What is water's dollar value to the Canadian economy?

Image credit: http://blue-economy.ca/

The question above was partially answered by a research project called the Blue Economy Initiative involving a team of authors from the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation, Canadian Water Network and RBC Blue Water Project.

Among the impressive list of authors is Professor Steven Renzetti, an environmental economist and one of Canada's biggest thinkers on the economics of water. You can read a summary here, which features an interview between Water Canada and Professor Renzetti. The report finds that water is responsible for a contribution to Canada's economy of between $7.8 and $22.9 billion.

Here is an excerpt from the interview:

"We just don’t know what the value of water is in Canada today. That’s the biggest concern. We’re making decisions on public capital and infrastructure and improving water quality, but we don’t have enough information to determine whether these decisions are sound. As usual, it’s a typical academic result in that we don’t know enough and we should.

To promote dialogue about how water contributes to the economy, people need to understand the wide range of ways from which we derive benefits from it. We need to have more experience and knowledge on measuring these values so we can incorporate them into decision making and protect the resource. Another worry is that we’re falling behind. When you look at places such as the European Union and China, they have large research programs aimed at informing decision makers about biodiversity and ecosystems. Here, we have lots of scientists worrying about the chemical and physical natures of water, but we don’t know about its economical nature. It means we’re not going to make good decisions".

Read the full interview 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.

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.

The Business Case for Public Transit

Chris and I have blogged a fair bit about transportation issues through Enviro Boys. However, rarely have we discussed the business case for public transit and the multiplier effect it creates such as benefits for individual businesses, attracting creative and talented people to a city, moving millions of people everyday and really being the lifeblood of a vibrant and economically productive city.

My friend, Lewis Kelly, wrote a brilliant article for Alberta Venture on making the business case for public transit. His article is mostly focused on the new Light Rail Transit lines in Calgary and Edmonton. Here is an excerpt from his article:

"Regardless of their fiscal efficiency, rail lines tend to get built because of their political expediency – and the reasons for that are the same reasons that make building new train lines do wonders for business. People like riding trains and living in cities with extended rail networks. There’s an expectation among prospective employees that any world-class city will offer a certain level of cultural sophistication, diversity and a well-run rail network. “It really comes down to incubating and becoming a draw for talent,” says Brunnen at the Calgary chamber. “When we invest in these major public-transit infrastructure projects, we become more desirable for new investment – because we become more desirable as an international destination of talent.”

He also quotes two professors I think highly of, Professor Eric Miller at U of T and Professor Murtaza Haider at Ryerson U.

I think planners, environmentalists and other transit advocates should spend more time discussing the economic and business benefits of transit. After all, when glancing at the numbers, it is clear that investments in public transit can yield benefits far superior to simply investing in roads and highways. Ultimately, transit systems improve mobility and accessibility for our cities which in turn, create environmental and social benefits. And when transit is clearly linked to economic productivity (and being good for individual businesses) it is hard to argue against it. The more advocacy from different sectors and groups in society, the better!

Climate Change Adaptation and Water Governance report

In May 2011, I started an internship with the Adaptation to Climate Change Team (ACT) out of SFU. One of my job responsibilities was to review and provide on-going feedback to the Climate Change Adaptation and Water Governance report led by policy author Bob Sandford. After months of revisions and feedback from several professionals, academics and students working in the field of climate change adaptation, ACT released the finalized version of the report on Tuesday October 4th. Here is a snapshot of it:

“The days when Canadians take an endless abundance of fresh water for granted are numbered,” warns Bob Sandford, lead author of ACT’s new report Climate Change Adaptation and Water Governance. “Increasing average temperatures, climate change impacts on weather patterns and extensive changes in land use are seriously affecting the way water moves through the hydrological cycle in many parts of Canada, which is seriously impacting water quantity and quality."

“The reform of water governance structures in Canada is essential if we want to successfully manage and protect our water supplies and minimize climate-related impacts on our environment, our economy and our society,” says Sandford."

To inquire about more details of the report along with some of the work I have been doing over the past 5 months, see here.

The Economic Impacts of Climate Change for Canada

From the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRT):

"Climate change could be expensive for Canada. Unless global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are brought down and Canada invests in adaptation, the economic impacts of climate change on Canada could climb to billions of dollars per year.

