Green Me Up, Scotty!

Avatar Trailer

2009-10-30T15:34:00.002-04:00

I have a confession to make. I've never seen ET or Titanic. Shame shame yes but I was never really interested in the stories. A boy making friends with an alien only to have ET leave him at the end or to wait 3 grueling hours just to watch a ship sink. Come on.

Anyways, thought I'd share the trailer to the upcoming blockbuster Avatar. The film has been getting lotsa hype on the interwebs. Apparently it is filmed with a new technology - a fusion of live-action, 3D and CGI.

Whatever - it looks really cool.

Elements of the central plot include many environmental themes. I may check it out in the theaters come December.

Enjoy and have a great weekend !

Metallica Monday

2009-10-28T10:33:00.004-04:00

So my week kicked off with a big bang. Literally. My BF took me to the Metallica concert on Monday. The first time I've seen them live and wow. Had to be one of the best rock concerts I've ever seen. Our seats were great! Check out some of the photos (keep in mind the quality is crap - from my camera phone).

As for their set - the first few songs were from their latest album Death Magnetic. Although I'm not familiar with those tunes - very impressive. From there, they went to a few fan favorites with Seek & Destroy and One. Then the fever-pitch rose with Enter Sandman and Unforgiven. I have to say the highlight for me was hearing the epic Master of Puppets. If there's one song that defines this band (if that's possible), I think it's MoP. It was the showstopper that brought the crowd to a frenzy.

I'll be checking-in later this week with a new rant on the environment.

Until then, here's a very clever animated short for your viewing pleasure.

Binge and Purge

Shaken, not stirred

2009-10-15T15:49:00.046-04:00

So it's blog action day. The subject this year ? Climate Change.

First and last, the purpose of Blog Action Day is to create a discussion. We ask bloggers to take a single day out of their schedule and focus it on an important issue.

I took a geology course in college that was dubbed 'rocks for jocks' because it was considered an easy credit. While I enjoyed the plate tectonics as such, it was learning about past climates that tweaked my interest on the subject. Climate Change, formerly known as Global Warming, is the latest media vernacular when reporting on all things green.

I find fear is the number one tactic used by environmental brain-trusts when trying to get their message across. If we don't do X now, we'll get Y later than eventually Z. (Oooh not Z). And Y not. Fear motivates a lot of human behavior - fear of failure - fear of dying - fear of flying - fear of work. I personally fear hummus. When someone puts a bowl of that stuff in front of me I have to leave the room. It's scary. I shudder just thinking about it. Fear as a tactic to fight Climate Change is one dimensional. Actionable yes but educational no. You don't conquer fears by not understanding them. (I'm getting therapy for the hummus btw).

How does one conquer climate change exactly ? Don a toque when it's cold?

As we look to take action on Blog Action Day - let's try something other than fear as the motivator for change.

So here's my offering. Climate Change for Christina is 2 fold. The first knowing Climate Change is about the earth's natural evolution over time. You know as we orbit around the sun, stuff happens, ummm, like the southern continents get warmer, I think, umm, yup they do this time of year cause, yah know, they're closer to the sun. Over longer periods of time, the earth's climate has a tendency to change drastically.

The second fold of Climate Change for Christina is mankind. Our nature as survivor & species taking up more of earth's real-estate as each year passes. Our ability to reproduce, adapt and evolve (ha ha) to the ever changing climate makes for some bad-ass mammals.

Making sense of the fact that population growth continues while the earth remains the same size is for the scientists to figure out. They've got a pretty good idea now. Yet it's increasingly become more complex and a problem we need to address sooner rather than later. So they say. Thus Climate Change as the subject de jour - and taking better care of the environment - the action. The solution is complex - improving how we re-produce renewable non-carbon-emitting-energy products for the masses.

Quiz Time

Q: What generates emission free electricity, cools our nuclear tubes and makes for a refreshing beverage? Oil? no. Coal? no. Cow poop? No.

A: For Aqua. In the great white north, we have an abundance of the most important resource of all things life on the planet. The majority of Canada’s power production (just under 60%) comes from hydroelectricity. In Ontario, Nuclear and Hydro combined represent 75% of power production – all of which is non carbon emitting. (*Source: laforet.ca)

I'll leave this post with a question.

Q: If our greatest natural resource is the key to human survival, the planet's well being & provider of clean energy. Why we talkin' bout 'clean coal', building wind farms and solar panels when we're ignoring what's got us this far ?

A: (Fill in the blank comment form)

Gobble Gobble

2009-10-13T14:08:00.013-04:00

Just got back from Alberta after spending the last few days with family, giving thanks and eating some delicious turkey. My niece Sarah is one and a half years and now walking & talking. Absolutely adorable. Last time I saw her - she could only sleep & cry. She's even eating adult food. Not just cheese & crackers but turkey, stuffing and potatoes. You name it - the kid will eat it. I also got to stay 2 nights in Banff. What a place it is. We took a gondola to the top of Sulfer Mountain. I gotta say, the Rocky mountains sure put things into perspective. A perspective that's tough to describe in a blog post but unfolds when you breath the mountain air and gaze at the wonder. My world does not seem so complicated in comparison. > Check it out some of my photos.

Anyhoo, it's good to be back in the big smoke feeling warmer and seeing the fall colours. Here are some random thoughts on the headlines as I plug back to the interwebs.

Ontario FIT Domestic Content Requirements (Source: Renewable Energy World)

While the first draft of the FIT rules specifically mentioned that projects that applied for a FIT contract would need to meet a minimum of Ontario-made equipment, no details about the domestic content rules were known until September 24th, providing both the manufacturers and developers with little time to plan for them.

FIT stands for Feed-In-Tariff and a key element of Ontario's Green Energy Act. In order to receive the FIT incentive, anywhere from 25-60% of the equipment must be Ontario made. Not bad news for the industrial sector of a recovering economy, in theory. To mandate renewable energy developers to source a percentage of their materials within Ontario. There's some great detail in the report from Jon Worren of Renewable Energy World and he offers this opinion on the rule:

While the political and economic motivation for attaching domestic content requirements to the FIT rules are obvious and understandable, there are concerns about the long-term implications that they may have on Ontario’s marketplace.

Fundamentally, I also believe that the domestic content rules might hinder necessary innovation in Ontario’s marketplace in the medium to long-term. In particular, there is a lot of innovation taking place in the solar industry, with new products that straddle the various domestic content categories entering the marketplace. A failure by the OPA to recognize the probable impact that rapid innovation will have on green energy products could resign Ontario to being a marketplace for less innovative products.

I agree with Jon and liken the policy to the CRTC regulation on Canadian content. There's an inherent risk of being mediocre (without competition) in manufacturing various renewable components. It's one thing to listen to the same weak song on the radio knowing why they keep playing it. It's another to have a windmill explode because of shoddy parts.

I've shared my thoughts on the Green Energy Act before and will continue to scoff at the developments as long as the McGuilty government is running the show. After all, it's our tax dollar. Speaking of scoffing at the Ontario government, have you heard the one about the Priest, the Premier and his deputy? Apparently it goes something like this...

Scathing audit paints picture of rogue Ontario provincial agency (Source: Ottawa Citizen)

For Premier Dalton McGuinty, the eHealth spending controversy represents the biggest and most damaging scandal his government has faced since sweeping to power in 2003..

Shocking is hardly the word to use to describe the behavior of the Ontario government as it's borderline criminal if you consider what the eHealth scandal is uncovering. Just another day at Queen's Park I guess. According to the report, his right-hand man George Smitherman got the ball rolling with the evil-doers @ eHealth and is rumored to have one foot out the door looking to become the next mayor of Toronto. No thanks George. Toronto already hada nobody in Mel.

(Unrelated but noteworthy)

Top US Green Companies (Source: Newsweek)

1.     Hewlett-Packard → "Strong programs to reduce GHG emissions....
2.     Dell → "Ranks 4th among the top U.S....
3.     Johnson & Johnson → "Its commitment to climate change is...
4.     Intel → "Largest corporate purchaser of renewable energy...
5.     IBM → "Has had formal environmental policies since...
6.     State Street → "In an industry slow to acknowledge...
7.     Nike → "Leads its industry in environmental management...
8.     Bristol-Myers Squibb → "Announced goal to reduce direct and...
9.     Applied Materials → "Semiconductor manufacturer designs its products to...
10. Starbucks → "Announced commitment in 2008 to source...

Data is collected by Trucost, a leading international environmental data firm, specializes in quantitative performance measurement and management. The Environmental Impact Score in the rankings is based on its global database. www.trucost.com

Interesting that 5 of the top 10 are technology companies being proactive as they make products (and a carbon footprint) for the information age. It's a good read for a blogger dependent on a computer, the internet and the environment.

That's it for today. Hope you had a happy Thanksgiving !

