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.

A Poor ROI

Why aren’t more scientists researching how to harvest lightning and turn it into usable electricity? From what I’ve been able to discover with my quick research online is that an a bolt of electricity holds about 5 billion joules of energy (enough to provide an average household with all their energy needs for a month), but it is only potential energy. The energy from the lightning bolt would have to be converted from DC (direct current) to AC (alternating current); AC is the electricity we use to power all our gadgets.

Even if we could capture the lightning most of the energy from the bolt is used to heat the surroundings; according to the Greener.Ideal it is believed that the loss of energy due to heat would mean that a lightening bolt could only power one light bulb for 6 months. From powering a home for a whole month to a only 1 measly light bulb over 6 moths, that’s a huge loss.

All of this though is further complicated by chaos, lightning is random. Capturing the lightning requires a massive station, which is not only expensive but fairly immobile. Since lightning is so inconsistent there is nothing that can predict that it will continue to strike the same area in the future.

The Individual Footprint

Worldwide lightning storms are predictable through the North American summer months. Combine that with some very tall buildings, like The Sears Tower in Chicago, The Chrysler Building in Detroit, and many New York buildings, and you have yourself the ideal lightning capturing station, each being hit about a few dozen times per year. But one building stands out on its own, Toronto’s CN Tower, being struck about 75 times per year.

Instead the overall energy production could be scaled back; the lightning bolts could be used to power the tall buildings. The idea of sustainability is to be able to provide your own energy without compromising the future of others. These tall buildings can do such; their unique height allows them to benefit from the lightening storms we see.

The CN tower could be the test project. Change all the lights to LED’s, reduce energy demands as much as possible and install a capturing station. Who knows maybe the CN Tower could become carbon neutral?

BC housing complex upgrades with grid tie solar power

In a recent news release from Carmanah Technologies they announced that in Surrey, BC there was to be a large solar installation as part of a social housing upgrade. BC is committed to sustainable social housing and as such is installing solar panels on many of the 29 buildings and 127 town homes. By the middle of 2010, when installation is meant to be complete, the solar panels should have a capacity of 129kW.

I believe that more developments like this will be in our future; installing solar panels on an individual basis is simple and practical. Places like Home Depot, Canadian Tire and Rona sell the solar panels (photovoltaic cells).

Nobel Laureate dismisses wind

Jack Steinberger, the 1968 Nobel Prize winner says the wind projects should be cancelled, solar is the future. Why? His argument is quite simple. When the wind is not blowing we still have to rely on backup power. However, we have already tackled to solar energy storage problem. Solar on a large scale can involve mirrors and lenses, concentrating the energy; known as solar thermal energy. Again the technology to store this energy already exists, which again helps to discount the wind technology.

There will be a place for both in the future. I think wind will be on a smaller scale than originally anticipated and that solar will become part of household construction and upgrades.

If you think about how much would it really cost to replace all your traditional light bulbs in your house for the energy-efficient, earth friendly ones? Likely not a lot and add to that the savings from the energy reduction for the light bulb’s demand; a CFL uses 75% less energy than a traditional bulb. Plus CFL’s have a much longer average life span, in the range of 6 to 15 times longer than a traditional light bulb. Phrasing it that way how can you not afford to change your bulbs.

The presenter Chris Kennedy spoke about how Ontario, namely the Golden-Horseshoe, should develop infrastructure over the next 10- to 20-year horizon. Along with his colleagues Bryan Karney, Eric Miller and Marianne Hatzopolous they wrote a paper for the working paper series, Ontario in the Creative Age.

Here is a summary of the interesting Facts of Kennedy’s presentation:

Energy and Moving People are the key to success for a city
But how do you do this? In order to mitigate the effects of a recession city building is key in a deep recession. Additional ‘clean’ energy is key to a green and prosperous future. We should always progress for greater connectivity of people and places.

