NOx standards on new vehicles in LA

In the summer I listened to an EconTalk podcast with Prof. Robert Frank of Cornell University. The podcast can be listened to here. Consider this statement from Robert Frank:

"In Los Angeles, in order to meet the air quality targets they were shooting for, they had to adopt stringent nitrous oxide (NOx) requirements on new vehicles because they were unwilling to have old vehicles comply with the pollution requirements--mostly low income drivers drive the old vehicles and it was thought to be too onerous to require them to comply. So we ratcheted up the requirements on the new cars to meet the target and it was about $900 a pound to get all the NOx out of new cars--all the low-hanging fruit had already been picked in that domain--so for the inevitable democratic impulse to shield poor people from hardship we ended up spending $900/pound to get NOx out of the air, whereas if we had forced older vehicles to come into compliance we could have gotten that same pound out for $10. Way cheaper over all if we'd taxed wealthy motorists in California a little bit extra and given a voucher to poor motorists, who would turn in their old cars and buy a 5-year old Toyota Corolla or some other compliant vehicle."

The example above relates to the content of a class I am taking called "Environmental Policy Analysis".We talked today about pollution standards and how they could be inherently more inefficient in terms of social and economic costs. If we wanted to improve air quality for everyone (using the LA example), then it would be more sensible to tax the wealthier motorists so that enough money could be re-distributed to lower-income drivers to purchases cars that are less intensive in terms of NOx. This would be a much less expensive way to alleviate pernicious pollutants that cause respiratory illnesses. Standards are helpful but when considering overall economic costs, there are more efficient and equitable ways of doing it. Yes, this is also a political game, but political games such as these ones can make everyone worse off.

More to come on risk management, environmental policy and how to improve decisions that make everyone better off.

An air pollution argument against density

Civic Exchange, a well-known think tank in Hong Kong, argues that increasing density through constructing taller buildings might actually do more harm than good. Their reasoning, which is based on Hong Kong's geography, is contrary to what many urban planners and scholars advocate as “building up” is the urban planner’s dream.

The think tank explains how more densely developed and poorly ventilated neighborhoods with insufficient open space and blocked ventilation corridors, can absorb more heat which intensifies the urban heat island effect. In essence, with less ventilation and more impervious cover, less rainwater is absorbed into the ground and thus the temperature will feel warmer in the urban area.

The tall buildings that form the concrete jungle, will contain more of that heat which really intensifies air pollution as the wind is blocked by the buildings and thus the dirty air is trapped and inhaled by the public. Because the temperature in the urban area increases, it will inevitably be warmer and lead to a greater need for air conditioning. Hong Kong has many areas that have bad air pollution and high density (Mong Kok for example, with high levels of nitrogen dioxide and over 130,000 people per square kilometer).

With complete dependence on air conditioning, this results in more electricity consumption and emissions of hot air; both of which increase the urban temperature. Thus, this leads to a vicious cycle of pollution causing activities (driving and profligate AC use) which warms the temperature in the urban area where people live, and people need cool air to live comfortably which will release more pollution and then repeat the cycle again and again and again.

Higher density through taller buildings means more people living closer to public transit, amenities and social infrastructure. Thus, greater density can lead to more supply and help satisfy demand. This can help lower housing costs for the poor. But, it all depends on design because if those buildings are too close together (lots of examples of this in Hong Kong) then they can block ventilation corridors and thus there are greater air pollution exacerbation risks.

Civic Exchange calls for decreased plot ratios to improve ventilation. In essence, by decreasing a building's plot ratio, the developer is forced to construct smaller units to abide by the zoning laws. Smaller units might take the form of smaller buildings with less people and therefore lower density. My argument: decreasing plot ratios will inevitably make real estate more expensive by constraining supply and increasing demand; this has been argued by Ed Glaeser time and time again.

It is extremely tricky to decrease a building's plot ratio in a City that has such constrained land supply. Where I do agree with the think tank is their vehement support for more open and green space in Hong Kong. This would mean that municipal zoning laws would require more open space around a development. Having more open space for the public to enjoy is a great idea. It will also expand ventilation corridors thereby allowing wind to pass through the concrete jungle more naturally.

Maybe a quick lesson from their publication and this analysis is that buildings (commercial and residential) must be subject to providing recreational and open space in greater quantities. Depending on the jurisdiction, there should be mandated requirements for constructing open space when building a development. Indeed, this is challenging because there is only so much room. Higher plot ratios, as analyzed by the Civic Exchange will not help the air pollution problem in Hong Kong. It is those high density areas like Mong Kok that need to witness the construction of open space such as public parks and sports facilities to prevent further development from exacerbating the air pollution problem.

Key message: Would such urban planning and policy making mean that there is a trade-off between lower density (potentially keeping housing costs unaffordable) and better air quality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water in China: Part II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The wacky world of wind energy opposition...