Those are the conclusions of a new report of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy called Paying the Price: The Economic Impacts of Climate Change for Canada. This is the first national-level study assessing the economic impacts of climate change on Canada.

We found that the costs of impacts could range from $5 billion per year in 2020 to between $21 billion and $43 billion per year in 2050, depending on global greenhouse gas emissions and domestic economic and population growth. There are also risks that costs could be much higher – for example, there is a 5% chance of costs exceeding $91B per year in the 2050s with high climate change and rapid socioeconomic development".

More about the report here.

An Oil Sands Pipeline and Obama's Decision...

One of North America's largest and most lucrative petroleum pipeline projects is awaiting the decision from the USA's commander-in-chief. As outlined by the Globe & Mail, TransCanada Corp's Keystone XL pipeline would extend from oil sands-rich Alberta to the gulf coast of Texas, a hub of the American oil industry. Opponents charge that the project will only increase GHG emissions, put entire ecosystems and water sources at risk, and put another significant damper on an already struggling yet budding renewable energy industry.

Image: Pipelines International

The developers are ready to go and with little protest coming from governments north of the border, the project is only awaiting the key approvals from various US authorities. The State Department is expected to release its report over the next couple of months, but the growing consensus is that the report will be supportive of the project.

And so, those of the environmentalist ilk will have to hope that their last line of defence will come through in the clutch: Obama. The Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency have grounds to appeal any State Department decision to the president himself, ultimately leaving Obama to approve the proposal, reject it or even slow it down by requiring further study. This has many environmentalists feeling very optimistic. But what they do not know is which Obama will come to the table. Will it be the 2008 campaigning Obama that promised to create a green economy, refuse imports of 'dirty oil' and even considered reopening NAFTA? Or will they get the more centrist Obama that, primarily under political duress, has had to steer many of his policies to the right in order to keep everyone happy?

Electric Trolley Buses in Winnipeg



Image credit: http://bc.transport-action.ca/images/TL_2007_NFI_E60LF_2533.jpg

A recent visit to Vancouver had me riding public transit nearly every day. Much of Vancouver's bus system is actually an electric trolley bus system, where normal looking buses are powered by overhead wires delivering electricity. Tim, somewhat of a growing expert in these things, told me this has a lot to do with the abundance of cheap and 'green' electricity available to Vancouver from British Columbia's massive hydroelectric resources. Which got me thinking: could this work in Winnipeg?

Winnipeg is by far the largest centre in Manitoba, a province that generates nearly every kilowatt from hydroelectric resources. Like in B.C., a government monopoly, Manitoba Hydro, owns and operates the electricity system, keeping prices low and even generating more electricity than is needed in the province. It is a low-emissions and plentiful resource. Nearly all the public transit in the city is made up of buses and receives moderately popular ridership, particularly in those parts of the population -- a significant number in Winnipeg -- with lower incomes. And as oil and gas prices continue to climb, why not take advantage of the plentiful hydro resource?

Some of it might be explained by looking at Winnipeg's public transit history. Like many cities in North America, its public transit system emerged at the end of the 19th century primarily made up of horse-drawn carriages. Spurred on by the loss of its horse fleet to a fire and the inevitable progress of technology, the city began incorporating electric streetcars (trolleys) into the system, a network that would look somewhat similar to the trolley bus system described earlier. This would eventually be scrapped in the 1960s when cost overruns and competition gave way to taxis, cars and bus service, which Winnipeg has largely relied on ever since. The infrastructure of overhead wires was removed and little remains of the old trolley system.

Winnipeg has benefited from the evolution of other cities' transit systems. Throughout the 1980s, Winnipeg snagged 50 diesel-powered buses from Calgary and Edmonton as the cities expanded their light rail systems. More recently, the city has upgraded its fleet and flirted with the expansion to diesel-electric hybrid buses. With an already large and upgraded fleet, it would seem unwise to invest immediately into an electric trolley bus system.

