Using Nature to Sell Housing Part 2...

I had some time last week to bike around Peterborough and photograph some of the newer sub-divisions being constructed on Greenfield sites. I have a group presentation next week and we are going to present these pictures and provide some analysis. The picture to the right illustrates the marketing of a sub-division project called “natural habitat”. If you live in Peterborough, or take the East Bank bus to the university, you can’t miss it. It’s just off Armour Road about 1.5 kilometres south of the university’s campus.

It is evident in the picture that the housing development features nature in some sort of way: Waterfront setting, golf and conservation lands. I wonder if the people who purchase property here actually know what conservation lands mean. A golf course is nearby the development and presumably, with more growth, another golf course will be developed in the coming years. Of course, being on the waterfront setting (next to the Otonabee River) is always an added bonus for aesthetic reasons and recreational activities. So, if you are trying to escape the city (because it is polluted, congested, dirty and so on), and if you are looking for a sense of community, then these sorts of sub-divisions might fulfill your needs.

I am not going to delve into the social exclusivity of these sub-divisions, but it is important to understand the inherent paradox. Having access to nature can give us a chance to embrace it, cherish it and ultimately protect it. We could be good environmental stewards when we move into these sub-divisions but it eventually becomes a hard battle to beat the housing market and its eager developers. Demand for these sub-divisions (in Peterborough) appears to be really good. Developers are quickly jumping on this opportunity to build more and more to meet the demand in the market.

So, residents are seeking nature and open communities yet, more and more sub-divisions are being built on these Greenfield areas which can certainly compromise the natural environment. Runoff from construction, paved surfaces and other can contaminate the water and displace native species and plants in the area. If more of these sub-divisions are built, then Big Box stores might come about to provide everyone with their basic commercial needs. Big Box stores do not encourage walking, biking and alternative modes of transport, they encourage the use of automobility which requires massive parking lots. This takes people away from “getting closer to nature”, both physically and mentally.

Developers are using nature to selling housing, they have been successful not matter how hypocritical they are. Dolores Hayden will tell us that these people move to residential developments on these Greenfield areas because they provide a quieter lifestyle, they are good for raising a family, provide a sense of community and they are close to nature. Getting closer to nature is one thing, actually looking after it is a completely different discussion.

More to come on this…

The Fun Theory...

I think the last time I had fun recycling a product was tossing a glass bottle into a recycling bin like a basketball, which quickly turned to guilt-ridden fear as the bottle shattered and I ran away. But for the most part, activities like recycling or cleaning up litter are far from exciting. A self-induced pat on the back is probably the most many people get when they toss their can in the recycling bin.

German auto manufacturer, Volkswagen is trying to change that. As part of an initiative known as the Fun Theory, Volkswagen has launched a website filled with videos that are dedicated to making mundane but important activities fun. According to the website, "This site is dedicated to the thought that something as simple as fun is the easiest way to change people’s behaviour for the better. Be it for yourself, for the environment, or for something entirely different, the only thing that matters is that it’s change for the better."





Some of the videos I have attached showcase how fun is being used to engage people to take part in activities that they might not otherwise engage in. For example, bottle return stations -- not used in Ontario and some other jurisdictions because of curbside pickup programs -- are about as thrilling as watching paint dry. But when they are turned into a flashy arcade game, people flock to it.





Or how about waiting for the bus? In some cities it might be difficult to know whether the bus is actually on its way. And standing around awkwardly not talking to other people is all too common. But this all changes when a street periscope is built at the station. People can look through the periscope to see if their bus is on its way, and can also explore other parts of the city. Plus it gives them something to talk to others about at the station.





And when you are coming off the subway, why would you take the tiring and boring stairs when the elevator doesn't require you to really do anything? To play a song of course! When the stairs are turned into a piano, use of the stairs increases significantly. 


Our friend Kingsley -- who happens to originate many of the ideas that appear on this blog, although he never seems interested in writing anything himself (hint, hint, cough, cough) -- was telling me about can-crushing Plinko. Based on the famous game from The Price is Right, people crushed their cans and then dropped them onto a Plinko board and then settled into a recycling bin. You can only imagine how much of a hit that'd be.


One of the biggest problems with environmental programs is getting people to buy into them and become engaged. No matter how green they are, how convenient they might be, how healthy they are or how nice they are financially, people just might not care enough to get engaged. But if they are made fun and exciting, as the videos above indicate, people will participate.


Now of course, the novelty would quickly wear off if every set of stairs in a city all of a sudden allowed you to practice Beethoven's Fifth and get in your fitness workout at the same time. But there are undoubtedly countless creative and innovative ideas out there waiting to be unleashed on the unexciting but important aspects of our world. 


What is more, having these fun programs out in the public generates all sorts of community energy. Rather than having everyone walk past each other on the street without offering as much as a glance to one another -- as I have encountered far too many times when travelling through downtown Toronto -- people could share in the fun of these activities, talk with one another and generally just have a good time. A happy, lively and friendly community is a good community.


