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.

Jamie Lerner and Curitiba

In the video above, Jamie Lerner, a former mayor of Curitiba, Brazil, shares his thought about how we can achieve a sustainable city. Enviro Boys has blogged about Curitiba in the past highlighting the city's success with its bus rapid transit (BRT) system. Through innovative urban planning the city has become a much more compact urban form. The BRT system was initiated in 1974 and at the time had 25,000 passengers per day. With Jamie Lerner's leadership and continuous influence on the city, there are now close to 2 million passengers using it every day.

For years children have been learning how to separate their garbage and have taken the initiative to teach their parents. As a result, a significant percentage of the city' waste is separated.

Check out the video to learn more.

Hong Kong Apartment that transforms into 24 rooms

In this video, Gary Chang, an architect, has designed his 344 sq. ft. Hong Kong apartment in a way that is able to change into 24 different designs.

The mirrors in the main room have combined reflective metal and glass surfaces that increase the light value within the apartment. The apartment receives a lot of natural light through the tinted windows which has significantly decreased his use of electricity.

Such small spaces have huge eco-friendly possibilities. Indeed, Hong Kong's population and housing density, as I witnessed when I was there, can allow people like Gary to innovate with environmentally sustainable solutions.

For a longer version of the video, click here.

A cleaner, cheaper, more useful type of clean coal...

Imagine if all you needed to resurface your driveway was a little sea water and some carbon dioxide? And what if I told you that by resurfacing your driveway you would be taking advantage of carbon free energy and even creating some relatively clean water?

Bollocks, you'd probably say (and I would hope in an English accent). Well, there's a company in the United States that is hoping to prove you wrong. Based off the naturally occurring process corals use to make their bones, some very innovative entrepreneurs at Calera have developed a method to take carbon emissions from gas and coal-fired plants and mixing it with ocean water to create calcium carbonate. Calcium carbonate -- the substance making up coral bones -- can be turned into cement or used as aggregate in construction projects.

There are plenty of small innovative firms out there with cool ideas like this, but Calera could very well make a significant impact. It has already attracted attention from Thomas Friedman, author of The World is Flat and columnist for the New York Times, and more importantly, significant investment from a major engineering firm confident enough to build several Calera plants.

There are hopes that this process will actually lead to a "clean coal" future, something that is heavily criticized by many because of the extraordinary expense and excruciatingly slow development of mainstream carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. By capturing the carbon emissions from coal and gas plants, it essentially makes them carbon emissions-free. Moreover, the carbon is stored in useful products like cement, as opposed to being pumped in large quantities underground.

A wonderful bonus that comes out of this process is relatively clean water. The salt water used loses about 80% of the properties that make it unsafe to drink, which happens to make it much easier to convert to fresh water using desalination as less energy is required to filter the water.

Considering how much coal is being used to power the world's electricity systems, this process, if actually scalable in an economic fashion, could change the whole playing field. The company is touting the potential of this technology in China and India, which are developing coal plants at a rate of nearly one a day. And since major construction projects and fresh water crises are bound to define much of each country's upcoming future, the technology is especially attractive.

But even if all the potential of this technology does come to fruition, it won't be perfect. Coal is a finite resource. Coal plants, even without carbon emissions, still have significant impacts on our lives. They emit dangerously high levels of toxic chemicals into the air -- even with scrubber technologies -- causing severe health complications. And coal mining is among the most environmentally devastating processes known to our history. I mean, how many other industries can say that they blow the tops off mountains to get what they want?

The trouble is, coal is going to be used excessively whether we like it or not.

No energy technology is perfect, but the Calera technology could at least make a significant dent as we try to lower carbon emissions. It's amazing what we can learn from nature. One hopes we don't kill too much of it off as we do.    

Vancouver should be more pro-active with green roof development...

Vancouver is a “great opportunities city”- it has enormous potential to revitalize its environmental and economic environment. Vancouver’s city policies have thus far supported numerous urban sustainability solutions such as increased urban density, mixed-use developments, buildings that preserve special green space and infrastructure for transit, cycling and walking to provide non-automobile options for living in and moving between Vancouver.

