Desalination: The Aussie Way

It has been a while since we’ve discussed desalination. Desalination is a process that uses reverse osmosis to convert salt water into fresh drinking water. Our last desalination post featured San Diego and its long-term ambitions to expand desalination due to water shortages and the rising costs of importing water from northern California.

Australia has been desalinating water since 2006, when Perth opened the nation’s first desalination plant. In one of the country’s biggest infrastructure projects in history, Australia’s five largest cities are spending $13.2 billion on desalination plants. Such enthusiasm for aggressive expansion has been motivated by intense droughts across the country. The executive director of the Water Services Association of Australia described the billions of dollars as “the cost of adapting to climate change”. Droughts have been intensified by climate change and desalination will make a significant contribution to the country’s water supply and hopefully for contingency situations when droughts come again in the future.

There are critics of course. One of the main arguments against such an expansion is that Australia’s population is not growing as fast as the past government projected. Called “Big Australia”, the previous government’s projected that the population would rise to 36 million in 2050, from 22 million now.

The focus of attention appears to be on Queensland, the nation’s fastest growing region. Queensland suffered an intense drought from 2000 to 2009. A desalination plant in this area supplies 6 percent of the region’s water needs and has the capacity to deliver 20 percent. The drought did lead to other incentives such as subsidizing the purchase of home water tanks to capture rainwater. A number of dams were built, along with wastewater recycling facilities and pipes. Thus, Queensland has reacted to water shortages mainly through what we call “hard-path approaches” which I have argued in previous posts (and in my honours thesis) is not a holistic approach to water management.

With Queensland’s jubilation for desalination construction, other cities like Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide have followed suit. I must stress that the power needed to remove salt from seawater accounts for up to 50% of the cost of desalination, and Australia relies on coal, a major emitter of greenhouse gases, to generate most of its electricity. To make smart progress on desalination and to avoid stiff opposition from tough critics, I think Australia must do two things:

1) Develop a system whereby excess water produced from major desalination plants is sold to municipalities without such desalination plants (there are many drought prone regions that could benefit from having a contingency water supply that desalination could provide). The costs must be transparent and distributed equally and at a low cost to those cities. Indeed, desalination projects need to slow down and the government must focus on fair distribution with an adequate amount of “contingency water” stored in reservoirs for imminent droughts.

2) Seeing as desalination will be the solution for Australia’s future water supply, and the fact that desalination is powered mostly through coal, the Australian government must focus on expanding renewable energy projects such as solar energy. Given that Brisbane (the capital of Queensland) receives over 3000 hours of sunshine every year, the region’s desalination plant would benefit from renewable sources like solar to ease pressure on coal and reduce aggregate CO2 emissions.

Key message: Australia will become (if it isn’t already) the world’s biggest user of desalination. With climate change uncertainty and the frequency of droughts, it must focus on conserving water for contingency situations. It does not have to expand desalination plants but instead focus more on practical and sustainable goals like powering them through renewable energy and expanding water conservation education in elementary and secondary schools.

Progress on Solar Power in Hong Kong

The largest solar power system in Hong Kong has been unveiled at Lamma power station, which can maintain adequate power output under high temperatures or on cloudy days. It is being operated by Hongkong Electric. The thin film used in the system uses less silicon and is more environmentally friendly. The panels can generate a total of 550 kilowatts, or 1% of the overall capacity of the 3,700-megawatt plant, which uses coal as its main fuel source.

The HK$23 million project ($3 million Canadian) will reduce HK's carbon dioxide emissions by 520 tonnes a year. Hong Kong's annual carbon dioxide emission output is about 39,000 tonnes (as measured in 2007). So this project will decrease annual CO2 output by 1.3% - a number that will increase over time with more renewable energy projects such as this one. It is expected to generate enough power to supply the needs of 150 families (with four household members).

Thomas Friedman: The US Senate and the Gulf oil spill

The US Senate has thus far been unremarkable with its response and immediate actions to the Gulf oil spill. Friedman tells us that diminishing America's addiciton to oil and providing insurance against climate change by reducing US carbon emissions have not been very popular topics in the US Senate. Now, the test will be whether the US Senate will provide federal funding to restore America's critical ecosytems.

"The Senate’s failure to act is a result of many factors, but one is that the climate-energy policy debate got disconnected from average people."

More from Thomas Friedman's NY Times article here.

Are you Green or Congreenient?

I certainly hope you are genuinely green and not congreenient.

