a much more exciting and interesting way to travel than a cab.

Enviro Boys has blogged extensively about public transit in the past. A lot of my posts on public transit have been based on what I have read from academic journals, news articles and other publications. I have first-hand experience with Toronto's TTC, but this system is in need of desperate revitalization.

The MTR is going to be my main method of transit over the next two months. It could take me anywhere I need to go around Hong Kong. I will use it to go from Kowloon (where I live) to Hong Kong Island (where I work). Most impressively, the MTR is incredibly efficient and affordable! Efficient and affordable public transit systems are a rarity in Canada. Of course, Hong Kong's high density and compactness justify the need for an excllent transit system. Nonetheless, there are so many lessons to learn from the MTR, lessons I will bring with me to Vancouver and my grad program.

There will be more posts about the MTR as the weeks progress. Hopefully, these posts will come from observation and first-hand experience, a different approach to my coverage of public transit on this blog.

Photo Image: Picture of MTR West Line Train courtesy of flickr.com

The Enviro Boys Graduate

Chris and I graduated at Trent on June 3rd, 2010. It was a wonderful day spending time with fellow graduates and collectively cherishing the accomplishment of receiving our undergrad degrees. Both Chris and I had very fulfilling undergrad experiences from the courses we took, to the faculty research we assisted with and to our culminating honours theses. Trent is a school we will dearly miss.

In December 2008, when Chris asked me if I was interested in co-blogging with him, I was honoured, not knowing how much we would benefit from the blogging experience. In January 2009, we started this blog and have grown tremendously from it. It was an Environmental Policy class at Trent that was our source of inspiration for starting this blog. Among many of the benefits we attained from a Trent education, we developed a blog at this university and we are grateful that it provided the inspiration to do so. We will continue the blog as we both begin new journeys; ones that will be full of adventure, learning and challenge.

At our Convocation ceremony, Nancy Strictland was the recipient of the honorary Doctor of Laws degree. She received her Honours B.Sc from Trent in Physical Geography. Nancy has dedicated her life to international development and global citizenship. She has done great work in creating educational links between Bhutan and Canada. Indeed, from 1992 to 2008 Nancy worked for the University of New Brunswick coordinating a series of Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) funded education projects and heading the Canadian Cooperation Office in Bhutan.

She also worked with the World University Service of Canada (WUSC) as a geography teacher in rural Zimbabwe. You can view her acceptance speech below:

Greenest City Action Team: Vancouver

I am reading through a report titled "Greenest City". It was put together in 2009 by the Greenest City Action Team (GCAT). The team comprises a number of environmental experts including councillors, Vancouver's Mayor Gregor Robertson, David Suzuki, David Boyd (one of Canada's leading environmental lawyers) just to name a few. This group of independent experts represents an immense knowledge base. They have a close understanding of the most pressing environmental interests that Vancouver faces.

The GCAT was given an audacious mandate: to figure out what Vancouver needs to do to become the greenest city in the world by 2020. The report is about 30-pages in length.

The report outlines several recommendations including the "greenest city action fund". In short, this recommendation suggests that the City seek funding partners (the provincial and federal governments, private donors, and businesses) to establish a Greenest City Action Fund to support investments in green infrastructure, energy efficiency, green jobs, environmental education and green business.

Specifically, with the establishment of this fund, the City could create a world-class environmental education centre, the acquisition of land for public green spaces, development of small-scale sources of renewable energy (geothermal, biomass, solar etc) and even an energy efficiency retrofit program for residential buildings.

Cities like Stockholm have shown great leadership on similar initiatives. Indeed, in 2003, Stockholm established the "Miljomiljarden" or Environmental Billion initiative, dedicating one billion Swedish kronor to improving environmental conditions. The money was spent on various projects including: environmental information, activities that promote the preservation of biodiversity, efficient energy consumption and waste management and the decontamination of polluted lands, lakes and water courses. Stockholm was recently named the Greenest City in Europe.

Vancouver has high hopes but is undoubtedly on the right track. The Greenest City Action Fund is a progressive and holistic approach to greening a city. However, it is not money that will exclusively solve all of Vancouver's environmental challenges. The fund will require a number of inputs beyond just monetary provision. Indeed, greening a city requires active participation and collaboration among the private sector, government agencies, citizens, agriculture and local schools. All of these stakeholders are critical in the sustainability process and all need to articulate how such a fund would benefit the city as a whole.

