Poll results: climate change communicators

We express our gratitude to those who continue to vote in our polls. Chris and I enjoy this new poll feature and hope that it stimulates your on-going interest in the environment. It's always good to see the diversity of responses.

The recent poll question was "who of these individuals has been most effective at communicating the importance of taking action on climate change to you?"

David Suzuki (7 votes)
Al Gore (8 votes)
Nicholas Stern (2 votes)
Elizabeth May (2 votes)
Barack Obama (1 vote)
Oprah Winfrey (0 votes)
None of the above (1 vote)

Number of people who voted = 16
Number of total votes = 21

Climate change is one of those subjects that can make you feel depressed, pessimistic and frustrated with the world. Finding consensus on the issue through agreements has proven to be a difficult task. Canada, the US, China and India continue to be the world's largest C02 emitters. However, as individuals striving to make an environmental difference, surely we can live with some optimism. You have to be the change yourself and lead by example. The individuals listed above have all inspired me in some sort of way (with the exception of Oprah) to think more pro-actively about climate change.

Nicholas Stern wrote a report in October 2006 about the 7 trillion dollar warning on global warming. In essence, not taking action on climate change would be more expensive for the world than taking action on climate change. He told us a lot about the economics of it. Al Gore, despite the widespread criticism, raised international awareness over the issue and got people thinking about it. His film "An Inconvenient Truth" illustrated some of Stern's concerns but more importantly, exposed many to this global issue. I commend him greatly for doing that.

I heard David Suzuki and Elizabeth May (Federal Leader of the Green Party of Canada) speak in my year of university. They talked to a large university audience about why we should care about climate change and emphasized how we can take individual action and educate others about it. Education and awareness are fundamental for mobilizing change and getting society to think about climate change more holistically. Suzuki has been Canada's man at articulating the contemporary issues around the environment to all audiences. He continues to inspire me.

Last, Barack Obama, well, he hasn't done much but I am confident that he will take climate change more seriously than his predecessor. He has worked towards increasing fuel economy standards and is more enthusiastic about biofuels and cellulosic ethanol, unlike corn ethanol whom Bush was obsessed with.

Key message: Our optimism and solidarity around climate change needs to be desperately re-invigorated. We have more pessimists today than optimists (especially after Copenhagen). If you are displeased with your leaders and their unwillingness to act, then take action yourself by educating, creating awareness and sharing your knowledge with your community.

The Fun Theory...

I think the last time I had fun recycling a product was tossing a glass bottle into a recycling bin like a basketball, which quickly turned to guilt-ridden fear as the bottle shattered and I ran away. But for the most part, activities like recycling or cleaning up litter are far from exciting. A self-induced pat on the back is probably the most many people get when they toss their can in the recycling bin.

German auto manufacturer, Volkswagen is trying to change that. As part of an initiative known as the Fun Theory, Volkswagen has launched a website filled with videos that are dedicated to making mundane but important activities fun. According to the website, "This site is dedicated to the thought that something as simple as fun is the easiest way to change people’s behaviour for the better. Be it for yourself, for the environment, or for something entirely different, the only thing that matters is that it’s change for the better."





Some of the videos I have attached showcase how fun is being used to engage people to take part in activities that they might not otherwise engage in. For example, bottle return stations -- not used in Ontario and some other jurisdictions because of curbside pickup programs -- are about as thrilling as watching paint dry. But when they are turned into a flashy arcade game, people flock to it.





Or how about waiting for the bus? In some cities it might be difficult to know whether the bus is actually on its way. And standing around awkwardly not talking to other people is all too common. But this all changes when a street periscope is built at the station. People can look through the periscope to see if their bus is on its way, and can also explore other parts of the city. Plus it gives them something to talk to others about at the station.





And when you are coming off the subway, why would you take the tiring and boring stairs when the elevator doesn't require you to really do anything? To play a song of course! When the stairs are turned into a piano, use of the stairs increases significantly. 


Our friend Kingsley -- who happens to originate many of the ideas that appear on this blog, although he never seems interested in writing anything himself (hint, hint, cough, cough) -- was telling me about can-crushing Plinko. Based on the famous game from The Price is Right, people crushed their cans and then dropped them onto a Plinko board and then settled into a recycling bin. You can only imagine how much of a hit that'd be.


One of the biggest problems with environmental programs is getting people to buy into them and become engaged. No matter how green they are, how convenient they might be, how healthy they are or how nice they are financially, people just might not care enough to get engaged. But if they are made fun and exciting, as the videos above indicate, people will participate.


Now of course, the novelty would quickly wear off if every set of stairs in a city all of a sudden allowed you to practice Beethoven's Fifth and get in your fitness workout at the same time. But there are undoubtedly countless creative and innovative ideas out there waiting to be unleashed on the unexciting but important aspects of our world. 


What is more, having these fun programs out in the public generates all sorts of community energy. Rather than having everyone walk past each other on the street without offering as much as a glance to one another -- as I have encountered far too many times when travelling through downtown Toronto -- people could share in the fun of these activities, talk with one another and generally just have a good time. A happy, lively and friendly community is a good community.


Being told to take part in things in order to evade guilt and simply getting beaten over the head with the negative consequences of our actions is not always the best way to get people to buy into something. Sometimes they might do the opposite just to spite you. But putting a positive spin on things is a win-win for everyone involved. Well done, Fun Theory.  