What the city needs to do is bring about green roof technology through policy tools such as market-based instruments. Why? Vancouver receives a higher than average amount of precipitation than other Canadian cities. Climate change, in particular excess rainfall, can pose numerous challenges for Vancouver in the future.

Vancouver’s urban hydrologic system will have to cope with a highly fluctuating amount of surface runoff water, which can become extremely high during periods of rainfall. Climate change has the potential to intensify rainfall patterns resulting in increased risks with flooding.

When a high percentage of the city’s residents live in these compact urban areas, flooding will cause massive displacement and be an economic nightmare. Market-based instruments such as direct financial incentives, serve as the necessary policy tools to promote this technology and make it affordable. Green roof technology will serve to help the city with stormwater management and reducing risks of floods.

Market-based instruments like direct financial incentives can help make them popular and environmentally attractive. More importantly, the utilization of market-based tools can help determine if there is sufficient demand for green roof development and the economic viability of them.

Toronto recently adopted a by-law that will govern the construction of green roofs on new development. However, before this regulatory requirement came about, the city ran a program called “Toronto’s Green Roof Incentive Pilot program”. This program offered a grant of $10/m² to eligible green roofs and proved to be popular. Vancouver should run a similar program.

As mentioned, over the past 10 years, a large percent of the metropolitan region’s new housing units were built within the existing urban area. Such density is important for the city, but there must still be a sufficient amount of permeable surfaces to capture and drain rainfall so it does not runoff and cause flooding. Thus, stormwater management must be optimal to avoid flooding of a highly dense urban core.

Green roofs can help capture rainfall and ultimately improve the urban hydrologic system. This environmental reason alone should suffice and act as an impetus to begin a green roof pilot project program as done in Toronto.

Through pilot projects, knowledge and experience is gained and the city becomes more familiarized with how green roofs operate. These steps are important for bringing about green roofs because everyone benefits through increased knowledge. These sorts of policy instruments are more effective for environmental change than by simply resorting to regulatory measures. While regulation sets a precedent for the city’s commitment to sustainability, it is too precipitous to implement right now and does not provide the developer with sufficient incentives.

As stormwater management gains more salience, policy-makers will realize the benefits of providing incentives to developers and building owners to bring about green roof technology. Also, energy prices are increasing for building heating and cooling and green roofs have proven to be efficacious at minimizing these costs.

Key message: Green roofs will help Vancouver promote healthy and sustainable communities.

Would you take the job?: Corporate Environmental Policy...

I posed this question to an environmental policy class seminar I was in during my third year: if on the day of your graduation as an Environmental Studies/Science student a person from a large oil company offered you a multi-year position as an environmental consultant with a $250,000 salary, benefits up the wazoo, a 40-hour work week and your choice of living location, would you take it?

Surprisingly, very few if any from the 15 person class said they would. The main argument was one of ethics, where the majority of my peers would be unwilling to 'sell their soul' to work for the groups we've all learned to despise.

Fair enough, but perhaps the naive optimist in me believes that not all big corporations are inherently evil and that they be wanting to at least do something pro-environment, if not for intrinsic reasons than at least for business purposes. To this a few said that such a position would simply be window-dressing, offering lip service for an organization that really doesn't care. Although you'd get a hefty paycheque, the frustration involved with such a position might be enough to drive you over the edge. Not to mention, of course, the degrading feeling that might come if you feel your role is only perpetuating the wrongs you seek to right.

Personally, I would take the job. Aside from the wonderful financial perks -- I might be an environmentalist but I certainly wouldn't decline a sweet boat or a Porsche -- I point to one particular argument I've explored before in a different arena: the law of diminishing returns. This simple idea says that as we put effort into something, the effect one 'unit' of effort will have will diminish over time.

If, for instance, you have a test to study for, the first hour you study may increase your potential grade from a 50 to a 70, but the next hour will only improve it from a 70 to an 80, then 80 to 85 and so on until each extra hour you study really isn't making a difference.

