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.
Showing posts with label Pollution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pollution. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Guest Entry: Assessing the Environmental Impacts of the Tar Sands
By: Trevor Shah
Please note that I will not focus on the economic benefits of the Tar Sands as these are already widely known. Rather, I focus on the detrimental environmental impacts as these far outweigh the short-term economic benefits.
Land Use
In March 2008, Syncrude Canada became the first oil company to receive a reclamation certificate from the Alberta government for restoring 104 hectares of land. Syncrude claims to have restored 22 percent of their disturbed land to date; however the Alberta government has not given Syncrude a reclamation certificate for this restored land (apart from the 104 hectares).
The Alberta government has been criticized by the Alberta Auditor General for its poor record in tracking land reclamation of Tar Sands operators. According to the Government of Alberta, only 0.16 percent of the total land disturbed by Tar Sands extraction has been reclaimed. This 0.16 percent represents the 104 hectares of land that was reclaimed by Syncrude in March 2008.
The 11 companies operating in the oil sands claim to have collectively restored 11 percent of total disturbed land; however, there is no government certification to support this claim.
This is highlighted very clearly in Figure 2 (of my report) which shows the gap between the disturbance of land and its reclamation rates. Further, it is important to note that the blue line represents the land that has been reclaimed by industry, not the land that has been certified by the government.
Water
Tar Sands mining operators have been licensed to extract 359 million cubic meters of water from the Athabasca River. This is double the amount of water consumed by the City of Calgary annually. What’s more, 92 percent of this water ends up in contaminated tailing ponds and the Government of Alberta does not have any reclamation standards for the 840 million cubic metres of tailing lakes. Few technologies exist to remediate tailing lakes and those that do exist, are extremely costly: it is estimated that the cost of remediating one tonne of tailings is between $13.09 and $16.40.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Alberta Tar Sands are the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Furthermore, Tar Sands companies do not have to pay to neutralize their carbon emissions. By 2015, Fort McMurray will emit more greenhouse gas emissions than all of Denmark, a country with 5.5 million citizens. Further, it is estimated that Tar Sands oil produces at least three times more emissions per barrel than conventional crude oil.
Sand Waste
By 2010, the Tar Sands industry will have generated eight billion tonnes of sand waste which contains naphthenic acid and paraffin: chemicals which can have adverse health effects on mammals leading to liver problems and brain haemorrhaging.
Earth and Soil Waste
According to the Government of Alberta (2007), open pit mining entails “clearing trees and brush from a site and removing the overburden - the topsoil, muskeg, sand, clay and gravel - that sits atop the Tar Sands deposit”. This overburden is often 75 metres deep and is taken offsite by large trucks. In the end, it is estimated that four tonnes of earth must be removed for every barrel of oil produced.
The Government of Alberta must set stricter environmental legislation that will ensure the price of oil is reflective of the aforementioned negative externalities it produces. Further, the Alberta government must impose deadlines for land and tailing ponds to be reclaimed by, and eliminate all government subsidies to Tar Sands companies. These strategies will increase the price of Tar Sands oil causing companies to invest in more efficient technologies, or leave the market due to reduced profitability.
To read the full report, see here [scribd].
Trevor Shah is a third-year commerce student at Queen’s University. He wrote a comprehensive report on the environmental impacts of the Tar Sands for his Sustainable Strategies Class.
Please note that I will not focus on the economic benefits of the Tar Sands as these are already widely known. Rather, I focus on the detrimental environmental impacts as these far outweigh the short-term economic benefits.
Land Use
In March 2008, Syncrude Canada became the first oil company to receive a reclamation certificate from the Alberta government for restoring 104 hectares of land. Syncrude claims to have restored 22 percent of their disturbed land to date; however the Alberta government has not given Syncrude a reclamation certificate for this restored land (apart from the 104 hectares).
The Alberta government has been criticized by the Alberta Auditor General for its poor record in tracking land reclamation of Tar Sands operators. According to the Government of Alberta, only 0.16 percent of the total land disturbed by Tar Sands extraction has been reclaimed. This 0.16 percent represents the 104 hectares of land that was reclaimed by Syncrude in March 2008.
The 11 companies operating in the oil sands claim to have collectively restored 11 percent of total disturbed land; however, there is no government certification to support this claim.
This is highlighted very clearly in Figure 2 (of my report) which shows the gap between the disturbance of land and its reclamation rates. Further, it is important to note that the blue line represents the land that has been reclaimed by industry, not the land that has been certified by the government.
Water
Tar Sands mining operators have been licensed to extract 359 million cubic meters of water from the Athabasca River. This is double the amount of water consumed by the City of Calgary annually. What’s more, 92 percent of this water ends up in contaminated tailing ponds and the Government of Alberta does not have any reclamation standards for the 840 million cubic metres of tailing lakes. Few technologies exist to remediate tailing lakes and those that do exist, are extremely costly: it is estimated that the cost of remediating one tonne of tailings is between $13.09 and $16.40.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Alberta Tar Sands are the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Furthermore, Tar Sands companies do not have to pay to neutralize their carbon emissions. By 2015, Fort McMurray will emit more greenhouse gas emissions than all of Denmark, a country with 5.5 million citizens. Further, it is estimated that Tar Sands oil produces at least three times more emissions per barrel than conventional crude oil.
