Lunch with David Zetland

Chris and I had lunch today with David Zetland in downtown Toronto. David is S.v. Ciriacy-Wantrup Postdoctoral Fellow in Natural Resource Economics and Political Economy, UC Berkeley. Chris and I have been corresponding with David for a number of months about water policy and the economics of water.

David was also kind enough to do a short guest lecture in April for our Global Environmental Policy class. Our class called David's office at Berkeley via teleconferencing. He shared many great insights about how we value water, how we should price it, how we should distribute it and how we can work better and more effectively with water managers and bureaucrats.

David maintains a water economics blog titled "Aguanomics".

I would encourage you to read his short but very insightful article in Forbes Magazine titled "The Water Shortage Myth". It can be found here:
http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/14/california-supply-demand-oped-cx_dz_0715water.html.

Also, he did a really neat interview with Tom Keene from Bloomberg Radio back in January 2009. Keene poses questions to Zetland concerning water supply, thoughts on bottled water versus tap water, pricing mechanisms, and water distribution. If you haven't heard it already, check out the audio file here:
http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/Economics/On_Economy/vGBtvsfu8Ofg.mp3

It was a privilege to have lunch with David as we shared stories, talked about water policy, our future plans and more. We wish him all the best with his travels in Central America.

Trent's Green Grad...

This time next week, Trent's seemingly empty and idyllic Peterborough campus will be overrun by a swath of robed graduates and their guests. Tim and I will be among them, taking the famed walk across Trent's photogenic Faryon Bridge to accept our degrees.

It is convocation season around Canada. Graduates can range from only a several hundred at the smaller schools, to at least ten thousand at some of the larger schools. Families, friends and other guests flock to celebrate with the new grads. These are far from small functions.

For its part, Trent is trying to make the convocation ceremonies as 'green' as possible. Extending over a period of three days, the five-ceremony process has used approximately 5,000 single use water bottles in previous years. For the second consecutive year, Trent will employ a Bottled-Water Free Convocation, a move Trent pioneered among Canadian campuses. Each graduate will be provided with a reusable stainless steel water bottle -- already filled with clean tap water -- for the ceremony and potable tap water will be provided for guests in recyclable or biodegradable cups. Of course, for those who feel an unexplainably strong inkling for bottled water, it can probably be bought in a vending machine for three times the price of gasoline.

As an aside, did anyone happen to watch CTV News a few nights ago where it reported on the findings of a new study that found bacteria levels to be "revoltingly" high in many bottled water products? Relatively unpublicized studies are cited all the time by opponents of bottled water to little avail, but when the national news starts reporting on it, a major blow will be dealt to the bottled water industry.

Returning to Trent, the school will also be providing graduates and their guests with free passes on public transit to encourage the use of public transportation over cars. Mind you, Peterborough's public transportation system is not particularly impressive, so this might not be as popular as one might hope, but it's worth a shot. After all, transporting a couple of thousand people by car over bus is pretty inefficient. Can you imagine U of T or York providing free transit for its convocations via TTC? It would a very 'green' move, but I certainly wouldn't want the bill landing on my desk.

Trent's third major 'green' initiative is its Green Pledge, a pledge graduating students can opt to take where "they pledge to explore and take into account the social and environmental consequences of any job they consider and will try to improve those aspects of the organization for which they work". For the informal commitment, graduates get to where a nice little green pin.

In addition to the initiatives at Trent, I certainly hope people get a chance to explore Peterborough. In the summer, it can be one of the most beautiful cities in Canada.   

Sometimes a picture can sum it up...

From The Economist:

A highly informative video on High Speed Rail

The video above is primarily focused on California but nevertheless, it provides an excellent overview of High Speed Rail (HSR). California is one of those American states that will receive funding ($2.3 billion) from the Obama Administration for High Speed Rail construction.

Liam Julian from the Hoover Institution out of Standford University, provides a summary of the problems with HSR in the U.S. available here.

Roy MacGregor from the Globe and Mail speaks about HSR in certain regions in Canada and some of its benefits.

Getting more serious on vehicle emissions...

The Canadian government is at last approaching the subject of vehicle emissions a little more seriously. In an article from the Globe and Mail, the Federal government has predicted that it will cost Canada’s auto makers, fuel suppliers and drivers almost $13-billion to meet greenhouse gas emission standards over the next six years.

We are also going to see renewable fuel regulations as of September 1, 2010 which are great, but they too will be costly. There is going to be a mandatory 5-per-cent ethanol content in gasoline which is going to cost roughly $3.2-billion.

Auto manufacturers will incur (well this is a first) $3.7-billion in added costs from the 2011-2016 standards out of a total price tag of $4.2-billion. At last, they will be carrying a bigger burden in terms of fuel standards and making their vehicles more efficient.

Vehicle emission standards are no doubt expensive. As we continue to manufacture vehicles, pass legislation and see a concomitant rise in gasoline prices, one would figure that driving (or to buy a car) can be costly. The Transportation sector is a huge emitter of carbon dioxide. 27 per cent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions are produced by cars, trucks, trains, ships and aircraft.

These new standards will definitely alleviate the emissions output of motor vehicles and perhaps provide a logical reason to explore other innovative transportation options i.e. High Speed Rail.

Environment Canada is confident that the "benefits of better fuel economy will exceed costs by three to one, including $9.7-billion in fuel savings which, officials said, will more than make up for higher vehicle prices. It calculated motorists will recover their added upfront costs in a year and a half"

For some links on vehicle emissions see below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_standard
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/auto-auto.nsf/eng/am01205.html
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/environment/financial/index_en.htm

Uber nerds unite: A trip to the Canada Wide Science Fair...

It was like grade 8 all over again. Rows upon rows of display boards; some put together with the artistic prowess of a kindergartener, while others had the scientific precision of a well-published academic. Each student sat well-dressed in front of their projects as onlookers slowly walked by, the more successful ones draped in medals and trying to fend off a scrum of questioners like Crosby after his gold-medal goal, while the less successful sat quietly text messaging or talking with some of their newly-made friends.

In such an atmosphere, the distinction is easily made. But in the real world, each of these kids is at the top of their game. This is after all, the national science fair. Thousands of people are involved, including top level research programs and bigwig multinationals. My science fair was like a pickup game of hockey, but this was the NHL. I was completely blown away by the level of work and intellect put into these projects.

I found it particularly astonishing that roughly half the projects I saw had to do with the environment, be it with a focus on renewable energy, reducing pollution or water issues. I talked to a girl in grade 8 who did a project on water conservation. She knew far more about the global water crisis than many people my age and was able to not only convey her information to me quite clearly, but was also able to have a conversation with me about it. Grade 8!

This focus on the environment was quite indicative of how important this kind of stuff is. Energy, particularly wind and solar energy, garnered a lot of attention. I saw numerous projects looking at how to make more efficient wind turbines, better solar panels and even ways to integrate the two. I talked to one girl who had spent many previous years researching different ways to improve the efficiency of solar panels and this year decided to research how applicable they really are. Her poster was called Solar Fraud, where she told me how financially inefficient they are, how the chemicals used to make them are really dangerous and how some solar contractors are swindlers. This is true. But when I asked her if she had compared any of this to other energy technologies, she hadn't. Because she was so young, I gave her the benefit of the doubt. But what was really impressive was how she responded when I asked her if we should just kick solar technology to the curb. Instead of the expected yes, she said we should instead be investing in more R&D so we don't need to use the dangerous chemicals. Lots of people would simply say solar is stupid.

Several projects focused on assessing how green certain products were, such as the kid who tested the biodegradability of certain soaps with that label in his fishtank. Sadly, none of the fish made it. So much for the biodegradable label.