Being told to take part in things in order to evade guilt and simply getting beaten over the head with the negative consequences of our actions is not always the best way to get people to buy into something. Sometimes they might do the opposite just to spite you. But putting a positive spin on things is a win-win for everyone involved. Well done, Fun Theory.  

A greener and cheaper alternative to wakeboarding...

I've spent much of my life going to the cottage and spending time around boats. One of my favourite things to do is go wakeboarding. For those of you who are unfamiliar with it, it is basically a combination of waterskiing and snowboarding, where you get pulled behind a boat and ride a large board that you can use to jump off the boat's wake and do all sorts of tricks. Some footage can be found here. I am by no means anywhere near the calibre of the guys in the video, but I bet Tim could do all that and more...

Wakeboarding, unfortunately, has an environmental impact. Like many watersports, wakeboarders need a boat to pull them. And often, the bigger the boat, the bigger the wake, and the better the wakeboarding. But, the bigger the boat, the more fuel consumed and usually, the louder the engine. And boats are notorious for their impact on bodies of water, from oil and gas emissions into the water and also into the air.

I recently stumbled upon something very comparable that could serve just as exciting, but without the boat. It is called kiteboarding. You use a similar board, but instead of being pulled behind the boat, you attach yourself to a large kite that you use to pull you across the water. You can also use it to seemingly float in mid air after hitting waves, allowing you to pull off just as many, if not more tricks you could perform wakeboarding. While I have never tried it, the videos I have seen lead me to believe that it offers one a freedom similar to that found in cycling.

There are dangers, of course, the biggest being the wind sweeping you up and throwing you into hazards like rocks or other kiteboarders. But with practice and quickly developing safety technology, many of these dangers can be avoided. Finding places with major wind resources can be a challenge, but in most major lakes and oceanic coasts, winds can get high enough. Throughout the Great Lakes, for instance, there is a multitude of appropriate locations to go kiteboarding.

I'm certainly looking into kiteboarding as something I could do, especially since I have little access to a boat. I certainly can't afford one. But kiteboarding is a little more financially accessible. If you're into this kind of stuff, I suggest taking a look. Here's one of hundreds of videos online.  

Now I am certainly not denouncing wakeboarding or jumping on the proverbial environmental high horse. If someone offered me the chance to go wakeboarding behind a 28 foot ski boat, I would jump at the opportunity. But there would be some guilt attached to it. Several watersports are dependent on boats or other vehicles. Finding ways to get the same excitement without as much environmental impact and as  much as a hit to the wallet can be pretty rewarding.

Poll results: If you were to create a sustainable/green city, what's the first thing you would bring about?

The results are in. There were votes for all options with the exception of “none of the above”. A good subway system was quite popular with 5 votes, followed by 3 votes for the bus system, 3 votes for a city-wide recycling/composting program, and 1 vote each for an extensive bike path system and green roofs for all buildings.

Any sustainable or green city in the world must have at least one of these components. Public transit is absolutely critical especially if the city has a population over 1 million people. Subway systems are expensive...the internationally accepted value for the cost of a subway per kilometre is $100 million. This cost accounts for construction, labour, maintenance and so. By contrast, the more efficient and well financed bus route systems such as the one in Curitiba, Brazil cost about $1.3 million per km. What’s more effective? They both work well but international evidence suggests that subway systems are simply more efficient, have high ridership rates, and are well-financed i.e. London, Paris and Berlin. They all work pretty effectively if you ask me.

Composting and recycling are becoming more popular programs for growing municipalities. Indeed, usually when a Canadian municipality hits a certain population (usually over 100,000), the city has an easier time starting a curbside composting program. Recycling can be found in most municipalities in Canada because it is a practical and smart approach to waste management. Finally, green roofs and bike path systems. Well Toronto recently passed a by-law to require and govern the construction of green roofs on new development in the city. Their benefits are extensive and enviroboys has talked about them before. Cities that have been progressive with green roofs (Berlin, Chicago, Portland) have had tremendous success.

Bike paths are also desperately needed for any green metropolis. Why? Because they are an excellent green alternative to driving. Bike paths need to be properly maintained and need to be plentiful! They should feed into cities just as main arterial roads and highways do. Let’s keep our cyclists a safe distance away from the motorists as best as we could.

Key message: Green cities are full of innovation and opportunity. If you are living in a city with even one of these components, be grateful... but learn about the numerous benefits accrued from other green options too.

Waste-to-energy is a heated topic these days…

Waste-to-energy is a euphemism for incineration, which is that process where a plant will burn municipal solid waste using thermal treatment which in turn can be used to generate electricity. At the “Waste-Based-Energy” industry conference in November 2009, delegates learned about several new incineration plant proposals including one in the Durham/York Region (not too far from Peterborough). The facility’s price tag is roughly $272 million and will be operated by New Jersey based Covanta Energy Corp.

There are some advantages to this plant that I should note. Considering the large population growth of the Durham/York Region, and given the implications of their growing electricity demand, the incinerator could very well provide electricity for thousands of homes. It could also be a solution for neighbouring municipalities who are currently stressing over their landfill sites due to overuse and leachate problems (i.e. when a lot of organic wastes end up in the landfill, sometimes they can leach from the landfill carrying other toxic wastes into the groundwater supply). Other parts of Canada including Metro Vancouver, Ottawa and Edmonton are all on the path to building more incinerators, many of which are being done by public-private partnerships.

