Goodbye US Climate Bill, Hello Carbon Tax?...

Barack Obama and the Democrats were sent a hefty blow the other day when, in a surprising turn of events, a Republican nominee was able to win the Massachusetts Senate seat left vacated by the late Edward Kennedy. Having a Democrat win the seat was initially seen as an inevitability, but it was not to be so.

The big talk these days is that this win for the Republicans could sink the huge health care bill currently being put together by congress because this Republican win puts 41 Republicans in the Senate, enough to filibuster any bill.

But the next big ticket item on Obama's agenda is a climate bill in the Senate, which's main component is a cap-and-trade system. Considering how long it has taken the health bills to get this far, most aren't expecting the climate bill -- one barely got through the House of Representatives -- to get too far in the next year. That year-long time frame is very important. In November, the Americans go to the polls for the Midterm elections, where several Senate and House seats are up for grabs. Considering how much popularity Obama (and by association, the Democrats) has lost over his first year, many are expecting the Republicans to gather up most of those seats.

The US climate bill is almost by definition guaranteed to be disliked by Republicans -- to be fair, some are very willing to do something about climate change -- but many Democrats (especially those from the coal-producing states) are opposed to the climate bill. Such contention makes passing the bill especially difficult, and even more so to pass something that will be in any way moderately effective. Indeed, the most optimistic of realists are expecting something very watered down, with multiple exemptions for certain emitters and low emissions reduction targets.

To many, the climate bill might as well be off the table, at least until after the midterm elections. Stephen Hill, a professor at Trent, thinks it could possibly return in a year or so without a cap-and-trade system, but rather a carbon tax. Americans are even less encouraged by new taxes than Canadians, and we all saw how the carbon tax went over here in the last federal election. But interestingly, some of the most environmentally-unfriendly companies in the US, like Exxon-Mobil, are in support of a carbon tax.

To the naked eye, this seems highly unlikely. But these companies see the writing on the wall and some kind of climate-related legislation is bound to come into play relatively soon -- if anything, the EPA will use its power to regulate greenhouse gases. Under a cap-and-trade system the price of carbon fluctuates and businesses can never be too sure how hard it will hit their balance sheets each year. For companies that are huge and have less than impressive carbon emission histories, such fluctuation could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. A carbon tax, however, is predictable, which is highly valuable to businesses. Moreover, the cost of the tax is borne both by industry and consumers, so businesses don't take as much of the hit. And for the more cynically-minded, it is much easier to influence the price of the tax when the government controls it (see coal, gas & oil lobby) than when the market has control.

But Obama likes the cap-and-trade, and so do the Democrats (for the most part). For now it looks like very little will come about, but who knows about the future? We can only hope the EPA starts to wield its axe or Congress puts something together. I'm not feeling too optimistic about the latter...      

The Importance of Prevention: Lessons from Haiti...

The tragedy occurring in Haiti as a result of the devastating earthquake is absolutely heartbreaking. No one deserves such a fate and my heart goes out to the millions that have been adversely impacted by the disaster. Moreover, the outpouring of support coming from around the world is somewhat inspiring.

But you are going to have to forgive my forthcoming cynicism.

As inspiring and necessary as the support is, I was left with a sick feeling in my stomach as soon as the media started publishing all sorts of stories about the rapid deployment of disaster relief complemented by a series of politically-opportunistic photo ops. This is both typical and frustrating, but not my main point of contention. My greater concern is how the world approaches Haiti and its disaster, and more broadly, how we approach the prevention of disasters.

(I will preface this by saying I am by no means an expert on Haiti nor an expert on international development, but have a relatively decent grasp of both subjects). Haiti has been falling apart for decades, if not centuries. Even prior to the disaster, it was among the most impoverished countries in the world with outrageously high rates of infant mortality and disease. A series of brutal dictatorships, coups and interference from influential foreign powers have left the country in political ruin for years and consistently ranks near the top of the world's most corrupt countries. There is very little money for the majority of citizens and the physical infrastructure (roads, well-built houses, emergency services) throughout the country is awful.

And how has the world helped? Some countries have thrown money at them and expected great things, although the success of purely financial foreign aid is far from high. Basically, we turn a blind eye.

But when the country physically starts to fall apart, we run in like the white knight without even thinking about it. Governments throughout the world are pledging hundreds of millions of dollars in support and sending in their militaries to help out as soon as possible. Different workplaces are collecting money to donate and even professional sports leagues like the NHL are reaching into their pockets to help out. I just walked by a booth at Trent where a bake sale is being put on the help quake victims. Again, this is touching and it is nice to see all sorts of people helping out.

But there is only so much help all of this can do right now. Much of the aid can't even get into the country at this point and some donation groups have even been swindling the folks who have trusted them with their money.

As great as all the support is, it could have been considerably more effective if used to prevent much of the devastation rather than clean it up. True, as a friend pointed out to me, you can't predict the future. But natural disasters often wreak similar havoc. The damage may not have been much more different had it been a massive hurricane or flood.

The infrastructure is particularly important. A reporter on the CBC was comparing the damage to that seen in L'Aquila, Italy recently from another strong earthquake. But unlike there, where the buildings were modestly strong and emergency services could easily get to the sites, Haiti's buildings are weak and domestic emergency services essentially non-existent.

And I want to make it clear that when I say support, I do not just mean money. Money has been thrown at Haiti for years, but that doesn't go very far when it is given to a corrupt regime, or coming with strings attached. Indeed, development practices are tricky things, but surely something could have been done to create stable infrastructure several years ago.

Moreover, the amount of support coming in from members of the public is important, but how many of these people really cared about Haiti prior to the quake? Would they have been as willing to stand in the halls selling baked goods if you told them the proceeds might one day prevent such a high level of devastation? Or does the actual event have to take place before people care?

I should also make it clear that my use of prevention is to describe preventing such a high level of devastation. Indeed, you can't prevent an earthquake, and with one of such magnitude, there is inevitably going to be damage, but the amount of damage could have been reduced significantly.

The problem with only helping out once the damage is done is that it is often considerably less effective overall. And it is more expensive. How much do you think it'll really cost to return Haiti to its former self prior to the quake? And how expensive has the entire disaster relief effort been? It certainly isn't cheap and it certainly isn't any cheaper than what might have been needed to prevent such tragedy.

So why is this appearing in an environmentally-related blog?

Because if the climate scientists are right, natural disasters are going to get more frequent and more powerful as the planet warms. True, climate change won't influence earthquakes, but as I said earlier, natural disasters often wreak havoc in a similar fashion. How many more Haitis could we prevent over the next 100 years if we thought about this properly and invested in prevention rather than the clean up?

More broadly, our entire approach to climate change and the environment is centred around this phenomenon. We spend years trying to figure out where to put our waste rather thinking about how to reduce the production of it. If we don't do enough to prevent the damages we're bringing upon ourselves, we could all be screwed. After all, there comes a point when it's impossible to clean up.        