So if we take this idea into the grand context of say, combatting climate change, our efforts (financial, political, time-intensive, etc) would have a bigger impact if put towards aspects of the environment that are already quite bad. Putting efforts into improving the environmental performance of the traditionally poor environmental performers (fossil fuel firms, manufacturing, transport industry, etc) might have a much bigger impact than putting the same amount of effort into other already less-environmentally destructive performers, such as investing millions to make fuel-efficient engines slightly more efficient (which might be the equivalent of raising your mark from a 90 to a 91).

The question of individual effort should be raised. It is well and good that changing the behaviour of these 'dirty' firms would have a large impact in our climate struggle, but are these large conglomerates, like the oil companies, not already so large and influential that actually implementing this change from an environmental consultant's position would be next to impossible if not the most frustrating endeavour one might venture on?

Would it be frustrating? I imagine so. Next to impossible? Could be. But are they too big? No.

One of the world's largest financial institutions, the World Bank, was once without an environmental program or department. Unlike the majority of other major banks, the World Bank focuses much of its attention on development, first in post-war Europe and later in the less-affluent countries of the world. Its projects have had massive environmental impacts, yet it wasn't until 1971, 26 years after its conception, that it first developed any sort of environmental program. It was resourced by one person for many years, who was later able to increase the size of the department to six staff.

This was an incredibly frustrating time, especially since the World Bank did not require environmental assessments on any projects up until 1989, making the environmental reviews by even six staffers next to impossible. As you can imagine, the other departments were less than inclined to cooperate with the toothless environmental department. However, thanks to the diligence of the pioneer staffers, the World Bank's environmental department is now one of its biggest. Billions of dollars are invested in environmentally-focused projects. (Although the environmental benefits of some of these projects are quite controversial).

It had to start somewhere. So it could certainly start with grabbing such a position, especially with such cushy benefits -- not unrealistic either, considering many environmental assessment folks at the publicly-owned Ontario Power Generation make over $125,000.

Corporations aren't necessarily evil, but they can be a tough nut to crack. But the benefits of cracking such a nut could be more influential than any of us know. I wouldn't, however, count on such a cushy job being offered right after graduation, but you never know...(hint, hint ExxonMobil).

Would you take the job?

Smart-metering, peak-demand pricing and rising costs for electric heating...

Ontario is starting to set up its 'smart' energy system. Everyday, hundreds of homes throughout the province are being visited by the local utility company to switch out the old electricity meters with 'smart' ones.

These brainiac meters are different from the current ones in that they are capable of measuring electricity usage at different times throughout the day and have the ability to send these readings immediately to the utility company via a wireless signal. Moreover, with the appropriate additions, some of these meters will be able to also send this information to the homeowner, allowing them to view up-to-date information on their usage. Even Google has gotten involved, so we know the possibilities could very well be endless.

The installation of these meters will allow Ontario to implement a new pricing structure for electricity. When demand is high, the price to the consumer will increase. When demand is low, the price will be cheaper.

Currently, the Ontario pricing structure is a flat rate. No matter what time people decide to turn on their stoves or do their laundry, the price is the same. So people do that stuff when it's most convenient: often in the morning before they do to work or past 5:00 after work. This is fine for the homeowner, who pays the same rate. But for the province, which produces and purchases the power, it's not a flat rate.

The production of electricity comes from a variety of sources: coal, hydro, nuclear and some renewables. But the cost of producing electricity varies from source to source. Coal and hydro are fairly cheap, but nuclear and renewables not so much. So when demand is low, more power comes from the cheaper sources, and when demand is high, more has to come from the more expensive sources, costing the province (and ultimately, the taxpayers) more money.

Sometimes demand on the grid can be so high (see heat waves & air conditioning use in Toronto) that the province's total production capacity is not high enough. It then has to import power from out of province and even out of the country. This is even more expensive.

So if the province can make higher-demand times more expensive to the consumer, it hopes that people will start to do these electricity-sucking activities at different times of the day, thereby spreading out the demand and reducing the number of times that the province needs to use its really expensive power or import it. It's a great idea.

