Tim Jackson on prosperity without growth

Jackson says "prosperity consists in our ability to flourish as human beings within the ecological limits of a finite planet".

More here.

Guest Entry: Vermicomposting program a big hit in Queen’s residences

By: Trevor Shah

The Queen's Vermicomposting Program was initiated in the fall term of the 2009-2010 academic year and is the first systematic University Residence vermicomposting program in Canada. What’s more, the program is entirely student driven. Queen’s university helped us run the initiative through paying the necessary expenses to lease 11 hand-made vermicomposters from a local, student-run non-profit business called the Living Cities Company.

The idea for the Vermicomposting program came about in April 2009 when four students came together to explore ideas on how to make Queen’s residence greener. Though the project was initiated by four students, it became the project of hundreds of students living in residence. Throughout the year, the residents of the 11 floors in residences, led by their Residence Advisors, looked after the day-to-day maintenance of the composters.

It should be noted that these vermicomposters were used to process the food students ate outside of the cafeteria. Most students ate in the cafeteria which uses an industrial composter; this industrial composter is entirely separate from the vermicomposting program.

From the point of view of residents, Residence Advisors, custodial staff, and the Queen’s community, the program has been successful. As shown by organic waste statistics tracked by students in two different residence buildings, each vermicomposter is able to consistently divert 2-4kg of waste each every week. Throughout the 8 months, we were able to divert about 400kg of waste through using 11 vermicomposters.

To promote the initiative and garner support we wrote articles to 3 different media sources; this was one of the best ideas as we were shortly contacted by CBC Radio Host Wei Chen, who read one of our articles in a local Kingston newspaper and interviewed us on CBC Ontario Morning.

These articles can be found at:
http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2009-11-10/news/residences-venture-vermicomposting/
http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1773166
http://qnc.queensu.ca/gazette/4b0bf3bcb0220.pdf

There is an array of benefits of vermicomposting for residence buildings. They include:

First, vermicomposting offers an easy, cheap, and sustainable way to divert student generated organic waste from garbage cans/landfills. Since you can dispose of waste on-site, there is no energy cost of transportation. Moreover, the start-up cost of vermicomposting is almost twenty times less expensive than procuring an industrial composter. Vermicomposters are also self-propagating, as the worms are able to reproduce within 3 months, allowing their offspring to be used to start another vermicomposter.

Second, vermicomposting is net-energy-neutral and non-polluting. Unlike industrial composters, the vermicomposting process does not require inputs of heat energy, because vermicomposting utilizes worms to convert waste into fertilizer. In addition, no harmful chemicals are added, making vermicomposting 100% organic.

Third, the vermicomposting progress is fast. In general, 2 pounds of red wiggler worms will decompose 1 pound of waste within 24 hours. The ability of worms to consume their weight daily means that the system has high-throughput and is able to handle the waste-generation requirements of students in residences.

Fourth, the compost produced by the worms can be sold as an excellent fertilizer. The vermicompost increases soil workability, water holding capacity, erosion, while moderating temperature of the soil environment. Compost also enhances microbial action in the soil, further increasing the remineralisation of soil nutrients for plant use.

Finally, vermicomposting has a great educational value, as it exposes you to the first-hand practicality and benefits of vermicomposting.

We are looking to double the number of vermicomposters to 22 next year and we have submitted a 26-page report to residence administration proposing this expansion.

Trevor Shah is a second-year commerce student at Queen’s University and is one of the four founding members of the Vermicomposting program.

Poll results: The Optimal waste management solution...

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

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

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

Total votes = 21

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

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

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

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

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

Why would you cut a Conservation Authority?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll results: How much would you be willing to pay for water?

Dear readers,

The poll results are in. We had a total of 13 votes (not bad for the first poll). Chris and I will be posting poll questions more regularly now to provoke thought and some debate. Our first poll question was "How much would you be willing to pay for water?". This question was based on paying for water on a monthly basis:

$1.00= 0 votes
$5.00= 2 votes (15%)
$20.00= 5 votes (38%)
$50.00= 0 votes
Nothing. It should be free= 6 votes (46%)

Total votes = 13

While the sample is small it still speaks to some variation in the results. Every household in Peterborough pays roughly $18-$45 a month for water. I pay $18 a month but a house on a larger lot with more "rooms" might pay a lot more than me. As mentioned in the past, the water rate for Peterborough operates on a fixed amount i.e. you pay the same amount for water every month so consuming 10,000 litres or 15,000 litres of water will not make a difference to the amount you pay because you are not metered.