A talk on El Salvador: Exposing Canadians to Conflict and Development

The upcoming World Affairs Colloquium at Trent features David Morrison who will be speaking about El Salvador: Exposing Canadians to Conflict and Development. A discussion will follow the 70 minute film which is the product of an educational trip to El Salvador. It illustrates reflections and images of the civil war in the 1980s and demonstrates how this experience continues to shape and scar contemporary development.

The event will take place this Friday January 22nd from 2:30 to 4:30pm. It will be held in the Lady Eaton College (LEC) Pit, located next to the LEC dining hall.

Refreshments will be provided to all of our attendees. We encourage you to come to this talk with questions, comments and constructive criticism of the speaker’s topic.

About the World Affairs Colloquium at Trent:

The World Affairs Colloquium is produced by-weekly by the Trent International Program and Trent International Students Association. As a committee we bring in speakers to discuss topics as diverse as climate change to the global food crisis to post-conflicted regions in Africa. The World Affairs Colloquium is all about producing an insightful and informative dialogue between students, faculty and the community. The colloquium creates a forum for global citizenship allowing a dynamic conversation to take place within our university.

Should we still be debating the science of climate change?...

Climate change is happening. We all know it. The poles are melting faster than expected and 2010 is expected to be one of the warmest years on record. But the cause of climate change is still up in the air.

The latter statement might strike some as an environmental blasphemy. This blog must be endorsed by the big oil companies and whale nukers, they will say, simply prolonging this dangerously unnecessary debate. This would be an easy argument to agree with, at least until the famed 'Climategate'.

For those of you unfamiliar with Climategate, it is the title given to the series of leaked (after someone hacked in) emails between scientists at the University of East Anglia in England, one of the most prestigious climatic research centres in the world. The emails revealed how climate scientists played with the data in order to have it reveal that warming was occuring (which it originally had not).

This has sparked a renewed argument for the world's climate sceptics and thrown a giant screw into the already complex issue of dealing with climate change. But not only has it given hope to the sceptics, it has also led some to climb back on the fence. For example, The Economist, a very prestigious, yet business-friendly news magazine has since published several articles stating that the issue should still be up for debate, if only to hear both sides equally. Prior to the release of Climategate, the magazine was gung-ho about human beings' involvement in climate change. Now, they are a little more cautious.

Who can blame them and others sitting on the fence? After all, some sceptics have long argued that anthropogenic climate change is a meditated and manufactured crisis designed to advance the agendas of a select few. Climategate adds weight to that argument. Or at least, for the less radical believers, Climategate might lead some to believe that climate change won't be as bad as we think. It not only makes it easier to think we don't cause climate change (and therefore shouldn't do anything about it) but also leaves those with significant public influence to take a step back.

For me, this whole case provides an interesting dynamic. Much of my coursework has included a theme of inclusive participation and respecting all sides to big debates. Indeed, ignoring the views of various stakeholders has gotten us into some of our biggest troubles throughout history, environmental or otherwise. Is ignoring the views of sceptics any different, especially when Climategate provides them with some fairly telling evidence?

But then again, if climate change is as dangerous as it's reputed to be, perhaps we should just press ahead and ignore the sceptics. Elizabeth May certainly thinks so. During the Munk Debates on the eve of the Copenhagen Conference, May repeatedly stated that the debate taking place (is climate change our defining crisis?) was the wrong debate and we should have moved on by now. After all, there is still overwhelming evidence in support of anthropogenic climate change from a whole whack of prestigious global societies and institutions.

That was a fact I have held strongly to since Climategate came about and, despite the aforementioned comments about The Economist, found some additional strength to that argument in the magazine's letters to the editor:

I agree with you that dissent and peer review should not be silenced, but “scepticism” and “consensus” must be evaluated by their true weight. Where is the dissent and alternative theories in your other science articles? Why don’t you present an alternative argument from Christian Scientists in your reporting on cancer therapies, for example? While it is true that whether or not I could make the Manchester United football team is a yes or no answer, that does not mean my chances as a 39-year-old flappy scientist are 50:50. My chances are less than 1%.


The vast majority of climate-change scientists hold that global warming is caused by burning too many fossil fuels. The consensus view of the American National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society and the respective groups of every advanced nation on climate change cannot be ignored while we wait for an unobtainable golden thread of evidence.


Lou Zeidberg
Monterey, California

Lou's argument is very strong and gives good reason to stop spending a great deal of our efforts in this debate. So to answer the question given in this post's title, no, we shouldn't be debating it, at least not to the degree we are now and even in the face of events like Climategate.

Let me finish with something we should always keep in mind when thinking about the climate question. If I'm wrong, it's not the end of the world. Literally. But if I'm right and we don't do enough in time to stop climate change, it very well could be, at least for human beings. Tim's post on Greg Craven's outlines this very clearly:


we can take action on "global warming" and spend trillions of dollars doing this. But, what if global warming is "false"? Then we run ourselves into a global depression. Or we spend trillions of dollars and we benefit through this as it greatly minimizes the risks associated with global warming. Or we do nothing (status quo) and global warming does not prove to be as catastrophic as it was predicted to be. Here we do not take action, nothing significant happens and we save $$$. And if we don't take action and it actually happens.... well, then we are screwed.    


Of the two downsides, is a global depression worse than well, us being screwed? What's the bigger risk?

Can Brownfield redevelopment take off?

The Wikipedia definition of Brownfield sites is "abandoned or underused industrial and commercial facilities available for re-use." In certain parts of the U.S., Brownfield sites are becoming more popular and accepted in this era of environmental sustainability. With Brownfield sites, there is massive potential for increasing density and optimizing land uses in an urban environment. By re-using land that is closer to the urban core, you can effectively increase urban density, allow people to live closer to their workplace (assuming they work downtown) and minimize urban sprawl (which is environmentally disastrous).

Places like St. Paul, Minnesota have been highly successful at showcasing the economic and environmental benefits of Brownfield redevelopment. St. Paul expects that redevelopment of the city's 1,000 acres of Brownfields will create as many as 13,000 new jobs and $25 million in annual property tax revenues. That is super progressive and innovative.

So St. Paul has been successful with implementing Brownfields, but many Canadian cities have not been. With Brownfield redevelopment for housing, the liability and regulatory barriers are significant obstacles because the greater number of end users are exposed to potential risk. More importantly however, the bigger obstacle is the stigma around Brownfields themselves. There is a lot of stigma around Brownfield sites according to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), this is because the media and developers deem Brownfield sites as contaminated and unsafe and thus highly risky.

This stigma has been perpetuated and has worried many developers from putting in redevelopment projects- those perceived risks have stifled innovation in industrial design and construction. It is really unfortunate because the media does not showcase cities that have been successful with Brownfields, St. Paul being the prime example.

