Isn’t that how you build a case? You load it with proven fact

Our ability to predict the weather, actually our ability to predict almost anything long-term, is feeble at best. I just finished Dan Gardner’s Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Fail – and Why We Believe Them Anyway and it was loaded with information and statistics about how our predictions about the stock market, housing values, human demographics … pretty much anything and everything, fail. Most of the time we would be as successful if we flipped a coin when making these decisions.

Towards the end of the book Gardner starts discussing climate change, a favourite topic of mine. Gardner believes in climate change but he is skeptical of the climate models to forecast changes in our climate years, decades or centuries out.

“Climate scientists are quite blunt that there is lots about climate that science does not understand, which is precisely why scientists find the field exciting to work in. Combine that ignorance with the almost indescribably complex interactions at work in the massive, non-linear systems that make up climate and there are huge uncertainties woven into every climate prediction. … These models may overestimate the extent of climate change and the damage it does. But the may also underestimate it…”

But even if science is underestimating climate change there are still some other benefits to doing projects that lower ones carbon footprint. Gardner argues the economics, social and environmental cost of carbon accounting schemes. ‘Carbon sequestration’ (pumping CO2 into the ground) will be a waste of money if our climate predictions do not pan out. But he argues the opposite case for methane capture off landfills – it’s win-win-win. Economically you make/save money by capturing a resource naturally emitted from a landfill. Socially, the harmful methane is captured from our atmosphere and has decreases our negative health impacts. And environmentally one reuses a gas that would otherwise be harmful to the atmosphere for electricity production.

Carbon taxes actually have a similar effect, or they can. Raise the carbon tax and cut other taxes. Under this scheme one then also raises the “effective price of fossil fuels thus making alternative energy more competitive.” Europe got it right. After the price crash of oil in the mid-80’s Europe decided to keep fuel prices artificially high with taxes. Thus research and development in conservation and alternative fuels continued. And what do we see today? Alternative energy in Europe is competitive, and they now rely on it and have to rely less on fossil fuels.

I enjoyed Gardner’s book. At times it was a little overwhelming with the amount of data he presented debunking our science of predictions, but again that was the point. He wanted to hammer the point home that we cannot make predictions about our future. The future is chaotic, non-liner … unpredictable, and as a scientist/engineer I find that exciting.

The book is divided into 5 sections: Gaia’s tools, One in Ten Thousand, The Science of Prediction, People in Greenhouses and The Solution. Personally, sections 3, The Science of Prediction, and 5, The Solution, were my favourite. Unless you’re a science or climate geek (like myself) the book can seem a little dry, but it is possible to read a section and put it down while you entertain yourself with something a little lighter.

I read the 2005 edition and from what I can tell online the book has not been updated. That’s not to say it’s out of date; the information presented is still relevant. I recommend this book to the climate enthusiast and the climate rookie; there is something for everybody in it.

Much has been written and commented on in the news recently. Although as the time passes from the disaster we hear less and less about Fukushima. But there is still much we can learn from the recent tragedy.

Why there will should never be a Nuclear disaster to that scale in Ontario

With the events that unfolded in Japan it was understandable that residents living at or in the vicinity of a nuclear plant were afraid. Some of the plants, including Ontario’s Pickering nuclear plant, were the same vintage as the Fukushima Dai-Chi Complex. Unlike Japan, Southern Ontario is more insulated from a meltdown resulting from a natural disaster.

For one thing Ontario is not located along a fault line, Japan is located on the ‘Pacific Ring of Fire.’ The Pacific Ring of Fire represents an area where many of the world’s tectonic plates diverge and move through subduction (in contrast mountains are created by collisions and convergence). Ontario is located in the middle of a continental (tectonic) plate and while it is generally a stable area sometimes small earthquakes occur in regional stress areas. In simple terms the ground in Ontario rebounds or moves up and down. These movements are no where as severe as the horizontal movements along fault lines; the regional stress zones cannot hold as much energy as the fault lines.

Ontario will also not see a tsunami because there is no body of water big enough to create a wave that large. A tsunami is a great sea wave produced especially by submarine earth movement or volcanic eruption. Since it is unlikely that there will be a massive disturbance in the Ontario bodies of water, and their volumes are too small, Ontario is insulated from the effects of a tsunami.

