By: Diogo Cabral
Are there any positive aspects of deforestation? Well, since humanity spent most of its time on Earth devastating forests, there must be! Historians tends to be very careful when judging past human actions. Indeed, for pre-modern humans, the forest had to be used. We can imagine the astonishment with which those men and women would react to the idea of preserving the forest. With the exception of a tiny intellectual elite – in fact, only a small portion within that elite – the conversion of forest was not seen as something bad.
Most people conceived of clearing and burning the forest as the inevitable progress of the great human "home". Snakes, scorpions, spiders, mosquitoes, fleas, ticks, ants and other forest dwellers can be just minor annoyances when one has nylon tents, rubber boots, mosquito repellent, and antidotes to poisons; but not when one’s only weapons are scythes, firebrands and the faith in the Creator. Clearing the forest was not necessarily "destruction", but a natural transition from a dark, messy and dangerous space to a lighted, orderly and reliable place.
In fact, when one speaks of forest destruction or degradation, one misses much of the bigger picture. The “declensionist narrative” – as it is known in the historiographical community – flows in an one-way street: this kind of account tells the story of the decaying forest or that the forest environment was devastated but misses the wider implications. More fruitful is to view deforestation as a two-way street or, to use more philosophical terms, as a dialectical process.
Deforestation is not only an effect suffered by the forest because the deforesters themselves change along the way; conceptions about nature and abundance were transformed; techniques were modified and capital was created; cultural identities and boundaries were recreated; social inequalities were softened or hardened; the world, after all, is hardly the same after deforestation. This is not to say that nothing bad stemmed from past deforestation or that “this is the way things had to happen”. The environmental-dialectical vantage point only stresses that historical events do not occur in isolation but in networks or totalities. It's a more comprehensive approach to write history.
This conception can help us understand more completely the implications of different uses of the forest in the past. Of special importance is the study of the fortunes of the forests of less developed countries like Brazil. “Deforestation is a tragedy”, wrote the American historian Shawn Miller, “deforestation is an unmitigated disaster if little or no benefit is taken in the process”. He was referring to the process of economic appropriation of Brazil’s coastal forests. Unlike the United States or Canada, Brazil did not develop a vibrant timber industry in the colonial period. Most of the tropical rain forest was burned and not timbered. Colonists burned the woods to obtain biomass ashes, a powerful fertilizer for the soil. In fact they obtained huge profits raising sugarcane using this method.
At the end of eighteenth century, the Portuguese America, with half the settled area of British America, exported roughly the same value in commodities. The problem – although not a problem to the colonists themselves at the time – is that sugar plantations generated less economic linkages (or development) than timber exploitation. Because of the gigantic land lots, only the later sugar plantations were driven to market to obtain firewood. So small demand did not encourage competition and entrepreneurship in the timber sector. So capital investment and technological advancement in the milling industry were not present. So the production of iron – an indispensable raw material to the building of sawmills – was not encouraged inside the colony. And so on.
It must be said, however, that the small commercial harnessing of the Brazilian timber was not only due to the workings of sugar plantations. The forest itself posed serious difficulties to the establishment of a staple timber economy. The main problem was that, unlike temperate hardwoods and conifers, tropical hardwood species are pretty much scattered across the landscape. It is very difficult to find a cluster of, let’s say, rosewood. An all extractive economy, by definition, is built on a homogeneous basis of natural resources. In fact, all early modern extractive economies were organized upon large spatial concentrations of resources: animal skins, fish, wood and all kinds of "spice".
Standard products are especially important in international timber markets where demand in most cases is for very specific uses. Ironically, because of their greater wealth, the forests of the tropics provided very little incentive to commercial exploitation on a large scale.
Diogo Cabral is a visiting PhD student in Environmental History at UBC. He is visiting from the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Future of Oil
Jeff Rubin, author of Why your world is about to get a whole lot smaller, and Canadian journalist, Andrew Nikiforuk discuss the economic, environmental and social implications of conventional oil. The video is courtesy of TVO and was filmed at the Rotman School of Management at U of T earlier this year.
Jeff thinks that we have not reached peak oil per se, but a series of forthcoming commodity price shocks will make the price of oil more volatile and push it over $100 a barrel and eventually to $200 a barrel. Conventional oil is becoming more scarce but the unconventional stuff found in the Alberta's oil sands or in Venezuela, is plentiful but will become really expensive in the near future. Off-shore drilling has provided cheap oil to this planet for many years, but disasters like the recent Gulf Oil spill point to the precarious nature of such a process and the enormous risks posed to ecology and human beings.
"The world isn’t about to run out of oil—it’s just running out of oil that we can afford to burn. And whether we move goods by air, ship, truck or rail, the global economy runs on oil".
"In order to insulate ourselves from even greater oil price shocks in the future, we must move from the hugely energy-intensive model of a global economy to the far more sustainable model of a local economy. And that means we must re-engineer our lives to adapt to the contours of a much smaller world."
Andrew Nikiforuk is an outspoken critique of the Alberta oil sands which he regards as a petro state. He draws our attention to the negative environmental ramifications of the project and how it is tainting our image internationally. He also suggests that there are smart petro states such as Norway who have sovereign funds that help stabilize the oil economy. In essence, they maintain good oil production while diversifying the economy. They invest oil revenue into many sectors of the economy and also put money aside for future generations. Canada has lost over 300,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector because of an appreciating petro dollar. Without diversifying the economy, petro states will inevitably push up their real exchange rate and contract Dutch Disease.
Anyway, check out the video.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Harnessing power from our ocean waves
Image credit: The Future of ThingsA recent post from the New York Times' Green Blog provides an optimistic overview of an up-and-coming renewable energy called tidal power. In short, tidal power converts the energy of tides into electricity or other useful forms of power. The tidal forces produced by the Moon and Sun, in combination with Earth's rotation, are responsible for the generation of the tides. The image above is a tidal power generator which simply draws energy from ocean currents in a way similar to how wind turbines draw energy from wind.
Two excerpts from the Green blog:
"Tides are particularly attractive sources of power because they are predictable, unlike sunshine and wind. Not surprisingly, countries with rough seas like Britain and Portugal are leading the way in exploring ocean power".
"The European Energy Association estimates that, globally, the oceans could yield over 100,000 terawatt hours a year if the technology to harness that power can be perfected. That is more than five times the electricity the world uses in a year".
Read more about this form of renewable energy here.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Bike Lane Debate in Vancouver
Urban bike lanes always face opposition. People say they hurt businesses, they take space away from motorists, they are too expensive etc etc. We had a guest post in the summer from the Executive Director of the Toronto Cyclists Union that challenged many of the conventional arguments made against bike lanes.
On a separate note, I was speaking with a physicist who argued that bike lanes make cyclists less conscious of their surrounding environment and are thus more at a risk of colliding into a motorist. He suggested that bike lanes have rumble strips to make both cyclists and motorists more attentive and aware of their lanes.
My friend and classmate, William Dunn, recently wrote a short and excellent story about a new bike lane in Vancouver that has generated a lot controversy. In short, City Council recently approved the Hornby bike trial which is a protected cycling track in downtown Vancouver.
Will writes:
"The City’s decision to re-appropriate public streets for the creation of a protected cycling track has been one of the most divisive civic issues in memory. News1130 and other media have labeled it a misappropriation of public space and funds, business owners along the routes are furious, and motorists grow increasingly frustrated. With City Council’s October 5 decision to approve the Hornby bike trial, the debate seems destined to intensify".
Read more here.
On a separate note, I was speaking with a physicist who argued that bike lanes make cyclists less conscious of their surrounding environment and are thus more at a risk of colliding into a motorist. He suggested that bike lanes have rumble strips to make both cyclists and motorists more attentive and aware of their lanes.
My friend and classmate, William Dunn, recently wrote a short and excellent story about a new bike lane in Vancouver that has generated a lot controversy. In short, City Council recently approved the Hornby bike trial which is a protected cycling track in downtown Vancouver.
Will writes:
"The City’s decision to re-appropriate public streets for the creation of a protected cycling track has been one of the most divisive civic issues in memory. News1130 and other media have labeled it a misappropriation of public space and funds, business owners along the routes are furious, and motorists grow increasingly frustrated. With City Council’s October 5 decision to approve the Hornby bike trial, the debate seems destined to intensify".
Read more here.
Urban Planning Innovation in NYC
The video below, courtesy of The Infrastructurist, discusses a number of urban planning initiatives underway in New York City. With Mayor Bloomberg's leadership, the city has done a remarkable job at creating more space for pedestrians in Times Square. Once riddled with non-stop motor traffic, Times Square has become safer for pedestrians, a more enjoyable social space for people of New York and has had a positive impact on businesses (more foot traffic instead of motor traffic). There are also many transit initiatives underway which you can see in the video. Well done, NYC.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The environmental impact of right-wing populism...
Incumbents beware. Governments around the world are shaking in their boots as elections, and the prospect of finding new work, loom ever closer. As is common with any recession, incumbent governments take much of the heat. No matter what else is going on in the world, if the economy is performing poorly and unemployment rears its ugly head, people focus on it and only it. And the government is at fault if it isn't fixed soon.
But this recession has been among the worst in recent history. In some places, its impact has been the worst since the Great Depression. The unfortunate reality of a recession is that with less money being made, the government makes less income through taxes. And with less tax income comes a smaller provision of services. Budget gets tight, programs get cut and ties get severed. Any rational thinker knows that if you want to maintain public services -- which are even more important in less prosperous times -- you need to raise taxes. But from a political standpoint, there are few more lethal land mines.
Threats of necessary tax raises have given rise to populism. In the United States, no recent populist movement has been stronger and more influential than the right-wing Tea Party Movement. Among many other things, the Tea Party folks are staunchly opposed to taxes, government regulation and almost all forms of government involvement in the daily lives of people. The November midterms could throw some Tea Party-backed Republicans -- having beaten out other established Republicans in the primaries because they weren't right wing enough -- into Congress.
This could spell disaster for environmental policy in the world's most powerful superpower. The Tea Party Movement -- and I generalize here -- still questions the impact and existence of climate change. Putting cap-and-trade or carbon tax policies into place are a no no, as is banning or reducing the level of offshore drilling, despite the BP disaster earlier this summer. Subsidies for renewable energy or public transit that might cost taxpayers money? Forget it.
Sadly, in order for most environmental programs and projects to be successful, they need to be funded out of the public purse. Privately-funded 'green' projects can be successful, but some tend to be tied to 'greenwashing' or green marketing while delivering very few actual results. Free market proponents argue that if the environment is as important as we claim, the market will reflect it by providing value to it. Well, that isn't quite how it works. And you can be sure it won't happen if Tea Party folks get into Washington.
Even closer to home in Canada, the Toronto mayoral race has given way to populism so strong, many are left dumbfounded. Rob Ford, a controversial City Councillor -- whose colourful history includes rants fuelled by homophobia and racism, drug charges and even getting ejected from a Toronto Maple Leafs game -- has taken everyone by surprise by leading the polls in the October race for leadership of Canada's flagship city. His 'regular guy' approach has attracted those who fear Toronto is becoming the playground of the elite. But if he comes to power, the city's environmentally progressive reputation -- along with much of its progressive reputation -- could fall by the wayside.
Rob Ford believes bike lanes are stupid. Roads are for cars and cars only. Other 'green' programs could see a similar fate.
Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario, is facing some heat, too. While trying to manage an unprecedentedly large fiscal deficit and wrestling with Ontario's move to a 'have-not' province, his Liberal government has introduced a variety of progressive yet controversial programs, including full day Kindergarten and more relevant to this blog, the omnibus Green Energy Act. The GEA has put Ontario at the forefront of renewable energy policy, but not without a cost. Ratepayers will see higher electric bills and rural communities are protesting the unwelcome introduction of major wind and solar projects in their regions. This rural uprising is contributing to a resurgence of the province's Progressive Conservative Party, which has vowed to do its best to repeal many aspects of the GEA.
