A radical SuperFreakonomics story has come to fruition

A year ago, I blogged about a famous book called "SuperFreakonomics" by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner (read my review here). One chapter in their book titled "What Do Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo Have in Common?" is all about solutions to climate change. In this chapter, Levitt and Dubner specifically embrace geo-engineering solutions which are highly controversial in climate change circles. One of the wild and far fetched geo-engineering ideas reported, evidently thought of by Intellectual Ventures, is the garden hose to the sky:

"A team of British researchers called SPICE (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) is trying to pump particles of water into the atmosphere as a test run before moving onto sulfates and aerosols that would reflect sunlight away from earth, mimicking the aftereffect of a massive volcanic eruption. SPICE is building the garden hose at an undisclosed location, with £1.6 million in U.K. government funding and the backing of the Royal Society".

Essentially a long garden hose from the Earth would pump sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to allow for a cooling effect. 

Sound a little nuts to you? This is one of many geo-engineering ideas out there. Amid the ambivalence about how to mitigate GHGs and adapt to climate change, geo-engineering nerds and fanatics are proposing solutions that, while controversial on the surface, may have some merit if we explore our curiosities and gamble with risks. I am skeptical of geo-engineering myself but am interested nonetheless.

More about this here.

$20 million for water research in Southern Ontario

A couple of days ago, the University of Toronto announced that the Southern Ontario Water Consortium (composed of many diverse groups and individuals including U of T researchers) will be receiving $19.58 million from the federal government. FedDev Ontario, an agency created in 2009 as part of Canada’s Economic Action Plan, was the agency that informed U of T of the grant.

"The funding will allow the Southern Ontario Water Consortium to build an integrated system for the development, testing and demonstration of new market-driven water technologies and services, primarily along the Grand River and adjacent watersheds".

This is important because the money will, among other things, help U of T researchers develop technologies to treat and improve water quality. Enviro Boys has blogged about water quality before,  discussing the emerging contaminants of concern including pharmaceuticals, personal care products (deodorant, soap, shampoo, perfume etc.) and illicit drugs which have and continue to worry many public health experts.

With the $20 million grant, Professor Andrews and his team at U of T will be to further develop advanced oxidation technologies to treat the aforementioned compounds. Improving water quality and enhancing dis-infecting technologies, are critical for water systems and for ensuring that the water we drink is safe. Their research is applied driven; the results will be shared with municipalities in Ontario and the province with the intention of improving current standards and targets for water quality. You can find out more about this through viewing the video below. This news really excites me (as a water nerd) but should excite everyone who appreciates the great water we enjoy in Southern Ontario.


Interview with Professor Robert Andrews, U of T from U of T Engineering on Vimeo.

Technology and Forest Conservation

I just read a fascinating article from the Science and Technology section of The Economist. The essence of the article is about a new lidar monitoring technology (The Economist is calling it a Lidar-tector) which is a light detection and ranging system that works by broadcasting electromagnetic waves towards a target and then building up a picture from the reflection. This technology is now being used for forest conservation purposes to determine the carbon content of trees. How does it work?:

"In the case of lidar, the waves are in the form of an infra-red laser beam. And in the case of the forests of south-western Nepal, the target is the trees. During a forest survey, an aircraft-borne lidar sweeps a beam that fires about 70,000 pulses a second over the canopy. A sensor on the aircraft records the time it takes to receive the backscattering of pulses, and that is used to compute distances to the forest canopy and to the soil beneath".

Further:

"The result, when processed through the computers of Arbonaut, a Finnish natural-resource-management company, is a three-dimensional image of the forest that can be correlated with, and calibrated by, the efforts of the chaps with the tape measures. And that, in turn, can be used to estimate the amount of carbon stored in the plot examined, and extrapolated to calculate the carbon stored in larger areas of forest that have been scanned by lidar, but not measured with tapes."