Enviroboys recognizes the fundamental importance of water. Some people think we shouldn't pay anything for water (because Canada has so much of it). That's true in theory, but it all depends on where you are getting your water from. The other side to that argument is that water is a human right and everyone should be entitled to it. Also a valid point but how realistic is this in a future where water supplies are dwindling and people are fighting over it?

For those who responded to the poll and are water metered, I envy you. Because ultimately, both you and I can be consuming the exact same amount of water monthly but I pay $18 and you pay $10 (based on whatever the price is on units consumed). Because I pay a flat rate, I am not rewarded for using less water (in fact I could use as much as I want).

Sooner or later, everyone in Canada is going to start paying for how much water they consume i.e. water metering. This can allow for sustainability and the conservation of Canada's most precious natural resource.

100 quick facts on water...

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

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

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

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

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

There are 95 more available at this Environment Canada link.

Key message: Water is life.

Water meters coming to Peterborough…

Water metering is becoming a popular municipal water conservation strategy. For those unfamiliar with water metering, it is when the utility company of the city measures the volume of water usage for your household. So essentially, running your tap for 5 minutes, taking 20 minute showers, or watering your lawn excessively will now cost you substantially.

The Peterborough Utilities Commission (PUC), the utility company that provides water and electricity to the city and its residents, has announced that they are going to install water meters in the near future. The exact date has not been officially confirmed but the installation process will take a number of months. They are going to install 25,000 meters (Pop of Peterborough ~78,000). This will cost $10 million and the costs will be built into water rates. This means that we will be paying for the installation of the meter and the meter itself.

Currently in the city, billing for water is based on the number of rooms in your house plus the size of your lots, plus an additional charge for those with a pool. The main rationale for metering in Peterborough is to minimize stress on the wastewater treatment plant. In short, with less water being used in your household, the amount of wastewater entering the city treatment plant will be reduced. This takes pressure off the system and decreases infrastructural costs (which are really expensive).

I have done extensive research on water metering for my honours thesis and I personally think that the PUC is installing meters because of Peterborough’s egregious water consumption rate. The average Peterborough resident consumes roughly 487 litres of water per day- the Canadian average is 343 litres per person per day. Other municipalities are raising their eyebrows with Peterborough`s rate, knowing that it should come down.

The city’s water consumption is well over the national average. Other cities that have had high water consumption rates have turned to metering to lower that consumption rate to something more sustainable. Stats Canada will tell us that cities with pricing structures have an average water utilization of 269 litres per person per day. Conversely, those with flat or fixed water rates use 457 litres per capita. Considering Peterborough currently has a fixed water rate structure, we are not too far off from the 457 L mark.

Because I am a big proponent of water metering I am not going to go on and on about its significant advantages. In short, with metering, residents are paying per unit of water consumed. Therefore, for many people the potential money savings will be an incentive to use less water. Residents can actually see their water consumption on their monthly bill and if it is excessive, then there is a great incentive to consume less to save money.

When you pay for water based on how much you consume, people raise the question of water privatization and social equity. Low income families of five or six people who use more water may find it hard to pay for their water as they are now paying based on units consumed. Other citizens may just be against the idea of paying for water because it is seen as “privatization”.

For these reasons, when cities introduce pricing structures to replace the conventional fixed rate system, guidance and education to residents must follow suit. Residents must be fully informed about the benefits of metering on the environment, the local economy and for future generations. The utility company does not have to carry out this public education, but other community organizations can step up to inform the public.

Key message: Water metering is great.. but it better be accompanied by public education otherwise people may not see its benefits, purpose and be angry because they are now paying for water. With water meters in Peterborough, it is estimated that water usage based on consumption should reduce city water demands by ~15-20%.

