A desperate paper plea coming to a Facebook page near you...

If you're young, you probably won't print this blog post. But you really should. Print five copies for your friends, even. And please, don't feel guilty about the environmental impact.

This is the message being put forth by one of North America's largest copy paper companies, Domtar. An article published in today's Globe and Mail details the new strategy being taken by Domtar. Quite simply, the company believes that the "think before you print"mantra endorsed by environmentalists is "just bull" and that people should not feel bad about printing. Indeed, it is very proud -- and it should be -- of its use of FSC Certified process and the fact that three trees are planted for every one used.

Domtar appears to be convinced that it is the environmental issue hurting its business -- sales are expected to slide significantly over the next several years -- and so it has put together a campaign called Put it on Paper to convince people that printing isn't nearly as bad for the environment as people make it out to be. Moreover, because young people don't seem to print too often, much of the campaign will be aimed at Facebook and Twitter, where most young people live. Don't worry, printed material will also be part of it.  

Domtar is right, the environmental issue is hurting its business. And I'm glad it is, as it means that more recycled paper is being used and, more importantly, less paper is being used overall. Its 'green' practices should not overshadow the underlying fact that using virgin materials is rarely, if ever, more environmentally sustainable than recycled products.

But where I think Domtar is wrong is in its targeting of the environmental issue as its main enemy. Paper is being used less frequently not because of its environmental impact, but because the alternative is so much more convenient. It has little to do with telling people printing is OK.

Why don't kids print out all the emails from their friends, Domtar asks? Because their square foot laptop can store as many emails as would fill their house if all of them were printed. And specific messages can be found in less than a second. Filing cabinets just can't do that.

Clutter is a problem, too. I'm in the process of moving out of my rental house and I've been rifling through piles of old pages I was encouraged to printout in earlier years. All of it is going to the recycling bin. Electronic forms of that stuff would be much more convenient.

We should not get rid of paper entirely. It most definitely has its place. I have been raised by a family with a vested interest in the printed word and still enjoy reading the newspaper, magazines and books in printed word over their electronic versions. But Domtar is a copy paper company and is encouraging the increase of printing things like emails. Sure, some things should be printed, specifically those things that are very important, and multiple copies should be made in the same way that we use backup drives on our computers. But printing with the mindset or in the volume proposed by Domtar seems ridiculous.

It is nothing more than a desperate plea from a company that sees its future going down the toilet. That, unfortunately for Domtar, is the nature of capitalism. As more and more industries start to grind to a halt, I just hope that the pleas are at least somewhat accurate and realistic, and more importantly, that alternatives can be found so as few as possible jobs are impacted.

Photo Credit: MSNBC

Poll results: Planning your community...

This past week's poll question pertained to planning. The poll question was: You are asked to plan the potential use of a large plot of land outside of the downtown. Would you...

Plan a sub-division. People need housing and lots of space 1 (4%)
A golf course. Outdoor recreation is always appealing 2 (9%)
A condominium with over 600 units 3 (13%)
A Casino. Potential revenue generator and
source of entertainment for the community 4 (18%)
A city park offering recreation and green space for the community 10 (45%)
None of the above 2 (9%)

Total votes = 22

The main motivation for this poll question is my interest in urban planning. The question pertains to fundamental urban planning but is nonetheless an important one considering how complex and multidisciplinary planning is. Enviro Boys suspects that many of our readers and followers are environmentalists and/or progressive in their environmental thinking. Planning a city park offering recreation and green space for the community had the most votes (n=10). The casino, condo, golf, sub-division and none of the above were not as popular.

While the benefits (aesthetics, health, nature and protection of native species) are clear with the creation of parks and public spaces, they are not always a priority for a city's planning department. Planners are faced with stiff challenges endeavoring to facilitate development and ensure that numerous stakeholders are satisfied. Green spaces and parks are needed for any growing city, however, developers are not shy to propose condos, sub-divisions and even casinos to occupy the potential space and reap economic benefits from this. Such commercial, entertainment and housing options also increase the city's tax revenue base which is certainly appealing in a time when city's have constrained municipal budgets.

As a city urbanizes, arable land and resources become scarcer. Thus, when an open plot of land is available, planners are consulted to determine how they can best optimize the land use while looking at environmental, economic and social considerations. So, a condo, while contentious to many, can be appropriate given the city's growth patterns and housing market. It would lift with the property values of homes within the area and potentially make the local real-estate market more appealing. However, it could also cause car congestion, block off sunlight from reaching parts of the city and use more surface area for parking thereby creating more impervious surface and increasing the potential for flooding.

Every plot of land in a city is valuable. How we plan it is totally contingent on whose interests are part of the equation. As citizens, we always have a role to play in planning our respective communities. If a plot of land is being examined for best use (whether commercial, public, residential, industrial etc) we can throw in our opinions and thoughts regarding how it could be planned to maximize the best interests of the community. We can attend city council meetings and write letters to propose recommendations on how the plot of land could be better planned.

For every individual that gets involved with this process, eventually, it could lead to a more cohesive and unified community that is actively involved in shaping how the community is planned. This can help in reaching environmental, social and economic objectives.

Is Ontario quietly walking away from its renewable energy targets?

Ontario is driving the country's most ambitious renewable energy incentive program; its Feed-In Tariff that came as part of the landmark Green Energy Act. As with any ambitious government policy, equally ambitious targets accompany the program itself.

Several months ago I came across Ontario's new renewable energy targets under its FIT program and found them to be well beyond anything I had seen before. Ontario had committed to 15,000 MW of new renewable energy by 2025 and even hoped to exceed the targets. To put that in context, its current generating capacity is roughly 35,000 MW, primarily made up of nuclear, gas, coal and hydro.

Because solar projects are not usually very large and relatively few biogas projects are developed, most of the 15,000 MW would come from wind and hydro projects. Now, to be clear, 15,000 MW of hydro projects would produce a lot more electricity than 15,000 MW of wind projects because the wind doesn't blow all the time. But if even a third of that target is met by wind, it would mean a minimum of 2,500 new wind turbines scattered throughout the province. Regardless of whether or not you think that's a good thing, that is an immense number of turbines. It's actually more than you'd find all over Canada, Ontario currently included.

But I came across something very curious the other day. While looking to confirm those targets for my Honours Thesis, they were nowhere to be found. The government website I had used before was no longer available and a thorough review of the government's different department/agency websites (the Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Power Authority) brought up nothing.

Instead, the only solid numbers I could find were estimates of job creation and what Ontario has already done since October. In thinking I was perhaps going a little crazy, I went in search of these targets elsewhere. Luckily, I was able to find a few sites (here, here and here) that made reference to the government announcement of the targets.

Why these targets aren't available is quite a mystery. It is, of course, possible that I am simply too daft to find them, but I find it unlikely. At this point I won't begin to speculate further, but I feel that it might be appropriate to follow up on it.

I'll try to keep people updated...

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.

Gleick's new book on bottled water...

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

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

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

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

Our first guest blogger!