In the world of carbon sequestration projects, there is a lot of mendacity and mistrust when it comes to reporting numbers. In particular, policymakers and scientists are keen to know the carbon content of various forests to determine which ones are more worthy of preservation than others. While this may sound absurd, it is useful information for carbon trading scheme projects (which I do not completely agree with and will blog about shortly). Additionally, it provides further impetus to contain these forests and allow them to sequester carbon. In so doing, countries like Nepal can:

Guest Entry: Greater Utility for Green vehicles must go beyond Green marketing

By: Caitlin Yan

Green marketing and green products - once just buzzwords in the corporate world are now, finally realizing exponential growth in the consumer marketplace. There exists, however, a lag in the adoption rates for some of these green products. Is the marketing all wrong? Are the creative agencies missing their mark? Not necessarily. While most Canadians support environmental sustainability in theory, the kind of behavioural change that some green products call for is often more than consumers are ready to accept.

One of the most obvious obstacles to incorporating green products into your daily routine is the higher price tag. Furthermore, the goods and actions that have the greatest positive impact on the health of the environment often require the consumer to make changes to habitual routines, patterned schedules and all in all, buy more complementary “stuff”. A good example is the array of green vehicles making their way into your neighbourhood dealerships.

At this point, we’ve heard our fair share of how these vehicles can significantly lessen our reliance on oil and in turn, reduce the amount of harmful pollutants released into the air. So why then, has the demand for these vehicles been disappointing? There are a few factors that have to be considered before this question can be answered.

The existing price differential between traditional gasoline-powered vehicles and alternative energy vehicles (such as hybrids and electric powered vehicles) is a major roadblock for many consumers. Also, the fuel economy offered by some green vehicles is less than stellar which only appeals to a small segment of consumers more concerned with making a social statement than saving some coin. On top of that, the year-end blowout sales apply almost exclusively to traditional fuel vehicles thereby widening the gap between the costs of the two types of vehicles.

The slow sales can be attributed to hesitation on the supplier side as well. It’s not only the consumers who are reluctant to adopt this technology. It should come as no surprise that electric vehicles are more expensive to manufacture than traditional vehicles, but did you know that car makers actually lose money on each unit they sell because of the current retail price? Electric vehicles currently account for less than 2% of all vehicles sales and there are few signs indicating an increase in consumer demand. It looks like both manufacturer and consumer are waiting for the other to make the first move.

Finally, another indication of the current stalemate is the lack of electric car chargers and charging stations on the market. An electric car is by no means a stand-alone purchase as it requires the aforementioned accessory components to function properly. Battery charger suppliers appear to be waiting for car manufacturers to introduce more electric vehicles and car manufacturers are holding off until consumers show a greater interest in these non-traditional vehicles. The fact remains that there are not enough charging stations and chargers to reduce “range anxiety” – the fear of being stuck on the road without any power. Unfortunately, the solution is not as trivial as simply making more of the vehicles or the chargers.

Hopefully after taking a look at some of the contributing factors, the true nature of the situation is a bit clearer. The slow adoption of green vehicles is not only a marketing problem. Sure, the marketing departments of Nissan and Ford should be ramping up their efforts to better address their consumers’ perceptions of green vehicles. The economics and social views of green vehicles have shifted away from where they started when the talk of green vehicles first began. The progress made in regards to the complementary technology and systems for green vehicles needs an in-depth, critical evaluation (calling all R&D professionals).

There are many consumers who want to do their part for the environment by owning a greener vehicle but won’t do so until there is greater utility and when the infrastructure is a reality. Even with the tricks and illusions (critics words, not mine) available to marketers today, you would be hard pressed to find someone to successfully market a product or service that doesn’t exist.

Caitlin Yan is a recent graduate of the Business Administration program at Wilfrid Laurier University. She has a specialization in Brand Communication and Management. Caitlin has a keen interest in products and behaviours that are less harmful to the health of humans and the environment.

Masdar City: Revisted

In May 2009, I blogged about Abu Dhabi's planned Masdar City. It is claimed to be the world's first city powered solely by renewable energy.

The video above is informative and highly promising. However, be critical of the city's viability. On an unrelated note, water consumption per capita will be significantly less than a conventional city. Of course it will be less, they have less water than the average city!

There is no mention of the residents who will be living there. We know that the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology will provide residence space for its students. This is important but they must provide residence space for its students because they do research on the renewable technology. This planned city will cost $22 billion dollars. I am really curious to know what kind of residents it attracts. I suspect wealthier residents who will have the amenities and advanced renewable technologies associated with the city, and continue to live a profligate lifestyle through heavy air conditioning use and frequent visits to places like Dubai.