So, I have touched on the “good” and now I turn to my cynicism and pessimistic take on the proposed incinerator. Firstly, there are numerous health issues associated with incineration. The burning of waste releases thousands of toxic emissions implicated in asthma and respiratory illnesses, autism, dyslexia and Parkinson’s disease just to name a few. These sites are often built on Greenfield sites or in agricultural communities thereby eroding the viability of the farmer’s land and well-being. Tens of thousands of tonnes of toxic ash are generated annually from the burning of waste, and o yeah, that ash is often sent to the landfill.

These sorts of projects are highly controversial because the companies that operate them do not often account for their negative externalities. For example, when these plants spew out toxic emissions, those living within close propinquity suffer great respiratory illnesses. Indeed, the Durham/York Region is growing tremendously and an incinerator is bound to pose health issues which can potentially add even more pressure to a health care system that already has too much.

I think the Province should mandate that all new incinerators built in Ontario have “scrubber systems”. These systems are a diverse group of air pollution control devices that can be used to remove some particulates and/or gases from industrial emissions. This would account for some of those externalities and put the accountability right on the company that operates the plant.

Finally, the plant is proposing to have a $140 per tonne tipping fee (the charge for accepting waste at the site). I think that 50% of this fee should go directly towards the region’s recycling and composting programs. This would be imperative because empirical evidence suggests that when a city sees the construction of an incinerator, there is less of an incentive for keeping a well-maintained recycling system because incinerators are expensive! Also, taxpayers pay for them.

Key message: Companies that run these incinerators must be held accountable for their emissions. Indeed, they should be required to have mandatory scrubber systems to really minimize the health impacts of emissions. Our health care system is already stressed, let’s keep our innovative waste management programs like recycling and composting which pose no real health effects, unlike incineration.

Canada's government tries to green up its Olympic climate impact...

Stop the presses! Canada's Conservative federal government is taking moderate steps to do something about climate change. Ok, ok, I'll remove my tongue from my cheek.

According to the Globe and Mail, Canada's Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, announced that the federal government is looking to offset the carbon emissions of federal bureaucrats working on the Olympics. Using the same carbon footprint method utilized by the Vancouver Organizing Committee to measure its own footprint, the feds estimate that the bureaucrats will create a total of 7,600 tonnes, largely from air travel, accommodation and the 45,000 km Torch Relay.

The price? $150,000, which it hopes (through a competitive bidding process) to be put towards some form of renewable energy generation or building envelope conservation in Canada.

I find several things very interesting with this move by the feds. First, I suppose some (but not too much) praise should be given to the federal government. After all, no one is forcing them to do this and it is certainly better than nothing. But let's not go too far. As I have said before and will say again -- to some dismay from a certain unprofessional representative of a company with a vested interest in it -- carbon offsets are stupid. They allow people to continue to engage in climate changing activities and simply buy their way out. Moreover, its voluntary, so you don't actually have to do it. But this is old news and I suggest reading the above hyperlink if you want a more detailed assessment of carbon offsets.

The two other things I notice are a little more political. Considering it is going to be delivered under a "competitive bidding process", expect to hear very little about it actually being completed any time soon. These processes can be exceptionally lengthy, especially with a government that is far from quick to move with its climate policies. What is important for them is that they can say that they have committed to it, which is a particularly valuable political tool.

The second political implication of such a move may not be as useful for the Conservatives. Let's do some quick math. $150,000 will buy 7,600 tonnes of carbon. That suggests a carbon price of $19.74/tonne. Not even the Liberals thought that price was politically acceptable when they introduced their Green Shift carbon tax platform. Now, a one time, $150,000 carbon offset is a little different than a national tax, but if I were any of the opposition parties, I would hold the Conservatives to that price anytime they talk about any carbon pricing policies in the future.

A cap-and-trade system -- likely coming within the next few years -- will limit the government's control over carbon pricing, but setting the cap level and issuing permits gives the government some influence.

The Conservatives will likely not associate this carbon offset manoeuvre with any broader climate policies, but they could be held accountable by opposition parties and political onlookers.

Lastly, 7600 tonnes?!?! As one commentator on the Globe and Mail put it, that's a lot of hot air. That's equivalent to the emissions generated from the total electricity used by 1000 homes in the US for one year, according to the EPA. I wonder how far the government explored reducing its initial carbon footprint, rather than simply buying its way out later (with taxpayers dollars, nonetheless).      

Using Nature to sell Housing Development

I recently started working on a project for one of my Geography courses titled “The Rural-Urban Fringe”. The focus of this project is on nature and peri-urban development. In essence, my group has to talk about how nature is used to sell and promote housing development in exurban areas. An exurb is a non-rural residential community located outside a city, beyond the suburbs.

