Scientists and the blogosphere...

Scientists should write blogs. To quote from an article written by Nature (one of the world`s top science journals) "The standard scientific paper is irreplaceable as a fixed, archivable document that defines a checkpoint in a body of work, but it's static, it's very limited”. Scientists should continue to publish in journals, but they should provide a synopsis of their research via blogs.

When scientists communicate their research to the public, more of a discussion takes place. Whether it is climate change research or geo-engineering- people can formulate their opinions on the subject matter if it is made publicly available.

People from other academic communities learn about the research and about its applicability to society. As one author from Nature writes “academia is a marketplace of ideas”. As such, ideas can be more informally shared within the academy through wikis and blogs. Anyone can read them. Scientists produce material that is controversial at times and highly criticized by other members of the science community. Once scientists put a description of their paper on a blog, people far from the usual circle start thinking about the subject.

In the blogosphere, scientists analyze a topic and provide discussion over it- information that is educational and generally interesting. This discussion is usually more interactive, inclusive and engaging.

In terms of environmental debates, blogging is the ultimate information engine comprising arguments and opinions from various individuals. Environmental debates are current with blogging and the insight is more in-depth. A journal publication in a scientific paper, while highly scholastic, is limited to readers and analysis from other communities.

Blogging is also a challenge for some of these scientists because they have to communicate jargon and scientific terms to an audience that will understand them. This theoretically makes the scientist think more carefully about language and how to communicate more effectively to environmental debates. Generally we know that scientists are not the best communicators to the public. I think blogging can help with this.

One main risk identified by the Nature article is “many scientists don't blog because they fear it has a poor image and could damage their careers.” Blogging is not universally accepted in academia, supervisors caution their students not to share academic information because others may steal their ideas. Or, it may be dangerous to share your academic work online because others may publicly criticize it deeming the author untrustworthy, biased, ill-informed etc. These impede the process of blogging acceptability, but this will change over time.

The benefits of blogging are wide-ranging: sharing novel research ideas allows for collaboration. Scientists can work with others to produce ground-breaking scientific ideas. Blogging allows for other communities to read the work which can bring diverse opinions, knowledge and interests to the table.

Blogging in a sense does compromise the peer-review system (essential for journal publications). However, blogging is not meant to be an academic forum or research database, it is meant to generate discussion from all communities. Nature says “Once scientists come up with some sort of peer-review mechanism for blogs that increase their credibility, without diminishing their spontaneity, blogs will take off.”

Scientists may have their reservations about blogs but must understand its true purpose. A peer-review mechanism will add another dimension to the blogosphere ultimately making it more popular for the scientific community. But hopefully this does not transform blogging into an esoteric and inaccessible commentary base.

Key message: Blogging is for everyone. Scientists are researching very complex and salient topics that the public should be aware of. Keeping this information reserved in journals is not only exclusive, but disallows other academic communities to learn about the topic. Having said all this, please check out this science blog.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check out how it works at the economist here.

Trent University's New (Stupid) Parking Lot...

Every student campus in the country seems to have a parking problem. Trent is no different. Despite ever-increasing parking fees, more and more students, staff, faculty and visitors seem to drive to Trent. The obvious and easy fix for Trent's administration? Simply build more more parking lots.

Last week, a notice was posted on Trent staff accounts that the administration was considering building a new 25-space parking lot on the north-east end of the campus to deal with the influx of demand for parking spaces on the east side of the campus. The majority of classes are on the east side, most notably Trent's largest lecture hall, which seats between 300 and 400 people.

This got a few of us on campus fairly ticked off. One professor in particular was quite angered by the approach taken by the university. We quickly noticed several problems with the plan:

1) A new parking lot of 25 spaces will do little to actually satisfy the increased demand for parking,

2) Parking lots are less than environmentally friendly, especially when you take into account the ripped out trees and the fact that more cars will be driving to the school,

3) Parking lots are expensive! A typical surface-level parking lot is $4000 per space. This one parking lot will cost upwards of $100,000. That's outrageous.

4) It's a band-aid solution that does nothing to account for the actual source of the problem: people driving cars.

The professor quickly contacted those who might be interested, particularly those in the administration, as well as local green groups. He proposed instituting programs that might reduce the demand for driving, such as bike-friendly programs, car-pooling and public transit initiatives. These types of projects could certainly reduce the demand for parking by 25 people per day and at a far lesser cost than the parking lot.

One particular problem at Trent is not the total influx of cars, but rather the demand to park on the east side of the campus. The west side has tons of parking spaces that are frequently only half-filled. But they are so far away from everything that people are willing to pay the extra cost to park closer to the school. The solution may simply lie in playing with the prices of parking to such a degree that it becomes much more attractive to park on the west side of campus.

Even the parking authority got back to us asking for ideas because (they claimed) they don't want to build new parking lots.

This week, we were surprised to see construction crews ripping out trees and preparing to level out the land to put in the new parking lot. Clearly, the notice posted was not intended to be a request for consultation, but rather a statement advising us that it will be noisy for the next while.

Despite the enthusiastic dialogue with the administrative departments, this project had been approved ages ago, since it isn't that easy to approve a $100K project one day and have it constructed a few days later.

Trent has been doing a lot of silly spending these days -- no thanks to the inflow of cash being doled out for infrastructure projects under the federal stimulus. It has also taken a lot of flack for its involvement in a wide range of projects that have arguably lacked consultation. Hopefully it will soon slow itself down, talk to people and think about some of the decisions it is making.

Climate change contrasts: The frustrating reality...

Trent University recently launched its Centre of Knowledge in the Environment, which consisted of two days of speakers and environmentally-focused events throughout the community. I had the pleasure of taking part in several of these events, most notably a meeting with Bharrat Jagdeo, the President of Guyana.

Mr. Jagdeo was speaking later that evening as the keynote speaker for the launch, but a group of students and faculty were able to meet with him earlier in the day to discuss some of his initiatives, particularly what he and his country are offering in the global climate change arena.

Guyana sits in the northern part of South America and is largely made up of rainforest. The destruction of the rainforest in South America has been one of the key tenets of the global environmental movement for decades and as the global climate change debate unfolds, it is becoming clear that deforestation is one of the biggest players. Indeed, approximately 20% of the world's GHG emissions are a result of deforestation, as huge amounts of CO2 are released to the atmosphere through the process of cutting them down. More importantly, the forests, which use CO2 to grow, can no longer capture and sequester large amounts of CO2, leaving more to sit in the atmosphere and warm the climate.