Key Message: We should commend the hitherto green leadership shown by the Mayor, Gregor Robertson and the Greenest City Action Team. With their ambitions, vision and drive, the team will in some way lead Vancouver in a direction that will make the city more livable and sustainable.

A take on Harper's fake lake...

What would you do with $2 million dollars?

Some would buy a fake lake. But not a real fake lake. That's cruel.

As part of its extravagant spending spree on the G8/G20 summits later this month, the Conservative government is now on the defensive for a $2 million indoor lake being built in downtown Toronto, complete with a dock, Adirondack Chairs and walls of canoes. According to the government, it is a necessary expense to showcase and market what Canada has to offer.

I'm not the first, and certainly won't be the last, to say that this is absolutely idiotic. The billion dollar security bill is outrageous and the rest of the spending is ridiculous. The fake lake epitomizes everything that is wrong with the G8/G20 summits.

Apart from the fact that the government is throwing vast sums of money at the summits while operating at a record deficit and while lots of Canadian people & programs could use that cash, we need to remember exactly what all this spending is for. It's for a three day conference that will, let's be realistic, come to nothing more than a consensus to meet again and discuss further. At best. And lots of issues aren't even on the table, like the embarrassing abortion and environmental policies the head-in-the-sand government stomps around with.

The "marketing what Canada has to offer" argument is fair until you look beyond the words in quotation marks. Lots of countries that host these international conferences like to market different aspects of the country to increase tourism or just boast. So what are we marketing? The bloody Muskokas.

Listen, I love the Muskokas. It is a beautiful area with some of the greatest lakes and cottage country in the world. But let's get realistic for a second. Anyone living in southern Ontario knows that much of the Muskokas is now an exclusive playground for the elite. What was once a relatively remote and affordable escape for Ontarians has been turned into a cottage country club, where century-old cottages are being torn down daily to make way for McMansions. You might be on the water, but don't kid yourself, those behemoths aren't cottages. And good luck affording one unless you work in the highest offices of Bay Street. This is not representative of Canada

And the canoes? Yes, we love canoeing in Canada. But the Conservative government doesn't. Last year, the government sneakily passed an amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act that basically changed the definition of what navigable waters are, making it much easier to develop on popular canoeing and kayaking routes. Canoeing and kayaking groups were far from impressed. And more recently, they're using a loophole in the Fisheries Act to legally classify some Canadian lakes as toxic mining waste sites. Please, come enjoy our waste-filled lakes!

The last thing I'll touch on is how Harper is increasingly eroding Canada's international reputation. He touts our stable financial system, which he is not entirely responsible for. Apart from that, we look like fools on the international stage. Our environmental record is dismal and we seem to be competing with China in the race to best stymie climate change negotiations. Everywhere you look these days, Canada seems to be the sore thumb sticking out in the world. And not in a good way, whether it be on a global bank tax, international abortion funding or on the fishing of endangered tuna. For the G8 and G20 leaders, attending Canada's summits must be like going to your classmate's party only because your mom told you you had to.  

I remember many years ago feeling very proud to be Canadian when my father told me how many Americans attach a Canadian flag patch to their gear when travelling abroad because being Canadian was enviable. My bank likely won't collapse and I get a GST cheque in the mail every three months, but I fear that I won't be able to give my children the same message.

An "Economy vs. Environment" Debate

I was reading an article from the New York Times titled "Muddy Road Molds Debate on the Future of Guyana". The article reminded me of that classic debate between the economy and the environment. While this particular example is far more complicated, it illustrates how a country (Guyana) has the opportunity to pave a 300-mile road that connects the capital (Georgetown) to Letham, a boomtown on the border with Brazil.

Investors from Brazil are ecstatic about this because it would allow them to search for a deepwater port near Georgetown, giving northern Brazil a "modern artery to export its goods to the Caribbean and North America".

For Guyana, the project presents an opportunity and a threat. Could the road help provide Guyana with an identity, especially an economic identity? This small country of 753,000 is the poorest in South America, with per capita income lower than Bolivia. The road would help Guyana reap significant benefits from trade and take the country more aggressively forward into the global economy.

On the other hand, Guyana could take the more ecologically sustainable path to its economic development. Indeed, the President, Bharrat Jagdeo (who visited Trent University in October) has demonstrated great leadership on forest protection policies and other environmental initiatives.

Environmentalists are deeply concerned about the potential road. Paving it could damage the forest, disrupt and displace river otters, arapaima fish and jaguars. It is projected that two million acres of rain forest could be affected if the road is paved.