I should disclose that these were only a handful of projects and the ones that appealed to me. I only had a short time there and wished I could have explored more of them in greater detail. The ones that received high levels of praise were largely incomprehensible to a mere mortal like myself. I also walked in there in a university frame of mind. When I saw projects I thought to myself, "I already know that" or "there's already folks looking at that somewhere else."

It was not until I left that it really sank in how impressive this was. Yes, I already know lots of this. But I'm 22, not 12. And yes, there's already people looking at this stuff. But they are well-educated engineers, not kids. I can only imagine what they will accomplish in the future.

The future is bright.

Guest Entry: Bike Lanes Serve all Torontonians

This guest entry was written by Yvonne Bambrick for the Toronto Board of Trade. With the author's permission, Yvonne was kind enough to share it with us.

By: Yvonne Bambrick

Bike lanes are a non-partisan issue because they serve all Torontonians. These inexpensive pieces of infrastructure are an important component of the changing realities of urban transportation — not, as many attempt to paint them, a pet project for a small number of commuters.

Cities across North America have been transitioning from merely viewing bicycles as a recreational tool, to understanding that cycling is a legitimate and necessary transportation option. Bicycle infrastructure (lanes, sharrows, bike boxes, etc.) and an active cycling culture benefits drivers, pedestrians, transit riders and cyclists alike. However, infrastructure alone will not suffice — it must be paired with public education.

There are many immediate and positive impacts with bike lanes. They create a dedicated space in which cyclists feel safer, and encourage more people to choose cycling as a mode of transportation — they are a boon to local business and the most affordable and sustainable way to grow our road capacity.

More people on bicycles means fewer people taking up precious road space in cars, and a pressure valve for an overburdened peak-hour transit system. Bike lanes add a greater level of predictability to our roads by showing more clearly where we can expect each transportation mode to be traveling.

With more cyclists on our roads, the phrase “safety in numbers” holds true — the greater the number of cyclists, the more visible they become to motor vehicles and pedestrians. One of the greatest impacts of bike lanes is as a tangible expression of the fact that bicycles have a place in our transportation network.

Economy and Taxes
Encouraging and creating space for Torontonians to choose cycling transportation is one of the cheapest, fastest and most effective ways to accommodate our growing population, and to increase the capacity of our roadways to efficiently move people from A to B.

Bike lanes are cheap! A quick look at Portland, a prime example of a North American city that has fully integrated cycling, confirms this. They calculated that their entire complement of cycling related infrastructure — some 300 miles of bike lanes — cost approximately $60million; the equivalent to the cost of 1 mile of new freeway!

We often hear the argument, ‘If cyclists want bike lanes, they should pay for them.’ Cyclists already do pay for them. Anyone who pays rent or property tax in Toronto is paying for our municipal roadways. If you compare the relative impact of cars and bicycles on the roadways themselves, on our collective airspace, and the healthcare costs of pollution and a sedentary life that driving promotes, it is quite apparent that cyclists are actually subsidizing automobile drivers.

Cycling is also good for business. A recent study by the Clean Air Partnership conducted in Bloor West Village counters the popular myth that removing on-street parking is “bad for business.”

Their conclusions include:
•People who arrive by transit, foot, and bicycle visit more often and report spending more money than those who drive
•People who preferred to see street use reallocated for widened sidewalks or a bike lane were significantly more likely to spend more than $100 per month than those who preferred no change
•The majority of people surveyed, merchants included (58%) preferred to see street use reallocated for widened sidewalks or a bike lane, even if on-street parking were reduced by 50%.
•In this neighbourhood, the majority of merchants predicted that reducing on street parking in favour of widened sidewalks or a bike lane would either not impact or increase their daily customer numbers, and therefore do not believe it will negatively affect commercial activity.

Flow & Congestion
The core function of our roadways is to efficiently move people to and from destinations across the city — not simply, as some still believe, to rapidly throughput automobiles. In fact, the broader aim of Toronto’s much delayed 2001 Bike Plan and proposed Bikeway Network that was designed by our city’s transportation experts, is to insure minimum disruptions to motor vehicle traffic, transit and parking, while creating a safer transportation environment for the growing number of tax-paying Torontonians who choose to ride bicycles for getting around the city.

The streets of Toronto, with or without bike lanes, are a shared environment and all road users have a role to play as we negotiate these busy spaces on a daily basis. Predictable, responsible behaviour, indicating ones intentions through verbal and non-verbal communication, and a bit of good old fashion respect are the keys to safely sharing the road and maintaining the flow of all forms of traffic.

Safety
Road safety is everyone’s responsibility, and we could all use a refresher on our responsibilities. Due to the classification of bicycles as vehicles under the Highway Traffic Act, some confusion still exists because of the hybrid nature of bicycles – they are self propelled and human scale, yet mechanical vehicles. While subject to the same rules of the road, bicycles rely on momentum, have no protective shell, and are vulnerable to minor road surface disruptions.

For example, a small pothole or utility cut that might not affect a car could endanger a cyclist. In the absence of clearly designated places for cyclists to ride, the line between pedestrian/vehicular spaces has been blurred. Poor roadway conditions, combined with an often hostile roadway environment, caused in part due to a lack of sufficient infrastructure that would allow all traffic to flow better, and occasional bullying by intolerant drivers has in some cases pushed cyclists onto the sidewalks where they don’t belong.

Ultimately the thing we must all remember is that in a car/bike collision it is always the cyclist that loses – a bit of skin, a week of work, or in the worst circumstance, a life. That loss could be suffered by your neighbour, your child’s schoolteacher, your lawyer, or your brother — we all know and love a cyclist. Bike lanes and public education about road sharing responsibilities and best practice serve all Torontonians regardless of mode. We’re all in this together.

With education in mind, the Toronto Cyclists Union and our partners, have submitted a full update proposal for the Ontario Driver’s Handbook with far more pedestrian & cycling-related road sharing content throughout; we have created the Toronto Cyclists Handbook (soon available in Toronto’s top 17 languages), and we proposed a shorter and more accessible ‘Urban Cycling 101’ course to be added to the City’s Can-Bike cycling skills curriculum.

Leadership
Leadership regarding active transportation is needed from all levels of government in Canada. While we have seen modest improvements at the municipal level in recent years, and the beginnings of active transportation policy implementation at the provincial level via Metrolinx, we have yet to hear anything at all from the federal level.

On this issue, the US is several steps ahead of us so-called ‘progressive’ Canadians with the US Department of Transportation’s Policy statement on bicycle and pedestrian accommodation. This personal blog post from US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood’s tabletop speech at the National Bike Summit in March 2010 reflects their new Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations. Canada, clearly, has some catching up to do.

Strength in Numbers
Those who have thus far been courageous enough, given current conditions, to choose cycling transportation should be supported and encouraged, not made to fight for acceptance and respect against ignorant, politically motivated, fear-mongering rhetoric. More people choosing cycling transportation is of benefit to all.

Yvonne Bambrick is the Executive Director of the Toronto Cyclists Union

Housing Density and the Environment…

“What is the proper density for city dwellings?” This was a question posed by the late renowned urbanist Jane Jacobs. This question is critiqued by Harvard economics professor Edward Glaeser in an insightful post that I encourage you to read. In short, Jacobs (in her active citizenry era) was vocal about the need for density limitations. Density and diversity were two things that she advocated for in the urbanized environment time and time again. But if an area was too dense, Jacobs argued that this would repress diversity and not stimulate it. Thus, she called for density restrictions (usually in dwelling units) so buildings could not grow at extremely tall heights.

Glaeser writes “Jacobs was reacting to the Le Corbusier-inspired public housing passions of the 1950s, when tall structures reflected the passions of planners more than consumer demand. Jacobs was right to emphasize that shorter neighbourhoods also have tremendous virtues”

“But Manhattan’s crime levels have fallen dramatically in recent decades, proving that with sufficient policing, safe streets can be perfectly compatible with tall buildings.”