Guyana, however, is providing the world with an unprecedented offer. Rather than making an absolute killing on its rainforest resources and harvesting all of it, it is offering to conserve its rainforest in exchange for a substantial amount of funding from the developed world. Using a variety of variables, Guyana estimates that the amount of funding required would be equivalent to $4/tonne of CO2. If put on some of the world's pre-existing carbon markets (ex. EU) it would be a steal, as a tonne of CO2 is currently trading in the $20 range.

What Mr. Jagdeo is really offering is a different way to value our environment. The true costs of exploiting our environment have long been evident, but these days it is really being brought to the forefront of the mainstream mind. If we can put a formal economic value on something that has up until now been without a one, it will allow things like forests to be integrated into our economies and hopefully discourage unsustainable environmental exploitation.

It was certainly an inspiring discussion. Here in front of us was a real-life world leader talking about real-world stuff. This man will be going to Copenhagen and meeting with other world leaders to try to convince them to buy into this system. Some called it refreshing to hear a world leader being so proactive about the climate issue. Indeed, it is certainly better than what you hear about in Canada.

Just today, the Globe & Mail reported that Canada's Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, has effectively quashed any hope of Canada signing on to any global GHG reduction agreement that many are hoping will be forged in Copenhagen this December. Instead, Prentice considers the meeting act as a catalyst to smooth out future meetings where an agreement can be formalized. Considering the success of the last big climate agreement, Kyoto, Copenhagen may very well turn out to be a bust.

The Canadian federal government's position is not unique. Plenty of other countries are not prepared to legally commit to significant emissions reductions.

It is certainly disheartening to realize that the inspiring Guyanan President you meet one day will be pitching his wonderful ideas to the likes of unenthusiastic Jim Prentice types.

Should we be thinking about urban containment policies?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raaawwwwrrrrr! Me eat wind turbine...

The opposition to wind power is becoming increasingly diverse. The disdain for the industry is no longer reserved for upset property owners, saddened bird and bat lovers, low-frequency electromagnetic wave health worriers or the powerful fossil fuel industry.

No, the newest threat to wind power is a giant, four-armed monster. Where these monsters can be found is so far uncertain, but warnings are being issued to the world on value-brand tissue boxes.

I took this picture of my sister's tissue box. At first (and still) am not sure whether the tissue company is advocating the destruction of wind turbines, or whether it is highlighting how these monsters will soon rid the world of all its trees and wind turbines. Unless of course, an unnamed band of green superheroes are able to fend it off with large orange balls.

If the latter is indeed the case, a certain irony can be found in the message: the monster is destroying trees and tissue paper is made from trees. So who is the box really attacking?

Whatever the reason, be prepared to see a few of these monsters at any upcoming town hall meetings on a wind power development. Just make sure to pack your orange balls.

Gwynne Dyer is coming to town...

On Wednesday, November 11th, Gwynne Dyer will be coming to Peterborough. Mr. Dyer is famed for his syndicated columns appearing all over the world and for his work as a political and military historian, as well as an all around expert on international affairs. I had the pleasure of seeing him speak several years ago on a different topic, but he is a fantastic speaker.

He will be talking about the subjects in his new book, Climate Wars, which explores the geopolitical battles (and wars, hence the title) that might come about as a result of climate change. It should prove to be an eye-opening, frightening and highly interesting experience.

Admission is free, but limited. Contact (705) 748-1011 ext. 6205 or email dyerlecture@trentu.ca to reserve your tickets.

The implications of population growth on water resources...

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

In brief summary, his main points are the following:

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

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

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

To read more, check out the post.

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

Stern on contemporary issues surrounding climate change...

Does everyone remember the Stern review on the economics of Climate Change? It was a 700-page report produced by Nicholas Stern, an economist in Britain. Released in October 2006, Stern wrote this paper to convince the British government and the world in general, that not taking action on climate change will have serious repercussions on the world economy. His two big buzz words were “mitigation” and “adaptability”.

Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions could be done through environmental taxes, carbon trading schemes and the more technological carbon capture and storage (CCS), which Chris has touched on in the past. Adaptability refers to the sustainable changes that we (mainly developed world) must make to our lives to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. This includes everything from driving less to minimizing our use of air conditioning. Adapting to new conditions brought about by climate change can be difficult, but these changes are critical for the well-being of our planet.

This video features an interview between Allan Greg and Stern. It is quite lengthy (27 minutes) but I encourage you to briefly look through it. Stern talks about his new book "The Global Deal" and gives insight into some of the real issues that surround climate change today. There are several interesting points that come out of the interview but the only one I will touch on is Canada’s role (Canada's role in the video starts at 21 minutes and 15 seconds). In brief, Stern says that Canada’s must have more of a leadership role on the equity aspects of climate change.

Being more vocal on deforestation for instance (deforestation accounts for 20% of global emissions) can set an example for developing countries who clear cut their forests. Canada’s abundance of forestry is highly advantageous from an economic point of view, but adopting more sustainable policies and showing the world that we actually care about our trees, can go a long way.

Stern also points to the massive renewable energy potential for Canada, especially for wind. Developing technologies in Canada like carbon capture or more efficient automobiles can demonstrate the feasibility of these technologies and create an impetus for other countries to explore them. Why should we explore them? We have money for research and development in Canada. Alas, money is not sufficiently allocated to these areas.

I guess anyone can ignore Canada’s leadership seeing as we are one of the highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. Nonetheless, collaborating with other countries and being more vocal on the numerous problems associated with deforestation can be highly useful. Maybe Canada’s role on deforestation policies will be better solidified at Copenhagen.

Key message: Climate change is complex. Collaboration on this issue is of fundamental importance.

A quick history of Toronto's urban development...

I just read a really interesting paper for my urban environments class. The article was written by a Trent Professor. It is all about Toronto’s urban development from 1940 to 1970. Importantly however, the article discusses the role that urban expertise played in developing the city.

Because Toronto was growing so rapidly in these thirty years, it was vital to draw on the knowledge of planners, engineers, scientists and property developers to find ways that were economically productive and environmentally sound. This thirty year period was also quite tumultuous for the city as certain professions were favoured over others. Over time however, cohesion was better reached.