History aside, how viable might a system like this even be in Winnipeg? The city is painfully cold in the winters and receives considerable snowfall. The former is not as much of a problem, but snowfall has a tendency to knock off the connection between the buses and the wires above. More importantly, heavy snowfall might force buses to reroute and detours can be exceptionally long when you're dependent on an overhead wire. Electric trolley buses, too, are known as particularly advantageous in hilly cities -- like Vancouver and San Francisco -- because of the high torque in electric motors, but in a city which's highest point is a landfill, this isn't quite as much of an issue. And it ain't cheap to install a complex infrastructure of overhead cables.



Image credit: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4004/4585122508_b1c358ba49.jpg

The city's most recent transit developments also help to explain the situation. In an effort to significantly expand and modernize its transit system, the city has begun construction of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, connecting major corridors throughout the city. BRT systems usually have roads exclusively used by buses for high speed service, frequent service and when having to join regular traffic, transit priority signals and diamond lanes give them a boost. Anyone familiar with Ottawa or Miami's public transit would have an idea as to how this works. It is an expensive ordeal, and in a city whose budget is not outrageously affluent -- a light rail proposal fell by the wayside because of cost -- any new infrastructure, regardless of future savings, could be a real pain in the ass.

With the information above, it is sensible why the electric trolley bus system hasn't taken off in Winnipeg. But with Manitoba's electricity resources at hand, there must be ways to incorporate it into the public transit system. Sure, a full fledged system around the city might be unnecessary, costly and problematic, but the installation of trolley bus systems would make sense on straightforward and popular routes, like the express routes across the city and especially the new BRT routes. The new buses travelling those roads may very well be diesel-electric hybrids, but a simple network of cables overtop these straightforward transitways could pay off in spades in the future.

A Green Mortgage

Looking at buying a home? Even the banks can see the benefits of going green and are happy to reward you for it.

In March of 2011, the Bank of Montreal (BMO) began offering a mortgage plan that provides a relatively low lending rate to homeowners whose homes are 'green'. Provided your home meets the necessary criteria -- primarily having ENERGY STAR rated products and several other high efficiency units -- you can receive a lending rate several points lower than the typical mortgage. For example, the current rate on a low five year fixed mortgage from BMO is 4.14%, while the green mortgage comes in at 3.89%, which could save homeowners thousands of dollars over the five year period.

BMO isn't the only Canadian bank in on this. TD also has a similar discounted rate, while RBC and CIBC offer rebates from certain home inspections and energy upgrades.

It's nice to see the private sector starting to pick up some of the slack left behind by the federal government -- ahem, the Harper Government. After years as a success under Liberal and Conservative governments, the ecoEnergy home retrofit program (formerly EnerGuide) was discontinued in March, 2011. The programs had provided Canadian home and business owners with significant rebates for energy-related upgrades, upwards of $10,000 when paired with matching provincial rebates. Given the Conservative environmental platform, its vow to cut the deficit and its new majority government, it seems highly unlikely that any similar program will return anytime soon.

Home retrofits are some of the most economical changes people can make to decrease their environmental impact on the world. Things like weather stripping, insulation and new furnaces can often pay for themselves in energy savings in less than five years. Unfortunately, the high upfront cost can prohibit a lot of homeowners from making such investments, so every little bit helps.

Of course, given the current state of the Canadian economy and the hit the mortgage market took in the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult to get your hands on a mortgage. And given the strict criteria for the plan, this will likely benefit the affluent before the poor. But hey, you have to start somewhere.

GHG emissions in Canada

The following link, provided by the Conference Board of Canada, provides a useful breakdown of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and how we compare to other countries.

 Image credit: Natural Resources Canada, 2011

• Canada ranks second-to-last out of 17 countries for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per capita and earns a “D” grade.
• Canada’s GHG emissions have increased by 32 per cent in 15 years.
• The largest contributor to Canada’s GHG emissions is the energy sector, which includes combustion, transportation, and fugitive sources. 

Check it out here.

Guest Entry: Climate Change and the Construction Industry

By: Trevor Shah

We frequently hear about the negative impacts of climate change, but not often do we talk about the potential positive impacts and the opportunities that can stem from it. I wanted to take the chance to write about an industry that stands to benefit from increased global temperatures: the North American construction industry.