Sand Waste
By 2010, the Tar Sands industry will have generated eight billion tonnes of sand waste which contains naphthenic acid and paraffin: chemicals which can have adverse health effects on mammals leading to liver problems and brain haemorrhaging.
Earth and Soil Waste
According to the Government of Alberta (2007), open pit mining entails “clearing trees and brush from a site and removing the overburden - the topsoil, muskeg, sand, clay and gravel - that sits atop the Tar Sands deposit”. This overburden is often 75 metres deep and is taken offsite by large trucks. In the end, it is estimated that four tonnes of earth must be removed for every barrel of oil produced.
The Government of Alberta must set stricter environmental legislation that will ensure the price of oil is reflective of the aforementioned negative externalities it produces. Further, the Alberta government must impose deadlines for land and tailing ponds to be reclaimed by, and eliminate all government subsidies to Tar Sands companies. These strategies will increase the price of Tar Sands oil causing companies to invest in more efficient technologies, or leave the market due to reduced profitability.
To read the full report, see here [scribd].
Trevor Shah is a third-year commerce student at Queen’s University. He wrote a comprehensive report on the environmental impacts of the Tar Sands for his Sustainable Strategies Class.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
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?
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?
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Coal-loaded ship runs aground on the Great Barrier Reef...
If the rapid development of coal-fired power plants in China wasn't enough to piss off the environmental community, the crashing of a Chinese coal-carrier on the Great Barrier Reef certainly won't help.
The ship ran aground late last night and is carrying 72,000 tons of coal, as well as 1000 tons of oil. Some of the oil has started to leak and local officials are very worried that the ship is on the verge of breaking apart. A break could spell significant environmental disaster on one of the world's most fragile ecosystems.
Australia's Great Barrier Reef is in serious danger from climate change, as rising ocean temperatures tend to cause significant coral bleaching, which, if occurring annually, could very well kill the Reef.
For more information on the story, go here.
This has not been a good week for China's coal industry. In addition to the Reef incident and the constant criticism of its coal plants by environmentalists, 153 miners have been trapped inside a coal mine in China for nearly a week.
Despite all the wonderful economic and energy benefits of coal, there sure are many downsides. Hopefully these downsides start to be taken more seriously before it's too late.
Photo: Guardian Newspaper
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
A cleaner, cheaper, more useful type of clean coal...
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.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, February 5, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
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.
Friday, June 19, 2009
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?
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?
Friday, April 17, 2009
GHG's now fall under the Clean Air Act...
The United States' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has formally recognized a number of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (which contribute to climate change) as "endanger[ing] public health and welfare". This has huge implications for climate change policy in the United States, as these gases will now fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Air Act which prohibits the discharge of some of the world's most dangerous polluting chemicals into the air.
This is being recognized as the first step in the United States towards a significant climate change policy. Unlike his predecessor, Barack Obama is pursuing relatively ambitious climate change policies, even in the face of a tremendous economic downturn.
Interestingly, this move by the EPA may not sit well with Obama. With the new rules, the EPA would be able to regulate emissions of the GHGs. Obama, on the other hand, does not seem as interested in regulation as he does in implementing a cap-and-trade system, which would instead rely on economics rather than governmental laws. Depending on the level of regulation from the EPA, a cap-and-trade system is generally considered to be less harmful to business than regulation.
In any case, it is a very important step in a long process to establishing an effective climate change policy.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
An idling Suburban...
A number of months ago, the City of Peterborough instituted a by-law prohibiting the extended idling of vehicles. It was met with much praise, but the results may not be worth it. The by-law is poorly enforced, expensive to implement (upwards of $80,000 for writing a few words in a book) and doesn't apply to all vehicles and areas (taxicabs are temporarily exempted and drive-thrus got themselves a free pass).
I work part-time with a local environmental charity in Peterborough and I just went outside to grab a bite of lunch. Outside of the building a giant blue Chevy Suburban was sitting there, idling away. One passenger was inside, I would assume enjoying the comforts of a mammoth on wheels while the driver was stopping off somewhere, probably our building.
Nothing says 'eco' like an idling Suburban outside an environmental charity's building.
I know they might not get pinned with an 'idling' fine, but at least have some decency. If anything should come of the silly by-law, it should be a recognition that idling is harmful to the environment and human health. An idling Suburban just isn't cool the way it used to be. No wonder GM is on the brink...
I work part-time with a local environmental charity in Peterborough and I just went outside to grab a bite of lunch. Outside of the building a giant blue Chevy Suburban was sitting there, idling away. One passenger was inside, I would assume enjoying the comforts of a mammoth on wheels while the driver was stopping off somewhere, probably our building.
Nothing says 'eco' like an idling Suburban outside an environmental charity's building.