I’ll touch on the environmental relevance in a bit, but the interesting economics is that restricting new construction and keeping building heights low (because of density maximums) simply means that housing supply cannot satisfy demand. The result is high prices in the city’s core making it only affordable to the wealthy and pushing out the poor. In cities like New York or even Vancouver, the downtown areas or boroughs have really good demand for condos, townhouses and other units because of closeness to work, amenities, the waterfront, public transit etc. Thus by limiting housing supply options, this will immediately force housing development in areas outside of the city in the form of cheaper suburban housing.

I do not have to go at length about the unfortunate (and numerous) ramifications of suburban housing but I want you to think about how your city is growing and what the housing market looks like.

Glaeser says that we should be embracing, not eschewing, densities over 200 units per acre. That’s the safe density number for a place like Manhattan or NYC’s downtown area.

The City of Vancouver (which I’ll blog about at length in the coming months) has not necessarily used density restrictions for urban growth, but has mountains and the ocean to limit housing development in the city. However, the city is all about growing up and not out (an urban planner’s dream) to avoid sprawl. There are many condos and housing units located in the downtown, alas, they are expensive just like Manhattan. So the wealthier class and urban professionals can live and work in the same area. However, the poorer class (with jobs concentrated in the downtown) cannot live there because of housing affordability issues.

Key message: We really need to focus on how we can create affordable spaces in urbanized environments so we don’t see an economic decline that is directly related to the cost of housing. Also, we can make our cities more sustainable and livable this way thereby achieving higher density and creating the impetus for increased public transit use.

The Winnipeg Water Privatization Empire strikes back...

Last July, Winnipeg became a hotbed for governmental controversy, as the city proposed uniting with a private partner to build and manage its water and waste-water systems. The anti-privatization folks jumped all over it as some councillors even went so far as to say nothing would be decided without a referendum. The deal, although mired in confusion and unknowns, was essentially to create a public-private utility whereby the city would continue to wholly own 100% of the assets, while the private partner would be entitled to much of the revenue from the projects.

Up until the past few days, the proposal kind of fell off the radar. But in what the Winnipeg Free Press is calling a "secret water deal", the fight is right back on. Only this time, the deal is a little more advanced. Instead of creating this formal utility, the city is simply proposing to contract a private developer to design and build $661 million in upgrades to two waste-water treatment plants. The kicker is three-fold.

First, the private developer is a company known as Veolia. Though North Americans would likely shrug their shoulders at the name, others throughout the world will undoubtedly recognize the firm. Veolia is huge and manages the water systems of regions all over the world, primarily in Europe, where it is based. In 2009, it had profits -- profits, not revenue -- of over $580 million. They are perhaps better known by their former title, Vivendi. When people like Maude Barlow talk about water being privatized, Veolia comes up first. Winnipeg is not dealing with an upstart company, but rather one of the world's largest private water companies.

Second, the deal is not simply to build and design the facilities. Rather, Veolia has agreed to manage and run the facilities for 30 years. The city is happy about this because it will save them over $1 billion in operating costs and you can imagine Veolia is happy about it, too. When you manage and run something in this business, you tend to reap much of the reward, which in this case, means revenue. And lots of it.

Third, the report that the council cabinet approved is only nine pages long. What?!?! My rental agreement living in residence a few years ago was longer than that. You're dealing with one of the biggest companies in the world, dealing with water services and a contract that is worth at least $661 million, and all you have to show for it is nine pages? There is no mention of how much profit Veolia might make and no mention as to guarantees in operating income and what might happen if those guarantees aren't met. Theoretically, if Veolia doesn't meet its targets, the city could be sued. Even the pro-privatization mayor, Sam Katz, claims he hasn't been given the full financial figures -- at least publicly. And get this, a representative from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation -- which loves privatization -- rejects the proposal because of how secretive it is. He likes the idea, but worries that the "devil is in the details".

To go ahead and vote on such a major deal with only a nine page report is outrageous. And I suspect Veolia is just electing to get their foot in the door in Winnipeg. When the major water infrastructure renewal needs come a barking, which will undoubtedly be sooner rather than later, don't be surprised to see Veolia at the front of the line.

Not every windy area needs wind energy...

Wind energy is all the rage. If most proponents of renewable energy development had their way, wind turbines would be put up in every region of the world. Governments would be encouraged to implement wind energy systems as quickly as possible and provide significant economic incentives (such as feed-in-tariffs) at high cost. The Al Gores of the world would think this great. Why on earth isn't everybody doing it?

I also thought this way up until I started doing work on my Honours Thesis earlier this year. The health and aesthetic concerns of wind turbines aside, it seemed odd to me that more governments in Canada weren't jumping on the wind energy bandwagon in quite the same fashion that Ontario was. Ontario, after all, recently introduced the Green Energy Act, which includes very high rates provided for generators of wind-sourced electricity.

My thesis included a study of Manitoba, Alberta and Nova Scotia in addition to Ontario. Although each province had significant wind resources -- it is quite windy -- some have a lot more wind energy than others. In Manitoba particularly the rates were quite low and much of it can easily be explained by its current electricity system. Hydroelectricity makes up 98% of all electricity generated in Manitoba and the province generates much more than it uses. Hydro, although not considered green by some, is generally emissions-free, extremely reliable and long-lasting. With the exception of diversifying its generation makeup, Manitoba has no real reason to build wind turbines.

The other three provinces have currently and historically relied on fossil fuel-based electricity generation, primarily from coal, natural gas and even petroleum. In response to climate change and the desire for renewable energy technologies -- and in Ontario's case, reducing air pollution -- these provinces have had considerable incentive to move away from fossil-fuel generation and towards wind energy. It makes sense for them, even if it means putting lots of money into it.

For places like Manitoba that don't really need wind energy, they shouldn't invest into it. Just because wind energy is the trendy thing to do with energy these days does not mean it belongs everywhere.

Climate Change and Food

Not to paint a daunting and depressing picture, but this video, courtesy of The Economist, shows two climate models that predict how a warming planet will exacerbate global food supply.

Cycling in the City of Toronto...

I came across a really interesting study today on cycling in the City of Toronto. The study was undertaken by Ipsos Reid Public Affairs, a survey-based marketing research firm. The study has some pretty fascinating findings many of which are promising for the future of cycling in Toronto, although the City still has a lot of work to do for improving its cycling overall. The sampling size of the survey (a random and representative sample) is (n=1000) pulling an even 250 residents from the four districts of the City including Central Toronto, Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough. The study is quite comprehensive so I will only share the major findings and allow readers to access more of the report if interested.

1) There has been an increase in cycling over the past ten years. The number of cyclists in Toronto has increased 6% between 1999 and 2009 (from 48% to 54%).

2) The increase can be attributed to more people cycling for "practical day-to-day" purposes. The number of cyclists that can be classified as "utilitarian" meaning they commute to work or school by bike or they bike for the majority of their errands or visits to friends increased 9% between 1999 and 2009 (from 20% to 29%).

3) The increase in utilitarian cycling occurred mainly outside of the downtown core, however, the downtown core still houses (unsurprisingly) the highest numbers of utilitarian cyclists at 36%.

4) According to the study, 25% of Toronto's residents classify themselves as recreation cyclists meaning they cycle strictly for leisure or fitness. This number has dropped from 28% (in 1999) because more cyclists have expanded their cycling to include utilitarian cycling.

5) Safety on roads remains the public's principal concern about cycling. While significantly more cyclists are comfortable biking on major roads with and without bike lanes than 10 years ago, still only one-third of cyclists say they are comfortable biking on major roads without bike lanes.

6) One third of cyclists report combining biking and public transportation at some point in time. Secure bike parking at subway stations and bike rental stations close to transit terminals appear to be a means of encouraging this. Bike rentals are also likely to motivate three in ten non-cyclists to cycle somewhat/more often.