Many could argue that Peterborough is an exurb. I would argue that it is a city (pop ~80,000). However, Peterborough’s fringe areas (located outside of the urban environment) are experiencing the construction of numerous sub-divisions. Growth in the sub-divisions? O yeah, those urbanites (many of whom lived in places like Toronto) are seeking housing outside of the urban area where they are closer to nature, have more lot space and the ability to develop a sense of community.

As part of the project, I intend on biking around the fringe areas of the city to collect and document evidence of nature being used to market housing developments. The sub-division that I’m biking to tomorrow is called “Natural Habitat”. The developers have used this title because it’s catchy and will probably sell more and more homes. Underneath the title it reads “conservation lands”, “golf courses”, and “waterfront setting”. So, if you live in this sub-division you will have access to all of these wonderful things.

Empirical evidence suggests that residents of new large lot subdivisions (natural habitat for example) on once rural land have become worried about more residential growth opposing condos, apartments, theatres, restaurants and shopping malls near their homes. These residents escaped the urban setting to get away from these things. However, new growth is happening all over Peterborough as evidenced by the construction of sub-divisions.

This new growth is accompanied with various amenities which makes the rural life congested, chaotic and begins to see some attributes of the urban. Having said this, the housing developments are still selling because residents can enjoy their large open spaces. Being close to Big Box stores is just a bonus, although it will eventually erode any sense of community and pull people away from the downtown (thus eroding the local economy).

Sometimes families are attracted by a small town’s charm and will choose to buy a house distant from the city- only to find that the town’s physical character was soon compromised by excessive new development. The danger is that once one sub-division is built (near nature), this provides more of an economic impetus to develop another one because housing demand is good. Alas, this defeats the purpose which is to find a small community that can provide social and economic needs for these “exurbanites”.

Key message: Humans have always been in touch with nature. Over the years, we have and continue to witness mass urbanization which compromises nature, the environment and our access to green and open spaces. Thus, when sub-divisions are built in places like Peterborough (relatively close to Toronto), and when they use images like golf courses, trees and rivers, people are immediately attracted to it because it will ostensibly provide them with a healthier and more enjoyable lifestyle. There are burning ironies here that I will not discuss. They will be shared as I progress into my research.

Trent's new Masters in Sustainability Studies...

In the fall of 2010, Trent will begin its brand new Master's Program in Sustainability Studies. According to Trent, the program will "carry out interdisciplinary graduate education and research that will improve our understanding of environmental sustainability, economic prosperity, and social responsibility. Program faculty are united by a common vision that environmental protection, resource conservation, positive social change, and sustainable economies are complementary rather than antagonistic processes. By integrating the efforts of business, government and civil society, we seek to promote an understanding of social, environmental and economic sustainability."


This interdisciplinary approach to the world's increasingly important social, economic and environmental issues is something that Trent University has emphasized for several years in many of its programs. Indeed, Dr. Don Markwell, Warden of Rhodes House at Oxford University and visiting Ashley Fellow to Trent, recently spoke to interdisciplinarity being the keystone to a liberal arts education, something Trent is renowned for.


There are very few other programs like this throughout North America and only a handful in Canada. With a relatively high acceptance standard -- the minimum GPA is set at 80% -- and a unique, yet highly applicable curriculum, this program is likely to attract top students throughout Canada and the rest of the world. 


What is particularly advantageous about such a program is its applicability to the real world. Firms and organizations in the private, non-profit and government sectors are increasingly looking for people to deal with environmental issues, but who also have a working knowledge of the economic and social issues associated with it. For example, if I am the CEO of Exxon-Mobil and I am looking to fill some kind of environmental policy-related position, it is difficult for me to know whether someone with a degree in simply Environmental Science, which is relatively specialized, will have the skills necessary to deal with the business realities of an oil company. A degree in Sustainability Studies would indicate to me that such a person has a well-rounded, yet educated skill set to meet my needs.


Quite simply, this program will be filling a job market that is in high demand, growing very quickly and increasingly important.


But I see one other area where such a program will bring huge benefits to Trent, and that is within its undergraduate programs. Trent is currently known for its spectacular graduate program known as the Environmental and Life Sciences (ELS) program. It houses some of the most dynamic and accomplished academics in the field. Students in the program are given teaching assistance positions for courses at the undergraduate level and those students in the undergraduate environmental science courses and provided with highly knowledgeable TAs.


But this setup is far from advantageous for the "studies" half of the ERS undergraduate program at Trent. That is, the people studying the policy, law, philosophy, economics and social issues related to the environment (of which both Tim and I are included). Because there are so many students in the ELS program, many of them are given TA positions in classes from the "studies" section, of which many of them have very little knowledge. Over my four years at Trent, I have taken several classes that were TA'd by students that were very bright, but knew next to nothing about what we were discussing in class. As you can imagine, this was not particularly helpful.


The other major graduate program related to the ERS program at Trent is the Frost Centre for Canadian Studies, which does not offer an environmental specialization. From time to time, a student studying at the Frost Centre will get a TA position in a "studies" class, but since there are so few of these students, such events are rare. However, I have had the luxury of taking classes with such students as TAs and they have been among the most effective and helpful TAs I've ever had.