In Canada, the CMHC has been talking about having public outreach programs designed to educate participants in the Brownfield redevelopment process on the real risks and benefits of the process. Alas, this has not taken off as vigorously as many sought. With a weakened economy, developers have not taken many risks with Brownfields, instead, many continue to construct massive sub-division projects which only perpetuate that problem of urban sprawl. This is happening in Peterborough and in areas close to the Greenbelt.

Brownfield redevelopment can restrain urban sprawl. It’s like an urban containment policy. Brownfield redevelopment is really expensive though. There has been a reluctance of lenders to provide financing for brownfield redevelopment projects. Unless the risk assessment process is sound, the lender may not want to provide a loan because the land might be worth nothing down the road.

A Brownfield project is a way of providing affordable housing within existing urban areas while reducing expansion (in essence, it does work towards social justice and environmental sustainability).

It can also encourage economic development through concentrating more mixed commercial and residential uses in the urban core, however, this has to be popular and attractive for developers! Developers need to understand how such redevelopment can protect and improve human health, promote stronger live-work relationships and above all, maximize economic profitability.

Sadly, one of the biggest loopholes of this process is “the inability to transfer liability when land is sold”. This has caused some large corporate landowners to mothball their properties

Key message: Brownfields can alleviate the environmental repercussions of urban sprawl. Education and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities can both help make this process a heck of a lot easier.

Delivery Groceries: A greener approach to food shopping...

In his book Heat, George Monbiot talks about all the stuff we do as human beings that contribute to climate change and some of our craziest behaviour actually comes from our supermarkets.

Yes, these things are absolutely massive. But this is not unique to supermarkets; huge buildings can be found everywhere. But it is the inner workings of these things that are very astounding. When you first enter the building, you are normally smashed by a fan of either very cold or very hot air (depending on what the temperature is like outside). And when you get in, the lights are among the brightest available on the market. Why? All the food needs to look pretty and the best way is with pretty lights. And lots of them. Everywhere. That day-old fillet of tilapia not look so appetizing? Just toss some extra lights on top of it. Perhaps the most ridiculous thing you'll find at the supermarket are the open freezers & fridges (a friend of mine refers to them as bunkers). Do you ever leave your freezer open all day at home? It's probably the biggest waste of energy you'll find at a supermarket.

So Monbiot proposes something very different. Rather than driving to the supermarket, we could have it delivered to us. No more need for bright lights, high-powered entrance fans or open freezers. And no more need for such massive building footprints. Instead, there could simply be a warehouse with delivery vans. The energy savings would be enormous. According to a supermarket chain executive interviewed in Heat, the food storage section takes up only 5-10% of the entire building's energy usage. Wow.

Energy savings for the suppliers wouldn't be the only advantage of this type of system. People would no longer have to drive to the supermarket (gas & time), find a parking spot (imagine not needing those massive parking lots), spend valuable time in the grocery store (some spend hours) and stand in line. Rather, you could just have it delivered at a time that was convenient for you. Sure, there would be a fee, but it would certainly outweigh the hours spent driving, shopping and unloading. When both my sister and I were still living back home with our parents, my dad would go grocery shopping almost weekly and fill up the entire cart. He would be gone for several hours. Imagine if he were able to stay home, work more or just go out for the hours he would have spent shopping. And as a student with no car but a large appetite, I wouldn't have to go through the struggle of hauling all the food -- after buying far more than I can reasonably carry -- back by foot.

You would simply go online and shop like you would on Amazon.com and create your shopping list. You could submit your order and choose a time to have it delivered. A delivery truck would later come by with your delivery as it makes the rounds for other houses, too. The net energy benefit would be fantastic, as a fleet of delivery trucks would surely be more efficient than a ton of individuals driving their own cars. You could even develop a relationship with the delivery guy, like there used to be with the milk man.

So why don't we have these everywhere?

I'll first dismiss one argument I've heard. That is, the romantic notion that the supermarket is a place where the community gathers and you see folks from around town that you know. This is gone in most supermarkets in North America. I never see anyone I know when I go to the supermarket and I expect people might run into one or two people they know, but very rarely. And other than the proverbial cute girl you're supposed to meet in the supermarket, it certainly isn't the type of place that you make lifelong friends.

The bigger deal is that we, as a society, are bent on seeing our food before we purchase it. If it is delivered, how on earth will we know the quality of it. There is some legitimacy to this, but only some. Yes, with fruits, veggies and meat, I'd rather not have rotten or bruised food delivered to me. With some element of quality assurance, this could be easily be avoided. But the majority of other foods we buy are packaged and preserved in one way or another, so it doesn't really matter if we see it or not.

Whether it has to do with our understanding of freshness is another matter, as nothing in the supermarket is really as fresh as we might trick ourselves to think. All those glossy apples were picked by people or even machines somewhere relatively far away (depending on the season) and then shipped and stored somewhere else before finally being dumped in the apple bin. Meat is the same way. Personally, I'd have no problem if Safeway delivered me a few packages of ground beef without my seeing it beforehand. After all, it always looks fine in the actual store. Moreover, my good friend Kingsley frequently caters weddings and other large gatherings and has to buy food from industrial suppliers. Rarely, if ever does he get to see the food before it arrives.  

This is not a new idea and Monbiot (at least in this respect) is not a revolutionary. A group out of Toronto called Grocery Gateway has been doing delivery groceries for years, but it has taken a long time to catch on and it is still far from overtaking the major chains. They serve a rather niche market and serve only premium foods (thus allowing for quality control). And even greater niche markets exist for this. Throughout Peterborough, several groups exist that will deliver locally grown produce from nearby farms weekly to you. But again, these are niche and small operations.

Now I should also mention that not every store should do this. The small markets in the neighbourhood and the farmer's markets are wonderful. In these places, those romantic notions of community still exist. Going to the Farmer's market is one of my most pleasant experiences and such a view is shared by many I know. And you will frequently need to go to certain places to pick up only one or two items, which wouldn't be worth paying delivery for.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have supermarkets and we would all grow our own food. But then we couldn't have mangoes in January and some people wouldn't like that. The reality is that we have and are going to continue to have large, centralized food sources with a great variety of choice. People are too used to it to revert back to only community gardens and farmer Ed's cows down the road. We can't simply make a massive transition in how we purchase and grow our food, but we can certainly make our current system work a hell of a lot better.

Thorium: A cleaner, greener nuclear?...

My cousin and I were chatting a week or so ago and he brought up a bizarre-sounding chemical called Thorium that he had read about in an issue of Wired Magazine. I scoffed at the title of the chemical and jokingly brushed it aside as some strange fantasy blood from Thor. But my scoffing soon turned to curiosity when said that thorium is an alternative fuel source to uranium and could be considerably more environmentally friendly.