The study also found that cyclists are marginally more critical of cycling infrastructure. Cycling infrastructure will have to be significantly ameliorated in Toronto, I am sure many citizens can attest to that.

It's an interesting study and I encourage anyone to read it.

Key message: Good cycling infrastructure is a critical criterion for a vibrant, livable and sustainable city.

Chris' Bike Trip: Introduction...

Tim and I have just graduated. Although Convocation isn't for another month or so, our grades have come in and we have completed what we need to formally graduate, barring, of course, any outlandish events in the meantime. Come September, we will have to do something else with our lives. Tim is off to do a Master's degree at UBC in Vancouver. I on the other hand have decided to take a year off from school. While I mulled about with different ideas and opportunities for the year, I have recently decided that I will spend 8-10 months on a bike trip through parts of Canada and the USA.

My intention is to keep an online record of the trip and while there are several bike-specific sites for this, I think it'd be appropriate to use EnviroBoys to keep this record. So, for the next few months you will likely see a handful of posts documenting the preparation of the trip and at some point in September, once I'm on the road, I will try to post as often as possible.

I have spent several months thinking of different routes to take. Choosing to do something more continental, I eventually settled on doing in something in Canada and the USA. Although routes through Mexico and much of Central America certainly interested me, a combination of inexperience, not wanting to ride through too much desert and most importantly, an extremely concerned legion of family and friends, led me to drop those regions from the trip.

Although specific details of the route are yet to be decided -- and much will likely be left to my discretion on the trip -- a general route has been laid out. I will be leaving from Winnipeg and travelling towards Salt Lake City, Utah, then moving northwest up to Vancouver and Victoria, BC. I will then travel southbound along the beautiful Pacific coast before venturing to the deserts of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The next leg of the tour will take me to the South in through Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana and down into Florida before swinging back up the eastern seaboard, ultimately back into Canada as far as Newfoundland. In total, the trip will take approximately 20,000 km and will likely last well over 250 days.


View Larger Map


The map above provides a general outline of the route, although certainly not specific as it simply follows the interstates and common highways, which are not particularly conducive to cycling.

At this point, it is a solo trip, although I'd be more than happy to travel with someone else along the way, or even for different legs of the trip. I will be riding on a Norco Bushpilot mountain bike that I'm converting to make tourable by adding racks, new tires etc. I have some equipment already, but will have to invest in much more, which I will include in later posts. I will bring a tent, sleeping bag and other necessary camping equipment, as frugality will be of the utmost importance on the trip.

Many people have asked me why I want to do this. In my opinion, there is no better way to see the world. It is slow enough to effectively visit places and fast enough to see lots of places. Plus, it'll be a good workout.

The secret to bike-friendly cities...

More bike lanes. Dedicated bike paths. Plentiful and safe bike parking. Showers in the workplace for cyclists commuting to work. Car-free neighbourhoods.

These are some of the basic necessities called for by proponents of "bike-friendly" cities. Without them, cities will continue to be dominated by cars, polluted air and be hazards for commuting cyclists. Cyclists often cite unaware or even antagonistic motorists themselves as being the main cause of difficulty. Even jaywalking pedestrians can pose dangers for cyclists.

But the real secret to a bike-friendly city is friendly bikers. Cyclists -- and in the interest of full disclosure, I am one -- have a tendency to throw all the blame on motorists and pedestrians and identify themselves as the victims. In turn, motorists consistently criticize reckless cyclists that run red lights, ignore stop signs and weave through traffic. And the voice of angry pedestrians is becoming much louder as some cyclists choose to fly along sidewalks like a bat out of hell. Pedestrians and motorists are not even remotely close to forging alliances on most issues, but when it comes to cyclists, they can agree on one thing: some cyclists are jerks.

Until the fantastical car-free world comes to fruition, cyclists, motorists and pedestrians will have to operate in the same environment. As the kindergarten saying goes: treat others the way you want to be treated. So for cyclists, this means following the laws of the road. If there is a red light, you stop at it. If traffic is moving, don't dart in and out of it at your heart's content. And use hand signals when making turns.

I say this not because I'm a stickler for the law, but because of the friction it creates when these rules aren't followed. How do you think motorists feel when a bike flies right in front of them without warning? And when bikes run red lights it certainly sends a mixed message from groups that say bikes have every right on the road that cars do. I don't drive very often, but even I can be found cursing at cyclists who don't wait their turn at a four way stop.

It is not always an easy thing to do. Being on a bike provides you with certain freedoms a car does not, like weaving easily through traffic or transferring from sidewalk to road conveniently. And stopping at every stop sign is considerably more annoying for someone who has to accelerate under their own power each time rather than pressing a gas pedal. I'll admit, I had a tendency to do much of this over the past few years, and still do to a much smaller degree. I vividly remember a cyclist yelling at me for flying through a red light when I was late for something. But I try not to anymore.

A recent column in the New York Times describes a cyclist, Chris Raschka, who believes he is one of a kind because he actually obeys the rules of the road and tries to cooperate with motorists and pedestrians. He frequently receives compliments from cab drivers, other motorists, and even mothers pushing strollers, while other cyclists are happy to decry him as an "amateur" as they fly through the red light.            

The problem is that in most cities, there is a cultural tug-of-war between cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. Each party blames the other, while seeking attention as a victim itself. But the only way a city can become truly bike-friendly is when motorists and pedestrians can themselves come to respect and trust cyclists. And the only way that will happen is when the less cooperative cyclists choose to take the high road and make the road a less tense place.

Photo credit: StreetsBlog.Org

Planning for Water Resources Management

I completed my Honours Thesis last month titled "Cooperative Management of Urban Water Resources: A Case Study of Peterborough". It is an interdisciplinary thesis including fields such as human geography, water management, urban planning, public policy, stakeholder management and some aspects of civil engineering.

One of my firm beliefs about academia is that any significant academic work -whether a thesis, dissertation, journal publication, book or even a research paper- should be shared with all communities and not just restricted to the academy. Indeed, universities produce lots of great and well researched academic work every year, but often the reality is that such work is locked away in university archives, professors' offices or academic departments.

Having said this, it is my very intention to share my Honours Thesis with everyone who reads this blog. After all, blogging is all about sharing information with others (whether academic work, analysis on current affairs or links to interesting sites). You can access the thesis here. The abstract is found below:

Planning for water resources is increasingly gaining significance in Canada. Municipalities across the country are facing challenges in bringing about sustainable water resources management initiatives in order to maintain adequate water quality and quantity for the future. With constrained municipal budgets, the financing of large water infrastructural projects has become even more difficult. A practical and cost-effective approach for dealing with current and forthcoming challenges would be through the creation of an urban water committee that enables the city to more holistically manage its water resources. This study explores whether or not the City of Peterborough, Ontario could benefit from the creation of a committee composed of stakeholders who have professional responsibilities related to water management/planning including the distribution and treatment of water, public education and outreach, public consultation, land use planning/policy and the protection of water resources. By cooperatively discussing and planning water resource issues, the stakeholders can work towards advising city council on preventative and practical solutions to the water resource management process. Using a case study research method and semi-structured interviews, this project examined how the various stakeholders in Peterborough are currently involved with water management/planning and what they defined as some of the current challenges and opportunities. This project shows their perceptions of an urban water committee and how they feel it might or might not work for the city. The results explain how a committee can improve the efficiency of communication and learning between relevant stakeholders across geographic space. Ultimately, the study found that a committee can provide a valuable contribution to municipal water resources management, especially in terms of facilitating the input of different stakeholders in the process.