Transport of Nuclear seems like suicide

Today the G&M published an article on ‘The Right Size of Nuclear‘ but the article raised a more important issue, where Canada is planning to store its nuclear waste. Currently the nuclear plants house their waste on site, but the Federal Government, under the leadership of Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is trying to create a national dump site. Some potential sites have been selected in Northern Saskatchewan and Northern Ontario.

While the notion of a central dump site is logical, transportation of nuclear waste is unreasonable. Would you want to be sitting alongside a truck carrying nuclear waste? I certainly would not.It’s not the threat of leaked radiation from the truck that frightens me but the impending disaster if one of those trucks gets into an accident.

Possible solutions to be tabled should include a direct rail line to a long-term waste facility. Or storing the nuclear waste at the site where it is created. All the social, economic and an environmental factors should play a role when deciding where to store the nuclear waste.

I do not want to debate the necessity of nuclear power or whether it should be considered ‘green’ power; currently governments (worldwide) view it as a viable way to power our future. But as we proceed to plan, design, build and decommission these nuclear plants the life cycle of the plant should be considered in greater detail. It’s not just about powering today, it’s about powering long term, dealing with the ramifications (from any type of power) long-term, dealing with waste, managing growth and managing people’s expectations.

Here are a couple of highlights from my favourite chapter, Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

“a year with increased consumption of goods and services, low fuel prices, severe summer and winter weather conditions, nuclear plant closures, and lower precipitation feeding hydroelectric dams, there would likely be proportionally greater fossil fuel consumption than in a year with poor economic performance, high fuel prices, mild temperatures, and increased output from nuclear and hydroelectric plants”

“In the longer-term, energy consumption patterns respond to changes that affect the scale of consumption (e.g., population, number of cars, and size of houses), the efficiency with which energy is used in equipment (e.g., cars, power plants, steel mills, and light bulbs) and behavioral choices (e.g., walking, bicycling, or telecommuting to work instead of driving).”

“The increase in the cost of fuels to generate electricity translated into an increase in the price of electricity, leading to a decrease in electricity consumption across all sectors except the commercial sector. The increase in transportation fuel prices led to a decrease in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and a 5.5 percent decrease in transportation fossil fuel combustion emissions from 2007 to 2008″

The full report can be found here.

The conference started out with David Miller’s last appearance of the Mayor of Toronto. He spoke about the initiatives Toronto was undertaking to reduce their carbon footprint, including the waste diversion programs and gas collection from landfill sites. He spoke passionately about being the leader of the C40 cities. Miller was honoured by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Donna Cansfield, and Stockwell Day, the Minister of the Asia-Pacific Gateway. Toronto can only hope that the succeeding mayor will be as passionate about sustainability (ha!).

Sustainable Electricity. Sustainable Transportation. Sustainable Cities. Building Sustainable Lives for all citizens

… Was the theme of the first day. Barry LePartner, somewhat of an alarmist, spoke about the failing infrastructure in the US. He predicts that the Minneapolis bridge disaster might just be the first of many. Dalton McGuinty lunch speech was about Ontario’s leadership in sustainable energy, with the FIT program and promotion of electric vehicles. His speech may have been more credible had he left the new Harry Potter movie out of his speech.

The second day was about the past/current (?) financial crisis, and was disappointing in comparison to the first day. Speakers skirted the main topics ‘Have we seen the bottom?’ and ‘What are the fundamentals for Sustained Growth?’. Perhaps these issues were avoided because commenting on them would be insulting both the Canadian and American Economic Advisers.

The highlight for me over the two days was an interview between Amanda Lang and Martin Wolf. Wolf spoke to the failing US economy and the reliance of the Canadian Economy on the US (given that 75% of Canadian exports go to the US). But it was not just the hard facts that he laid out, he also shared his views that the Developed Nations are naive to think they can continue on the path their on; the Developing and Emerging Countries will not only overtake the Developed Nations but they will surpass and leave them behind in their dust. He couldn’t repeat enough that we have to change the way we currently conduct business. He eluded to the fact that we value the ‘wrong’ things, we are too much of a commercial society that consumes meaningless goods. His candor and enthusiasm were welcomed by the crowd, especially in comparison to the high-level, reluctant speeches of his peers.