 So what do you hate about wind turbines?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Soul Online

Gleick's new book on bottled water...

Peter Gleick is the President of the Pacific Institute based out of Oakland, California. Gleick is an engineer (PhD, Energy and Resources, UC Berkeley) and is an internationally recognized water expert. His new book "Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water" is all about the politics, economics and science of bottled water. Moreover, the book addresses marketing and advertising of bottled water, bottled water claims, the growing revolt against bottled water etc. Much of it is based on the United States.

In Peter Gleick's blog, he shares an excerpt from the book about contaminants in bottled water and it is pretty frightening. A number of contaminants have been found in bottled water including mold, kerosene, sanitizer and crickets. Crickets? That's right, according to Gleick:

"In 1994, a bottler in Nacogdoches, Texas issued a recall for sparkling water found to be contaminated with crickets. The water was distributed in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia and the recall notice wasn't issued until seven months after being bottled and distributed, making it unlikely that consumers were notified in time to avoid buying the contaminated bottles. Maybe they thought it was a bonus, like that worm in tequila, or the weird things sometimes found in flavored vodkas".

This really boils down to how we test and monitor our water, whether it is bottled or tap. Increasingly, we are seeing more experts and citizens asking questions around the implications of bottled water on our health. To read more, check out his blog.

Innovation and Progress in wastewater treatment...

One of the findings from the results section of my thesis was about emerging contaminants of concern in wastewater treatment plants. Things such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products (deodorant, soap, shampoo, perfume etc.) and illicit drugs are starting to be studied and worry many public health experts. After we use these products, we flush them down the toilet, down our sinks and even our bathtubs. Then they travel to wastewater treatment plants which presently (in Canada) do not have the technology/capacity to treat these products. The person I interviewed explained how more research is required on this topic along with good public education to inform the public about which products are harmful to our water supply.

This is a major concern but lots of innovative research is underway. A group of four Chemical Engineering students from Ryerson University have discovered a potential solution to the rising levels of pharmaceuticals ending up in the water supply. Hospitals and long-term care facilities are increasingly using more pharmaceuticals and we still do not completely understand their effects on our water systems. The group from Ryerson designed an advanced wastewater treatment system which would “remove 90 per cent of pharmaceuticals and endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) using commercially available technology”.

Why is this even a concern? In Canada, the government doesn’t enforce the removal of pharmaceutical drugs and EDCs, including Bisphenol A, from wastewater. As a result, municipalities don’t currently pursue removal, since it would cost a lot of money. However, if municipalities were to invest in systems that could treat and remove such chemicals, there could be significant savings in health care costs. Eventually, those chemicals enter the environment and the drinking water supply which could have so many negative effects on human health and biological function.

While there haven’t been any studies done to determine the long-term effects of these pharmaceuticals and EDCs on humans, concerns have nevertheless been raised. For example, some studies have "found that pharmaceuticals and EDCs have been implicated in such conditions as polycystic ovarian syndrome and hypospadias (a birth defect involving the male urethra)".

Without going into too much engineering technicalities (because I don’t completely understand every detail myself, here is how the group’s system works:

“The students’ proposed innovative design uses two processes in combination, both using commercially available technology. First, wastewater is subjected to membrane biological reactors. This activity increases the amount of bacteria already present in the treatment process and makes them “hungrier.” From there, sewage goes through an advanced oxidization process. Typically used to treat drinking water, this process works in the same way as an antioxidant does in the body: it destroys harmful toxins. But whereas most wastewater treatment plants use chlorine as a disinfectant the students proposed using ultraviolet light (UV) and hydrogen peroxide for the purposes of advanced oxidation and disinfection. Normally, UV light would be unable to penetrate murky wastewater, but after undergoing the membrane biological reactor, liquid waste in the students’ simulated wastewater treatment plants would be clear enough to permit the use of UV light. Afterwards, the students concluded, the wastewater would be clean enough to go straight into lakes and rivers”.

Key message: To see this kind of innovative research from undergrad students is incredible. As more research is being done on this critical topic, it is equally important to look at public education. Cities could use this opportunity to put together a list of pharmaceutical and personal care products that have negative effects on urban waterways. This list can take the form of a pamphlet or guide which can be distributed to the public. This is simply a precautionary measure but would go far in terms of raising awareness and education.

***The group’s project, Treating Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disruptors at the Source: An Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Design, placed 1st for Social Awareness and received an honourable mention for their innovative design of an advanced wastewater treatment plant at the 2010 Ontario Engineering Competition in Waterloo, Ontario***

The Value in Maintaining a Good Health Care System...