I don't mean to be too critical, but a city that strives to be sustainable must ensure that it has a diverse population base composed of poor and rich alike. Everyone should be able to benefit from the green technology, sustainable transit options and low-carbon lifestyle. With all of the capital that has been invested into this planned city, I hope that citizens of the country will recognize the merits of a greener lifestyle and adopt more sustainable and green-minded habits.

China's straddling bus

A couple of weeks ago, Chris (and people around the world) reported on China's nine day traffic jam. The traffic jam was on the Beijing-Tibet expressway. Beijing itself has had many challenges with traffic congestion due to poor urban planning and transit policies that favor the automobile over public transport. When I was in Shanghai, I noticed the impressive transit system and was told by locals that it is well used. Beijing's public transit system is less impressive I'm told.

As Chris mentioned, congestion zone charges, highways tolls and carbon taxes could help ease traffic and pollution in cities like Beijing. Alas, these sorts of policy tools would probably not be well received by the motorists.

The straddling bus has been proposed by Chinese civil engineers. It would help save road space and could carry up to 1400 passengers. I think there are two really unique aspects of this transit mode (if is does come into operation). 1) The bus stations will have supercapacitors which would re-charge the bus with energy so it could make trips continuously. 2) It could carry over 1000 passengers. You do the math to figure out how many cars that could take off the road over a one year period and the drastic reductions in carbon emissions that would accompany this process.

Powered by electricity and capable of carrying over 1000 passengers, it sounds like a promising project for China's top tier cities like Beijing. Can't subways do the same thing? They sure can, but they are really expensive ($100 million per kilometre of construction) and they take years to construct.

Can the straddling bus help improve urban transit? We'll have to see what happens. 186 kilometres have been planned out in Beijing's Mentougou District.

SuperFreakonomics: A quick review

I just finished reading SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance. The authors are Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. The book is a follow-up to their first book titled Freaknomics which was a NY Times best-seller and led to the creation of blog to continue the dialogue.

There are a number of really fascinating and very insightful stories found in SuperFreakonomics- stories that really make you think about how human beings can respond or alter behaviour based on reasonable economic incentives. At first, their insights and comparisons seem to be completed unrelated, but Dubner and Levitt are very creative and pull together correlations that leave you amazed. Overall, I would recommend this book to anyone. It is not about recessions, financial markets or inflation, instead the authors use compelling statistics to illustrate how selfish and irrational we can be and how incentives, pricing and public policy can lead to a more harmonious and healthy society.

Instead of touching on how drunk walking is more dangerous than drunk driving, or why doctors are so bad at washing their hands or if people are innately altruistic or selfish or how monkeys respond to economic incentives, or what Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo have in common, I will share an example with you which covers a controversial topic known as geo-engineering.

In short, geo-engineering is large scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry.

While I don't have a particular stance on geo-engineering, it is worth some discussion. Let me share one SuperFreakonomics example with you where a geo-physicist has figured out a way to counteract a natural disaster provided by Mother Nature, hurricanes.

Hurricanes are deadly, since 1900, more than 1.3 million people worldwide have been killed by them. Between 2004 and 2005, there were six hurricanes in the U.S. with combined damages of $153 billion dollars. Without going into all of the technical details, hurricanes become more potent (accumulate more thermal energy) when they hover over warm waters. A geo-physicist has proposed a solution that can help prevent the water from getting too warm and thus too destructive.

The trick is as follows: hydraulic head is a force, created by the energy put into the waves by wind. This force would push the warm surface water down into the long plastic cylinder, flushing it out at the bottom far beneath the surface. As long as the waves keep coming in, the hydraulic head's force would keep pushing warm surface water into the cooler depths, which will lower the ocean's surface temperature. A molecule of warm surface water would take about three hours to be flushed out the bottom of the plastic cylinder.

The devices would take the form of rings made from old truck tires filled with foamed concrete and lashed together with steel cable. The cylinder extending six hundred feet deep into the ocean, would push the warm surface water under. The trick is to modify the surface temperature of the water. Bottomline: in large numbers, these devices could possibly make warm water cooler and thus less likely to build a destructive hurricane.