A more inclusive summary of the conference can be found here (shortly )

Pasternack, a lawyer and municipal policy adviser, admitted that he was not a climate science expert, but proved he was an expert on policy to help mitigate and adapt to climate change. One theme that Pasternack hammered home was the idea that climate change contributes to deteriorating infrastructure, changes in weather patterns, etc but that it is not the root cause in these changes.

Why Do We Need To Respond?

Cities, hubs of economic activity, generate the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions. That’s not surprising given that about 50% of the world lives in an urban environment. The C40 Cities, The Climate Leadership Group estimates that 75% of the total electricity use is in cities.

Not only do cities need to adapt due to the emissions they release, but also due to the changes in weather patterns. Extreme storms are causing electrical outages and washing out roads. Cities need to adapt their infrastructure to mitigate the climate change effects.

How Will Cities Respond?

The city of Toronto has come up with a mitigation and adaptation plan; they believe that the two go hand-in-hand to successfully combat climate change. From Ahead of the Storm, a City of Toronto a climate change adaptation strategy, the following Venn diagram was borne:

The C40 cities have all come up with mitigation and adaptation strategies. The C40 cities understand that cooperation and transparency are necessary to make real gains in combating climate change; the cities have made their climate change action plans publicly available.

In a perfect world cities would be making grounds mitigating the effects of climate change, instead cities are left pondering what the next steps are. Pasternack cited that insufficient funds, lack of consensus, unengaged stakeholders and legal impediments are thwarting city efforts. More than anything cities are powerless due to paramountcy and preemption.

The success of cities is held in balance with economic and social sustainability, but also environmental sustainability.

Here are some of the highlights:

LEED for Homes

Last year I achieved the LEED AP accreditation, just before the new system of rating was implemented. Now LEED has introduced new rating systems for New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings, Neighbourhood Development and Homes. Both Derek Satnik and Richard Vermeulen gave presentations the Thursday morning on how to design homes and neighbourhoods to be sustainable and more livable. They argued if you looked at it from both a bottom line and a life cycle cost perspective that you could build a home for none to very little additional cost.

Although it is argued that a LEED home only saves about 15% of the energy of a traditional home, it does get you thinking about how to do things with a minimal foot print. Ideally we begin to design and construct homes that are 50% more efficient, off the grid, and with recycled or renewable materials. Satnik discussed the other environmental standards including Energy Star, EnerGuide,  BREEAM and many, many others. While he said none of these is perfect it does help to minimize the impact of homes.

And think how good would it feel to not have to pay your hyrdo or water bills ever again…

Furniture

Made in Canada by Canadian designers with Canadian materials (mostly), meet Nienkamper. Their website seems to be down this morning but I was really impressed with the quality of the furniture at the store. I’m currently trying to figure out if I can order a coffee table from them without having to put a commercial order in.

Fatboy also peaked my interest. They have unique lounging chairs and blocks for the home. I think I’ll have to get one of their hammocks for reading and relaxing next summer!

While there were many textiles that were intriguing, they were only available for commercial purchase. While I’m interested in purchasing eco-friendly textiles I do not need to outfit a commercial space; I only need enough for a small 1-bdrm space.

I was also interested in the green roof and gardening materials. I attended a presentation on Thursday morning regarding gardens, but it was more about the International Garden Festival than about how we can use vegetation to minimize our carbon footprint.

I will be reluctant to attend the Green Building Festival next year. Although the presentations I attended were well done, I was not impressed with the exposition this year. The Direct Energy Centre was an improvement in venue location from when I attended two years ago out by the airport. It would be good to see industry getting together with the universities to brain storm both large and small solutions to our sustainability conundrum.

Yesterday Dalton McGuinty shuffled cabinet in a hope to improve operations of Ontario Governments. Although, that’s also what he said in January when he had again shuffled cabinet. Instead of efficient, reliable government Ontarian’s were sidled with an eco-fee debacle, a raid on ministries and a strengthened sense that our government is no longer serving the needs of the province.