Thanks to urban dictionary for providing a hilarious and clever word for the day:
Congreenient: The practice of recycling, or being green, only when convenient. A person who only recycles when it is convenient to do so.

Used in a sentence: I really dislike recycling my glass bottles because recycling is a futile act. Luckily, it is congreenient that my neighbour recycles bottles and pays me 10 cents for every bottle I don't throw out in the garbage.

Climate Change Politics: United States

Matt Kahn, who blogs at Environmental and Urban Economics, provides a fascinating story about the partisan bickering and continuous politicization of climate change in the U.S. Debates over fuel efficiency standards, cap & trade and energy policy more generally, have required lots of time and effort and have ultimately impeded progress on policy formulation. It is hard to find consensus or unity on these issues unless there is a "salient shock" to the nation (BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, anyone?). Won't these environmental policies/programs cost a lot of money? Perhaps not as much as you think, at least in the long-term.

Check out Professor Kahn's post here.

A balanced perspective on Fiji Water

One of my friends, ES, sent me a link to an article on Fiji Water. The article presents a balanced perspective (certainly more balanced than my previous blog post) on Fiji Water discussing the importance it plays for economic development. Some quotes:

"Even though it's shipped from the opposite end of the globe, even though it retails for nearly three times as much as your basic supermarket water, Fiji is now America's leading imported water, beating out Evian."

"Rakiraki has experienced the full range of Fiji's water problems—crumbling pipes, a lack of adequate wells, dysfunctional or flooded water treatment plants, and droughts that are expected to get worse with climate change. Half the country has at times relied on emergency water supplies, with rations as low as four gallons a week per family; dirty water has led to outbreaks of typhoid and parasitic infections."

"When such practices are criticized, Fiji Water's response is simple: "They don't have a ton of options for economic development," Mooney told U.S. News & World Report, "but bottled water is one of them. When someone buys a bottle of Fiji, they're buying prosperity for the country." Without Fiji Water, he said, "Fiji is kind of screwed."

Read more here: http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/09/fiji-spin-bottle?page=1

Also, check out the website of the Fiji Embassy in the US. At the top of the page, you can see an image of a Fiji Water bottle: http://www.fijiembassydc.com/

Apps from Google Maps...

The Planning Pool blog recently published a post on the top ten google map tricks that you should know; from planning a bike trip (as Chris is doing) to getting real time traffic information in your area. "My Maps" has an application called Roof Ray, which lets people find their house on Google Maps, draw their roof, and then calculate the cost and payback period for installing solar panels. I found this application the most intriguing.

You can view more "tricks" here.

Bottled Water from Fiji

I went to a coffee shop today in Hong Kong's Central Business District. While waiting in line, I saw some guy buy two bottles of Fiji Water priced at HK$19 a piece ($2.57 CAN per bottle). Yeah, that's right, I actually walked over to the bottled water section after I purchased my coffee to check out the outrageous prices of these products.

Of all the forms of bottled water, I think Fiji water is the worst in terms of its negative ramifications on the environment. Not only that, but the price is exorbitant (you pay a premium for this stuff, it cost more than Dasani and definitely more than Volvic). Also, it has a high energy intensity.

As Peter Gleick demonstrated in a paper, the energy intensity of bottled water is measured by manufacturing the plastic bottle, treatment, cooling and transportation. In the transportation category, Fiji is probably the worst. Indeed, North American cities like LA have high demand for Fiji water. The transportation energy cost of getting the water from Fiji to LA is 4 megajoules (MJ). To put that in perspective, producing tap water requires about 0.005 MJ for treatment and distribution. Transporting Fiji water from Fiji to Hong Kong has a smaller transportation energy cost, nonetheless, it is still an issue worth discussing.

Don't worry, I am not forgetting about the economic side of this argument. Fiji water is in high demand and thus profitable for those who make it. Instead of going on a huge rant about why bottled water from Fiji is problematic, I'll leave you to read David Zetland's blog post (which is hilarious and bang on) and touches more on the economics of the issue. I just thought I would point to a few facts.

Could green energy take a hit from Ontario's government probe?

The Ontario government is in trouble. Again.

The Ontario Provincial Police is conducting a criminal investigation in some dirty business dealings between public sector staff and private sector firms. The public sector staff in question belong to the Ontario Realty Corporation, a corporation that lies under the authority of the Ministry of Energy & Infrastructure.