So I looked up the article and I began researching thorium (chemical symbol Th). It is quite an astonishing chemical. I should warn you that I am not a chemist and I would not want to bore you with my struggles to understand the actual chemical details of Thorium (I'll leave that up to you to research, if you so please), but I know enough to say it is very similar in nature to uranium. In fact, the two are only two spaces away from each other on the Periodic Table (Th is 90, while uranium is 92).

Uranium is the fuel of choice used in our modern day nuclear reactors (and has been used for decades). It is first mined from underground, then processed several times before being combined with its buddy plutonium to create what we understand as nuclear energy. It is radioactive, and while being relatively advantageous from an energy perspective, can be very damaging to human beings and the natural environment.

Once the uranium is no longer up to snub -- that is, it becomes inefficient to use as a fuel source -- it is replaced by more uranium. The depleted uranium then has to be stored. This is what we know as radioactive chemical waste. The trouble is, at this point, neither Canada or the United States (both among the world's leaders of nuclear energy production) have any long term solution outside of temporary storage in big holding vats, which are filling up fast. Because it is so harmful, nobody wants it stored near them, where it could potentially destroy the natural environment or poison the water supply.

The actual mining of uranium is certainly no happy walk in the park either. Mining companies tend to leave tailings behind that poison water supplies and demolish the surrounding environments, as has been witnessed near Elliot Lake.

And nuclear power is not cheap. Ontario's nuclear reactors have frequently run into cost overuns in the billions of dollars. The monitoring and stabilizing technologies are expensive and the size of the actual plants is usually 200,000-300,000 square feet. Tack on insurance and some other bells and whistles and you're looking at something that is not cheap.

To top it all off, uranium can be enriched to create nuclear weapons. Nukes are never a good thing.

So as you can imagine, I was astonished when I read that thorium could cure almost all these problems (I'm not sure about the mining process as I didn't come across anything about it). First, thorium is considerably more energy efficient. The amount of energy obtained from thorium is several times greater than the equivalent amount of uranium. Second, when thorium is done doing its thing, it contains only a fraction of the waste left to deal with from uranium. Third, thorium can be cooled without water, needing only a special salt bath to dissolve the chemical and is self-regulating. As a result, it doesn't need the massive cooling towers of uranium plants nor the same level of monitoring and stabilizing technology. Power plants, in theory, could be only a few thousand square feet big. The Toronto Star's Tyler Hamilton has mentioned the advantages of small nuclear in his blog, Clean Break. Fourth, when mixed with plutonium -- which is generally needed for nuclear energy -- and used in a reactor, the amount of plutonium left over is negligible and therefore can't be used for nuclear weapons. Plus, it's abundant throughout the world and can be found in many more countries than just Canada and Australia (where you find most of the world's uranium).

So what's the catch? Why isn't this everywhere?

The article goes through it in greater detail, but what it boiled down to was the investment in uranium took over. With the advantages of nuclear proliferation, uranium hit two birds with one stone. And with billions of dollars invested in uranium powered plants, there is a huge push to keep it that way.

These small power plants that use a salt bath can be extremely corrosive and therefore require very advanced holding tanks made out of expensive alloys, making the initial capital investment very high.

But that is not stopping some countries from exploring it. China, Russia, India, France and even the United States are looking seriously into thorium. One of its biggest benefits is that it can be used in today's reactors without much added cost to make the shift. Some have likened it to using biofuels in regular cars.

What I'm surprised about is that very little seems to be known about it. Several friends of mine have never heard of it and even my instructor in my waste management course, a man who has spent nearly twenty years at the forefront of nuclear waste siting, had never heard of thorium. But perhaps we will soon hear more...    

Oh yeah, and happy birthday Graeme!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking ahead in 2010…

Copenhagen Conference = millions of emissions released into atmosphere + millions of dollars spent + non-legally binding targets + more cynicism in the climate change sphere.

Not to go on rant about the troubles and challenges of Copenhagen, but I vehemently believe that global targets on emissions are too hard to implement! For a long time, I have argued that cities need to play a much more active role in combating climate change. 50% of the world’s population now live in urban environments- growing cities around the world have their own problems with pollution, transportation and waste management, but they also have innovation, ideas and talent.

I hope this decade witnesses a rise in municipal leadership; especially in the Canadian environment. In Canada, we know that energy consumption and emissions reduction are subject to decisions by all three levels of government; the federal government sets environmental standards and impact assessments, provinces have constitutional authority over natural resources, and municipalities directly influence transportation, land use and housing. We should be trying to overcome this inherent complexity in multilevel governance relationships within Canada, specifically over climate change.

If cities were given more power and funding from the feds (because cities have no money) we could very well see some critical changes in our transportation systems, air pollution strategies, waste diversion programs like recycling and composting and housing design that incorporates energy efficiency and renewable resources. All of these endeavours are possible to administer at the city level, insofar as our municipal leaders actively engage with the private sector to advance change on the environment and economy. There are countless examples of cities that have gone the extra mile to address climate change, remember “wisdom way solar village”?

Also, whatever happen to energy audit programs that were once successful in cities such as Waterloo? Energy audit programs are just another example of how cities can significantly address climate change. Homeowners would love to learn about how they can live comfortably while concomitantly cutting down on energy usage.

I think cities need to have access to funding, especially for administering energy audits to ensure that the actions stimulated by the incentive are most appropriate or provide the best return for homeowner investment. Local climate action from cities and municipalities are indispensable in the fight against climate change. Cities must start forming partnerships with their utility companies, consulting firms and other stakeholders to share the costs and increase local awareness. This is how citizens at the local level can be more engaged and hence more willing to make changes to their everyday lives.

Key message: Progress on climate change action requires local participation where people feel engaged and learn about practical ways to do the right thing for the planet. This may be buying a more efficient dishwasher, making solar energy more viable or having access to waste diversion programs for example. The interests at the grassroots can only be sustained if the city is willing to provide resources, incentives and enact policies that are progressive for our planet.

Recognizing water as a human right...

Happy New Year! I hope you are all recovering from your respective New Year's Eve parties.

Our most recent post focused on the growing issue of fresh water. Tim's key message throughout the piece was that "water is life". Indeed, we as human beings are intrinsically tied to water in a way that is unlike any other bond we share with other substances on Earth. We drink it to survive; it helps grow the food we need to eat; it gives us aesthetic and recreational pleasure; it helps powers much of our economy; it is worshipped by nearly every religious, spiritual and cultural group in the world; etcetera.

But despite this connection, not everyone in the world has access to sufficient levels of clean water. We've all seen or heard the pictures and stories of regions in the world where disease, thirst and death run rampant because of a lack of access to fresh water. Even such problems exist in our own backyards in the 'developed' world. So, as part of myriad strategies to combat this problem, the United Nations put together a resolution in 2008 to formally recognize water as a human right.

