Water auctions and participatory water management

An excellent article by Abraham Abhishek on innovative ways to improve water management. Some highlights from the post:

"The Umatilla County Critical Groundwater Solutions Taskforce in Oregon, United States is a body that represents government officials, scientists and (perhaps most importantly) various communities and native tribes in the county. It was formed in response to a dual crisis - rapidly depleting groundwater, and impending conflict amongst various users in the county and neighbouring areas. The taskforce enabled water users and technocrats to work together, which resulted in comprehensive planning and effective implementation of groundwater management activities".

"the proposed water auction mechanism and the observed water management system—seem to make at least one common suggestion: that water security demands efficient water management, which should be based on decentralized decision making. All-in-auctions run counter to the more centralized processes of reallocating water rights, represented by quotas and subsidies. Umatilla-like participatory planning and outreach brings water governance a notch closer to the end users".

Full article here.

Public Perceptions on Water Issues in British Columbia

For the past two months I have been blogging for the Adaptation to Climate Change Team out of Simon Fraser University (SFU). As part of my internship with them, I have been blogging about Bob Sandford's cross-Canada tour where he has been presenting on the need for strong water governance and water policy reform in this country. Bob has been touring for almost two months now visiting the Prairies, Maritimes, Ontario, Quebec, BC, and Alberta. He is a water policy author for the Adaptation to Climate Change Team.

You can read my blog posts on the tour stops in Vancouver (summary of the presentation here, reactions from the audience here). And for Victoria (summary of the presentation here and reactions from the crowd here).

In short, the presentations in Vancouver and Victoria focused on a number of issues in water management centred on BC's Water Act Modernization Process and the exemplary water strategy in the Northwest Territories that should act as a resource for cities across the country.

Happy reading.

Edward Glaeser interviewed with The Economist

This 10 minute video is an interview with Edward Glaeser, Professor of Economics at Harvard about his book "Triumph of the City". I have made reference to Glaeser's work countless times on this blog. I read his book in the spring and blogged about it here.

If you are interested in getting a snapshot of his book, check out the interview above. At the end of the interview, he mentions how technology such as real-time information for buses is only going to make our cities more manageable, efficient and pleasant to live in. I couldn't agree more and wrote a paper on this very topic for an urban transit class which you can view here.

I think Glaeser has a number of good ideas; some are vehemently rejected by the planning community. Some are embraced. But for anyone interested in cities (from an academic perspective or other) his work is highly informative and edifying.

Canada's leadership on the environment: dwindling or non-existent?

Among many of the articles I have read of late, along with hearing from prominent Canadian scientists and environmentalists, the state of Canada's commitment to the environment is eroding very quickly. An article from the Guardian provides some cogent facts:

-Canada's Stephen Harper government is spending more than 60 billion dollars on new military jets and warships while slashing more than 200 million dollars in funding for research and monitoring of the environment

-Some 776 Environment Canada employees have been told their jobs may be terminated. That's 11 percent of the current staff in a government department that has been a favourite target for budget and staff cuts for the past decade, to the point where it was barely functional

-For 34 years, the non-partisan Canadian Environmental Network (RCEN) successfully walked the line between the needs of government and the needs of its more than 650 civil society members. But on Oct. 13, after waiting more than six months for its expected 536,000 dollars in annual funding, the group was informed by letter it would not be coming. Ever.

-If there is a need to reduce the federal budget deficit, why is Canada continuing to give the oil and gas industry 1.4 billion dollars (1.3 billion U.S.) in subsidies every year?

My intention here is not to solely seek out facts that make the federal government look bad; but instead, raise some issues that I feel are quite salient. Making cuts to environmental and climatic research in 2011 sounds absurd to me. Moreover, the continuation of subsidizing an industry -- highly destructive to ecosystems and water supplies to say the least -- will lead Canada to become the world's most heavy GHG emitter. Sounds more backwards than economically productive to me.

Juliet Schor on the politics of consumption

Juliet Schor's E. F. Schumacher Lecture from New Economics Institute on Vimeo.


Juliet Schor is Professor of Sociology at Boston College. The video above is a lecture she delivered at the Thirty-First Annual E. F. Schumacher Lectures, New York City, November 5th, 2011.

Here is a summary of one of her ideas:

"2. Quality of life rather than quantity of stuff. Twenty-five years ago quality-of-life indicators began moving in an opposite direction from our measures of income, or Gross Domestic Product, a striking divergence from historic trends. Moreover, the accumulating evidence on well-being, at least its subjective measures (and to some extent objective measures, such as health), suggests that above the poverty line, income is relatively unimportant in affecting well-being. This may be because what people care about is relative, not absolute income. Or it may be because increases in output undermine precisely those factors which do yield welfare. Here I have in mind the growing worktime requirements of the market economy, and the concomitant decline in family, leisure, and community time; the adverse impacts of growth on the natural environment; and the potential link between growth and social capital".

More here.

Is local food production inefficient?