Historically, we have witnessed a clash between expert authority and political authority. Take the example of the urban planner in the 1950s. The urban planner might have said that bringing about a green space in an urban community can have health and aesthetics benefits. However, it may be challenging for them because they lack political authority to get these decisions passed by a municipality.

This has changed ever since, but it must have been so frustrating for planner then, who had good ideas for community improvement but was neglected because of the infrastructural solution proposed by the engineer. The city government always approved the solutions in which they perceived had immediate economic benefits. As the progressive environmental era emerged, city planners and scientists were given more voice.

The conventional view to resolving environmental problems in the 1950s and 60s was engineering solutions. Making sewers and water supply systems more efficient for example. But, a key point of the article that I wanted to share with you is that rapid urban development creates the impetus to draw on diverse expertise. Urban problems are far too complex to solve for any one profession. Floods for example, require diverse response teams for adequate remediation.

Toronto’s urban development approach was different than many of its American counterparts. Toronto for example, realized the importance of creating highways to allow suburban residents to travel from home to work. The construction of these roads and highways did not obliterate or destroy neighbourhoods (mainly low-income) while being built- something that has happened in the U.S. Take the cross-Bronx expressway in NYC for example.

The amalgamation of such expertise led to the creation of the metropolitan Toronto council. This represented a diverse body and helped find practical solutions to deal with Toronto’s rapidly growing population. Even the creation of suburban developments like the famous Don Mills suburb, was carefully thought out in design to avoid severe environmental damage and providing populations with a chance to settle in non congested areas.

Key message: The history of city development is interesting. Rapid urban development in Toronto not only led to more cohesion amongst professions (and expertise) but led to practical environmental and economic solutions.

Stupid Green Ideas: No pee on this plane...

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it sitting in my inbox. The headline said it all: "Japanese airline wants you to go before boarding".

A Japanese airline, All Nippon Airways (ANA), has introduced a pilot program (pardon the pun) asking its passengers to use the washroom before boarding for a flight.

The reason, you ask?

ANA believes that if every passenger chooses to use the washroom before boarding, the weight of the plane will decrease, ultimately increasing fuel efficiency and reducing the level of greenhouse gas emissions from the flight.

Here's the math they use. On average, a human being carries up to one litre in their bladder, which weighs approximately one kilogram. Each flight can carry 247 passengers. So if everyone goes to the washroom before boarding, in theory the flight should be 247 kg lighter. Over the course of one month and 42 flights, ANA hopes to achieve a 5-tonne GHG reduction.

Several issues arise with this policy. Firstly, most people already go to the washroom before boarding a flight, so the theoretical savings are probably well overshot. And they certainly don't do this for the environment, but instead for convenience because they don't want to go through the hassle of lining up to use the shaky in-flight toilets.

Secondly, this could be a pain for passengers. Along with all the security protocols people have to go through these days at the airport, the last thing many people will want as they present their boarding pass is someone asking them if they have gone to the washroom yet. This was common when I was a kid, but it was my parents asking me, not airline staff.

Thirdly, this gives a bad name to environmental policies all across the board. It's fairly condescending and any backlash would not be particularly surprising. Hopefully its sheer silliness and short life span (fingers crossed) will lead it to be ignored and fall into the forgotten gallows of time forever.

One reporter on CBC made a very good point when she asked what might be next? Are they going to ask you to eat beforehand, too? (This wouldn't be all that effective either, though, considering the reputation for the quality of airline food...).

Unsurprisingly, Canada's major airlines are making no such steps. Westjet even called it "a bit extreme".

Let's just hope ANA flushes this one down the toilet. Before getting on the flight, of course.

Meet Canada's new Big Green Giant...

It took a few months, but Alberta's largest electricity generator, TransAlta, was finally able to finalize its takeover of Canada's largest renewable energy generator, Canadian Hydro Developers (CHD).

This is big. As it stands, the development of renewable energy in Canada has been fairly scattered as a multitude of different companies, utilities and community groups are installing 'green' power, primarily from wind, hydro, solar and biomass. The largest of these companies is CHD, generating nearly 700 MW from 21 wind, solar and biomass projects in B.C., Ontario, Quebec & Alberta. Those in Ontario may be familiar with its largest and most controversial wind project, the Wolfe Island Wind Project.

But today, TransAlta purchased CHD for $1.6B to significantly add to its green portfolio. TransAlta is known for its large coal-fired generation plants that generate nearly 4000MW, although it also dabbles in gas and some renewables. But acquiring CHD will put a lot of money behind renewables in Canada and could lead to a massive influx of grandiose renewable power projects.

This acquisition has several benefits for TransAlta. First, it makes them look greener. Coal is not cool anymore and being known as a coal giant degrades its reputation daily. Being green, however, is cool and people may look more favourably towards it.

Secondly, TransAlta intends to cease expansion of coal-fired generation plants in the next few years. Since energy companies like to grow, it leaves a sizeable (and profitable) gap of potential development. The new renewable projects will fill much of that gap, but more importantly, they will launch TransAlta into a sector that has nowhere to go but up, made especially enticing by considerable government incentives.

Thirdly, it gives TransAlta the right to any 'green credits' that might come along with a large cap-and-trade system. That is, groups creating green power will be given credits -- as opposed to having to purchase credits for GHG emitting behaviour, like coal plants -- that they can sell to other firms, or in TransAlta's case, use to offset some of the damage done by its GHG emitting gas and coal plants.

With the arrival of such a giant in Canada's renewable energy sector, the development of renewable power is hit with a question: What is the best way to go about deploying renewable energy? Is it through large companies like TransAlta that will be able to take advantage of massive economies of scale and significant resources to establish very large generation projects with an increased likelihood of encountering public opposition? Or should governments be focused on deploying them locally, through community-based power projects?

The presence of TransAlta will certainly make things interesting. And with the Green Energy Act coming into place, TransAlta's green future looks even more promising. But if its future projects are anything like Wolfe Island, you can be sure we'll stand witness to a big, windy fight.

An angry wind is blowing around Peterborough...

"No more wind! No more wind!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carbon tax in China...

Refresher: The carbon tax is among several market-based instruments that have the potential to spur incentives to develop and deploy carbon-reducing measures to mitigate climate change. Price increases on carbon emitting technologies can stimulate conservation measures, energy efficient investments, fuel and product switching and changes in the economy’s production and consumption structures.