Well, after countless hours of begging and Tim's midnight raids on children's piggy banks to fund our bribes, we have finally done it. We have found a guest blogger.

Emmalea Davis is an Environmental Studies student at Trent University, just like us. We met her in a couple of courses and it was quite clear that she had an expertise in areas that Tim and I will never come close to sharing. Luckily we were able to convince her -- through empty promises of fame and fortune -- to share her expertise on our site.

So I hope you enjoy our first guest post and hopefully it won't be the last, from Emmalea or anyone else interested in contributing...

Guest Entry: Does anyone know about Bill C-474?

By: Emmalea Davis

Does anyone know about Bill C-474, because it just broke a record in Parliament this past Wednesday, when it passed its second reading in the House? The Bill is a Private Members Bill, proposed by an NDP representative from British Columbia’s Southern Interior, Alex Atamanenko. Titled “An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations”, it proposes that all genetically engineered organisms are subject to a market analysis as part of the approval process undertaken by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) under the Seeds Act. On Wednesday after a close – 153 to 134 – vote, the Bill became the first proposing changes to the rules regarding genetically engineered (GE) organisms to make it past a second reading in the House.

Since 2001, more than ten Private Members Bills have been set before the House of Commons, with only two even being selected for debate (2001 and again in 2008). Both of these were regarding mandatory labelling of GE foods, and both were defeated (126-91 and 156-101, respectively). Wednesday was the first time a Bill regarding GE foods was voted on, and supported, twice. It has now moved on to the Agriculture Committee, for study and likely amendments, before it will once again be voted on in the House. 

If approved, the Bill would move onto the Senate for review and voting, and hopefully pass into law. Fingers crossed that Parliament doesn’t get prorogued again, before the House has time to consider the final draft coming out of the Agricultural Committee, which is what happens to far too many Bill these days.

Whether you are for or against, or don’t even care, about GE organisms, this Bill should interest you. Not only is it breaking Parliamentary records, but it is also the first time Parliament has acknowledged (through their support for a Bill like this) that perhaps Canada’s regulatory system regarding these “Novel Foods” isn’t perfect. 

The call for a market analysis before approving these new organisms comes out of the current problems faced by Canadian flax farmers. In September of 2009, Germany discovered GE contamination in flax shipped from Canada. By November over 34 countries were reporting contamination from our flax, and Europe and Japan (our largest and third largest flax export markets – with the US in second) closed their markets. Today, though the markets are open again, farmers have to pay for 3-tier testing, once in Canada and then again when the shipment gets to Europe. If any contamination is detected, the shipment is sent back. Canada is the world’s largest flax exporter, and flax farmers have seen prices drop over 1/3, while at the same time are having to pay for multiple tests to certify their seeds and harvest are contamination-free. 

Even worse, 2009 was a record year, and Canada now has a ridiculous surplus of flax which no one (aside from the US) wants. This same scenario played out in 1998 for Canadian canola farmers, and due to huge contamination issues Canadian organic canola farmers lost their certification – for good.

The scariest piece about the flax issue is that the source of contamination (CDC Triffid Flax) was deregistered and thought to be entirely destroyed in 2001, when flax farmers protested its approval for sale in Canada due to fears that just this sort of scenario might take place. Though the flax was determined to be “substantially equivalent” (and therefore safe) to conventional flax, flax farmers were so upset that its creator, the University of Saskatchewan, agreed to its deregistration. (Call me cynical, but if it had been Monsanto or Dupont the farmers would likely have had a much bigger fight on their hands.) Regardless, eight years later, no one knows how the contamination by a strain thought to be eliminated has managed to ‘infect’ so many farmers’ fields – especially considering the seed was never sold commercially.

Bill C-474 is not about opposing GE technology, nor placing unnecessary red-tape in the approval process. It is about ensuring that farmers will be protected from this happening again, by forcing the CFIA or the proponent of the new organism to ensure that there will be a market for both crops (conventional and engineered), even if contamination occurs. If this assessment had been done in the case of flax, it is likely it would never have been approved for field testing (in open fields in Saskatchewan from 1989-1995). 

We know that pollen and seeds can’t be contained. We know that Canada is far more permissive with this technology than most of our trading partners, and we know that we are likely not going to change either of those facts anytime soon. The most important thing we can do, at this point, is to make sure our farmers, who are already under severe economic burdens, are protected. And that they no longer are responsible for paying the price when our technology gets away from us.

For anyone interested in seeing how their MP voted on Wednesday, click here. And you can find out more about the Bill and the flax issue here or from a more anti-GE perspective here. 

A Proposed International Convention on Water...

This semester, Chris and I took a course called Global Environmental Policy. A large part of the course was focused on researching and becoming an expert on an international convention. Our classmates became experts on conventions such as the Basel Convention of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species just to name a few. There were a diverse range of conventions presented in our class which illustrated the course's interdisciplinarity and the great mix of research interests. Most of our classmates did their research on an existing convention and provided their own critiques, analysis and recommendations.

Chris and I took a different approach. We decided to explore and create our own convention on water. A convention on water would be a multidisciplinary forum for dealing with a wide range of issues including water governance, water pricing, distribution and access, treatment and much more. Initially, we we were interested in exploring the possibility of an international convention on water as a human right. Our approach however, changed overtime as we realized the complexity and multidisciplinarity of water resources.

Managing water, for example, involves (or should involve) many different stakeholders including civil engineers, politicians, planners, economists and environmental scientists to name a few. The private sector is also very much involved in water resources management.

Over the past four months, Chris and I have learned a lot about the politics, economics, management, ecology and societal aspects of water resources. We wrote a ministerial brief (a component of the course) addressed to various Canadian and Provincial government ministries.

In our brief, we highlight the main issue at stake and provide recommendations on how Canada can respond to water policy both domestically and internationally. Importantly, we provide analysis and some direction for the government and its potential involvement in an international convention on water. To view our ministerial brief, please click here.

We also made a class presentation about our convention. One of the recommendations we proposed was derived from an economist named David Zetland from UC Berkeley. In our final class, we called David via teleconferencing and he elaborated on his concept (water as a property right) and students had the chance to ask questions and seek more information about this very relevant and increasingly significant natural resource.

A little much needed cooling for a few days...

The volcano that recently erupted in Iceland has been spewing swaths of ash and smoke into the sky. The ash is so thick that flights throughout Europe have been cancelled in a uniform grounding of planes of a scale not seen since the September 11, 2001 terrorism attacks. It is unclear how much longer the grounding will last, but one can guess it will last at least a few days. 

The combination of the eruption and the grounding of planes could provide a little bit of global cooling for the next few days. Granted, it will likely be a remarkably minute effect, but it is something. The thick ash and smoke will block the sun for quite a while and cool the land underneath it. Indeed, previous eruptions have had a profound impact. In 1991, a volcanic eruption in the Philippines is believed to have cooled the earth's surface by almost one degree fahrenheit. 