Curb Your Carbon Enthusiasm

2009-10-05T12:31:00.033-04:00

As I try to become more green, I often ask myself what the hell does that really mean ? Thus the mantra, title and web address of the blog. I continue the emotional and spiritual journey to find the meaning in the greening of me. I search the interwebs for information, opinion and knowledge to help me reach this Xanadu. A challenging pinnacle to climb it is.

I came across this article and will use it for today's post because it had me look up the meaning of the word fodder.

Fodder:
1. coarse food for livestock, composed of entire plants, including leaves, stalks, and grain, of such forages as corn and sorghum.

2. people considered as readily available and of little value

The Globe and Mail

"Not to brag about it, but my husband and I have adopted a radical new green lifestyle. We've shrunk our living space, cut our energy bills in half and dramatically reduced our carbon footprint. These days, we walk everywhere. We shop at the (organic) grocery store and bring our food back in a bundle buggy. To get to work, I have a transit pass. I rarely drive our car at all any more." (Margaret Wente, Living in a green 'hood, Globe & Mail, Oct 5)

It's long been a pet-peeve of mine to read a piece of crap. Yes I made that choice but this article has as much charm as a Chia-Pet. It's so craptastic the Globe & Mail is publishing 'green knowledge' from a dying medium that still prints its product on paper. From a journalist who's research and expertise appears to be a result of a pay-cut forcing a different lifestyle (e.g less is more) now claiming she' s more green.

What's troubling is people have read this and will interpret it as something of value or influence. That would be like taking a lesson in comedy from Pauly Shore or friendship advice from Perez Hilton.

I don't propose I start eating organic spelt tortillas & salsa because some douchbag shops at an organic grocery store and happens to write a column for the Globe. I'll stick with my Old El Paso, thank you, and read the news on the internet. People - I take public transit. Some days I walk. When I need a car, I drive. I live in an apartment, recycle & compost, drink Brita filtered water and take reusable bags when shopping. It's what people do in 2009. Good for me but I wouldn't pass that on to you as something noteworthy. Or credible. Unfortunately for Maggie, she's too busy writing about her riveting day-to-day to know any better or to revel in the fact organic food is a sham.

I don't mean to be mean or look to discredit Maggie's mojo. She may have written something worthwhile back in the day, perhaps, but clearly those days have passed and reality has yet to set in. It's probably too late.

I'll save you the agony of reading Maggie's rag. Here's the synopsis:

"Those things make me love being green. And besides, I've lost weight."

That's deep and how she rolls ladies & gentlemen.

Do your research, keep an open mind and form an opinion for yourself. Right or wrong, it won't be fodder.

Tweet yah later.

Chinatown vs. Ontario

2009-09-30T10:53:00.029-04:00

With Roman Polanski back behind bars, the expression life imitating art or art imitating life seems apropos of a filmmaker that claims the spotlight for better or worse. His personal life makes for some amazing fluff. Beyond the tabloid headlines, it's hard not to rubber-neck Polanski's pictures. The classic film noir/crime story Chinatown is no exception.

Overshadowed in 1974 by The Godfather Part 2 at the Academy Awards, I think Chinatown is a film more relevant in the big picture. I'll draw a comparison if you live in Ontario and happen to follow the provincial government's progress with the Green Energy Act.

Chinatown

The film's base plot explores corporate greed, murder and incest set as a period piece in LA circa 1930s.

Ontario

The Ontario government's Green Energy Act explores corporate greed, NIMBY bashing and cuckolding set in a surreal 2009. (I had to look that up - cuckold - thinking it was some bizarre new fetish.)

Chinatown

The scoop. The folks at LA's Water Works Inc. are up to no good. Deliberately diverting fresh water back into the ocean claiming there's a drought in the city. In real time supplying water rights to the rich & famous living large in estate homes & vineyards. Add the murder of the City's chief engineer and things are not what they seem with the evidence on display.

Ontario

The scoop. Boy George & Dalton McGuilty team up and enforce wind-farm development by creating the feed-in-tariff incentive before they figure how the grid can support it leaving local municipalities wondering why there's a new giant wind-farm in their village.

Chinatown

It's a picture that takes it's time telling the story and it needs to given the lack of narrative. Normally a crutch of Hollywood fair like this. It's refreshing not to have the protagonist blabbing away during useless segues to help the ignorant. Instead the viewer works along side Jack Nicholson (JJ Gittes), the PI hired to unravel the clues as characters come clean.

Ontario

It's a government doing as little as possible by telling it's citizens that greenwashing is the solution to jump-start a slumping economy. Employing expensive lobby groups who gorge on expenses while spewing endless rhetoric from renewable pundits. The bill at the end of the day is footed by the tax-payer.

In the film there's a famous line delivered from the PI when asked what he was doing in Chinatown. His reply: 'As little as possible'. It's a marvel of visual style, both the film and Ontario's Green Energy Act.

For the latest on the Ontario government's progress with the Green Energy Act, check out the Q&A from the National Post.

For more on Polanski as pedophile, read Jeff's view on the famous auteur.

I offer a different opinion on Roman than Jeff does. It took some balls at the studio to hire him to helm Chinatown. Surely he had made a name for himself with Rosemary's Baby but after the brutal murder of his wife (with expecting child) he probably went insane. No doubt Romans early Hollywood experience taught him there are no rules when you have the money and the power. (E.g Then you get the women - as per Scarface). His crime, wrong as it was, pales in comparison to his childhood memory as a Polish Jew during the Nazi regime or a victim of the Mason murders.

Messed up for sure but he's a survivor on the epic scale of life.

Don’t Be So Mayo

2009-09-22T15:19:00.011-04:00

I still watch TV. Not as much as I used to because the commercials berate my consumer ID to a pulp that I actually care about the image I purvey by choosing a sandwich spread. Really. It’s mayonnaise folks. Eggs whipped in fat, 'seasoning' and chemicals. Really. I have the power to choose but is that choice a change or is it a transformation? Do I take the blue pill or the red pill? Do I Miracle Whip or do I Mayonnaise?

All right, enough of that. If you want to know more visit Nacho Underpants on the sandwich spread lowdown.

And the Emmy goes to...

Anyways back to the TV shows still worth my while. 2 of my favorites happen to be Mad Men and Breaking Bad. Both feature a strong premise, fantastic writing, acting and production values. Mad Men showcases the boom and bust world of advertising set against the challenging period of the baby boomer. Breaking Bad sees a high school chemistry teacher dealt a fatal hand in life go alpha-male working the crystal meth trade to support his family before he dies. Of course, most of you know the scoop and it's good to know they took home awards on Sunday for the best in show.

Another commercial. The latest Liberal spot claiming:

We can do better

Really. You can, I’m sure. Regardless if you’re someone, something or party it's possible but may never a have chance if the choice is Green Washing as the strategy.

The new slogan for the Liberal's should be the mantra for the Wind energy industry in Canada who’s capacity to generate a whopping 2,854 megawatts -- enough to power more than 860,000 homes and equivalent to about one percent of Canada's total electricity demand. (Source: Reuters)

One percent? Really. Wind energy's potential can equal 1% of the country's energy portfolio. Hmm. Really. My brother can get more output from a burrito & beer.

For more on this subject check out the tasty menu @ the new Steak & Eggs blog.

JoFergs & Skyler point vs. counterpoint on the wind debate.

And for something edgy, check out Jeff's trippy take on 1968.

As they say on TV, stay tuned and we'll hear from you on Twitter.

3 Things I Think I Think on 9/9/09

2009-09-09T15:23:00.012-04:00

I'm old enough to remember Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey on Saturday Night Live. The early 90s featured the best cast IMO with Phil Hartman and Will Farrell. My brother and I used to love Deep Thoughts. It was the perfect segue to the next sketch so in honor of Deep Thoughts, I present some random musings on current events. Also, I added a widget to the blog so you can check out some Deep Thoughts on each visit ! (On the right column)

Blowing Smoke

Electricity generation company Ontario Power Generation is to close four coal-fueled power units in 2010, as part of the province’s transition to electricity generated from green energy. It is hoped the move will open investment and opportunities in Ontario’s green economy.(Source http://www.newenergyworldnetwork.com)

I'll miss seeing the smoke stacks spewing hazy pollution. It gives hope someday we'll have enough wind turbines to replace the lost power generated and kill more birds. Those will be great days.

Duely Noted

In general, I think media coverage of the Michael Bryant affair and the death of bicycle courier Darcy Allan Sheppard has served us well. Each day, new events and aspects have come into view. (Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com)

Here's a view - I like driving my convertible on sunny days. There's nothing like the warm breeze sifting through my hair as I cruise around the neighborhood. What I don't like are bike couriers. Perhaps someday I'll stop my car and get out and the bike courier will get off their bike and we can talk but until that day I'm going to off them and get the PR agency to smear them all over the news.