While I have great hopes for China's rise in the 21st century, I am also somewhat dubious about their air pollution and environmental status. China`s economy is growing rapidly and this growth suggests that it will be one of the biggest economic giants of the world by 2030. With tremendous economic productivity, technological innovation and population growth, the country has numerous competitive advantages. However, air pollution and environmental degradation will do the country some severe harm and have multiple health implications. Air pollution for one can impede industrial productivity in the sub-urban areas due to health issues that the workers endure. Workers become ill and hence less productive. As factory workers learn more about air pollution issues, who knows how thing will turn out in these sub-urban areas.

In China, 200 million houses are going to be built with bricks in rural areas in the coming 30 years. Using bricks will take 25% of the top layer of the agricultural land and half of the coal reserves of the country to actually make these bricks. These industrial processes will spew out an abundance of carbon emissions and worsen its air quality, particularly smog.

The coal fire power plants (one of their greater sources of energy) are also vehemently condemned by the international community. While incredibly lucrative for China, they pose health issues for many of its citizens and contribute to an egregious carbon footprint globally. So, how can they resolve their air pollution and carbon emission crisis? Do you think a carbon tax would work for this nation? For a critical economic and environmental analysis on this issue, take a glance at this post courtesy of the marginal revolution.

Trent University, Aramark and Bottled Water...

Venture into a university campus across Canada and, when you find yourself hungry, you will likely be directed to a food court operated by Aramark. Be prepared to reach into your wallet. Deep into your wallet.

Aramark is an American giant. It is the 19th largest employer on the Fortune 500 and routinely generates nine-figure profits. It is one of the largest food service providers in the world, supplying businesses, sporting events and hospitals. But it is its role in schools, specifically Trent University, that I will dwell on in this discussion.

At Trent, Aramark holds a near monopoly on food service. With the exception of a small, basically student-run cafe, Aramark operates all five cafeterias on campus, including a small Tim Horton's satellite. Students living in residence are almost forced to buy into an outrageously priced meal plan and others are commonly found trying to scrape together the nine dollars charged for a simple burger and fries.

Several controversies have stiffened Trent's relationship with Aramark over the past years, but because of its efficiency and well-managed size, it is seen as an actor Trent can not live without. Even as its contract expired amidst student anger, Aramark was signed on again last year and was even granted permission to raise its meal plan prices nearly $300 -- citing commodity price increases -- from Trent's seemingly pro-business Board of Governors, a topic out of the scope of this piece.

But as much as I dislike Aramark's involvement at Trent, I will offer them some credit in relation to the work they have done with Trent's environmental student group, Sustainable Trent, of which I serve as an executive member. ST has worked with Aramark to develop notable, popular and successful programs. The Lug-a-Mug program, whereby customers using a re-usable mug receive discounts for beverages has been a hit, as has been the implementation of 'Resource Recovery Stations', organized and well-labelled stations to deposit waste, compost and recyclable goods. These are only a few of the many joint-programs.

But ST is embarking on what might be its most difficult project with Aramark: the ultimate ban of bottled water from campus. And since Aramark is in charge of the sale of all bottled water on campus, removing the beverage from its shelves is necessary for such a task. Although we are unsure of bottled water's share of revenue for Aramark, judging by the number of bottles seen around campus daily, it is a fairly significant share. Convincing a multi-national giant to drop the sale of such a lucrative product in even one of its locations is a tall order.

An anti-bottled water sentiment is slowly moving over the school. This summer, Trent held Canada's first bottled water-free convocation. Posters proclaiming the downsides of bottled water are frequently seen on campus and stainless steel water bottles are attached to nearly every backpack or bookbag you pass in the halls. Even bottled water filling stations, essentially modified water fountains, are being installed on campus after years of resistance from Trent administration and, I speculate, some influence from Aramark, who might see a significant drop in drink sales as thirsty schoolgoers will refrain from paying the two bucks for a Coke.

Aramark has even agreed to work with ST to develop a bottled water education campaign, but my pessimism predicts that the ST version might be considerably watered-down once Aramark goes through it (pardon the pun).

But bottled water is rapidly becoming an eyesore in the eyes of the public. Some schools have already banned the sale of the stuff and municipalities throughout Canada are banning the sale in its public buildings. Despite the arguments of bottled water companies and their distributors, it appears as though the battle might be leaning in the direction of the opposition.

That being said, ST certainly has its hands full. Keep your eyes peeled.

And remember, tap water is just as good, often safer and a hell of a lot cheaper. Buy smart.

Blogging part 2: Taking blogging to another level….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't steal bikes...

This picture should serve as a warning to any potential bike thieves.

Is the environmental attack on the Oil Sands going to make any headway?

A recent article in the Globe and Mail signalled that the fate of the hyper-destructive and very profitable Alberta Oil Sands might well be tipping in favour of those opposed to them. The article outlines the role the Norwegian state-owned oil company, Statoil, who has invested over $2B in the Oil Sands, is having in the country's federal elections.

Norway, from an international standpoint, is widely regarded as a friendly, progressive country, similar to its counterparts in Scandinavia. And even its historic oil industry -- Norway is the world's first country to employ a one-way CCS project -- is among the more respectable groups in the sector.

So being involved in the Oil Sands is sure to raise some eyebrows and rustle some feathers. The negativity of Statoil's involvement in the Oil Sands is so heavy that it could play a major role in the federal election as candidates from nearly every party are promising to carefully examine the role of Norway's state-owned company. One prominent leader is already offering to create environmental laws that would make it impossible for Statoil to even come close to getting involved with anything like the Oil Sands.

Norway is not the only one rethinking its involvement in Alberta. Even the Chinese government, whose state-owned oil enterprise is heavily invested in the Oil Sands, is looking at what's going on. The article also mentions that several Chinese journalists are on their way to take a tour of the areas surrounding the Oil Sands to witness the environmental destruction of the place.

But before we start to think that the tables have really turned and the Oil Sands are on their way to being shut down, let's just put a few things in perspective.

Statoil is state-owned. Generally speaking, state-owned energy companies have a lot more to answer to than their purely private contenders, especially in a country like Norway. The Chinese, although to a much lesser degree of social & environmental responsibility, are also state-owned. The downside is that the majority of investment in the Oil Sands is private. Private companies often, but not always, answer only to their shareholders who often, but again, not always, only want to make more money. The Oil Sands make money. Lots of it.