And to add to any cooling from the volcano, the grounding of flights will certainly help. Considering western Europe and Scandinavia is the world's busiest flight corridor and jets are significant contributors to climate change, cancelled flights could at least slow down some warming. Mind you, it will likely be even less influential than the volcano.

The downside, outside of people not getting on their flights, could be acid rain and serious air pollution. The ash will likely make its way towards the ground (though it hadn't yet when I write this) and have significant breathing problems. And ash is extremely acidic, so it could lead to acid rain or very acidic water supplies. Degradation of the ozone layer is also of concern.

The acidification is largely caused by sulfur-dioxide contained in the ash. Throwing sulfur-dioxide into the atmosphere is a solution to climate change being proposed by some that is encapsulated in the term "geo-engineering". But, as the risks around acid rain and the ozone layer are realized, it is very clear that there is no free lunch.      

Greening the greens...

Mark Twain once called it a good walk spoiled. Others have defined it simply as an endless series of tragedies obscured by the occasional miracle. No matter how poetic you get with it, there is no game quite like golf.

Golf has been around for centuries and is played by millions throughout the world. But it is certainly not without its critics. Apart from the myriad writers and many others who can't seem to hone their skills very well, golf has frequently come under fire as a sport for "rich, white guys". More recently, golf has been targeted as an environmental monster.

Golf uses huge amounts of land, outrageous amounts of fresh water and often large volumes of cosmetic pesticides to keep the course looking very green. They tend to be built on highly viable agricultural land and can have a detrimental impact on wildlife.

But before I continue, Tim and I have a confession to make. We, dare I say it, are golfers. And we hit the greens yesterday afternoon. We have spent many hours discussing the appropriateness of two guys who study the environment and write about it playing a game that has so much environmental impact. Consider it a guilty pleasure.

But as we were playing yesterday, I kept thinking about how golf could be made more environmentally friendly. So let's explore some ways golf could be made a little more 'green'.

Golf courses could start to use high grade compost instead of cosmetic pesticides and conventional soil. High quality compost can often be more fertile than synthetic treatments and as more communities turn to it, supplies could be plentiful and cheap.

Courses could also turn to using xeriscaping (or drip irrigation) to try and use as little water as possible without harming the quality of the game.

The courses could also work together with local conservation authorities and ministries of the environment to protect wildlife habitat and any special species. Indeed, the Audobon Society has a certification program that awards certain courses that meet their environmental standards.

Turning to energy use, the courses could use renewable sources to power things like the clubhouse and to charge the golf carts.

The Conservation Council of Ontario is looking at this and has developed a project that is examining all the facets of 'greening the greens'. I suggest looking at its site if you have more interest in exploring what can be done.

Some of this might be expensive, but the beauty of working with golf courses is that they tend to be -- as critics highlight -- played by those with considerable levels of income. Some of the private courses charge annual membership fees of thousands of dollars. For many golf clubs, money is not much of an object for their membership base.  

I admit that golf is intrinsically an environmentally unfriendly sport, just given the need for huge amounts of land and to keep the playing surface of good quality. The most environmentally friendly thing we could do is just shut them down and return them to their natural states. But that isn't going to happen, so we should try to green as much of what we do as we can.  

(Photo: Atwood Lake Resort)

Poll results: The Optimal waste management solution...

The poll results are in. We wanted to take this time to thank everyone for continuing to participate in the weekly polls. It is always fun for us to come up with questions and to see the subsequent results.

The poll question was "what is the most optimal waste management solution to you?"

My city should invest heavily into a composting program 3 (14%)
Implement policy that requires more products to be recyclable 1 (4%)
Make manufacturers more responsible for collecting their products after use 8 (38%)
Make residents pay for every garbage bag of waste they produce 8 (38%)
Send all of our garbage to waste incinerators 0 (0%)
Heavily tax our landfills to encourage conservation 1 (4%)

Total votes = 21

Disposing of municipal solid waste has historically been a challenging responsibility for cities across Canada. Municipal solid waste (MSW) has become an environmental issue pushing political agendas and having multiple implications for public policy decisions. I wrote a multi-criteria analysis on waste management options for a public policy course. It can be accessed here.

"Make manufacturers more responsible for collecting their products after use" and "make residents pay for every garbage bag of waste they produce" were the two popular options in the poll, each with 8 votes. They are both critical waste management options. Making manufactures more responsible is a process known as extended producer responsibility, which we have blogged about before. In short, the industry, not the government, is responsible for internalizing waste management costs in their product prices. The EPR strategy is best epitomized by the Beer Store. All beer bottles that are purchased at the store by the consumer can be sold back to the manufacturer as the Beer Store will re-buy the bottles that they have sold you. Although they buy the bottle back from the consumer at a low cost, it still encourages recycling and reusing.

Making residents pay for each bag of waste is known as a user pay system. Like most user charges (plastic bags for example) the minute you start paying for something, consumers start to think about conservation or simply using less because it saves them money. These are the shifts in behaviour that we need to see for a more sustainable planet.

Sending our garbage to incinerators had no votes. Incineration is a semi-popular waste management option in Canada (although very controversial), it is more widespread in Europe and Japan. Composting programs are expensive but very important. They require a lot of monitoring and enforcement. Landfill taxes are a great instrument, however, it all depends on how the revenue (from the tax) is used. Ideally, most of this revenue should go towards waste diversion programs (recycling, composting etc).

Key message: All of these options have merit. Such options need secured funding (which should be consistent) and the political will! As environmentalists, be sure to pressure your institution, school, city, company and/or organization to consider one of these waste management options. Take the time to gather some information about your preferred option and start raising awareness and advocacy for it.

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***

Enviro Boys Visiting Statistics...

Although Enviro Boys began in January of 2009, it was not until April of the same year that we stumbled across Google Analytics. For about a month I had struggled to insert one of those 'hit counters' to track visits to the site, but could never wade through the website language. Google Analytics, however, as with almost everything Google, was very easy to use. Moreover, it is far more useful than a simple hit counter. In a nutshell, Google Analytics is a free piece of software you can use to track visits to your website and check it in real time. It tracks visits, the city of origin of people reading your site, time on the site, how people found your site, which pages are most popular, and much, much more.

We have been tracking Enviro Boys for exactly one year today: April 8, 2009. I thought today would be an appropriate day to report one year's worth of statistics.

A few things to mention before I go into detail: From May 15, 2009 to June 16, 2009, nothing was tracked because we changed the URL to enviroboys.com and did not update the Analytics until June 17, so really all of these stats are really representative of eleven months; Nothing was tracked for the first three whole months of the site being up and running; Google Analytics is very detailed, but we don't know stuff like your Social Insurance Numbers or banking information.