For anyone interested, there is a special world affairs colloquium (WAC) at Trent today (Friday, March 19th) titled "The Value in Maintaining a Good Health Care System". It will be a panel discussion on Canada’s current health care challenges, opportunities and threats with local examples from Peterborough County and the Kawarthas. The talk starts at 1pm is taking place in the Gathering Space, First Peoples House of Learning, Gzowski College.

In terms of the details, the colloquium will explore some of the current challenges and opportunities that exist in the health care sector in Canada’s urban and rural context. Given the current health care debates in the United States, Canadians are beginning to understand that we too have our own health care challenges. This colloquium will feature a national approach to health care but also a local approach focusing on Peterborough Country and the Kawarthas. Topics will include illness and health, the geography of aging, the evolving role of voluntarism in rural health and discussion around hospital wait times, funding and how we can move forward.

The panel if composed of three speakers. Our first, Dr. Rosana Pellizzari who is the Medical Officer of Health for the Peterborough County-City Health Unit. Our second speaker is Mr. Paul Rosebush, the CEO of Haliburton Highland Health Services. Our final panelist is Dr. Mark Skinner, Trent Professor of Health, Rural and Social Geography.

It looks to be a highly insightful dialogue concerning our health care system and how it is evolving.

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.    

Score one for the precautionary principle...

Kermit the Frog might have to start using the female frog change room if he ever takes a bite out of Canadian sourced bread.

The Globe and Mail recently reported that a new study by researchers at the University of California Berkeley has found that when male frogs are exposed to a herbicide commonly used in Canada, they can be turned into female frogs. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, focused on the chemical atrazine, which is a weed killer commonly used in North America but banned by the European Union.

Atrazine has brought up concerns from authorities and health officials as it has been found throughout drinking water systems and especially in agricultural regions. Although Health Canada has explored atrazine before, it has yet to deem it riskiness enough to ban in entirety. The United States Environmental Protection Agency is in the same boat.

The EU has a tendency to ban things that are relatively new, not well understood and could potentially be harmful. It adheres to something known as the precautionary principle, which simply states that we should make decisions very carefully and perhaps not adopt certain things until we know much more about them. For example, the EU has banned almost all food products that have been genetically-modified, citing that just too little is known about them yet to be throwing them into the food supply. In North America, genetically-modified foods run rampant.

The precautionary principle is becoming increasingly important as we start to realize that decisions that were made several years ago are starting to have unexpected consequences. For example, links have been drawn between the chemicals put into the drinking water supply that we flush down the toilet and decreased sperm count in men. Who would've seen that coming? And with more and more technological and biochemical advances being made every day, sometimes it is important to stop and think about what impact it might have.

Sometimes there is no evidence to backup the application of the precautionary principle. But when studies like this come along, it is probably worth taking a stronger look at what effects this herbicide could have. Having human beings starting to change sex could be a little problematic...      

Waste-to-energy is a heated topic these days…

Waste-to-energy is a euphemism for incineration, which is that process where a plant will burn municipal solid waste using thermal treatment which in turn can be used to generate electricity. At the “Waste-Based-Energy” industry conference in November 2009, delegates learned about several new incineration plant proposals including one in the Durham/York Region (not too far from Peterborough). The facility’s price tag is roughly $272 million and will be operated by New Jersey based Covanta Energy Corp.

There are some advantages to this plant that I should note. Considering the large population growth of the Durham/York Region, and given the implications of their growing electricity demand, the incinerator could very well provide electricity for thousands of homes. It could also be a solution for neighbouring municipalities who are currently stressing over their landfill sites due to overuse and leachate problems (i.e. when a lot of organic wastes end up in the landfill, sometimes they can leach from the landfill carrying other toxic wastes into the groundwater supply). Other parts of Canada including Metro Vancouver, Ottawa and Edmonton are all on the path to building more incinerators, many of which are being done by public-private partnerships.

So, I have touched on the “good” and now I turn to my cynicism and pessimistic take on the proposed incinerator. Firstly, there are numerous health issues associated with incineration. The burning of waste releases thousands of toxic emissions implicated in asthma and respiratory illnesses, autism, dyslexia and Parkinson’s disease just to name a few. These sites are often built on Greenfield sites or in agricultural communities thereby eroding the viability of the farmer’s land and well-being. Tens of thousands of tonnes of toxic ash are generated annually from the burning of waste, and o yeah, that ash is often sent to the landfill.

These sorts of projects are highly controversial because the companies that operate them do not often account for their negative externalities. For example, when these plants spew out toxic emissions, those living within close propinquity suffer great respiratory illnesses. Indeed, the Durham/York Region is growing tremendously and an incinerator is bound to pose health issues which can potentially add even more pressure to a health care system that already has too much.

I think the Province should mandate that all new incinerators built in Ontario have “scrubber systems”. These systems are a diverse group of air pollution control devices that can be used to remove some particulates and/or gases from industrial emissions. This would account for some of those externalities and put the accountability right on the company that operates the plant.