But before I begin explaining why this industry will benefit from higher global temperatures, please note that I will be using the A2 scenario from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). This conservative scenario projects an increase in global temperatures by about two degrees Celsius. Evidently, this temperature rise will contribute to many environmental changes which will greatly affect the construction industry.

To begin, there will be a rise in home and corporate building retrofits which will generate additional business for the construction industry. This is primarily due to rising electricity and natural gas prices in North America. Total electricity demand is projected to increase by 30 percent in 2035 (from 2008 levels). Accompanying this growth in demand is a 39 percent rise in electricity prices from the current average price. In addition, the price of natural gas in the U.S. and Canada is expected to double as demand intensifies and lower-cost resources are depleted. If the United States and Canadian governments decide to introduce a carbon tax system, the price of natural gas will rise even further. This is because natural gas produces 117,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per billion British Thermal Units (BTU) of energy.

Due to rising energy prices, housing and building retrofits will generate higher savings and shorter payback periods. Furthermore, building retrofits will grow even more profoundly if Canadian and American governments continue to offer incentives such as energy retrofit programs. The U.S. Government will be offering $452 million for the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE program) which will allocate funds for energy efficiency retrofits. The United States government also recently introduced the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) PowerSaver Loan Program which provides Americans with up to $25,000 in low-cost loans from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These programs will lead to considerable growth in home retrofits resulting in additional business for the construction industry.

Second, the United States will continue to experience increasing weather extremes due to climate change: heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity, hurricanes, heat waves, rainfall intensity and cold season storms are likely to become more frequent with stronger winds. Combined, these weather extremes will cause a surge in property damage.

In addition, regions with rivers and lakes will need to be protected from floods as the amplified intensity of rainfall and storms continues to rise. The associated clean-up and repair work will generate considerable business for the North American construction industry. This is what Matt Kahn discusses at length in his book Climatopolis. That is, forward looking entrepreneurs --such as those found in the construction industry -- can reap huge profits if people start to think more seriously about the value of adapting to climate change. People will soon realize the need to make their homes more climate change resilient and this will allow the construction industry and other forward looking entrepreneurs to innovate and make profits.

The demand for more resilient building materials, greater protection buffers around our homes and even the floating home idea proposed by Tom Mayne, will not only help urbanites adapt to climate change risks (floods, hurriances etc) but bring about new innovation, smart design and creativity from construction companies, product designers and more.

There will certainly be negative consequences of rising global temperatures on the North American construction industry. Firstly, the cost of construction materials are likely to increase due to higher demand, greater transportation costs, depletion of natural resources and future carbon taxes. Secondly, rises in global temperature may create unsafe working conditions due to extreme heat and the frequency of heat waves (say if you live in cities like LA or Phoenix). Lastly, melting of the permafrost will reduce the bearing capacity of the soil causing settlement and structural damage. However, these negative impacts are offset by the significant benefits.

I don’t mean to paint a negative or daunting future for North America. Instead, I wanted to talk about some of the opportunities that climate change can bring to industries like construction and forward looking people who care about the future and environmental sustainability.

Trevor Shah is a third-year commerce student at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. He is currently on an international student exchange in Bangkok, Thailand.

HSR in Canada?

A recent article from CTV news titled "Trainwreck: Canada's high-speed rail failure" provides a detailed summary of the current debate surrounding high speed rail in Canada. Here is a quick refresher on the benefits of HSR (courtesy of the article):

• They're fast. Japanese and French high-speed trains have both reached mind-boggling speeds of over 575 km/h. The Chinese, who are quickly becoming a leader in high-speed rail, had a recent test of a passenger train that hit 486 km/h on a soon-to-be-opened link between Shanghai and Beijing.

• Dedicated high-speed rail lines are ridiculously efficient -- at least in Japan. Officials there point out that trains are punctual down-to-the-minute, even with 300 million riders a year.
  
  
• They're safe. There has not been a single fatality in either the Japanese or French system. An average of seven Canadians die in road accidents every day.

• Environmentally, there is no better way to move a large amount of people, unless someone builds a really, big bike.