So, would this hurricane killer actually work? These devices would range in price (depending on size) but could be as little as $100,000 - allocating 10,000 of them around the world would cost $1 billion or one tenth the amount of hurricane property damage incurred in a single year in the U.S. alone.

This is just example proposed by imaginative scientists who think that such tricks could help decrease the impact of destructive hurricanes. Levitt and Dubner discuss specific geo-engineering examples here. They are controversial and may never be adopted by governments, but their point is this: changing the behaviour of individuals (to drive less or pollute less for example) is never an easy task, using geo-engineering solutions can cool the temperature of the earth at a cost considerably cheaper than public awareness campaigns or large scale government spending on carbon reducing technology. The ideas may seem far-fetched, but would be worth carrying out in smaller projects.

Take their thoughts and findings with a grain of salt, but understand that such solutions could be cost-effective if they were funded and embraced by governments.

Desalination: The Aussie Way

It has been a while since we’ve discussed desalination. Desalination is a process that uses reverse osmosis to convert salt water into fresh drinking water. Our last desalination post featured San Diego and its long-term ambitions to expand desalination due to water shortages and the rising costs of importing water from northern California.

Australia has been desalinating water since 2006, when Perth opened the nation’s first desalination plant. In one of the country’s biggest infrastructure projects in history, Australia’s five largest cities are spending $13.2 billion on desalination plants. Such enthusiasm for aggressive expansion has been motivated by intense droughts across the country. The executive director of the Water Services Association of Australia described the billions of dollars as “the cost of adapting to climate change”. Droughts have been intensified by climate change and desalination will make a significant contribution to the country’s water supply and hopefully for contingency situations when droughts come again in the future.

There are critics of course. One of the main arguments against such an expansion is that Australia’s population is not growing as fast as the past government projected. Called “Big Australia”, the previous government’s projected that the population would rise to 36 million in 2050, from 22 million now.

The focus of attention appears to be on Queensland, the nation’s fastest growing region. Queensland suffered an intense drought from 2000 to 2009. A desalination plant in this area supplies 6 percent of the region’s water needs and has the capacity to deliver 20 percent. The drought did lead to other incentives such as subsidizing the purchase of home water tanks to capture rainwater. A number of dams were built, along with wastewater recycling facilities and pipes. Thus, Queensland has reacted to water shortages mainly through what we call “hard-path approaches” which I have argued in previous posts (and in my honours thesis) is not a holistic approach to water management.

With Queensland’s jubilation for desalination construction, other cities like Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide have followed suit. I must stress that the power needed to remove salt from seawater accounts for up to 50% of the cost of desalination, and Australia relies on coal, a major emitter of greenhouse gases, to generate most of its electricity. To make smart progress on desalination and to avoid stiff opposition from tough critics, I think Australia must do two things:

1) Develop a system whereby excess water produced from major desalination plants is sold to municipalities without such desalination plants (there are many drought prone regions that could benefit from having a contingency water supply that desalination could provide). The costs must be transparent and distributed equally and at a low cost to those cities. Indeed, desalination projects need to slow down and the government must focus on fair distribution with an adequate amount of “contingency water” stored in reservoirs for imminent droughts.

2) Seeing as desalination will be the solution for Australia’s future water supply, and the fact that desalination is powered mostly through coal, the Australian government must focus on expanding renewable energy projects such as solar energy. Given that Brisbane (the capital of Queensland) receives over 3000 hours of sunshine every year, the region’s desalination plant would benefit from renewable sources like solar to ease pressure on coal and reduce aggregate CO2 emissions.

Key message: Australia will become (if it isn’t already) the world’s biggest user of desalination. With climate change uncertainty and the frequency of droughts, it must focus on conserving water for contingency situations. It does not have to expand desalination plants but instead focus more on practical and sustainable goals like powering them through renewable energy and expanding water conservation education in elementary and secondary schools.

Apps from Google Maps...

The Planning Pool blog recently published a post on the top ten google map tricks that you should know; from planning a bike trip (as Chris is doing) to getting real time traffic information in your area. "My Maps" has an application called Roof Ray, which lets people find their house on Google Maps, draw their roof, and then calculate the cost and payback period for installing solar panels. I found this application the most intriguing.

You can view more "tricks" here.