On another note, this is our 200th post. Thank you everyone for your ongoing interest in reading this blog. On Tuesday of this week, Chris and I presented our blog to my Environment and Communications class. We talked about our experiences with blogging, why we do it and how much fun we have.

Are Canadians becoming more conservationist-minded?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservation often makes the most economic sense...sort of...

I recently saw a presentation by an architect & professor of architecture, Michael Pelken, from Syracuse University, on integrated wind technologies. Among other things, his talk focused on a now notorious offshore wind farm proposed to be built off the coast of Cape Cod in the Northeastern United States. The proposal was met with so much opposition from the local community that external designers (Mr. Pelken's group) were brought in to revamp the project.

The new proposal was quite impressive, though a tad impractical (as conceptual designs always seem to be). But the biggest piece of the design that stuck out to me was the idea to minimize the number of wind turbines (from 130 to 50) and offset the lost power generation with energy conservation measures (better lighting, smart meters etc) in the surrounding communities. Building less turbines would be cheaper and so the leftover cash could be put into the conservation measures.

This is a particularly attractive idea, especially for publicly-owned utilities. Instead of spending millions of dollars, time and other resources trying to site new renewable energy facilities (wind farms, solar farms, small-hydro dams), they could instead use the funds they would have put into the project into conservation measures, as the total energy saved could often equal or surpass the amount of energy that the project would have produced. This can also be a much cheaper process, both in money and time, as you won't have to deal with the same level of opposition that you might if siting a large project.

But it strikes me that this strategy would only be effective for public utilities, such as Peterborough Utilities (which already operates several conservation programs) and the Ontario Power Authority. The problem lies in the private and semi-private power generation companies (such as Ontario Power Generation).

The problem is quite simple. If your business is to produce energy, there is no profit in conservation. You want to build your project, make energy and sell it back to the grid. This is not always a bad thing. After all, it's now highly encouraged to build renewable energy systems.

And from a business and macro-economic perspective, power generation over conservation certainly works into the pro-growth model. And new projects can often look better politically, as people, companies and organizations become impressed with the project, especially in this new era of renewable development. But as we're seeing, unsustainable growth (a model without much conservation) is fraught with problems.

There will always be a hefty demand for energy in Canada, regardless of conservation and efficiency measures (we can only conserve so much), so this is certainly not a call for the cessation of energy projects. And we certainly need more renewables adding to the grid. But if the ultimate goal is to reduce GHG emissions while still being economically viable, perhaps governments should shift a portion of their immediate focus away from the often slow development of renewables and put those resources into conservation. It might not make millions of dollars, but it will certainly save millions of them.

Energy Conservation in Toronto…

On average, about 20% of your home electricity costs are attributed to lighting.

This past weekend I was working an event called “Spring Turn On” at a Home Depot location in Toronto. It is a two weekend event (May 23rd/24th and May 30th/31st) at Home Depot and Canadian Tire locations across the city. Toronto Hydro, the largest electricity utility in Canada, is the main organizer with aims to inform customers about the latest energy conservation programs available in the city. Summerhill Group, my employer is a company dedicated to transforming markets to achieve sustainability. They are running the event in conjunction with Toronto Hydro, Home Depot and Canadian Tire.

For both Saturday and Sunday, store customers found themselves wandering around curious to find the latest deals and bargains on new cool appliances. Once customers noticed our presence they were filled with excitement and irrational exuberance desperate to grab their free compact fluorescent light bulb. We provided 350 free CFLs to the first 350 customers which served as a great avenue to educate inform and discuss the numerous benefits that CFLs serve. There is more to it however, the customers were required to fill in a quick survey on energy conservation in Toronto so that Toronto Hydro can identify what part of the city their from, their knowledge on energy efficient strategies and how often they participate in these eco events. We are also providing $4 rebate coupons for all Energy Star Certified light bulbs, and $10 coupons for power bars with timers.

One of my responsibilities was to inform and educate customers on Toronto Hydro’s peak saver program. In short, only residents who have centralized air conditioners and/or water heaters are eligible. Why? In the summer months when residents profligately run their air conditioners, it contributes to peak demand because everyone in the city is doing it. So, Toronto Hydro figured that by installing peak savers on air conditioners for absolutely free and providing a $75 gift card in the process, residents would feel more inclined to have it.