Populism is not always a danger for the environment. Indeed, environmental problems -- like other progressive social movements -- have the potential to contribute to a populist cause. But this time around it's not Martin Luther King Jr. or Rachel Carson leading a cause, it's Glenn Beck. This populism doesn't want the next JFK in the White House; it wants Sarah Palin.
But this recession has been among the worst in recent history. In some places, its impact has been the worst since the Great Depression. The unfortunate reality of a recession is that with less money being made, the government makes less income through taxes. And with less tax income comes a smaller provision of services. Budget gets tight, programs get cut and ties get severed. Any rational thinker knows that if you want to maintain public services -- which are even more important in less prosperous times -- you need to raise taxes. But from a political standpoint, there are few more lethal land mines.
Threats of necessary tax raises have given rise to populism. In the United States, no recent populist movement has been stronger and more influential than the right-wing Tea Party Movement. Among many other things, the Tea Party folks are staunchly opposed to taxes, government regulation and almost all forms of government involvement in the daily lives of people. The November midterms could throw some Tea Party-backed Republicans -- having beaten out other established Republicans in the primaries because they weren't right wing enough -- into Congress.
This could spell disaster for environmental policy in the world's most powerful superpower. The Tea Party Movement -- and I generalize here -- still questions the impact and existence of climate change. Putting cap-and-trade or carbon tax policies into place are a no no, as is banning or reducing the level of offshore drilling, despite the BP disaster earlier this summer. Subsidies for renewable energy or public transit that might cost taxpayers money? Forget it.
Sadly, in order for most environmental programs and projects to be successful, they need to be funded out of the public purse. Privately-funded 'green' projects can be successful, but some tend to be tied to 'greenwashing' or green marketing while delivering very few actual results. Free market proponents argue that if the environment is as important as we claim, the market will reflect it by providing value to it. Well, that isn't quite how it works. And you can be sure it won't happen if Tea Party folks get into Washington.
Even closer to home in Canada, the Toronto mayoral race has given way to populism so strong, many are left dumbfounded. Rob Ford, a controversial City Councillor -- whose colourful history includes rants fuelled by homophobia and racism, drug charges and even getting ejected from a Toronto Maple Leafs game -- has taken everyone by surprise by leading the polls in the October race for leadership of Canada's flagship city. His 'regular guy' approach has attracted those who fear Toronto is becoming the playground of the elite. But if he comes to power, the city's environmentally progressive reputation -- along with much of its progressive reputation -- could fall by the wayside.
Rob Ford believes bike lanes are stupid. Roads are for cars and cars only. Other 'green' programs could see a similar fate.
Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario, is facing some heat, too. While trying to manage an unprecedentedly large fiscal deficit and wrestling with Ontario's move to a 'have-not' province, his Liberal government has introduced a variety of progressive yet controversial programs, including full day Kindergarten and more relevant to this blog, the omnibus Green Energy Act. The GEA has put Ontario at the forefront of renewable energy policy, but not without a cost. Ratepayers will see higher electric bills and rural communities are protesting the unwelcome introduction of major wind and solar projects in their regions. This rural uprising is contributing to a resurgence of the province's Progressive Conservative Party, which has vowed to do its best to repeal many aspects of the GEA.
Populism is not always a danger for the environment. Indeed, environmental problems -- like other progressive social movements -- have the potential to contribute to a populist cause. But this time around it's not Martin Luther King Jr. or Rachel Carson leading a cause, it's Glenn Beck. This populism doesn't want the next JFK in the White House; it wants Sarah Palin.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
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.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Richard Branson on climate change
World renowned entrepreneur, Richard Branson speaks with The Economist about some of his thoughts on climate change. He talks briefly about the carbon war room which is an entrepreneurial run initiative that helps industries find market-driven solutions to climate change.
He thinks the best time for large corporations to invest in clean energy is now. He says that the clean energy revolution is in its infancy and can become as big as the internet and mobile phone industries in time.
He thinks the best time for large corporations to invest in clean energy is now. He says that the clean energy revolution is in its infancy and can become as big as the internet and mobile phone industries in time.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Streetcars coming back to Vancouver?
Photo Credit: Rail forth valleyThis past Wednesday I attended a symposium titled “Streetcars: The Missing Link?” It was a symposium put together by UBC’s School of Environmental Health and the UBC School of Community and Regional Planning. I attended it with a number of my classmates.
The purpose of the symposium was to explore the historical role of streetcars in Vancouver, how much it would cost to bring them back to the city, streetcar impacts on urban form and mobility, urban design and how the streetcar can complement others forms of transit such as buses or Vancouver's Skytrain system.
As a part of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, a demonstration section of the Downtown Streetcar was available for public use. The Downtown Streetcar was a 60-day demonstration period (January 21 to March 21, 2010) and ran between Granville Island and the new Canada Line Olympic Village Station on 1.8 km of newly constructed dedicated track. This demonstration project was successful; it provided reliable transportation for athletes, visitors and residents as often as every seven minutes and decreased the number of private vehicles, motor coaches and transit diesel buses to and from Granville Island.
Bombardier built the streetcar (as seen in the image) and would provide a fleet of them if Vancouver decided to go that route. I learned that Toronto is going to upgrade its streetcar system with a new fleet from Bombardier. There will be 200 new streetcars in Toronto between 2012 and 2018. This decision has also tempted Vancouver to bring streetcars back. The biggest issue is money. Research has shown that streetcars can help promote neighbourhood development and street life. They can help provide an urban identity too.
According to a speaker at the symposium, Vancouver was one of the first places on the planet to really embrace streetcars, in the year 1890. For almost 70 years, Vancouver had an extensive streetcar network. Don’t think of streetcars as a substitute to city buses, but instead as complementary form of transit that can help create higher density and move people easily within the downtown. Transit demand has increased 30% in Vancouver. This reason alone justifies some sort of public transit expansion.
By taking city buses a couple of times a week, it has become quite evident that buses are running at capacity. Streetcars have a longer life span and lowering operating costs than buses. They run on electricity and not fuel which is more environmentally-friendly. Again, they are not meant to replace but complement them.
While some Torontonians might think streetcars are a terrible form of public transit, they are beginning to take off all over the U.S. (especially in Portland) with 45 systems planned. A major impetus for bringing them back is that they can fulfill the transit hierarchy. By helping complete the transit hierarchy, Vancouverites would have every reason not to use their car.
In Vancouver, the streetcar would be connected to the Canada line, Skytrain and trolley buses and could take Vancouverites to work, errands etc. It would also connect tourists to Vancouver’s top attractions i.e. Stanley Park and Granville Island.
A former graduate student in my program conducted his thesis research on the Olympic streetcar. The results were overwhelmingly positive and the city is now looking at finance options.
Oh, one more thing. Many people I have talked to have negative attitudes toward streetcars, especially Torontonians. Let me tell you though, new streetcars would be grade separated meaning that the rail lines are elevated on a platform from the street so cars cannot drive in front of them. They would have right of way and allow for much smoother traffic flow.
More to come on streetcars and Vancouver’s impending decision on whether to re-implement them.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Adding bike lanes to new construction projects...
The ferry from Manitoulin Island to Tobermory was cold and windy, but upon landing in the famed and picturesque harbour town, I was regaled with stories of the Bruce Peninsula by Bob, a local dog breeder. After we chatted about my bike trip for a little while I told him I'd be taking Highway 6 south to Owen Sound, the only major highway on the Peninsula.
He told me that major construction had been taking place on the highway for most of the summer and that as a cyclist, I should love it. Instead of adding bike lanes after repaving the highway -- as is a typical way to add bike lanes, but is costly and obstructive, since the highway needs to be shut down for some point of time -- the province, with funds from the federal stimulus bill, decided to add them as it repaved the highway. Two birds. One stone.
And it is fantastic. The lanes -- which at this point are simply paved shoulders -- are very wide and could even accommodate two bikes side by side. And there are many signs that clearly say 'Do Not Drive on the Paved Shoulders', which is very necessary given that the shoulders look like part of the regular car lane.
I'm presuming that they will be painting lines in due time to mark the lanes, although another local I chatted with said they won't be. According to a discussion she had with one of the project's engineers, they may decide not to add painted lines because it could be harmful to cyclists.
Hmm. Sounds a little counter-intuitive. But according to the engineer, once lines are painted, motorists won't pay as much attention when passing cyclists on the road, assuming each vehicle will stay in its assigned lane. Unfortunately, this might lead to cars flying by at full speed within close distance to cyclists, which can be very dangerous. Without the lines though, motorists are forced to notice the cyclists and be more likely to slow down and go around carefully. I'm on the fence about the argument -- the government might just be cheap -- but it's interesting nonetheless.
The incorporation of bike lanes into highway reconstructions is rare in Ontario and the Bruce project is only the first leg in what is supposed to be a much larger highway network, including Manitoulin Island. I wish them all the best.
He told me that major construction had been taking place on the highway for most of the summer and that as a cyclist, I should love it. Instead of adding bike lanes after repaving the highway -- as is a typical way to add bike lanes, but is costly and obstructive, since the highway needs to be shut down for some point of time -- the province, with funds from the federal stimulus bill, decided to add them as it repaved the highway. Two birds. One stone.
And it is fantastic. The lanes -- which at this point are simply paved shoulders -- are very wide and could even accommodate two bikes side by side. And there are many signs that clearly say 'Do Not Drive on the Paved Shoulders', which is very necessary given that the shoulders look like part of the regular car lane.
I'm presuming that they will be painting lines in due time to mark the lanes, although another local I chatted with said they won't be. According to a discussion she had with one of the project's engineers, they may decide not to add painted lines because it could be harmful to cyclists.
Hmm. Sounds a little counter-intuitive. But according to the engineer, once lines are painted, motorists won't pay as much attention when passing cyclists on the road, assuming each vehicle will stay in its assigned lane. Unfortunately, this might lead to cars flying by at full speed within close distance to cyclists, which can be very dangerous. Without the lines though, motorists are forced to notice the cyclists and be more likely to slow down and go around carefully. I'm on the fence about the argument -- the government might just be cheap -- but it's interesting nonetheless.
The incorporation of bike lanes into highway reconstructions is rare in Ontario and the Bruce project is only the first leg in what is supposed to be a much larger highway network, including Manitoulin Island. I wish them all the best.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Bill Rees, The Ecological Footprint and Climate Change
Bill Rees is a prominent academic ecologist who co-created the Ecological Footprint concept back in the mid-1990s. Bill is also a distinguished professor in my graduate program (SCARP) and is well-known at UBC and in the City of Vancouver.
The 9-minute clip above is an introduction to a lecture he delivered at the World Federalists' Meeting this past April.
Bill draws on the problematic impacts that humans have had on ecology and explains the notable climate change implications. He also summarizes the ecological footprint concept very succinctly. Some of the points are a bit pessimistic but will hopefully give you an idea of the great challenges that planners and other professionals are currently confronted with. Bill works with a number of students in my program to develop ideas that will have salient policy impacts that alleviate human stresses on ecosystems.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Minnesota's Adopt a Highway Program...
I am nearly 1000 km into my bicycle journey and have just arrived into Michigan, having passed through Manitoba, Minnesota and Wisconsin over the past week. The routes have been absolutely stunning, as fall approaches and the roads are lined with miles and miles of multi-colored leaves sitting in the trees, just waiting to fall. But before they fall, plenty of volunteers will be making the final roadside clean up throughout much of northern Minnesota.