Finally, the plant is proposing to have a $140 per tonne tipping fee (the charge for accepting waste at the site). I think that 50% of this fee should go directly towards the region’s recycling and composting programs. This would be imperative because empirical evidence suggests that when a city sees the construction of an incinerator, there is less of an incentive for keeping a well-maintained recycling system because incinerators are expensive! Also, taxpayers pay for them.

Key message: Companies that run these incinerators must be held accountable for their emissions. Indeed, they should be required to have mandatory scrubber systems to really minimize the health impacts of emissions. Our health care system is already stressed, let’s keep our innovative waste management programs like recycling and composting which pose no real health effects, unlike incineration.

Some thoughts on air pollution in Toronto…

Air pollution is an egregious urban health issue of our time. In Toronto, on-road and off-road vehicles are estimated to generate 38 percent of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 38 percent of sulphur dioxide (SO2), 74 percent of carbon dioxide (CO2) and 15 percent of volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions. These are all of the emissions that contribute to poor air quality and respiratory illnesses. Toronto has the highest summertime levels of fine particulates and the highest annual mean levels of nitrogen dioxide levels.

According to the Pollution Probe, smog alert days have been on the rise for the city and this is largely attributed to an increased number of vehicles on the road. There were 27 smog alert days in 2002, up from just 3 in the year 2000. Since the 1980s, there has been a steady increase in ozone levels in Toronto. Ozone triggers asthmatic attacks among those suffering chronically from the disease. Also over the last two decades, the number of vehicles entering the city each weekday morning increased by 75 percent.

An increase in the number of vehicles entering the city has numerous implications. Toronto finds itself situated in the heart of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. As the region continues to grow in population, urban sprawl may lead to the worsening of air quality conditions for many municipalities.

It is estimated that 3.5 million people will join the Greater Golden Horseshoe by 2035; this will lead to an expanding transportation sector that is conducive to automobility and hopefully public transit. However, public transit will have to be given policy weight not only for reasons of smart growth and providing for densification, but alleviating the pernicious air pollutant sources derived from motor vehicles.

From an urban and regional planning perspective, we have to better optimize regional transportation. To obtain high efficiency and environmental quality, we have to start planning (increasing ridership rates) our alternative transportation systems i.e. Go Transit, Via Rail and light-rail transit. These transit services are gaining popularity in an era of high gas prices and highway traffic congestion- but we can do better especially if we are concerned about public health and air pollution issues.

Epidemiological research has conclusively proven that exposure to air pollution can exacerbate asthma conditions, induce heart attacks, reduce overall lung function, trigger cardiovascular diseases and bring about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), just to name a few. Air pollution is a complex issue; expanding regional public transit for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is something that must be aggressively pursued.

I provided some stats at the beginning of the post to really illustrate how automobiles contribute greatly to air pollution. Our elected officials have heard numerous arguments and have seen empirical examples of how public transit helps increase regional efficiency, transportation flow, create jobs and is "good for the environment". What is not heard as much is the air pollution argument and how regional public transit can drastically decrease "regional air pollutant output".

Key Message: Population growth will add more pressures to regional public transit systems and if they are not managed well, as in we see ridership decrease, then air pollution and the nasty symptoms of climate change are bound to worsen. Urban planning needs to address this more clearly. Civil servants and leaders of our cities must allocate more resources into public transportation.

How Green roofs can increase the health and well-being of urban residents…

Enviroboys has blogged about green roofs before, citing their numerous advantages for urban environments. The main environmental benefits associated with them include minimizing air pollution, reducing the urban heat island effect and improving stormwater management. Noting these benefits, Toronto recently adopted a by-law to require and govern the construction of green roofs on new development in the city. The bylaw is quite comprehensive and rigid leading Toronto in a sustainable direction and demonstrating its commitment to urban greening projects.

A PhD student at U of T is doing research on how urban greening projects like green roofs can increase the health and well-being of employees in the workplace. One major dimension of the PhD student’s research is whether employees in workplaces can actually see green roofs and roof top gardens from their workplace windows. Just being able to see greenery can have important health benefits.

Rachel and Stephen Kaplan have done extensive research on the “role of nature in the context of the workplace”. What has emerged out of this research is the indispensable fact that employers need to invest in programs that are oriented to prevention and enhancing well-being of their employees. In workplace settings, employees experience stress, mental fatigue and occasionally burnout when things get really overwhelming. What becomes fatigued is one’s capacity to focus attention to demands that require effort, thus decreasing their level of productivity… in theory.