Some Links on High Speed Rail in China

High Speed Rail (HSR) is major source of discussion today in fields such as Urban Planning, Transportation Engineering, Public Policy and Economics to name a few. Several countries (with the exception of Canada) are currently constructing or expanding their high speed rail networks. China has the world's longest high-speed rail network with 6,920 kilometres (see map) and will expand to 13,000 kilometers within the next three years. This won't be cheap.

Spending billions of Yuan on HSR construction should mean that ticket prices should be high to recover operating and maintenance costs, right? Well, in theory, but prices need to be competitive with airlines otherwise people won't use HSR. This will prove to be a challenge for the Chinese government as they will have to consider a number of incentives such as subsidizing fares to ensure that HSR is affordable for its citizens. Some argue that fares should be high at first to recover revenue to pay for operation and maintenance. An interesting debate indeed.

I blog about this and share links because HSR growth in China will help stabilize the country's greenhouse gas emissions in its transportation sector. It will (over the long-term) decrease demand for airlines services, it will advance China's transportation network, foster a greener ethic in its citizenry (insofar as HSR prices are affordable). The infrastructurist blog writes

"high speed rail has fully infiltrated the population, and it’s only getting bigger — by 2020, there will be HSR lines connecting every Chinese city with more than 500,000 residents, meaning that 90% of the country’s population of 1.3 billion will have HSR access." This is good, but will it be affordable?

To read about HSR competition with airlines, see here.

A blog post on HSR vs airlines in China, see here.

An interesting financial analysis criticizing HSR in China, see here.

For a critical commentary from HSR riders in China, see here.

Key message: HSR has the ability to drastically ameliorate China's national transportation system and significantly cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. It is a very sustainable transportation solution as we have seen in Europe and Japan. However, if tickets prices are too high and made unaffordable, ridership will be low and the billions of Yuan spent on HSR will be seen as a waste of money and hence anger a lot of people. HSR ticket prices need to be comparable (or cheaper) than airline tickets, this will require a lot of work on the policy front.

A Special Report on Water from The Economist

The audio program above provides a thorough review of the world's water situation. John Grimond from The Economist, discusses the "hot topics" of global water resources.

We hear about hydro-electric power (a clean and green form of electricity but controversial as shown in China's Three Gorges Dam.) We also hear about the future of desalination, a technology that allows us to convert salt water to fresh water through a process called reverse osmosis. It is utilized in a few places in the world currently, (Israel, the UAE and Australia to name a few). The economics of desalination is getting better, however, the energy requirements are still really high. This has created the impetus to use renewable energy to power desalination, a process that could eventually happen on a large scale basis.

Singapore (population:4.5 million) is cited as a steward of water conservation and efficiency. Singaporeans use 155 litres of water a day, that's half of what the average Canadian uses. Andhra Pradesh (a state on the south eastern coast of India) is another example where we are seeing more experiments with effective groundwater management which has reduced demand for water. In Andhra Pradesh, all sectors including agriculture, use less water and far more efficiently.

Finally, cooperation is another significant component in our discussion of water resources. The Nile Basin Initiative is cited as the example regarding good cooperation on water. It is a "partnership among the Nile riparian states that seeks to develop the river in a cooperative manner, share substantial socioeconomic benefits, and promote regional peace and security".

Key Message: While water is becoming more scarce globally, the use of technology is becoming more sophisticated. Also, some of our global leaders (in Singapore, Andhra Pradesh and Guelph) are demonstrating the importance of water conservation and fair allocation. How we price and trade water in an era of scarcity will be one of the more interesting topics in the years to come.

Canada's era for high speed rail?

I have been doing a lot of reading these days on high speed rail (HSR) technology and its potential implementation in Canada. Both the U.S. and Canada are far behind the EU and Japan in terms of achieving any efficient and effective high speed rail network. In fact, while both Canada and the U.S. have not started building high speed rail, President Obama has at least announced $8 billion in grants for the country's first national, high-speed intercity rail service.

Bringing about HSR is a huge investment. Paul Langan, founder of High Speed Rail Canada, continues to provide many compelling arguments and very insightful analysis into the numerous benefits associated with HSR. To view more information about HSR in Canada, please visit Paul's website: http://highspeedrail.ca/.