Along my route in Minnesota, I encountered what seemed like hundreds of different "adopted highways". Adopt A Highway programs typically involve and organization of some kind volunteering to pick up trash along a stretch of highway a few times per year. In exchange, the government puts up a big sign exclaiming the group's effort. You see these from time to time in Ontario and Manitoba (I'm sure they are elsewhere in Canada, too), but I have never seen them in such abundance as I did in Minnesota.
I have never personally been involved with an Adopt A Highway program, but it seems like a great idea. You get free advertising, the roadsides become cleaner (very noticeable by those of us who stop there frequently) and people can get outdoors and do some volunteering. Moreover, it reminds us that some environmental problems are still fixed simply by doing a little hard work, even though much of the world has moved on to the more exciting and global problems, like climate change and solving our energy needs.
I'm on a bike most of the time, so I'll admit I have little desire to research this any further and I have no substantive evidence that proves how popular Minnesota's program is. This is simply something I've noticed. Why is it so popular compared to other places? My only guess is that the signs the Minnesota government puts up are far larger than what you'd get in Manitoba or elsewhere. Advertising is advertising.
Along my route in Minnesota, I encountered what seemed like hundreds of different "adopted highways". Adopt A Highway programs typically involve and organization of some kind volunteering to pick up trash along a stretch of highway a few times per year. In exchange, the government puts up a big sign exclaiming the group's effort. You see these from time to time in Ontario and Manitoba (I'm sure they are elsewhere in Canada, too), but I have never seen them in such abundance as I did in Minnesota.I have never personally been involved with an Adopt A Highway program, but it seems like a great idea. You get free advertising, the roadsides become cleaner (very noticeable by those of us who stop there frequently) and people can get outdoors and do some volunteering. Moreover, it reminds us that some environmental problems are still fixed simply by doing a little hard work, even though much of the world has moved on to the more exciting and global problems, like climate change and solving our energy needs.
I'm on a bike most of the time, so I'll admit I have little desire to research this any further and I have no substantive evidence that proves how popular Minnesota's program is. This is simply something I've noticed. Why is it so popular compared to other places? My only guess is that the signs the Minnesota government puts up are far larger than what you'd get in Manitoba or elsewhere. Advertising is advertising.
Friday, September 17, 2010
China's dependency on Coal
The Green Blog from the NY Times discusses China's heavy reliance on coal.
"the single most important issue is how to get China to deploy carbon capture and storage into its coal sector.”
"the technology is still in its infancy, with only a handful of projects up and running globally, and expensive to deploy. Who will cover the cost?"
"China, which counts itself as a developing country, say the industrialized world should underwrite such investments. But will Western countries be willing? To what extent should China be responsible for curbing its own coal emissions, and how much should the industrialized world contribute?"
China will probably consider carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology but is waiting for the United States, Canada and other Western nations to prove their commitment to this technology. Like many technologies for climate change mitigation, there are big costs and lots of uncertainties. Given China's coal dependent economy, there is a lot of opportunity for CCS. I think Canada and China should partner up and run a trial CCS initiative to evaluate its efficacy. This could showcase its potential and attract other nations.
"the single most important issue is how to get China to deploy carbon capture and storage into its coal sector.”
"the technology is still in its infancy, with only a handful of projects up and running globally, and expensive to deploy. Who will cover the cost?"
"China, which counts itself as a developing country, say the industrialized world should underwrite such investments. But will Western countries be willing? To what extent should China be responsible for curbing its own coal emissions, and how much should the industrialized world contribute?"
China will probably consider carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology but is waiting for the United States, Canada and other Western nations to prove their commitment to this technology. Like many technologies for climate change mitigation, there are big costs and lots of uncertainties. Given China's coal dependent economy, there is a lot of opportunity for CCS. I think Canada and China should partner up and run a trial CCS initiative to evaluate its efficacy. This could showcase its potential and attract other nations.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
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.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Trent University Officially Bans the Sale of Bottled Water...
Trent University has hit a milestone shared by only a handful of post-secondary institutions across North America. Earlier this month, the school officially banned the sale of single unit bottled water on campus and will fully come into effect in the fall of 2011.
Over the course of the upcoming academic year, customers are being encouraged to reduce their consumption of individual bottles of water as the number of bottles available from cafeterias, vending machines and other sellers will steadily decrease, ultimately reaching none. Moreover, under the policy, no bottled water will be sold by "any member, club and group, organization or administrative or academic department at the university".
This is a major victory for Trent University and all groups fighting against the sale of bottled water. This is an especially important victory for Trent's Central Student Association and Sustainable Trent, the two student groups that have been fighting for this for several years. Several years ago, the likelihood of achieving such a ban was considered next to nil, considering the stranglehold held on the food services at Trent by Aramark. However, I first noticed a major shift in the tide at Aramark during a meeting one of its Reps had with Sustainable Trent in which he implied that a ban on bottled water might actually prove more financially beneficial to the food provider as the closest alternative to bottled water is the much more lucrative 'vitamin water', which is not covered in the ban.
Importantly, the school is providing an investment in water fountains on campus, which, up until earlier last year, were almost nowhere to be found on campus. In fact, under the food service contract with Aramark, it was able to place vending machines in front of old water fountains, thereby eliminating any competition between bottled water and water fountains.
It should be noted that the school's claim that the school will be "bottled water free by 2011" can not be fully achieved by the policy. Indeed, the sale of bottled water is not the same as providing it for free. As far as I understand it, this policy does nothing to prevent anybody giving away bottled water, which is not uncommon at conferences, sporting events, etc. However, one can hope that the ban emanates to these facets as well.
Congratulations, Trent.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Ever heard of Blue Efficiency?
I found this video on the Freakonomics blog. Mercedes-Benz is now pitching blue efficiency to its avid buyers who ostensibly have an interest in reducing their carbon emissions. The horse manure part of the video was also covered in SuperFreakonomics when Dubner and Levitt discuss New York City's egregious horse manure problem in the late 1890s/early 1900s and how the automobile became the "environmental savior" by eliminating the issue.
Elizabeth Kolbert from the New Yorker discusses the horse manure problem in greater detail and provides a scathing critique of SuperFreaknomics.
Elizabeth Kolbert from the New Yorker discusses the horse manure problem in greater detail and provides a scathing critique of SuperFreaknomics.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, August 30, 2010
India's infrastructure challenges
A recent article from the NY Times titled "A High-tech Titan Plagued by Potholes" discusses India's dire need of civil engineers to fulfill its long-term infrastructure goals. Software engineering and IT have taken off in India - they are far more profitable industries (better salaries) than civil or structural engineering.
"Young Indians’ preference for software over steel and concrete poses an economic conundrum for India. Its much-envied information technology industry generates tens of thousands of relatively well-paying jobs every year. But that lure also continues the exodus of people qualified to build the infrastructure it desperately needs to improve living conditions for the rest of its one billion people — and to bolster the sort of industries that require good highways and railroads more than high-speed Internet links to the West."
Both China and India are world's fastest growing economies. China however, unlike India, is rapidly advancing its infrastructure projects; high speed rail, hydro-electric dams, wastewater treatment plants etc. India has a long way to go especially in terms of bringing about infrastructure (like public transportation) that could boost its tourism industry and help improve living conditions for the country's poorest.
Along with the desire for civil engineering, urban planning will also be critical for India in the coming decades. From an environmental perspective, infrastructure improvements -- like those being done in China -- will bring about numerous environmental benefits including improved health and sanitation, a reduction in national carbon emissions and an improvement in air pollution in the urban areas.
What should India do? Any thoughts?
"Young Indians’ preference for software over steel and concrete poses an economic conundrum for India. Its much-envied information technology industry generates tens of thousands of relatively well-paying jobs every year. But that lure also continues the exodus of people qualified to build the infrastructure it desperately needs to improve living conditions for the rest of its one billion people — and to bolster the sort of industries that require good highways and railroads more than high-speed Internet links to the West."
Both China and India are world's fastest growing economies. China however, unlike India, is rapidly advancing its infrastructure projects; high speed rail, hydro-electric dams, wastewater treatment plants etc. India has a long way to go especially in terms of bringing about infrastructure (like public transportation) that could boost its tourism industry and help improve living conditions for the country's poorest.
Along with the desire for civil engineering, urban planning will also be critical for India in the coming decades. From an environmental perspective, infrastructure improvements -- like those being done in China -- will bring about numerous environmental benefits including improved health and sanitation, a reduction in national carbon emissions and an improvement in air pollution in the urban areas.
What should India do? Any thoughts?
Friday, August 27, 2010
Would you support a driveway tax?
News from the Kansas City Star reports that the City Council of Mission, Kansas, has approved a driveway tax.
A driveway tax is simply a fee that charges you based on how much traffic your property produces. Currently in Mission, Kansas, sales and property taxes raise revenue to finance roads. Alas, such revenue has not been sufficient enough to maintain the roads. With the tax, households and businesses are going to share a larger financial burden - the fee is expected to raise $1.2 million a year to help finance $38 million in road improvements during the next 10 years."The City Council on Wednesday night approved a new fee charging every homeowner $72 a year and small businesses $3,558 a year beginning in December".
Engineers have calculated that a single-family home generates about 9 1/2 vehicle trips a day. Target Store (virtually ubiquitous across America) generates about 8,500 trips a day. McDonald’s is predicted to produce 2,700 trips.
A driveway tax is not common in the U.S. In fact, the only state that has been progressive with such a tax is Oregon. 18 cities in Oregon have adopted it. This comes at no surprise considering Oregon is more green and progressive in its thinking.
As you could imagine, the newly passed tax has witnessed negative reactions from the business community. Unsurprisingly, they are concerned that in a time when the economy is recovering, the tax would simply hurt small businesses.
Like London's Congestion Charge Zone, these sort of eco-taxes are always jurisdiction dependent; what works in one city might not work in another. A driveway tax may be appropriate for Mission considering that roads there are deteriorating and someone has to pay for them. I agree with Felix Salmon's assessment of this, it is similar to my argument of the BC carbon tax being too low. In short, if a driveway tax is introduced in your city, it should be set at a rate that can actually change behaviour. The formulas predict that the tax will cost 2 cents per trip; that is way too low to bring about any meaningful reduction in driving.
The driveway tax for homeowners in Mission will be $72. This is irrespective of how many trips you do in a day. Thus it is a uniform rate which is problematic because it discriminates against those who drive less, those who bike, take public transit or walk to their final destination. It is understood that the city needs revenue to ameliorate their streets, but those who drive more (produce more traffic from their property) should pay more. It is unfair to discriminate against those who take greener methods of transport.
Those who do take greener methods should be guaranteed some sort of incentive to encourage the continuation of sustainable transport and change behaviour of current motorists. This way, revenue is still being collected while simultaneously changing behaviour and getting people to think about the environment.
Key message: The next decade will see even more green taxes. It's 2010, times are changing and we are going to have to adapt. Creating a win-win for the environment and the economy will require full participation of citizens; this can eventually lead to sustainable urban solutions.
A driveway tax is simply a fee that charges you based on how much traffic your property produces. Currently in Mission, Kansas, sales and property taxes raise revenue to finance roads. Alas, such revenue has not been sufficient enough to maintain the roads. With the tax, households and businesses are going to share a larger financial burden - the fee is expected to raise $1.2 million a year to help finance $38 million in road improvements during the next 10 years."The City Council on Wednesday night approved a new fee charging every homeowner $72 a year and small businesses $3,558 a year beginning in December".