Secondly, keep in mind that it is election time in Norway. For those of us who have followed election campaigns, they are filled with promises. Often, these promises are politically charged and do not always come to fruition. Considering the length of time it would take to get out of there and the investment losses, the task of pulling out would be very difficult. I would not be surprised if this issue slowly fades away after election fever winds away.

Thirdly, and almost in summation, the Oil Sands are very, very lucrative. They are profitable for those involved and beneficiaries range from international partners (the United States) to domestic governments (Alberta). The Alberta government has certainly signalled more than once how little it really cares about the environmental consequences and its internal bureaucratic systems (see Andrew NikiForuk's Tar Sands) are far from being pro-environment. Furthermore, the Conservative stronghold of Alberta is almost insurmountable and if the current policies of both the Alberta and Federal Conservative government's is any indication, these policies are not going to change quickly.

And I wouldn't put too much money on Obama making a big deal about the Oil Sands anytime soon. His hands are full with his health care reform plan and any fight with the Oil Sands would surely have short-term economic consequences, which is the last thing he needs as the U.S. economy is starting to recover. Right now, he has bigger, more homegrown fish to fry.

I don't mean to sound like a pessimist, but the Oil Sands are big. Very big. I do not deny the environmental, economic and health damages due to the Oil Sands, but tackling such a beast is so complex and in my opinion, nearly impossible. However, I would urge those already fighting to shut down the Oil Sands to keep on doing what they're doing, as anything helps in the struggle against them.

But in some ways we need to be a bit realistic and make the best out of an already awful situation by looking more into conservation strategies, renewable energy markets and to pressure our elected officials. Perhaps we could at least reduce the demand for oil in this country. But really fighting the Oil Sands seems like a steep moutain to climb.

I can only hope I'm wrong.

Could a Congestion Charge Zone work in Mumbai?

A number of months ago I blogged about London’s Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ) which charges motorists 8 pounds when they enter the city's designated zone from 7am in the morning to 6pm in the evening. It has been heavily praised and vigorously condemned from citizens all over the city. Despite its contestation and political controversy, it has increased public transit ridership and has led to an overall decrease in traffic congestion in the city along with a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

The CCZ scheme is effective in London as the statistics clearly demonstrate. Could such a system work in Mumbai, India? Its population is about 13.9 million not to mention a population density of 21,000 people per square kilometer. Automobiles are ubiquitous. They are inexpensive and everyone has one. If Mumbai brings about a CCZ the state (not city) would charge residents a cost (to be determined). This is one solution however, the city is also looking at other options. For instance, it may build a metro system connecting the densely populated suburbs of east and west Mumbai. It may implement a Bus Rapid transit system similar to the one in Curitiba, Brazil. They are also exploring air conditioned train coaches.

Mumbai appears to have many options. The IT company Mastek, who was principally responsible for putting London’s CCZ into practice, is being turned to for solutions. The CCZ has proven to work in the massive metropolis of London but implementing such a system in Mumbai could face tremendous social and economic opposition. Public transit infrastructure desperately needs revitalization. Many of the city’s residents simply drive because cars are cheap, more convenient and more dependable than the eroding and dilapidated transit services.

The city has a documented propensity to spend a lot of capital on city infrastructure. The only problem is that this time around the capital is non-existent, and hence public transit has no money. The key point is that reducing aggregate emissions from vehicles will only take place with a good public transit system. An adequate transit system would have unambiguous advantages, the risk however is that the residents may not even use it- frustrated about how they are being taxed and they could even condemn it stating that driving is cheaper than taking the transit.

Key message: A CCZ in Mumbai would undoubtedly raise the necessary capital to expend on public transit revitalization. It would also help with Mumbai’s pollution challenges. But it may be economically burdensome on the city’s residents who are highly dependent on using the roads.

Green Cities: Peterborough is one of Canada's most walkable cities...

Nevermind the fact that Westjet and walking are at the opposite sides of the spectrum, but the airline's magazine, Up, along with the Canadian Federation of Podiatric Medicine (foot doctors) recently announced what it believes to be Canada's most walkable cities. Vancouver took first prize, followed by Toronto, Victoria and Halifax.

But in fifth place and the highest ranked small city is our very own Peterborough.

Peterborough's walkability is certainly something it can be proud of. I have been here for three years and have walked much of it. There are over 62 km of walking & hiking trails in the city limits that make it very comfortable and easy to get around.

Unlike many other cities, Peterborough's downtown core is located within easy walking distance to a series of diverse neighbourhoods, making it very easy for those from all walks of Peterborough life to walk downtown. And it is downtown where much of the action is.

Many of the city's trails are very well-maintained and link to all sorts of landmarks in the city, including the large Liftlock, Trent University even the Wal-Mart (if you so desire...). As a result of its wonderful walkability -- and perhaps income also plays a part -- there is only an average of 1.4 cars per residence in the city.

Walking is important, especially in a city. I often talk about the advantages of using a bicycle, but sometimes a walk can be much more appropriate. What a wonderful, sociable and clean way to get around.

Way to go, Peterborough.

Preston Manning's changing climate and some right wing bashing...

I was as surprised as the National Post's Peter Foster.

Last week, Preston Manning teamed up with the CEO of a "green" investment company, Andrew Heintzman, to deliver a piece of writing all too rare a sight to the eyes that commonly scan the pages of the National Post. Their editorial, 'Our (quality of) life depends on it', is an all-encompassing argument for investment in renewable technologies and the need for Canada to significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

To those of us who regularly wander through the pages of environmentally progressive newspieces and blogs, this kind of story is nothing new: Canada needs more renewables; the oil sands are bad; market-based instruments and government intervention is needed; Canada can harness all of this and benefit economically. But two things make this editorial stand out.

First, it appears in the National Post. The National Post is widely considered to be the more conservative of Canada's national newspapers and its columnists and guest editorialists are frequently known to bash government intervention and environmentalism at any chance they get. Some might even say the paper -- which is currently in dire financial straits -- is one of last relatively reputable safehouses for those who still believe anthropogenic climate change is a hoax.

Secondly, it was co-authored by Preston Manning. His involvement in the piece might be the only reason the National Post published it. Many of us, myself included, might be too young to remember Preston Manning in the public spotlight. My main recollection was that he reminded me a lot of Mr. Rogers and while watching the news or election coverage, my parents would continue to remind me that he and his buddies are on the bad team.