Smart Meter for Dalton McGuilty

In all, the McGuinty package has the sort of marketing challenge Brian Mulroney had with his Meech Lake accord. Just as that constitutional contraption was famously cobbled together behind closed doors by 10 white guys in suits, the McGuinty plan was inked in private with the feds and dropped in MPPs' laps to sell.(Source: http://www.thestar.com)

The day will come when we can regulate the amount of gas that comes from the provincial government. How it will work is there's a belt wrapped around a politicians neck and on it are 3 colored lights. The first being the taxpayer's interest earning a green and warning us of a bad idea. The second is yellow indicating a scam and third a red meaning the end of the line for said douchbag.

That's it for today and we'll check back in on Twitter.

Random Thoughts with Christine

2009-09-02T14:04:00.011-04:00

Twitter

I have to admit, I'm addicted. What looked to be a quick messaging service - the simple concept of 'what are you doing' has me tweeting all day while neglecting my blog ! In honor of Twitter, I present brief yet topical updates with much less characters. Oh and let's not forget to follow me and my friends on Twitter.
> http://twitter.com/greeningme101

'Goin Down'

The video reminds me of the tune: Love in an Elevator. Steven Tyler is 61, he falls off the stage, breaks his shoulder and incurs head injuries. It has me wondering if it's time Aerosmith calls it quits. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan but think it may be time to hang it up for good when none of the band members come to help.

Oh the irony

My last post mentions a man trapped in an elevator. I got trapped in an elevator on Monday. They had to get a technician to pull me out ! I was in there for half an hour.

Another election ?

Lorne Gunter, National Post
"Their current rush to get to the polls again -- a fall election would be Canada's fourth in five years -- demonstrates just how their absence from power consumes them. Not being in charge gnaws at their souls. It is like an itch they cannot reach, a thirst they cannot quench, a hunger they cannot satisfy.'>Full article.

We should just make it law to have an election every six months, let the Green Party rule the proceedings and cast their vote on who gets to be in power for each term.

You trust this guy ?

Tanya Talaga, Toronto Star
Dalton McGuinty has ordered all expenses at 23 provincial agencies, boards and commissions to be reviewed and approved by the Ontario integrity commissioner beginning this fall.
>Full article.

Go figure, these are the same folks who brought us the Green Energy Act. You know the law that let's them spend your tax dollar on gambling, booze and wind farms.

Now for the 'Generation We' Bloggers

My friends over at the Envirogy blog keep the debate on renewables interesting. Digg some Skyler & JoFergs when you get a chance.
The searing commentary @ CrudelyInterrupted keeps an edgy perspective on the headlines.
Laughter is the best medicine so have a gander and chuckle over at the Comedy Landfill.

That's it for today and we'll hear from you on Twitter !

Canada's Energy Problem: Interlude - Do You Remember the Night of the Blackout?

2009-06-08T14:35:00.018-04:00

First, some videos and questions to preface my blog entry. Where and what were you doing during the Northeast Blackout of 2003? What are you going to do when you realize nothing is in place to prepare for a protracted infrastructure failure, be it a blackout or a lack of oil?

Personally, I think a more accurate commercial would be a bunch of teens staring at monitors wondering why they can't see the latest juicy gossip about [insert celebrity name here].

This actually reminds me of a video tape of a man stuck in an elevator for 41 hours. You can see it here but the story behind it is probably more dramatic (although it is eight pages long).

To be honest I'm not sure what I would have done in his situation. I do know my typically sweet, understanding and reasonable self would be very, very PO'd by the 12 hour mark. Interestingly, White was not compensated a large amount for his troubles. I think this is telling...when the elevator stops and no one seems to care you're inside, who's going to come to your aid? Personally I can't help but compare this to the current state of Canada's energy infrastructure and power sources. Who is going to save us when we're stuck without power or a proper infrastructure in place to prevent the same disorder that occurred 6 years ago?

Perhaps you were at a home during the blackout and simply did as most of my friends did. They had a barbeque! Afraid the meat would spoil, their parents cooked up steaks (and whatever other meat they had in the freezer) and had plenty of ice cream for dinner. The general consensus was that everyone in the neighbourhood was quite friendly, despite the occasional commuter nearly collapsing on their porch when they finally reached home. As time passed and they grew hot and bored, they wondered how long they would have to last until the air conditioner and television would turn on again.

The blackout of August 14th, 2003 affected Northeastern and Midwestern United States as well as parts of Ontario. The numbers of affected residents were estimated to be approximately 55 million (Please note, according to Statistics Canada there are a little over 33 million Canadians). There was a lot of good will during the black out. Average people would direct traffic while motorists and pedestrians listened willingly. Neighbors had barbeques and speculated about the source of the blackout, as well as their various horror stories involving their trek home. It was kind of nice actually. Everyone went outside because it was too dark to stay at home.

But it wasn't all nice of course. While several gas stations could not operate without electricity, a rare number of Burlington, ON stations were selling gas for 99.9 cents (with lots of ready and willing customers lining up), claiming their supply was limited despite prices being in the low 70s prior to the blackout. How's that for blatant price gouging? At one point the Canadian government was seriously considering rationing the gas supply. The supply chain system was also disrupted, for example transport trucks could not proceed on their routes because they required refueling before making the long journey to Manitoba. Oh and those that believe they can survive using their cellphones and 3G networks should probably consider how the generators powering cellular towers ran out of fuel.

To be honest, sometimes I do wonder if Jeff is right to say we'll plunge into chaos as soon as we run out of oil and gas to power our technology obsessed lives. A surprising fact that I discovered through my research was that there was looting in...Ottawa, Ontario. Can you believe it? Actually, my naive self believed (at the time) that Canadians were too polite to loot and pillage as their cars stalled on the highway and became useless roadblocks, while their fellow drivers tried to maneuver through the mess.

According to this Slate article by David Greenberg, for NYC it was a mixture of technical and socially-motived reasons. The most important reason was 9/11. Conscious of the blackout's source not being from a terrorist attack, New Yorkers nonetheless recalled how they banded together to ensure their city did not succumb to the same events that overtook them in 1977. What happened you ask?

The infamous New York City Blackout of 1977 resulted in looting, arson, vandalism and assaults all over the city. It was chaotic, but here are the stats for a brief look at what occurred (Source):

In all, 1,616 stores were either looted or damaged during the blackout. More than a thousand fires were set, 14 of them resulting in multiple alarms. And in the biggest mass arrest in city history, 3,776 people were thrown in the jug. The jails were so overcrowded that the overflow had to be held in precinct basements and other makeshift gaols...A congressional study later put the damage caused by looting and vandalism at $300 million.

Experts generally offer the following (probable) reasons for the chaos:

NYC was in the middle of a harsh heat wave,
United States was experiencing a nation-wide economic downtown (I suppose when you get the chance to get the TV you always wanted...), with NYC struggling with bankruptcy
General public's fear stemming from the Son of Sam murders
When the blackout occurred, most store owners had gone home and were not there to defend their property
NYPD morale was low due to the Mayor's attempts to assign only one officer in each patrol car (During the summer of Sam!), and the night of the blackout only 8,000 of 25,000 police officers reported for duty, while some just stood passively by*

Alright, I will admit that with the right conditions (which I feel we are a few steps away from) I do believe a protracted blackout or other energy related infrastructure failure will result in chaos. I'm just not sure how long it will take for people to realize that they're like Nicholas White in his claustrophia-inducing elevator with just a lighter, a pack of cigarettes and Rolaids. Not only are they not prepared, their cries for help are going to go completely unheeded as the authorities scramble to maintain order when someone decides that a five finger discount isn't so bad during this recession. At least White didn't have to worry about anyone else in the elevator with him...you have all your unprepared neighbours to deal with.

As for being prepared, here is a bit of an extreme example. My friend's father stocks up two cellars, a freezer and two fridges full of food as well as a power generator in preparation of an impending oil crisis. Many people laugh and marvel at the amount of food and drink he constantly keeps restocking, but to be honest if I'm in the area during a blackout, I'll probably head their way. I also don't laugh, especially after watching that documentary on peak oil (and because I'd rather they let me in when I run out of food and water at my own home).

So tell me...what were you doing in the Blackout of 2003? Are you ready for another?

The truth is we're probably not. The mindset is also that we shouldn't need to be. The government will take care of this. Well you should probably pay more attention to how the government seems to be screwing up on a consistent basis lately (For more current examples, feel free to Google: Lisa Raitt, cancer treatment and isoptopes, AECL sale, eHealth)

*(Please note: The truth is that the NYPD were ordered to act slowly, to be deliberate when dealing with the mobs of looters (this was due to a National Riot Commission advising against a heavy hand when dealing with riots because they proved to make situations worse than better). Ultimately there were only two civilian deaths despite all the rioting. Perhaps it was a poor consolation to store owners but by the end of the blackout the streets were not littered with dead bodies as some would expect. Especially when the looters of '77 began to loot each other, many brandishing weapons to defend their ill-gotten gains. Technically there should have been more arrests, but police chose to try to maintain order than arrest every single offender.