Road proponents have acknowledged that the project could bring about upheaval. But they also see how it could ease Guyana's poverty. But, who's going to pay for it? The Prime Minister of Guyana, Sam Hinds, supports the project, as long as Guyana could find $350 million to finance it. There is no indication as to how much the Brazilian government will pay for the project. Their return on investment would be quite adequate considering their expanded trade routes. While the road would be stretched across the country of Guyana, it would be completely inequitable for this poor nation to finance the project at 100%.

Citizens have come out and expressed their deep concerns. Justin de Freitas, 35, who worked as a porter along the road said "that road is going to end our way of life".

There are others as well (including Indigenous) who could be affected by such a project.

To build or not to build? A looming question with seemingly clear costs and benefits. Does the country risk sacrificing its native species, local ecosystems and forested areas for a paved road that will ostensibly bring economic progress? Does it jeopardize its image as a global leader in forest protection policies? These are just some of the tough battles that Guyana now faces with concomitant pressure from the rising economic power that is Brazil.

Key message: These projects are incredibly complex. Squandering an economic opportunity for environmental protection is always a tough one to swallow. A country like Guyana has ambitions to utilize more renewable energy and continue to protect its pristine forests. However, tough decisions lie ahead about economic opportunities that can potentially bring about more benefits to the country's citizenry and alleviate national poverty.

A Special Report on Water from The Economist

The audio program above provides a thorough review of the world's water situation. John Grimond from The Economist, discusses the "hot topics" of global water resources.

We hear about hydro-electric power (a clean and green form of electricity but controversial as shown in China's Three Gorges Dam.) We also hear about the future of desalination, a technology that allows us to convert salt water to fresh water through a process called reverse osmosis. It is utilized in a few places in the world currently, (Israel, the UAE and Australia to name a few). The economics of desalination is getting better, however, the energy requirements are still really high. This has created the impetus to use renewable energy to power desalination, a process that could eventually happen on a large scale basis.

Singapore (population:4.5 million) is cited as a steward of water conservation and efficiency. Singaporeans use 155 litres of water a day, that's half of what the average Canadian uses. Andhra Pradesh (a state on the south eastern coast of India) is another example where we are seeing more experiments with effective groundwater management which has reduced demand for water. In Andhra Pradesh, all sectors including agriculture, use less water and far more efficiently.

Finally, cooperation is another significant component in our discussion of water resources. The Nile Basin Initiative is cited as the example regarding good cooperation on water. It is a "partnership among the Nile riparian states that seeks to develop the river in a cooperative manner, share substantial socioeconomic benefits, and promote regional peace and security".

Key Message: While water is becoming more scarce globally, the use of technology is becoming more sophisticated. Also, some of our global leaders (in Singapore, Andhra Pradesh and Guelph) are demonstrating the importance of water conservation and fair allocation. How we price and trade water in an era of scarcity will be one of the more interesting topics in the years to come.

Re: Trent's Green Grad...

My recent post on Trent's efforts to have a "green" graduation and my actual experience several days later highlights the difference between good intentions and real outcomes. Last week, Trent's three days of convocation ceremonies employed three different strategies to reduce the environmental impact of the graduation event. Unfortunately, all three strategies came away looking fairly chincy.

Its second annual "Bottled Water-Free" convocation was relatively successful and was highlighted by the stainless steel water bottles provided to each graduate. The water bottles, however, were of poor quality. The lids would not stay on properly and once just came right off when I picked up the bottle. Moreover, there were a few instances where the bottoms of the bottles blew off when they were dropped on the ground. I appreciate the effort Trent, but I'm not very confident that many of those bottles will be reused frequently in the future. 

The second lackluster effort fell on the shoulders of the student group, Sustainable Trent, of which, in the interest of full disclosure, I am an outgoing member. For several years, a handful of dedicated volunteers have worked to put together the Green Pledge, a voluntary pledge taken by graduates to keep the environment in mind when making major decisions in the future. Unfortunately, the main coordinator of the Green Pledge was unable to do it this year and wasn't picked up until the last minute. As I stood in line minutes away from procession, an ST volunteer handed me a pin and asked if I wanted to take the pledge. I knew what it was, so I took the pin. Another graduate behind me did not know what it was, but took it after a one line description. Unsurprisingly, very few graduates had a green pin on. It was a sad sight after such popularity in the past.