While this will give homeowners a beneficial increase in control over their electricity usage, those who use electricity consistently will get hit hard. The biggest group of consistent electricity users are those who use electric heating & cooling. If electric heaters are needed to maintain a consistent level of heat in a home, they will operate throughout the day, at both high and low demand times. In all likelihood, the higher demand times will be much more expensive than the lesser demand times cheaper, so these people will get hit.

And some people trying to be 'green' might also get hit. In a recent conversation with a friend of mine who had once considered getting a geothermal system, he pointed out that geothermal systems require an electric heat pump to circulate the air or water through the pipes underground and in the house. These will run all day and are anything but light on electricity use.

Despite these downsides, the smart metering system is a wonderful idea. I've come across several ideas that take the existing infrastructure several steps further. What if the appliances were smart enough to communicate with the meter and only operate a lower-demand times? What if heating units were able to optimize when they operate and strike that perfect balance of cost and home temperature?

The smart metering is a first step. Our electricity system is about to get a lot more futuristic. It should be very cool.

A naturalized swimming pool...

I saw this on TV a little while ago and was immediately fascinated. As you'll see from the video, this Peterborough resident decided to build a swimming pool in his backyard. But rather than building a regular concrete, chlorinated swimming pool, he built a naturalized one.

That is, rather than requiring chemicals like chlorine or salt, the homeowner planted different trees, bushes and other plants in on the edges of the pool that naturally clean the water. He also has a rock waterfall where the water is pumped up to the top of the waterfall and is slowly fed back through the rocks, which also helps to filter the water.

It has a rubber lining underneath which was covered by rock, gravel and plants to simulate a pond. It's deep enough the jump into from a well-hidden diving board and most importantly, blends into the backyard very well.

It's clean, green and looks very natural.

I'm personally intrigued by such a thing because I (like many other people) love swimming pools, but am fully aware of the environmental downsides of them. This type of thing could be a wonderful, guilt-free alternative. And he lives in the city. It's a little touch of the cottage or country in your urban backyard.

No word on cost, but maintenance sounds very low. No need to add chemicals or to unnecessarily heat it (it might be a bit cold, but perhaps you could look into heating it slightly, maybe with solar...) and no need to drain it in the winter. He just shovels off the snow and turns it into a make-shift hockey rink.

One bit of opposition to such a thing is that this particular pool has wildlife in it: frogs, water-insects and other little creatures. While it certainly makes it more natural, it can creep some people out...

E-Bikes on Peterborough trails...

It's like a bike, but better. Well, maybe. E-bikes are just as the name entails: electric bikes. Originally designed as regular mountain bikes with a small electric motor mounted on the frame, the designation of an e-bike has since been extended to larger, wider "bikes" that are nearly identical to the electric scooters you might see people driving around the streets.

In Peterborough, these types of vehicles had been left only to travel on city streets - where the drivers of the e-bikes feel less than safe with cars flying by - and the city's bike and walking trails. Just like regular bicycles, e-bikes can not be ridden on city sidewalks. But in light of the growing danger of the larger, heavier and faster e-bikes on the trails, a few weeks ago city council elected to prohibit them on the city's bike trails. The infamous Segway was also included in the prohibition.

But last week the city changed its mind. In a lengthy, four hour meeting, many members of the public and council members fought out the e-bike issue. Very good points were made on both sides.

Those in opposition of the ban argued the environmental benefits of e-bikes (they use them instead of a car), the advantage they have for people who are less able-bodied (less pedalling is required), the dangers faced by e-bike riders on city's streets (the fastest e-bikes can only go up to 32 km/h) and the onus of responsible trail riding falling on the operator rather than the bike itself.

However, those in support of the ban consistently cited the dangers e-bikes might pose to others on the trail. The brakes on e-bikes are argued to be less than effective when travelling at speeds above 30 km/h, which is particularly dangerous on the heavily-travelled Peterborough trails where (this comes from much personal experience) some people are less than aware of other people or bikes around them. This is especially worrying with the larger e-bikes, that weigh several hundred pounds and could do severe damage to anything it might hit. The definition of an e-bike is also controversial, as the electric scooter types are only considered e-bikes because two small and nearly unusable pedals are inserted on the sides in order to fit with the legislative definition.