Tuesday Video Link: Hal Grades Your Bike Locking

2009-06-02T15:01:00.003-04:00

Some lighthearted content for a change. Hal Ruzal is an awesome bike mechanic from New York that goes around rating locking jobs (and bikes sometimes). Great way to learn what to do (and not to do) to protect your green investment!

Hal Grades Your Bike Locking

Hal (and Kerri) Grade Your Bike Locking

Hal Grades Your Bike Locking 3 (The Final Warning!)

Canada's Energy Problem: Part 2 - It's not just the Economy, Stupid

2009-06-02T09:08:00.027-04:00

It's actually a bit odd in Toronto as of late. At least in the malls...not because they are empty due to recession woes, but because they're absolutely packed. I've seen and heard of the hordes of people clamoring for parking spots (this is why public transit is so wonderful, no parking!) and waiting in long lines at the Food Court at Vaughan Mills, Yorkdale and Eaton Centre. I sometimes wonder whether the recession affected Toronto at all...and then I hear from my friends in quiet conversations that their parents have been laid off and run out of employment insurance. They wonder aloud to me if they should take a year off school to try and help with the family finances. Some are actually working full-time, frantically trying to budget and scrimp to pay their tuition and travel costs for the next school year. The majority of their parents work in the manufacturing sector. It's either they've been laid off, their hours have been reduced or there is a strange "two weeks laid off with EI one week work" sort of deal. Their parents are not even employed by GM or Chrysler, they're employed by the parts suppliers (as far as I'm aware, none of their parents belong to unions, in case you wanted to know). This was before GM filed for bankruptcy protection yesterday of course. This was also before Magna decided to have a hand in the European Opel-Vauxhall deal (anyone want to enlighten me how this is going to turn out for my friend's parents?).

Now I'm not so sure how my friends and their families will do. Line of credit to tide them over? I guess...but if you're homeless because the bank foreclosed on the family home when your parents ran out of EI and emergency funds, I wonder how you'll convince the bank you're a good loan candidate.

To be honest, as an environmentalist that raves about public transportation and biking, I should probably clamor for these outdated car companies to go the way of the dodo. When I look at my friends however...I cannot bring myself to say it, although I would love to join the throngs of people who seem to relish in the demise of these automotive giants. A much more helpful alternative was proposed by Michael Moore, the ever controversial filmmaker. An article he posted on his website yesterday detailed a specific plan to repurpose the manufacturing plants and various car dealerships to be shutdown due to Chrysler and GM's financial woes. However, despite his great suggestions I don't think it's just the economy and failing automotive giants that we should be worried about. I think many, like Moore, are overlooking something very important during this recession.

"It's peak oil, stupid!"

While I can appreciate how it supports the alternative transportations, I feel it overlooks what exactly will power all these shiny new theoretical vehicles. Producing electric batteries requires energy, producing all these light-rail systems requires energy, just getting these workers to work requires energy...where is it all going to come from if, as Moore says, we must fight "in this war being waged by the oil companies against you and me." He continues,

They are committed to fleecing us whenever they can, and they have been reckless stewards of the finite amount of oil that is located under the surface of the earth. They know they are sucking it bone dry. And like the lumber tycoons of the early 20th century who didn't give a damn about future generations as they tore down every forest they could get their hands on, these oil barons are not telling the public what they know to be true -- that there are only a few more decades of useable oil on this planet. And as the end days of oil approach us, get ready for some very desperate people willing to kill and be killed just to get their hands on a gallon can of gasoline.

(P.S. You can see this article from Jeff describing a similar situation as detailed at the end of the quote.) I'm sure we can switch all our manufacturing industries into producing modes of transportation that use alternative fuels, but if we're truly past peak oil and energy prices skyrocket, what will we do when we can't power the machines to make these shiny green vehicles? I'm not saying we shouldn't go this route, but we must look for a solution for the upcoming energy crisis while we're busy trying to make all these alternative energies more reliable and cost-effective.

Canada's Energy Problem: Part 1 - Reality Check

2009-05-29T11:00:00.016-04:00

Although I wish to see solar/wind/thermal energy thrive to the point where we no longer have to rely on fossil fuels I am not blind to the fact that humans need more energy than those technologies can currently provide. Our options at this point are limited, as these new innovations are being fostered and tested for large-scale use. What do we do in the meantime? Canada's government has proposed conservation, demand management, higher efficiency standards, fuel switching to natural gas, diversified energy sources as well as increased usage of renewable technologies. Is this enough? I'm not sure. Personally I think it is a step on the road towards a possible energy reform in this country that can hopefully meet Canada's voracious energy needs.

I realize I can post wonderful articles about the most amazing alternative energy technologies but unless they can be put in place within the next few years, it is impractical to look at them as the answer to all our current energy needs. In the documentary I posted in the popular Jarvis Street article, the future described by experts was bleak, particularly for the "American Dream" (I use the term loosely) of the suburban home and nuclear family as we know it. The idea of the suburbs becoming the ghettos of the future is alarming, a stark contrast to their current vaunted status, but if we are truly at peak oil, we must act now to preserve our future.

Not all my fellow citizens share the same beliefs as me on many issues, particularly the environment, energy and government. I think the average Canadian is more worried about their families, their jobs, their mortgages, the economy, the recession...everything except the environment. With money scarce and energy demands still high, investing in solar or wind energy is, at the moment, probably unwise for the average Canadian household. So what can we do now? I hope to explore these options in an ongoing series of blogs on "Green Me Up, Scotty!".

As always comments and questions are very welcome!

The Trial Against Shell Oil for their Crimes in Nigeria

2009-05-28T08:31:00.007-04:00

I feel it is necessary to bring this issue to your attention dear readers. The following is a choice quote from the video:

"Shell partnered with the brutal Nigerian military government to suppress the popular movement of the Ogoni people. On multiple occasions, Shell paid the Nigerian military, they requested the Nigerian military, knowing that it was a brutal force and that force committed horrific acts of violence against civilians who were peacefully protesting."
- Marco Simons, Plaintiffs' Attorney, EarthRights International

This video was taken from HanShan's article on Alternet.org, "The Video Shell Oil Desperately Doesn't Want You to See". I really feel it sums up the trial better than I could. The casualties and deaths of the Nigerian people at the hands of soldiers hired by Shell cannot be ignored by the West, and halfhearted boycotts will not induce Shell to atone for its crimes against the Nigerian people. I hope to see that both this video and trial come to the attention of all, considering how Shell does not want anyone to see it. Think twice when you're at the gas pump, and consider what sort of impact you're really having on the Earth as well as your fellow human beings.

$6 Million Project to Make Jarvis Street More Bike-Friendly Approved

2009-05-26T11:45:00.022-04:00

Just found this article on Spacing about what took place in the council chambers during the session to vote for the approval of the $6 million *takes a deep breath* "Jarvis Streetscape Improvement Environmental Assessment Bloor Street East to Queen Street East" project. Although only $50k~$100k will be devoted to the conversion of one of the lanes on Jarvis Street into a dedicated bike lane, the majority of the discussion (and controversy) was devoted to this.

Long story short, it's been approved, however I can't help but notice councillor Rob Ford adding his poorly worded opinion to the discussion. I am all for honest discourse but with real arguments. Please, if you are a constituent of Rob Ford in Etobicoke, write to him and let him know acting like a petulant child will not get your needs (as well as those of the rest of Toronto) across to the council. Personally I wouldn't want to be represented by him, come next election would you?

I cannot help but think that certain councillors really enjoy bogging everything down with minor details and miss the point of these important projects. I understand that it may be a hassle for commuters but I often fear for the safety of bikers downtown. This bike lane is great news for anyone who wants to bike to work but takes one look at the traffic and changes their mind. I feel that if bikers had their own bike lane, drivers will respect their space and pedestrians don't have to worry about dodging a bike on the sidewalk (Big no-no!).

Moving on, the plans for wider sidewalks, historical plaques and other beautification methods (with lots of trees, flowers and shrubs alike I'm sure) is definitely a great move for a better neighbourhood. A city with walkable and bike-friendly streets is a safer, happier and healthier place. Have you heard of the wonderful suburb of Vauban located in Germany?