The Economic Lenses to Look at Infrastructure

1. Construction Jobs: in an economic decline the private sector can no longer support a mass working force. Therefore the public sector must step in and support these skilled labourers and offer them jobs through additional projects.
2. Multiplier Effect: These workers that just had new jobs created in the public sector then spend their wages which in turn generates economic stimulus. As construction increases there is a demand on the materials side, another economic stimulus.
3. Increased Productivity: infrastructure increases the size of markets, which enables firms to increase productivity through economies of scale
4. Changes to Consumption: Instead of thinking about economic stimulus to grow the economy, Kennedy challenges that it is economic investment that is needed to grow the economy.
5. Quality of Place: Good places to live attract knowledgeable workers. This really has to do with Richard Florida‘s notion of the creative class, which he discusses in his book Who’s your City?

Other highlights
Long-Wave Theory (Kondratiev waves)
This was popularized by Schumpeter who coined creative destruction, which is ‘economies grow by destroying the previous eras to create a new ones.’

Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions
We MUST decrease these. Weather it be by the introduction of the electric car, mass high-speed, electric rail, etc… we must decrease our dependence on resources that create mass amounts of GHGs. Kennedy advocates a high-speed, electric rail system for the golden horseshoe (in the article he and his colleagues wrote it shows the number of people that drive in from the suburbs of Toronto). He also believes that radial cities are necessary for a reduction in GHG emisions. What Kennedy didn’t mention here is that there needs to be a media campaign to shift social attitudes.

It was a privilege to get to see this presentation. Donald Wallace, the director for OCEPP has a taken under a huge project to try to meld the technical (the engineers) with softer talents. Thus far Wallace has recruited a number of brilliant engineers to work in conjunction with him. I look forward to seeing more work come out of the OCEPP.

Shouldn’t everyday be Earth day?

It is a day to remind us that we abuse its environment and we should have more respect for it. We’re on a slow learning curve but we’re getting there.

The History of Earth Day

Earth day began in the US in 1970 when Senator Gaylord Nelson became concerned about over-population and exploiting the natural resources the earth had to offer. Earth Day’s original goal – to create a healthy, sustainable environment through environmental citizenship.
Earth day is now a part of 174 countries and 17,000 organizations and the goal is still to promote environmental stewardship.

Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.

What about now? What should we be doing? Recycling isn’t enough; to recycle requires a lot of energy and effort and leaves a footprint on the environment. It should definitely be part of the strategy but the first two ‘R’s’ should play a stronger role. The future will be about diversion, about creating products that can be composted, creating products in smaller packages. It will be about local farming, local ingredients, walking to the grocery store. It is webinars and meeting with local experts. It will be about multimodal transportation, active transportation, and smaller personal automobiles. The future will be what we make it.

The last few weeks have been fairly busy for me and it seems like the trend will continue. Last week was the final week of classes at U.of.T for my Master’s courses. The week was quite stressful with an exam, a presentation and a final paper. The last evening were the presentation for my Engineering and Public Policy Course and the theme of an unsustainable city rang through.

Toronto and Ontario need to change their course of action.

In total there were 9 presentations (although I can only remember 8 of them right now). The target audience was typically the Ontario government but sometimes more locally with only the Toronto Government. Some of them have less to do with sustainability, the environment or transportation but I still included them.

Lowering Emissions: the group focused in on vehicle emissions, since it represents a serious amount of the carbon emissions in Ontario. In ways to minimize auto use they compared an even-odd system (where vehicles that end in an odd number drive one day, evens the other day), using emerging technologies to lower vehicle emissions, and a carbon cap system.

Making Ontario’s Health Record System Electronic: Yes, hospitals and clinics are still completely paper based. It’s inefficient and wasteful. Instead there should be something like a portal system to access records.

Dealing with Toronto’s Garbage: Although the group talked about diversion and techniques used in Sweden there was no mention about creating new diversion techniques in Toronto. The options they discussed with either land filling or incineration.

Supplying Energy to Toronto: With the current growth in Toronto we will be unable to supply the needed energy during peak demand times. Already underway is the construction on another massive power line to help alleviate this issue, but it’s not enough. This short-term solution needs a long-term solution. The presenters did mention the potential off-shore wind project on Lake Ontario but the bulk of their solution was the construction of more power lines.