It would change our unfair approach to governing our water resources throughout the world. Just as many countries have changed their laws when recognizing different human rights, so they would when recognizing water as one. It would make it harder for groups to privatize water resources and governments would have to put more effort into making clean water accessible for all their citizens.

The resolution was dismissed largely as a result of the Canadian federal government rejecting it. It argued that recognizing water as a human right would make it much easier for other countries to justify private bulk water exports out of Canada, especially under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

This is a very good point. Because Canada has so much of the world's remaining fresh water, it is in the unique position of potentially supplying the world of much its fresh water. If water becomes a universal human right, people all over the world would theoretically have access to Canada's water. This brings up all sorts of controversies with Canadian sovereignty. And while helping some of the world's more impoverished populations is noble, I wouldn't feel too happy if the folks in the Nevada desert keep watering their driveway (not that we're very sustainable users ourselves).

Of course, this is a global problem and recognizing water as a human right is not just about Canada. The benefits of recognizing access to water as a human right would be tremendous, but it is much more easily said than done. This is not to say that this issue should no longer be explored, but rather explored in greater depth. Noble causes are all well and good, but with something as integral and complex as water, nothing is simple.

  

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.

Carbon pricing vs. feed-in-tariffs: How should we really be spurring development of renewables in Canada?

Much praise has been given for Ontario’s Feed-in-Tariff program and its potential to develop renewable power generation to levels comparable in countries like Germany and Denmark, where FITs have also been used. But some have commented that a carbon pricing system (either through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system) would be far more effective. They are only half right.

They are right because a FIT is very expensive. Indeed, Ontario’s Green Energy Act has allocated $5B over the next five years, much of which will be put towards its FIT program. A carbon pricing system, on the other hand, is relatively cheap to maintain and (if done properly) a revenue generator. These people are also right because it effects traditional energy production, specifically fossil fuel generation like gas, oil and coal. The price of generation of these technologies increases and makes renewables more economically attractive. Moreover, for those with a particular appetite for freedom of choice, it doesn’t let governments pick and choose the technologies it wants. Indeed, the market decides.

In his book, Heat, George Monbiot struggles to find out how renewables alone could supply our current demand for energy. In short, they can’t. A carbon-pricing scheme would make energy conservation more attractive because we’d have to pay extra for wasting energy. Furthermore, even if we can’t get to the energy demand levels required for purely renewable power generation, a carbon-pricing system could make carbon capture and storage technologies economically viable without massive public subsidies.

But they are wrong because a carbon-pricing scheme alone won’t solve the problem of developing renewables. First, if the market has its way, only the cheapest renewables would get built, most likely hydro and on-shore wind power. But several other technologies would get left out in the dust. Solar PV, wave, tidal, offshore wind and even some biofuels wouldn’t be able to compete. This is not to say these technologies are not beneficial, but rather that they are immature. Considering that many in the renewable energy field believe we need a diverse mix of all technologies to properly reap the rewards of renewable energy, a carbon-pricing scheme might leave us with only a few options.

This would be fine if there were moving water and windy areas everywhere. But some places are very sunny and dry, some have massive tidal flows and other places really, really hate wind turbines. Specific technologies need to be brought up to par and sometimes a direct and exclusive financial incentive (ex. A technology-specific FIT) is necessary. And if you’re smart about it, like Ontario is trying to be, you can invest in the technology now and export it to the rest of the world for a nice chunk of change. Look at Vestas in Denmark, for example.

Now, it wouldn’t really matter what technology you picked if the carbon price was high enough. As long as a technology can make some money, it will be put into use. The problem is that we would need some very high carbon prices.

According to a New Energy Finance study mentioned in The Economist, onshore wind requires a carbon price of US$38/tonne to become economically viable without subsidy. This is not an outlandish price. Carbon taxes in some European countries are over US$100/tonne, so it isn’t politically impossible. But before you get too excited, let’s remember that Stephane Dion’s Green Shift platform ran alongside a $10/tonne tax on carbon and it was demolished. Even the relative success story of British Columbia’s carbon tax is fraught with political opposition, and it’s only hovering around the $15/tonne mark these days. The only large-scale attempt at setting a carbon price is the European Union’s Emissions-Trading-Scheme, which has the price set at US$22/tonne. These prices might eventually get around the $40/tonne mark, but that won’t do it for the more expensive technologies. Offshore wind requires a price of US$136/tonne and solar PV US$196/tonne. You want to set a carbon price to make that economically viable? Good luck.

But this entire post has offered us a false choice. What we really need is both a carbon price and subsidy programs. A price on carbon is absolutely necessary, even if it is as small as $10/tonne. It will at least give some indication to industry and consumers so they can include the carbon costs in their accounts. And any revenues taken from it can go towards subsidies. What’s really needed is the political will and more importantly, public recognition and understanding of why a price on carbon is needed and the necessity of renewable energy technologies.

Finally, I’ll end with a piece of advice frequently used by George Monbiot. No matter what we do to help out renewables or fight climate change, it’s all worthless if we keep feeding the fossil fuel industry with tax breaks and subsidies. Monbiot equates it to filling yourself up on fatty, unhealthy foods, but adding a salad and not expecting to gain any weight. But right now, we’re getting pretty fat.

Another bad movie about climate change...

Several years ago, the world had the pleasure of witnessing the potential calamities of climate change for $10 and a popcorn when The Day After Tomorrow came to theatres. That blockbuster saw cataclysmic storms and the flooding of New York City after the global ocean conveyor suddenly shut down. Chaos ensued, Dennis Quaid had to rescue Jake Gyllenhaal and in an ironic twist, the surviving Americans had to escape to Mexico.

This evening I encountered another climate change movie that was a little less blockbuster but just as doom and gloom. Released in 2006, The Last Winter is set in a remote Alaskan monitoring station. After an oil company finds a mammoth supply of oil under the permafrost somewhere in Alaska, they are forced to bring in a group of environmentalists to measure the potential environmental impact of drilling on the 'pristine' landscape. The environmentalists clash with the rugged oil company folk (led by Ron Perlman, though this time not donning his Hellboy look), but soon things start to get weird once one of the workers ends up frozen and naked by a mysterious oil pipe.

Now, before I go any further, I'll caution those that have any desire to see this film that I might give some of it away below. Read at your peril. But seriously, you shouldn't waste your time with the movie...

What seems to be happening is the permafrost is warming in Alaska at an exponential rate and perhaps some 'Sour Gas' is leaking. Then more things go wrong, people go crazy, lots of folks die and the last few seem to figure out that what is coming after them is an old dark spirit known by the Inuit as a Windigo, which in the movie is glowing green and resembles some kind caribou on steroids. More people die and some get lit on fire.