Click the image to be taken to the New York Times Article: "In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"

This is probably one of the most sustainable suburbs currently in development (*ahem* Vaughan you should pay attention!) and a real life example of why projects like...like the one council just approved are important to all constituents, whether they walk, drive or bike. Without roads dedicated to cars, the community is safer for children, allowing them to move about and play. As a mixed-use community, retail areas are littered around the neighbourhood encouraging residents to walk or bike more to reach their destinations, a healthier option for everyone (I'm certain that North American waistlines would benefit from this). Another great benefit is how the constant din of the highway, screaming sirens and general noise pollution caused by vehicles has disappeared with the roads. Here's a quote from one of the community's residents:

“When I had a car I was always tense. I’m much happier this way,” said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.

Any residents that wish to own their own vehicle must purchase a parking space for $40,000 in one of the two nearby municipal garages. These garages also offer a car-sharing service for residents that wish to use an automobile but don't simply don't require a car on a day-to-day basis. I feel the requirement of purchasing a parking spot is another demonstration of the true cost of the land we devote to our vehicles.

What I would love to see in Canada (and Toronto) would be policies that restrict commercial and residential development that lack connections to public transportation. Also, changing policies concerning residential zoning to allow areas to become mixed-use spaces that are more walkable. It doesn't just make sense environmentally, it makes sense economically. How else can all those suburban home owners that have lost their jobs (many of which have been laid off from nearby manufacturing plants) pay their mortgages? Retrofitting homes to become mixed use residential and commercial spaces will benefit the local economy and perhaps even improve the safety of suburban streets. What pair of eyes are more watchful on the street than that of a street vendor or store owner? It is in their interests to be alert to the happenings of the neighborhood, as well as to respect and offer a service to their neighbors. There are so many ways we can change Toronto (and Canada for that matter) for the better. Many are not aware of it, but the suburb is going the way of the dinosaur. In the future, the North American dream of a suburban home will be a distant memory. Here is a shocking documentary called "The End of Suburbia", describing exactly why:

While I believe the views of this documentary are often somewhat extremist, I feel there are several steps we can take in order to avoid this fate. Hopefully we are not too far gone.

Pardon this Interruption: Attention Readers!

2009-05-26T10:10:00.003-04:00

Good morning everyone! I'm just taking the time to let you all know I am aware my entries have been very harsh for the past few months. I've been studying a lot about sustainability, government ineptitude and peak oil...I must say it has affected me. I feel I must return to being a hopeful and earnest voice demanding change and bringing to you possible solutions. Thank you for your readership, we now resume our usual blogging schedule. =)

Bring Us Bixi!

2009-05-19T09:44:00.004-04:00

So my good friend Jeff over at Keep Your Coins I Want Change just brought this to my attention, and I felt it deserved a mention here at Environmilitant, as well as everywhere else we can possibly talk about it.

Recently the French government implemented a fantastic new green transit innovation in some of their major cities, including Paris. You ready for this? May we introduce the novel concept of BICYCLES:

Or, more specifically, specialized bicycles called "Bixis" that are provided to the community in the same way ZipCars are here in Toronto. For those of us not in the know, the ZipCar is a communal vehicle you can "rent" on a day-to-day basis for a yearly signup fee. Great idea, especially for friends of mine who are musicians requiring cargo space to move gear to and from gigs, but there's still the whole carbon emission issue. Bixi is basically the same idea, except in bicycle form. Fantastic idea, right?

Right, and Toronto tried it once before under the name Yellow Bike Share Program, which initially met with rave reviews and then promptly folded due to lack of funding. Instead, the city is transferring all sorts of funds to the TTC to build a light rail system including (wait for it) a subway extension to York University (because we haven't been hearing about that dog-and-pony show for the last thirty years). Frankly, I think our city would be better served picking up this Bixi idea at least in the interim, because we know good and damn well that the TTC will drag its feet on "Transit City" for the next few forseeable decades. I mean, even Washington has picked up the idea, and we all know their prevailing feelings on the French (anybody remember Freedom Fries? I do!)

Yet another good idea that's going to get trumped unless we do something about it. Email your local member of provincial parliament and demand Bixi. We want our bicycles and we want them now!

Raise your hand if you see this one coming...

2009-05-12T09:53:00.005-04:00

You know, apart from the issues I already have with drilling for oil, somehow I feel like there may be even more concerns with this particular project:

What you're looking at are the Siberian wetlands (didn't know they had those in Siberia, actually) with a precariously-perched oil rig in the middle of it.

Okay, there are two problems with this. The first should be obvious: they're WETLANDS. You know, home to thousands of species of birds, fish, amphibians and whatever else lives in wetlands. I can't imagine the existence of an oil rig in this area is going to do much for the natural real estate. The second should also be obvious: sooner or later, something terrible is going to happen to that oil rig. You can imagine the scene playing out like some Monty Python routine.

Russian Oil Expert:

Listen, comrades.  I've built this oil company up from nothing.  When I started here, all there
was was wetland.  All the other oil magnates said I was daft to build a castle in the wetlands,
but I built it all the same, just to show 'em.  It sank into the wetland.  So, I built a second one. 
That sank into the wetland.  So I built a third one.  That burned down, fell over, then sank into
the wetland.  But the fourth one stayed up.  An' that's what you're gonna get, comrades -- the
strongest oil rig in these wetlands.

Nothing good is going to come of this, I promise you that.

Take A Good Idea, Then Squash It

2009-05-06T10:21:00.005-04:00

I've always been a fan of the idea of guerrilla gardening. For those of you who don't know, the concept is relatively straightforward: greenheads like myself essentially take over an abandoned piece of land not being used for any constructive purpose, and use it to grow crops and gardens and all sorts of other good stuff. I figure it's a great idea – I mean, it's certainly not hurting anybody; in fact, it kind of helps out the community. And it's pretty. But apparently not everybody shares my respect for this practice.

In February of this year, a British activist going by the name Nick Revolving took over Raven's Ait (a small island located in the Thames River) when he realized it was being totally neglected by the county as a result of the global economic recession. He and his friends built a treehouse, planted permaculture gardens, and have been squatting there in a totally self-sufficient commune. But they aren't doing this for selfish purposes – their goal is to turn the island into an “eco conference center” to raise awareness about sustainability and green alternatives. And since the government isn't doing anything with the land anyway, you'd assume they would be totally on board with that initiative, right?

Wrong.

The group is being evicted from the island, because apparently there are companies interested in doing something with the land – someday (the island has been vacant since November). The local council won't even bargain with the group unless they leave the island.

To me that rings of a small child who isn't playing with his toy train, but won't let any of the other children play with it in case he wants it at some indeterminate point in the future.

They say that ownership is 9/10 of the law; if that's the case, the law – and the concept of ownership itself – is terminally f*cked. Who made us in charge? Why is it that we get to decide who lives where, how, and in what capacity?

I am urging any and all readers to visit the group's website – read up on their plans and show your support. My good friend Lissa over at Living Lime notified me about this issue and is assisting in a project to raise £1.5 million in order to help save this piece of land and turn it into what Nick Revolving and his friends want it to be. I'm signing up – you should too.

Check out the original article here.

The Big Picture

2009-05-04T11:29:00.002-04:00

Every so often I venture into the heart of this great city I love to call my home, and every time I do I find something new and wonderful about it. Sunday afternoon I took a very long walk through Queen's Park (hooray for inner-city greenery!) and took a trip down Queen Street West because it's been years since I delved into Toronto culture.

There used to be a ton of fun little shops along there that catered to green livers like myself: for example, I'm not into pot myself, but the Friendly Stranger sells a lot of hemp products outside smoking gear that I am really into – hemp clothes and all-natural soaps and the like. Lush is good for that too – I don't really dig a lot of chemicals in my soaps and moisturizers, not just because it's terrible for the environment but it's also terrible for my skin (being Scottish, I am very pale and my skin is extremely delicate).

I was sad to see so many of the cool old stores replaced with high-end haute couture boutiques, but I guess that's progress. Rode the streetcar for the first time in a long time (normally I bike everywhere) and all I can say is I can't wait for Toronto to institute their new light-rail system: it'll be more environmentally friendly and with any luck there will be a little more room!

There's good and bad about every city, I guess, but being somewhat well-traveled I think Toronto is one of the better ones out there. Sometimes I forget just how green this city actually is until I get up high enough to see the big picture. Sunday evening, just as the sun was setting, I was sitting on the patio of the Spoke Club on King Street (one of the best views in that area), enjoying a quiet beer and looking out over the downtown core, and it was genuinely beautiful. Sure, there are lots of urban developments going on in the area (there always are) but the city planners really work hard to ensure that a lot of trees and parks are threaded through the condos and block stores. It's heartening.

Okay, this was a little bit touchy-feely for an angry environmental blog; I think I'm just happy that spring has finally, finally arrived. In fact, I think I'm going to take another walk after work today, hit up the Spoke patio again, and take in the big picture.

Fail.

2009-05-03T12:20:00.003-04:00

Normally I don't post these, but I couldn't pass this up. In the parlance of our times, Epic Fail:

Only in Japan...