Rachel and Stephen Kaplan came up with a theory called attention restoration theory. This theory emerged out of their 1980s book "The experience of nature: A psychological perspective”. This theory asserts that people can concentrate better after spending time in a wilderness, or even looking at scenes of nature. Thus, natural environments have a restorative function for human-beings and we don’t always realize this. In one of their studies of an office environment they reported that “almost 50% of employees thought that the lack of windows affected them or their work adversely”. Job satisfaction and work attitudes were significantly related to the presence of windows for their sample of 123 office workers and health care providers.

In throwing together a nice interdisciplinary analysis of green roofs, we know that they have the potential to improve the health and well-being of urban residents. They have important environmental benefits and from an economic point of view, they can help minimize the energy costs associated with building heating and cooling. The health benefits though, are still nebulously defined, but we can speculate that they do play a role based on the work from the Kaplan’s. Parks and gardens have long been noted for their restorative effects on both mental and physical health. Toronto’s new bylaw can gain way more popularity from developers, residents and hospitals if the health benefits are made clearer.

Finally, if green roofs do corroborate “attention restoration theory” just think about the economic advantages workplaces would accrue. Less stress and mental fatigue among employees can undoubtedly lead to better workplace productivity and job satisfaction. But above all, if green roofs do take off because of their ostensible health benefits, employees would have to have access to them. On breaks and lunches, employees could go to these urban green sites and interact with colleagues.

Key message: Nature can help reduce a person's stress, as well as improve attention. Do green roofs constitute nature? And if so, how do workplace employees perceive them? Interesting how this will play out for Toronto considering its new green roof bylaw.

Carbon tax in China...

Refresher: The carbon tax is among several market-based instruments that have the potential to spur incentives to develop and deploy carbon-reducing measures to mitigate climate change. Price increases on carbon emitting technologies can stimulate conservation measures, energy efficient investments, fuel and product switching and changes in the economy’s production and consumption structures.

While I have great hopes for China's rise in the 21st century, I am also somewhat dubious about their air pollution and environmental status. China`s economy is growing rapidly and this growth suggests that it will be one of the biggest economic giants of the world by 2030. With tremendous economic productivity, technological innovation and population growth, the country has numerous competitive advantages. However, air pollution and environmental degradation will do the country some severe harm and have multiple health implications. Air pollution for one can impede industrial productivity in the sub-urban areas due to health issues that the workers endure. Workers become ill and hence less productive. As factory workers learn more about air pollution issues, who knows how thing will turn out in these sub-urban areas.

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. These industrial processes will spew out an abundance of carbon emissions and worsen its air quality, particularly smog.

The coal fire power plants (one of their greater sources of energy) are also vehemently condemned by the international community. While incredibly lucrative for China, they pose health issues for many of its citizens and contribute to an egregious carbon footprint globally. So, how can they resolve their air pollution and carbon emission crisis? Do you think a carbon tax would work for this nation? For a critical economic and environmental analysis on this issue, take a glance at this post courtesy of the marginal revolution.

Trent University, Aramark and Bottled Water...

Venture into a university campus across Canada and, when you find yourself hungry, you will likely be directed to a food court operated by Aramark. Be prepared to reach into your wallet. Deep into your wallet.

Aramark is an American giant. It is the 19th largest employer on the Fortune 500 and routinely generates nine-figure profits. It is one of the largest food service providers in the world, supplying businesses, sporting events and hospitals. But it is its role in schools, specifically Trent University, that I will dwell on in this discussion.

At Trent, Aramark holds a near monopoly on food service. With the exception of a small, basically student-run cafe, Aramark operates all five cafeterias on campus, including a small Tim Horton's satellite. Students living in residence are almost forced to buy into an outrageously priced meal plan and others are commonly found trying to scrape together the nine dollars charged for a simple burger and fries.

Several controversies have stiffened Trent's relationship with Aramark over the past years, but because of its efficiency and well-managed size, it is seen as an actor Trent can not live without. Even as its contract expired amidst student anger, Aramark was signed on again last year and was even granted permission to raise its meal plan prices nearly $300 -- citing commodity price increases -- from Trent's seemingly pro-business Board of Governors, a topic out of the scope of this piece.

But as much as I dislike Aramark's involvement at Trent, I will offer them some credit in relation to the work they have done with Trent's environmental student group, Sustainable Trent, of which I serve as an executive member. ST has worked with Aramark to develop notable, popular and successful programs. The Lug-a-Mug program, whereby customers using a re-usable mug receive discounts for beverages has been a hit, as has been the implementation of 'Resource Recovery Stations', organized and well-labelled stations to deposit waste, compost and recyclable goods. These are only a few of the many joint-programs.

But ST is embarking on what might be its most difficult project with Aramark: the ultimate ban of bottled water from campus. And since Aramark is in charge of the sale of all bottled water on campus, removing the beverage from its shelves is necessary for such a task. Although we are unsure of bottled water's share of revenue for Aramark, judging by the number of bottles seen around campus daily, it is a fairly significant share. Convincing a multi-national giant to drop the sale of such a lucrative product in even one of its locations is a tall order.