• Major economic benefits. Study after study says high-speed rail creates significant numbers of permanent jobs and massive residual benefits. An Alberta government report suggested a Calgary-Edmonton high-speed line could be worth $33 billion to the economy.

• Canada has the home-grown expertise in a company such as Bombardier.

While I recognize the drawbacks and limitations of HSR, I don't think it's worth criticizing this transport mode right now when they are starting to be recognized as a sustainable transportation solution. There is no shortage of ideas on how we can make HSR feasible and operational in Canada, or North America more broadly. My friend Leonard, shared a great idea on this blog a few weeks ago on how we can make progress on the HSR front. Alas, money and budget constraints often limit funds for sustainable and innovative infrastructure projects like HSR lines.

Many HSR proponents do not advocate for a national HSR line in Canada. That would be too expensive and impractical considering the geography and low population density of this country. The two corridors in Canada that would be suitable for an HSR line include Calgary-Edmonton and the Quebec-Windsor corridor, where half of Canada's population lives.

Jeff Casello, a prof of transportation planning and engineering at U of Waterloo, says "the capacity of Toronto's Lester B. Pearson Airport and Highway 401 is maxed out, making high-speed rail an attractive alternative. I think there's very strong consideration on the (Quebec-Windsor corridor) considering the limits on Pearson and its ability to handle any more traffic and the unwillingness to invest in widening the 401. There's realization that there needs to be some redundancy in our transportation network, so we can't rely on a single mode to satisfy all our transportation needs".

Read more here.

A Wind Energy Update in Canada

Image credit:
http://top-10-list.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/wind-energy.jpg

I love renewable energy but I usually don't blog about it. While I am relatively informed about wind energy (thanks to Chris and his comprehensive 100-page honour's thesis on wind energy deployment in Canada) I thought I would write a post about it.

The Globe and Mail (don't worry, I read other news sources too) had a special information feature on climate change and the environment a few days ago. The articles were written by representatives from several groups and institutes including Alberta's Pembina Institute, the University of Calgary's Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy, the David Suzuki Foundation and an article from the CEO of Siemens AG.

One of the articles discussed how wind energy was the world's fastest growing source of electricity generation in the U.S. and the EU in 2009. Canada, they argue, has a long way to go in fully developing its wind energy capacity. Wind energy in Canada has enough power to ostensibly generate at least 20% of Canada's electricity by 2025. That's huge!

Alberta is currently looking at renewable sources of energy, like wind, to alleviate its dependence on dirty coal-based electricity. According to the report from the Pembina Institute, the generating potential of wind in Alberta was estimated at 64,000 megawatts (MW). To put that in perspective, if you look at the IESO wind tracker located at the top right corner of this blog, 127 MW is enough electricity to power the City of Newmarket (population about 80,000). Just imagine what 64,000 MW could do.

In Canada, electricity generation is responsible for 17% of all greenhouse gas pollution, more than that produced by all of the cars on Canada's road. Both the Pembina Institute and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) are strong proponents for this renewable energy but continuously face obstacles from organizations and wind-opposing folks that Chris has talked about in the past.

It has been reported that a typical wind turbine in Canada produces enough power to meet the needs of 450 homes. Canada ranks 11th in the world in terms of wind energy-based electricity generation. Who are the leaders? 20% of Denmark's electricity is from wind sources, in Spain it is 13%, in Portugal, 12% and Ireland 9%.

Robert Hornung from CanWEA says that when measured as a percentage of total electricity production, Canada ranks significantly lower generating about 1.5% right now. Policy is the big challenge. We need incentives he argues. The federal production incentive program for wind energy is coming to an end. "Without a stable, clear-cut and long-term strategy to facilitate wind energy development, it will be hard to attract wind energy investment in Canada".

The key message is that federal government needs to send the right signals to renewable energy markets that demonstrate the need and importance of wind energy in this country. Alberta is constantly criticized for its oil sands industry and heavy dependence on coal based electricity. Alberta has a great opportunity to pursue this technology right now to earn some green points. But other provinces must also continue to increase their wind energy potential with the help of government incentives and strong renewable energy markets.

On a promising note, the International Energy Agency predicts that $20 trillion (US dollars) will be invested in renewable energy projects worldwide in the next 22 years. C'mon Canada, this is your chance to shine!