In the U.S., models project job creation of 1,750 jobs per year over 25 years and estimated savings of over 2,700 tonnes of CO2 per year in the U.S. The California High-Speed Rail Authority estimates its planned line will save 12.7 million barrels of oil per year by 2030, even with future improvements in auto fuel efficiency.

Another projection by the Center for Neighborhood Technology calculated that passengers would (assuming all proposed U.S. HSR lines were built) take 112 millions HSR trips in the U.S. in 2025 (when it is projected to be complete). This would result in 29 million fewer automobile trips and nearly 500,000 fewer flights. Domestic flights and the inter-state highway system in America have a huge carbon output and only exacerbate air pollution in urban areas. Such an HSR system would significantly improve transportation in the U.S. and alleviate pressure on domestic flights.

Let's turn to Canada. There are two corridors in Canada that are well suited for HSR: the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor and the Calgary-Edmonton corridor, both of which have good population density and sufficient traffic. A tonne of studies have been completed demonstrating the advantages of HSR in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. Indeed, a 1995 study shows that by 2025, with the implementation of HSR, specifically 300 km/h technology, annual emissions of CO2 and carbon monoxide related to inter-city travel within the corridor would drop by 24% and 11% respectively. That's significant especially given the importance of sustainable transport in this era of climate change.

Another study shows how HSR lines require less space to move a greater number of people than present highway systems. The 2004 Van Horne Institute Study on the Calgary-Alberta high-speed potential line shows that 16,000 people can be moved using only 30% of the space of a four-lane divided highway- which can only move 10,500 passengers. Less space for transportation infrastructure means more space for wetlands, preservation sites and forested areas.

There are so many studies out there that have thoroughly investigated the merits of HSR. While much of this is hypothetical, based on models and predictions, it really boils down to money. The Province of Ontario is currently not well positioned to fund such an HSR line (Windsor-Quebec City). However, the Province should collaborate with Quebec and the feds for building this project. It would make travel times considerably faster and cost less than the current Via rail system. For example, a trip from Ottawa to Guelph (328 KM) takes about six and a half hours with the current Via rail train and costs $200. HSR, would cost $175 for this trip (based on a model) and would probably take only three hours (that's right, half the time of the Via train!)

If not in Ontario, Alberta might be better positioned to lead our nation with an HSR line. This line (would be Canada's first) would provide evidence of its many benefits (job creation, cutting down on automobile dependence, more efficient use of space) and perhaps an impetus to kick start other HSR lines across the country.

Canada is a vast nation with a small population density. Alas, this makes HSR less appealing. However, given the importance of transportation in the 21st century, given the great potential for job creation, and given what other nations are doing (China is now building 7,000 kilometers of dedicated HSR routes), it is time for Canada to jump on board and build its first HSR line.

For a comprehensive summary regarding the pros and cons of HSR, I would encourage you to read David Levinson's blog, the transportationist. Dr. Levinson is a Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Minnesota and is regarded as one of the smartest thinkers on transportation in the U.S.

More to come on HSR.

Sustainable Transportation and Singapore:

A couple of weeks ago, I completed a term paper for my Philosophy of Geography class. I did research on Transport Geography (a sub-discipline in Geography) and found many groundbreaking transportation ideas from the literature. This post will feature one segment of my paper which explored Singapore and the successes it has had in achieving a sustainable transportation system. Good transportation systems will be key for the 21st century, especially for climate change mitigation.

This is a pretty lengthy post. For anyone wishing to read more about transport geography, you can access my paper here.

A general trend in Asian countries like India and China is that increased wealth means more production and subsequent purchasing of automobiles. This process is problematic from a socio-economic status perspective as more vehicles are being purchased and used by the wealthy which exposes the poor to even more emissions and pollutants, or as one scholar puts it: “mobility for some will be at the expense of immobility and disease of others”. It is difficult for the government to discourage automobility when mobility is perceived to be better and public transit might be unpopular because it is uncomfortable, dirty, inconvenient and less enjoyable.

The critical challenge is to balance motorization with public transit. Singapore has been successful with such an endeavour through bringing about a sustainable transportation system. Their system fosters mobility because it allows users to choose their mode of transportation subject to a range of well-coordinated policies to control car population and usage, and at the same time to provide high quality public transport facilities.