Since beginning tracking of Enviro Boys on April 8, 2009, we have found the following:

• 7,273 total visits, from 3,516 different visitors -- which means some people actually come back!
• 11,462 total page views - approximately 1.5 per visit
• Average length of visit is 1:30
• 48% of visits are new visits, meaning over half are from people coming back!
• Visits have come from 97 countries
• Most are Canada and the USA, but significant amount from UK and Europe
• Visitors used 52 different languages - sorry to the non-English speaking folk... 
• 58% have come from referring sites, 30% from search engines and 12% from direct traffic
• The most popular page outside of the main page has been Tim's post on Curitiba, which for a long time showed up on the front page when searching 'curitiba transit' on Google
• The most visits any one day was 66, on April 5th
• The number of visits per day has increased drastically from ~8 in the first six months of tracking to ~21 in the past six months and ~27 since the new year!

Thanks so much to everyone who continues to read Enviro Boys!  

There's no poop in our water...

Bottled water companies are notorious for the multitude of reasons they use to convince consumers of the desirability of their product. The usual suspects include pictures of pristine freshwater springs -- though lots of bottled water actually comes from municipal sources; lulling descriptions of filtering processes -- "triple distilled through reverse-osmosis, oxygenization, and vapourization and cold-filtered with minerals for taste"; and report after report chastising the health risks of municipal tap water -- even though tap water is regulated to a much higher standard in much of the world.

But today I saw something I had never seen before. A particular bottled water company (whose name escapes me) had a poster up in one of Trent's cafeterias with a bountiful list of the wonderful benefits of its product. At the bottom of the list was the cartoon of a small orange fish with little drops coming out of its backside. Beside the picture read, "No fish swam here".

Wow.

I know the bottled water industry is under attack, but I've never seen anything so desperate to claim that there is no fish poop in the product, let alone that no fish swam in the source water. If there were no fish, where did they even get the water? And is there any life in the water? If not, it might be an indication that the water isn't all that healthy.

Of course, now I'll take an extremely cautious approach to any drink that is not labelled with a "no fish swam here" logo. I don't know about you, but I don't want to drink fish poop...

Toronto and commuting times...

As a Torontonian, I am embarrassed to say that my city has an egregious commuting problem. A new study by the Toronto Board of Trade reported that the average commute time (round trip) for a Torontonian is 84 minutes. That is horrendous in comparison to cities like Los Angeles which is at 56 minutes, or New York City at 68.1. When I think of LA I think of highway congestion and commuting problems. Well, apparently Toronto is worse.

Of the 19 cities that were surveyed for the study, we take the gold for worse commuting times. Toronto is a vast metropolis in the heart of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. There are over 6 million people in the GTA alone and many commute from GTA municipalities to Toronto's downtown or even commute great distances within the GTA. One of my geography profs tells me that 86% of the commutes in the GTA are from the automobile, only 14% are on the GO train and other non-automobile forms of transit. Toronto itself desperately needs public transit renewal. Alas, the province is delaying the $4 billion in planned transit spending.

The transit plan is going to bring about several Light-Rail Transit routes which will make the city more sustainable and diverse in terms of transit choice. The city is going to have to think of several policy tools that it could use to bring in some money. It is understood that the province has a massive deficit, however, the city need not be completely dependent on the province for transit funding.

There are a number of tools that can be used (although many are controversial). Electronic road pricing or highway tolls would certainly have merit. Considering how congested the Don Valley Parkway (DVP) is, it can use some sort of toll to reduce congestion and raise revenue for public transit expansion.

Key message: Toronto is a growing city. While most of the population growth is occurring in the GTA, such growth (and high automobility) puts tremendous pressure on the city's transportation networks. As a result, commuting gets worse. I think Toronto should consider a highway toll (as a kick start initiative to sustainable transport) and apply this toll to the DVP.

More to follow about this DVP highway toll recommendation including potential revenue and how revenue could be spent.

Poll Results: Wind turbines in your community...

Question: A company wants to put a few wind turbines in your community, do you...

Welcome it with open arms? We need more green energy -- 12 Votes (50%)

Learn more about them and get a community group together that could possibly invest in the project? Community power has its advantages -- 10 Votes (41%)

Go about your usual business? Who really cares anyway -- 3 Votes (12%)

Vehemently oppose it and fight the project to the death? They are an eyesore and could be dangerous to my health -- 1 Vote (4%)

Get the hell out of dodge? There's no way I'm hanging around near those behemoths -- 0 Votes (0%)

As expected, most people voted in support of the project. This is fairly common throughout Canada, as the majority of Canadians are generally supportive of wind power. However, things might change if it is in your community. Studies have found that support for projects can be very high initially, but as the details of the project come closer to reality, support can often drop drastically. Even the most staunch environmental supporters can find themselves opposing a project, especially when they didn't expect to in the first place -- which helps to explain why so few are opposed to any project.

The second most popular choice was to learn more about wind power projects. Most people don't know the ins and outs of these things and know only things through word of mouth. In many cases, these things can be false and exaggerated, be it supportive or oppositional to wind power, so it is very important that people get involved and start to learn the facts about that particular project. One of the best ways to do that is to get involved in the project itself by gathering up community members to invest in the project. Community ownership can influence the design of the project to make it more socially acceptable and appropriate in your community.

Just leaving it to others and going on with your own routine was also popular for some. While we at Enviro Boys are fascinated by this stuff, it is likely that many people just don't care whether or not there are any wind turbines put up. This is completely fair. Everyone has their priorities.

Only one person elected to fight it vehemently. This is gaining ground in Ontario as more wind projects are being put up. Some wind developers have undercut communities over the years and left an unappealing mark on the industry, resulting in an all out battle against wind power in Ontario, regardless of the project type. Other regions face this, too. While it is important to recognize the drawbacks of projects, sometimes this opposition can get a little carried away and reject any type of compromise.

No one decided to leave, but it is a reality. Some people can't stand the sight, the sound or even develop health issues related to wind energy -- although the latter is still up for debate. Some also leave before their property values plummet.

Being supportive of wind in general is nice, but the game can change drastically when it becomes a reality in your community.

Coal-loaded ship runs aground on the Great Barrier Reef...

If the rapid development of coal-fired power plants in China wasn't enough to piss off the environmental community, the crashing of a Chinese coal-carrier on the Great Barrier Reef certainly won't help.

The ship ran aground late last night and is carrying 72,000 tons of coal, as well as 1000 tons of oil. Some of the oil has started to leak and local officials are very worried that the ship is on the verge of breaking apart. A break could spell significant environmental disaster on one of the world's most fragile ecosystems.

Australia's Great Barrier Reef is in serious danger from climate change, as rising ocean temperatures tend to cause significant coral bleaching, which, if occurring annually, could very well kill the Reef.

For more information on the story, go here.

This has not been a good week for China's coal industry. In addition to the Reef incident and the constant criticism of its coal plants by environmentalists, 153 miners have been trapped inside a coal mine in China for nearly a week.

Despite all the wonderful economic and energy benefits of coal, there sure are many downsides. Hopefully these downsides start to be taken more seriously before it's too late.

Photo: Guardian Newspaper

The Tories pull a few quick ones...

Environmental politics don't seem to emanate too widely here in Canada, and the Conservatives would love to keep it that way. The two most recent happenings on the environmental front are case in point.