Guest Entry: Assessing the Environmental Impacts of the Tar Sands

By: Trevor Shah

Please note that I will not focus on the economic benefits of the Tar Sands as these are already widely known. Rather, I focus on the detrimental environmental impacts as these far outweigh the short-term economic benefits.

Land Use
In March 2008, Syncrude Canada became the first oil company to receive a reclamation certificate from the Alberta government for restoring 104 hectares of land. Syncrude claims to have restored 22 percent of their disturbed land to date; however the Alberta government has not given Syncrude a reclamation certificate for this restored land (apart from the 104 hectares).

The Alberta government has been criticized by the Alberta Auditor General for its poor record in tracking land reclamation of Tar Sands operators. According to the Government of Alberta, only 0.16 percent of the total land disturbed by Tar Sands extraction has been reclaimed. This 0.16 percent represents the 104 hectares of land that was reclaimed by Syncrude in March 2008.
The 11 companies operating in the oil sands claim to have collectively restored 11 percent of total disturbed land; however, there is no government certification to support this claim.

This is highlighted very clearly in Figure 2 (of my report) which shows the gap between the disturbance of land and its reclamation rates. Further, it is important to note that the blue line represents the land that has been reclaimed by industry, not the land that has been certified by the government.

Water
Tar Sands mining operators have been licensed to extract 359 million cubic meters of water from the Athabasca River. This is double the amount of water consumed by the City of Calgary annually. What’s more, 92 percent of this water ends up in contaminated tailing ponds and the Government of Alberta does not have any reclamation standards for the 840 million cubic metres of tailing lakes. Few technologies exist to remediate tailing lakes and those that do exist, are extremely costly: it is estimated that the cost of remediating one tonne of tailings is between $13.09 and $16.40.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Alberta Tar Sands are the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Furthermore, Tar Sands companies do not have to pay to neutralize their carbon emissions. By 2015, Fort McMurray will emit more greenhouse gas emissions than all of Denmark, a country with 5.5 million citizens. Further, it is estimated that Tar Sands oil produces at least three times more emissions per barrel than conventional crude oil.

Sand Waste
By 2010, the Tar Sands industry will have generated eight billion tonnes of sand waste which contains naphthenic acid and paraffin: chemicals which can have adverse health effects on mammals leading to liver problems and brain haemorrhaging.

Earth and Soil Waste
According to the Government of Alberta (2007), open pit mining entails “clearing trees and brush from a site and removing the overburden - the topsoil, muskeg, sand, clay and gravel - that sits atop the Tar Sands deposit”. This overburden is often 75 metres deep and is taken offsite by large trucks. In the end, it is estimated that four tonnes of earth must be removed for every barrel of oil produced.

The Government of Alberta must set stricter environmental legislation that will ensure the price of oil is reflective of the aforementioned negative externalities it produces. Further, the Alberta government must impose deadlines for land and tailing ponds to be reclaimed by, and eliminate all government subsidies to Tar Sands companies. These strategies will increase the price of Tar Sands oil causing companies to invest in more efficient technologies, or leave the market due to reduced profitability.

To read the full report, see here [scribd].

Trevor Shah is a third-year commerce student at Queen’s University. He wrote a comprehensive report on the environmental impacts of the Tar Sands for his Sustainable Strategies Class.

What you should know about wise water use in Canada

I am currently doing some research on water policy in the City of Vancouver. We've been learning about sampling strategy and survey design in my statistics class. I am going to design a survey that gets at questions around the conservation, protection and value of water resources in Vancouver. The questions will largely be focused on residents and their attitudes and perceptions of water resources. My research question and design will be more sophisticated, don't worry. If you're interested in reading my research proposal and survey design, email me in December.

Anyway, I came across a highly useful and informative link provided by Environment Canada. It is an overview of water supply, infrastructure, conservation, water metering, technology and more. It's great!

Check it out here.

The Future of Oil

Jeff Rubin, author of Why your world is about to get a whole lot smaller, and Canadian journalist, Andrew Nikiforuk discuss the economic, environmental and social implications of conventional oil. The video is courtesy of TVO and was filmed at the Rotman School of Management at U of T earlier this year.