Uh oh. For proponents of green energy in Ontario, this could be worrying. A friend of mine, SH, posits that if any of the alleged improper business dealings are focused on the province's renewable energy program, the whole green energy movement in Ontario could be sunk beyond repair.

There is a chance that renewable energy could be involved. The government has given plenty of exclusive renewable deals to major private firms, most notably Samsung. The rhetorical push for community energy has not been followed by approvals for such projects, while private sector firms are receiving everything they need. These events have pissed off a lot of people. But have they been illegal? Time will tell.

If so, it is likely that green energy in Ontario would take a massive hit. The streamlining of approvals, reduction of effective public participation and the provincial supersession of municipal authority under the Green Energy Act have triggered opposition exponentially. Try to find an area in rural Ontario where opposition to a wind farm is not strong. Politically, the Progressive Conservatives have called for a moratorium on wind turbine development.

As ambitious as the government's program is, it has done much to help their popularity. This is far from the government's only concern. People are already angry about the HST, the deficit, scandals at E-Health and OLG and a plethora of different issues. Even other green programs have taken a hit, most recently the new Eco Fee, resulting in the government and Stewardship Ontario pointing fingers at one another.

Let's hope that green energy isn't involved in another government scandal, especially a criminal one.

Some Links on High Speed Rail in China

High Speed Rail (HSR) is major source of discussion today in fields such as Urban Planning, Transportation Engineering, Public Policy and Economics to name a few. Several countries (with the exception of Canada) are currently constructing or expanding their high speed rail networks. China has the world's longest high-speed rail network with 6,920 kilometres (see map) and will expand to 13,000 kilometers within the next three years. This won't be cheap.

Spending billions of Yuan on HSR construction should mean that ticket prices should be high to recover operating and maintenance costs, right? Well, in theory, but prices need to be competitive with airlines otherwise people won't use HSR. This will prove to be a challenge for the Chinese government as they will have to consider a number of incentives such as subsidizing fares to ensure that HSR is affordable for its citizens. Some argue that fares should be high at first to recover revenue to pay for operation and maintenance. An interesting debate indeed.

I blog about this and share links because HSR growth in China will help stabilize the country's greenhouse gas emissions in its transportation sector. It will (over the long-term) decrease demand for airlines services, it will advance China's transportation network, foster a greener ethic in its citizenry (insofar as HSR prices are affordable). The infrastructurist blog writes

"high speed rail has fully infiltrated the population, and it’s only getting bigger — by 2020, there will be HSR lines connecting every Chinese city with more than 500,000 residents, meaning that 90% of the country’s population of 1.3 billion will have HSR access." This is good, but will it be affordable?

To read about HSR competition with airlines, see here.

A blog post on HSR vs airlines in China, see here.

An interesting financial analysis criticizing HSR in China, see here.

For a critical commentary from HSR riders in China, see here.

Key message: HSR has the ability to drastically ameliorate China's national transportation system and significantly cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. It is a very sustainable transportation solution as we have seen in Europe and Japan. However, if tickets prices are too high and made unaffordable, ridership will be low and the billions of Yuan spent on HSR will be seen as a waste of money and hence anger a lot of people. HSR ticket prices need to be comparable (or cheaper) than airline tickets, this will require a lot of work on the policy front.

Driving Behaviour in Hong Kong

"Time is money"

A statement that is very appropriate for Hong Kong and manifested in the City's driving behaviour. Drivers come first, pedestrians, second. Speed is equated with money even at the expense of consuming more (unnecessary) amounts of fuel.

Driving behaviour is quite fascinating in Hong Kong. Drivers (especially on Hong Kong Island) will speed and accelerate regardless of the traffic congestion. Indeed, I have noticed many cars quickly accelerating and precipitously stamping on the brake amid traffic jams. Smooth acceleration and gradual braking has been a rare site. Cars cruising along at a constant speed is also quite rare.

From an environmental and efficiency stand point, such a practice is not smart. It ruins your fuel consumption (more fuel used) because more kinetic energy is dissipated as heat and thus lost. Therefore, it requires more energy (fuel) to re-accelerate because of the lost momentum that you would have had from gradually moving forward. A excellent explanation of this can be found here. Smooth acceleration and gradual braking does not use as much fuel and is less pressure intensive on the car's engine.

Drivers might have a perception that rapid acceleration and sudden braking might get them to their destination faster and such behaviour might be driven by economic motivations, however, mechanical engineers have shown that it is worse for the car’s fuel economy and ultimately for the environment as aggregate carbon emissions inevitably increase.