How does it work? During peak periods, Toronto Hydro will send a signal to the AC or water heater to interrupt power to the appliance for a short time. Air conditioners are cycled off for 15 minutes out of every 30 minutes. This way, a lot of pressure is taking off of the hydro system thereby reducing demand and keeping the cost of power lower in the future. Additionally, this reduces the need to import electricity.

We are also informing people about “time of use” pricing. Both smart meters and time of use pricing help minimize peak demand. Let’s say for example you want to use your clothes dryer and it is 6 pm in the evening. Chances are a lot of people are using their dryers at this time and will have to pay the on-peak (highest price) of 8.8 cents per kWh. If you wanted to dry your clothes at 11:30 pm you would be paying off-peak (lowest price) of 4 cents per kWh. In other words, incentives do exist to encourage residents to think about when they wash and dry their clothes, use their AC and dishwasher.

Key message: “All electrical devices have two prices tags, the initial purchase price and the cost of operating it.”

The Battle Continues: Perception versus Reality

This image says a lot. Water consumption is profligate and a pervasive issue across this country. If we think that we use 66 liters of water per day per person, then our thinking is completely skewed. A conventional toilet uses 13 L of water when you flush it. Many of us drink upwards of 2 liters of water per day. Showering, cooking and washing our dishes easily adds well over 100 L of water used per day. Add up the facts and stats and we're already well over 66 L of water. As much as Maude Barlow would disagree with the pricing and metering of water, it certainly enforces a conservation ethic which is badly needed.

Water consumption habits are egregious across urban centres in Canada. Managing water and knowing how much it costs to be delivered to our homes allows us to see the true value of it. Environment and economics are crucial here as we must recognize water as a vital and finite natural resource and as a human right, but additionally we must think about its scarcity and how pricing the resource in urban settings can allow citizens to re-think their water consumption habits.

Key message: Cheap water leads to more demand. Canadians have the highest per capita consumption of water in the world. 66 L of water per day is completely different than 439 L of water per day per person. Our perception of water consumption must change in order to conserve our water resources and maintain an adequate supply for future generations.

Drip Irrigation has its place…

I am reading more these days on the latest technological innovation for water conservation. Specifically, I am looking at the agricultural sector of Canada and California. Agriculture accounts for ~ 70% of Canada’s water supply which means that a vast amount of water withdrawals are from farmers mostly for irrigation purposes. However, water is more abundant in Canada than California and shortages in this populated state have driven technological innovation in the area of water conservation.

In California, irrigation use constitutes a massive share of the water withdrawals from the Delta and San Joaquin River - the Delta and San Joaquin river make up the biggest water distribution system for the state. In fact, it provides drinking water for 25 million people and supports California’s trillion dollar economy and $27 billion agricultural sector. With current water shortages in southern California, the importance of actually conserving water has become an omnipresent reality. Farmers are looking at ways in which they can optimally conserve their water resources to maintain adequate supply. A quick solution: drip irrigation.

The conventional methods of water irrigation include flood and sprinkler irrigation. However, the irrigation efficiency for both methods ranges from ~ 40-65% because some water is lost in this process as runoff occurs through percolation and evaporation because the surfaces or soil cannot drain vast amounts of water at a single time. But generally, flood irrigation is inefficient because a lot of water is used and not all of it is drained or absorbed by the soil but instead runs off into rivers and is lost. By contrast, drip irrigation systems reduce percolation below the root zone and increase soil absorption of water. Water is delivered closer to the soil and plant roots and this reduces evaporation losses that would normally be lost in a flood irrigation process.

It saves ~ 25-95% of water compared with flood irrigation. How does it work? It requires rigid plastic pipes that are laid on the surface or buried below ground in each crop row at the root line. Small holes allow the water to drip from the pipe directly to each plant root system. The amount of water applied is regulated by the hole size in the distribution tubes and the water pressure in the system. For a diagram, see here.