Well, for those of us with a more progressive view, Preston Manning and his buddies -- The Reform Party -- were the bad team. The party evolved throughout the late 1980s and had even gained the position of the Official Opposition in the late 1990s, although much of its strength lay in Western Canada and the Prairies, which continue to be a conservative stronghold. The party was often seen as an extremist right-wing party, advocating for everything from prohibiting abortions, taking a stance against homosexuals and other intolerant views to reducing the role of government and significantly cutting taxes. Its members were incredibly controversial, often referred to as xenophobes, homophobes and racists. Quite simply, these were not the folks preaching environmental protection, especially if the government were involved. (Thank goodness for Google).

But Manning was slightly out of tilt with the rest of his former party. He wasn't quite as intolerant as some of his fellow members and was quite the pragmatist. One elder family member of mine -- a well-entrenched left-winger -- told me Manning was much smarter than the rest of his party and, just as my Mr. Rogers comparison foresaw, was someone you would picture as your kind neighbour you talked with over the fence.

That being said, the former leader of one of Canada's most right-wing federal parties calling for government investment in renewables and the establishment of a price-setting cap-and-trade system is out of this world.

The National Post faithful were quick to fight back. Peter Foster wrote a scathing commentary titled, 'Manning turns to the dark side', that included the typical bashing of governmental intervention and price-setting policies, as well as the word 'wonk' -- in reference to people looking to combat climate change from the less conservative side of things -- more times than I've ever seen.

Another letter to the editor ended with a simple statement, "Preston, clearly, we hardly knew ye."

But Preston is doing more than writing in the Post. He is also an active member of the Steering Committee for the rapidly growing Sustainable Prosperity. Foster, unsurprisingly dismisses the group, its tag line being 'making markets work for the environment', as a "lobby for radical environmentalism."

But it is nice to know that even the most conservative, anti-government of folks can look beyond partisan ideologies to see what is probably much better for us. Even if they have to take a bit of heat from their former brethren.

Peterborough and the Greater Golden Horseshoe:

Cities within the Greater Golden Horseshoe are growing rapidly. In fact, these cities are the fast growing cities in the country located between Windsor (to the west) and Quebec City (to the east). Most of their growth is occurring in their urban growth centres (UGC) which are areas located within the downtown region. Peterborough's UGC is located within the horseshoe though is statistically one of the smallest. Its population grew about 5 percent from 2001 to 2006. 5 percent in five years is not that significant and it is no surprise that it is the most spatially isolated UGC in the horseshoe.

Peterborough relies less on economic synergies with neighbouring UGCs to achieve its growth. Toronto, Hamilton and Guelph for example, all rely on each other through economies of agglomeration as services, manufacturing and production are all interconnected. Being spatially isolated is somewhat problematic. Unemployment is hovering around 8 percent in the city, and if population density and growth do not rise then companies/corporations will have less of an inclination to be here.

Analyzing Peterborough from a geographical density lens would explain its uniqueness from other UGCs. Existing density of Peterborough’s UGC has been estimated at 100 residents/jobs per hectare- nothing significant but keep in mind the city's total population is 75,000. The ostensible goal is to reach 150 residents/jobs per hectare by 2031.

Achieving 150 residents/jobs per hectare by 2031 would require an additional 4,800 jobs and residents. But city planners have indicated that this growth will have to occur in the built area boundary and not in the outskirts of the city otherwise known as designated Greenfield areas. The idea is to concentrate population growth in areas where employment opportunities are high.

Is density really going to increase in Peterborough? Not sure. Forecasted growth is 14,000 people and jobs between 2006 and 2031. For one, housing will have to be revitalized and incorporate smart growth in the process. The urban growth centre has an abundance of single-detached houses which reflects the strong market demand for lower density housing in the city. If the city wants to remain competitive with other UGCs in the horseshoe, it will require more multi-unit residential developments like row housing, multi-storey buildings and better water infrastructure.

Among many of the benefits cities obtain from higher density- transit and water efficiency are the most notable. Transportation always becomes more sophisticated and efficient when density allows it to. Density usually correlates with higher transit ridership- this in turn means that the city would obtain more funding from the government to ameliorate its transit services.

On the water front, higher density housing helps lower the costs of piping installation for new residential housing units. It also reduces the maintenance costs for actually pumping the water through it. If low density units (single detached housing) continue to be built, then the water department will lose money because it costs more to deliver water to these units.

Key message: The city is growing albeit very slowly. If the city focuses on density development i.e. concentrating growth in its downtown area, then it can obtain more economic, environmental and social benefits. Being spatially isolated can be economically troublesome, but as the city becomes more dense, employment should concomitantly rise and urban amenities will improve as well.

Deep lake water cooling: an urban solution

Have you ever heard of deep lake water cooling? I just learned about it today. In an effort to minimize energy intensive air conditioning in the city of Toronto, the city is now turning to its lake water to obtain really cold water to cool its office and commercial buildings.

Back in 2003, energy company Enwave was asked from the city government to innovate an environmentally friendly solution that can help take some pressure off of the electricity system. Air conditioning from office buildings can be incredibly profligate in the summer months and highly energy intensive. The innovation is based off of a district cooling system which draws from deep cold water (83 meters) in Lake Ontario. This is efficiency and water optimization to its finest. The deep lake water flows into Toronto’s water system at 4 degrees Celsius. It is sent through heat exchangers before entering the city's drinking water supply, and energy is transferred between two systems- the city's and Enwave's.

The city obtains a portion of the water for drinking (once it is treated), and Enwave gets a portion as well. Enwave transfers the cold temperature from the city water to its chilled water system. So all in all, you have two systems drawing from the same source and ultimately there are two uses - Enwave's and the city's which are maintained through heat exchangers that facilitate the transfer of energy.

This naturally cold water provides an alternative to the conventional air conditioning that is produced by coal-fired power plants. It is really intelligent infrastructure because it reduces the total electricity used in air conditioning systems by over 85 percent. Moreover, it also serves as a pollution abatement technique minimizing pernicious chemicals and emissions like CFCs and carbon dioxide (somewhere in the range of 40,000 tons a year). This innovation will undoubtedly help alleviate some serious urban pollution issues we have been facing of late- namely smog and acid rain.

Key message: Smart infrastructural changes are indispensable for the future of cities.