Jeff thinks that we have not reached peak oil per se, but a series of forthcoming commodity price shocks will make the price of oil more volatile and push it over $100 a barrel and eventually to $200 a barrel. Conventional oil is becoming more scarce but the unconventional stuff found in the Alberta's oil sands or in Venezuela, is plentiful but will become really expensive in the near future. Off-shore drilling has provided cheap oil to this planet for many years, but disasters like the recent Gulf Oil spill point to the precarious nature of such a process and the enormous risks posed to ecology and human beings.

"The world isn’t about to run out of oil—it’s just running out of oil that we can afford to burn. And whether we move goods by air, ship, truck or rail, the global economy runs on oil".

"In order to insulate ourselves from even greater oil price shocks in the future, we must move from the hugely energy-intensive model of a global economy to the far more sustainable model of a local economy. And that means we must re-engineer our lives to adapt to the contours of a much smaller world."

Andrew Nikiforuk is an outspoken critique of the Alberta oil sands which he regards as a petro state. He draws our attention to the negative environmental ramifications of the project and how it is tainting our image internationally. He also suggests that there are smart petro states such as Norway who have sovereign funds that help stabilize the oil economy. In essence, they maintain good oil production while diversifying the economy. They invest oil revenue into many sectors of the economy and also put money aside for future generations. Canada has lost over 300,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector because of an appreciating petro dollar. Without diversifying the economy, petro states will inevitably push up their real exchange rate and contract Dutch Disease.

Anyway, check out the video.

The environmental impact of right-wing populism...

Incumbents beware. Governments around the world are shaking in their boots as elections, and the prospect of finding new work, loom ever closer. As is common with any recession, incumbent governments take much of the heat. No matter what else is going on in the world, if the economy is performing poorly and unemployment rears its ugly head, people focus on it and only it. And the government is at fault if it isn't fixed soon.

But this recession has been among the worst in recent history. In some places, its impact has been the worst since the Great Depression. The unfortunate reality of a recession is that with less money being made, the government makes less income through taxes. And with less tax income comes a smaller provision of services. Budget gets tight, programs get cut and ties get severed. Any rational thinker knows that if you want to maintain public services -- which are even more important in less prosperous times -- you need to raise taxes. But from a political standpoint, there are few more lethal land mines.

Threats of necessary tax raises have given rise to populism. In the United States, no recent populist movement has been stronger and more influential than the right-wing Tea Party Movement. Among many other things, the Tea Party folks are staunchly opposed to taxes, government regulation and almost all forms of government involvement in the daily lives of people. The November midterms could throw some Tea Party-backed Republicans -- having beaten out other established Republicans in the primaries because they weren't right wing enough -- into Congress.

This could spell disaster for environmental policy in the world's most powerful superpower. The Tea Party Movement -- and I generalize here -- still questions the impact and existence of climate change. Putting cap-and-trade or carbon tax policies into place are a no no, as is banning or reducing the level of offshore drilling, despite the BP disaster earlier this summer. Subsidies for renewable energy or public transit that might cost taxpayers money? Forget it.

Sadly, in order for most environmental programs and projects to be successful, they need to be funded out of the public purse. Privately-funded 'green' projects can be successful, but some tend to be tied to 'greenwashing' or green marketing while delivering very few actual results. Free market proponents argue that if the environment is as important as we claim, the market will reflect it by providing value to it. Well, that isn't quite how it works. And you can be sure it won't happen if Tea Party folks get into Washington.

Even closer to home in Canada, the Toronto mayoral race has given way to populism so strong, many are left dumbfounded. Rob Ford, a controversial City Councillor -- whose colourful history includes rants fuelled by homophobia and racism, drug charges and even getting ejected from a Toronto Maple Leafs game -- has taken everyone by surprise by leading the polls in the October race for leadership of Canada's flagship city. His 'regular guy' approach has attracted those who fear Toronto is becoming the playground of the elite. But if he comes to power, the city's environmentally progressive reputation -- along with much of its progressive reputation -- could fall by the wayside.

Rob Ford believes bike lanes are stupid. Roads are for cars and cars only. Other 'green' programs could see a similar fate.

Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario, is facing some heat, too. While trying to manage an unprecedentedly large fiscal deficit and wrestling with Ontario's move to a 'have-not' province, his Liberal government has introduced a variety of progressive yet controversial programs, including full day Kindergarten and more relevant to this blog, the omnibus Green Energy Act. The GEA has put Ontario at the forefront of renewable energy policy, but not without a cost. Ratepayers will see higher electric bills and rural communities are protesting the unwelcome introduction of major wind and solar projects in their regions. This rural uprising is contributing to a resurgence of the province's Progressive Conservative Party, which has vowed to do its best to repeal many aspects of the GEA.

Populism is not always a danger for the environment. Indeed, environmental problems -- like other progressive social movements -- have the potential to contribute to a populist cause. But this time around it's not Martin Luther King Jr. or Rachel Carson leading a cause, it's Glenn Beck. This populism doesn't want the next JFK in the White House; it wants Sarah Palin.

A concerning glimpse into the future of Canada's hydroelectric sector

While clean energy companies throughout Ontario are jumping for joy in response to the province's renewable energy policy, one of Canada's largest private hydroelectric firms is feeling a pinch. Brookfield Power owns and operates more than 850 MW of hydroelectric energy projects throughout northern Ontario and plenty more in other parts of Canada and the United States. Despite the dependability of hydro compared to other 'green' technologies -- it has a typical capacity factor between 50% and 80%, meaning most hydro projects will be running at full capacity 50%-80% of the time, compared with wind and solar that are around 35% and 13%, respectively -- Brookfield Power's production has fallen 40%-50%. Yikes.

The drop has been blamed primarily on an unordinarily dry year leading to very low water levels in northern Ontario. Annual variations in water levels are not uncommon, but as Brookfield's situation indicates, it can be pretty damaging economically: profits have fallen almost 50%. In stark contrast, the prairies have seen much higher precipitation levels than normal this year.

Some might be able to shake off one bad year, but as climate change threatens the historical predictability of Canadian weather, the Canadian hydroelectric industry could be in trouble. And as provinces like BC, Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba continue to expand their hydro generating capacity, you might wonder whether they're getting a bit nervous.

Canada's national climate change policy takes another hit...

Just over a week ago, the momentous climate change bill sitting in the United States Senate was dropped. As The Economist put it, "the idea of a cap on America's emissions died with barely the bathos of a wimper." The already diluted bill had been sitting in the Senate for a few months but wasn't getting all that far. And the Democrats, already looking to be thumped during this November's midterm elections, aren't willing to spend whatever political capital they have left on another controversial bill.

So for now the Americans wait. Again. Will a national climate plan, as envisioned by Barack Obama or otherwise, ever come to fruition?

Sadly, with the news from our neighbours to the south, Canadians are left to ask themselves the same question.

Canada's national climate change policy up to this point has largely -- though not formally -- been tied to the United States. Whatever they do, we'll follow suit. When cap-and-trade was in vogue, it was cool here, too. But since little ever formalized in the US, next to nothing has progressed in Canada.

At least some action is being taken by subnational governments. A few weeks ago three provinces -- Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia -- and seven states -- California, New Mexico, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Utah and Montana -- released an international emissions trading plan set to begin in 2012. It is part of the Western Climate Initiative and although the plan is not outrageously ambitious -- 15% cut in emissions by 2020 at 2005 levels -- it is better than nothing. Other provinces and states are choosing to do their own thing and hopefully this will demonstrate that a coordinated, national effort is not necessary.

The Economist believes that there is some room for a carbon tax to join the fray in the US. The Environmental Protection Agency now has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, so it could, theoretically, impose a carbon tax, regardless of whether congress likes it or not. But that would be a bold move and one the Obama administration would have to tread carefully.

But say a national carbon tax is introduced in the United States. Would Canada follow in stride? If the current Conservative government is still in power, it is highly unlikely. After all, they defeated Stephane Dion's Liberals handily after lambasting the idea of a national carbon tax. With another government? Perhaps. Or maybe the federal government will be happy with the handful of provincial schemes.

In any case, the standstill in the United States won't help Canada battle climate change one bit.