Places with large agricultural sectors like Israel and California have started using this technology. Tomato farmers in the famous San Joaquin Valley of California have installed drip irrigation systems. Farmers found that yields increased 5.4 tonnes per acre to 10.1 tonnes per acre using drip irrigation technology. Sure it is expensive, but any novel water conservation technology these days ain’t cheap. This is why state governments in the US are allocating more funding and providing subsidies to farmers who use this technology. In sum, drip irrigation allows you to use less water for your crops and plants but allows you to increase your yields because every drop of water is being used and very little is lost.

Key Message: Water conservation requires all stakeholders to be involved. The agricultural sector is an indispensable player and recent initiatives like drip irrigation need to be actively pursued. Conserving water is economically advantageous but requires some initial investment to get the ball rolling.

Rainwater Harvesting...

In Canadian cities, the average precipitation rate is between 260 to 1500mm per year. BC, Manitoba and Saskatchewan typically have higher annual rainfall than other Canadian provinces. During wet years with high annual rainfall, a lot of the water runoffs into local streams, rivers and watersheds. Alas, we are not effectively trapping this water and using it in productive and efficient ways. Rainwater harvesting is simply gathering, accumulating or storing rainwater.

Rainwater harvesting significantly alleviates the pressures placed on municipal water systems. Outdoor water use in particular, contributes to peak demand and puts pressure on infrastructure capacity. Irrigation for example, draws heavily from municipal water systems in times of high demand and low supply. Municipalities should promote decentralized infrastructure to harvest rainfall and create outdoor xeriscaped spaces that rely on precipitation for irrigation.

Like green roofs, municipalities can create incentives for rainwater harvesting to ensure developers of new buildings, subdivisions and residential units include water efficient landscaping from the start. The common fact and statistic associated with this technological phenomenon is this: in a dry climate with only 20 to 30 mm of monthly rainfall, rainwater harvesting can collect enough water to irrigate 25 to 40 square meters of lawn or garden area. This saves roughly 121 litres per capita per day. More importantly however, and similar to green roofs, rainwater harvesting improves urban stormwater quality, reduces erosion and flooding associated with high rainfall and reduces demand on centralized municipal water systems.

Key message: As a country with a relatively high annual rainfall rate, rainwater harvesting must be actively pursued. We need to take advantage of the precipitation that falls on our landscapes. Canadian outdoor water use in the summer time is profligate, adopting rainwater harvesting technology is more of a decentralized approach giving the citizen more independence. Ultimately, the more decentralized a water system is, the more citizens recognize the merits of water conservation.

How to value the environment?

Tim and I were recently graced with the presence of the new Socio-Economic Analyst at Ontario Parks, Will Wistowsky. During a lecture to our class and a subsequent lunch thereafter, Will, an economist, explained to us some of the methods, challenges and benefits of placing measurable values on different parts of the environment, particularly those of National Parks.

With regards to National Parks, Will argued that we (more directly, the government) do not properly value National Parks, despite some of the world's greatest natural settings and a societal recognition of the worth of these natural areas. The federal government only puts in approximately $250 million into the park system annually, 1/100th of the funding put towards national defence.

According to Will, the problem is that we don't measure the economic value of parks properly by only looking at the direct use benefits, i.e. recreation, tourism etc. However, a variety of other benefits should also be taken into consideration, such as the benefits accrued from research of the parks and property values near the park (try finding a cheap condo in Canmore, AB), but also the non-use values, such as the value of the ecosystem, the value of leaving the park to future and generations and even something as holistic as the value of a view. Taking into account all of these values produce what is called the Total Economic Value, which in some park cases, was 50% higher than the value given my government measurements.

The non-use values are tougher to figure out. How do you put an economic value on something like a plant or a view? It's difficult and perhaps unethical, but economists are willing to try. Economists use the concept known as Willing to Pay (WTP), whereby one can measure the value of something based on what people are willing to pay for it. Any total amount of WTP over the current price or value is known as the Net Benefit. For example, Will measured the value of a canoe trip. While Ontario Parks charged on average $2/day for canoe trips, the WTP was much higher, usually around $50-60/day, although the WTP would gradually fall over the number of days. Using WTP, one can infer a Total Economic Value of a certain environmental service, which when combined with other services, can give you the value of something as large as a park.