Although publicly released earlier in March, the intricacies 2010-2011 budget were not fully released until a few days ago. In these new details, it was revealed that the federal environmental assessment process was, in almost every sense of the word, being gutted.

When projects are applying for federal government approval, they are normally required to complete an environmental assessment. These assessments, though not free of problems, tend to take at least one year and review each nitty, gritty aspect of a project's impact on the environment. The process is in many ways the strongest line of defence against environmentally unfriendly projects. The new regulations, which were tacked on to the bottom of a budget bill in a particularly sneaky fashion, gives the Environment Minister authority to reduce what parts of a project need to be subjected to an assessment.

Quite simply, the most damaging parts of projects like those in the Oil Sands, wouldn't need to go through a full environmental assessment. This has undoubtedly been a keen interest of the governing Conservatives for some time, so to some this is not all that surprising. However, it is the fact that this aspect wasn't publicly released that is very bothering.

The second dent of the day came when the government announced that the possibility of entering into its extremely popular ecoENERGY home retrofit program was coming to a close. Most programs come to an end, but it was especially alarming that the deadline to enter the program was midnight of the same day the deadline was announced, leaving people to scramble to have assessments done that day. The date was arbitrary and largely unforeseen. For service providers, this means a lot of their clients -- many of which had scheduled months before for a home visit -- will be left without a home visit.

This is also mischievous because the program itself does not end until March of 2011, so the government will still brag about the program. It is true that the program can take over a year to complete in its entirety, but a little more notice would have been nice. Cancelling the program, which has been extremely popular since its creation under the previous Liberal government, has always been controversial (and delayed) because of its popularity. Cancelling it in concert with its very popular Home Renovation tax credit is sure to piss some people off, especially in this time of 'economic stimulus'.

It is not a secret that this government does not consider the environment a priority, but they should at least be upfront about it, rather than pulling sneaky tactics like this.  

The five cent charge on plastic bags in Washington D.C.

A number of months ago, I wrote about plastic bag charging in the City of Toronto. As of June 1, 2009 the city passed a by-law requiring all stores under the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers (CFIG) to bring about a five cent charge on plastic bags. I do not know the specific statistics, but I would imagine that plastic bag use has dropped with the introduction of the charge.

What I do know is that Washington D.C. has been very successful with their plastic bag charging initiative. The five cent disposable bag fee took effect this January 2010 and like Toronto, it received a tonne of opposition off the bat. The Office of Tax and Revenue reported that the city brought in $150,000 in bag fee revenue in the month of January alone! The big question for all of these charging schemes is what you do with the revenue raised from the charge. What the revenue is spent on in Toronto is quite nebulous, ostensibly it goes to "environmental projects".. whatever that means.

In D.C., the $150,000 will go towards cleaning up the Anacostia River. That is a wonderful initiative and it is good to know that D.C. cares about its natural environmental features. In terms of the plastic bags themselves, about 3 million of them were purchased in January, a drop from the average 22.5 million per month that the city is accustomed to.

We know that the rationale of the five cent charge is to induce citizens to change their behaviour to cut down on their use of plastic bags. In general, a user charge can persuade citizens to make the investment in buying reusable bags which are sturdier, compact and can carry a higher volume of groceries. D.C. provides evidence that such a five cent charge has actually been working and has changed consumer behaviour tremendously.

More fascinating to me is the city's inclination to use the revenue on cleaning up the Anacostia River. The river is something that everyone could relate to. It is a natural environmental feature that has only become more polluted and inundated with things like plastic bags. With a clear vision to clean up their own environment, I think we should applaud D.C. for its hitherto successful five cent charge initiative.

Key message: Changing consumer behaviour, getting D.C. residents to think about the river and cutting down on plastic bags are all positive endeavors for the present and for the future.

Why would you cut a Conservation Authority?

Conservation authorities are absolutely critical to the success of watershed and regional planning. When I think of organizations that endeavour to promote environmental stewardship and responsible development, conservation authorities are the first thing that come to my mind. I am not sure how familiar our readers are with Conservation Authorities (CAs) not to be confused with chartered accountants. This post will provide some information. Trent Emeritus Professor of Geography, John Marsh, wrote an excellent letter to the editor on this topic found here.

CAs ensure that housing development is built in a way that minimizes impact (usually runoff from construction) on water quality, watersheds, native species, aquatic species and other. They have intimate knowledge of environmental issues within the communities that they operate. Without conservation authorities, it would be much easier for developers to build their sub-divisions and housing projects with minimal consideration for the environment.

I blog about this because the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority (ORCA) is currently under pressure from being dissolved. Specifically, the township of Asphodel–Norwood (located in Peterborough County) wants to cut the CA. Asphodel-Norwood Township council wants to put the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority out of business. Last week, Council passed a motion to dissolve the conservation authority. They're acting on a recommendation made by the Peterborough County Landowners Association. Landowners association? Are you really surprised? As mentioned, without CAs, the development process is much easier and less resisted.

The thought of putting a conservation authority out of business is not only absurd, but borders on stupidity. We always talk about the importance of more sustainable communities and the need to ensure that our water is safe and our environment protected. Well, in Ontario, Conservation Authorities are our community-based environmental experts. They use integrated, ecologically sound environmental practices to manage Ontario’s water resources on a watershed basis. They also help in maintaining secure supplies of clean water and protect communities from flooding.

The good thing is that CAs are backed by the Conservation Authorities Act which is provincial legislation that ensure the conservation, restoration and responsible management of water, land and natural habitat through programs that balance human, environmental and economic needs. The key here is “balance” something developers do not always like.

The Otonabee Region Conservation Authority has been around since 1959. I actually interviewed them for my thesis on water management and planning issues. I found them to be very professional, insightful and knowledgeable about the critical environmental issues in the area.

Landowners associations or developers in general may very well oppose such community-based organizations like ORCA. They think that ORCA slows down the development process and interferes with their “business”. Well, ORCA’s "business" is to provide analysis and recommendations on how to build around a watershed and environmentally sensitive sites. ORCA's recommendations are in the best interest for the community, the natural environment and native species- all of which are threatened by unmonitored and rampant housing development.

Key message: We should feel honoured and lucky to have conservation authorities in our province. Their expertise and presence has hitherto been critical for environmental protection and ensuring that our water supplies are safe and not threatened by development.

Pedalling a boat to Hawaii...

There are several brave souls who manage to cycle from coast to coast across North America. But once you hit the ocean, there is nowhere to go. That is, unless you build a boat to pedal across the Pacific on.

That is exactly what Greg Kolodziejzyk has done. And he plans to take it all the way to Hawaii under his own power in what he calls the Pedal the Ocean Project. Greg, who already has two human-powered travel world records under his belt, has built an ocean going vessel complete with a sleeping cabin, cockpit and storage cabin. He plans to leave in June from Tofino, B.C. and expects the trip to take anywhere from 40 to 90 days.