Engineers have calculated that a single-family home generates about 9 1/2 vehicle trips a day. Target Store (virtually ubiquitous across America) generates about 8,500 trips a day. McDonald’s is predicted to produce 2,700 trips.
A driveway tax is not common in the U.S. In fact, the only state that has been progressive with such a tax is Oregon. 18 cities in Oregon have adopted it. This comes at no surprise considering Oregon is more green and progressive in its thinking.
As you could imagine, the newly passed tax has witnessed negative reactions from the business community. Unsurprisingly, they are concerned that in a time when the economy is recovering, the tax would simply hurt small businesses.
Like London's Congestion Charge Zone, these sort of eco-taxes are always jurisdiction dependent; what works in one city might not work in another. A driveway tax may be appropriate for Mission considering that roads there are deteriorating and someone has to pay for them. I agree with Felix Salmon's assessment of this, it is similar to my argument of the BC carbon tax being too low. In short, if a driveway tax is introduced in your city, it should be set at a rate that can actually change behaviour. The formulas predict that the tax will cost 2 cents per trip; that is way too low to bring about any meaningful reduction in driving.
The driveway tax for homeowners in Mission will be $72. This is irrespective of how many trips you do in a day. Thus it is a uniform rate which is problematic because it discriminates against those who drive less, those who bike, take public transit or walk to their final destination. It is understood that the city needs revenue to ameliorate their streets, but those who drive more (produce more traffic from their property) should pay more. It is unfair to discriminate against those who take greener methods of transport.
Those who do take greener methods should be guaranteed some sort of incentive to encourage the continuation of sustainable transport and change behaviour of current motorists. This way, revenue is still being collected while simultaneously changing behaviour and getting people to think about the environment.
Key message: The next decade will see even more green taxes. It's 2010, times are changing and we are going to have to adapt. Creating a win-win for the environment and the economy will require full participation of citizens; this can eventually lead to sustainable urban solutions.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
China's nine day traffic jam...
And you think your daily commute on the 401 is bad. Imagine being stuck on that road for over a week. That, sadly, is what is has come to on one of China's major expressways.
Two days ago, the CBC reported that a traffic jam had entered its ninth day of existence and is well over 100 km long. It could very well still be jammed up. According to the Chinese government, the jam occurred due to insufficient traffic capacity and maintenance issues. So basically, there are too many cars and too few roads.
One might think you could simply jump off the expressway and take another route home, but the jam is so solidly backed up that even that won't work. And really, you can't do much else except wait it out. So what exactly might you do for several days on the road?
Food and drink is very much available as vendors have set up shop to appease the stuck drivers. But a quick review of supply & demand theories will lead you to understand why the food is far from affordable. I'm sure gas is being sold to the poor souls who run out, but again, probably far from the normal price. And we can only hope that most cars aren't idling the whole time.
Emergency vehicles must be screwed, too.
Urban planning institutes and consultants frequently release reports citing the added costs of traffic congestion to the economy, usually in the billions. But North American traffic congestion is nothing compared to what China is experiencing. And apparently, this isn't the first time it has happened.
It won't be the last, either. China is growing outrageously fast in almost every dimension of its existence. People there are getting richer and wanting more cars. Building the infrastructure to house the cars doesn't happen quite as quickly.
So, here are the typical solutions: more public transit, congestion zone charges, toll highways, carbon taxes and voluntary drops in vehicle usage. Forgive me for being so blunt, but I don't think China really cares that much. Of course, they are implementing all sorts of programs like this. But will they trump the sheer desire to own and drive a car, especially as the economy grows at 9% per year? Doubtful. One can only hope that some lessons are learned from this jam and the future ones that take place.
Two days ago, the CBC reported that a traffic jam had entered its ninth day of existence and is well over 100 km long. It could very well still be jammed up. According to the Chinese government, the jam occurred due to insufficient traffic capacity and maintenance issues. So basically, there are too many cars and too few roads.
One might think you could simply jump off the expressway and take another route home, but the jam is so solidly backed up that even that won't work. And really, you can't do much else except wait it out. So what exactly might you do for several days on the road?
Food and drink is very much available as vendors have set up shop to appease the stuck drivers. But a quick review of supply & demand theories will lead you to understand why the food is far from affordable. I'm sure gas is being sold to the poor souls who run out, but again, probably far from the normal price. And we can only hope that most cars aren't idling the whole time.
Emergency vehicles must be screwed, too.
Urban planning institutes and consultants frequently release reports citing the added costs of traffic congestion to the economy, usually in the billions. But North American traffic congestion is nothing compared to what China is experiencing. And apparently, this isn't the first time it has happened.
It won't be the last, either. China is growing outrageously fast in almost every dimension of its existence. People there are getting richer and wanting more cars. Building the infrastructure to house the cars doesn't happen quite as quickly.
So, here are the typical solutions: more public transit, congestion zone charges, toll highways, carbon taxes and voluntary drops in vehicle usage. Forgive me for being so blunt, but I don't think China really cares that much. Of course, they are implementing all sorts of programs like this. But will they trump the sheer desire to own and drive a car, especially as the economy grows at 9% per year? Doubtful. One can only hope that some lessons are learned from this jam and the future ones that take place.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Water in China Part III
Image above: The Yangtze River. China's longest river, 6,397 km in length. The Yangtze River flows across 13 provinces, with many branches, such as Min River, Wu River, Xiang River, Han River, Huangpu River and more.Image credit: Odd and Funny Blogspot.
**Lcd: litres per capita per day**
This post will conclude the three part series of water in china. You can read part one here, and part two here. Most of this information is derived from Peter Gleick's publication titled "China and Water".
China is slowly starting to introduce water pricing to induce conservation. Such measures in water management have already been brought about in places like Guelph, Ontario. For a long time, water utilities have been subsidized by the Central government which has reduced the need to encourage water conservation. But now, with sustainable water management as a long-term national goal, Chinese cities are slowly implementing water pricing. In Beijing, price for domestic water use have more than doubled 4 yuan per cubic meter. For water intensive activities such as commercial car washing, it cost 45 yuan per cubic meter.
In Shenzhen (Southern China) local government officials have called for initiatives to recycle water, introduce rainwater harvesting and cut back on overall water use. Price-driven quotas are being introduced in Southern China, which means that urban homes that use more than 210 lcd (Canadians use about 343 lcd) will have to pay a surcharge on additional use. The more you consume past the 210 maximum, the more you pay for.
Separate quotas are being imposed on the various water users which includes industrial, agriculture, residential and commercial. The key point is that local governments in Southern China (where water is more abundant) are adopting flexible pricing systems based on different water users; this is an important step because the industrial and agriculture sectors use lots of water and constitute a greater share of GDP output. The greatest cuts need to happen in the residential sector; but this can only happen with education and good incentives to use less. Moreover, Northern cities should follow Beijing's initiatives and adopt smarter pricing systems. Northern cities have less water than southern ones yet they are slower to bring about water management initiatives. Reducing national water use requires participation from each city.
According to Peter Gleick, China has invariably experienced poor public participation grades for water projects and water policy. The Three Gorges Dam is notorious for its non-existent public consultation process which led to the displacement of 1.3 million people. Gleick writes:
“A major environmental law passed in China in 2003 for the first time ostensibly encouraged public participation in environmental decision making. This law, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law requires all major construction projects to undertake an impact assessment". Further, it states “The nation encourages relevant units, experts and the public to participate in the EIA process in appropriate ways”. In addition, the law states that “the institutions should seriously consider the opinions of the relevant units, experts and the public” and “should attach explanations for adopting or not adopting the opinions".
Sounds like a well thought out law; however, its effectiveness is questionable. Some citizens have taken many matters into their own hands; some have sued chemical plants to force compensation for health and environmental damages (due to polluted water supply) or to make more environmental information accessible to the public. With China's explosive growth -- in economy and population -- and with the indispensable role water plays for economic growth –through dams, wastewater, agriculture, irrigation and forthcoming desalination—it is clear that it is a extremely valuable resource that will shape China’s future.
With sensible pricing structures being introduced, and with wastewater treatment plants helping provide cleaner water, the test for China will be whether it can engage more of its citizens in an equitable and efficient manner. Public participation should not be viewed as a hindrance to dam construction; citizens are demanding that such construction be built in a way that minimizes harm to their livelihoods and that effective compensation measures are in place for those affected by it.
As Gleick says “Sustainable water management has long taken a backseat to the Chinese for economic growth. With supplies dwindling, the Chinese will start conserving it through pricing and through desalination construction" (which is problematic but necessary considering China’s population).
Patricia Adams, an executive director of Probe International says that cities like Beijing can't keep going further with larger engineering projects to take water from other peoples' watersheds. "Beijing needs to implement regulatory and pricing regimes that reflect the scarcity of water in their own watershed and induce conservation and watershed rehabilitation". Clearly, the country needs some sort of water education program to inform people not only about conservation but about the impact of certain chemicals and contaminants to reduce health impacts from exposure.
Key message: If China truly wants to achieve sustainable water management, it will need to ensure that its central governments puts pressure on local governments to develop the legal, technological, and institutional tools to clean up water pollution, reduce wasteful and inefficient uses of water, restore natural ecosystems, and develop sustainable sources of supply.
** China is spending 500 billion yuan (77 billion Canadian) on the South-North Water Diversion Project. It will be completed by 2050 and is the largest scheme of its type in the world. It will divert about 44.8 billion cubic meters of water per year from various rivers. Hopefully, this project is accompanied with extensive water conservation education and with water pricing systems. You can read about this project here.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Want cheap energy? Get prisoners to generate it...
The new coalition British government is in trouble. They have inherited a massive deficit and are looking to cut as many costs as possible.
The Globe & Mail reports that instead of figuring it out themselves, they have opened the floor to suggestions from members of the public. Among the thousands of options thrown out there are ditching the monarchy, selling off the Queen's swans for meat -- she owns most of the swans in the U.K. -- and even significantly cutting foreign aid. But quite a few suggestions involve using Britain's 100,000 prisoners, specifically getting them to generate electricity on treadmills and rowing machines.
A crazy idea? The Globe thinks so, but I disagree. Using fitness equipment to generate electricity is not a brand new idea. Some gyms throughout Europe and North America have already adapted their cardio machines to generate electricity for the building. After all, there is a lot of energy being used that could be captured as electricity. A hotel in Denmark even offers its guests a $36 food voucher to ride a stationary bicycle for 15 minutes and produce 10 watts of electricity. Sign me up. In comparison, Ontario's feed-in tariff offers less than a dollar for 100 times as much electricity from renewable energy projects. I think I know where the better deal is...
And prisoners typically work out a lot more than most other members of societies, so the potential is there. Whether or not it would produce enough electricity is another issue altogether. And how much would it cost to set up the necessary infrastructure to run a system like this? Another question one might raise is if prisoners are forced and scheduled to work out under this system, or whether working out will remain voluntary?
It is doubtful to get far off the ground, but it's nice to hear that when pursestrings get tight, clean energy get a little cooler.
The Globe & Mail reports that instead of figuring it out themselves, they have opened the floor to suggestions from members of the public. Among the thousands of options thrown out there are ditching the monarchy, selling off the Queen's swans for meat -- she owns most of the swans in the U.K. -- and even significantly cutting foreign aid. But quite a few suggestions involve using Britain's 100,000 prisoners, specifically getting them to generate electricity on treadmills and rowing machines.
A crazy idea? The Globe thinks so, but I disagree. Using fitness equipment to generate electricity is not a brand new idea. Some gyms throughout Europe and North America have already adapted their cardio machines to generate electricity for the building. After all, there is a lot of energy being used that could be captured as electricity. A hotel in Denmark even offers its guests a $36 food voucher to ride a stationary bicycle for 15 minutes and produce 10 watts of electricity. Sign me up. In comparison, Ontario's feed-in tariff offers less than a dollar for 100 times as much electricity from renewable energy projects. I think I know where the better deal is...