But why is this important? For one, parks don't receive enough funding. If the Total Economic Value was considered, park funding should increase to reflect that value. Often, parks are not completed, created or expanded because of the potential value of resources located on that land. However, if we were to properly value parks, we may find that the Total Economic Value of parks may actually be more than that of resource development.

True, the WTP concept and many other economic analyses of the environment are full of holes (are they truthful? how accurate is it? doesn't everyone have different values?), but Will made one very good point that should be remembered. Without placing some kind of comparable value on the environment, it gets a very low economic value, with which we subsequently use to treat it like crap.

At least with WTP and other value-based analyses, we can place a comparable value on the environment. It is merely a step in the right direction, but a very important step.

Green roof technology and its proponents...

Green roofs are fascinating. They are starting to be a good source of discussion in the environmental policy sphere. They are starting to take off in North American cities and have been popular in Europe for decades. Green roofs are mainly developed for storm water management. A lot of the roof tops on buildings found within urban centers have impervious surfaces. When precipitation falls on the roofs, it runs off into the sewer system on the roads below. When rain falls in heavy amounts, it gradually degrades the roofs and building infrastructure making it very expensive to replace over time. Local vegetation, reducing the urban heat island effect and managing storm water are all notable features of a green roof.

With more gardens and vegetation on roof tops, more rainwater is retained. Some green roofs in British Columbia have little wells on the roofs that direct water into an underground aquifer. The water is trapped and saved for watering vegetation in droughts or dry seasons. Local vegetation provides for the local market providing fresh and organic alternatives. Local vegetation or quite simply growing food locally has numerous benefits and will be critical for our future. Cities like Hong Kong are really progressive with green roof technology. 50% of Hong Kong's vegetation is grown within the city limits on roof tops and high-rises.

Other cities like Berlin, Portland and even Toronto have been rapidly bringing about these urban sustainability solutions. Why is this even happening? Because urban areas often lack green space and biodiversity and are trying to think of innovative ways to integrate urban infrastructure with green space; and therefore green roofs are becoming viable options. 50% of German cities offer subsidies to building owners for installing green roof systems. For example, let's look at Berlin. Berlin’s subsidy program reimburses residents 50% for green roof construction costs and in 1997, resulted in 63,500 m² of green roofs built across the city. This has improved storm water management tremendously and has provided citizens with more local food options. One thing Toronto is doing is running pilot projects to see how viable they are. Toronto’s Green Roof Incentive Pilot program offers a grant of $10m² to eligible green roofs. Developers are finding this appealing because it will only save them on infrastructure costs in the future.

Key Message: Green roofs are an urban sustainability solution, funding from the local government to install them is a good first step. Providing market-based incentives, running pilot projects and involving the public in the process are the essential first steps. Regulation or a green roof bylaw, should only be considered if the first steps have not worked.

Making the tough decisions...

One of Tim's most recent posts discussed five simple ways in which we can all be 'greener'. It was a great post and I highly encourage everyone to take any or all of those five steps.

But unfortunately, not every part of making our lives 'greener' can be accomplished on our own, even if we think they can. Humans are not perfect and we will often do things that will harm the environment (even though we might think it awful), especially if there is no incentive for us to do otherwise or if that incentive is not large enough.

I will use myself as an example. My shower in my rented house is pretty crappy, so when I find myself in a very nice shower (say, at a hotel or my parents' home), I tend to take much longer showers than normal. They're too long, waste lots of water and I know it. But I really love it.

It's almost like a guilty pleasure, except rather than potentially doing harm to me, it's also doing harm to other people and the environment.

So what can we do about it? Self-discipline is the most obvious option, but clearly it doesn't work. If someone who is an advocate of water conservation can't help himself sometimes, then how on Earth can we expect the majority of the population to also do so, even though they may also be aware they're probably doing harm to the environment?

The problem is that the incentives to not harm the environment are not there, at least in Canada. We have abundant resources and loads of space. From an environmental point of view, we're sitting pretty. We know we're wasting water, but we can't see the effects. The same goes for climate change. We can have these consequences of our actions drilled into us for eternity, but until we actually see it with our own eyes, we won't take it as seriously. That's human nature. But then it might be too late.