Freaknomics blog author Steve Sexton writes:

"implicit in the argument that local farming is better for the environment than industrial agriculture is an assumption that a “relocalized” food system can be just as efficient as today’s modern farming. That assumption is simply wrong. Today’s high crop yields and low costs reflect gains from specialization and trade, as well as scale and scope economies that would be forsaken under the food system that locavores endorse".

He argues that specialization and trade, economies of scale and even the health implications of local food do not make sense.

I disagree with a number of his points and feel that he has not adequately captured the local economic benefits of farmers' markets, the immense potential urban farmers have in helping contribute to our growing and vibrant cities and the educational possibilities associated with localizing our food choices. I understand he is arguing from an economics perspective but local food production is beyond just an economics discussion.  I will let my colleagues who work in this area respond to this article.

To refresh, Harvard economics professor Ed Glaeser (who I admire very much) is also against local food production. My friend wrote a critique of his article back in July which you can view here.

Read the Freakonomics article by Steve Sexton. Some of you will agree, some will disagree. This is a critical issue of our time especially as food prices continue to rise and our nations continue to urbanize.

Green lifestyle choices won’t solve the climate problem

Check out this article by Gar Lipow on why individual choices to be green may not help in the long run. He argues that sustainability is a collective affair requiring collective solutions. Further, he posits that governments (especially the U.S.) do not spend enough on public goods:

"Setting an example by doing some simple, logical things to reduce an individual environmental footprint is wonderful. But ultimately, we will not make up, through private spending or lifestyle changes, for the fact that we currently don't invest enough in public goods. Nor will we privately make up for the fact that much of our public spending is directed to the wrong public goods".

He uses the example of railways versus highways in the U.S. to illustrate his point:

"The road to our current predicament was long, and built on public policy and public investment. Take the gradual reduction of freight rail in this country, for example. We have less than half the miles of freight-rail track we had at the peak of freight-rail shipping; that is a result of a massive public investment in public highways -- which do not in fact pay for themselves [PDF]. In our system, rail pays property tax and highways don't, much of the so-called gas tax is really diverted sales tax, and railroads also pay fuel taxes but don't get fuel tax money back the way highways do".

While I agree with many of the points raised in this article, I still believe that individual actions (i.e. using less water, using public transit over driving, for example) can go a long way insofar as we have the communication channels to support these activities. Investment in public goods has been declining, no doubt, but we live in an era where communication via social media and public events can at least harness and shift those "individual actions" into a more collaborative and collective effort.

The age of information is a powerful one and the more individuals arguing for their green choices -- via the web, telling their friends and peers and sharing in schools and workplaces -- the more weight these arguments will have when presented to politicians.

Once the information sharing begins along with collectively arguing for the benefits we can indeed derive from public goods, people may become less apathetic and more vocal to their politicians. These collective efforts can demand change and lead to benefits for all.

The Gated City by Ryan Avent

For you urbanites out there, check out this podcast with Ryan Avent, author of The Gated City.

Avent's central thesis is that cities in the United States such as Boston, NYC, San Francisco and Washington D.C. are all very desirable places to live but are very expensive to live in. There are many reasons for this including limited and restrictive housing construction which drives up housing costs. Thus, they have not seen the same levels of population growth and housing stock construction as places like Houston, Las Vegas and Phoenix, for example.

Is this a bad thing? Depends on which question you are asking. Avent suggests that the coastal cities that have not seen a growing housing stock and are pricing out a lot of people (including middle class families and skilled labour). These are the people we need to keep our cities productive. As cities become more and more attractive places, demand for housing will inevitably increase.

But if housing supply does not respond to this demand, then how are they suppose to grow? And if one of our goals is to foster vibrant and productive cities by providing skilled jobs for people who cannot even afford to live there (hint hint,Vancouver) then we fail at achieving our main goal.

Avent talks about how self-interested people living in high dense and highly desirably places (like San Francisco) can fight against housing development in their neighbourhoods (classic NIMBYism) which pushes that development away to other places that are more open to housing development such as Houston. Sound familiar? It should be. Ed Glaeser discusses the environmental implications of this at length.

Some statistics and facts from the podcast:

"The median owner-occupied home in Houston in 2009 was just about $130,000 in value. And in San Jose it was over $600,000. And that just dwarfs the difference in wages. And it's not associated with the difference in construction costs. There is a difference in construction costs but it's very small relative to the premium due to the difficulty in building in those areas in the country".

"From 2001-2009, the housing stock in Boston, NY, and the Silicon Valley area, each of those, it grew by a little over 5%. And then you look at a city like Las Vegas, the housing stock grew by almost 40%. And in places like Phoenix and Charlotte it grew by 25%. So it's just a huge difference in growth in the housing stock, which really has nothing to do with demand but has entirely to do with the ease of building in those places".

There is a fascinating discussion in this podcast about city politics, urban planning, how zoning can be problematic, the consequences of distorting public policy and much more.

If you want a more condensed version of this, check out this 10 minute video via The Economist.

Here is a short review of the book.

Keystone XL Pipeline and its discontents

From the New York Times' Green blog:

"Thousands turned out on Sunday at the White House for a protest against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta some 1,700 miles to Texas. Opponents say that oil sands processing contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, and that the pipeline itself could threaten a precious aquifer".