Some thoughts on “Save Transit City”

I returned to Toronto last week and I've already used the public transit system a number of times. There are “save transit city” posters found (in great numbers) in subways, buses and subway stations. Indeed, they are ubiquitous. Save transit city is a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) initiative putting pressure on the Provincial government to follow through with its promise to fund and expand Toronto’s public transit services. Such public transit expansion includes a number of Light-Rail Transit and rapid transit routes around the city. Alas, billions of dollars (the specifics can be found on their website) have been put on hold due to budgetary constraints and fiscal issues from the Ontario government.

I think the save transit city ad says it really well: “Public Transit is the lifeblood of our city. Torontonians use transit to get to work, social functions, to run errands and attend appointments. Our buses, while good for short trips, are full and overflowing. People in large parts of this city spend hours every day on the TTC.” This message in short, translates into the need for a more efficient public transit system to accommodate for increasing ridership and to limit automobility. Transit City cannot go forward without the Province's funding. We seem extremely reliant on the provincial government don't we?

The time for public transit renewal and revitalization is now! However, funding limitations are ever so problematic for the City of Toronto. What should Toronto do?

While the Province is an indispensable player when it comes to partially financing municipal services and projects, Toronto must be a little more innovative and self-reliant in utilizing policy tools to raise revenue for its public transit system. Specifically, Toronto should turn to electronic road pricing and highway tolls for its congested and overly used Don Valley Parkway (DVP). The DVP (only 15 KM in length) is a highly popular and well used municipal expressway in the city. As the busiest road in the city (carries ~200,000 vehicles a day), it is a perfect target for expressway toll implementation.

Yes it is true, a highway toll for the DVP is an old idea which has been vehemently contested by citizens and politicians, but now, a toll would be well justified especially in an era where public transit ridership has increased and when public transit desperately needs funding.

Designing such a toll for the DVP would require good systematic analysis probably combining the expertise of an inter-professional group composed of economists, civil engineers and planners. All of the DVP’s entry points (401, York Mills, Lawrence, Eglinton etc) would require an electronic tolling system using precision equipment aligned with lasers to take images of a vehicle's licence plate when it enters the DVP and when it leaves. The motorist would be subsequently billed based on the number of kilometers traveled on the DVP.

Let’s do some basic arithmetic:

Let’s say 10,000 cars enter the DVP from Highway 401. To keep the math basic (and to illustrate my point) let’s assume all of these cars travel from the 401 & DVP and exit the DVP at Queen St. This is roughly 9 kilometers. Let’s assume that the toll rate is 75 cents/km.

75 cents x 9 kilomters = $6.75 per car.
10,000 cars x $6.75 = $67,500

Therefore, under this system, the city could raise at least $67,500 per day based on a toll system from only 10,000 cars. The tolls and pricing can be way more sophisticated if need be, based on vehicle size, rush hour times, heavy zones, light zones etc. Check out the Ontario Highway 407 for its highly innovative toll system.

There are so many possibilities here. This is just one idea. Oh and by the way, the DVP would be a great first step in terms of expressway tolls. The 401 is also very congested but the 401, unlike the DVP, is a much longer highway corridor and would face stiff opposition.

Key message: Either way, establishing tolls on the DVP is a step in the right direction. It is self-sufficient (less reliance on the province), the city can significantly reduce congestion on its busiest road, reduce air pollution and most importantly, Toronto could allocate a percentage of the revenue raised from this initiative to Transit City and other public transit projects.

Photo Credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Don_Valley_Parkway_%281%29.jpg

Green Cities: Peterborough looks to ban the sale of bottled water...

It's about to get more difficult to find bottled water in Peterborough.

The Peterborough City Council voted unanimously on Monday evening to begin the transition towards a ban on the sale of bottled water in municipally owned facilities. The ban, however, will not take full and complete effect for a few years as contracts with service providers at some of the larger buildings, such as the city's main arena, still allow them to sell bottled water. 

This is big. Although there has been quite a bit of talk all over Ontario about municipal bans, only a few have actually been carried out. And what is perhaps more impressive is the unanimity with which the decision was passed. Decisions of such magnitude tend to inspire debate and disagreement within councils, especially when sharing a similar context to Peterborough:

Like any Ontario municipality, Peterborough is solely responsible for carrying out its waste management services and does not rely on the province to help out. Since these services are not cheap and municipal governments -- like any government -- are not particularly fond of raising taxes, they can use all the help they can get, which is what a major bottled water company offered Peterborough. Nestle, after outlining the risks of obesity and preaching the health benefits of bottled water over other beverages, offered to contribute to Peterborough's recycling program if it didn't go ahead with the ban.

Turning down such an incentive is hard to do. You would expect at least some members of city council to vote against the ban, but instead there was an overwhelming level of support for the ban from council. Indeed, councillors cited the environmental impact of bottled water, the negative move towards privatization and the need to encourage the use of municipal tap water.

Unfortunately, I'm out of the city and unable to gauge the reaction to the decision, but I'm certainly happy to see the city take such leadership. You can imagine that Nestle isn't too happy, but I'm sure they can see the writing on the wall. 

Hopefully this move will add to the movement to ban bottled water in other Canadian regions and even other areas of Peterborough. There is a growing movement at Trent University to have the sale of bottled water banned on campus. The movement has gathered some opposition, particularly from Aramark -- the food service provider on campus -- and a student group in support of bottled water. Aramark's opposition is unsurprising, but opposition from a student group? At granola-munching Trent?

The group's main argument is that a ban on bottled water eliminates consumer choice. Interesting that it has taken side with Aramark, which has a monopoly on food distribution at Trent. After all, nothing says consumer choice like a monopoly. Oh wait...          

Canada's era for high speed rail?

I have been doing a lot of reading these days on high speed rail (HSR) technology and its potential implementation in Canada. Both the U.S. and Canada are far behind the EU and Japan in terms of achieving any efficient and effective high speed rail network. In fact, while both Canada and the U.S. have not started building high speed rail, President Obama has at least announced $8 billion in grants for the country's first national, high-speed intercity rail service.

Bringing about HSR is a huge investment. Paul Langan, founder of High Speed Rail Canada, continues to provide many compelling arguments and very insightful analysis into the numerous benefits associated with HSR. To view more information about HSR in Canada, please visit Paul's website: http://highspeedrail.ca/.

In the U.S., models project job creation of 1,750 jobs per year over 25 years and estimated savings of over 2,700 tonnes of CO2 per year in the U.S. The California High-Speed Rail Authority estimates its planned line will save 12.7 million barrels of oil per year by 2030, even with future improvements in auto fuel efficiency.

Another projection by the Center for Neighborhood Technology calculated that passengers would (assuming all proposed U.S. HSR lines were built) take 112 millions HSR trips in the U.S. in 2025 (when it is projected to be complete). This would result in 29 million fewer automobile trips and nearly 500,000 fewer flights. Domestic flights and the inter-state highway system in America have a huge carbon output and only exacerbate air pollution in urban areas. Such an HSR system would significantly improve transportation in the U.S. and alleviate pressure on domestic flights.

Let's turn to Canada. There are two corridors in Canada that are well suited for HSR: the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor and the Calgary-Edmonton corridor, both of which have good population density and sufficient traffic. A tonne of studies have been completed demonstrating the advantages of HSR in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. Indeed, a 1995 study shows that by 2025, with the implementation of HSR, specifically 300 km/h technology, annual emissions of CO2 and carbon monoxide related to inter-city travel within the corridor would drop by 24% and 11% respectively. That's significant especially given the importance of sustainable transport in this era of climate change.

Another study shows how HSR lines require less space to move a greater number of people than present highway systems. The 2004 Van Horne Institute Study on the Calgary-Alberta high-speed potential line shows that 16,000 people can be moved using only 30% of the space of a four-lane divided highway- which can only move 10,500 passengers. Less space for transportation infrastructure means more space for wetlands, preservation sites and forested areas.