2009-04-27T09:40:00.003-04:00

The people who brought you Godzilla, Mothra and Akira have turned their rather interesting take on science fiction to the realm of -- get this -- agriculture. I've never understood the Japanese predilection towards gigantic robots piloted by children and the like, but apparently the robot fetish is doing some good for the farmers of the Land of the Rising Sun.

The Tokyo University of Agriculture has developed a wearable exo-skeleton that will be used to assist farmers over the age of 65 in their daily duties of plucking radishes and whatnot from the earth. For those of you who don't know what an exo-skeleton is, remember that scene from Aliens where Sigourney Weaver is fighting the alien queen in the airlock, and she comes out of the storage room in that big yellow suit? The whole "get away from her, you b*tch!" line? Yeah, that's an exo-skeleton. Here's a picture of Sigourney's badass suit, and here's a picture of the one the Tokyo scientists have built for farmers.

The idea is that it's a powered suit that will take some of the bodily stress associated with physical labour off the elderly farmers, and frankly I think it's a great idea. I mean, some people might argue that when you're 65 you don't have any business picking radishes anymore because you should really be retired. But if you know anybody of that age bracket, you know the last thing most of these people want to do is retire -- they want to feel useful and they want to continue contributing to the greater good, however they might see that. This suit allows them to do just that. And let's face it -- when 40% of your radish-picking work force is over 65, it's probably a really good idea to implement some kind of support system for them, because no matter what manga and anime might tell you, putting kids in robot suits to pick vegetables still probably falls under the category of child labour.

Cool idea, but like I said in the title -- this could only come from Japan.

It's Closer Than You Think

2009-04-21T13:22:00.004-04:00

I've been thinking a lot about the end of the world lately. Got your attention? Good.

I am not a fatalist, never have been. Even when I changed the thrust of this blog into the whole “Environmilitant” vibe, I still maintained my deep-set belief in the human ability to correct our errors and save our way of life from self-annihilation. I still believe that to this day. I think that with the proper education and shifting of priorities, we can still rectify the damage we've done and make this planet the paradise it's meant to be. The power is in our hands, blah blah.

But then I went home on the Easter weekend to visit my parents, and as we are wont to do, we wound up sitting around drinking and watching bad movies on TV. First on the docket was a little flick from around the turn of the millennium called Deep Impact. Those of you who paid attention to that year in movies will remember it as “the asteroid movie that didn't star John McClane”. Released at the same time as Armageddon, Deep Impact is, in my opinion, a slightly more believable take on the whole “huge rock headed for Earth that's going to kill everything” movie genre that took over Hollywood for a short period of time (typified by other natural disaster movies in and around the same era).

Why more believable? Well, for one thing it stars Morgan Freeman as the U.S. President, and I have yet to see that man in any role where he isn't fantastic – as opposed to Ben “Gigli” Affleck who stars as the other film's hero. Joking aside, though, Armageddon was just too...I don't know, slick? Yeah, I think that's the right word. Everything looked too pat, from the design of the new space shuttle (looked like something out of Star Trek) to the silly equipment they use on the rock (remember, they had to dig a hole in an asteroid to put nukes inside it, and the only man for the job was Hudson Hawk), to the awful saccharine soundtrack (remember when Aerosmith used to make records you wanted to hear?)...all of it just rang Hollywood Hollow to me.

Deep Impact , on the other hand, treated the concept of an “extinction level event” with significantly more gravity than the popcorn-munching false suspense of Armageddon. For one thing, the production staff on Deep Impact actually did their research and constructed a space shuttle that (gasp) looks and acts like a space shuttle and not an X-wing fighter. For another, one of the big rocks actually hits Earth, causing widespread destruction. Finally – and perhaps the most important part for the purposes of this post – the film deals realistically with contingency plans to ensure the survival of the human race in the event of a world-ending catastrophe.

Here's where I stop trying to be Roger Ebert and get back to the point. Deep Impact suggested that the major governments of the world would have advance knowledge of an “ELE” were one to be imminent, which doesn't surprise me – because let's face it, they know everything before we do. The idea in the film would be to build vast underground cities that would supposedly be protected from the effects of a big-ass rock laying waste to the planet surface. Government officials choose the “important” people to be saved (i.e. doctors, scientists, whatever is needed to build our civilization back up) and then open the rest of the spots up to a lottery (excluding anyone over 50 years of age). To me this sounds like a pretty reasonable system, but it got me to thinking – that's Hollywood's idea. What would happen in reality?

There's been a lot of talk circulating in the last few years about the End Of The World – the most recent estimate is that something terrible is supposed to happen in 2012 (the last one being the infamous Y2K debacle when the clocks turned over to 2000 – and nothing happened), so if we take that to be true and assume that a dinosaur-killing rock is going to puddle-jump into the Earth in three years' time, what do we do?

I did a little research into this issue, and the first site I found was this one – essentially a calculator for what would happen to the planet if a projectile of x dimensions traveling at y speed hit the earth at z location. Really fascinating formulas, but a little bit dark, don't you think? I plugged in some numbers and suffice it to say I don't really want to talk about it. Go yourself if you want.

There are several “asteroid defense” ideas being bandied about that are kind of cool. The most obvious of these is, of course, nukes. Interesting idea – and it would be nice to use those huge stockpiles of horrifyingly destructive weapons for the betterment of humanity. But according to many scientists, this plan would be doomed to failure (apparently Armageddon got that part right, at least). Either the resulting force wouldn't be enough to destroy the big rock, or else it might only serve to smash the planetoid into fragments which, if larger than 30 meters in diameter, would not burn up in our atmosphere but instead crash into whatever happened to be in their way. Trade one big meteor for thousands of potentially dangerous ones? Fantastic.

Kinetic impact acts similarly – launching a spacecraft or other large object at an asteroid to attempt to blow it off-course or destroy it entirely, but the same problems exist with this possibility as with the nukes, so it's kind of pointless.

The really interesting theories almost delve into the realm of science fiction – things like using the gravitational pull of another large object to divert the asteroid gradually (that's a great idea if we have years to prepare for a possible impact, as with the impact postulated to take place in 2880), or my personal favourite – using an enormous tether attached on one end to the Earth and to the asteroid on the other to literally swing the rock around us. Of course, the logistics of a plan like that are staggering – honestly it sounds like an idea formulated during some kind of frat party weed-smoking session. “Dude, all we need is, like, some big string or something, you know? Like, like, a tether ball or something, and we could totally dodge that big rock!” Come on.

The bottom line is as far as the public is aware, we're woefully underprepared for a cataclysmic event that could wipe us all out and make all our efforts to “save the planet” completely moot. I know the chances of an event like this occurring in our lifetimes is slim, and I'm certainly not advocating spending a lot of money coming up with doomsday contingency plans, but it kind of bugs me. We spend all this time thinking about our petty problems, our silly wars, our minor hatreds, and somewhere out in the great deep of space there's a big damn rock with our names all over it. Kind of puts things in perspective, at least for me.

Man, the big picture is depressing.

Hungry?

2009-04-15T12:07:00.005-04:00

Okay, this one is reaching a bit: I know the blog is called Environmilitant, but occasionally I have to step out of the eco-warrior role to discuss a secondary issue that is as important to the survival of our way of life as curbing global warming and cutting down gas emissions.

My friend Jeff over at Keep Your Coins I Want Change posted an excellent blog yesterday about the importance of food bank services in our fine city of Toronto. Apart from the fact that he's a very funny, entertaining guy (and you should definitely check out his writing once you're done with mine), he made some very prescient points that I'd like to hammer home here.

Apart from air (another big issue on this blog), food is the most important facet of our day-to-day lives. Those of us with the ability to purchase what we need don't often consider just how awful it is to go without food for days on end. Once upon a time I was a poor starving student doing my university degree and living on rice and beans a few times a week; I also don't come from anything resembling an affluent background (my parents worked very hard to make ends meet, but we spent most of my childhood well below the poverty line), so I can speak with some authority on this issue. I know what it's like to be trying to finish an essay, drinking gallon after gallon of crappy Toronto tap water to convince my tummy it's full, and not being able to concentrate because all I can think about is how I haven't had even a requisite bowl of rice in two days. Now, my situation was a little more voluntary – I decided not to work while I was in that year of my schooling in the interest of focusing strictly on my studies. Realistically, I could have picked up a job that would have provided me with spending money for the basics, but I didn't. I also could have gone to the food bank (a point I'll return to presently), but again – I didn't. So on some level it was my own fault that I went hungry for those months.

Now imagine a situation where it isn't voluntary: a single parent trying to support children on a woefully inadequate minimum-wage salary, or whatever. It's disgusting that in the wealthy society in which we all live that people – especially children – should go without food. I have two points on this issue that I'd like to bring to light.