Blogging part 3: Environmental communicators…

Last semester, I took a course titled “environment and communication”. We mainly learned about various techniques and approaches (i.e. blogging) that could be used to communicate science and environmental issues to the public. Through writing articles and making weekly presentations, we were challenged to communicate our topics in a way that a Grade 8 student would be able to understand. It had to be simple, effective and relevant. More than that however was our exposure to the media and how the media perpetually attempts to communicate science in a simple and thought-provoking way. We examined media sources that did a thorough job on reporting environmental issues and also media that was dreadful at it.

Some of these topics included climate change (the science, economics and politics of it), urban air pollution, geo-engineering and hazardous waste disposal just to name a few. These topics are by no means a simple equation that makes sense to everyone. They require a good level of understanding, application and research. This doesn't mean that we have to spend a day doing field research or looking through academic journals to understand them. It means reading online sources to understand the basics and be critical of what is being produced.

A positive trend indicating an improvement in communicating environmental issues is the increased use of internet. We are now living in a more digitalized world. Technology is all around us and the ubiquity of the media perpetually reinforces topics that citizens actually want to hear. Information about science and the environment is all around us. With blogging, online news sources and television, you can now read or view numerous topics that capture your interest. Sure, with this increase in information your level of critical thinking and scepticism should increase as well. What’s trash and what’s good? I am sure you can ascertain that yourself after 15 seconds of exposure to the article.

Some will share their latest findings on climate change so as to accept or reject human-induced climate change. Overall, the level of uncertainty regarding numerous scientific and environmental topics can really infuse dubiety but this forces us to seek out more information, learn and share our criticisms.

With the ubiquity of information and the glorious internet, all of us are gaining knowledge every single day. Some of this knowledge pertains to the environment and current affairs. My challenge for you is to start utilizing that knowledge and spreading awareness. Climate change continues to be a very critical environmental topic and current affair of our day. With the knowledge you learn about the subject matter, whether it is political or scientific, a great way to communicate it is to share information (blogs, news articles, youtube videos) with as many people as you can.

Ultimately, the more informed we are about these issues the more critical we can be of our elected officials and perhaps have more of an inclination to vote in our next election. To communicate environmental issues does not mean you have to have a Bachelor’s degree in the field, it means you have the passion and interest to spread the word just as much as Chris and I do on this blog. Not all of us are in a position to make policy changes on the environment. However, we are in a position to communicate as we are living in an era where access to information is easily accessible.

The experts don't always like sharing their stuff, they want their research to be published and usually it will stay within the academic community. Take what you can from what you learn (as we are all journalists in some kind of way) and start writing, sharing, telling and presenting what you know.... this can lead to more solidarity on the subject and lead to the government making more informed and fair decisions.

Key message: We are all environmental communicators in some sort of way. Continue to share your knowledge through the internet and media to get out salient information that the public needs to know more about.

The Importance of Prevention: Lessons from Haiti...

The tragedy occurring in Haiti as a result of the devastating earthquake is absolutely heartbreaking. No one deserves such a fate and my heart goes out to the millions that have been adversely impacted by the disaster. Moreover, the outpouring of support coming from around the world is somewhat inspiring.

But you are going to have to forgive my forthcoming cynicism.

As inspiring and necessary as the support is, I was left with a sick feeling in my stomach as soon as the media started publishing all sorts of stories about the rapid deployment of disaster relief complemented by a series of politically-opportunistic photo ops. This is both typical and frustrating, but not my main point of contention. My greater concern is how the world approaches Haiti and its disaster, and more broadly, how we approach the prevention of disasters.

(I will preface this by saying I am by no means an expert on Haiti nor an expert on international development, but have a relatively decent grasp of both subjects). Haiti has been falling apart for decades, if not centuries. Even prior to the disaster, it was among the most impoverished countries in the world with outrageously high rates of infant mortality and disease. A series of brutal dictatorships, coups and interference from influential foreign powers have left the country in political ruin for years and consistently ranks near the top of the world's most corrupt countries. There is very little money for the majority of citizens and the physical infrastructure (roads, well-built houses, emergency services) throughout the country is awful.

And how has the world helped? Some countries have thrown money at them and expected great things, although the success of purely financial foreign aid is far from high. Basically, we turn a blind eye.

But when the country physically starts to fall apart, we run in like the white knight without even thinking about it. Governments throughout the world are pledging hundreds of millions of dollars in support and sending in their militaries to help out as soon as possible. Different workplaces are collecting money to donate and even professional sports leagues like the NHL are reaching into their pockets to help out. I just walked by a booth at Trent where a bake sale is being put on the help quake victims. Again, this is touching and it is nice to see all sorts of people helping out.

But there is only so much help all of this can do right now. Much of the aid can't even get into the country at this point and some donation groups have even been swindling the folks who have trusted them with their money.

As great as all the support is, it could have been considerably more effective if used to prevent much of the devastation rather than clean it up. True, as a friend pointed out to me, you can't predict the future. But natural disasters often wreak similar havoc. The damage may not have been much more different had it been a massive hurricane or flood.

The infrastructure is particularly important. A reporter on the CBC was comparing the damage to that seen in L'Aquila, Italy recently from another strong earthquake. But unlike there, where the buildings were modestly strong and emergency services could easily get to the sites, Haiti's buildings are weak and domestic emergency services essentially non-existent.

And I want to make it clear that when I say support, I do not just mean money. Money has been thrown at Haiti for years, but that doesn't go very far when it is given to a corrupt regime, or coming with strings attached. Indeed, development practices are tricky things, but surely something could have been done to create stable infrastructure several years ago.

Moreover, the amount of support coming in from members of the public is important, but how many of these people really cared about Haiti prior to the quake? Would they have been as willing to stand in the halls selling baked goods if you told them the proceeds might one day prevent such a high level of devastation? Or does the actual event have to take place before people care?