The third effort came in the form of free public transit passes to graduates and their guests. I'll admit that I didn't look too much into this and don't know how popular it was, but when looking into the logistics, it looked a little tedious. In order to ride for free, graduates and guests had to print out tickets from the website. Because many of the guests and graduates were coming in from out of town and staying in hotels, printing a piece of paper wouldn't be all that feasible and (forgive my assessment of human beings) most people wouldn't have thought about that ahead of time. Why not just make the Trent Express free that day for everyone? I would not be surprised, however, if the bus drivers just let everyone on anyways without the pass.

I hate to gripe about Trent's 'green' efforts, but they were hyped so much and yet so half-heartedly followed through on. And some people will likely tell me to not be so critical and just be happy Trent tried. But too bad. If you want to legitimize your 'green' reputation, do it with some effort.

But alas, this should not take away from the main occasion. A graduation is a special thing to celebrate, the ceremony was enjoyable and I offer congratulations to all the other graduates. It's a shame it couldn't have a been a little 'greener'.  

Our Guest Post for Aguanomics

David Zetland was kind to write a guest post for Enviro Boys. David's key message was: with good water management in place, the conditions for equity, efficiency and sustainability are all achievable.

On that note, Chris and I wrote a guest post (an exchange) for David's blog at Aguanomics. We wrote about Guelph, Ontario, as Canada's water steward leader.

Feel free to check out our post at Aguanomics.

Guest Entry: A few thoughts for the Canucks...

By: David Zetland of Aguanomics

Tim and Chris asked me to turn my California perspective on Canada's water situation. I won't talk about pollution from refining tar sands, aquifer depletion in the plains, unsustainable "traditional" fisheries and farms in Nova Scotia, Quebec's hydropower, or the water-people mismatch in Nunavut. Instead, I will talk about those great big lakes full of fresh water.

I was chatting with one of your neighbors about the potential for marking water from the Great Lakes. I told him that "you folks" should define diversions, clarify water rights, and create a market for trading rights.

"But David," he said. "There's so much water that the price is sure to be $0. Demand is so small compared to supply."

"Ahhh, but that's the point."

Apparently people are getting all excited and upset about Great Lakes water when it's really too abundant to worry about. A $0 price for water signifies one of two things. Either people are making senseless arguements about its precious nature when supply far exceeds demand, or people are making sensible arguments that need to be integrated into our definitions of supply and demand. In either case, we need more objective facts (prices) and fewer subjective emotions.

You tell me if I'm right or missed something.

But let's just assume for the moment that the price really would be $0. Does that mean that a market and prices are a bad idea?

No. First of all, it's useful to set up a framework when there is still plenty of water around. If the price rises above $0, then people will know that water is getting more scarce. Second, the value of water is always higher than its price. There's no need to fear that a $0 price connotes a $0 value.

Third, it's important to get market signals -- prices -- out there early. Water shortages are manmade, and they often show up because bureaucrats in charge of allocation do not aggregate all of the supply and demand signals that a market would. Bureaucrats would still keep their jobs (whew!), but they would make sure that the market -- rights, trades, delivery -- was functioning.

But some of you might be wondering if we don't already have a price for water, the price that appears on your monthly water bills. Well, no you don't. Those bills reflect the cost of delivering pressurized clean water 24/7. They reflect the cost of pipes, energy and salaries that go into that service. They do NOT reflect the price (or value) of water. That price is $0, not just because there's no market, but because most of your water comes from utilities that have a right to divert as much as they want from lakes, rivers or aquifers into the water distribution system.

By the way, your cost of service may be flat rate -- an all-you-can-eat fixed charge -- or uniform rate -- the more you use, the more you pay, but either system is based on recovering the cost of the system, not "paying for water." Note that uniform rates tend to reduce consumption (the same way that paying per liter of petrol does); they also make heavy water users pay for a larger share -- their "fair" share -- of the system costs.

It may not make sense to switch to meters -- if their installation cost is much greater than the water savings -- but they are the best first step towards promoting water conservation. (I wonder if farmers in the Plains buy metered water?)

Bottom Line: Good water management is equitable, efficient and sustainable. Don't start too late, or you'll follow California into a deep dark hole of "how the hell are we going to get out of this?"

Dr. David Zetland has a PhD in Agricultural and Resource Economics from the University of California, Davis. Currently, he is S.v. Ciriacy-Wantrup Postdoctoral Fellow in Natural Resource Economics and Political Economy, University of California, Berkeley.