Key message: Is such driving behaviour counter-productive? Maybe. But if drivers feel that they are moving faster and more efficiently toward their destination, then switching to more gradual acceleration may prove unpopular.

Want to make your city greener? Consider lifting the bans on clean transportation...

It is not uncommon to drive by a cop giving a ticket to a car for speeding in Peterborough. But pulling over a rollerblader? Interestingly, such a site is possible here.

In Peterborough, it is illegal for modes of transportation like skateboards or rollerblades to be used on public streets or sidewalks. Sidewalk prohibition is obvious, but on the streets I suppose it can only be for the person's own safety. After all, in a fight between a skateboarder and a car, the car wins.

But how much different are rollerblades and skateboards from bicycles? Some rollerbladers go as fast or faster than bikes and people carry lots of stuff. Those long skateboards are far from slow, as well. I can see it being a pain for other drivers in a traffic-filled downtown, but as a cyclist, I've been yelled at and almost hit by drivers many times, regardless of how safe I am.

If anything, rollerbladers and skateboarders should be allowed to use the designated bike lanes in town. They are already allowed to use the bike and walking trails, thankfully. But if the argument is that such bans exist for their own safety, then a second look at the by-law is absolutely necessary. The only people who are going to rollerblade or skateboard downtown are those who feel comfortable enough to do it, so they are taking their own risks, similarly to the minority of cyclists in Peterborough who will bike along George Street downtown during rush hour.

But someone who is taking a clean form of transport should not be punished.

Some people might hold a grudge against skateboarders because many of them choose to hang out in one area and do tricks and whatnot. Bans on that are a separate issue, but boarders using streets should not be thrown into the same category. If there are some people who choose to ride on busy sidewalks, then they should be punished because it's dangerous and arrogant. That's why a lot of pedestrians hate cyclists. But it is no reason to ban cycling as a mode of transport.

Cycling and walking are not the only forms of green transport out there and every type should be encouraged, responsibly, to make our cities greener and healthier.  

A Dolphin jumps out of its tank, while its friends watch closely...

Why the dolphin jumps out of the tank is unclear. Was it for food? Did it misunderstand directions? Was it trying to escape?

What amazed me about this video was how quickly all of the other dolphins in the tank rushed over to see what was going on. There is an intellect about these creatures that we severely underestimate. You wouldn't see goldfish coming over to check out their buddy being taken out of the tank.

This video was all too reminiscent of the acclaimed documentary, The Cove, in which the brutal slaughter of dolphins in Japan is showcased for all the world to see, despite the best efforts of the Japanese government. It also explores the political and cultural relationships people in Japan have with dolphins and how much of it is a fiction created simply to drive an economic boon. I highly recommend watching the wonderful, but deeply disturbing film.

Chris' Bike Trip: The Difficulty of Route Decisions...

I've spent hours putting together very specific routes for the trip. So far I've figured out how my route from Winnipeg to Vancouver and am in the middle of the Vancouver to Southern Cal route. The former was fairly straightforward: take the Trans-Canada to Medicine Hat and jump on less busy but still quality route, the Crowsnest Highway, all the way into southeast BC.

The latter, however, is much tougher to decide. It would be lovely to explore Vancouver Island or the adjacent San Juan Islands in Washington. Seeing all of Puget Sound would be terrific, too. But ferry schedules and sheer distance are big barriers. As I go through this more closely, I am beginning to realize how close I am to different landmarks. Mount St. Helens, for example, is only 75 km away from my current route. That seems very close. But life on a bike makes that jaunt much more daunting. Going there, enjoying the site, and coming back would likely take at least two days extra.

Canada and the USA are full of landmarks that every person should see, but it is becoming clearer to me that there is no way I can ever see everything. When I tell people I might make it as far south as Los Angeles in California, they tell me I'm so close to San Diego and Tijuana that I might as well check those places out, too. Except those places are almost 200 km away from LA. True, on a trip that will likely last longer than 20,000 km, a 200 km jaunt doesn't seem like much extra, but those trips would add up. Quickly.

It's a true shame. There is so much to see, but you'll never be able to see it all. Once you have accepted that your trip gets a lot more exciting, as you start to look at all the places you will get to see instead of what you might miss.

Giant weeds, eco-fascists and a solar powered plane...