A local environmental group and a city councillor brought up the issue of this repeal of a bylaw as opening the door to other modes of transportation. Where does it stop? If a golf cart tacks a few pedals on, could it be allowed? What about a new Chevrolet Volt? It seems ridiculous, but laws have been exploited in worse ways before.

Furthermore, there are legitimate concerns that the e-bike speeds might be too fast for the trails. Proponents of the e-bikes argued that many road bike riders exceed 32 km/h, which is true, although the riders that travel at those kinds of speeds are often very experienced riders and tend to travel on the roads rather than the trails.

The province is supposed to come up with a provincial policy position on e-bikes and their appropriateness on city trails in the coming months, so many of those in favour of the ban argued that Peterborough's city council should wait to reverse the ban until that time. Makes sense. It is better to be safe than sorry.

Personally I don't think a ban on the traditional e-bikes is in order because of the wonderful benefits they could have and the fact that they seem just as safe as any other bike. However, banning the larger, heaving 'e-bikes' is completely appropriate. The dangers are too high with such things on the trails and the way in which the manufacturers have put dinky little pedals on them to get around legislation is very bothersome.

I love using the paths in Peterborough and there are many nice, happy and responsible people who use them. But there's also a lot of idiots. Putting those 'bikes' on the trails will only lead to people being hurt or worse. It's true that it's dangerous using the roads on one of those things, but I've been doing it for years on my bicycle, which many would consider more dangerous. But allowing them onto the main paths could be more dangerous.

The solution I could propose is to license those who want to go on the road so only those who are confident on the roads can use them and people who don't want to use a larger one can use a traditional e-bike. Some might not be happy. Tough.

Hmmm, do I want to be a Maserati or an F-16?...

Out of all the topics dominating the discussions over the adoption of electric cars these days, it's a tad surprising that one of the most talked-about has nothing to do with climate change, a revamping of the near lifeless American auto industry nor reducing the dependence on foreign oil. Instead, a good deal of talk is hovering around the amount of noise the cars will make (or lack there of).

If you've been in an electric car (or more probably a hybrid) you've probably noticed that they are remarkably quiet. The engine noise is significantly lower in an electric engine than in a combustion engine. For a quick example, simply compare the noise of an electric mower to a gas-powered one. Big difference. My mother once rented a hybrid and repeatedly forgot whether or not the car was one since it gave no clear indication.

Of course, the main concern over the lack of engine noise is not immediately directed at the driver being able to hear the engine, but moreso the people outside of the car. While having all the cars on the road run silently would have wonderful significance for noise pollution, it is not very safe.

When cars are loud you can hear them coming and stay away. After all, in a fight between human and moving vehicle, the moving vehicle often wins. If all cars ran silently, an upsurge in collisions with people could almost be guaranteed. Furthermore, other cars wouldn't necessarily be able to sense the quiet cars either.

This particular issue has a special significance for me that is probably shared by millions of others throughout the world. I'm a cyclist; both urban and distance. City roads and highways are already dangerous enough for cyclists, but imagine what it would be like if cyclists couldn't hear any of the cars coming by. A few days ago I went on a bike tour on the highways near Peterborough and cars, trucks and trailers went whizzing by me quite often. Because they are loud, I was able to prepare myself for having a semi-trailer fly-by inches away from me. If it had been silent, I would not be expecting it and I could very well be lying flat on the highway right now.

This is not a secret. So policymakers have been tossing about ideas as to what to do about it. The most common and popular choice seems to be requiring that each car be equipped with a sound making device. A letter to the editor in the most recent issue of The Economist took it one step further. A man from Victoria, BC (whose name I've forgotten) expressed the idea of "Vroomtones". Similar to ringtones for a cellphone, Vroomtones could be customizable noises your car could make. The possibilities are endless. Want to sound like a Ferrari? Or maybe a motorcycle noise is your thing? How about a tidal wave or a series of small explosions?

Electric cars might not be the fastest things on the road, but they'll sure sound like it.

Obama introduces new emissions laws...