Roads have received substantial public investment; from 1986 to 1996 the road surface area increased 27%. Between 1996 and 2000 $3 billion was invested to construct a 300 km highway and from 2001-2005, another $570 million was used to further road expansions. Public investment in the public transit network has occurred simultaneously through the mass rapid transit (MRT) and the Light Rapid Transit (LRT) networks.

Promoting motorization and public transit has involved a set of innovative management policies to achieve a sustainable transport system. The first is a vehicle quota system (VQS) which combines state planning and market mechanisms to allocate vehicles to users and so manage the vehicle population. This management tool is effective in controlling the vehicle population in Singapore as it limits car ownership. Ownership of a vehicle requires a certificate of entitlement and the quota system is based on categories of vehicles differentiated by engine size. The VQS has reduced the annual growth rate of vehicles to three percent because citizens feel inclined to have more control over their transportation choices either through walking, busing, cycling etc.

The other innovative policy is road pricing. The country uses electronic road pricing (ERP) which is a sophisticated combination of radio-frequency, optical-detection, imaging and smart-card technologies. ERP is a method of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) which has gained popularity in places such as North America, Europe and South-East Asian nations like Singapore. These technologies have been championed by civil engineers but have required input from transport geographers and planners in terms of situating them in transportation networks. Pricing roads is a really effective approach to discouraging automobility.

With ERP, the share of private cars over total commuters declined from 48% to 29%. Public transportation has received many benefits from the ERP scheme. Indeed, buses have become faster, more efficient and have seen ridership rates go up. Singapore was the first city in the world to implement an electronic road toll collection system for purposes of congestion pricing.

Mobility has been advanced in Singapore because policies have promoted public transit. Policies have made the quality, frequency and diversity of the public transit system and its services a viable alternative to the car for a wide array of the population. One progressive and emerging idea is to install intelligent traffic lights to detect approaching buses so the lights turn green automatically, this will also come with more bus lanes. This is meant to increase efficiency and mobility as a bus carries more passengers than an automobile.

Low fares in Singapore’s rapid transit system ensure that anyone can access public transport. Low-income commuters are assisted by the “many helping hands” approach, with the government, local communities and the public transport operators all extending their help in various ways such as government income redistribution schemes and transport vouchers. The rapid bus transit system provides low fares in general and continuously seeks input from the public about quality of service, price level, waiting and walking time in a trip. Last, road pricing has been effective because it controls usage of cars i.e. making automobility less attractive because it is more expensive and rapid bus transit more popular because it is cheaper and highly efficient.

Key message: Singapore provides a model for an excellent transportation system. While many cities and countries have their own unique geography, economy and public policies- there is always ample room to revamp transportation systems insofar as the political will is in place.

Innovation and Progress in wastewater treatment...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.  

What do we know about tap water? Lessons from the U.S.

City Brights blogger Peter Gleick, recently wrote a highly informative post about tap water in the U.S. Both in the U.S. and Canada we are very fortunate to access our drinking water from our taps, something many people in the developing world cannot do. With the possibility of contracting cholera, typhoid, dysentery, the risks are simply too high.

Interestingly, the U.S. has a federal act titled the "Safe Drinking Water Act", but it is outdated and in need for reform. The Safe Drinking Water Act regulates 91 chemicals. Yet there are tens of thousands of chemicals that can contaminate our waters and that haven't been assessed for their risks.

Gleick writes that "We have also known for a long time that research into the health effects of many contaminants has been underfunded, slow, and piecemeal. Such research is extremely hard to do because of the vast numbers of possible chemical contaminants and the difficulty of identifying health effects of exposures to low concentrations or complex mixes of different chemicals."

Last year, people in the U.S. purchased 33 billion litres of bottled water- an average of 110 litres per person. As enviroboys has explained before, people buy bottled water for all sorts of reasons; one of those reasons is fear of tap water because of the ostensible contaminants. There is always reason to fear this but we should know that our water is being treated with filtration, chlorination, and other modern water-treatment systems.

It is way too difficult for Environment Canada and the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate every single chemical in our water supply (because there are hundreds). Gleick calls for an upgrading in our municipal water systems with the latest, sophisticated technologies for treating water. Out of precautionary principle, we should be installing the sophisticated membrane and disinfection technologies capable of taking things out of our water.