Remember that scene from Honey I Shrunk the Kids where the shrunken kids end up in the yard, completely engrossed in towering blades of grass and weeds? Well, such a reality -- minus the shrinking -- could be on us at any moment. According to officials in eastern Ontario's Renfrew County, a giant and dangerous weed is now present in Ontario.

Known as Giant Hogweed, it can stand as tall as six metres and its sap can cause blindness and skin damage similar that of a fire or chemical burn. Apparently it has also been spotted in southern Ontario. You can read a lot more about it here. Interestingly, it is already present in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia. Of course, when it finally hits Ontario -- ever closer to the Centre of the Universe -- it becomes big news.

The spread of big dangerous plants reminds me of the film The Happening, which I just watched a few days ago. SPOILER ALERT. In the movie, people start killing themselves -- in ever so creative ways -- when an airborne toxin gets into their system. What's causing the toxin? Pissed off plants, of course. We better keep Mark Wahlberg and M. Night Shyamalan on speed dial, just in case this Hogweed starts going after us. They'll know what to do.

On a movie-related note, I recently watched Daybreakers, where vampires have taken over the world in 2019 and are running low on human blood. You'd think eventually someone, somewhere, even vampires, would learn from the collapse of the cod fishery in Atlantic Canada.

Well, those people that might be translating such learnings into the protection of natural lands are now being branded as fascists. Bill Bennett, the Liberal Minister of Mining in British Columbia, lampooned proponents of the Keystone Valley receiving National Park status as eco-fascists. Bennett already has a history of lashing out, so Mr. Campbell, I suggest you get rid of this guy before he further derails your already wimpering 'green' provincial mantra. And Mr. Bennett, if you're going to compare environmentalists to the likes of Mussolini and Hitler, I suggest you at least spell the term fascist correctly.

And finally, I am impressed but feel oddly unsettled with the news of a solar powered airplane completing a 26 hour test flight. I'm all for renewable energy and air travel is a major source of carbon emissions, but knowing that solar energy is the only source fueling the plane would not inspire great confidence. I know, I know, give it time so it can prove itself and soon the world will be a better place, but at least I know that top-notch airplane fuel is fairly trustworthy. Then again, just over one hundred years ago, they thought the Wright Brothers were crazy. Maybe it just takes time to normalize to the situation.

Water in China: Part II

Water quality in China is in need of desperate revitalization. For such a large developing (arguably now developed) country that has made immense economic progress over the past 20 years, it is no surprise that water quality has been a victim of such economic development. As discussed in part 1, the priorities of economic growth in China have superseded the priorities of environmental protection and ecological balance. Like part 1, all of the information in this post is derived from Peter Gleick's "China and Water" publication.

As reported by Peter Gleick, there is not a lot of information or data available on China’s water quality. However, China’s State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have published some data on China’s water quality and have made it available to the public. The data and resources reveal that many of China’s rivers are grossly polluted by human and industrial wastes. An uncounted number of aquatic species have been driven to extinction. An estimated 20,000 chemical factories, half of which are along the Yangtze River (China’s longest river) are dumping uncontrolled or marginally controlled pollutants into China’s rivers.

In 2006, nearly half of China’s major cities did not meet state drinking water quality standards. China’s 10th 5-year plan (2001-2006) mandated the construction of thousands of new wastewater treatment plants, yet a 2006 survey by SEPA revealed that half of the new plants actually built were operating improperly or not at all. In 2005, China’s experienced 1,400 environmental pollution accidents of which half involved water pollution. Water quality has been deteriorating in main rivers including the Songhua, Hai He, and Huai He rivers.

On a positive note, drinking tap water in Beijing has been declared “safe” under the country’s new national drinking water standards for 106 contaminants in spite of some local complaints about its taste. Unfortunately, the OECD has reported that hundreds of millions of Chinese are drinking water contaminated with inorganic pollutants such as arsenic and excessive fluoride including toxins from untreated factory wastewater. Some concerned farmers, living in contaminated regions grow grain with poor water quality, sell that grain and purchase grain from other parts of China they believe have safe water.

Make no mistake about it, untreated wastewater is so problematic affecting every facet of life including social, economic and personal development. Approximately 4.4 billion tons of untreated or partially treated wastewater are dumped into the Huai He River annually.

Now over to the positive and promising. So, we know that wastewater treatment is indeed a critical indicator of public health, environmental and economic progress. Even countries like the U.S. have had issues treating certain contaminants to improve water quality. Wastewater progress must be concomitant with the country’s other development indicators as it plays an indispensable role in ameliorating social and personal well-being.