I should also make it clear that my use of prevention is to describe preventing such a high level of devastation. Indeed, you can't prevent an earthquake, and with one of such magnitude, there is inevitably going to be damage, but the amount of damage could have been reduced significantly.

The problem with only helping out once the damage is done is that it is often considerably less effective overall. And it is more expensive. How much do you think it'll really cost to return Haiti to its former self prior to the quake? And how expensive has the entire disaster relief effort been? It certainly isn't cheap and it certainly isn't any cheaper than what might have been needed to prevent such tragedy.

So why is this appearing in an environmentally-related blog?

Because if the climate scientists are right, natural disasters are going to get more frequent and more powerful as the planet warms. True, climate change won't influence earthquakes, but as I said earlier, natural disasters often wreak havoc in a similar fashion. How many more Haitis could we prevent over the next 100 years if we thought about this properly and invested in prevention rather than the clean up?

More broadly, our entire approach to climate change and the environment is centred around this phenomenon. We spend years trying to figure out where to put our waste rather thinking about how to reduce the production of it. If we don't do enough to prevent the damages we're bringing upon ourselves, we could all be screwed. After all, there comes a point when it's impossible to clean up.        

100 quick facts on water...

"Water is life". These words have been echoed by hydrologists, conservationists, authors, bloggers, journalists, economists, academics and activists. More and more professionals are beginning to articulate the importance of conserving this natural resource for future generations. With uncertainty around climate change and continuing population growth, we know that the total amount of water available per person will inevitably decrease in the coming years.

Here in North America, we are quite profligate with our water consumption. The average Canadian uses 343 litres of water per day. That is absurd considering that the Israelis consume 135 litres per person per day and the Swedish, 200 litres. The geography of water resources does dictate water availability. For instance, water consumption is higher in Canada than in Israel because of the Great Lakes and ubiquity of rivers, streams, smaller lakes and aquifers. Israel has no water and has turned to the Mediterranean Sea for desalination (that process where salt water is converted into fresh drinking water).

Geography is critical, however, I think policy is just as important. If we are wanting to become more serious about water conservation in Canada over the next 25 years, policy is going to have to take an aggressive approach in pushing water metering, by-laws and incentives for residents to decrease their total amount of water use. Yes, it is true, Canada does have lots of water; 20% of the world's fresh water to be exact. Do not however, let this number deceive you as we only have 7% of the world's renewable fresh water- water that is naturally recycled through the water cycle.

4 months into my thesis project, and I have already learned so much more about this natural resource. Environment Canada has 100 facts about water that are quite revealing and informative. Some of these facts include:

1)Only 0.3% of total global fresh water is stored in lakes and rivers.
2)Fifty percent of the world's wetlands have been lost since 1900.
3)Almost two billion people were affected by natural disasters in the last decade of the 20th century, 86% of them by floods and droughts.
4)Annually, Canada's rivers discharge 7% of the world's renewable water supply – 105 000 cubic metres per second.
5)Almost 9%, or 891 163 square kilometers, of Canada's total area is covered by fresh water.

There are 95 more available at this Environment Canada link.

Key message: Water is life.

Is climate change really about risk management?

This post is a sequel to Chris's post about the Munk debates on climate change.

According to Greg Craven, climate change is a game of risk management. As he explains in the video, we can take action on "global warming" and spend trillions of dollars doing this. But, what if global warming is "false"? Then we run ourselves into a global depression. Or we spend trillions of dollars and we benefit through this as it greatly minimizes the risks associated with global warming. Or we do nothing (status quo) and global warming does not prove to be as catastrophic as it was predicted to be. Here we do not take action, nothing significant happens and we save $$$. And if we don't take action and it actually happens.... well, then we are screwed.

I am just summarizing the video. Watch it with a critical eye. There is so much controversy surrounding this issue, how much thought have you given climate change? For you, is climate change a question of risk management? Or is it more of a science issue or political problem? Feel free to share thoughts about the video on enviroboys. We always welcome comments.

If you want to know more about Greg Craven, see here.

Dyer's gloomy and doomy perspective on the world...

I attended Gwynne Dyer’s lecture last night and was blown away with both hope and despair. The title of his talk entitled “Climate Wars” inherently has that feeling of global desolation. Dyer revealed many important points about the numerous implications of climate change. These included its impact on global food production, the melting of permafrost, depleting groundwater aquifers, population growth, warming oceans and their eventual inability to absorb carbon dioxide emissions and many more.

His 1 hour lecture was filled with compelling arguments albeit scary, wit and humorous jokes and stories of his visits to and interviews with numerous political leaders, scientists and military generals around the world.

He organized and structured his talk with five conclusions. This would make for an excessively long blog post if I went into detail for each one, so instead I will just tell you what I thought was interesting and frightening at the same time. Firstly, Dyer says that a global temperature rise of two degrees Celsius (note this is important) can have cataclysmic consequences for world. Take food production in sub-tropical states for example, with increased droughts creating less favourable climate conditions for crop production and irrigation, countries can face massive food shortages. A two degree rise can cause India to lose up to 25% of its food production, that’s equivalent to roughly 250 million of its inhabitants becoming hungry.

He kept making reference to how a two degree rise in global temperature can have drastic consequences. Consequences such as disasters causing environmental refugees to seek new places for food and water and face governments who are themselves concerned with feeding their own populations. Mexico and Central America have a combined population of 200 million people, food and water shortages can send these people north to the U.S. says Dyer. The U.S. has been somewhat pro-active with upholding security at the Mexican border, but things can get a lot more defensive in the future.