With the new Arts-based students coming to study in the Sustainability program, I expect that the undergraduate program at Trent will improve enormously as a result of the introduction of this program, especially if the calibre of incoming students is as high as I predict. And while I will be graduating from Trent this spring and missing the chance to reap the rewards of this program, I look forward to seeing the Environmental Studies program at Trent, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels, grow immensely successful.         


Information about the program can be found at: http://www.trentu.ca/sustainabilityma/

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

Dear readers,

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

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

Total votes = 13

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

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

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

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

The environmental movement is killing the mood, but there is still hope...

The world is facing an epidemic. Every year, people are having less and less sex in cars. The time honoured tradition was once rampant with the bench seat featured in the massive American vehicles of the 1960s, but has been stifled by a combination of bucket seats, heavier traffic and smaller cars -- largely driven by the environmental movement. But all is not lost.

In this hilarious article in the Globe & Mail, Andrew Clark describes how vehicular sex can be salvaged, even in these troubling times. Just in time for Valentine's Day, too.

For those of you looking for a really good laugh (rare in the G&M) and maybe some 'driving' tips, I highly recommend reading "Your Valentine's Day guide to vehicular sex".

Getting businesses on board with the environment...

This morning Tim and I had the pleasure of speaking with one of Canada's most influential and political businessmen in our environmental policy course. Speaking to us all the way from Switzerland after a day of skiing, the Hon. Hugh Faulkner spoke to our class about the role of the private sector in global environmental policy.

Mr. Faulkner served as an MP for many years and the Secretary of State under Pierre Trudeau, was a senior executive at Alcan, a major aluminum refining company and was the co-founder of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development(WBCSD), a group of some of the world's largest corporations dedicated to sustainable business practices.

He offered several important insights into the world of business and the environment.

When asked how you form a group of businesses like the WBCSD, he said you must find the right businesses. According to Mr. Faulkner, there are three types of businesses you'll find when an issue like the environment is brought forward: leaders, followers and naysayers. Leaders, which make up 10% of all businesses, are those that are willing to take serious steps forward to deal with environmental issues. Followers (40%) are those that are willing to do something, just as long as someone else will lead. And naysayers (50%) are the group that won't budge and claim that the environment isn't their problem and they have to be accountable to their shareholders.

This is extremely important to realize. For most environmentalists -- especially left-leaners at Trent -- all corporations seem to get clumped into the naysayer category. My experience in several seminars at Trent has been that most if not all corporations are met with strong cynicism. But it is good to know -- especially from a reputable source -- that there companies out there willing to make a positive difference. The leaders, Faulkner said, are the ones you have to identify if you want to get anything done with the private sector. Moreover, it is especially important to have business leaders participate, as getting other businesses to listen seriously to politicians or NGOs is very difficult.

The second main theme he talked about is something that I have been advocating for several years, and that is to place an economic cost on environmental factors. Without this, companies just won't get it. As much as moral and ethical responsibilities are important to business -- and found within the problematic voluntary codes of conduct -- they usually come second to the company's balance sheet. By incorporating the cost of environmentally-impacting actions into the balance sheet, such as carbon emissions, solid waste generation or water pollution, a company can't help but notice and do something about it. This is difficult because coming up with a firm and accurate price level is next to impossible, but giving it some value is extremely important.

According to Mr. Faulkner, it should be governments that put in place firm regulations requiring companies to measure these impacts, rather than companies doing it voluntarily.

The third piece of advice he offered is that when dealing with a business, under no circumstance should one ever lose sight of the fact that it is a business. Businesses are founded on economic growth and financial generation. Trying to tell them that they shouldn't follow that initial goal is a non-starter. Furthermore, one has to remember that when dealing with a business, they might not be as familiar with the environmental issues as you might be. For example, when Mr. Faulkner formed the WBCSD, none of the business leaders were aware of what sustainable business meant. Expecting the CEO of a multibillion dollar company and likely trained in management to know everything about environmental issues is unreasonable.

But he did stress that businesses want to learn more about it. At least the 50% made up of leaders and followers are interested. So for people in the environmental field or being trained in it at a post-secondary level, as we are, the private sector is a relatively untapped and attractive market for people looking for work. It was especially refreshing to hear him say that they genuinely want to do more. Such genuinity in the private sector is often questioned by onlookers, including myself, as I have written about before.

The role of the private sector in shaping global environmental policy is one of the most important yet controversial topics. Many don't want to include it in talks, citing the 'naysayers' and feeling it would only stifle progress. You can't ignore it. But bringing businesses onboard could be one of the most effective and influential moves policymakers could pull off in environmental decision-making.      

Some thoughts on air pollution in Toronto…

Air pollution is an egregious urban health issue of our time. In Toronto, on-road and off-road vehicles are estimated to generate 38 percent of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 38 percent of sulphur dioxide (SO2), 74 percent of carbon dioxide (CO2) and 15 percent of volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions. These are all of the emissions that contribute to poor air quality and respiratory illnesses. Toronto has the highest summertime levels of fine particulates and the highest annual mean levels of nitrogen dioxide levels.