For more info about this technology, click here.

Stupid Green Ideas: hybrid parking spots...

A recent story in the Winnipeg Free Press, "Environmentally concious shoppers get prime parking spots", reports that a large local shopping mall has reserved several parking spots near the building for hybrid vehicles. The aim -- at least, from the mall's marketing director -- is to reward more environmentally concious drivers by giving them membership to the exclusive club previously limited to expecting mothers and the handicapped.

Apparently this is not the first of its kind. Larger box stores like IKEA and Whole Foods have dipped into these waters, too.

So is it a silly idea?

Well, enforcement is a bugger. Finding non-permit vehicles parked in handicapped spots is certainly not a rarity and such an offence probably strikes witnesses much more severely than parking illegally in a hybrid spot.

Secondly, the environmental benefits of hybrids over traditional vehicles is certainly not absolute. What if the hybrid driver drives tens times as much as the driver of an SUV? Which of these drivers should really be rewarded? And furthermore, hybrids are not always the most fuel-economic vehicles. Lexus has several hybrids, one of which has 438 HP V8 engine. Its fuel economy is worse than that of its parent company's Toyota Tacoma pickup truck. Even Cadillac's Escalade (pictured above) has a hybrid version. There is no way these vehicles should be given priority over non-hybrid, but more fuel-efficient vehicles. And what about an electric car? Would it qualify?

Thirdly, lots of people think poorly of hybrids because the drivers are sometimes perceived to be rich, snobby, self-righteous, do-gooding elites. They always aren't, but the perceptions will stick and this certainly won't help. Most people don't have a problem giving priority to the handicapped or expecting mothers, but they might think the hybrid spot a tad elitist.

Lastly, this seems like nothing more than a marketing ploy for those who employ such a strategy. It allows the stores to brand themselves as 'green' and attract more customers, without actually implementing an effective policy. It just looks good.

So yes, it is silly.

But then again, even if it is silly, at least it is something. The majority of hybrids out there are much more fuel-efficient than the rest of vehicles on the road. It probably won't hurt anyone, since angry drivers will soon drop their threats of switching supermarkets and just find another spot. And lots of corporations are employing 'green' strategies, so a harmless one like this can't hurt, right?

That is of course, if you live by the mantra 'an empty policy is better than no policy'.

I don't own a hybrid, but I do spot one in the parking lot across the way. I think I might steal the 'hybrid' logo on its rear end and attach it to my car so I can take advantage of this great deal.

Out of my way, soon-to-be mothers and handicapped, I'm saving the world!

Canada's new man in Washington...

Don't be too surprised if there are a few more beer summits at the White House in the next few years. Yesterday, Canada's current longest serving premier, Manitoba's Gary Doer, announced he would not seek office again in the province's next election.

As it turns out, it was not the desire to golf or sit around at the cottage after serving as premier for ten years that led Doer to step down, but instead his new appointment as Canadian Ambassador to the United States announced today. Doer will replace Michael Wilson, who has served since 2006 and is most recently remembered for his alleged leak to the Canadian media during the 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign that Barack Obama had no intention of carrying through with his promise to re-evaluate NAFTA. (So far, it seems as though he was probably right).

Gary Doer is by far one of Canada's most popular premiers and is very highly regarded in Manitoba. He and his NDP party have won three consecutive majority governments, a success which is often attributed to Doer's left-centrist approach. Much of his success is also chalked up to his pragmatic, very sociable approach to life. He is the type of guy you would share a few laughs with over a beer and is the farthest you could get from a run-of-the-mill, stiff politician.

For those of us in the green camps, having Doer represent Canada's interests in the US is something to excite ourselves over. Doer is a relatively pro-green politician. He has consistently been a strong supporter of the Kyoto Accord, enacted several water-protection and conservation laws and gotten together with several other provinces and states to form a series of international and interprovincial cap and trade accords. It is the latter accomplishments that will transfer to Doer's new post in the US.

He has been a supporter of a North American cap and trade system for some time and his presence in Washington is a signal that the Harper government is really serious about joining onto Obama's ambitious climate change strategy. This is of course, if Doer is given plenty of slack from the Prime Minister's leash. But the two of them seem to be pretty chummy already. Although something tells me Doer will have a lot more fun hanging out with the Obama gang. We can just hope his good-natured approach will offer some aid in the climate agenda.

Mexico City: The Great Water User…

Mexico City is facing an egregious civil engineering problem. The culprit: a depleting groundwater aquifer. People around the world have been hearing about these so called sinking cities; Venice, Mexico City and Los Angeles to a lesser extent. From a geophysical standpoint, these sinking cities are sinking because its residents pump copious amounts of water from its underground aquifer. This is done primarily through wells and happens usually because of a phenomenon called “absolute dominion” which is when residents can essentially pump as much water as they like because the state allows them to.

When you over pump an aquifer or in Mexico City’s case, have 8 million plus people drawing heavily from it… its hydro capacity becomes jeopardized. It is estimated that Mexico City has sunk as much as 30 feet over the course of the 20th century.

When the city was planned by engineers and architects, they did not forecast or predict such rapid population growth. A fast growing population ultimately exhausted its natural springs causing the subsoil of the land to degrade very quickly. Indeed, this land subsidence has consequently led to serious financial problems for the city causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to buildings and structures.

Sewer lines and subway tunnels have required serious revitalization after being damaged by a collapsing aquifer. Civil and Structural engineers have begun putting up scaffolding and more compact structural materials to protect important buildings like the National Cathedral.

This particular conundrum is by no means an easy one to solve. 70 percent of the water used in the metropolitan area comes from the main aquifer. People are thirsty and are living in a climate that has an average yearly temperature of 30 degrees Celsius. It is hot and the ubiquity of pollution and smog are only exacerbating matters.

In the early 2000s, the New York Times summed up Mexico City’s water issue very well: “The water difficulties have become a vicious circle: as the city grows, more water is pumped from the aquifer. As more is pumped, the city sinks further. The sinkage ruptures more underground water pipes, sending fresh water gushing into the sewers, aggravating the shortage, requiring more water to be pumped from the aquifer, and so on.”

Having an inadequate water distribution system is incredibly troublesome. About a third of every gallon of fresh water pumped into the system leaks out- over a year that is enough water to supply the city of Toronto!