A good way to pay for these system upgrades would be through water bills and imposing a fee on industries that release these chemicals. Water is fundamental to life and our existence, surely we can cut down on satellite tv or cable channels to pay for better treated water. The fee imposed on industry can as Gleick writes "support all the necessary research needed to evaluate the health risks they pose, to pay for remediating contaminated sites, and to help pay for sophisticated water-treatment systems to remove the contaminants they've released. In other words, the polluters must pay for their pollution as a cost of doing business".

Key message: Tap water is important and significantly cheaper than bottled water. Whether in the U.S. or Canada there should be strict legislation and funding in place to upgrade water systems to ensure a safe and adequate supply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making a buck from the environment (in a good way)...

People have been making a profit from the environment for centuries. Unfortunately, the environment has gotten the short end of the stick as (some) people pocket the cash and the environment is left severely degraded. This is not news to anyone.

But for those of you thinking a nice, long-term investment might be in order in the next few years, consider something I've been wheeling around my head for a little while. Consider investing in renewable energy.

The trend is a simple one. As climate change draws ever closer to the forefront of people's minds, the realization that unsustainable energy sources can not keep the world going will come to fruition. This, along with the fact that oil resources will eventually (if they have not already) begin to dwindle, will create significant demand for renewable energy resources. Technologies like wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, biomass and tidal will become very popular.

What is very important to realize is that we have not reached this point yet. In fact, we're not even close. Despite all the talk and news coverage about renewable energy, we're not about the hit the point where we can shut down the world's oil refineries. The likelihood that such a point will come within my lifetime (judge your estimated lifetime accordingly) is far greater. The David Suzuki fantasy of self-sufficient everythings could very well be a reality.

But it won't happen tomorrow. It won't happen next year. And when it does happen, it won't happen overnight. The transition to a clean energy world will take decades. That is why those of us in the younger generations might stand to make a killing from it.

Imagine a time when the world's biggest renewable energy firms (ex. Vestas in Denmark or First Solar in the USA) replace the world's big oil firms as the leading energy companies. While they might not be quite as profitable -- you can't own the wind the same way you can unrefined petroleum -- they might still be massive. Imagine when Vestas wind turbines are scattered throughout the world as plentifully as barrels of good ol' Exxon-Mobil crude.

This will happen. We just don't know when. As young people, several of us have the benefit of time. While a significant investment into a specific company or industry might not necessarily pay huge amounts in the short term, the long term growth of renewables will be tremendous. The shares you pay for today might be worth a whole lot more in the years to come.

Indeed, some people have invested a lot of money in the renewables industry hoping that the current 'boom' will pay off huge. But as we have seen, this is not necessarily the case. The economic or political climate has not yet reached the point where renewables can be seen as anything more than 'alternative'. Those looking for a quick buck might not find it here. But those looking to make a secure, long-term investment probably will make a nice chunk of change.

In terms of where to actually invest that money, I don't know. I'm not a financial planner. My guess would be the big companies like Vestas and First Solar, but renewables are still in their infancy and other, much smaller companies could very well grow much larger. Other options would include Index-funds, which would invest in an entire sector, such as solar, wind or even 'clean tech' to cover every renewable company around.

You won't make lots of money right away. But you might very well set yourself up nicely in the future. And hey, you probably won't hurt the environment all that much, either.

Water pipes leak a lot but there is a way to minimize this...

Leaking water systems waste a lot of water. Take any city in the world that has an extensive water supply system, chances are their infrastructure, pipes and water mains leak on a daily basis. This results in numerous inefficiencies including lost water, lost energy (energy is required to pump and pressurize water through pipes) and municipal capital.

Fixing these leaks have proven to be a nuisance and extremely costly. So, a lot of cities will simply resort to the easiest solution: reduce the water pressure to reduce water leakage. The World Bank estimates that 88 billion litres of treated water is lost from leaking urban pipelines every day.

Fortunately, thanks to the ingenuity of an Israeli company called “Curapipe”, there is now a system that aims to seal leaks cheaply with only a small disruption to the water supply.

Check out how it works at the economist here.