According to the Pollution Probe, smog alert days have been on the rise for the city and this is largely attributed to an increased number of vehicles on the road. There were 27 smog alert days in 2002, up from just 3 in the year 2000. Since the 1980s, there has been a steady increase in ozone levels in Toronto. Ozone triggers asthmatic attacks among those suffering chronically from the disease. Also over the last two decades, the number of vehicles entering the city each weekday morning increased by 75 percent.

An increase in the number of vehicles entering the city has numerous implications. Toronto finds itself situated in the heart of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. As the region continues to grow in population, urban sprawl may lead to the worsening of air quality conditions for many municipalities.

It is estimated that 3.5 million people will join the Greater Golden Horseshoe by 2035; this will lead to an expanding transportation sector that is conducive to automobility and hopefully public transit. However, public transit will have to be given policy weight not only for reasons of smart growth and providing for densification, but alleviating the pernicious air pollutant sources derived from motor vehicles.

From an urban and regional planning perspective, we have to better optimize regional transportation. To obtain high efficiency and environmental quality, we have to start planning (increasing ridership rates) our alternative transportation systems i.e. Go Transit, Via Rail and light-rail transit. These transit services are gaining popularity in an era of high gas prices and highway traffic congestion- but we can do better especially if we are concerned about public health and air pollution issues.

Epidemiological research has conclusively proven that exposure to air pollution can exacerbate asthma conditions, induce heart attacks, reduce overall lung function, trigger cardiovascular diseases and bring about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), just to name a few. Air pollution is a complex issue; expanding regional public transit for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is something that must be aggressively pursued.

I provided some stats at the beginning of the post to really illustrate how automobiles contribute greatly to air pollution. Our elected officials have heard numerous arguments and have seen empirical examples of how public transit helps increase regional efficiency, transportation flow, create jobs and is "good for the environment". What is not heard as much is the air pollution argument and how regional public transit can drastically decrease "regional air pollutant output".

Key Message: Population growth will add more pressures to regional public transit systems and if they are not managed well, as in we see ridership decrease, then air pollution and the nasty symptoms of climate change are bound to worsen. Urban planning needs to address this more clearly. Civil servants and leaders of our cities must allocate more resources into public transportation.

An unlikely player weighs in on the climate debate...

Amidst all the controversy revolving around climate change policy and the science backing it, the world's most renowned and sought-after terrorist is weighing in on the debate. Osama Bin Laden, in his most recent audiotape, accused the United States and other industrialized nations of causing climate change. For once, I think I might agree with him.

He later goes on to say the solution is to destroy the United States economy, wean the world off the US dollar and stop buying American goods. I'm not quite sure I can find myself in agreement with him on those points, especially since I can only imagine what methods he might use. However, the fact that Bin Laden is weighing into the climate debate is very interesting and is worth a second look. After all, it might end up doing more harm than good with regards to climate change policy.

It is good that someone with such a strong following is bringing light to an issue that perhaps doesn't get as much attention in that part of the world. But blaming it entirely on the US while coming from a prominent and very rich Saudi family -- Saudi Arabia being among some of the world's biggest emitters of GHG emissions -- strikes a hypocritical chord. And unsurprisingly, his solutions to dealing with the crisis are not the most proactive or peaceful.

The greater concern is what might happen in the United States. The right-wing media has been jumping on this, as they can attack two things they hate at once: terrorism and climate change policy. Considering how outlandish some people in the industrialized world can get with regards to climate change, associations between Bin Laden and other advocates of climate action is dangerous. It might seem preposterous that such associations would be made, let alone carry any weight, but people who are fighting against climate change legislation in the developed world are prone to make such connections.

It's a pretty simple line: "You want to do what to stop climate change? You know who else wants to stop climate change? Osama Bin Laden. Are you saying you agree with a terrorist?"

It sounds ridiculous, but if Sarah Palin can get that close to becoming Vice-President, stuff like this is taken seriously by some.

But what we must remember is that Bin Laden's goal here is not to save the planet from climate change. He really just wants to go after the United States and the rest of the industrialized world. Climate change just happens to be one of the many subjects that make these countries look really bad, especially since the rest of the world will likely face harsh environmental consequences.

I suspect it won't even be a blip on the radar screen in a few days, if it even is today. Proponents of climate change action certainly aren't lining up to grab Bin Laden as an ally.

Blogging part 3: Environmental communicators…

Last semester, I took a course titled “environment and communication”. We mainly learned about various techniques and approaches (i.e. blogging) that could be used to communicate science and environmental issues to the public. Through writing articles and making weekly presentations, we were challenged to communicate our topics in a way that a Grade 8 student would be able to understand. It had to be simple, effective and relevant. More than that however was our exposure to the media and how the media perpetually attempts to communicate science in a simple and thought-provoking way. We examined media sources that did a thorough job on reporting environmental issues and also media that was dreadful at it.

Some of these topics included climate change (the science, economics and politics of it), urban air pollution, geo-engineering and hazardous waste disposal just to name a few. These topics are by no means a simple equation that makes sense to everyone. They require a good level of understanding, application and research. This doesn't mean that we have to spend a day doing field research or looking through academic journals to understand them. It means reading online sources to understand the basics and be critical of what is being produced.