More here from the Winnipeg Free Press.

Bicycle friendly cities

The Copenhagen Index for the World's most bike-friendly cities has been released for 2011. Here is a bit context about the index:

Image Credit: mindbodygreen.com

"Early in 2011 a discussion arose at Copenhagenize Consulting about what cities really are the best cities for urban cycling. Over a period of six months our team has gathered information and statistics and developed an index with which we could rate cities for bicycle friendliness. It was originally meant to be a tool for internal use in the company but after a period of time we realised that the index was perhaps worth releasing on the internet".

The index is based on 13 criteria including bicycle culture, infrastructure, bike facilities, bike share programs, gender split, perception and safety and more.

Amsterdam took 1st place followed by Copenhagen and Barcelona. For North American cities, Montreal took first followed by Portland. Way to go Montreal!

Here is more information about how the index was created.

David Suzuki on moving forward

Last night, I had the pleasure of hearing David Suzuki speak at a public lecture at UBC. I heard Dr. Suzuki speak four years ago at Trent when his messages then were slightly more pessimistic (and that was pre-global financial crisis).

This time around, the messages, I think, were far more positive and inspiring. I came out of the Chan Centre at UBC feeling optimistic and telling myself that as a planner, a lot of work needs to be done on the ecological, social and political front to advance sustainability in our society.

But it's not just planners that will have a role in this, it's everyone in society who has a vested interest in preserving the ecological systems that support our economies, and those who care about the welfare of future generations. It is the responsibility of everyone in society as this is a collective task. As Marshall Mcluhan put it "There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth. We are all crew".

Here are a few messages from Dr. Suzuki's lecture that I want to share:

1) This time around, he was highly critical of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Among many of his critiques, he focused on Harper's anti-environmental science mentality as evidenced by the downsizing of Environment Canada through laying off scientists. David thinks this is absurd given the hitherto, well established science on climate change and its impacts to Canada. We need all of the scientists we can at this point to relay the information needed to bring about policies that help Canada adapt to climate change while concomitantly mitigating our emissions.

2)  Being tough on carbon emissions means shrinking economic growth? Suzuki was particularly vocal about this one. He criticized Harper for making claims that taking action on climate change will reduce Canada's economic competitiveness. Scandinavian countries, particularly Sweden, have been very effective at cutting down emissions and growing their economy.

Suzuki made note of Sweden's introduction of a carbon tax in the 1990s which helped reduce the country's Co2 emissions by 9% below 1990 levels (thus meeting the Kyoto targets) while growing their economy by over 30%. Thus, there are examples out there of success, political will is the problem.

He argued that developed countries like Canada are so fixated and obsessed with "GDP" that we miss other important aspects of life such as belonging to a community to build relationships, going for walks to enjoy nature, getting to know our neighbours, volunteering, taking time away from work to appreciate other parts of life such as spending time with family. All of these activities are part of our human nature yet GDP does not capture them and thus they become trivial from a economic growth perspective.

3) We need to think about future generations! David was very clear on this one and I found this part of his lecture to be the most inspiring. As a 75 year old with grandchildren, he remarked that it is his grandchildren that keep him going everyday. Thinking about our future children, our future planet and the world they inherit is something that First Nations discuss through the 7 generations model. David told stories about his dad being the most important figure in his life in terms of wisdom, understanding the importance of family and thinking about the next generation.

He talked about living at his same house in Kitsilano for over 30 years and making space for his grandchildren. We need to step back and think about what we really need and want as a society. Do we really need that extra car, Iphone, large television set etc. David challenges us to think carefully about our consumption in light of succeeding generations.

4)

My only criticism of his talk was his rant about cities putting us out of touch with nature. He does have a point about how we used to be farming societies that generally lived within our means and did not consume like the urbanites we are today. However, cities are the future and whether we acknowledge this or not, they are the engines of creativity, talent, opportunity and innovation. As Jane Jacobs put it "the point of cities are multiplicity of choice".

So, I agree with David that nature is often restricted in cities and that's why we need to make more conscious efforts to preserve and promote nature within them (as done masterfully by Vancouver's Stanley Park). Losing connection to nature is what fuels consumption with completel disregard for ecological systems.

I was very happy when I left his lecture - inspired and feeling challenged on how I am going to confront these issues in my lifetime.

Here are some other links about David's life, his ideas and his leadership on such an important topic of our time.

The story of the future has yet to be told

Environmentalism's mistakes and where to go from here

On green energy

Ontario's leadership in Water Conservation

For the past month I have been blogging for the Adaptation to Climate Change Team out of Simon Fraser University (SFU). As part of my internship with them, I have been blogging about Bob Sandford's cross-Canada tour on Canadian water governance. Bob has been touring for a month now visiting the Prairies, Maritimes, Ontario and now BC. He is a water policy author for the Adaptation to Climate Change Team.

Here is the first post on Saskatchewan. Here is the latest post on Ontario.

Happy reading.