There are many other examples that Dyer draws on including potential water/nuclear conflicts between India and Pakistan, or Iraqi refugees on the Saudi Arabian border. Point being, that armies or the “generals” as Dyer puts it, are going to have lots of work coming their way in terms of protection and natural security against potential refugees.

On Copenhagen, Dyer is cynical but realistic. In short, he thinks it will be an utter failure. He expects nothing positive to come out of it because Obama has not made any federal commitments to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Not yet at least. The U.S. has to have a solid plan or proposition for a conference like Copenhagen, otherwise the prospects of creating a global climate change binding agreement is hopeless.

Same goes for Canada, realistically we would have to cut our national emissions by as much as 40%, yeah sounds absurd doesn’t it? The average Canadian emits 21 tonnes of carbon emissions annually, gargantuan in comparison to China’s 4 tonnes per person or India’s 1.5 per person. A global agreement on climate change is only possible if nations like Canada, the U.S. and France are willing to make major cuts.

The world is presently at 390 ppm of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. We are adding about 3.2 ppm every year which over 20 years will bring us to 450 ppm. 450 ppm is considered the tipping point! Crazy how 4 out of every 5 Americans own a car. This number would be higher but the other 20% of the nation is either too old or young to drive, or find themselves in prisons says Dyer.

Key message: In order to stay below 450ppm and avoid a global temperature increase of two degrees, Canada and the U.S. are going to have to step up. We are going to have to make major emission cuts which means more significant changes to our lives… driving less, spending more on energy efficient appliances and eating more locally. Sounds pretty easy to me, but harder to pitch to North America as we know it.

Water use per person in the U.S. is nearly 30 percent lower than in 1975...

This post is from Peter Gleick's blog: City Brights

Ponder this paradox...

"Water Number: 410 billion gallons per day in 2005 compared to 413 billion gallons per day in 2000. This is the total amount of water withdrawn in the U.S. for all purposes (residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, and power plant cooling). Despite continuing population growth, despite continued economic growth, total water use in the United States is effectively unchanged from five years ago. Even more remarkable? Water use today is lower than it was 30 years ago, in 1975. And on a per-capita basis, the drop is dramatic: Water use per person in the U.S. is nearly 30 percent lower than in 1975."

"It used to take 200 tons of water to make a ton of steel. Now steel plants in the U.S. use less than 20 tons of water to make a ton of steel. That is a 90% reduction."

To read more on this topic, click here.

As you read, keep in mind population growth as a major factor. U.S. population circa 1975: 215,000,000. U.S. population circa 2009: 305,000,000. Therefore, total water use per capita should theoretically be lower, given bigger population and less water available for each person. Water droughts and shortages have been more common over the past 20 years and climate change has reduced the quantity of water in major U.S. rivers.

Should we be thinking about urban containment policies?

The United States circa 1975, had 95% of its population growth occur in suburban areas outside of cities. Even today, many cities like Los Angeles or even Miami have a vast portion of their populations living in suburban areas and commuting to work (downtown) thanks of course to the automobile.

Urban sprawl has allowed for low-density development and commercial strip malls in the suburbs. More importantly, the automobile has allowed this to happen and consequently, this has emerged as the common development pattern in the United States. Can urban containment policies help encourage increased urbanization, high-density development, public transit improvement and overall better city living? Some experts believe so, but it is always hard to tell because the citizen ultimately makes the final call and influences the decision.

An urban containment policy would impose geographical constraints on urban growth to contain sprawl. What's more, it prevents the outward expansion of the urban field and forces the development market to look inward.

The rationale of an urban containment policy is to preserve natural landscapes, encourage urban development and reinvest in existing urbanized areas. In terms of the policies themselves, there are regulatory urban growth boundaries, the implementation of greenbelts and restricting new residential development in agricultural areas. The interesting one I find is regulating urban growth boundaries. Their rationale is a simple one: to curb sprawl, protect open space and encourage redevelopment of inner-city neighboourhoods. This may work well for large American metropolises but not in a city like Peterborough.

Much of Peterborough's population growth has occurred on these "urban growth boundaries" not within them. That's where the demand is- for single detached housing away from the urban growth centre and usually on open space. Developers know that the housing market demand calls for these types of development which are low-density and inefficient from a mixed land use perspective.

While regulating urban growth boundaries can theoretically encourage more pedestrian friendly cities, they should only come about if the economic rationale is a good one. Regulating urban growth boundaries in Peterborough would be impractical because that is where the population is growing. Alternatively, the city should encourage developers to construct mixed use (commercial and residential) units in the city to optimize space and be more attractive for the suburbanites.

Key message: Urban containment policies can do many things.... above all, they help minimize automobility.

The implications of population growth on water resources...

Peter Gleick is the President of the Pacific Institute out of Oakland, California. The Pacific Institute is a non-partisan research group that does policy analysis on water issues, climate change, sustainable development etc. They make policy recommendations to municipalities of California and ultimately to the state. The President, Gleick, is also a blogger and wrote a highly informative piece today on population and water. Please read his post.

In brief summary, his main points are the following:

-as populations grow, the water policy approach should be demand focused, not supply. For example, using water pricing and by-laws for controlling demand versus building desalination plants and reservoirs to expand water capacity

-Technology has made water use more efficient, however this will not be enough to deal with drastic population increases

-water use per capita has decreased since the 1970s.... do not let this deceive you. It has gone done not necessarily because of greater conservation efforts, but because the population has increased making overall water supply less per capita

To read more, check out the post.