The first is somewhat overreaching. We live on a planet that literally sheds foodstuffs like dandruff. There is food everywhere. Look at the animal kingdom – do you see gorillas or antelopes or whatever working horrifying 40 hour a week soul-sucking jobs that don't contribute to anything, just so they can have the privilege of eating? I think not. And yet, for all our vaunted technology and higher reasoning, we all do it – we all work our asses off just so we don't go hungry. Why?

For those answers I will direct you, gentle reader, to a scholar who has tackled this problem with significantly more panache and background than I could possibly bring to the table. Daniel Quinn is something of an amateur environmentalist who has taken it upon himself to seek “creative and positive solutions to global problems”, a goal he has actively pursued for the last twenty years. His writing is one part sociology, one part history and one part philosophy, and culminated in his award-winning Ishmael series (consisting of Ishmael, The Story of B and My Ishmael), which are, in my opinion, some of the most introspective and useful texts when it comes to seeking grand-scale alternatives to our current way of life (see? Told you this was an environmental blog). One of his fundamental points is that “locking up the food” in the way we do (i.e. making everyone work 40 hours a week just to feed themselves) has caused some of the most far-reaching, destructive social trends our culture faces in the 21^st century. Quinn is a personal hero of mine because rather than simply pointing out the problems, he offers dynamic solutions which, while they would require a total reboot of our patterns of thought, would probably also work. For more on his theories, check out his website, or better yet, go read his books.

Now that we've gotten the big-picture stuff out of the way, here's my second point.

As Jeff pointed out in his blog, the divide between the rich and the poor in this culture is vast. How is it that a family living in house A has an overabundance of food at their fingertips – pantries literally stuffed to capacity with non-perishable food items that will inevitably collect dust in the back of a cupboard for years, while next door in house B, a family is starving to death? Well, we all know how that works – bad luck, bad planning, born into the right or wrong situation, whatever. It's not for me to comment on the how and why of these problems (go check out Quinn, like I said).

The problem I have is that so few people – relatively speaking – do anything to help alleviate these issues. How hard is it for people to take a little of what they earn, or a bit of what they've stockpiled, and donate it to an organization like the Food Bank who work day in and day out to help feed the disadvantaged? I am never, ever going to eat that dusty tin of peaches that has been in my cupboard since the Harris administration, but they haven't gone bad – that's the whole point of “non-perishable” food items. Why wouldn't I take a few minutes and scour my pantry for stuff like that, stuff I don't even want, and run it down to my local drop off depot so some kid can taste the juicy goodness of my Del Monte fruit? Why wouldn't I, indeed? Fact is, I have – and I do, regularly. You should too.

But Christina, you might say, there are so many deadbeats out there who take advantage of these social support networks – people who don't actually need the Food Bank, they're just too lazy to work, so they leech off the good nature of others!

Yes, this is sadly true. I hate it as much as you do. People who suckle at the proverbial teat of their more generous brethren should die in a fire. But what kind of people are we if we make all our decisions based on the lowest-common denominator of our society? Like Jeff said, I've never been a big proponent of the whole “I am my brother's keeper” idea, but I do think as individuals and as a community we have a responsibility to lend a hand to people who just aren't making it. If we base our social support on the rotten apples who manipulate the system, the only people who suffer are the ones who genuinely needed the help.

I know this is an environmental blog, but the whole point of saving the environment is to preserve our way of life for our children and their children. But it's a multi-faceted issue – and if we can't help ourselves on as fundamental a level as the basic needs of our species, we're not going to get anywhere. Check out the Daily Bread website for more information – we have to start somewhere, folks.

Stensiling in the Future

2009-04-13T12:04:00.005-04:00

Okay, I have a lot to say today, and it's a good thing I already changed the format of this blog, because otherwise this post would look really out of place.

My friend Jim Fairthorne over at State of Affairs posted a blog on Thursday detailing environmental watchdog Greenpeace's castigation of the Ontario government's proposed nuclear plan. Jim made a number of prescient points, all of which you can find here, but to summarize, he discussed the importance of keeping Canadian jobs in Canada and argued that if GP spokesman Shawn-Patrick Stensil wanted to criticize nuclear energy, he might do well to come up with some alternatives that were just a little more specific than hiding behind the “green energy” moniker. I'll come back to Mister Stensil in a minute.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and throw my support behind Jim on this one. Yes, I'm a huge supporter of green technology. Yes, I think wind turbines and solar panels are wonderful ideas and a great support network for our energy infrastructure. But the bottom line is this: according to the 2008 Independent Electricity System Operator statistics, here's how our energy generation-to-consumption worked:

- Ontario Energy Production totalled 159.3 TWh
- Generation by Fuel Type:
- 53 per cent from Nuclear (84.4 TWh)
- 24.1 per cent from Hydroelectric (38.3 TWh)
- 14.5 per cent from Coal (23.2 TWh)
- 6.9 per cent from Gas/Oil (11 TWh)
- 0.9 per cent from Wind (1.4 TWh)
- 0.6 per cent from Other Sources (1 Twh)

Okay? Okay. Nuclear energy provides over half this province's power – fact. The so-called “green” energy totals (if we assume that all “other sources” are green in nature) generate roughly three percent of what the current nuclear plants generate. So clearly, at least in the short term until green tech can be made more efficient and the red tape of any major changeover can be cleared up, the Power Of The Atom looks like a pretty good alternative to things like coal, oil and other major pollutants.

Jim's article (if you haven't read it yet, and you should) doesn't even directly deal with the issue of whether or not nuclear power is “good” – he skips over that pointless argument and goes right into the economic ramifications of the Ontario government contracting the building and maintenance of our nuclear reactors to external, non-Canadian companies. Jim argues that it's a much better idea for Ontario's economy to make sue of the existing CANDU infrastructure and keep these jobs in Canada, and I tend to agree with him.

And now back to Mister Stensil, who personally responded to Jim's blog post. I've included the text here:

Hey Jim,
I don’t think you tried to hard to find alternatives to Ontario’s nuclear plans on Greenpeace’s website.
I [sic] took me two clicks to find this link: renewableisdoable.ca
You’ll find a report there that’s been endorsed by all of Canada’s major environmental organizations on how to replace the Pickering B and Bruce B nuclear stations.
At a global level please check out Greenpeace’s Energy Revolution report on how we build a climate friendly energy system (without nuclear): http://www.energyblueprint.info/
Cheers.

I took the liberty of checking out the links Mister Stensil included in his post, and what I came up with solidifies my irritation with this whole situation.

If you go to the “Renewable Is Doable” site, you'll find an awful lot of rhetoric about how green technology is a Better Idea than nuclear power, but they don't really say a great deal about how it's better, why it's more economically feasible or even what technologies they want to use instead. They make mention of a trend towards lower energy requirements in Ontario and reference the IESO statistics for 2008 that I mentioned above. However, upon reading the IESO report, I discovered the “trend” is actually the result of wetter, more temperate summers decreasing the public desire for air conditioning. So basically what they're saying is because the trends are dependent on the weather, we can no more predict energy consumption than we can plan a picnic with any real assurance it won't be rained out. And yet, Greenpeace is still railing against the idea of nuclear energy as unnecessary.

In a blog post on January 13th, 2009, Mister Stensil contends that these predictions render nuclear energy an overcompensation for a non-existent need. He figures we can replace the existing CANDU network with a wide array of solar panels and wind turbines to shore up what will amount to 75% of our energy requirements by 2010 (especially once the plan to shut down Ontario coal plants goes into effect).

Once again, I'm all for the prospect of reducing our dependence on pollutant-rich energy sources in favour of green alternatives, but this has not been well thought-out. What happens if we decide to shut down every nuclear reactor in favour of fields of wind turbines (that people already don't want), or sheets upon sheets of solar panels? Do you have any idea how much this kind of initiative would cost? Certainly I don't think it would result in the “billions of dollars” of savings Mister Stensil is suggesting.

The bottom line is this: we're in the midst of a much-touted economic crisis. Jobs are going the way of the dodo with alarming rapidity. Changing our entire energy system to a green network whose efficiency is still under debate would be a monstrous, costly undertaking. We have existing power which, while it's not perfect, is rather efficient and will cost us far less in the short term and shore up our energy requirements while we research green technology and figure out ways to improve its efficacy in the interest of eventually making that changeover. The green revolution is coming, folks, but it's not going to be built in a day.

Feedback on this issue would be much appreciated – we need to talk about this.