From an optimistic lens, change is coming to the forefront. The city is building vast pipelines to bring water from rivers outside of the metropolis- this is good water demand management albeit expensive. And rain water harvesting is becoming more salient. So when it rains… people are trying to collect that water, self-purify it and then treat it, and then drink it. The city should also explore an infrastructure leak index to locate, quantify and repair the leakage within its water distribution system.

There are a plethora of issues surrounding Mexico City. But as this blog has identified in the past, there are numerous solutions for managing water including education about water efficient technologies to more equitable water allocation decisions to conservation.

Key message: Mexico City must start looking and learning from California’s water solutions, a state that has a massive population and a dwindling water supply. For more information on this topic see here:

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.

Would you take the job?: Corporate Environmental Policy...

I posed this question to an environmental policy class seminar I was in during my third year: if on the day of your graduation as an Environmental Studies/Science student a person from a large oil company offered you a multi-year position as an environmental consultant with a $250,000 salary, benefits up the wazoo, a 40-hour work week and your choice of living location, would you take it?

Surprisingly, very few if any from the 15 person class said they would. The main argument was one of ethics, where the majority of my peers would be unwilling to 'sell their soul' to work for the groups we've all learned to despise.

Fair enough, but perhaps the naive optimist in me believes that not all big corporations are inherently evil and that they be wanting to at least do something pro-environment, if not for intrinsic reasons than at least for business purposes. To this a few said that such a position would simply be window-dressing, offering lip service for an organization that really doesn't care. Although you'd get a hefty paycheque, the frustration involved with such a position might be enough to drive you over the edge. Not to mention, of course, the degrading feeling that might come if you feel your role is only perpetuating the wrongs you seek to right.

Personally, I would take the job. Aside from the wonderful financial perks -- I might be an environmentalist but I certainly wouldn't decline a sweet boat or a Porsche -- I point to one particular argument I've explored before in a different arena: the law of diminishing returns. This simple idea says that as we put effort into something, the effect one 'unit' of effort will have will diminish over time.

If, for instance, you have a test to study for, the first hour you study may increase your potential grade from a 50 to a 70, but the next hour will only improve it from a 70 to an 80, then 80 to 85 and so on until each extra hour you study really isn't making a difference.

So if we take this idea into the grand context of say, combatting climate change, our efforts (financial, political, time-intensive, etc) would have a bigger impact if put towards aspects of the environment that are already quite bad. Putting efforts into improving the environmental performance of the traditionally poor environmental performers (fossil fuel firms, manufacturing, transport industry, etc) might have a much bigger impact than putting the same amount of effort into other already less-environmentally destructive performers, such as investing millions to make fuel-efficient engines slightly more efficient (which might be the equivalent of raising your mark from a 90 to a 91).

The question of individual effort should be raised. It is well and good that changing the behaviour of these 'dirty' firms would have a large impact in our climate struggle, but are these large conglomerates, like the oil companies, not already so large and influential that actually implementing this change from an environmental consultant's position would be next to impossible if not the most frustrating endeavour one might venture on?

Would it be frustrating? I imagine so. Next to impossible? Could be. But are they too big? No.

One of the world's largest financial institutions, the World Bank, was once without an environmental program or department. Unlike the majority of other major banks, the World Bank focuses much of its attention on development, first in post-war Europe and later in the less-affluent countries of the world. Its projects have had massive environmental impacts, yet it wasn't until 1971, 26 years after its conception, that it first developed any sort of environmental program. It was resourced by one person for many years, who was later able to increase the size of the department to six staff.

This was an incredibly frustrating time, especially since the World Bank did not require environmental assessments on any projects up until 1989, making the environmental reviews by even six staffers next to impossible. As you can imagine, the other departments were less than inclined to cooperate with the toothless environmental department. However, thanks to the diligence of the pioneer staffers, the World Bank's environmental department is now one of its biggest. Billions of dollars are invested in environmentally-focused projects. (Although the environmental benefits of some of these projects are quite controversial).

It had to start somewhere. So it could certainly start with grabbing such a position, especially with such cushy benefits -- not unrealistic either, considering many environmental assessment folks at the publicly-owned Ontario Power Generation make over $125,000.

Corporations aren't necessarily evil, but they can be a tough nut to crack. But the benefits of cracking such a nut could be more influential than any of us know. I wouldn't, however, count on such a cushy job being offered right after graduation, but you never know...(hint, hint ExxonMobil).

Would you take the job?

The importance of the potato in the 18th century...

How do places urbanize? Usually people migrate to cities because of the multiplicity of choice… You have quick and easy access to public transportation, numerous urban amenities and tonnes of housing options to choose from. When places urbanize, the population concomitantly increases… naturally. For hundreds of years we have been studying population growth examining factors that depopulate and populate areas. This has always been a curious humanitarian question and it is only gaining more research interest as our population surpasses the 6.8 billion mark.

Over the course of civilization, diseases like Black Death, malaria and other deadly epidemics have obliterated populations. However, we have also seen tremendous population growth since the 1950s particularly in India, China, Brazil, the United States and Europe. What exactly has been the cause of such population growth? Is it natural resources, is it the aforementioned urban amenities or is it something else?

The contemporary population question is being studied widely across the world. Interestingly, if we look at the world in the 18th and 19th century, the discovery of the potato not only led to a 22% rise in population, but a 47% rise in urbanization. Nathan Nunn and Nancy Qian have done research on the importance of nutrition to economic development. Their findings on the potato are fascinating.

The discovery of the potato was interconnected through geography, the environment, economics and health. After all, potatoes are an inexpensive crop to cultivate and subsequently eat, highly nutritious and are geographically suitable to be cultivated in many parts of the world including Northern Europe, Asia and even Northern Africa.

The discovery of potatoes led to population growth and urbanization in the 18th and 19th century. In the 21st century there are numerous factors contributing to population growth and decline. It seems however, that the discovery of natural resources are far more important today than any one nutritional crop like potatoes.

This is because natural resources have much more economic value and wealth today because of scarcity issues - oil, water and timber just to name a few examples. But natural resource discovery has at times --both historically and contemporarily-- led to conflict and war… factors that lead to depopulation. I wonder if there will be a study that shows the correlation between natural resource discovery and depopulation. Anyway, see Nathan Nunn and Nancy Qian's study on the discovery of the potato and urbanization.

Green Bin Programs need to be better monitored…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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