Key message: Water will be the indispensable resource of the 21st century. Population challenges will only make it more precious.

An angry wind is blowing around Peterborough...

"No more wind! No more wind!"

These were the fledgling cries flying from directly behind me last night. The source of the quickly defunct chant was an irate man attending a public meeting in Manvers, Ontario where a controversial wind farm is being proposed. After the initial and vague proponent-driven open house drew hefty criticism from the community, a second, more open meeting was held.

Manvers is only one of the many small towns sitting southwest of Peterborough that lies within the study area of the proposed Settlers Landing Snowy Ridge Wind Park, a hypothetical wind farm being developed by a group based out of Brighton, ON, known as Energy Farming Ontario (EFO).

The project was initially considering 30 2MW turbines over an area covering several thousand acres, but has since been reduced to several clusters of turbines.

I attended the packed meeting last night in Manvers and arrived to find a large room in the local arena packed with so many people that we were forced to stand by the doors -- where a photo similar to the one above was plastered -- for much of the meeting. Estimates of attendance were well over 500, a sure rise from the 150 or so that attended the open house earlier.

Although I have been studying these kinds of meetings all summer, I had never actually been to one. But it played out just as expected. The proponents, well-dressed out of towners and armed with fact-filled powerpoint presentations, went through the motions of describing the project, its numerous benefits and perhaps stealing some of the fighting energy from the crowd as it drew on and on and on.

After scoffs by the crowd in response to certain claims by the proponents -- surrounding property values might actually increase -- members of different 'wind awareness' groups informed the audience, several times inaccurately, about the dangers of wind power. This included a man who spent over thirty minutes associating decibel levels from wind turbines with a myriad of health and quality of life defects, prompting several people to leave as he droned on.

However, another presenter showed a very powerful video taken by a farmer in the US showcasing the effects of the shadows of the turbines on his property. The thought of these very significant light changes going 24 hours/day and 7 days/week was sure to ramp up the opposition to the project.

The most interesting, and exciting aspect of these meetings is the question period. The floor was opened to anyone, as members of the public took turns blasting the project, lambasting the province's Green Energy Act -- which will reduce the power of local governments -- and pushing the proponents for answers they were never really able to give.

As you may have gathered, the crowd was less the excited about the project and there were consistent hoots and hollers from the audience.

Several interesting talking points were raised in the car ride back. Are the developers naive? Did they not know what types of questions would be asked of them? Are they really bad people, or are they well meaning people dipping their feet into a sensitive issue? Is their out-of-town nature a severe hindrance?

What about the public? How many of them were really against it? Are they just selfish landowners expressing NIMBY attitudes in the face of climate change? Will they even stay interested in the project?

The questions are endless, but an especially important question needs to be asked. How much are we willing to risk the change of our livelihoods against that of the changes coming from climate change that will ultimately effect nearly everyone?

One last interesting piece were the politics at play. The local MPP, Rick Johnson, a member of the Liberal Party -- the majority government pushing the Green Energy Act through -- was quoted as wanting to defend his community's interests, although it was implied that this would involve some criticism of the Green Energy Act. Dalton McGuinty & George Smitherman might get a little upset with him.

Blogging part 2: Taking blogging to another level….

One of the main objectives of this blog is to maintain an on-going dialogue about the environment. For a number of months, Chris and I have really got a grasp of what blogosphere journalism really feels like. It is certainly a wonderful break from the research papers we are accustomed to in our classes- where referencing is a requirement.

Learning about various environmental and urban issues in my classes has given me some level of optimism- at least an opportunity to communicate these issues through blogging to my friends, family and others who are genuinely concerned about the environment.

At this stage of my academic experience, I am by no means an expert on a given topic. However, my undergrad education thus far has really got me thinking about these issues and has provided me with an inclination to further explore them in a professional Master's program. Blogging has given me the chance to share my undergrad academic interests in a more fun, engaging and inclusive manner.

About 36% of the Canadian population is now reading blogs (this number is only increasing), which is 8.8 million people. People who read blogs as an alternative to newspaper articles may be looking for more in depth analysis of an issue. More opinionated and contentious writing is what the blogosphere is all about.

The blogosphere has certainly provided university students with an avenue to communicate their concerns- but how many actually do this? Whether it is the environment or Canadian Social Policy, blogging allows for an online discussion to exchange ideas and voice opinions.

Further, I hope this rise in blogging hits the university environment whereby professors and students can actively engage on more intellectual levels via online- making this information available to the public. Many university courses are structured through an online system called Web ct. Professors post links, course updates and relevant articles for students to read. There is also a discussion component which allows students to interact and post interesting articles of relevance to the course - a wonderful thing to have within the academy but exclusionary to those not in the courses. Blogging is an excellent alternative to this because everyone can read the academic discussions and engage in the material that they find interesting.

One professor of mine created a blog for his course. Students were required to submit one to two entries a semester about a subject relevant to urban geography. This counted for participation marks and created a great online forum (between students and others interested) with comprehensive commentary, high readership and inclusivity.

Key message: Blogging has the potential to do many things. They give people a chance to communicate opinions and ideas, they are inclusionary as anyone can contribute to them and they are informative. As blogging becomes more popular in our generation, hopefully we will see its acceptance in universities and as a trustworthy source of journalism.

Are Canadians becoming more conservationist-minded?

This is a question that someone recently posed to me. My answer, not backed by any sufficient statistics or anything is.... yes we are. I am hopeful at least.