HIV/AIDS in Canada: There is still no cure for HIV/AIDS. There drug regimens that allow individuals to lead almost normal lives. Awareness and education has somewhat dropped off the radar screen, the presenters emphasized the need for increased awareness and education programs.

Congested Road Network: The highways of the Golden Horseshoe are almost always congested. With a weak transit network it is difficult to be multi-modal. Instead the solution was for tolled lanes, HOV lanes, more Advanced Traffic Management Systems, and creating more capacity.

Waste-Water: With the population ever increasing in Toronto there is constant demand for the waste-water treatment plants. Currently the system is operating almost at capacity and with an ailing system it will soon not be able to meet demand. The authors discussed various treatment options and new sites that would be possible to deal with waste water.

The Aging Bridge Network: The province has downloaded 12,000 bridges to the municipalities and gave them a one-time payout for the inspection of these bridges. With the fatal collapses in Quebec and Minnesota the presenters believed that in Ontario we were not doing enough. The recommendation was for a province operated inspection program.

What none of these projects really touched upon was how we, as a society, can be more preventative. There was nothing about package minimization (yesterday the Toronto Star had an interesting article on this), creating new diversion programs, and nothing on changing the social attitudes of the population.

The evening of presentations definitely got me thinking about sustainability in Toronto and small things I could do to make a difference. What are things you do that help minimize your impact on the environment?

1. Romaine Hydroelectric Complex Project(Value = $6.5 bil): An endeavour by Hydro-Quebec to build four generating stations along the Mingan area of Northeastern Quebec.
2. Bruce A Nuclear Generating Station Restart ($5.25 bil): Currently Bruce power operates 6 reactor units and generates 20% of Ontario’s energy. This will increase to 25% when CANDU units 1 and 2 are finished in 2009.
   As an aside the Darlington Plant is set for expansion as well. Infrastructure Ontario is likely to announce a partner this spring with construction expected to start in 2012.
3. Eastmain-1-A/Sarcelle/Rupert Project($5 bil): The plan is for Hydro-Quebec to divert the Rupert River into the Eastmain River and build a generating station at Eastmain-1 reservoir and a generating station at Sacrelle. The plan includes four dams, two diversion bays, 12,000m of diversion tunnels and two permanent access roads.
4. Spadina Subway Expansion ($2.63 bil): The line is to extend by 8.7 km extending the subway beyond the Toronto city limits for the first time. Service is expected to commence late 2014 or early 2015. 
5. Albert Clipper Project($2 bil): The pipeline be 1,607km, running from Hardisty, Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin. Expected completion is 2010 with the ability to deliver 450,000 barrels of oil per day with possible expansion to 800,000 barrels per day. It will be the largest pipeline in the world spanning three provinces and four states, the 914mm pipe is Enbridge’s largest project to date.
6. Canada Line ($2 bil):A 19km rail-based rapid transit service will connect downtown Vancouver with central Richmond.
7. Port Mann/Highway 1 Project ($1.6 bil): A 37km widening of Highway 1 from Vancouver to the rest of British Columbia.
8. Keephills 3 Generating Plant($1.6 bil): This 450-megawatt coal-fired generating plant that is 70km west Edmonton, Alberta is said to be doing their part for the environment by using supercritical boiler technology and high-efficiency steam turbines.
9. Autoroute 30($1.5bil): A 42km section that will extend from Veudreuil-Dorion to Chateguay will be a south bypass to greater Montreal
10. Edmonton Ring Road, Anthony Henday Drive NW ($1.42bil): The ring road is to the north end of the city and will be free-flow, with no major traffic lights with 8 interchanges, five flyovers, 2 rail crossings, a total of 27 bridge structures and 21 km of divided 4- to 6-lane highway.

Quebec seems to be the leader in large infrastructure updates. I find it interesting that in there is very little transit incorporated with the highway expansions. Aside from the TTC subway expansion there is no transit initiatives in the top 10. Both the new highway construction and expansions could include a transit-way. I think David Suzuki best sums it up “Essentially, it’s an old-school 1950′s style urban planning plopped into [the] twenty-first century.”

The full report for 2009 could not be found online yet but here is the link for 2008.