What we need are incentives. And they would need to hit us immediately, rather than a delayed consequence, like climate change may bring. Be it regulations, economic incentives or something else, we as relatively well-off Canadian human beings need someone to make those hard decisions for us. I certainly wouldn't take such a long shower if it cost me as much as lunch.

The stuff we can do on our own is great, and if you can change those things in your life, do it, but not everyone has the self-discipline to shift their lives around in the 'green' direction. So if government or any other policymaker decides to implement a policy that may make life a little more difficult in the name of the environment, don't immediately fight it. Take a second look because they might be making the decision you haven't been able to make on your own.

Optimal ways to conserve water...

Chris and I are currently working a project for our public policy class. We are researching water conservation through a public policy lens. We're in a group of four and each of us are undertaking research on how various stakeholders are involved with water conservation. Stakeholders like the industrial/commercial sector, agricultural sector, government, and most importantly residential and households. We are coming across some pretty fascinating stuff. A lot of research has been done on water quality issues but necessarily on water quantity. From a Canadian context, water quantity is not a pressing issue. Remember we do have 20% of the world's water and our municipalities allocate it pretty evenly.

Now, Canada does have an abundant amount of water, but a lot of the precipitation that falls from our sky runs off to the north. 60% of this water supply flows north and is not readily available or easily accessed where it is needed. 84% of Canada's population lives within a 300-kilometer band along the southern border. What we have discovered through our research thus far, is that water pricing in municipalities across Canada to encourage water conservation, is not very common. Typically, water pricing or metering can encourage households to conserve water. Municipalities that have introduced water pricing, have seen a reduction in residential water usage.

Yes I know that water pricing is highly controversial. We are not living in the South West United States where water is scarce. But in general, pricing and/or metering provides a financial incentive to householders to use less water. Alternatives to pricing do exist, and can be pursued at full swing provided that there is a willingness from the municipality and households. Do not forget, municipalities or urban areas have thousands if not millions of residents who use anywhere from 300L to 500L of water everyday. Education and technological improvements in water infrastructure are the best alternatives to water pricing. I am not a huge advocate of water pricing although I think it works well. Technology has been promoted as a means to conserve water through the use of ultra-low-flow toilets, restricted shower heads, and water efficient washing machines. Low flow shower heads are great too.

In sum, households in Canada use a fair bit of water. According to the OECD, Canada ranks 29th among the 30 OECD nations in terms of per capita water consumption. The US is the only country that's worse than us. Outdoor water usage is the most egregious. Things like car washing, lawn watering excessively, pool filling and washing our driveways. Again technology exists to help us with this, things like efficient lawn water devices and xeriscaping. Xeriscaping simply refers to landscaping that does not require a lot of irrigation where you're using more indigenous and drought-tolerant plants in your garden. The government can certainly come to play and provide incentives and rebates to households who show interest in making improvements to their water infrastructure. Even tax credits where the resident receives a direct reduction in tax liability for installing technology can eventually cut water usage in half.

Key message: Pricing water in Canadian municipalities has not yet been fully implemented at a large scale. Some municipalities have introduced it and water consumption has dropped significantly. Water pricing is one way to go, but educational campaigns that inform residences about how much water they are using can be equally as effective. Technology is also good and can make a big difference. What should we do?

Why is Extended producer responsibility important for waste management?

Climate change, urbanization, conservation and bottled water are all among popular topics in environmentalism. What we do not always talk about is waste management. Waste management is a really salient field that is only becoming more important as we search for more efficient and environmentally friendly ways to dispose of our waste. Something that I find really interesting is extended producer responsibility (EPR). There are several approaches and techniques that municipalities employ when dealing with waste but extended producer responsibility is not always at the forefront.

Extended producer responsibility is a policy tool premised on the prevention of waste disposal involving the manufacturing industry and giving them the responsibility to collect their products after use by consumers. In short, the industry, not the government, is responsible for internalizing waste management costs in their product prices. The EPR strategy is best epitomized by the Beer Store. All beer bottles that are purchased at the store by the consumer can be sold back to the manufacturer as the Beer Store will re-buy the bottles that they have sold you. Although they buy the bottle back from the consumer at a low cost, it still encourages recycling and reusing.