Let’s start with some natural resource history. Canada has been regarded as a resource-based economy since Confederation in 1867. Natural resources or staples such as lumber, minerals, fresh water and fisheries have all played an instrumental role in shaping and developing this nation’s economy. Natural resource development has contributed to the creation of jobs in British Columbia through their forestry sector, mineral development in Central Canada and now oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The national economy is characterized by a low population/resource ratio which has given Canada a comparative advantage in resources and primary resources.

In other words, Canada’s abundance of natural resources and low population density has both historically and contemporarily been a battle between nature and civilization; anthropocentric ideals exploiting resources for economic growth. The vast size of this nation and its resource endowment, when measured on a per capita basis, has historically encouraged a sense of limitless potential and availability.

Most of the macro regions of Canada developed as they did because of their dependence on the extraction and utilization of staples commodities. Atlantic Canada, prior to its economic collapse, was reliant on cod as its main staple. Central Canada had an abundance of fur. The Prairies specialized in the wheat crop and finally, British Columbia possessed and continues to have copious amounts of timber. However, recently, forest fires and the mountain pine beetle have reminded British Columbians that they need to concentrate more attention on their main natural resource. Generally, I think we have learned that the relentless consumption of natural resources is economically devastating.

To the more contemporary: Canada has reaped significant economic benefits through the free market and through free trade with the United States. However, this consumption oriented ideology is slowly dissipating as the concept of ‘limits to growth’ has come to the forefront. Canadians have been increasingly aware of the need to conserve such resources to maintain the economy and quality of life.

Climate change along with mass resource depletion will directly impact Canada’s economy and impact the socio-economic well-being of millions of citizens. For instance, British Columbia is in transition from exploitation of old growth stands to harvest sustainability as a result of an overwhelmingly consumptionist mindset that has pervaded the lumber industry for many years.

With increased environmental awareness, Canadians are becoming more pro-active in fields like waste management, recycling and reduction of waste, pollution abatement initiatives, higher participation in city rebate programs and advocating greater protection of the Great Lakes Ecosystem Basin which is currently facing problems with toxic contamination, eutrophication and pollution runoff.

In sum, the scale of exploitation of Canada’s natural resources is slowly fostering this notion of sustainable development. In decades past, resource depletion was more characteristic of the economy rather than the conservation of resources, but with this new emerging salience of the environment, I think that conservation is becoming more characteristic of the Canadian populous.

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.

Green Bin Programs need to be better monitored…

Toronto's recent city strike revealed many things and one was a heap of facts surrounding its multi-million dollar Green Bin Program. Ostensibly, according to investigations, Toronto garbage workers have routinely and surreptitiously mixed regular garbage with compostable organic waste (stuff that is supposed to go in the Green Bin).

We have all the jubilation in the world to celebrate the ending of the strike, but we should not be too excited because of the Green Bin problem. Knowing that our composted waste actually ends up in landfills is a little unsettling. This is the most appropriate time to discuss Toronto’s compost program as many are under the impression that organic waste, recycling and regular garbage are all sorted separately. They may be according to investigators, but organic waste eventually ends up in landfills or dumpsites.

While all of this is simply speculation and vociferous allegations from past garbage workers, the city has to think about future steps in the area of waste management. Toronto diverted 94,000 tonnes of kitchen waste in 2008. This is good progress but nothing stupendous given all of the resources we get from the city including the green bin itself and curb side pick-up.

The unfortunate rationale for mixing green bin waste with regular garbage is that garbage trucks that transport waste to Michigan landfills have pressure to fill their load to the maximum of 35.7 tonnes. This is done for "efficiency" purposes. This is hard to do when you only truck regular garbage which is much lighter than organic waste by comparison. When you add organic waste like meats, fruits, vegetables, diapers- then the truck gets a lot heavier and you can compact the waste a lot easier. Compostable waste is supposed to be collected from the transfer stations by a contractor and the city and then subsequently used as rich nutritious soil for gardens and environmental purposes. It is not supposed to go to Michigan's landfills!

As a multi-million dollar program that is ostensibly gaining more prominence, we need to ensure that it is properly monitored and enforced. Garbage workers can deny the allegations all they want but citizens are soon going to find out the truth behind them and be infuriated over two things- a wasting of property taxes to fund such a program and secondly, the fact that citizens take the time to compost waste and it ends up in places it is not supposed to, i.e. landfills.

Transfer station managers should report how much organic waste comes on site and they must also require the respective garbage truck worker to report what goes in his/her truck. The Green Bin program should have individuals that are positioned at these transfer stations to ensure that everything is sorted properly. False compliance must result in penalties. Reports can be issued monthly by these paid green bin program workers to update the city on the status of them and where the organic waste ends up. We are talking here about tracking every kilogram of organic waste.

Key message: If Toronto actually wants to achieve 70 percent waste diversion from landfills by 2012, then the entire city is going to have to be smarter about monitoring and expanding composting.

Are you an environmentalist?...

I posed this question on our blog several months ago after watching the film Addicted to Plastic at the Peterborough Film Festival. The film's creator asked this of the many people he interviewed during his film, including farmers, sailors, scientists and entrepreneurs.


The results were mixed. Some were very happy to consider themselves environmentalists, including some farmers, citing their intrinsic tie to the environment, while others were vehemently opposed to the idea, such as an entrepreneur who reuses material to build large objects and some scientists who felt that shouldn't pick sides as it would ruin their research credibility.

So what exactly does it mean to be an environmentalist?

According to some dictionaries, an environmentalist is one who "advocates for or works towards protecting the natural environment from destruction or pollution". That's fairly vague, but such vagueness is entirely appropriate when looking at such a broad term.