Fortunately, the government has recognized this challenge and has pledged to commit more capital and labour towards the construction of more wastewater and water treatment plants. The country is also looking at private companies from abroad to assist with wastewater financing and construction.

“More traditional water-supply and treatment infrastructure is also being built rapidly, including water and wastewater treatment plants. Officials announced plans to build ten sewage disposal plants in northwest China’s Shaanxi province, along the Weihe River, the largest tributary of the Yellow River. Another 30 plants are to be built by 2010”.

In one agreement, French Water Company Veolia has set up a joint French-Chinese venture to build a series of water projects, including urban and industrial wastewater treatment plants, desalination facilities, water-treatment equipment, and water-management services in the northern city of Teda. This is just one example, other joint ventures will become more commonplace as the Chinese turn to foreign technical expertise to assist with such essential water projects to improve water quality. What is now needed is a clear institutional and legal framework committed to reducing industrial waste and using a more sustainable approach to water management.

While massive water companies like Veolia and Suez have earned notorious reputations –namely because of water privatization—they will nonetheless have an important role to play in countries like China for increasing public health standards and taking China into a more prosperous water future.

The final part of the series will feature discussion around the economics of water in China along with the importance of public participation in water projects.

Charging for plastic bags: Hong Kong

It has been one year since Hong Kong introduced a levy scheme charging 50 HK cents (6.6 cents Canadian) per plastic bag. That's right, if you forget to bring your reusable bags to the supermarket, you get charged 50 HK cents for every plastic bag you need. Hong Kong’s levy scheme has been successful as evidenced from the statistics below.

Recent news in Hong Kong confirm the success of the 50 cent charge. The only surprising statistic, which can be both negative or positive (depending on how you look at it) was that the government was expecting to pool in about $200 million from the levy over the course of the year, however, it only brought in $20 million. Obviously, this this can be attributed to the large scale reduction in plastic bag use and the massive increase in reusable bag use.

This news provides a great deal of relief to city officials who have been criticized for their lackluster efforts on waste management. As land is scarce in Hong Kong, there is little space for waste sites and landfills. This continues to challenge city officials as to what approach might be most effective and efficient with dealing with waste. Fortunately, plastic bag use has dropped significantly.

Toronto and Washington D.C. both have plastic bag levy schemes. Washington DC, unlike Toronto and Hong Kong, is clearer as to how they spend the revenue raised from the scheme. For example, Washington D.C. raised $150,000 from their 5 cent levy in January 2010. This money went towards cleaning up the Anacostia River. Thus, environmental remediation efforts in D.C. have been aided by the levy and citizens are much clearer about how the revenue is spent.

Hopefully the government of Hong Kong will be a little clearer as to how they will spend the revenue.

Here is a summary of some of some statistics:

-$19.8 million was the total amount of money collected from the levy between July 2009 and March 2010. This revenue goes directly to the government

-Usage of plastic bags is now far less than before the levy was introduced, with a reduction of 90%

-The number of registered outlets now collecting the plastic bags levy has reached 3,000

Chris' Bike Trip: 2 Months to go...

I am now only two months away from my somewhat scheduled departure time for my bike tour around the United States. Since my last post on the trip, many different things have taken place.

Much of the progress has come in the form of equipment. A shopping spree on MEC's website eventually led to a smattering of new bags, sleeping/camping equipment and some new bike tools. When I'm finally ready to go I'll post a detailed list/photos of all the equipment I'll be bringing along. By far the most important investment in the past few weeks has been the purchase of a new, custom-built touring bike. I was exceptionally lucky to receive some gifts for convocation that allow me to purchase the new bike.

The bike is a Surly Long Haul Trucker, widely regarded as one of the top touring bikes on the market. After talking to a few friends about theirs, I elected to purchase it from a shop in Cambridge, Ontario called Cycle Cambridge. After providing my measurements, the folks at Cycle Cambridge will take the LHT frame and build it to my sizing with custom parts specific to my needs on the trip. For example, many of the parts will be high quality mountain bike parts, making durability and repairability a priority. I'm not going to pretend to know what makes all the different parts brands better than others, but I'll post a list of everything once I pick up the bike -- which is currently being built.