There are so many studies out there that have thoroughly investigated the merits of HSR. While much of this is hypothetical, based on models and predictions, it really boils down to money. The Province of Ontario is currently not well positioned to fund such an HSR line (Windsor-Quebec City). However, the Province should collaborate with Quebec and the feds for building this project. It would make travel times considerably faster and cost less than the current Via rail system. For example, a trip from Ottawa to Guelph (328 KM) takes about six and a half hours with the current Via rail train and costs $200. HSR, would cost $175 for this trip (based on a model) and would probably take only three hours (that's right, half the time of the Via train!)

If not in Ontario, Alberta might be better positioned to lead our nation with an HSR line. This line (would be Canada's first) would provide evidence of its many benefits (job creation, cutting down on automobile dependence, more efficient use of space) and perhaps an impetus to kick start other HSR lines across the country.

Canada is a vast nation with a small population density. Alas, this makes HSR less appealing. However, given the importance of transportation in the 21st century, given the great potential for job creation, and given what other nations are doing (China is now building 7,000 kilometers of dedicated HSR routes), it is time for Canada to jump on board and build its first HSR line.

For a comprehensive summary regarding the pros and cons of HSR, I would encourage you to read David Levinson's blog, the transportationist. Dr. Levinson is a Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Minnesota and is regarded as one of the smartest thinkers on transportation in the U.S.

More to come on HSR.

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

By: Trevor Shah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A desperate paper plea coming to a Facebook page near you...

If you're young, you probably won't print this blog post. But you really should. Print five copies for your friends, even. And please, don't feel guilty about the environmental impact.

This is the message being put forth by one of North America's largest copy paper companies, Domtar. An article published in today's Globe and Mail details the new strategy being taken by Domtar. Quite simply, the company believes that the "think before you print"mantra endorsed by environmentalists is "just bull" and that people should not feel bad about printing. Indeed, it is very proud -- and it should be -- of its use of FSC Certified process and the fact that three trees are planted for every one used.

Domtar appears to be convinced that it is the environmental issue hurting its business -- sales are expected to slide significantly over the next several years -- and so it has put together a campaign called Put it on Paper to convince people that printing isn't nearly as bad for the environment as people make it out to be. Moreover, because young people don't seem to print too often, much of the campaign will be aimed at Facebook and Twitter, where most young people live. Don't worry, printed material will also be part of it.  

Domtar is right, the environmental issue is hurting its business. And I'm glad it is, as it means that more recycled paper is being used and, more importantly, less paper is being used overall. Its 'green' practices should not overshadow the underlying fact that using virgin materials is rarely, if ever, more environmentally sustainable than recycled products.

But where I think Domtar is wrong is in its targeting of the environmental issue as its main enemy. Paper is being used less frequently not because of its environmental impact, but because the alternative is so much more convenient. It has little to do with telling people printing is OK.

Why don't kids print out all the emails from their friends, Domtar asks? Because their square foot laptop can store as many emails as would fill their house if all of them were printed. And specific messages can be found in less than a second. Filing cabinets just can't do that.

Clutter is a problem, too. I'm in the process of moving out of my rental house and I've been rifling through piles of old pages I was encouraged to printout in earlier years. All of it is going to the recycling bin. Electronic forms of that stuff would be much more convenient.

We should not get rid of paper entirely. It most definitely has its place. I have been raised by a family with a vested interest in the printed word and still enjoy reading the newspaper, magazines and books in printed word over their electronic versions. But Domtar is a copy paper company and is encouraging the increase of printing things like emails. Sure, some things should be printed, specifically those things that are very important, and multiple copies should be made in the same way that we use backup drives on our computers. But printing with the mindset or in the volume proposed by Domtar seems ridiculous.

It is nothing more than a desperate plea from a company that sees its future going down the toilet. That, unfortunately for Domtar, is the nature of capitalism. As more and more industries start to grind to a halt, I just hope that the pleas are at least somewhat accurate and realistic, and more importantly, that alternatives can be found so as few as possible jobs are impacted.

Photo Credit: MSNBC

Poll results: Planning your community...

This past week's poll question pertained to planning. The poll question was: You are asked to plan the potential use of a large plot of land outside of the downtown. Would you...

Plan a sub-division. People need housing and lots of space 1 (4%)
A golf course. Outdoor recreation is always appealing 2 (9%)
A condominium with over 600 units 3 (13%)
A Casino. Potential revenue generator and
source of entertainment for the community 4 (18%)
A city park offering recreation and green space for the community 10 (45%)
None of the above 2 (9%)

Total votes = 22

The main motivation for this poll question is my interest in urban planning. The question pertains to fundamental urban planning but is nonetheless an important one considering how complex and multidisciplinary planning is. Enviro Boys suspects that many of our readers and followers are environmentalists and/or progressive in their environmental thinking. Planning a city park offering recreation and green space for the community had the most votes (n=10). The casino, condo, golf, sub-division and none of the above were not as popular.

While the benefits (aesthetics, health, nature and protection of native species) are clear with the creation of parks and public spaces, they are not always a priority for a city's planning department. Planners are faced with stiff challenges endeavoring to facilitate development and ensure that numerous stakeholders are satisfied. Green spaces and parks are needed for any growing city, however, developers are not shy to propose condos, sub-divisions and even casinos to occupy the potential space and reap economic benefits from this. Such commercial, entertainment and housing options also increase the city's tax revenue base which is certainly appealing in a time when city's have constrained municipal budgets.

As a city urbanizes, arable land and resources become scarcer. Thus, when an open plot of land is available, planners are consulted to determine how they can best optimize the land use while looking at environmental, economic and social considerations. So, a condo, while contentious to many, can be appropriate given the city's growth patterns and housing market. It would lift with the property values of homes within the area and potentially make the local real-estate market more appealing. However, it could also cause car congestion, block off sunlight from reaching parts of the city and use more surface area for parking thereby creating more impervious surface and increasing the potential for flooding.

Every plot of land in a city is valuable. How we plan it is totally contingent on whose interests are part of the equation. As citizens, we always have a role to play in planning our respective communities. If a plot of land is being examined for best use (whether commercial, public, residential, industrial etc) we can throw in our opinions and thoughts regarding how it could be planned to maximize the best interests of the community. We can attend city council meetings and write letters to propose recommendations on how the plot of land could be better planned.

For every individual that gets involved with this process, eventually, it could lead to a more cohesive and unified community that is actively involved in shaping how the community is planned. This can help in reaching environmental, social and economic objectives.

Is Ontario quietly walking away from its renewable energy targets?

Ontario is driving the country's most ambitious renewable energy incentive program; its Feed-In Tariff that came as part of the landmark Green Energy Act. As with any ambitious government policy, equally ambitious targets accompany the program itself.

Several months ago I came across Ontario's new renewable energy targets under its FIT program and found them to be well beyond anything I had seen before. Ontario had committed to 15,000 MW of new renewable energy by 2025 and even hoped to exceed the targets. To put that in context, its current generating capacity is roughly 35,000 MW, primarily made up of nuclear, gas, coal and hydro.

Because solar projects are not usually very large and relatively few biogas projects are developed, most of the 15,000 MW would come from wind and hydro projects. Now, to be clear, 15,000 MW of hydro projects would produce a lot more electricity than 15,000 MW of wind projects because the wind doesn't blow all the time. But if even a third of that target is met by wind, it would mean a minimum of 2,500 new wind turbines scattered throughout the province. Regardless of whether or not you think that's a good thing, that is an immense number of turbines. It's actually more than you'd find all over Canada, Ontario currently included.

But I came across something very curious the other day. While looking to confirm those targets for my Honours Thesis, they were nowhere to be found. The government website I had used before was no longer available and a thorough review of the government's different department/agency websites (the Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Power Authority) brought up nothing.

Instead, the only solid numbers I could find were estimates of job creation and what Ontario has already done since October. In thinking I was perhaps going a little crazy, I went in search of these targets elsewhere. Luckily, I was able to find a few sites (here, here and here) that made reference to the government announcement of the targets.