A positive trend indicating an improvement in communicating environmental issues is the increased use of internet. We are now living in a more digitalized world. Technology is all around us and the ubiquity of the media perpetually reinforces topics that citizens actually want to hear. Information about science and the environment is all around us. With blogging, online news sources and television, you can now read or view numerous topics that capture your interest. Sure, with this increase in information your level of critical thinking and scepticism should increase as well. What’s trash and what’s good? I am sure you can ascertain that yourself after 15 seconds of exposure to the article.

Some will share their latest findings on climate change so as to accept or reject human-induced climate change. Overall, the level of uncertainty regarding numerous scientific and environmental topics can really infuse dubiety but this forces us to seek out more information, learn and share our criticisms.

With the ubiquity of information and the glorious internet, all of us are gaining knowledge every single day. Some of this knowledge pertains to the environment and current affairs. My challenge for you is to start utilizing that knowledge and spreading awareness. Climate change continues to be a very critical environmental topic and current affair of our day. With the knowledge you learn about the subject matter, whether it is political or scientific, a great way to communicate it is to share information (blogs, news articles, youtube videos) with as many people as you can.

Ultimately, the more informed we are about these issues the more critical we can be of our elected officials and perhaps have more of an inclination to vote in our next election. To communicate environmental issues does not mean you have to have a Bachelor’s degree in the field, it means you have the passion and interest to spread the word just as much as Chris and I do on this blog. Not all of us are in a position to make policy changes on the environment. However, we are in a position to communicate as we are living in an era where access to information is easily accessible.

The experts don't always like sharing their stuff, they want their research to be published and usually it will stay within the academic community. Take what you can from what you learn (as we are all journalists in some kind of way) and start writing, sharing, telling and presenting what you know.... this can lead to more solidarity on the subject and lead to the government making more informed and fair decisions.

Key message: We are all environmental communicators in some sort of way. Continue to share your knowledge through the internet and media to get out salient information that the public needs to know more about.

A talk on "Making a Difference in Haiti: Longterm development and Human Rights"...

Chris recently wrote an insightful and thought-provoking piece about the importance of prevention and the lessons we could learn from Haiti. The blog post captured many critical points ranging from infrastructure renewal, aid, development and preparing for future disasters. I am in complete agreement with Chris on the importance of prevention especially in a time of great climate change uncertainty.

In my own discipline of Environmental Studies, time and time again we talk about how a lot of action on the environment is reactionary. We always wait until something happens before we take measures (either trying to avoid costs, policy or prevention in general). Sometimes we don't like taking precaution because of the unknown risks, we just assume everything is going to be ok. I always like to use the example of water conservation in Canada where an abundance of water re-assures everyone that we have enough. Water conservation and disaster prevention are two different things. But the precautionary aspect is what I draw you to. The more water we consume the more pressure we put on our water infrastructure which eventually costs millions of dollars to fix.

These costs are then reflected in our bills, and then we understand why it is important to conserve. Worse yet, over-consumption can lead to the depletion of the resource (we all know that). So taking the steps now on water conservation (short-term pain for long-term gain) will help us dramatically in the future. You have to take these small steps so as to ensure the problem does not intensify in the future.

On the note of the talk, it is titled "Making a Difference in Haiti: Longterm development and Human Rights". The speakers are Professor Haroon Akram-Lodhi, Chair and Professor of International Development Studies and Anthony Anirud, LLM, Human Rights Advisor and Educator. The event will take place Thursday January 28th at 7pm in the Champlain College Council Chambers.

Both guest speakers will provide an expert perspective on two critical aspects that entangle Haiti. Both topics are important to consider when thinking about what can be done in response to the earthquake and in the longer term recovery.

The talk is being sponsored by the Trent International Students' Association (TISA) and World Affairs Colloquium (WAC) and is being presented as part of “Colleges Connect Cultures”.

It will be interesting to see if either of the speakers touch on the importance of prevention.

An environmental military...

In my class this morning we watched clips from an episode of Whale Wars, a series that follows the radical anti-whaling actions of the environmental group, Sea Shepherd. The group uses a decades old sea-faring vessel, aptly named the Steve Irwin, to hunt down whaling fleets and stop them from hunting whales. A variety of tactics are used, including fire hoses, ramming and even non-toxic, environmentally friendly homemade stinkbombs that make it impossible to work on the deck of the ship.

Sea Shepherd is one of a select few environmental groups that go to such radical and violent lengths to take action and get their message across. Indeed, its founder, Paul Watson (the original founder of Greenpeace and senior member until they kicked him out for his violent strategies) has long said that the traditional forms of protest often lead to no action whatsoever.

The tactics employed by Sea Shepherd are indeed dangerous, but they are also fairly militaristic. Some members of the crew of the Steve Irwin have formal naval experience. In a way, Sea Shepherd represents a very small navy (it has some other ships as well) and it has even titled its fleet, Neptune's Navy.