The route has endured a few changes. Rather than going from Winnipeg to Utah and up to Vancouver, I've elected to just go straight to Vancouver. There are two reasons for this: 1) prevailing winds will make travelling westward longer than is typical and 2) I'd like to beat the weather. I figure once I'm passed the Rockies, I'll be much safer weather wise. I will likely take the less-travelled Crowsnest Highway through southern BC as opposed to Highway #1, largely because I've already driven #1 and would like to see some other spots. If anyone is familiar with BC and some good sites, please let me know. I've already been told to check out the San Juan Islands just off Vancouver Island, although they're technically part of Washington.

The other possible route change might be more major and is one I have been mulling about in my head. I am nervous that come early-mid March, the weather along the Eastern Seaboard of the USA might be less than stellar. What may very well occur is that the trip might have to end around there, in one of the Carolinas. It can still get pretty chilly in the spring on the Atlantic. Of course, it is a long way off, but something I've been thinking about.

In other news, it looks as though Winnipeg will have to wait at least one more year until they get an NHL team, which means I'll get to make a stopover in Phoenix to watch a cheap Jets game. I'll be one of nine fans there. Seeing sports games will be a priority for me during this trip, especially ones in the southern US when the weather is nice. My dad often talks about travelling around the US when he was younger and seeing tons of MLB and NFL games, although tickets were far more affordable back then. Maybe I'll get to see Bosh, Wade (& Lebron?) in Miami when I swing by?

One aspect of the trip I am halfheartedly looking forward to is going to the Gulf Coast. It will still be an awesome spectacle, but for all the wrong reasons. What was once pristine natural land will now be oiled from the BP spill. This in itself will be a sight to see, but a truly sad one. One can only hope the area has had some chance to recover.

The notion that the trip is happening has been growing on my family, some of which have been less than enthusiastic. However, the benefits of the trip are starting to headline their thoughts of it, as opposed to all of the unlikely, yet possible, risks. There is even talk of my meeting up with my parents somewhere down south for their now-annual winter vacation. That would certainly be a treat.

As the date gets closer I will have to plan more carefully and look at specific routes. In chatting with a friend today, he suggested I start making a plethora of Google Map routes complete with documents on accomodations, attractions, roads, food and other things. I'll certainly start looking into that.

On a blogospheric note, I am trying to get the Winnipeg Free Press to host my blog posts on the trip, so it would be located both here and on that site. The most recent thing I've heard is that they are considering it, but could provide no money for it. I will have to rely on the earnings from this blog to get me through the trip. If only Tim would up my allowance...

Once I get closer to the departure date, I will try to provide as financially transparent a blog as possible. People tend to think money matters are taboo, but for others thinking about doing a trip like this, I think it would be extremely helpful to know how much it really costs. Plus, it will help me keep track of my own expenses.

Some people have asked me about training for the trip. I ride my bike almost everywhere I go and am already in very good shape. Later this month I will be making a few weekend bike tours around parts of Ontario and some in Manitoba when I arrive. I already know I can go at least 150 km in a day without killing myself from rides I've previously done, on a loaded mountain bike no less. But my approach will be to 'train as I go', perhaps going farther each day as I get used to the distances and the lifestyle. I'm sure there are far more rigid training regimens for a trip of this nature, but I hate training, so we'll see how it goes.

Local carbon offsets...

Let’s get one thing straight. I don’t like carbon offsets. I think that they overshadow the real problems we have to deal with by allowing us to buy our way out of it. Feel guilty about driving your Escalade? Just pay someone to plant some trees. Phew, that guilt was getting a little heavy.

But what I will concede is that they are better than nothing. If Johnny is going to drive his Escalade no matter what, it’s preferable that he does something to offset the drive as opposed to nothing at all. That being said, involuntary programs like a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system might hit Johnny closer to the source so he wouldn’t drive his Escalade as much.

Now, some carbon offset programs are better than others. I won’t go into detail about all the drawbacks and general silliness of the industry this time, but you can find my views on it here. Quite simply, I think that national and international carbon offset programs are fraught with dangers, most notably the arbitrary – and profit-raising – price-setting by offset companies and the occasional ineffectiveness of the actual offset project, disappointingly common with tree planting.

I am currently involved in a project exploring the feasibility of different carbon offset programs that would operate locally in Peterborough and the Kawarthas. Despite all I hold against offsets in general, local offset programs do have a certain appeal.

Instead of putting your money towards a project that could be on the other side of the world, you could instead put your money towards a project you could see every day, be run by people you know, or that even yourself are involved with. Your money could go towards a community-owned renewable energy project, the protection of natural land you think is important or even educational projects.