Eventually, the last survivor wakes up in a hospital bed somewhere else in Alaska, only to find the small medical station inhabited by a TV showing massive flooding in North America and the hanging corpse of a doctor that committed suicide. She goes outside and is standing in a major puddle with alarms going off. End scene.

We can only infer that it's the end of the world. After all, the film's tagline is "What if mankind only had one season left on Earth?". It was pretty depressing. I mean, you didn't see her escaping to Mexico.

The film's main message seemed to be twofold. First, whenever climate change hits us, it will hit us hard and it will be bad. Second, it carried a narrative of nature striking back against us, both in its weather-related form with lots of melting and in its spiritual giant caribou form.

Despite the clear budget differences between this and The Day After Tomorrow, Hollywood still seems to only be able to pull off alarmist climate change movies. If I were in the business, I would too. Copenhagen conferences and G8 meetings probably wouldn't make for box-office hits. Then again, throw in Denzel Washington as Barack Obama and add a few plot twists involving him kicking serious global public policy ass, and you might have something.

At least this movie wasn't as blatant about the climate change stuff until the end. But it still sucked. A lot. Don't watch it.

Domestic content requirements might be a pain, but Ontario needs them...

Ontario’s Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) program is one of the world’s most ambitious clean energy subsidy programs. Indeed, some of the rates it will pay for renewable electricity can hardly be found anywhere else in the world.

Of course, Ontario is not a pioneer in this regard. Unsurprisingly, the Europeans – who seem to do everything better than us in North America, at least when it comes to energy – have been expanding their renewable industries using FITs for a few decades. Wind and solar have seen significant expansion in Germany & Denmark using this economic tool, despite the relative lack of the necessary energy inputs (i.e. they are not the windiest or sunniest places on Earth).

Spain also toyed with a FIT to expand its solar photovoltaic industry in 2007. It offered 44 euro cents per kWh produced (~ CDN$0.66) and expected a growth of installed capacity around the 400 MW mark by 2010. The FIT was intended for projects of less than 100 kW, but developers quickly found a loophole and built several modules of 100 kW installations. Before the Spanish government knew what hit them, approximately 3 GW had been built and a lot more money needed to be doled out than had been allotted. The program fell apart shortly thereafter as the government lowered the FIT price significantly and ultimately made any new solar PV development uneconomical.

But it wasn’t economics alone that killed the program. Politically, it was a less than stellar subsidy. The FIT had no limits on where the solar PV panels had to come from and as a result the FIT unintentionally provided a boon to the German and Chinese manufacturers of solar panels, which lead the world in solar PV construction. While it also aided the domestic manufacturers in Spain, the Spanish government found itself footing the bill for a program that was helping its competing manufacturers in Germany & China, whose governments got to benefit free of charge.

That is the thing with subsidies. Since the taxpayers of a country ultimately pay for subsidies, they should be the ones who benefit. And politically, they are nice and easy. It is much easier to hand money out than take it away. So sometimes the policies guiding the subsidy are not completely thought out.

Ontario is aiming not to make this mistake. First, it is not guaranteeing FITs for every renewable producer. You first have to sign a contract with the government, thus allowing them to keep track of installed capacity. But what is more, it has placed stringent domestic content requirements on its subsidized solar PV projects. Currently, 50% of a project has to be from Ontario – this can include everything from the actual panels themselves, the installers, the feasibility analyses or even the bolts tying the panels down. According to some solar PV installers I’ve spoken with in Ontario, projects can barely meet the requirements, almost exclusively because there are no major PV panel manufacturers in Ontario. The idea with the requirement is to attract a manufacturer to set up shop in Ontario knowing the market will be there to sell. What will really provide the incentive is that in 2011, 60% of a project will need to be domestically sourced, which without a major domestic manufacturer will be impossible.

One company, Canadian Solar – which, despite its name and Canadian ownership does nothing in Canada -- has already answered the call and will be building a multimillion dollar plant capable of producing 200 MW of panels annually. But like Rome, these plants don’t get built in a day.

For now, it is a pain in the ass for solar PV developers in Ontario, but it is absolutely necessary if Ontario is to get the biggest bang for its buck and kick any free riders off its subsidy train.

Happy Holidays.

Who will history hold accountable for climate change?...

The climate change conference in Copenhagen is looking to be a bust. Without anything but a broad and unambitious target and a series of commitments to a potential $100B adaptation fund, the years of preparation, money and expectations have amounted to almost nothing -- pending some last minute super-deal.

The protests will continue. Environmental groups will hand out evermore awards to the world's worst polluters. The news might even give it some noteworthiness until Tiger's next disaster. Some delegates will go home uninspired and deflated, while some others will be happy to have that big climate thing out of the way. And the residents of Copenhagen will come out of their homes and finally be able to enjoy their pints of Carlsberg in peace.

Let's put on our doom and gloom hats for a second and fast forward fifty years.

Despite the efforts of local communities and regional governments, global emissions have scarcely fallen as a global agreement could never be hatched and short-term economic and trade interests proved dominant. Global temperatures have increased dramatically. Sea-walls are now among the main exports of the EU as fast-paced climate change adaptation measures are taken all over the world. Mitigation is a word forgotten, much like the once-magnificent offshore wind turbines lying at the bottom of the sea after being mangled by increasingly intense storms. Much of south-east Asia is underwater, billions of environmental refugees painfully roam the earth and countries are fighting wars to secure what's left of the supply of fresh water. Meanwhile, the world's elite are riding jet skis through the Northwest Passage and suntanning by Santa's North Pole Resort & Casino.

A frightening world and probably an unlikely one within the next fifty years. But say it happened. Say the worst climate fears came true. How would our current world leaders go down in history?

Would they be to blame? Would we look at the pending disaster of Copenhagen as the defining point?

Canada's leaders have been noticeably lacking in enthusiasm for preventing climate disaster, winning Fossil Award after Fossil award. George Monbiot thinks Canada is the biggest barrier to any global climate deal. Or should we shift the blame to the world's biggest emitters like China and the United States? Even the second-coming that is Barack Obama has managed to disappoint at the summit.

And will they feel guilt as the climate gets worse?

What about the deniers who have prevented action thus far? The administrations of George Bush and John Howard were notorious for exacerbating the more ridiculous climate change deniers. Are they more to blame than our leaders today?

Or should we be criticizing the 'promise but no delivery' policies of Clinton and Chretien, who got into a political pissing contest over Kyoto targets but showed little for it? These two certainly weren't the only ones to come up short on delivery.

Or is Harper right that the developing countries of the world are to blame? Have we even reached the defining point of the climate crisis?

Maybe the past 200 years of industrialization and excessive lifestyles in the developed world is to blame.

The point I'm trying to make is that pinning the potential climate crisis on one person or group is impossible. Blame can be thrown over so many parts of the world, over hundreds of years and over so many people. But not one person and not one instance. Unfortunately, that means people won't feel the necessary responsibility they hold, easily thinking it is someone else's fault. This makes it much harder to do anything about it.