An anti-bottled water sentiment is slowly moving over the school. This summer, Trent held Canada's first bottled water-free convocation. Posters proclaiming the downsides of bottled water are frequently seen on campus and stainless steel water bottles are attached to nearly every backpack or bookbag you pass in the halls. Even bottled water filling stations, essentially modified water fountains, are being installed on campus after years of resistance from Trent administration and, I speculate, some influence from Aramark, who might see a significant drop in drink sales as thirsty schoolgoers will refrain from paying the two bucks for a Coke.

Aramark has even agreed to work with ST to develop a bottled water education campaign, but my pessimism predicts that the ST version might be considerably watered-down once Aramark goes through it (pardon the pun).

But bottled water is rapidly becoming an eyesore in the eyes of the public. Some schools have already banned the sale of the stuff and municipalities throughout Canada are banning the sale in its public buildings. Despite the arguments of bottled water companies and their distributors, it appears as though the battle might be leaning in the direction of the opposition.

That being said, ST certainly has its hands full. Keep your eyes peeled.

And remember, tap water is just as good, often safer and a hell of a lot cheaper. Buy smart.

Is the environmental attack on the Oil Sands going to make any headway?

A recent article in the Globe and Mail signalled that the fate of the hyper-destructive and very profitable Alberta Oil Sands might well be tipping in favour of those opposed to them. The article outlines the role the Norwegian state-owned oil company, Statoil, who has invested over $2B in the Oil Sands, is having in the country's federal elections.

Norway, from an international standpoint, is widely regarded as a friendly, progressive country, similar to its counterparts in Scandinavia. And even its historic oil industry -- Norway is the world's first country to employ a one-way CCS project -- is among the more respectable groups in the sector.

So being involved in the Oil Sands is sure to raise some eyebrows and rustle some feathers. The negativity of Statoil's involvement in the Oil Sands is so heavy that it could play a major role in the federal election as candidates from nearly every party are promising to carefully examine the role of Norway's state-owned company. One prominent leader is already offering to create environmental laws that would make it impossible for Statoil to even come close to getting involved with anything like the Oil Sands.

Norway is not the only one rethinking its involvement in Alberta. Even the Chinese government, whose state-owned oil enterprise is heavily invested in the Oil Sands, is looking at what's going on. The article also mentions that several Chinese journalists are on their way to take a tour of the areas surrounding the Oil Sands to witness the environmental destruction of the place.

But before we start to think that the tables have really turned and the Oil Sands are on their way to being shut down, let's just put a few things in perspective.

Statoil is state-owned. Generally speaking, state-owned energy companies have a lot more to answer to than their purely private contenders, especially in a country like Norway. The Chinese, although to a much lesser degree of social & environmental responsibility, are also state-owned. The downside is that the majority of investment in the Oil Sands is private. Private companies often, but not always, answer only to their shareholders who often, but again, not always, only want to make more money. The Oil Sands make money. Lots of it.

Secondly, keep in mind that it is election time in Norway. For those of us who have followed election campaigns, they are filled with promises. Often, these promises are politically charged and do not always come to fruition. Considering the length of time it would take to get out of there and the investment losses, the task of pulling out would be very difficult. I would not be surprised if this issue slowly fades away after election fever winds away.

Thirdly, and almost in summation, the Oil Sands are very, very lucrative. They are profitable for those involved and beneficiaries range from international partners (the United States) to domestic governments (Alberta). The Alberta government has certainly signalled more than once how little it really cares about the environmental consequences and its internal bureaucratic systems (see Andrew NikiForuk's Tar Sands) are far from being pro-environment. Furthermore, the Conservative stronghold of Alberta is almost insurmountable and if the current policies of both the Alberta and Federal Conservative government's is any indication, these policies are not going to change quickly.

And I wouldn't put too much money on Obama making a big deal about the Oil Sands anytime soon. His hands are full with his health care reform plan and any fight with the Oil Sands would surely have short-term economic consequences, which is the last thing he needs as the U.S. economy is starting to recover. Right now, he has bigger, more homegrown fish to fry.

I don't mean to sound like a pessimist, but the Oil Sands are big. Very big. I do not deny the environmental, economic and health damages due to the Oil Sands, but tackling such a beast is so complex and in my opinion, nearly impossible. However, I would urge those already fighting to shut down the Oil Sands to keep on doing what they're doing, as anything helps in the struggle against them.

But in some ways we need to be a bit realistic and make the best out of an already awful situation by looking more into conservation strategies, renewable energy markets and to pressure our elected officials. Perhaps we could at least reduce the demand for oil in this country. But really fighting the Oil Sands seems like a steep moutain to climb.