The word is relative to each person. Some environmentalists will do anything and everything in their power to "protect the natural environment". Others may only make environmentally-focused decisions every once in awhile. Some may not even know they're doing something 'environmentally friendly'.

But it is this first group that seems to have grabbed the popular definition of what an environmentalist is. These are the granola-munching, Greenpeace flag-waving, ultra-vegan, reuse everything, 'don't bother that mosquito because it's a beautiful creature' types. Quite simply, they are the hardcores. And I should point out that there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, I'm quite impressed by the lifestyle that many of these people live. I certainly could never do it.

But the problem is that when the average person considers what it is to be an environmentalist, this is what first comes to mind. The entrepreneur wants nothing to do with a label that would associate him with the hardcores. And some others might simply feel they don't 'qualify' to be an environmentalist because they are not up to the standard set by the hardcores. Sally down the road might be very 'green', but since she still drives her Volvo to work and frequently watches movies on her Plasma TV, she thinks there is no way she could be an environmentalist.

The idea that environmentalists are limited to the hardcores is something that needs to change. It is certainly on its way. As the shopping list of environmental dangers is getting more and more attention, a growing number of people are starting to act 'greener'. And while government incentives are certainly helping out, there seems to be more to it than economics. People actually care.

Four years ago I didn't really care. I recycled because my parents told me to, left the TV on for hours after I left the room, had no idea what global warming was (and didn't care) and enjoyed spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere while doing donuts in a car.

But before you think I'm about to preach to you like an environmental convert, I haven't changed that much. I still love to drive, watch lots of TV, eat non-local, processed food and fly across Canada several times a year.

But I know the environment is important. I'm trying to do my part. I'm living a relatively 'greener' life. But I'm not perfect. But I consider myself an environmentalist.

You don't have to be a hardcore to care about the environment or to contribute in some way to helping it out.

Lastly, I would like to touch on the importance of using such a term. One might very easily toss aside this entire argument because self-labelling may not do anything when it comes to actual behaviour. This is true (cough, One million acts of green, cough), to a point. But feeling positive about your lifestyle is important. For years, the environmental strategy was to make people feel guilty about their behaviour. But it hasn't really worked and it may have exacerbated the problem.

But if people are more inclined to feel good about some of their actions rather than guilty about what they don't do, this whole environmental thing might be a lot more successful.

So ask yourself, even though you might hate the hardcores or don't strive to their standard, do you care about the environment in some way or another? Are you an environmentalist?

Transit Benefits Programs…

Workplaces need to vigorously pursue green initiatives. Amid this era of progressive greenery, cities are seeing many changes from public transit and green roofs to carbon taxes and user fees. As we have blogged about before, public transit is perhaps the most optimal area for increasing the efficiency and greenery of a city. What we need to see however, is the active involvement of workplaces in the creation of public transit incentives. A vast percentage of employees in any city find themselves commuting to work everyday. Workplaces need to be offering their employees ample reason and incentives to take public transit.

In Chicago, there is a program called the Regional Transit Authorities Transit Benefit Fare Program. This program is an employee benefit program administered by employers. The intricacies of the program are not overly complex- it allows employees to pay for their public transit rides using “pre-tax dollars” up to $230 per month ($2,760/year). This is targeted for transit and/or vanpool commuting expenses as tax-free benefits. For the different options see here.

This program benefits both the employer and the employee. For employers, it provides tax savings up to 10% of what employees spend on transit. It helps increase workplace productivity and serves as a great recruiting tool. For the progressive and environmentally friendly employees, it provides tax savings up to 40% of their transit spend, reduces employee commuting costs and helps green the ethos of the workplace.

Certain cities like San Francisco have “tax-free transit benefit accounts”. Employees put aside up to $115 per month or $1380 per year in a tax-free transit benefit account. “This can save between $300 and $500 annually per person and companies can save over $100 per employee per year in payroll taxes by directly contributing to the account.” This of course depends on the tax bracket.

In essence, organizations that undertake this generally have more workplace satisfaction and less absenteeism. Long automobile and transit commutes can be tiring and expensive. If employees have the option of avoiding highway traffic and receiving tax incentives to take public transit, then there is less reluctance to miss work.

There are different ways of administering a transit benefits program for a workplace. The one I would support for an organization would be the pre-tax income option. For this option, employers allow their employees to use their pre-tax income to pay for transit or vanpooling. This does not mean that employers pay for the benefit but instead allow employees to take advantage of the tax savings by using their gross income to pay for qualified commuting expenses.

This could save employees up to $1066 in annual taxes by paying for transit with pre-tax income. And, “Employers see a reduction in their payroll costs on the amount set aside since they do not pay taxes on this amount.” This option would be appealing for numerous workplaces.

Key message: Transit benefit programs offer multiplicity of choice. They are cost effective, environmentally smart and excellent for workplaces of the 21st century. For more info on this topic, see Chicago's regional transit authority:

Green Cities: Eco cities and density…

I have blogged about green eco cities in the past particularly focusing on Curitiba, Montreal and a tad on Toronto. As an undergrad student who is planning on studying urban planning at grad school, this is a good time to continue a lively discussion on why green eco cities are critical for sustainable development in the 21st century. But really, green eco cities in the 21st century are those that are going to execute new initiatives that embrace and benefit the environment, local economies and quality of life.