Greg is a retired entrepreneur -- retiring in his mid-30s -- and spends much of his time training for extreme endurance events like marathons, triathlons and bike-across-ocean-ons. He is also a motivational speaker. Since his retirement, he has put a significant focus on human powered-travel and its benefits in battling childhood obesity. Indeed, the trip is trying to fundraise 3000 bicycles for kids as a means to help them combat obesity and increase their overall health.

While not saying it directly, Greg is also inspiring environmental action and awareness. Human-powered travel is both good for the health of the pilot, but also healthy for the environment. As health care and the environment become increasingly important issues to deal with, it would be nice to see some collaboration, especially since they can help each other out.

Good luck, Greg! (And thanks to K.O. for telling me about this).

The Story of Bottled Water...

From the creators of "The Story of Stuff", comes "The Story of Bottled Water". Sometimes the most effective message is a simple one.

Poll results: talking transportation

The results are in. We had a total of 23 votes. The poll statement was “talking transportation: I think my city would benefit most through…”

The use of light-rail transit 5 (21%)
More bike lanes and bike paths 3 (13%)
A city-wide public bike rental system 3 (13%)
Improving the subway system 4 (17%)
Making buses more efficient and comfortable 8 (34%)
Making the downtown more walk-friendly 0 (0%)
None of the above 0 (0%)

Total = 23.

What’s important is that public transit and alternative transit methods (walking, biking) are all critical for any green city. However, not every city needs a subway system. Not every city needs light-rail transit. In a city like Peterborough (pop~80,000) the total land area and population density does not justify the need for these massive public transportation projects. However, Peterborough could benefit from more bike lanes, bike paths and making the overall downtown more walk-friendly. Walk-friendly means constant maintenance of sidewalks, having city parks and gardens and other aesthetic features that make the overall walking experience more enjoyable and safe for citizens.

A city-wide public bike rental system. There is only one in Canada, it’s in Montreal and it’s called Bixi. I am not too sure how popular or successful this initiative is but I will get some insight when I visit Montreal on Friday. A city-wide public bike rental system can be expensive to implement. This too would be justified in a city with relatively high cycling ridership, or cities that have decent bike lanes for cyclists. There have been talks about having such a system in Toronto but nothing has come about.

Light-rail transit…. Well it is expensive. Toronto is currently creating 7 new light-rail transit routes across the city. I spoke with a civil engineer from the Toronto Transit Commission and he told me that it costs $30 million for every kilometer of installation (much cheaper than the $150 million/kilometer for subway).

Making buses more efficient and comfortable had the most votes (8 votes). I think everyone can relate to this irrespective of where you live. Both small and large cities alike have some form of a bus system. Peterborough has a bus system that is mostly used by low-income citizens, seniors and students. The buses are decent but many students complain because their scheduling and logistics are horrendous. Making them more comfortable, spacious and efficient in terms of their routes and scheduling times would be great.

Last, when evaluating alternative transit and public transit options in any city, it is critical to get the public perspective. If the city’s planning department thinks that a public bike rental system would be beneficial, then some sort of survey must be done to gather the public point of view. Transit services (especially in Peterborough) need to do a qualitative study looking at the experiences and feelings of students, low-income citizens and seniors when they take the bus. These studies might help inform policymakers about the importance of ensuring efficient, comfortable and diverse transit choices.

Key message: The key to a successful transportation system is multiplicity of choice.

Hockey with a green spin...

There are few things more Canadian than the outdoor hockey rink. As temperatures dip, snow falls and the infamous Canadian winter sets in, people from all walks of life can be found strapping on their skates to enjoy the newfound outdoor skating rinks. They come in all shapes and sizes, from small backyard rinks, to boarded rinks at the local community centre, to the fantastically open frozen surfaces on rivers and lakes.

Tim and I managed to get out and play some old fashioned shinny -- pick-up hockey -- a few times this winter on the canal in Peterborough. We spent several hours there each time, joining other players for big pick-up games. But as we moved into March, the ice began to melt away and outdoor hockey came to an end. Although ball hockey on the road is also enjoyable, it is not quite the same. And getting ice time in indoor rinks, let alone paying for it, is extremely difficult.

My spirits were raised when I came across this article in the Globe & Mail about a business that had built a hockey rink inside the office. But unlike typical indoor rinks, it was made from synthetic ice. Specialized plastics coated with special oils provide a surface that is nearly identical to ice, allowing you to skate on it without any major concerns. While the synthetic ice is a little slower than typical rinks, it does offer several benefits.

First, you can put it anywhere. There is no season where a synthetic rink won't work and it allows you to go skating or play hockey in any climate. Tim and I are both considering further schooling on the West Coast where temperatures nary dip below freezing. Synthetic ice would be ideal in these locations.

Second, they are easily maintainable. The pieces of plastic simply fit together like a puzzle so you can create a rink as large as you'd like, be it in your basement or a full-sized hockey rink. And there is no need for a Zamboni to resurface the ice repeatedly.



Third, they are considerably cheaper than a comparable indoor rink. Much of this has to do with maintenance. Because the ice has to remain frozen, lots of energy is put into keeping it frozen and keeping the arena cold. Moreover, lots of hot water is used to resurface the ice. From an environmental point of view, synthetic ice is considerably more friendly as there is no need to keep the rink extremely cold.

Now, let me be clear. I would much prefer to play on a natural rink with real ice. It is smoother, faster and more realistic. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to gain access to those rinks. And outdoor rinks only last as long as the cold season does, which in southern Ontario, isn't particularly long. Synthetic ice allows us to at least enjoy hockey year round, with greater access without sacrificing too much quality of play. The environmental benefits are just icing on the cake.

World Water Day...

Happy World Water Day! World Water Day is all about raising awareness of the global water crisis. Yes it is true, Canada has an abundance of water. But that does not mean that we as Canadians can neglect the importance of this day. On average every Canadian uses 343 litres of water per day. We use about 1.5 times more water per capita than most European countries and significantly more than those in the developing world. Check out Peter Gleick's post on World Water Day focusing on water quality in Nairobi.

Chris and I delivered a presentation today in our global environmental policy class. The presentation was on a proposed international convention on water. We have done a tonne of research on the economic, political, social and environmental implications of such a convention. We looked at water as a human right, we explored water as an economic good and water as a property right.

Water is going to be increasingly more important to our planet in the 21st century. It has been fundamental to our existence and will be even more critical considering its dwindling supply due to population growth, climate change and creaking infrastructure. On an optimistic note, there has been a concomitant increase in education around the protection and preservation of water.

One of my thesis recommendations is for the City of Peterborough to have its own World Water Day. Stores such as Home Depot, Home Hardware and Canadian Tire would have a chance to present their latest water efficient technology solutions and encourage city residents to consider purchasing these products.

While Peterborough is fortunate to have an abundant supply of clean and affordable water, the event could raise funds to provide water to some of the most vulnerable populations on the earth. Therefore, the event would raise awareness of water resources both locally and globally. There can also be tours of the wastewater and water treatment plants. Such an opportunity may not be always available. It would provide the public with a much better understanding of the technical dimensions and challenges of water management in the city. This sort of an initiative can take place in any city.