And prisoners typically work out a lot more than most other members of societies, so the potential is there. Whether or not it would produce enough electricity is another issue altogether. And how much would it cost to set up the necessary infrastructure to run a system like this? Another question one might raise is if prisoners are forced and scheduled to work out under this system, or whether working out will remain voluntary?
It is doubtful to get far off the ground, but it's nice to hear that when pursestrings get tight, clean energy get a little cooler.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Matt Kahn's new book: Climatopolis
Matt Kahn, who blogs at Environmental and Urban Economics, has written a new book called Climatopolis. The book is going to be released in September 2010. Based on some reviews that I have read, and a presentation that Kahn delivered at a February 2010 USC Conference on Cities and Urban Growth, the book seems to be quite informative and highlights the significance of human adaptation to climate change in urban environments.
Many professionals studying climate change (scientists, geographers, economists) have discussed climate change mitigation i.e. driving less, carbon pricing to reduce our emissions, decreasing electricity consumption etc. We don't hear as much about adaptation which is a more risky subject because of the uncertainty surrounding climate change. But emissions are likely going to continue to rise so adapting to the consequences and/or preparing for them will be of utmost importance.
Kahn says "Many people are fixated on how we can reduce greenhouse gases, and acting like adapting to a warmer climate is still in the sci-fi future. But we've passed the point of no return. Certain urban places — like Los Angeles — will suffer. But I'm optimistic that Los Angeles will also adapt."
On water: "Climate change is going to make water both scarcer and more in demand, but charging so little for water is actually exacerbating the water shortage problems. "People need pricing signals or they won't respond to shortages."
I couldn't agree more.
I'll provide a review when I read the book. With 60 percent of the world's population living in cities by 2030, it is fair to say that cities will have to make the critical adaptations to avoid catastrophe and to plan for posterity.
Check out the following links for more information about his book:
Climatopolis Webpage
Kahn's preview of his book
Kahn's presentation at the USC conference where he introduces themes from the book. It's 35 minutes long but really funny.
A review from Publishers Weekly on Climatopolis
Capitalism is our best defense against climate change
Many professionals studying climate change (scientists, geographers, economists) have discussed climate change mitigation i.e. driving less, carbon pricing to reduce our emissions, decreasing electricity consumption etc. We don't hear as much about adaptation which is a more risky subject because of the uncertainty surrounding climate change. But emissions are likely going to continue to rise so adapting to the consequences and/or preparing for them will be of utmost importance.
Kahn says "Many people are fixated on how we can reduce greenhouse gases, and acting like adapting to a warmer climate is still in the sci-fi future. But we've passed the point of no return. Certain urban places — like Los Angeles — will suffer. But I'm optimistic that Los Angeles will also adapt."
On water: "Climate change is going to make water both scarcer and more in demand, but charging so little for water is actually exacerbating the water shortage problems. "People need pricing signals or they won't respond to shortages."
I couldn't agree more.
I'll provide a review when I read the book. With 60 percent of the world's population living in cities by 2030, it is fair to say that cities will have to make the critical adaptations to avoid catastrophe and to plan for posterity.
Check out the following links for more information about his book:
Climatopolis Webpage
Kahn's preview of his book
Kahn's presentation at the USC conference where he introduces themes from the book. It's 35 minutes long but really funny.
A review from Publishers Weekly on Climatopolis
Capitalism is our best defense against climate change
Energy Intensity in China
Image Credit: South China Morning Post
Energy intensity is a macroeconomic measure of the energy required per unit of economic output. It is commonly expressed as units of energy per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). For China, it is the amount of energy needed to produce each yuan of economic output.
According to official figures from Beijing, last year China burnt the equivalent of almost 108 tonnes of coal to produce each million yuan of economic output.
From 2005 to 2009, energy intensity fell by 16 percent in China. Do not be totally deceived though. The output of the service industries - retail businesses, media, financial services and banking all use much less energy than manufacturing and industrial businesses. The service industries have started to rise of late and have formed a greater share of overall economic output. As a result, energy intensity tends to decrease as a natural consequence of economic growth.
Energy intensity remains relatively high because of China's large-scale infrastructure projects such as high speed rail construction and hydro-electric dams. When energy is priced at a lower amount, there is less of a need to conserve and use it more efficiently. The Germans have been efficient in almost every aspect of their economy.
In Germany, conservation of energy has not necessarily slowed down economic growth. Using energy efficiently has led to better allocation of it, which leads to better transmission and distribution of electricity across the nation. This keeps the economy going (it's amazing how much you can save with smart energy allocation) and does little harm to the environment.
Another example: Italy 's annual energy intensity of 122.8 tons of oil equivalent makes it the most energy efficient country in the G8 and one of the most energy efficient in the industrial world. This is mainly due to the traditionally high energy prices which have resulted in more efficient company and consumer behaviours. No one likes higher energy prices (whether you're an industry or household resident). But higher prices force you to innovate (and conserve) and design products that are less energy intensive. This drives competition and overtime, the entire economy benefits and people adjust accordingly.
China’s wasteful industrial and chemical plants are what keep energy intensity high. They help keep economic growth in check but have negative ramifications on the environment. Adopting environmental regulations would risk slowing down such growth. It seems that the Chinese Communist Party is content with how the economy is growing (now the world's second largest) but be critical and ask yourself if such growth is truly sustainable given the population size, political system, increasing numbers of university graduates and outstanding human rights cases.
Key message: Through innovation and smarter design, energy efficiency will get better in China, but it is going to be an extremely difficult task given the current economic growth.
According to official figures from Beijing, last year China burnt the equivalent of almost 108 tonnes of coal to produce each million yuan of economic output.
From 2005 to 2009, energy intensity fell by 16 percent in China. Do not be totally deceived though. The output of the service industries - retail businesses, media, financial services and banking all use much less energy than manufacturing and industrial businesses. The service industries have started to rise of late and have formed a greater share of overall economic output. As a result, energy intensity tends to decrease as a natural consequence of economic growth.
Energy intensity remains relatively high because of China's large-scale infrastructure projects such as high speed rail construction and hydro-electric dams. When energy is priced at a lower amount, there is less of a need to conserve and use it more efficiently. The Germans have been efficient in almost every aspect of their economy.
In Germany, conservation of energy has not necessarily slowed down economic growth. Using energy efficiently has led to better allocation of it, which leads to better transmission and distribution of electricity across the nation. This keeps the economy going (it's amazing how much you can save with smart energy allocation) and does little harm to the environment.
Another example: Italy 's annual energy intensity of 122.8 tons of oil equivalent makes it the most energy efficient country in the G8 and one of the most energy efficient in the industrial world. This is mainly due to the traditionally high energy prices which have resulted in more efficient company and consumer behaviours. No one likes higher energy prices (whether you're an industry or household resident). But higher prices force you to innovate (and conserve) and design products that are less energy intensive. This drives competition and overtime, the entire economy benefits and people adjust accordingly.
China’s wasteful industrial and chemical plants are what keep energy intensity high. They help keep economic growth in check but have negative ramifications on the environment. Adopting environmental regulations would risk slowing down such growth. It seems that the Chinese Communist Party is content with how the economy is growing (now the world's second largest) but be critical and ask yourself if such growth is truly sustainable given the population size, political system, increasing numbers of university graduates and outstanding human rights cases.
Key message: Through innovation and smarter design, energy efficiency will get better in China, but it is going to be an extremely difficult task given the current economic growth.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Tolling Cross-Harbour Tunnels in Hong Kong
has become a hot issue lately. Specifically, the Western Harbour Crossing –one of Hong Kong’s three Victoria Harbour crossing tunnels-- is increasing its toll rate.
“Fees for private cars, taxis, and light buses using the Western Harbor Tunnel (WHT) will increase HK$5 to HK$50, HK$45, and HK$60 respectively, and single-decked buses and double-decked buses will each see HK$10 and HK$13 toll rises”
“The company faces increasing operating costs and need to raise sufficient cash flow to repay debts and earn a reasonable return. To ensure continuous viability, the company needs to adjust the level of its tolls”.
The Western Harbour Crossing is private, unlike the Cross Habour Tunnel which has been operated by the government since it was built in 1972. What’s the issue? The issue is that all three cross habour tunnels have different toll rates. Instead of discussing the price differences between types of transport modes, I will use “private cars” to illustrate the rate difference:
Eastern Harbour Crossing (private): $25 per car
Cross Harbour Tunnel (CHT): $20 per car
Western Harbour Crossing (private): $50 per car
For more info see here.
Which one do you think has the highest usage? You probably guessed correctly, the CHT. I live fairly close to the tunnel and have witnessed the egregious traffic congestion. Indeed, its capacity is 78,500 and it has over 120,000 cars passing through it everyday. The Western Harbour Crossing has about 50,000 cars go through it everyday and a capacity of 118, 000.
From reading the newspaper it is quite evident that the public is not content with the toll increase. They argue that it is already too high and hence why the western tunnel is severely underused. Given that the CHT is used the most –because it is the most central, convenient and cheapest—the City needs to figure out a way to redistribute traffic to increase efficiency and alleviate the pollution problem associated with idling cars around the CHT. The government could also choose not to intervene and let the market take care of itself. Overtime, it’s possible that people will adjust and start using the western tunnel because of their frustration with congestion and long-waiting times at the CHT.
But, a toll increase could risk even fewer cars using the tunnel. Usually, if you want to increase demand and usage of a road/tunnel, you lower the price, not increase it. There have been many solutions put forward by HK citizens. The one that makes the most sense is a peak hour tolling system for the CHT. In short, the busiest hours in the morning and evening would have a higher toll rate simply for the purpose of decreasing traffic congestion. Despite Hong Kong's impressive public transit system, there are still a lot of cars on the road. While peak hour pricing may seem like a progressive idea, it certainly has merit and could complement Hong Kong’s sustainable development goals.
We need to keep three things in mind (or more) when we talk about tolls. 1) Prices must be adjusted to maintain an optimum speed for reducing pollution. Intense traffic congestion at the CHT means long line-ups of cars and a greater concentration of pollution. 2) Drivers using the shortest and most convenient route should pay for the privilege. As mentioned, the CHT is the most convenient because it is centralized; thus it should definitely be priced accordingly. 3) Extra revenue from the increased tolls could be used for the replacement of new buses with cleaner fuel or to subsidize private tunnels like the western tunnel to help with traffic redistribution.
Last, toll increases also risk fare increases for taxis and mini-buses. These methods of public transport also use the cross harbour tunnels. Thus, toll increases produce ripple effects that could be mitigated with some sense of progressive imagination.
Key message: Hong Kong has three cross harbour tunnels that have different toll rates. They also have drastically different rates of usage. Introduce peak hour pricing for the most congested cross harbour tunnel as an experiment to see what happens.
“Fees for private cars, taxis, and light buses using the Western Harbor Tunnel (WHT) will increase HK$5 to HK$50, HK$45, and HK$60 respectively, and single-decked buses and double-decked buses will each see HK$10 and HK$13 toll rises”
“The company faces increasing operating costs and need to raise sufficient cash flow to repay debts and earn a reasonable return. To ensure continuous viability, the company needs to adjust the level of its tolls”.
The Western Harbour Crossing is private, unlike the Cross Habour Tunnel which has been operated by the government since it was built in 1972. What’s the issue? The issue is that all three cross habour tunnels have different toll rates. Instead of discussing the price differences between types of transport modes, I will use “private cars” to illustrate the rate difference:
Eastern Harbour Crossing (private): $25 per car
Cross Harbour Tunnel (CHT): $20 per car
Western Harbour Crossing (private): $50 per car
For more info see here.