Why these targets aren't available is quite a mystery. It is, of course, possible that I am simply too daft to find them, but I find it unlikely. At this point I won't begin to speculate further, but I feel that it might be appropriate to follow up on it.

I'll try to keep people updated...

Sustainable Transportation and Singapore:

A couple of weeks ago, I completed a term paper for my Philosophy of Geography class. I did research on Transport Geography (a sub-discipline in Geography) and found many groundbreaking transportation ideas from the literature. This post will feature one segment of my paper which explored Singapore and the successes it has had in achieving a sustainable transportation system. Good transportation systems will be key for the 21st century, especially for climate change mitigation.

This is a pretty lengthy post. For anyone wishing to read more about transport geography, you can access my paper here.

A general trend in Asian countries like India and China is that increased wealth means more production and subsequent purchasing of automobiles. This process is problematic from a socio-economic status perspective as more vehicles are being purchased and used by the wealthy which exposes the poor to even more emissions and pollutants, or as one scholar puts it: “mobility for some will be at the expense of immobility and disease of others”. It is difficult for the government to discourage automobility when mobility is perceived to be better and public transit might be unpopular because it is uncomfortable, dirty, inconvenient and less enjoyable.

The critical challenge is to balance motorization with public transit. Singapore has been successful with such an endeavour through bringing about a sustainable transportation system. Their system fosters mobility because it allows users to choose their mode of transportation subject to a range of well-coordinated policies to control car population and usage, and at the same time to provide high quality public transport facilities.

Roads have received substantial public investment; from 1986 to 1996 the road surface area increased 27%. Between 1996 and 2000 $3 billion was invested to construct a 300 km highway and from 2001-2005, another $570 million was used to further road expansions. Public investment in the public transit network has occurred simultaneously through the mass rapid transit (MRT) and the Light Rapid Transit (LRT) networks.

Promoting motorization and public transit has involved a set of innovative management policies to achieve a sustainable transport system. The first is a vehicle quota system (VQS) which combines state planning and market mechanisms to allocate vehicles to users and so manage the vehicle population. This management tool is effective in controlling the vehicle population in Singapore as it limits car ownership. Ownership of a vehicle requires a certificate of entitlement and the quota system is based on categories of vehicles differentiated by engine size. The VQS has reduced the annual growth rate of vehicles to three percent because citizens feel inclined to have more control over their transportation choices either through walking, busing, cycling etc.

The other innovative policy is road pricing. The country uses electronic road pricing (ERP) which is a sophisticated combination of radio-frequency, optical-detection, imaging and smart-card technologies. ERP is a method of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) which has gained popularity in places such as North America, Europe and South-East Asian nations like Singapore. These technologies have been championed by civil engineers but have required input from transport geographers and planners in terms of situating them in transportation networks. Pricing roads is a really effective approach to discouraging automobility.

With ERP, the share of private cars over total commuters declined from 48% to 29%. Public transportation has received many benefits from the ERP scheme. Indeed, buses have become faster, more efficient and have seen ridership rates go up. Singapore was the first city in the world to implement an electronic road toll collection system for purposes of congestion pricing.

Mobility has been advanced in Singapore because policies have promoted public transit. Policies have made the quality, frequency and diversity of the public transit system and its services a viable alternative to the car for a wide array of the population. One progressive and emerging idea is to install intelligent traffic lights to detect approaching buses so the lights turn green automatically, this will also come with more bus lanes. This is meant to increase efficiency and mobility as a bus carries more passengers than an automobile.

Low fares in Singapore’s rapid transit system ensure that anyone can access public transport. Low-income commuters are assisted by the “many helping hands” approach, with the government, local communities and the public transport operators all extending their help in various ways such as government income redistribution schemes and transport vouchers. The rapid bus transit system provides low fares in general and continuously seeks input from the public about quality of service, price level, waiting and walking time in a trip. Last, road pricing has been effective because it controls usage of cars i.e. making automobility less attractive because it is more expensive and rapid bus transit more popular because it is cheaper and highly efficient.

Key message: Singapore provides a model for an excellent transportation system. While many cities and countries have their own unique geography, economy and public policies- there is always ample room to revamp transportation systems insofar as the political will is in place.

Gleick's new book on bottled water...

Peter Gleick is the President of the Pacific Institute based out of Oakland, California. Gleick is an engineer (PhD, Energy and Resources, UC Berkeley) and is an internationally recognized water expert. His new book "Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water" is all about the politics, economics and science of bottled water. Moreover, the book addresses marketing and advertising of bottled water, bottled water claims, the growing revolt against bottled water etc. Much of it is based on the United States.

In Peter Gleick's blog, he shares an excerpt from the book about contaminants in bottled water and it is pretty frightening. A number of contaminants have been found in bottled water including mold, kerosene, sanitizer and crickets. Crickets? That's right, according to Gleick:

"In 1994, a bottler in Nacogdoches, Texas issued a recall for sparkling water found to be contaminated with crickets. The water was distributed in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia and the recall notice wasn't issued until seven months after being bottled and distributed, making it unlikely that consumers were notified in time to avoid buying the contaminated bottles. Maybe they thought it was a bonus, like that worm in tequila, or the weird things sometimes found in flavored vodkas".

This really boils down to how we test and monitor our water, whether it is bottled or tap. Increasingly, we are seeing more experts and citizens asking questions around the implications of bottled water on our health. To read more, check out his blog.

Our first guest blogger!

Well, after countless hours of begging and Tim's midnight raids on children's piggy banks to fund our bribes, we have finally done it. We have found a guest blogger.

Emmalea Davis is an Environmental Studies student at Trent University, just like us. We met her in a couple of courses and it was quite clear that she had an expertise in areas that Tim and I will never come close to sharing. Luckily we were able to convince her -- through empty promises of fame and fortune -- to share her expertise on our site.

So I hope you enjoy our first guest post and hopefully it won't be the last, from Emmalea or anyone else interested in contributing...

Guest Entry: Does anyone know about Bill C-474?

By: Emmalea Davis

Does anyone know about Bill C-474, because it just broke a record in Parliament this past Wednesday, when it passed its second reading in the House? The Bill is a Private Members Bill, proposed by an NDP representative from British Columbia’s Southern Interior, Alex Atamanenko. Titled “An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations”, it proposes that all genetically engineered organisms are subject to a market analysis as part of the approval process undertaken by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) under the Seeds Act. On Wednesday after a close – 153 to 134 – vote, the Bill became the first proposing changes to the rules regarding genetically engineered (GE) organisms to make it past a second reading in the House.

Since 2001, more than ten Private Members Bills have been set before the House of Commons, with only two even being selected for debate (2001 and again in 2008). Both of these were regarding mandatory labelling of GE foods, and both were defeated (126-91 and 156-101, respectively). Wednesday was the first time a Bill regarding GE foods was voted on, and supported, twice. It has now moved on to the Agriculture Committee, for study and likely amendments, before it will once again be voted on in the House. 

If approved, the Bill would move onto the Senate for review and voting, and hopefully pass into law. Fingers crossed that Parliament doesn’t get prorogued again, before the House has time to consider the final draft coming out of the Agricultural Committee, which is what happens to far too many Bill these days.

Whether you are for or against, or don’t even care, about GE organisms, this Bill should interest you. Not only is it breaking Parliamentary records, but it is also the first time Parliament has acknowledged (through their support for a Bill like this) that perhaps Canada’s regulatory system regarding these “Novel Foods” isn’t perfect. 