The development of partnerships is integral to the success of World Water Day. Using the example of Peterborough, World Water Day could bring together Fleming College, Trent University, businesses, water-related stakeholders and other groups. This would allow for great potential in the formation of partnerships in promoting sound water practices. These partnerships may promote more effective water management and governance; provide education on the negative aspects of bottled water and information about the use of current technology in the area of water resources. Above all, it would present a networking opportunity for water professionals and student groups wishing to collaborate in a more fruitful and productive way.

Key message: World Water Day should be everyday. However, because it is formally on March 22nd, cities in Canada and abroad would benefit greatly from presenting information about the protection, preservation and ultimately the significance of water resources. As said, World Water Day is becoming more popular; however, ask yourself.... is my city doing anything on this day? Either way, be thankful that Canada provides safe, reliable, and affordable clean water and sanitation -something that 1.1 billion people in the world do not have the luxury of enjoying.

Ambitious transit plans in the US...

The uncertainties around climate change are forcing countries like the US to invest heavily in transportation infrastructure. This map, courtesy of America 2050, displays the planned Trans American Passenger Network which is a comprehensive inter-city rail network across the United States. There has been a $8 billion down payment made in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and $5 billion in Barack Obama's proposed budget towards this.

No matter how long Barack Obama spends on other major federal issues i.e. immigration reform, he has expressed vehement interest in bringing about an extensive passenger rail system which will optimize national transportation flows and efficiencies in America.

Why the pressure to do this? Other than the obvious climate change reason, the US is projected to grow by 140 million people by 2050. This will require massive investments in roads, highways and more importantly, rail networks. Having a Trans-American-Network of national inter-city passenger travel would significantly reduce the need for national flights and alleviate pressure on inter-state highway systems. Both national flights and inter-state highways contribute heavily to the country's greenhouse gas emissions.

So, this plan will provide more travel options for Americans. It is going to require a lot of federal and state investment. This plan recommends that federal investments in inter-city rail be directed towards corridors with the greatest demand for inter-city travel.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the US over the next little while. Especially considering the plethora of issues Obama plans on dealing with. For more information, see here.

Re: Travel Behaviour...

I, like Tim, also experienced the same excitement when I got my license. The first thing I did was cruise around the city in my parents' car with my friends, race a taxi (I lost) and see what happened when I pushed the pedal to the floor. (Sorry, Mom & Dad, but you probably wouldn't have let me do that while you were in the car with me). And at this point, I too felt little regard for the environment.

Driving was the norm for me when I was growing up. We have always had two cars back home, my parents drive everywhere and I rarely took the bus. We had bikes, but they were used only recreationally and it was only when I left home for Trent that I started to appreciate their usefulness as methods of transport. I predict that if cycling and other alternative methods of transport been something my parents used regularly, my approach to cars growing up would have been much different.

The point I am trying to make is that instead of trying to make alternative transportation more attractive to youth, we should perhaps focus on making it more attractive to their parents. 

Although my case is not shared by everyone in the world -- I was lucky enough to be born into a family that can afford two cars -- there is a large segment of Canada's population that I do share such an experience with. But imagine if, as you grew up, your parents took the bus regularly or biked to work? And they did this not out of financial necessity, but because it was "cool" (as Tim recommended) or convenient. I reckon that many of us would make the same choices. After all, we tend to do learn a lot from our parents.

This, of course, is a challenging prospect. My parents are both hovering around their 60s, have been driving cars for most of their lives and are not about to hop on a bike to ride 20 km in a Winnipeg winter. Inspiring change in older generations is much more difficult than doing so with, say, relatively poorer university students. 

But it can be done. There is a wonderful CBC documentary called Pedal Power in which it highlights a prosperous Vancouver businessman who bikes every morning to his downtown Vancouver office building. Because of traffic he gets there in less time as he would by driving and he gets a nice workout, too. But we know these advantages already. What is really important is that the infrastructure was put in place to make this attractive, like dedicated bike lanes and bike paths. Young people like Tim and I might be prepared to ride on the roads with cars, but getting someone in their 50s to do so would be far more difficult.

But bike paths aren't everything for him. When he arrives at his downtown Vancouver office, he store his bike safely in a locked, fenced in area, and he can store his stuff in a locker. And the best part? There are showers available so he can clean himself off and not dirty up his suit on his way to work. The combination of everything makes it attractive, convenient and, perhaps the best part, kind of cool because he can differentiate himself from the pack. After all, how many of his work buddies are biking to work?

Bus travel, too, could also be made far more attractive. If more money and effort was put into making buses comparable to a luxury car, I imagine ridership would increase immensely. Imagine things like cupholders, nicer seats, even TVs on the bus? 

And longer travel like GoTrain or GoBus in the GTA could also be made more attractive. A friend of mine pointed out that he would definitely take a four hour trip on Go if free wireless internet access and plug-in outlets were made available on every ride. 

If we make alternative transportation choices more comfortable, convenient and cool, people will start to pay attention. As Tim said, the economic, environmental and health benefits just haven't caught on. But making them attractive just as they are and without an added reason might be what we're missing.

And if the older generation starts to pick it up, just wait and see what the kids start doing. Unfortunately, I don't think it works the opposite way quite as well. My parents expect me to take alternative transportation because I simply can't afford a car. Alternative transportation appears to be something you grow out of, either by age or wealth, so expecting my parents to start using it because their son is might be a longshot. It isn't like an iPod or Facebook.

But it doesn't have to be something you grow out of. Instead, we should make it something we grow into.  

Travel behaviour...

Before I get into the post, I wanted to wish Chris a happy birthday.

The pie chart to the left is a percentage breakdown of greenhouse gas emissions per sector.

I am doing a lot of reading these days about the relationship between travel behaviour and transportation choices. For example, why do people decide to drive their own vehicles (with only themselves in the vehicle) when they are surrounded by public transit choices, bike paths and carpooling options? There are some obvious reasons for this, but travel behaviour can be a lot more complex than this. Understanding travel behaviour has been a focal point of transportation research. More important, it has been crucial for understanding how we can minimize transportation's impact on climate change.

I was reading a study that looked at the factors influencing the future travel behaviour intentions of young people between 11 and 18 and how climate change considerations affect these. The sample was a group of youth in the U.K. Photography was shown by the researchers to the youth to compare photos between things like traffic congestion, motorists who looked happy while driving and pictures of the natural environment. These photos were used as a trigger for discussion about the environmental impacts of transport.

Results show how these young participants are enthusiastic to drive if provided the opportunity because of the speed, cost-savings, convenience, flexibility and freedom. The youth mentioned how walking and cycling is good for health, but it is an inconvenience. Using a car saves their "personal energy", they think that exercising should be separate from traveling. The sample group identified the importance of the environment and climate change, but said that it would still not deter them from their willingness to drive. Indeed, this was identified as the social dilemma where their own efforts to tackle climate change may be rendered worthless by the inaction of others.