It has got me thinking. What if Sea Shepherd could grow bigger? What if donations swelled to such a degree that they could purchase even more ships and even more advanced equipment? Soon enough, Sea Shepherd could have itself a solid fleet capable of holding considerable influence. Theoretically, it could have a navy larger than most other countries in the world (mind you, the sophistication and militaristic specialization of the vessels might be lacking).

And what if some other environmental groups with similar radical action plans got involved and their budgets expanded hugely? They could amass the equivalent of a small air force with planes and helicopters. Sea Shepherd already has at least one helicopter. Again, theoretically, some kind of informal environmental military could be established.

Of course, what the intentions of such a force would be would certainly influence the rest of the world's response to it. For instance, Sea Shepherd's actions on whaling and fishing vessels have resulted in arrest warrants been put out in particular countries, though not in its home base of the United States. It has yet to attract enough attention to be considered overly dangerous and require a global response. Of course, if this hypothetical military force started doing more than hassling whalers, more people might start to take notice.

And whether or not such a force could actually find a market in which it could do its work is also an important question to ask. Much of the success of Sea Shepherd has come because it is working towards a specific cause and also working primarily in the global policy grey zone: international waters. This hypothetical force would probably want to expand its mandate, but expanding too far could get it into trouble, especially if much of its work didn't happen outside national boundaries.

It is an interesting proposition, but is marred by countless factors: How would you finance it? Where's the line between 'direct action environmental group' and 'dangerous vigilantes'? What happens if it actually goes to battle with another major force, like a private security force or even a national government?

Now, I would imagine it highly unlikely that the world's globalized security forces would let something like that form. After all, Sea Shepherd is not a sovereign state and national governments would not have to go through the same international process to shut it down -- not that sovereignty always stops them, but that's beside the point. Moreover, who knows whether groups like Sea Shepherd would even want to participate in something that grew beyond its current mandate, size and scope. And I very much doubt that any force of this nature would want to kill anyone.

In light of such an unlikely formation, I can see two semi-legitimate uses for this hypothetical environmental paramilitary force. First, it could serve as a private security force. The United States government, for example, has been using a private security force in Iraq for several years, although it is subject to a great deal of controversy. Theoretically, the environmental force could do contract work for organizations or causes that it sees fit to help. Say some e-waste activists can't get a certain government to stop shipping its e-waste to China even if it is blocked under international law, so instead it decides to stop the ship using direct action by blockading the ship with the paramilitary fleet. But considering that Paul Watson prefers volunteers for Sea Shepherd work -- volunteers have a greater interest and aren't doing it simply for the paycheque, he argues -- he probably wouldn't want to contract his work out for money.

The second application I could see for such a force would be as the de-facto enforcers of international laws. Sea Shepherd already acts in that regard with specific international laws. One of the biggest problems with international laws, after they have been signed and ratified, is global enforcement. Other than groups like the United Nations Security Forces, there are few or no global security forces to uphold international laws. This hypothetical force could do that for environmentally-related international laws, at least to some degree. Of course, the formal complexities of such an idea are well beyond the scope of this post.

I'll finish by noting that by no means am I advocating for such an environmental paramilitary force, but merely exploring the idea. I certainly prefer peaceful and non-violent solutions to problems, but we all know that that doesn't always work.  

Oil sands in Venezuela...

Venezuela has always had an abundance of oil. In fact, at one point in the early 2000s, gasoline sold for as little as 5 cents a litre. Venezuela, like Alberta has some of the world’s biggest deposits of oil sands. It’s been expensive to extract the thick bituminous oil because it requires a lot of money, natural resources (water, natural gas) and sophisticated refining methods which have high labour and technology costs. Using more water for the process pushes up the price of the resource making it financially inaccessible for locals.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) recently reported that 513 billion barrels of oil are technically recoverable from the oil sand deposits. That’s ludicrous considering the oil capacity of Alberta, Saudi Arabia and Russia. All of this oil lies in the Orinoco oil belt which is estimated to be one of the world’s biggest oil reserves- substantially larger that Saudi Arabia’s 264 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The difference between Venezuela and Saudi Arabia is not necessarily the oil capacity but the oil itself. As mentioned, the oil sands are “unconventional” oil which require substantial foreign investment (because they are so lucrative) and more resources for production in general, whereas the Saudis and other Middle-Eastern states extract conventional oil which requires traditional production methods- much cheaper by comparison.

This recent discovery has many implications- driving up competition in the oil market, potentially bringing in foreign investment from the growing economies of China and India, and of course, producing even more greenhouse gas emissions from extraction and production methods, and subsequent consumption.

Key message: Hurray for geological innovation and discovery. We now have more oil to consume! Pollution and environmental degradation are the unfortunate result.

A report on Trent's Sustainability Performance...

This past summer, I worked in a team of three Sustainable Trent interns to research the social, economic, technical and environmental dimensions of sustainability for Trent’s campus. Using a multi-disciplinary and holistic approach, our team examined the challenges, successes and opportunities our campus faces with sustainability.

We just recently put together a 12-page summary report outlining most of our research findings. We submitted the report to Trent University's President.

To read about the project and our recommendations please see here.

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.