Such programs do face many barriers. There is only so much money that can come from a local market, especially in areas that are not densely populated. And the added costs of financing projects without high economies of scale – and in some cases, without profit in mind – might prevent financial viability. The impending arrival of international carbon trading markets might also prevent some programs from getting off the ground, as communities wait for regulations and standards to be set so their projects would comply. Local projects would share the arbitrary nature of price-to-carbon valuation, but people may be less concerned about precise pricing with local projects they have a direct connection with, especially those of the non-profit type.

Carbon offsets bother me, but they’re better than nothing. And certainly better than nothing when done on the local level with local interests and benefits to the community in mind.

Water in China: Part 1

Three major rivers in China.

As someone deeply passionate about water resources, and being close to Mainland China, I thought I would write a three part series about China’s water situation and provide some analysis. Most of the information in this series is derived from a chapter of a publication called “The World’s Water 2008-2009”. The chapter, titled “China and Water” is written by Peter Gleick. Part 1 of this series will feature the salient connection between China’s economy and its dependence on water resources. These posts will be lengthy so feel free to just read sections.

Simply put, demand for fresh water is growing in China. Renewable water availability is 2,138 cubic meters per person per year. That’s more than India’s 1,719 cubic meters but smaller than the US (10,231 cubic meters). A lot the water is located in the Southern region of the country. More recently, there has been more pressure to pipe water over long distances to the north with economic development happening there. China’s voracious demand for water comes at a time when the country is growing so rapidly (both in population and economy) with some provinces already over 100 million people (Henan Province, for example).

China’s response to such growth has been through the construction of more water infrastructure such as hydro-electric dam projects on China’s many rivers. The country has over 14 major rivers including the famous Yangtze river running over 6000 kilometers in length. These projects are economically beneficial in that they produce electricity for various industries and they provide water for various users including the public, industry and agriculture. Manufacturing and other industries consume lots of water but help keep productivity and China’s trade surplus in check.

With such immense economic growth, and with water being indispensable for that growth, social friction starts to arise as citizens become displaced and soon homeless from such massive water projects. Hydro-electric dams like the Three Gorges Dam (the biggest hydro-electric dam in the world) has displaced millions of people along the Yangtze River where public consultation was non-existent and simply an impediment to building such a critical project.

According to Gleick’s research, many local governments are forced to protect local industries and jobs at the expense of displacement and crippling water protection. Economic development is driven by the utilization of water resources. Case in point, water use per unit of GDP or economic productivity is higher in China compared to many other countries. In 2003, 465 cubic meters of water were used to produce 10,000 yuan worth of GDP, four times the world average and nearly 20 times that of Japan and Europe at that time.

The Chinese are currently building the South to-North Water Transfer Project, to “funnel 45 billion cubic meters a year to the northern part of the country from the Yangtze River basin. That project was approved in 2002 to address water shortages in the north. Even if fully built, it will not be completed until in the middle of this century. Amid construction, there is growing concern about both environmental and social problems.”

This is just a contemporary example of a hydro-electric dam stirring up controversy. China recently announced that total investments in the water sector during its five year plan (2006-2011) could be as large as one trillion yuan (156 billion Canadian $). This investment will focus on water distribution systems and the construction of thousands of wastewater treatment plants. Fortunately, wastewater treatment plants will help improve quality of life and help with environmental protection efforts (I'll blog about this in Part 2).

So, is China suffering from that conventional economy versus environment debate? Water resources are being exploited for energy purposes, industrial uses and keeping local economies going. However, such large scale projects have produced a lot of social issues and polluted rivers.

We often overlook the salient connection between water and economic growth. In China, this connection is indeed a critical one and vastly important for the country’s future. China is expanding water supply through dams and forthcoming coastal desalination. These are innovative engineering solutions but the equations do not always account for “people”. And in China, people or persons equal 1.3 billion. Thus, expanding water supply must be done in an equitable way that benefits all water users including the public, industry, agriculture and commerce. Dams and increasing water supply must be balanced with public participation and consultation, water education and conservation.

In the next part, I will discuss water quality in China and the current policies in place to protect that water. I will also touch on quantity and what China is doing in terms of pricing and rationing i.e. some of the economics.

Transportation planning in Austria?

I got this image from David Levinson's Transportationist blog. Perhaps a good example of bad urban planning in Klagenfurt, Austria.