What does this mean for policy? Policymakers need to promote cycling as a signal of success and promoting it as "cool" instead of just the obvious environmental and health benefits. Researchers suggest that society must empower young people in relation to their knowledge of climate change and how to tackle this issue as well as their ability to communicate this knowledge effectively to others.

The authors state that there would be merit in gathering more youth together and providing them with different transport choices, seeing what their choices are and their reasoning. Or, introducing “covered” cycle paths and walkways to protect people from the weather. Researchers suggest that these recommendations might help with changing youth’s perceptions regarding driving and climate change. Also, if there were regulations to enforce travel behaviour change towards more environmentally friendly options, then it could help remove the social dilemma identified by the youth.

As mentioned, climate change has become an overarching issue in the transportation research agenda. By developing a better understanding of travel behaviour, particularly for youth, policymakers will be able to implement measurements that promote a more environmentally friendly transportation system while concomitantly addressing the critical issue of climate change.

Key message: We need to understand how our youth perceive (if they even do) the issue of climate change as it relates to things like driving their family car. When I got my license at 16, I was completely excited to drive whenever and where ever I could. I never thought about the environment. Mind you, climate change has become more of a hot topic since, but we still need to communicate and educate our youth about the significant relationship between driving and its impacts on the planet.

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

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

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

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

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

Poll Results: Do you support a ban on the sale of bottled water?

Here are the results from last week's poll:

Question: Do you support a ban on the sale of bottled water?

Yes - 10 (52%)
Sale?!? Ban the production completely! - 3 (15%)
Shut up hippie! Give me more bottles - 3 (15%)
Only in public buildings - 2 (10%)
No - 1 (5%)

Total Votes: 19

An overwhelming majority of voters support a complete ban on the sale of bottled water. This is becoming an increasingly popular movement throughout the world, although very few jurisdictions have fully implemented such laws. Given the negative aspects of bottled water -- health concerns because health standards for bottled water are lesser than tap water; environmental impacts because of plastic bottles; and cost concerns because of how outrageously more expensive it is than tap water -- more and more places are looking to ban the sale of bottled water.

At Trent University, both Sustainable Trent, an environmental student group, and the Trent Central Student Association, the student union on campus, have been advocating for a ban on the sale of bottled water by Aramark, the school's main food supplier. In a meeting between ST and an Aramark representative, Aramark stated that it would not be opposed to a ban, but is supportive of the availability of alternatives before a ban takes place. For Trent students and staff, this means accessible water fountains and the availability of reusable bottles. If there are no alternatives on campus, Aramark worries it would take the heat when bottled water couldn't be sold.

It is important to recognize that the infrastructure has to be put in place before a ban on anything can be implemented. When the groups first proposed the ban over a year ago, plans were held back largely because water fountains had not yet been introduced. (They have since been built).

The second most votes were garnered from the views on the extremes. On one side, some people believe banning the sale of bottled water is ludicrous as it impinges on the consumer's right to product choice. There will always be people on that side, regardless of the issue. On the other side, some felt that only banning the sale of bottled water isn't going far enough. One problem with banning the production of bottled water is that it is appropriate in some situations, specifically emergencies -- say, a flood -- when water has to be brought in when local water resources are deemed unfit to drink.

Banning the sale of bottled water in public buildings has been considerably more successful than all out bans. Because the movement is driven primarily by members of the public, bans can exist in places the public owns. Banning the sale in private buildings is a little more difficult. Moreover, it can serve as a testing ground on the impact of banning the sale of bottled water.  

The Percy Schmeiser Case...

In a presentation on genetically modified plants during one of our policy courses, it was mentioned that "we all know the Percy Schmeiser case." But it strikes me that not everyone is familiar with the story or its influence on a growing issue. So here is a summarized version:

In the mid-90s, the biochemical leviathan Monsanto developed a genetically modified canola seed that is resistant to its Roundup brand of herbicide, which became known as Roundup Ready Canola. Farmers are required to purchase a license in order to use the seed. After only two years in use, it quickly constituted one quarter of Canada's canola production.

Percy Schmeiser was a canola farmer in Saskatchewan with a 1,000 acre farm and a custom strain of canola. He did not use Roundup Ready Canola, but found in 1997 that a portion of his crops were resistant to Roundup herbicide, which he used to kill weeds even though his canola plants typically die. But this time, many of them survived. A farmhand later saved the seeds from the resistant plants and they were planted the following season and later sold for feed. When it was revealed that the seeds being used by Schmeiser were the Roundup Ready variety, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement.

Schmeiser, a former mayor and former member of the provincial legislature, fought the allegations, claiming that his actions were accidental and that the seeds came onto his property without his knowledge or consent. Although Monsanto admitted this was possible, the federal judge found that it was extremely unlikely and ruled in favour of Monsanto, citing Schmeiser's patent violations. It still remains unclear how the seeds got onto Schmeiser's farm.

Schmeiser, who had received a lot of publicity and (financial) help from environmental & anti-genetic groups, appealed the decision, but it was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal. Schmeiser then tried the Supreme Court, which in a 5-4 decision, also ruled in favour of Monsanto. It did, however, also decide that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto the nearly $20,000 he had received from sale of the modified canola. More importantly, he also did not have to pay for Monsanto's legal fees, which were well over $500,000.

As a result of the judgements, Schmeiser had to destroy all trace of his custom-bred strain, which he had been using for several decades. He also had a legal bill of approximately $400,000 to deal with. He now travels the world as a speaker telling his story and raising awareness of genetically modified plants, as well as the tactics of major companies like Monsanto. Indeed, many predict that the judge's decision on the poor likelihood of Monsanto's seed spreading accidentally is a reflection of the lack of knowledge we have on genetically modified plants, which have since been shown to spread very rapidly.

Schmeiser did, however, sue Monsanto in 2007 for the clean up costs after more Roundup Ready Canola made its way onto his property. An out of court settlement was agreed upon in 2008. Although it was only for a few hundred dollars, it demonstrates that the danger of seeds spreading is very real.

What is particularly interesting about the case is that none of the three federal courts approached it as an issue over the spread of the seed -- as Schmeiser did in 2008 -- but rather the patent violation. It set a protective precedent for large companies like Monsanto in that it recognizes patent violations as priority over the accidental spread of product, a problem that is sure to increase over the coming years.        

A Real Canadian Gold Medal Flush...

Chances are, if you live in Canada, you didn't visit the bathroom while Canada and the U.S. were battling for hockey glory. I certainly know that bathroom breaks during play were frowned upon as unpatriotic at the venue where I watched the game.

As a follow up to my post on the energy consumption spikes that occurred during the Men's Olympic Gold Medal hockey game, I came across this graph from The Globe and Mail. Water consumption.

It pretty much speaks for itself, but is certainly an interesting case of cultural influence on our environment. I'm hoping more and more examples of things like this continue to pop up.