Which one do you think has the highest usage? You probably guessed correctly, the CHT. I live fairly close to the tunnel and have witnessed the egregious traffic congestion. Indeed, its capacity is 78,500 and it has over 120,000 cars passing through it everyday. The Western Harbour Crossing has about 50,000 cars go through it everyday and a capacity of 118, 000.
From reading the newspaper it is quite evident that the public is not content with the toll increase. They argue that it is already too high and hence why the western tunnel is severely underused. Given that the CHT is used the most –because it is the most central, convenient and cheapest—the City needs to figure out a way to redistribute traffic to increase efficiency and alleviate the pollution problem associated with idling cars around the CHT. The government could also choose not to intervene and let the market take care of itself. Overtime, it’s possible that people will adjust and start using the western tunnel because of their frustration with congestion and long-waiting times at the CHT.
But, a toll increase could risk even fewer cars using the tunnel. Usually, if you want to increase demand and usage of a road/tunnel, you lower the price, not increase it. There have been many solutions put forward by HK citizens. The one that makes the most sense is a peak hour tolling system for the CHT. In short, the busiest hours in the morning and evening would have a higher toll rate simply for the purpose of decreasing traffic congestion. Despite Hong Kong's impressive public transit system, there are still a lot of cars on the road. While peak hour pricing may seem like a progressive idea, it certainly has merit and could complement Hong Kong’s sustainable development goals.
We need to keep three things in mind (or more) when we talk about tolls. 1) Prices must be adjusted to maintain an optimum speed for reducing pollution. Intense traffic congestion at the CHT means long line-ups of cars and a greater concentration of pollution. 2) Drivers using the shortest and most convenient route should pay for the privilege. As mentioned, the CHT is the most convenient because it is centralized; thus it should definitely be priced accordingly. 3) Extra revenue from the increased tolls could be used for the replacement of new buses with cleaner fuel or to subsidize private tunnels like the western tunnel to help with traffic redistribution.
Last, toll increases also risk fare increases for taxis and mini-buses. These methods of public transport also use the cross harbour tunnels. Thus, toll increases produce ripple effects that could be mitigated with some sense of progressive imagination.
Key message: Hong Kong has three cross harbour tunnels that have different toll rates. They also have drastically different rates of usage. Introduce peak hour pricing for the most congested cross harbour tunnel as an experiment to see what happens.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
A concerning glimpse into the future of Canada's hydroelectric sector
While clean energy companies throughout Ontario are jumping for joy in response to the province's renewable energy policy, one of Canada's largest private hydroelectric firms is feeling a pinch. Brookfield Power owns and operates more than 850 MW of hydroelectric energy projects throughout northern Ontario and plenty more in other parts of Canada and the United States. Despite the dependability of hydro compared to other 'green' technologies -- it has a typical capacity factor between 50% and 80%, meaning most hydro projects will be running at full capacity 50%-80% of the time, compared with wind and solar that are around 35% and 13%, respectively -- Brookfield Power's production has fallen 40%-50%. Yikes.
The drop has been blamed primarily on an unordinarily dry year leading to very low water levels in northern Ontario. Annual variations in water levels are not uncommon, but as Brookfield's situation indicates, it can be pretty damaging economically: profits have fallen almost 50%. In stark contrast, the prairies have seen much higher precipitation levels than normal this year.
Some might be able to shake off one bad year, but as climate change threatens the historical predictability of Canadian weather, the Canadian hydroelectric industry could be in trouble. And as provinces like BC, Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba continue to expand their hydro generating capacity, you might wonder whether they're getting a bit nervous.
The drop has been blamed primarily on an unordinarily dry year leading to very low water levels in northern Ontario. Annual variations in water levels are not uncommon, but as Brookfield's situation indicates, it can be pretty damaging economically: profits have fallen almost 50%. In stark contrast, the prairies have seen much higher precipitation levels than normal this year.
Some might be able to shake off one bad year, but as climate change threatens the historical predictability of Canadian weather, the Canadian hydroelectric industry could be in trouble. And as provinces like BC, Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba continue to expand their hydro generating capacity, you might wonder whether they're getting a bit nervous.
Rapid Conflict Prevention Support
Earlier this summer, I read a book called Economic Gangsters: Corruption, Violence, and the Poverty of Nations by Raymond Fisman and Edward Miguel. The book draws on number of correlations between seemingly random things that have important policy implications in economic development.
While Enviro Boys does not directly write about international/economic development, the book reveals important ideas that pertain to climate change which we know is a global issue that requires expertise from several disciplines. I wanted to share one concept from the book that has the highest degree of relevance to this blog. The concept is called Rapid Conflict Prevention Support (RCPS) which is a form of aid that targets countries suffering temporary income drops due to poor weather or commodity price declines. It would provide immediate financial aid to such countries to help stabilize sectors of the economy before conflict erupts.
One of the rationales of this idea stems from Chapter Five titled “No Water, No Peace” where the authors discuss the country of Chad and its complete dependence on rain-fed subsistence agriculture. When the country goes through intense droughts, farmers suffer as their crops die and this affects the entire country's economy. Research from Miguel and his NYU colleagues found that a 5% drop in per capita income due to drought, increases the likelihood of a civil conflict in the following year by nearly one half. Thus when water does not fall from the sky, not only does the economy suffer but there is a risk of greater instability.
To partially remedy this problem, the authors discuss the merits of RCPS as it could provide temporary public work jobs for unemployed young men; the group most likely to participate in armed violence. The authors suggest how donors of RCPS would be able to track rainfall and famine conditions through publicly available websites. As the authors write "Rwanda relies heavily on coffee export earnings to provide for its people, so when the world price of coffee plummets, so do most Rwandans' income. In this way, a sudden drop in key commodity prices acts a lot like a drought, leading to an unexpected decline in income that leaves the population desperate and violence-prone". Miguel explains how potential donors of an RCPS program could track coffee prices on the Chicago Board of Trade and respond to falling prices accordingly.
Similar to large scale environmental issues, the need for prevention is far more critical and cheaper than dealing with the aftermath – floods, droughts, earthquakes or whatever else it may be. Forecasting precipitation, monitoring commodity prices or even an imminent earthquake are not always easy to predict. As such, there is a need for some precautionary mechanism to ensure that matters are not worsened when the event actually happens. Miguel’s RCPS idea would use economic indicators to identify nations most likely to suffer future strife, increasing aid before violence erupts. Such prevention is better than a more costly cure.
Sure, there might be some corruption that takes place through a program such as RCPS, but in a time when droughts are bound to get worse, RCPS can provide immediate funds to help prevent and or alleviate the economic hardship. It could supplement investments in education and infrastructure for long-term sustainability.
If you want to learn more about this topic (and other topics in violence, corruption and poverty) read their book; it's very insightful and a fun read in general. They identify a number of remarkable correlations and provide policy solutions such as RCPS.
Check out Edward Miguel's Bloomberg article here.
While Enviro Boys does not directly write about international/economic development, the book reveals important ideas that pertain to climate change which we know is a global issue that requires expertise from several disciplines. I wanted to share one concept from the book that has the highest degree of relevance to this blog. The concept is called Rapid Conflict Prevention Support (RCPS) which is a form of aid that targets countries suffering temporary income drops due to poor weather or commodity price declines. It would provide immediate financial aid to such countries to help stabilize sectors of the economy before conflict erupts.
One of the rationales of this idea stems from Chapter Five titled “No Water, No Peace” where the authors discuss the country of Chad and its complete dependence on rain-fed subsistence agriculture. When the country goes through intense droughts, farmers suffer as their crops die and this affects the entire country's economy. Research from Miguel and his NYU colleagues found that a 5% drop in per capita income due to drought, increases the likelihood of a civil conflict in the following year by nearly one half. Thus when water does not fall from the sky, not only does the economy suffer but there is a risk of greater instability.
To partially remedy this problem, the authors discuss the merits of RCPS as it could provide temporary public work jobs for unemployed young men; the group most likely to participate in armed violence. The authors suggest how donors of RCPS would be able to track rainfall and famine conditions through publicly available websites. As the authors write "Rwanda relies heavily on coffee export earnings to provide for its people, so when the world price of coffee plummets, so do most Rwandans' income. In this way, a sudden drop in key commodity prices acts a lot like a drought, leading to an unexpected decline in income that leaves the population desperate and violence-prone". Miguel explains how potential donors of an RCPS program could track coffee prices on the Chicago Board of Trade and respond to falling prices accordingly.
Similar to large scale environmental issues, the need for prevention is far more critical and cheaper than dealing with the aftermath – floods, droughts, earthquakes or whatever else it may be. Forecasting precipitation, monitoring commodity prices or even an imminent earthquake are not always easy to predict. As such, there is a need for some precautionary mechanism to ensure that matters are not worsened when the event actually happens. Miguel’s RCPS idea would use economic indicators to identify nations most likely to suffer future strife, increasing aid before violence erupts. Such prevention is better than a more costly cure.
Sure, there might be some corruption that takes place through a program such as RCPS, but in a time when droughts are bound to get worse, RCPS can provide immediate funds to help prevent and or alleviate the economic hardship. It could supplement investments in education and infrastructure for long-term sustainability.
If you want to learn more about this topic (and other topics in violence, corruption and poverty) read their book; it's very insightful and a fun read in general. They identify a number of remarkable correlations and provide policy solutions such as RCPS.
Check out Edward Miguel's Bloomberg article here.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Gwynne Dyer on Russia's grain ban
I came across an article yesterday in the South China Morning Post written by Gwynne Dyer. The title “Russia’s grain ban is just the beginning” reminded me of Dyer’s pessimistic and gloomy outlook on climate change and how the world is going to cope with it. During my time at Trent, Gwynne Dyer visited the university and delivered two public lectures - lectures I found supremely entertaining, very informative and a little bit scary considering his predictions on what climate change is going to do to our world.
I thought I would post his article to give you a taste of his writing. Dyer thinks big (with pessimistic forecasts) but pulls you into considering climate change from a new perspective. He has written 9 books on topics ranging from military history, climate change and international relations.
**Gwynne Dyer has granted Enviro Boys permission to publish this post on the blog**
“Russia’s Grain Ban is just the beginning”
By Gwynne Dyer
It cannot be proved that the wildfires now devastating western Russia are evidence of global warming. Once-in-a-century extreme weather events happen, on average, once a century. But the Russian response is precisely what you would expect when global warming really starts to bite: Moscow has just banned all grain exports for the rest of this year.
At least 20 percent of Russia’s wheat crop has already been destroyed by the drought, the extreme heat—circa 40 º C for several weeks now—and the wildfires. The export ban is needed, explained Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, because “we shouldn’t allow domestic prices in Russia to rise, we need to preserve our cattle and build up supplies for next year”. If anybody starves, it won’t be Russians.
That’s a reasonable position for a Russian leader to take, but it does mean that some people will starve elsewhere. Russia is the world’s fourth-largest grain exporter, and anticipated shortages in the international grain market had already driven the price of wheat up by more than 80 percent since early June. When Putin announced the export ban, it immediately jumped by another eight percent.
This means that food prices will also rise, but that is a minor nuisance for most consumers in the developed countries, since they spend only about 10 percent of their income on food. In poor countries, where people spend up to half their income on food, the higher prices will mean that the poorest of the poor cannot afford to feed their children properly.
As a result, some will die—probably a hundred or a thousand times as many as the 30-odd Russians who have been killed by the flames and the smoke. But they will die quietly, one by one, in under-reported parts of the world, so nobody will notice. Not this time. But when food exports are severely reduced or banned by several major producers at once and the international grain market freezes up, everybody will notice.