There are many perspectives to the green eco city debate. Some believe that sound public transit systems are the most optimal way to reduce pollution and congestion and overall increase the efficiency and livability of city life. Some turn our attention to adequate waste management programs including recycling, composting etc. Some believe in taxes to reduce pollution like London’s congestion charge zone, which I have blogged about in the past. And the technological optimists point to green roofs on city buildings, wind turbines on the waterfront (assuming the city has one), solar panels including photovoltaic and micro-solar and finally geothermal power. I am a vehement advocate for all of these wonderful initiatives; however my interest lies with density.

Cities like San Francisco and Vancouver are firm believers in transport and density planning. Transport and density planning for these cities have included infrastructure to support walking, cycling and public transit. This means that city planning has focused on limiting outward growth and preserving large amounts of open space in their respective urban centres. This has in some way created a greater sense of community. Of course, density patterns will always be correlated with urban amenities meaning that areas with multiple services, green spaces, public transit access and educational institutions will have larger groups of people living in them. For instance, San Francisco and Bogota have high population densities and therefore the need to design neighbourhoods of high-density with urban amenities is justified.

The green eco cities that concentrate their energies on density planning are going to have both economic and environmental success. Let me take you through an example of density planning as it pertains to urban water systems: Sometimes a person living in a low-density neighbourhood pays the same rate for water as a person who lives in a high-density neighbourhood. In theory, the person in the high-density neighbourhood should pay less as they use a smaller amount of piping (because housing complexes are so much closer together) than individuals living in low-density areas. Higher density housing helps lower the costs of piping installation and reduces the maintenance costs for actually pumping the water through it. The water department loses money on low-density neighbourhoods; therefore causing high density areas to bear the burden of this financial loss through higher water rates and tax payments. Cities that begin to recognize these discrepancies and remedy them will gain tremendously.

Key message: Density planning is the indispensable component of green eco cities. High-density neighbourhoods can only be designed and built if citizens see the numerous economic, social and environmental aspects of doing so. Generally though, and as epitomized in Curitiba, a high-diversity and high-density urban environment creates employment opportunities, ultimately providing an impetus for citizens to live in closer propinquity to the urban centre.

March 22, 2009, World Water Day

Chris and I delivered a presentation on water conservation policy last week. It was a group presentation of four students for our public policy class. We had to identify what the policy problem was, and then outline the policy directions we could take. In short, we identified that in Canada, a municipality usually has either an economic or environmental impetus to conserve water. Economic being that distributing water through pipes and water infrastructure is becoming more expensive because the infrastructure is deteriorating and will cost the municipality a lot of money to fix. The environmental impetus usually involves a municipality being concerned over a depleting aquifer because so many people are drawing their supply from groundwater but are doing it unsustainably. Hence water conservation. We proceeded to discuss the various policy tools that can be used for water efficiency and ultimately what tools can be brought about to conserve this precious resource. For anyone interested in our power point presentation, please ask us in the comment section.

Today is World Water Day and I think everyone should take the time to sit back and reflect over this precious resource that we take for granted in North America.

Water is undoubtedly the world`s most precious resource and will be the indispensable natural resource of the 21st century. Start getting educated on it.

Green Cities: The Artificial Greening Metropolis…

Masdar City folks, will be the centre of attention in the next ten years. Masdar city is going to be Abu Dhabi’s green metropolis- a zero pollution, zero waste, car-free city based on sound sustainable architecture. On the public transit front, the Emirate of Abu Dhabi is going to install an electric light-rail system that will be linked to the centre of Abu Dhabi. The expectation is that every single city resident will be using the light-rail system or other forms of public transit because cars or vehicles are simply not allowed within the city limits. For more details see here.

Abu Dhabi`s ambitions get even better. They plan on installing a desalination plant for their main water supply system, and all of their wastewater will be purified and recycled to grow plants for biofuels. Remember, this city is geographically located in a desert, growing plants for biofuels sounds pretty ludicrous and unnatural to me. All of this development and construction is going to take place over the next ten years. How is Abu Dhabi paying for all of this? Mostly with oil revenue.

Unlike other green cities including San Francisco, Curitiba, Portland and Minneapolis, Masdar will be created and manufactured from the Emirate in a completely top-down approach. Some of the aforementioned green cities have progressively incorporated greener governance which has brought about more sustainable policies. Citizens of these green cities also play an indispensable role in terms of civic engagement and decision making power.

This city is going to operate on renewable resources and energy from wind farms, solar photovoltaic modules, and geothermal plants. It cannot be overlooked that cheap oil, natural gas and power will still be used for Masdar. Emission intensive industries will rely on this energy and consumption of these renewable resources will still be profligate. This is not a green city because the citizens are not contributing to the environmental policy options. In addition, green cities contain a substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of social and economic integration at the core. Bringing about shopping malls, artificial ski hills and Formula One tracks are great for tourism but serve an economic impetus, not an environmental one.

Like Dubai, Masdar will develop numerous entertaining complexes for tourist attractions like a Formula One track. A mall is eventually going to be constructed along with a massive aluminum smelter. Worse yet, the purpose of designing this ``green metropolis`` is to improve Abu Dhabi`s green image. Masdar would also export excess electricity to Abu Dhabi which is growing rapidly. This will eventually put more pressure on Masdar City to supply more electricity which runs contrary to smart growth and green urbanism, two things that Abu Dhabi is striving for.

Key message: Green cities are not centred on massive urban growth and entertainment. They focus on practical and achievable ways to work with citizens to bring about social cohesion. Moreover, they identify what the citizens want, and involve them in the planning process. There is no plan for density with Masdar, it is being created to enhance Abu Dhabi`s green image and to supply them with electricity from renewable energy.