The call for a market analysis before approving these new organisms comes out of the current problems faced by Canadian flax farmers. In September of 2009, Germany discovered GE contamination in flax shipped from Canada. By November over 34 countries were reporting contamination from our flax, and Europe and Japan (our largest and third largest flax export markets – with the US in second) closed their markets. Today, though the markets are open again, farmers have to pay for 3-tier testing, once in Canada and then again when the shipment gets to Europe. If any contamination is detected, the shipment is sent back. Canada is the world’s largest flax exporter, and flax farmers have seen prices drop over 1/3, while at the same time are having to pay for multiple tests to certify their seeds and harvest are contamination-free. 

Even worse, 2009 was a record year, and Canada now has a ridiculous surplus of flax which no one (aside from the US) wants. This same scenario played out in 1998 for Canadian canola farmers, and due to huge contamination issues Canadian organic canola farmers lost their certification – for good.

The scariest piece about the flax issue is that the source of contamination (CDC Triffid Flax) was deregistered and thought to be entirely destroyed in 2001, when flax farmers protested its approval for sale in Canada due to fears that just this sort of scenario might take place. Though the flax was determined to be “substantially equivalent” (and therefore safe) to conventional flax, flax farmers were so upset that its creator, the University of Saskatchewan, agreed to its deregistration. (Call me cynical, but if it had been Monsanto or Dupont the farmers would likely have had a much bigger fight on their hands.) Regardless, eight years later, no one knows how the contamination by a strain thought to be eliminated has managed to ‘infect’ so many farmers’ fields – especially considering the seed was never sold commercially.

Bill C-474 is not about opposing GE technology, nor placing unnecessary red-tape in the approval process. It is about ensuring that farmers will be protected from this happening again, by forcing the CFIA or the proponent of the new organism to ensure that there will be a market for both crops (conventional and engineered), even if contamination occurs. If this assessment had been done in the case of flax, it is likely it would never have been approved for field testing (in open fields in Saskatchewan from 1989-1995). 

We know that pollen and seeds can’t be contained. We know that Canada is far more permissive with this technology than most of our trading partners, and we know that we are likely not going to change either of those facts anytime soon. The most important thing we can do, at this point, is to make sure our farmers, who are already under severe economic burdens, are protected. And that they no longer are responsible for paying the price when our technology gets away from us.

For anyone interested in seeing how their MP voted on Wednesday, click here. And you can find out more about the Bill and the flax issue here or from a more anti-GE perspective here. 

A Proposed International Convention on Water...

This semester, Chris and I took a course called Global Environmental Policy. A large part of the course was focused on researching and becoming an expert on an international convention. Our classmates became experts on conventions such as the Basel Convention of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species just to name a few. There were a diverse range of conventions presented in our class which illustrated the course's interdisciplinarity and the great mix of research interests. Most of our classmates did their research on an existing convention and provided their own critiques, analysis and recommendations.

Chris and I took a different approach. We decided to explore and create our own convention on water. A convention on water would be a multidisciplinary forum for dealing with a wide range of issues including water governance, water pricing, distribution and access, treatment and much more. Initially, we we were interested in exploring the possibility of an international convention on water as a human right. Our approach however, changed overtime as we realized the complexity and multidisciplinarity of water resources.

Managing water, for example, involves (or should involve) many different stakeholders including civil engineers, politicians, planners, economists and environmental scientists to name a few. The private sector is also very much involved in water resources management.

Over the past four months, Chris and I have learned a lot about the politics, economics, management, ecology and societal aspects of water resources. We wrote a ministerial brief (a component of the course) addressed to various Canadian and Provincial government ministries.

In our brief, we highlight the main issue at stake and provide recommendations on how Canada can respond to water policy both domestically and internationally. Importantly, we provide analysis and some direction for the government and its potential involvement in an international convention on water. To view our ministerial brief, please click here.

We also made a class presentation about our convention. One of the recommendations we proposed was derived from an economist named David Zetland from UC Berkeley. In our final class, we called David via teleconferencing and he elaborated on his concept (water as a property right) and students had the chance to ask questions and seek more information about this very relevant and increasingly significant natural resource.

A little much needed cooling for a few days...

The volcano that recently erupted in Iceland has been spewing swaths of ash and smoke into the sky. The ash is so thick that flights throughout Europe have been cancelled in a uniform grounding of planes of a scale not seen since the September 11, 2001 terrorism attacks. It is unclear how much longer the grounding will last, but one can guess it will last at least a few days. 

The combination of the eruption and the grounding of planes could provide a little bit of global cooling for the next few days. Granted, it will likely be a remarkably minute effect, but it is something. The thick ash and smoke will block the sun for quite a while and cool the land underneath it. Indeed, previous eruptions have had a profound impact. In 1991, a volcanic eruption in the Philippines is believed to have cooled the earth's surface by almost one degree fahrenheit. 

And to add to any cooling from the volcano, the grounding of flights will certainly help. Considering western Europe and Scandinavia is the world's busiest flight corridor and jets are significant contributors to climate change, cancelled flights could at least slow down some warming. Mind you, it will likely be even less influential than the volcano.

The downside, outside of people not getting on their flights, could be acid rain and serious air pollution. The ash will likely make its way towards the ground (though it hadn't yet when I write this) and have significant breathing problems. And ash is extremely acidic, so it could lead to acid rain or very acidic water supplies. Degradation of the ozone layer is also of concern.

The acidification is largely caused by sulfur-dioxide contained in the ash. Throwing sulfur-dioxide into the atmosphere is a solution to climate change being proposed by some that is encapsulated in the term "geo-engineering". But, as the risks around acid rain and the ozone layer are realized, it is very clear that there is no free lunch.      

Greening the greens...

Mark Twain once called it a good walk spoiled. Others have defined it simply as an endless series of tragedies obscured by the occasional miracle. No matter how poetic you get with it, there is no game quite like golf.

Golf has been around for centuries and is played by millions throughout the world. But it is certainly not without its critics. Apart from the myriad writers and many others who can't seem to hone their skills very well, golf has frequently come under fire as a sport for "rich, white guys". More recently, golf has been targeted as an environmental monster.

Golf uses huge amounts of land, outrageous amounts of fresh water and often large volumes of cosmetic pesticides to keep the course looking very green. They tend to be built on highly viable agricultural land and can have a detrimental impact on wildlife.

But before I continue, Tim and I have a confession to make. We, dare I say it, are golfers. And we hit the greens yesterday afternoon. We have spent many hours discussing the appropriateness of two guys who study the environment and write about it playing a game that has so much environmental impact. Consider it a guilty pleasure.

But as we were playing yesterday, I kept thinking about how golf could be made more environmentally friendly. So let's explore some ways golf could be made a little more 'green'.

Golf courses could start to use high grade compost instead of cosmetic pesticides and conventional soil. High quality compost can often be more fertile than synthetic treatments and as more communities turn to it, supplies could be plentiful and cheap.

Courses could also turn to using xeriscaping (or drip irrigation) to try and use as little water as possible without harming the quality of the game.

The courses could also work together with local conservation authorities and ministries of the environment to protect wildlife habitat and any special species. Indeed, the Audobon Society has a certification program that awards certain courses that meet their environmental standards.

Turning to energy use, the courses could use renewable sources to power things like the clubhouse and to charge the golf carts.

The Conservation Council of Ontario is looking at this and has developed a project that is examining all the facets of 'greening the greens'. I suggest looking at its site if you have more interest in exploring what can be done.

Some of this might be expensive, but the beauty of working with golf courses is that they tend to be -- as critics highlight -- played by those with considerable levels of income. Some of the private courses charge annual membership fees of thousands of dollars. For many golf clubs, money is not much of an object for their membership base.  

I admit that golf is intrinsically an environmentally unfriendly sport, just given the need for huge amounts of land and to keep the playing surface of good quality. The most environmentally friendly thing we could do is just shut them down and return them to their natural states. But that isn't going to happen, so we should try to green as much of what we do as we can.  

(Photo: Atwood Lake Resort)