Assuming I'm still around, I'd be very interested to read those history books fifty years from now...  

    

The Future of Cities in the U.S.

A number of months ago, I blogged about an article written by Edward Glaeser, a Professor of Economics at Harvard. Many of the arguments from his article are found in the youtube clip above. I don't agree with all of his points, but he makes many convincing arguments.

His research focus is on the economics of housing. On the environmental side of things, he has published papers on how climate should influence how cities grow. California for example, has the most temperate climate in the country and as a result, homes use less heat in the winter and less electricity in the summer. Yet, many environmentalists oppose any sort of development in these places because they want to preserve the natural environment.

To quote Glaeser, "a new building in California, as opposed to Texas, reduces America’s carbon emissions. Yet, instead of fighting to make it easier to build in California, environmentalists have played a significant role in stemming the growth of America’s greenest cities." Places like Houston are sprawling rapidly. Many of the homes constructed in Houston's suburban communities require air conditioning to run 24/7 because of the unbearable humidity. California, which is growing at 8%, has strict regulations regarding housing development. This is unfortunate because higher densities are needed in places like California (better climate) and not in places like Houston which use artificial cooling to keep everyone happy!

In the video clip, Glaeser contrasts California with places like Houston, Dallas and Atlanta; these three areas are both among the nation’s five most carbon-intensive living areas and among the three fastest-growing metropolitan areas.

To learn more about this topic, see the video.

A short climate change debate between Krugman and Lomborg

This CNN video, features a climate change debate between Paul Krugman and Bjorn Lomborg. Paul Krugman is a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. He is a columnist and blogger for the New York Times and received the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics.

Bjorn Lomborg wrote the infamous book titled "The Skeptical Environmentalist". Bjorn Lomborg is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School.

Lomborg's main argument: We should not spend too much money on global climate change because the problem is really not that severe and money could be going towards things like poverty alleviation efforts in the developing world. If we do embark more aggressively on global climate change, we should put money into research and development for green technology and not cap and trade systems which he thinks are ineffective.

Krugman: Putting money into carbon reduction efforts will not be that expensive; the time for action is now. Studies are suggesting catastrophic changes will bring about major risks. He says that we have to insure ourselves for the possibility of catastrophic change. We need to provide the right incentives for people to do the right thing.

The debate is 10 minutes long, it is a great study break. Check it out here.

Call for guest bloggers...

When Tim and I started envisioning this blog nearly a year ago, one of our visions was that of other folks chipping in with a post from time to time. In the words of nearly every modern fundraising campaign, Make our Vision a Reality.

Lame. I know.

But seriously, it would be cool.

Feel free to respond to this post or simply email myself or Tim and we can set it up.

Hope to hear from you.

Mixed land uses: Downtown Peterborough...

As part of a class assignment, I recently submitted a letter to Peterborough’s Director of Planning and Development Services. It was a letter regarding Peterborough’s downtown and how it can greatly benefit from incorporating mixed land uses. By mixed land uses, I mean combining commercial and residential units together to optimize space and make the downtown more compact. Below, you will find a compressed version of the letter:

As a student studying geography and the environment and learning about the importance of urban densification for sustainability and economic efficiency, the present growth in Peterborough concerns me. I recommend that the city use an intensification strategy to bring about more mixed land uses in the downtown area. Intensification is a common urban planning strategy for achieving compactness, using land more efficiently by increasing the density of development and activity.

I believe that such an undertaking will help boost the economic vibrancy of the local economy and increase the densification of the urban growth centre, ultimately benefiting both the environment and the economy.

Without stifling the city’s housing market, new commercial development in the city should be mixed with residential units. Mixed land use reduces the probability of using a car for commuting, shopping and leisure trips because jobs, shops and leisure facilities are located nearby. This would be a win-win for Peterborough’s local economy as residents would be living closer to local business and retail stores and farther away from the Big-Box stores like Wal-Mart and Future Shop.

As an example, Harvey’s fast food restaurant at the corner of Sherbrooke and Water Street has tremendous potential to turn into a mixed land use development. Located next to the Otonabee River and in the heart of downtown, it can integrate local businesses, retail, restaurants and residential uses. In addition, such a development would replace the eye-sore that currently occupies the land and turn it into a more compact, liveable and sustainable form.

By mixing commercial and residential units, not only would the city increase the densification of the downtown, but it would be ensuring that many services are within a reasonable distance, thus encouraging cycling and walking. Other environmental benefits to this would include a reduction in air pollution and traffic congestion, as well as to stimulate the interaction of residents, by increasing pedestrian traffic and generally improving neighbourhood charm.

By mixing land uses, we are increasing the number of people concentrated within an existing urban area, and thus these people are now living closer to businesses, public amenities and even recreational activities. Recreational activities would include parks, beaches and campgrounds. Therefore, this might generate more revenue for the restaurant, and stimulate more business activity for other services and commercial establishments, thereby directing a greater flow of capital towards Peterborough’s local businesses and less towards Big-Box stores around the sub-divisions.

One of the main objectives of Peterborough’s new amendment to their Official plan is to provide greater choice in housing types to meet the needs of people at all stages in life. I would challenge developers by saying that housing and commerce will increasingly be concentrated in the urban area; so exploring multi-unit housing complexes near the downtown can be profitable.

As other cities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe increase their urban densities through more compact and mixed use development, Peterborough will face pressures to follow suit.

Key message: Developing Peterborough into a more economically and environmentally sustainable city is a process that might take many years; however, engaging private developers on this matter is a good first step.

Stupid Green Ideas: Climate Change Chocolate...

Several weeks ago while attending a conference and trade show in Toronto, I stopped by the booth for a small but prestigious downtown Toronto law firm. After chatting with the young articling student tasked with the poor duty of standing around all day, she handed me a chocolate bar.

I'm used to getting free stuff at these things, but never an entire chocolate bar. Moreover, this was no ordinary chocolate bar. It was a Climate Change Chocolate Bar.

For each chocolate bar produced, a carbon offset group known as TerraPass will offset 133 pounds of carbon dioxide production in one of their projects somewhere in the world. The 133 pounds is not meant to offset the environmental impact of the chocolate bar itself, but rather the average daily carbon impact of an American person, although I'm not sure how verifiable that figure is.

So basically, when you bite down into the chocolate -- which wasn't half bad -- you can happily pat yourself on the back knowing that any carbon emissions you produce that day will be taken care of by someone else.

Wow! This is fantastic. All of these 'green' folks keep telling me all the things I need to do to reduce my personal carbon emissions. You know, turn off my lights, ride a bike, put solar panels on my roof and other things that will inconvenience my life. Screw 'em! I don't need to change anything. I'll just jump back in my Escalade, eat my chocolate bars and let someone else take care of it. Plus, the labels contain different environmentally-friendly things people can do, just in case you don't feel the chocolate is enough.