Earlier this week, President Obama introduced new automotive legislation significantly increasing the level of fuel efficiency that new cars sold in the United States will be able to have. The legislation also curbs the level of harmful, toxic emissions that these new cars will be able to release.

The requirements are relatively simple: by 2016 all new cars and light trucks in the United States will have to have an average fuel efficiency level of 35.5 MPG (6.6 L/100 km; a 2009 Honda Civic coupe), up from an average level of 25 MPG (9.4 L/100 km; a 2009 Ford Escape SUV) today. Starting in 2012, carmakers will have to improve fuel efficiency by 5% annually.

According to the administration, this new legislation would reduce carbon emissions in the United States by 30%. Though you should not expect the changes to happen overnight. First, the goals of the legislation don't have to be met until 2016, which still leaves seven more years. Secondly-- and more importantly-- it will take quite a few years for the new, fuel efficient cars and trucks to diffuse into the market. Since car owners generally like to hold onto their vehicles for a number of years, many car buyers won't purchase the new, fuel efficient vehicles until much later. Especially since the new emissions and mileage targets will make new cars about $1300 more expensive. 

According to a group at MIT, the main benefits of the legislation won't really be felt until 2030. So the massive carbon reduction from this policy that Obama talked about may not actually take place for a good while. But there is a provision in the legislation that seeks to speed up that process, known as the 'Cash for Clunkers' plan.

The plan would provide financial vouchers for car owners to scrap or trade in their old vehicles for new, fuel efficient ones, thereby quickening the pace that the fuel efficient vehicles get rolled onto the roads. The plan is being touted as environmentally friendly and a help to car buyers. It is true that it could have benefits for climate change, but we must keep in mind that building new cars (and disposing of old ones) is certainly not an environmentally friendly activity, no matter which way you cut it. Germany has also adopted such a plan, but instead of aiming for the fuel efficiency goal (Europe already has some of the highest mileage standards in the world), its goal is moreso to re-ignite its ailing auto industry.

While it is true that the 'Cash for Clunkers' plan could be effective, a number of critics are worried that the savings accrued by vehicle swappers may not be as high as everyone perceives. This is because of the Miles Per Gallon Illusion, a phenomenon I've described before, where the marginal increase in gas savings falls rapidly with higher levels of fuel efficiency. The authors of the MPG Illusion blog have researched the plan heavily and are concerned the savings may not be economically or environmentally viable. 

But regardless of the minor problems with the legislation, it is still a masterful and landmark piece of policymaking. It will certainly have serious benefits from an environmental point of view. Although the carbon emissions cut will not happen for some time, a 30% reduction is still very significant and very realistic, especially in an industry that accounts for a hefty share of the U.S.'s GHG emissions. 

Such legislation has been fought by automakers for many years. When California adopted its stringent efficiency limits a few years ago, automakers were less than excited and very quickly launched lawsuits that exist today (although they will be dropped as a result of the new legislation). A national policy similar to California's was called for, but was crushed at the powerful hands of the then 'Big Three' (GM, Ford & Chrysler). Since the 'Big Three' are all on the verge of collapse, their lobbying powers in this case were not all that powerful. 

In fact, what makes this legislation so impressive is the fact that the auto industry is actually in support of it (although I wouldn't be surprised if even more stringent rules were watered down in exchange for their support). And it probably doesn't make it all that easy for them to say no since one of the main stakeholders in GM and Chrysler is the federal government.

This will have important implications for Canada since the federal Conservative government has no serious environmental policies and has openly stated its waiting for the US to make some moves so it could join up and follow the leader. Don't be surprised to hear Canada adopting similar efficiency standards and emissions limits within the next little while. 

Getting the most bang for our buck...

I recently attended the Ontario Centres for Excellence (OCE) Discovery conference in Toronto. It was attended by 2000+ people and a host for hundreds of exhibitors from the world of technological innovation, commercialization and revolutionary thinking. Canadian universities, research groups, small businesses and large technology-focused conglomerates showed off their arsenal of gizmos, business catalysts and multimedia watchamadoozles.