I can only hope I'm wrong.

The importance of the potato in the 18th century...

How do places urbanize? Usually people migrate to cities because of the multiplicity of choice… You have quick and easy access to public transportation, numerous urban amenities and tonnes of housing options to choose from. When places urbanize, the population concomitantly increases… naturally. For hundreds of years we have been studying population growth examining factors that depopulate and populate areas. This has always been a curious humanitarian question and it is only gaining more research interest as our population surpasses the 6.8 billion mark.

Over the course of civilization, diseases like Black Death, malaria and other deadly epidemics have obliterated populations. However, we have also seen tremendous population growth since the 1950s particularly in India, China, Brazil, the United States and Europe. What exactly has been the cause of such population growth? Is it natural resources, is it the aforementioned urban amenities or is it something else?

The contemporary population question is being studied widely across the world. Interestingly, if we look at the world in the 18th and 19th century, the discovery of the potato not only led to a 22% rise in population, but a 47% rise in urbanization. Nathan Nunn and Nancy Qian have done research on the importance of nutrition to economic development. Their findings on the potato are fascinating.

The discovery of the potato was interconnected through geography, the environment, economics and health. After all, potatoes are an inexpensive crop to cultivate and subsequently eat, highly nutritious and are geographically suitable to be cultivated in many parts of the world including Northern Europe, Asia and even Northern Africa.

The discovery of potatoes led to population growth and urbanization in the 18th and 19th century. In the 21st century there are numerous factors contributing to population growth and decline. It seems however, that the discovery of natural resources are far more important today than any one nutritional crop like potatoes.

This is because natural resources have much more economic value and wealth today because of scarcity issues - oil, water and timber just to name a few examples. But natural resource discovery has at times --both historically and contemporarily-- led to conflict and war… factors that lead to depopulation. I wonder if there will be a study that shows the correlation between natural resource discovery and depopulation. Anyway, see Nathan Nunn and Nancy Qian's study on the discovery of the potato and urbanization.

A carpool permit system...

OK, so first let me say that this is only an idea and that the wheels are still spinning in my head. I also acknowledge that getting something like this to work might be incredibly complex and difficult, but so be it.

Much concern is often put on how we drive cars. Many would argue we drive them too much, they're too big and there are too many of them. The latter may very well be (among others) a factor of wanting to drive by one's self. If you have four people who don't want to share a vehicle, they could go out and by their own. Now there are four vehicles on the road instead of one.

That's four times the GHG emissions, four times the congestion, four times worse air pollution and probably four times of a lot more other stuff. But what if we could reduce that.

Carpooling is slowly becoming a popular, or at least encouraged, thing to do. Carpool lanes are common on the main thoroughfares in many of North America's major urban centres, although they are often not enforced properly. Carpooling is also encouraged by many workplaces and online carpool networks are in existence where people can find convenient ways to carpool to and from regions.

Still, such methods seem to be of little match for the beast that is North Americans' feeling of entitlement to driving a car by themselves. It is a freeing experience. You can listen to your own music, go where you want, be safe from the weather and ultimately feel in control of your journey.

So what if the government were to implement an aggressive program to not only encourage carpooling or taking alternative transportation, but also severely discourage driving by one's self?

I propose a tax or penalty system. That is, people who drive by themselves would be taxed or fined. A law could be written that would require a special permit to drive by one's self, which could be set at a specific price. If people feel the need to drive by themselves, they could pay for a permit. Vehicles could be identified as having a "single-occupant" permit by placing tags on the license plate, similarly to insurance tags.

If one is caught driving by themselves without a permit, they could be fined at rates similar to speeding tickets or even harsher depending on the level of disincentive needed to change people's behaviour. The program could also recognize the need for people to drive by themselves sometimes, such as an emergency, and each non-permit vehicle could be allocated a series of 'emergency' coupons whereby they wouldn't get fined. However, if found to have been used in a non-emergency matter, serious penalties could be applied as to discourage misuse.

I can immediately tell that criticism to such an idea might stem from the issue of enforcement. It is true that such a policy might be difficult to enforce. But if tags are clearly displayed, police officers on routine patrol would easily be able to tell whether or not someone is legally driving by themselves.

All the permits sold could be put directly into alternative transportation projects, such as public transportation or bike lanes/paths. The revenue from fines could also be allocated to such programs but also be shared with the police service as to encourage effective enforcement.

Special exemptions could be made for particular businesses that are deemed to require travelling by one's self, such as electricians' vehicles or other workers who may need to carry a lot of equipment.

This could be done as a municipal bylaw (which would be difficult to enforce because of out-of-town travellers) or as a provincial or national law (which would work well with the car licensing programs).