Apart from the fact that carbon offset groups aren't seriously regulated, their offset projects don't always work and the actual offset calculations are often arbitrary, I don't see anything else wrong with this.

I may have produced a pound or two of carbon while writing this. Good thing I have this chocolate bar...

 

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.

It's not always windy outside...

You may have noticed the spinning wind turbine on the front page of this blog. It displays the total amount of energy being produced by Ontario's wind power system every hour of every day.

The graphic -- which is courtesy of Ontario's Independent Electricity Systems Operator (IESO) -- provides a very good example of perhaps the greatest barrier of wind: capacity factor. You'll notice that sometimes several hundred Megawatts (MW) of electricity is produced during the hour and the turbine spins quite quickly, while at other times (like as I write this post) it is less than 100 MW.

Ontario has nearly 1,100 MW of installed capacity of wind power. That basically means it has the potential to produce 1,100 MWh of power each hour for the length of its existence. The trouble, of course, is that this is only theoretical. What the tag might say on the turbine is not what it will produce in reality.

The main reason, of course, is because it is not always windy outside. As a result, sometimes you get the turbines sitting motionless and, despite having nearly 1,100 MW in generating capacity, only producing 35 MW on a day like today. Indeed, I've seen the turbine as Exhibition Place in Toronto lie motionless more than I've seen it moving.

In reality, wind turbines are only about 20-30% efficient from what they are capable of producing. Add to that the inevitable loss of electricity from transmission and distribution and wind doesn't look super hot.

This is not a criticism of wind power, but rather a focus on the need to understand how it works. When its proponents speak about its wide potential, they sometimes exaggerate its true potential, which is often more limited. Indeed, we could toss thousands of turbines over Ontario that would replace the installed capacity of the current electricity generation system. But when it's not windy, the amount of electricity produced would be negligible.

Moreover, because of its variability, wind power alone will not fix our energy problem. And neither will solar because it isn't always sunny and we don't have terrific battery technology. But the combination of these technologies, along with several other renewables and a focus on conservation could fix our system.

Where'd the Otonabee River go?...

Well, it has finally happened. All the Maude Barlows and Tim Shahs of the world were right all along about the water crisis. Peterborough has run out of water.

I kid, of course. But considering the state of the Otonabee River over the past few weeks, it wouldn't be too surprising.

I was probably as surprised as anyone else when I walked downtown by the waterfront to find a dainty little stream where the mighty Otonabee River used to be. The water levels were down drastically, as the few small islands of the Otonabee all of a sudden looked like overbearing mainland. Worst of all -- aesthetically, at least -- was the unfortunate state of the exposed ground that had formerly been river-bottom. The weirdly coloured muddy surface was not a particularly desirable replacement for the river.

But more of a problem was the fact that there was very little water left. So where did it go?

Well, as it turns out, some emergency repairs had to be done on one of the locks south of Lansdowne. Clearly the necessary repairs warranted more than a couple folks hopping in with SCUBA gear with a hammer and nails in hand, so the federal authorities (who manage the lock system) decided to drain the thing. Apparently, this involves draining the river several kilometres upstream, too.

The pictures I've included are from outside my house just north of downtown on the Otonabee. The river was down between two and three metres and looked considerably different. Some islands have been exposed, a big patch of mud lies covered with seagulls and ducks and the river's edge has a tidal feel to it. The river looked much worse farther south. Compare the third with the fourth, which are taken from the same area.

Draining a river several metres is not without its risks. In an interview with the Peterborough Examiner, Trent professor Tom Whillans outlined several of the environmental effects this could have. Many of the concerns are focused on the impacts it might have on wildlife. According to Whillans, all sorts of creatures are at risk, but only if the river bed area freezes for an extended period. Lucky for the fishes and turtles, this December has been usually warm. I knew there was a silver lining to the Tar Sands projects.

The water levels appear to be back to normal now and the timing couldn't be better. The snow is finally coming down and it is expected to stay, for a few days at least.

So the crisis is averted. Phew. That I know our water is OK, I think I'll go water my driveway for the day...  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Monbiot argues that Canada is the major factor that will impact a new major climate agreement...

Tyler Hamilton, author of the Clean Break blog and Toronto Star columnist, posted a link to a column written by the famed environmental activist George Monbiot. In the column, titled "The Urgent Threat to World Peace is...Canada", Monbiot identifies Canada as the major threat to any potential climate agreement at this month's meetings in Copenhagen. It is strange that Canada could play such an important role, but it very well might.

Hamilton recommended we read it and pass it along. I suggest you do.

Carbon credits & Ontario's FIT...

Ontario's uber-progressive Feed-in-Tariff program is wonderful for someone wanting to produce renewable energy. Solar PV producers can get as much as $0.802 per kWh produced, which is almost twenty times greater than the market rate for electricity in Ontario.

At the same time, much talk is happening provincially, nationally and globally about a possible cap-and-trade system: Ontario has mumbled about a potential interprovincial program with Quebec; Stephen Harper's government is bound to join up with any system that comes out of the American government (which I assure you, will be a cap-and-trade system); and the climate change summit in Copenhagen in just a few days will have a large cap-and-trade facet to it. For renewable energy project developers, this could mean cashing in on the carbon credits they'd receive for their "emissions-free" projects. They could sell their credits to the less-green folks out there.

Renewable energy developers should be licking their chops. Serious money could be made from two different angles.

But hold your horses. Ontario's independent energy manager, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA & delivery agent of the Feed-in-Tariff) has a nice little clause written into the FIT contract. Under section 2.10 of the contract it reads that "the supplier hereby transfers and assigns to...the OPA who thereafter shall...retain all rights, title, and interest in all Environmental Attributes associated with the Contract Facility during the Term of this Agreement."

In layman's terms, the OPA keeps everything that might contribute to potential carbon credits, which in its terms is an "Environmental Attribute".

You could easily criticize the OPA for doing this, especially for no direct cost in exchange. But the OPA claims that no price can be put on it at this time because their is such uncertainty in what the carbon credits could be worth.

But really, who can fault them? The government is providing huge swaths of money for these projects, so any chance of reclaiming some of that without really harming anyone isn't really out of the question. Furthermore, it could inevitably end up making the FIT program considerably cheaper, if, say in a few years, the government decides to sell its carbon credits on a carbon market to recoup some of its costs.  

This is not a new policy from the OPA. Some of its conservation-demand management programs -- like the Power Savings Blitz program where $1000 worth of lights are given to businesses for free -- have the same "Environmental Attribute" clause written into them.

For now it is not a problem, mostly because a significant carbon market does not exist and nobody really knows about the OPA contract clause. But give it a few years and you can be sure that some people might be a little up in arms when they decide to sell their carbon credits only to find out they don't own them.