One university's engineering department was showing off a hybrid car that had solar panels splattered all over the roof to help run the battery. Wonderful idea. A few other groups had innovative ideas to capture energy, such as smaller wind-capturing technologies and a process to use energy from grapes. There was even a small float plane being touted as the next-big-thing.

It was like looking into the future. One of the beauties of such a conference is its ability to bridge the gap between ideas & commercialization and actually take some of these great innovations and put them to use in the real world.

However, as I'm discovering with some of my research this summer, this gap is often much wider than many people believe. As Prof. Stephen Hill of Trent University (the prof I'm doing much of my summer research with) outlined in his brief discussion at the conference, a great deal of these innovations are technologically and economically feasible (often by a wide margin) but are not widely implemented in the world. 

As he says, this is because of social and political opposition. What might be economically feasible might not be socially or politically feasible. For example, a large solar farm in the outskirts of a medium-sized town might be able to produce enough electricity to power the entire town with clean, emissions-free energy at a relatively low cost. But the residents near the proposed farm might be vehemently opposed to the proposed project, be it for a variety of reasons, making it a non-feasible project overall. 

Much of our research is directed towards the renewable energy sector, where much popular talk revolves around economic incentives for these technologies (wind, solar, small-hydro etc) so they can compete with traditional energy sources. But while much time, money and research is being put into making these technologies economically feasible, a far lesser proportion is being put towards making them socially and politically feasible.

As technologies become increasingly efficient and governments provide incentives to make them cost-effective, the economic barriers are essentially eliminated. But the socio-political barriers are still standing and are very, very strong. 

While putting millions of dollars into getting that extra few miles per gallon out of our hybrid vehicles (which is not as effective as many think) is a great technological leap, perhaps we would get more bang for our buck if we put that money towards safely and effectively implementing the wonderful technology.

The money and resources could be put into research of social acceptance, making stakeholder involvement in projects more inclusive and widely distributed, the training of specialists (ex. engineers and other designers) to include social and political aspects of their work and even an established framework for standardizing project development processes to make them more socially and politically acceptable. 

This is certainly not a call to withdraw funding from technology research and development. That would be idiotic. But if our goal is to actually implement this technology, we should probably divvy those funds up a little bit.  

Trent's Green Roof...

A Trent student recently wrote a detailed and highly informative 6 page overview of Trent's rooftop garden. As I have blogged about before, green roofs are innovative solutions for urban sustainability. However, people are only going to see the advantages of having them through the creation of market incentives, rebates and pilot projects. The report on Trent's rooftop gardens in available here.

Wisdom way solar village...

Who would have ever thought about subsidizing green housing in a recession? This short and highly informative 5 minute video, courtesy of the NY Times, shows a small housing area called "Wisdom Way Solar Village" in Western Massachusetts that is devoted to green housing development. Specifically, highly efficient zero net energy homes that are powered by solar energy. All of the extra power generated is sold back to the grid thereby providing residents with an economic impetus to install more solar panels. Of course, this revitalizes a conservation ethic which is badly needed right now.

Sunlight is plentiful in this area making solar energy viable and economical. Housing units are between $210,000- $240,000 - which is reasonable considering the real estate market of Massachusetts. However, the subsidized units sell for $110,000 and are meant to attract low to middle income buyers. This novelty is very progressive, extremely practical and a wise undertaking. Homeowners of wisdom way solar village are saving money through the use of solar energy. Usually however, this is dependent on whether they are conservative in their energy use.

Renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal, and the dubious hydro-electric have trade-offs. There is no perfect solution. But the subsidization of green homes through the installation of solar units is conservation to its finest. It also helps with climate change mitigation and adaptation which will become even more pressing in the next 15 years. Biodiversity is not being affected by such development, unlike hydro-electric dams which cause flooding, siltation and other problems. Two thumbs up for the progress of wisdom way solar village.

Green Design: An industrial revolution…

A very insightful and highly informative documentary entitled “Waste Equals Food” discusses how sustainability is going to be the minimum in the 21st century. Cutting down on waste or recycling products more frequently or even driving a hybrid car (which is not the best option) are all sustainable activities that our planet is thanking us for, but we need do to more according to this documentary.