I imagine there would be a lot of opposition (automakers, for one) to such a policy, but it could be effective.

What do you think?

Environmentalism as a luxury is not always a bad thing...

You're at the supermarket and faced with a very tough decision: do you go with the apples labelled 'organic' (we'll assume in this example that they actually are organic and also not of the GMO variety) or the regular ones? You've seen the news shows and read the books on the risks of non-organic foods and are fully aware that those apples were probably splattered in pesticides. If you continue to eat them you might be slowly killing yourself in one way or another. But the organic apples are twice the price. Decisions, decisions...

I am a student, and like a hefty number of people living in Canada, student or not, I do not have huge amounts of money to be spending on groceries. I already spend a great share of my income on food, but at the prices charged for organic products, I simply can't afford it, at least without giving up on other aspects of my spending.

This is certainly not news. The organics debate (at least the pricing aspect of it) has been charging along for quite some time now. The common conclusion is quite simple: eating organic foods is reserved for those of us who can afford it. It is a luxury. Sure, you can grow a wide range of organic foods in your backyard for a much cheaper price, but the reality is that the majority of people do not have the time, space or most importantly, the patience, to do so.

In my own experience I've certainly run into people who think having expensive organics is an awful thing. Price gougers; bourgeoisie; capitalist exploiters: some of the phrases I've heard associated with organics in Canada (you'll notice the rather socialist leanings of some of these remarks. For more, I highly recommend taking a tour of the Trent Campus...).

A month or so ago I visited the Carrot Common in Toronto, a grouping of 'green' stores, headlined by a massive grocery store where nearly everything was organic. While it was a nice place to be, I came to realize that although I could be healthier, my grocery bill would probably be three to four times more expensive if I shopped there.

But here's the thing. Having organics so expensive is not necessarily a bad thing. This is simply because it is a relatively new product trying to make its way into an already overfilled market. If we look at products that today are very common we can quickly realize that the organics market is only at its earliest stages. For example, when computers first became consumer goods and battled the typewriter industry, they were outrageously expensive and reserved only for those with a nice chunk of change. But now the majority of people in Canada have or have access to a computer. Cars, too.

This is all because of the law of economies of scale: as more of a good is produced overall, the marginal cost of producing each good falls. Quite simply, it's like buying bulk. The more you make, the cheaper each individual one becomes. Compared to 'regular' foods, organics are a tiny share of the market and therefore are more expensive. But as they become more popular, the cost will go down. But in the meantime, the market has to start somewhere.

The other argument I'd pose is that organics (at least the ones that aren't price gouged and also the ones that are local) reflect what the more realistic economic cost should be. Although we've gotten used to our food industry, being able to buy whatever we want and whenever we want at remarkably low prices is a function of a lot of dangerous processes we're now learning might be more trouble than they're worth. Globalization, pesticide use and agricultural subsidies are making our food overly abundant and overly cheap, at the expense of our health, the world's farmers and the environment. More expensive food is seen as a bad thing (which largely, it is), but maybe more expensive food is a reality if we want to be living sustainably.

The expensiveness of being 'environmental' or 'green' is not reserved for organics. Renewable energy systems, hybrid cars and 'green' clothing products are also expensive and largely out of reach for many people. Having a completely solar powered home is a nice idea, but few can afford it, right now. So yes, these environmental products may be expensive and out of reach, but soon enough they'll be in the market place so the common-person can afford them.

The danger is if we denounce these products as being too luxurious, effectively reducing their desirability in the market and leaving them to go extinct. Everything has to start somewhere and unfortunately, it often starts with the rich.

Here comes climate change. I hope you packed your Advil...

It is commonly known as 'clinical folklore', but many have believed for years that there was a link between headaches and the weather. Well, it's fair to say it's no longer just a piece of folklore. Researchers from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston just published a study in the journal Neurology demonstrating a link between weather conditions and the incidence of headaches and migraines.

Interestingly, warmer weather and changes in atmospheric pressure are shown to significantly influence headaches and migraines. The researchers estimate that each 5 degree rise in temperature can increase the risk of severe headaches by 8% compared to colder weather. Lower barometric pressure also appeared to be associated with more headaches. 

While air pollution didn't indicate any changes, nor did the researchers prove strong causation, there was a definite evident linkage between the two. And I'm going to guess that our headaches aren't the ones influencing the weather. Humans have impacts, but that might be pushing it.

So why do I bother writing about this? Well, with warmer air temperatures come more headaches. Climate change is certainly expected to increase average air temperatures, as well as the frequency of the extremely high temperature changes, like the heat wave seen in Western Europe in 2003. There could be a lot more headaches in our future.

Oh, conspiracy theorists, here's something to consider. Maybe the drug companies are causing climate change. Oooooooh. I see a straight-to-video movie...