I know they might not get pinned with an 'idling' fine, but at least have some decency. If anything should come of the silly by-law, it should be a recognition that idling is harmful to the environment and human health. An idling Suburban just isn't cool the way it used to be. No wonder GM is on the brink...
Friday, March 6, 2009
The ECO footprint and SARS
Does everyone remember the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic? It was a pretty big issue from November 2002 to July 2003. Toronto had to quarantine many of its citizens because of the threat of being diagnosed with SARS. Well, prior to this epidemic, I really don’t think we were discussing air pollution and smog related issues in urbanized settings. SARS just happened to come from the Guangdong Province in China, which has 467 people per square kilometer and does not have the best air quality in China. Poor air quality is often a good indicator of urban environmental quality. High levels of particulate matter, ozone, and other pollutants constitute poor air quality which come from our cars, factories and homes.
Our exposure to local air pollutants, dirty water and unsanitary landscapes can all promote disease. The connection to the ecological footprint? The ecological footprint measures the resources consumed and the waste produced by a given entity translated into the land and water area required to support this level of activity. Things that the Eco footprint measure that are important here for consideration include “how many kilometres per litre does your car get” or how much do you drive each year on average” or “on average, how many kilometres do you travel on public transportation”. All of these questions measure urban environmental quality to some degree which in turn can illustrate how bad air quality is in the city or rural area.
Have cities in Canada even recognized the fundamental problems with air quality and smog? The reason why I allude to SARS is because SARS really woke people up. Not everyone understands its diagnosis, signs or symptoms but do recognize that it is a respiratory syndrome that can stem from poor air quality. My point, it unfortunately takes outbreaks like SARS to capture our attention and recognize the importance of public health issues. The Eco footprint is an excellent indicator of how sustainable you are, but one can easily take the test, view their results, and not make changes to become more sustainable. Unlike the Eco footprint, there are no free riders with epidemics like SARS. People living in urban environments cannot afford to take risks with these diseases because they are highly contagious and our bodies are very susceptible to them.
Environmental policy decisions are ultimately shaped on citizens’ perceived threats of health related issues. When we are more in touch or concerned about the health related problem like SARS, then policy suddenly influences things like enhancing public transportation, putting in congestion charge zones as done in London, or just generally cutting down on these pernicious pollutants that affect our respiratory system.
Key message: It should not take things like SARS to address air quality issues. Respiratory illness is easily exacerbated by heavy automobile use, limited use of public transit and inadequate air quality emission standards that regulate how many air pollutants go into our environment. People love to free ride the Eco footprint as they can measure their footprint and ostensibly take action on reducing it. We tend to have a reactive approach to environmental action, something must really shake us like a hurricane, tsunami or a flood for meaningful change to happen. When people are immediately affected by the problem i.e. SARS, it reinforces reality and brings us closer to the issue.
Our exposure to local air pollutants, dirty water and unsanitary landscapes can all promote disease. The connection to the ecological footprint? The ecological footprint measures the resources consumed and the waste produced by a given entity translated into the land and water area required to support this level of activity. Things that the Eco footprint measure that are important here for consideration include “how many kilometres per litre does your car get” or how much do you drive each year on average” or “on average, how many kilometres do you travel on public transportation”. All of these questions measure urban environmental quality to some degree which in turn can illustrate how bad air quality is in the city or rural area.
Have cities in Canada even recognized the fundamental problems with air quality and smog? The reason why I allude to SARS is because SARS really woke people up. Not everyone understands its diagnosis, signs or symptoms but do recognize that it is a respiratory syndrome that can stem from poor air quality. My point, it unfortunately takes outbreaks like SARS to capture our attention and recognize the importance of public health issues. The Eco footprint is an excellent indicator of how sustainable you are, but one can easily take the test, view their results, and not make changes to become more sustainable. Unlike the Eco footprint, there are no free riders with epidemics like SARS. People living in urban environments cannot afford to take risks with these diseases because they are highly contagious and our bodies are very susceptible to them.
Environmental policy decisions are ultimately shaped on citizens’ perceived threats of health related issues. When we are more in touch or concerned about the health related problem like SARS, then policy suddenly influences things like enhancing public transportation, putting in congestion charge zones as done in London, or just generally cutting down on these pernicious pollutants that affect our respiratory system.
Key message: It should not take things like SARS to address air quality issues. Respiratory illness is easily exacerbated by heavy automobile use, limited use of public transit and inadequate air quality emission standards that regulate how many air pollutants go into our environment. People love to free ride the Eco footprint as they can measure their footprint and ostensibly take action on reducing it. We tend to have a reactive approach to environmental action, something must really shake us like a hurricane, tsunami or a flood for meaningful change to happen. When people are immediately affected by the problem i.e. SARS, it reinforces reality and brings us closer to the issue.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Becoming more stringent on pollution standards...
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a lot of work to do on air pollution standards. The US court of appeals is coming down on the EPA calling for more stringent standards because of health related problems that can be attributed to air pollution. Asthma, lung disease and heart cancer to name a few. Check out the article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)