The documentary discusses China extensively because of their excessive materials consumption and booming population. In China, 200 million houses are going to be built with bricks in rural areas in the coming 30 years. Using bricks will take 25% of the top layer of the agricultural land and half of the coal reserves of the country to actually make these bricks. This is a problem that is only going to be exacerbated by population growth and rapacious industrialists who are relentlessly extracting aggregate for industrial development. On an optimistic note, there is a lot that can be done in China to alleviate pressures on the natural environment and use their natural resources more efficiently. How? You may ask. Watch the film.

The documentary features two highly innovative and brilliant thinkers- Michael Braungart and William McDonough, a German chemist and American architect respectively. Both argue emphatically that materials are going through the industrial system and are not being returned to the biosphere, this is one of the biggest problems with design in general. Green design is the development of environmentally benign products and processes and a challenge to traditional design and manufacturing procedures. This design requires no non-renewable resources, minimal impact on the environment and has to relate people with the natural environment. There has been this push to Green design because of a general reaction to global environmental crises, the rapid growth of economic activity and human population, depletion of natural resources, damage to ecosystems and loss of biodiversity.

The film also explores the idea of the cradle to cradle (C2C) design approach. C2C is all about designing products that are first of all compostable, and secondly return rich nutrients and materials to the earth’s surface to continue life cycles. Further, with C2C, materials are viewed as nutrients circulating in healthy, safe metabolisms. Industry must protect and enrich ecosystems and nature's biological metabolism while also maintaining safe, productive technical metabolism for "the high-quality use and circulation of organic and synthetic materials".

It is a “holistic economic, industrial and social framework that seeks to create systems that are not just efficient but essentially waste free”. The model in its broadest sense is not limited to industrial design and manufacturing; it can be applied to many different aspects of human civilization such as urban environments, buildings, economics and social systems.

Both Braungart and McDonough advocate a phenomenon of Upcycling instead of Downcycling. Upcycling is the creation of a product with higher intrinsic value, manufactured from a material at the end of its service life, which had a lower initial end use value i.e. a purse made out of tin cans or candy wrappers. Whereas, Downcycling is the practice of recycling in such a way that much of its inherent value is lost i.e. recycling plastic in park benches.

Key Message: Green design is fascinating stuff. I encourage everyone to take 45 minutes and watch Waste Equals Food. Sooner or later everyone is going to be having a conversation about this and realize how momentous and relevant it is to our daily lives.

Do not rush into regulation...

Toronto is ostensibly considering a green roof by-law according to Green Inc, a blog of the New York Times. This proposed green roof by-law would make such installations mandatory on certain new developments with a gross floor area exceeding 54,000 square feet. “The measure, which is a component of Mayor David Miller’s environmental strategy, proposes greening 30 to 60 percent of the roof area, depending on building size. Exemptions include schools, industrial structures, low- to mid-rise apartment buildings and affordable housing.”

Here is my take on this. Cities like Chicago, Berlin and Portland started their green roof initiatives with market instruments and incentives. These cities ran pilot building projects to evaluate the efficacy of green roofs in meeting sustainability goals. They would then provide incentives to developers for installing green roof technology and would articulate the numerous benefits of doing this. Through pilot projects, knowledge and experience is gained and the city becomes more familiarized with how green roofs operate. These steps are important for bringing about green roofs because everyone benefits through increased knowledge.

Even Toronto’s Green Roof Incentive Pilot program offers a grant of $10/m² to eligible green roofs. These sorts of policy instruments are more effective for environmental change than simply resorting to regulation. While regulation is important (it sets a precedent for the city’s commitment to sustainability) it is too precipitous to implement right now and does not provide the developer with sufficient incentives. As a policy tool, by-laws can target behavioural and social changes. However, using regulation for meeting green roof technology standards can stifle innovation if developers are bound to restrictions and rigid criteria for each green roof they install.

Key message: Do not rush into regulation through enacting a city by-law. Continue with the Green Roof Incentive Pilot program to ascertain the economic viability of green roofs while concomitantly informing the city's residents and businesses about what they are and why they are important for sustainability.