The shuffle also saw the split of the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure (MEI). Both with sizable mandates, they warrant having two ministers. Infrastructure is responsible for the implementation of sound infrastructure strategies for the province; given that the population of the province is exploding and our current infrastructure is aging and failing, this is no small feat to accomplish. Energy is responsible for developing the energy policy framework that is central to the building of a strong and prosperous economy for Ontario; green energy, smart-metering, conservation, etc … again more work than one minister should be responsible for. To be fair to Ontarian’s and to move this province in the right direction MEI needed a split, let’s just hope it wasn’t too late.

Now that the Ministry of the Environment has a new leader, will it be enough to undue the mistakes made with an Eco-fee?

An eco-tax was inevitable. To move from cradle-to-grave to cradle-to-cradle (i.e. eliminating and minimizing our waste) a fee was needed to encourage consumers to buy more eco-friendly products and to choose products with less packaging. My favourite criticism of the new tax (because it’s not a fee, it is a tax) is

“Taxpayers on the hook as eco fees scrapped.”

And who else was going to pay for it? I must have missed something but I believe that most people paying the eco-tax also pay their provincial taxes. Granted how the tax payments are distributed may not be as equal as if we all had bought our own products. But don’t blame Queens Park for that the media spun the eco-tax as evil. Why don’t we sidle them with the millions of dollars that will be generated from the eco-tax? But then again what’s the point?

Until there is transparency as to where our eco-tax is spent and who get’s what proportion of it, no one should be footing the bill.

Maybe the money generated from the eco-tax should be donated to those suffering from the flooding in Pakistan, Kashmir, China and all the other places we never hear about. After all at least we would know where are money was going.

Blue Moutain Resort is unique in that it has a department solely dedicated to preserving the environment. With a dedicated staff their goal is to

“to be recognized as a leader among four-season resort destinations in Canada for our exceptional commitment to the environment in which we live, work and play and for continually striving to achieve resort-wide sustainability.”

How are they doing this?

• Providing reusable dishes and cutlery in lodges, which elimates 11,400 polystyrene containers!
• Diverting organic waste from landfills to the industrial composting program – in 2007 500 tonnes were diverted
• Extensive recycling program – in 2007 300 tonnes of materials were diverted from landfills.
• The Co-Generation Project – a combined heat and power system that recovers thermal energy to heat water at the Blue Mountain Inn
• Replaced old light bulbs with new compact fluorescents or LEDs – reducing consumption by 1,130,000 kWh annually

Blue Mountain employs several other conversational and innovative environmental initiatives. As a member of the Sustainable Slopes Initiative of the National Ski Areas Association. As well they are contributors to the environmental corner of the Ontario Snow Resort Associate.

Skiing is a passion of mine, I believe it promotes a healthy lifestyle, brings people together and promotes an awareness of our environment. Skiing or riding promotes the third cog, the social element, in the triple bottom line perspective. I think the best snow resorts are the ones that can provide meaningful employment to the community and help to preserve our environment.

To date the government has offered no incentives to commercial businesses to invest in individual renewable energy.

I’ve spent the week doing a lot of research on renewable energy, specifically wind energy. I was amazed at the responses I was getting from business owners, particularly those in ideal wind zones.

The initial set up cost is so high that it is complete barrier to entry in the renewable energy sector.

But wait didn’t we hear from the government through the media that a large portion was to come from individual, renewable energy investment?

It got me thinking about the whole triple bottom line approach to things; evaluating something from an economic, environmental and social perspective. Yes the government wants to improve our energy grid and reduce green house emissions, but it cannot be at the economic expense of businesses.

It can cost upwards of $4million for a single wind turbine

That’s a lot of money. And businesses these days just don’t have that kind of money to invest. Most are fearful that this economic downturn is not quite over yet; I’m on the fence with that one.

Here are some suggestions for getting these programs going:

1. Government should offer NO interest loans to companies to invest in renewable energy.
2. There should be co-sharing of the long-term costs – the government still comes out ahead, this way they don’t have to invest in all of it.
3. More R&D is needed to figure out how to lower the cost of production – although as more people the demand the technologies, economies of scale will prevail and costs will naturally decrease
4. Charge people the ‘real’ cost for electricity. This one is a little controversial, but there is some evidence that we are not paying enough for our electricity. Renewables become much more economically attractive if the price of electricity doubles or even triples.

Renewables are part of the future, lets just make them part of the near future.