Two problems are going to converge and merge in the next 10 or 15 years, with dramatic results. One is the fact that global grain production, which kept up with population growth from the 1950s to the 1990s, is no longer doing so. It may even have flatlined in the past decade, although large annual variations make that uncertain. Whereas the world’s population is still growing.
The world grain reserve, which was 150 days of eating for everybody on the planet 10 years ago, has fallen to little more than a third of that. (The “world grain reserve” is not a mountain of grain somewhere, but the sum of all the grain from previous harvests that is still stored in various places just before the next big Northern Hemisphere harvest comes in.)
We now have a smaller grain reserve globally than a prudent civilization in Mesopotamia or Egypt would have aimed for 3,000 years ago. Demand is growing not just because there are more people, but because there are more people rich enough to put more meat into their diet. So things are very tight even before climate change hits hard.
The second problem is, of course, global warming. The rule of thumb is that with every one-degree C rise in average global temperature, we lose 10 percent of global food production. In some places, the crops will be damaged by drought; in others by much hotter temperatures. Or, as in Russia’s case today, by both.
So food production will be heading down as demand continues to increase, and something has to give. What will probably happen is that the amount of internationally traded grain will dwindle as countries ban exports and keep their supplies for themselves. That will mean that a country can no longer buy its way out of trouble when it has a local crop failure: there will not be enough exported grain for sale.
This is the vision of the future that has the soldiers and security experts worried: a world where access to enough food becomes a big political and strategic issue even for developed countries that do not have big surpluses at home. It would be a very ugly world indeed, teeming with climate refugees and failed states and interstate conflicts over water (which is just food at one remove).
What is happening in Russia now, and its impacts elsewhere, give us an early glimpse of what that world will be like. And although nobody can say for certain that the current disaster there is due to climate change, it certainly could be.
Late last year, Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Change produced a world map showing how different countries will be affected by the rise in average global temperature over the next 50 years. The European countries that the Hadley map predicts will be among the hardest hit—Greece, Spain, and Russia—are precisely the ones have suffered most from extreme heat, runaway forest fires, and wildfires in the past few years.
The main impact of global warming on human beings will be on the food supply, and eating is a non-negotiable activity. Today Russia, tomorrow the world.
I thought I would post his article to give you a taste of his writing. Dyer thinks big (with pessimistic forecasts) but pulls you into considering climate change from a new perspective. He has written 9 books on topics ranging from military history, climate change and international relations.
**Gwynne Dyer has granted Enviro Boys permission to publish this post on the blog**
“Russia’s Grain Ban is just the beginning”
By Gwynne Dyer
It cannot be proved that the wildfires now devastating western Russia are evidence of global warming. Once-in-a-century extreme weather events happen, on average, once a century. But the Russian response is precisely what you would expect when global warming really starts to bite: Moscow has just banned all grain exports for the rest of this year.
At least 20 percent of Russia’s wheat crop has already been destroyed by the drought, the extreme heat—circa 40 º C for several weeks now—and the wildfires. The export ban is needed, explained Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, because “we shouldn’t allow domestic prices in Russia to rise, we need to preserve our cattle and build up supplies for next year”. If anybody starves, it won’t be Russians.
That’s a reasonable position for a Russian leader to take, but it does mean that some people will starve elsewhere. Russia is the world’s fourth-largest grain exporter, and anticipated shortages in the international grain market had already driven the price of wheat up by more than 80 percent since early June. When Putin announced the export ban, it immediately jumped by another eight percent.
This means that food prices will also rise, but that is a minor nuisance for most consumers in the developed countries, since they spend only about 10 percent of their income on food. In poor countries, where people spend up to half their income on food, the higher prices will mean that the poorest of the poor cannot afford to feed their children properly.
As a result, some will die—probably a hundred or a thousand times as many as the 30-odd Russians who have been killed by the flames and the smoke. But they will die quietly, one by one, in under-reported parts of the world, so nobody will notice. Not this time. But when food exports are severely reduced or banned by several major producers at once and the international grain market freezes up, everybody will notice.
Two problems are going to converge and merge in the next 10 or 15 years, with dramatic results. One is the fact that global grain production, which kept up with population growth from the 1950s to the 1990s, is no longer doing so. It may even have flatlined in the past decade, although large annual variations make that uncertain. Whereas the world’s population is still growing.
The world grain reserve, which was 150 days of eating for everybody on the planet 10 years ago, has fallen to little more than a third of that. (The “world grain reserve” is not a mountain of grain somewhere, but the sum of all the grain from previous harvests that is still stored in various places just before the next big Northern Hemisphere harvest comes in.)
We now have a smaller grain reserve globally than a prudent civilization in Mesopotamia or Egypt would have aimed for 3,000 years ago. Demand is growing not just because there are more people, but because there are more people rich enough to put more meat into their diet. So things are very tight even before climate change hits hard.
The second problem is, of course, global warming. The rule of thumb is that with every one-degree C rise in average global temperature, we lose 10 percent of global food production. In some places, the crops will be damaged by drought; in others by much hotter temperatures. Or, as in Russia’s case today, by both.
So food production will be heading down as demand continues to increase, and something has to give. What will probably happen is that the amount of internationally traded grain will dwindle as countries ban exports and keep their supplies for themselves. That will mean that a country can no longer buy its way out of trouble when it has a local crop failure: there will not be enough exported grain for sale.
This is the vision of the future that has the soldiers and security experts worried: a world where access to enough food becomes a big political and strategic issue even for developed countries that do not have big surpluses at home. It would be a very ugly world indeed, teeming with climate refugees and failed states and interstate conflicts over water (which is just food at one remove).
What is happening in Russia now, and its impacts elsewhere, give us an early glimpse of what that world will be like. And although nobody can say for certain that the current disaster there is due to climate change, it certainly could be.
Late last year, Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Change produced a world map showing how different countries will be affected by the rise in average global temperature over the next 50 years. The European countries that the Hadley map predicts will be among the hardest hit—Greece, Spain, and Russia—are precisely the ones have suffered most from extreme heat, runaway forest fires, and wildfires in the past few years.
The main impact of global warming on human beings will be on the food supply, and eating is a non-negotiable activity. Today Russia, tomorrow the world.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Canada's national climate change policy takes another hit...
Just over a week ago, the momentous climate change bill sitting in the United States Senate was dropped. As The Economist put it, "the idea of a cap on America's emissions died with barely the bathos of a wimper." The already diluted bill had been sitting in the Senate for a few months but wasn't getting all that far. And the Democrats, already looking to be thumped during this November's midterm elections, aren't willing to spend whatever political capital they have left on another controversial bill.
So for now the Americans wait. Again. Will a national climate plan, as envisioned by Barack Obama or otherwise, ever come to fruition?
Sadly, with the news from our neighbours to the south, Canadians are left to ask themselves the same question.
Canada's national climate change policy up to this point has largely -- though not formally -- been tied to the United States. Whatever they do, we'll follow suit. When cap-and-trade was in vogue, it was cool here, too. But since little ever formalized in the US, next to nothing has progressed in Canada.
At least some action is being taken by subnational governments. A few weeks ago three provinces -- Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia -- and seven states -- California, New Mexico, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Utah and Montana -- released an international emissions trading plan set to begin in 2012. It is part of the Western Climate Initiative and although the plan is not outrageously ambitious -- 15% cut in emissions by 2020 at 2005 levels -- it is better than nothing. Other provinces and states are choosing to do their own thing and hopefully this will demonstrate that a coordinated, national effort is not necessary.
The Economist believes that there is some room for a carbon tax to join the fray in the US. The Environmental Protection Agency now has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, so it could, theoretically, impose a carbon tax, regardless of whether congress likes it or not. But that would be a bold move and one the Obama administration would have to tread carefully.
But say a national carbon tax is introduced in the United States. Would Canada follow in stride? If the current Conservative government is still in power, it is highly unlikely. After all, they defeated Stephane Dion's Liberals handily after lambasting the idea of a national carbon tax. With another government? Perhaps. Or maybe the federal government will be happy with the handful of provincial schemes.
In any case, the standstill in the United States won't help Canada battle climate change one bit.
So for now the Americans wait. Again. Will a national climate plan, as envisioned by Barack Obama or otherwise, ever come to fruition?
Sadly, with the news from our neighbours to the south, Canadians are left to ask themselves the same question.
Canada's national climate change policy up to this point has largely -- though not formally -- been tied to the United States. Whatever they do, we'll follow suit. When cap-and-trade was in vogue, it was cool here, too. But since little ever formalized in the US, next to nothing has progressed in Canada.
At least some action is being taken by subnational governments. A few weeks ago three provinces -- Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia -- and seven states -- California, New Mexico, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Utah and Montana -- released an international emissions trading plan set to begin in 2012. It is part of the Western Climate Initiative and although the plan is not outrageously ambitious -- 15% cut in emissions by 2020 at 2005 levels -- it is better than nothing. Other provinces and states are choosing to do their own thing and hopefully this will demonstrate that a coordinated, national effort is not necessary.
The Economist believes that there is some room for a carbon tax to join the fray in the US. The Environmental Protection Agency now has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, so it could, theoretically, impose a carbon tax, regardless of whether congress likes it or not. But that would be a bold move and one the Obama administration would have to tread carefully.
But say a national carbon tax is introduced in the United States. Would Canada follow in stride? If the current Conservative government is still in power, it is highly unlikely. After all, they defeated Stephane Dion's Liberals handily after lambasting the idea of a national carbon tax. With another government? Perhaps. Or maybe the federal government will be happy with the handful of provincial schemes.
In any case, the standstill in the United States won't help Canada battle climate change one bit.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Some thoughts on the B.C. Carbon Tax
On July 1, 2010, British Columbia raised the carbon tax rate on a litre of gasoline by 1.12 cents to 4.45 cents per litre and by 1.27 cents to 5.11 cents per litre of light fuel oil. The carbon tax is now at $20 per tonne of CO2, which marks an increase of $10 per tonne since it was introduced on July 1, 2008.
For a quick refresher on the B.C. carbon tax, see here. In short, it is tax levied on the use of fossil fuels, so as to discourage the production of carbon dioxide.
“During the first two years of the carbon tax, some $848 million has been collected. The corresponding personal and business tax cuts have returned over $1 billion to British Columbians. That is $232 million more returned to British Columbians through tax cuts than was collected from the carbon tax”. -B.C. Government
I have three points that I want to make:
1) The carbon tax needs to be better adjusted to help lower income households adapt. Currently, the B.C. Low Income Climate Action Tax Credit is paid quarterly and provides $105 per adult and $31.50 per child annually to compensate for the carbon taxes they pay. Keep in mind that energy efficiency home retrofits are not cheap. Lower income housholds will only make the changes if they have a compelling economic motivation to do so.
It would be far better if the government gave compensation measures which would provide a greater amount of capital. Compensation measures such as lump-sum redistribution can provide low-income households with a single payment, rather than a series of payments. This can help households make the necessary consumer changes all at once and assist them with budgeting for less carbon intensive products and making more efficient use of energy.
Middle and higher income households are more likely to shift to energy efficient appliances (or to public transit) if they know it will save them money in the long-term. Lower income households live from pay check to pay check worrying more about how to keep their houses warm than how to reduce their household's carbon emissions.
2) According to CBC, the Sightline Institute, a Seattle non-profit research group, found a 10 per cent increase in per capita gasoline sales in the province in 2009, the single largest increase in B.C. in at least 30 years. This seems paradoxical considering the carbon tax was implemented in 2008. This also suggests that the current rate is not high enough. Carbon tax experts like Marc Jaccard have argued that carbon taxes need to hit $200 per tonne of CO2 if the Province wants to achieve its GHG targets. Such an increase will surely change consumer and household behaviour on carbon intensive activities i.e. driving, air conditioning use, home heating etc. Though, that figure is really high and would have serious economic ramifications if phased in too quickly.