I think the extended producer responsibility model should be adopted and enforced vigorously across the country. British Columbia is the only province that has been pro-active in implementing such a policy. Through British Columbia’s ‘full product stewardship’ legislation, all parties with a role in designing, producing, selling or using a product are responsible for minimizing the environmental impacts of the product over its life. Cutting down on waste will require legislation that stipulates that all industries have the obligation to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills, reduce the use of hazardous materials in products, and increase the recycled content of consumer products.

EPR teaches both producers and consumers about their waste habits and educates them about the steps needed for creating a sustainable society prone to high waste diversion. Finally, an EPR policy can stimulate innovation in manufacturing companies through reducing materials, resources and energy usage.

Key message: This is an efficient and recycling sound initiative that not only educates consumers about conservation and recycling, but provides them with an economic incentive to be greener. Waste management only becomes a more transparent and an environmentally friendly process when industries are on board. What better way to do this than through the implementation of an extended producer responsibility policy.

Campus composting...

Composting is one of those environmental initiatives that has the potential to be very effective. Composting on Trent's campus has been around for a couple of years but has been vigorously pushed of late. We now have a comprehensive campus wide composting program that collects things that you would not expect your typical compost to collect i.e. waxed paper, paper sandwich wraps and paper plates. In the 2006-2007 academic year our campus composted something like 15,000 kg, an adequate yet relatively small amount given our student population. On the plus side, our composting trends have improved and are starting to look more hopeful. We composted about 56,000 kg last year alone.

I am conducting a campus composting survey this week for one of my classes and in collaboration with the Sustainability Office of our university. The questions are quite eclectic but mainly revolve around common attitudes and perceptions to composting i.e. advantages to such a program, is it well advertised? Which buildings on campus have the highest trends of composting etc. The results are going hopefully reveal a lot of critical data and information- information that we're going to put into a report to make recommendations on how to make the composting program more efficient and effective provided that resources are made available. Composting is one of those things that requires mutual responsibility from the producer and consumer and to a certain degree, it requires social solidarity. Students, faculty and staff are only going to compost if they are aware and informed about its advantages, and if they understand the merits of conserving waste and making waste diversion a more thorough process.

The survey will have a variance in responses and attitudes to composting. I will share them as time progresses.

Local action on climate change...

Action on climate change needs to start happening at the local level. Cities in particular have the potential to be the biggest leaders on climate change action given that there is a willingness to bring about initiatives. While it is understood that city budgets are often constrained and limited in terms of spending, they need more access to funding from other levels of government. There are numerous things that I can speak to but I want to draw on the region of Waterloo.

Cities in the Waterloo region (Cambridge, Kitchener, Waterloo) have been very pro-active on climate action initiatives. After all, these cities were among the biggest promoters of the EnerGuide for Houses Program. In short, the EnerGuide for Houses program was formally launched in 1998 and administered by the Office of Energy Efficiency. The impetus for this audit program was to inform homeowners about how much energy they were consuming, and subsequently provided steps to the homeowner about how they could improve the energy efficiency of the house and the expected energy savings. All those who participated in the program noticed energy savings of $750 every year.

Through establishing demand-side management with the local electric utilities company, the region of Waterloo has been effective in tackling climate change. Over the years Waterloo did encounter challenges with obtaining money from the federal government to continue the program. However, all three municipalities in the region have continuously been strong advocates of energy efficiency. Citizens were actively engaged in the program and worked with their local utilities. With civic leadership at the forefront, homeowners were informed about how to retrofit their homes to make them more energy efficient. In essence, this is sound municipal and citizen collaboration. The program just needed money to be administered. Remember, cities do not have a large source of revenue and are financially strained when introducing new programs.

Key message: cities need to have access to funding, especially for administering energy audits to ensure that the actions stimulated by the cost incentive are most appropriate or provide the best return for homeowner investment. Local climate action from cities and municipalities are indispensable for raising awareness of the issue and informing people about the merits of energy conservation and the cost savings associated with it. Local programs like EnerGuide for Housing are important for taking meaningful action on climate change.