3) Corporate and income tax cuts are necessary but equally important is that of investing in public transit, renewable technology and green jobs. The B.C. government has not been very transparent about how it is using revenue from the carbon tax to provide funding for the aforementioned items. Cities like Vancouver and Victoria would benefit immensely from such funding. It would generate more resources for the Greenest City Action Team in Vancouver as Vancouver has aspirations to become the world’s greenest city by 2020. With the amount of revenue coming in from the tax, the sustainbility opportunities --from investing in clean technology and public transit to green roofs and composting-- are extensive and wide ranging.
Key message: The carbon tax has a lot of room for growth in B.C. Let’s start with helping lower income households make the necessary adaptations (such as direct compensation measures) to green their homes.
Some links on the Carbon tax:
For a quick refresher on the B.C. carbon tax, see here. In short, it is tax levied on the use of fossil fuels, so as to discourage the production of carbon dioxide.
“During the first two years of the carbon tax, some $848 million has been collected. The corresponding personal and business tax cuts have returned over $1 billion to British Columbians. That is $232 million more returned to British Columbians through tax cuts than was collected from the carbon tax”. -B.C. Government
I have three points that I want to make:
1) The carbon tax needs to be better adjusted to help lower income households adapt. Currently, the B.C. Low Income Climate Action Tax Credit is paid quarterly and provides $105 per adult and $31.50 per child annually to compensate for the carbon taxes they pay. Keep in mind that energy efficiency home retrofits are not cheap. Lower income housholds will only make the changes if they have a compelling economic motivation to do so.
It would be far better if the government gave compensation measures which would provide a greater amount of capital. Compensation measures such as lump-sum redistribution can provide low-income households with a single payment, rather than a series of payments. This can help households make the necessary consumer changes all at once and assist them with budgeting for less carbon intensive products and making more efficient use of energy.
Middle and higher income households are more likely to shift to energy efficient appliances (or to public transit) if they know it will save them money in the long-term. Lower income households live from pay check to pay check worrying more about how to keep their houses warm than how to reduce their household's carbon emissions.
2) According to CBC, the Sightline Institute, a Seattle non-profit research group, found a 10 per cent increase in per capita gasoline sales in the province in 2009, the single largest increase in B.C. in at least 30 years. This seems paradoxical considering the carbon tax was implemented in 2008. This also suggests that the current rate is not high enough. Carbon tax experts like Marc Jaccard have argued that carbon taxes need to hit $200 per tonne of CO2 if the Province wants to achieve its GHG targets. Such an increase will surely change consumer and household behaviour on carbon intensive activities i.e. driving, air conditioning use, home heating etc. Though, that figure is really high and would have serious economic ramifications if phased in too quickly.
3) Corporate and income tax cuts are necessary but equally important is that of investing in public transit, renewable technology and green jobs. The B.C. government has not been very transparent about how it is using revenue from the carbon tax to provide funding for the aforementioned items. Cities like Vancouver and Victoria would benefit immensely from such funding. It would generate more resources for the Greenest City Action Team in Vancouver as Vancouver has aspirations to become the world’s greenest city by 2020. With the amount of revenue coming in from the tax, the sustainbility opportunities --from investing in clean technology and public transit to green roofs and composting-- are extensive and wide ranging.
Key message: The carbon tax has a lot of room for growth in B.C. Let’s start with helping lower income households make the necessary adaptations (such as direct compensation measures) to green their homes.
Some links on the Carbon tax:
CBC Article: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/30/bc-carbon-tax-increase.htmlB.C.
B.C. Governemnt: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2010FIN0040-000788.htm
The Policy Note: http://www.policynote.ca/bcs-carbon-tax-turns-two/
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Development charges and the urban growth fund
In June 2009, I was reading a book by Jeb Brugmann titled Welcome to the Urban Revolution: How cities are changing the world. It was very thought provoking and well-written providing an excellent analysis of the historical, contemporary and future salience of cities in shaping the world. The book presents a thorough overview of the connection between high density areas in the developing world and the influence this has on establishing both local markets and globalization.
Here is excerpt from the book that inspired a section of my honours thesis and a fourth year research paper:
“There are two aspects to density in the growth of cities. Proximity reduces time and energy and therefore the cost required to move people and materials around to achieve any objective. Take an urban water system. If we are building a water system for a suburban neighbourhood where homes are 120 feet apart versus a downtown neighbourhood where homes are twenty feet apart, we have to use one hundred feet of extra pipe for each home in the lower-density neighbourhood. If each neighbourhood has one hundred houses, then a higher-density neighbourhood saves an impressive two miles of pipe – not to mention the costs for installation and maintenance and for pumping the water through it. But in my city, a person living in a low-density neighbourhood pays the same rate for water as the people in my high density neighbourhood. The water department loses money on the low-density neighbourhood, and our neighbourhood must help make up the difference through our water rates and tax payments”.
Jeb is referring to Toronto in this case. While this sort of system may not be true for all jurisdictions, it nonetheless provides an illustration of the link between density and public service payments associated with housing location and water distribution.
To remedy this inequitable system, and to encourage growth in urban areas, I wanted to share a proposal with you. As I learned from my research, in Peterborough, when developers want to build sub-divisions in the fringes of urban areas, they are required to pay development charges for the houses to cover the costs of piping installation, water delivery, treatment and storage. Why? Because it costs the City's water utilities a lot more money to build additional (and longer pipes) and to deliver the water to those homes because they are farther away from the water treatment plant. Longer distance from the plant means more money. So in theory, the development charges cover these infrastructural costs.
Under my proposed system, sub-division developers would continue to pay the respective development fee per sub-division lot. However, 10-15 percent of this charge would go toward an “urban growth fund” used to encourage and subsidize developers wishing to build in the city’s built area (i.e. areas that are already paved over and could use redevelopment).
To illustrate a fictitious situation, let’s say a developer was paying $5,000 per lot in development charges. The sub-division has about 200 lots. Therefore, $5,000 x 200 lots = $1,000,000.
Therefore, 0.15 x 5000 (per sub-division lot) = $750. $750 per lot x 200 lots (total number of lots in subdivision) = $150,000. Thus, of the $1,000,000 raised in development fees from the sub-division, $150,000 would be directed towards the urban growth fund.
This would be used to subsidize developers wishing to build in the urban growth area and overtime, this can significantly alleviate pressure on public service provision. Remember, even if the development charge is paid by the developer, over time, it still costs more money and uses more energy to distribute water to those homes farther away from the system. The urban growth fund is for long-term sustainability to encourage more urban development and to keep public service provision more efficient and more local.
The $5000 figure is simply an arbitrary fee; the cost of the development charges for each sub-division could be different and set by the city. Setting the development charges for each sub-division can be raised or lowered depending on the topography of the sub-division’s land, distance from public facilities (water, wastewater and electricity), amount of impervious cover already on site and other factors as well. I propose the arbitrary fee of $5000 to illustrate how revenue could be generated, especially if the city wishes to intensify land uses and create a more compact urban form.
The proposed urban growth fund can raise significant revenue and provide more budgetary flexibility for a city. This could be one solution for cities (such as the one Jeb describes) to ensure that water departments are not unfairly charging higher water rates for those high-density neighbourhoods while concomitantly encouraging more urban growth (which could save costs in the long-term). Whether such a system would ever materialize is up for debate; I figure there are many policy tools we could use, but putting them into practice can be a difficult and laborious process.
Key message: Water rates in any jurisdiction should be adjusted based on density and proximity to water mains and pipes; this is an equitable approach to public service provision. If a jurisdiction has set suburban development charges for public service provision, then it would be wise to redistribute some of this revenue to mechanisms that can encourage more urban growth and overtime reduce pressure on undeveloped land.
Here is excerpt from the book that inspired a section of my honours thesis and a fourth year research paper:
“There are two aspects to density in the growth of cities. Proximity reduces time and energy and therefore the cost required to move people and materials around to achieve any objective. Take an urban water system. If we are building a water system for a suburban neighbourhood where homes are 120 feet apart versus a downtown neighbourhood where homes are twenty feet apart, we have to use one hundred feet of extra pipe for each home in the lower-density neighbourhood. If each neighbourhood has one hundred houses, then a higher-density neighbourhood saves an impressive two miles of pipe – not to mention the costs for installation and maintenance and for pumping the water through it. But in my city, a person living in a low-density neighbourhood pays the same rate for water as the people in my high density neighbourhood. The water department loses money on the low-density neighbourhood, and our neighbourhood must help make up the difference through our water rates and tax payments”.
Jeb is referring to Toronto in this case. While this sort of system may not be true for all jurisdictions, it nonetheless provides an illustration of the link between density and public service payments associated with housing location and water distribution.
To remedy this inequitable system, and to encourage growth in urban areas, I wanted to share a proposal with you. As I learned from my research, in Peterborough, when developers want to build sub-divisions in the fringes of urban areas, they are required to pay development charges for the houses to cover the costs of piping installation, water delivery, treatment and storage. Why? Because it costs the City's water utilities a lot more money to build additional (and longer pipes) and to deliver the water to those homes because they are farther away from the water treatment plant. Longer distance from the plant means more money. So in theory, the development charges cover these infrastructural costs.
Under my proposed system, sub-division developers would continue to pay the respective development fee per sub-division lot. However, 10-15 percent of this charge would go toward an “urban growth fund” used to encourage and subsidize developers wishing to build in the city’s built area (i.e. areas that are already paved over and could use redevelopment).
To illustrate a fictitious situation, let’s say a developer was paying $5,000 per lot in development charges. The sub-division has about 200 lots. Therefore, $5,000 x 200 lots = $1,000,000.
Therefore, 0.15 x 5000 (per sub-division lot) = $750. $750 per lot x 200 lots (total number of lots in subdivision) = $150,000. Thus, of the $1,000,000 raised in development fees from the sub-division, $150,000 would be directed towards the urban growth fund.
This would be used to subsidize developers wishing to build in the urban growth area and overtime, this can significantly alleviate pressure on public service provision. Remember, even if the development charge is paid by the developer, over time, it still costs more money and uses more energy to distribute water to those homes farther away from the system. The urban growth fund is for long-term sustainability to encourage more urban development and to keep public service provision more efficient and more local.
The $5000 figure is simply an arbitrary fee; the cost of the development charges for each sub-division could be different and set by the city. Setting the development charges for each sub-division can be raised or lowered depending on the topography of the sub-division’s land, distance from public facilities (water, wastewater and electricity), amount of impervious cover already on site and other factors as well. I propose the arbitrary fee of $5000 to illustrate how revenue could be generated, especially if the city wishes to intensify land uses and create a more compact urban form.
The proposed urban growth fund can raise significant revenue and provide more budgetary flexibility for a city. This could be one solution for cities (such as the one Jeb describes) to ensure that water departments are not unfairly charging higher water rates for those high-density neighbourhoods while concomitantly encouraging more urban growth (which could save costs in the long-term). Whether such a system would ever materialize is up for debate; I figure there are many policy tools we could use, but putting them into practice can be a difficult and laborious process.
Key message: Water rates in any jurisdiction should be adjusted based on density and proximity to water mains and pipes; this is an equitable approach to public service provision. If a jurisdiction has set suburban development charges for public service provision, then it would be wise to redistribute some of this revenue to mechanisms that can encourage more urban growth and overtime reduce pressure on undeveloped land.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)