You Don't Need A Bigger Boat

2009-04-08T16:05:00.004-04:00

Anybody remember when the Crocodile Hunter died? I know it was a few years ago, but it leads into something I've wanted to talk about for a while. For those of you who forgot about this ultimately foreseeable incident, Steve Irwin was a certifiably insane Australian who made his living provoking and antagonizing potentially dangerous animals of every stripe. In his extensive career he was bitten, stung, strangled and otherwise maimed by just about every predatory animal on the planet. He eventually met his admittedly tragic end on the pointy side of a manta ray's stinger – bam, right through the heart. Like I said, raise your hand if you didn't see this one coming. Statistically there are only so many times you can poke deadly animals with a stick or drag them around by the tail or whatever before one of them punches your clock. So Steve Irwin got Dracula'd by a venomous fish, and the entertainment world lost one more strangely compelling nutcase.

The response? A whole school of stingrays were found mutilated with their stingers ripped off all over the beaches of beautiful Queensland, Australia, because a bunch of rabid fans figured it was justifiable retribution against a species that clearly has an agenda to rid the surface world of wingnut naturalists (that's sarcasm, folks). Leaving aside the somewhat dire insinuations about human nature this incident illustrates, it points to the very human proclivity to hate and fear anything we don't understand.

It's the same thing with stuff like Jaws. Peter Benchley wrote a book about an almost-comically homicidal shark that preyed on the unwary swimmers of Amity Island. The movie version by Stephen Spielberg builds on the already-unlikely premise. The big biter leaves a trail of dead tourists in its wake until a trio of local thugs (a sheriff, a marine biologist and – get this – a professional shark hunter) decide to form a brute squad and go hunting for the underwater beast. A string of unlikely circumstances follows, including the fact that the shark apparently really hates English drinking songs, culminating in the use of a pressurized barrel and a rifle to quite literally explode the evil fish.

This is bullsh*t upon bullsh*t, folks – it's pure, unadulterated fiction. Seriously – a survey done by the Florida Museum of Natural History notes that in 2006, there were only 62 cases of what they call “unprovoked” shark attacks on humans (“unprovoked”, of course, meaning the non-Steve Irwin variety). Sharks don't like people-meat; even the most grossly obese American tourist isn't fat enough for the great-white palette, and usually humans are attacked by sharks because they're mistaken for seals or other marine life more suitable to the diet of a twenty-foot long apex predator. Why are they mistaken for seals, you might ask? Because humans have this unwavering desire to throw themselves into intrinsically dangerous situations in order to pursue recreation. Case in point: surfing. Leaving aside all the other stuff that can go wrong (like drowning, or generally looking like a douchebag), why would you want to dress in a rubbery, seal-esque wetsuit and leap on a board shaped like your average great-white's afternoon snack, and then hurl yourself into bodies of water where these scary-ass creatures tend to congregate for meal times? Clearly, this is stupid upon stupid: engaging in already-dangerous activities in an environment where you're at a distinct disadvantage (ever tried to move fast in five feet of water?), and then adding into that you're trespassing on the turf of the baddest street gang of the aquatic 'hood (the Sharks, get it?).

It's like my buddy Jeff O. over at Keep Your Coins I Want Change said to me when I was discussing this post with him.

Jaws should have been the shortest movie ever made. They should have seen the shark, gone “oh gee, there's a shark...so who wants to play volley ball instead?” and that should have been it. Approximate running time, five minutes. Fade to black.

If we could just keep it to ourselves, maybe the absurdly high number of shark attacks (more sarcasm) would dwindle to, oh, I don't know, none. There's no real reason why people should ever get attacked by something in the sea. But we keep doing it, and what's more, we make it a pastime.

At least surfing is athletic – what about these rich, bored, upper-middle class tourist clowns who decide that the swim-up bar in the pool of the 5 star resort just isn't interesting enough. No, they want to go into the sea and have a face-to-face encounter with the oldest, most efficient predators on the planet. But in the interest of public safety and of not, you know, having limbs chewed off, they put these over-privileged voyeurs in a big metal cage and lower them into the water – which is, according to the popular conception of sharks as mindless man-eaters, the same thing as keeping the samosas behind glass at the supermarket. Then, the companies that run these thrill-a-minute excursions dump a bunch of fish guts into the water around the cage so the sharks will be attracted and driven into a feeding frenzy, to the great satisfaction of the Tourist Snacks. Sounds kind of neat, right?

Ever heard of a guy called Pavlov? You've heard of his dogs, for sure – the ones trained to salivate at the sound of a bell. It's called behaviour modification and it works by associating certain sensations with certain results. In the case of our friends the Griswolds, the sensation is the fish chow that makes the sharks think it's time to eat – the result is a sharky association between food and fat tourists in the water. Do I need to draw you a picture here?

To bring it back full-circle, the people who dig (dug?) the Crocodile Hunter and who really want to swim with Jaws are the same people who will lose their minds over a few shark attacks and one dead Australian and endorse mass killings of these scary, scary animals. The point is, you can only mess with nature for a certain period of time before nature will turn around and bite you in the ass. You don't need a bigger boat – you need a new hobby.

Bullsh*t

2009-04-03T12:02:00.002-04:00

I'm not big on swearing, but this one is accurate. Ever heard the phrase "don't sh*t where you eat"? There's a lot of truth to that sentiment.

If you know your American geography, you know that the Mississippi River empties directly out into the much-romanticized Gulf of Mexico. What you might not know is that for thousands of miles, farms dump all their excess fertilizer (read: cow poo) into the river, where it sludges on down and spreads its toxic payload all over the Gulf.

What's a bit of crap in a body of water that big, you might ask?

How about a colloquially-named "Dead Zone" where, true to the phrasing, everything dies? Everything from marine life the size of big fish down to the smallest amoeba floating in this excrement soup has its little existence extinguished by high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that eats up all the oxygen in the water, leaving only sickly-green algae floating around on the scummy surface. Definitely sounds like somewhere I'd rather not take a dip; how about you?

Oh, did I mention the Mississippi Dead Zone is the size of New Jersey?

Yeah. Over 8000 square miles of fish-free toilet.

Now, I don't want to rag on farmers, don't get that idea. They work hard. Harder than I would particularly want to, that's for sure. But we're living in the 21st century -- can we find no better way to dispose of our hazardous waste than by dumping it in the nearest body of water? I mean, we have to drink this stuff. To say nothing of the poor fish.

You know, there was more I wanted to say on this subject, but honestly I'm just too tired to discuss enormous poo dumping today. It's making me sick to my stomach. I'll revisit this on Monday after I get back from my mini-vacation.

Not exactly as advertised

2009-04-02T14:58:00.002-04:00

When I first came across this article, the name immediately made me want to write about it. The name came up on my RSS feed as "Five Ways to go Green Without Really Trying". Now maybe I'm hormonal, but that made my blood boil like I accidentally sat down on a lit element. The most basic, fundamental roadblock we have to get around in our fight to save this planet is very simple: human apathy and laziness. People want change; of course they do. And if it's something they don't have to think very hard about, something that won't detract from their standard of living or (heaven forbid) interrupt their American Idol marathon, then they're all over it.

It took a long time for people to get used to the idea of recycling, but eventually they got over the fact that they couldn't just throw all their trash in one bag anymore: some of it had to go in a separate box, for the good of us all. Good for you! But then, along came the Green Bins (for those of you who don't know, it's a wonderful idea much like compost, in which you separate certain food waste into a -- you guessed it -- green bin so it can be taken to a different landfill site where everything is biodegradable), and once again Ma and Pa Canada decided this was too much hassle -- I mean, really, the idea of actually having to separate your half-eaten, wasted meal into a totally different bag? Unthinkable! Recycling is okay, but garbage is just garbage! Why can't we just schlep it all together and forget about it?

Sysiphus keeps pushing that rock up the hill, and lazy, ignorant lardasses keep knocking it all the way back down again.

So when I read the title "Without Really Trying" my immediate reaction was irritation, because somebody (it seemed to me) was monopolizing on just that sort of laziness to actually market products to people. "Want to assuage your environmental guilt, but not enough to actually do something proactive? Here, buy this product and you can get back to feeling good about yourself and wasting food and watching bad TV." All of this went through my head in rapid succession, so as I was preparing myself for the rage that was doubtless about to overcome me, I opened the link.

Imagine my surprise when I was met by a well-written, clever, useful article about several solutions (not even product placement -- solutions) I either hadn't considered, or didn't know about.

The manual lawn mower? Great idea. Exercise (which the aforementioned apathetic lardasses could use), absolutely no emissions whatsoever (other than your own sweat), and it self-mulches your lawn. Also, you're saving money on gas. Right on!

The hatchback was the only one I took issue with, mostly because of my last post and its implications to the automobile industry. But the "marketing to men" angle was cute, so I let it pass.

The beer growler is a great idea too, though not revolutionary in Canada (we've had returnable bottles forever). Reuse is better than recycling because it takes less energy and produces less harmful emissions, and also -- beer is good. (I'm Scottish, what do you want from me?)

Milk paint -- remember how I said I never knew some of this existed? That one wins. I would never, ever have thought of using milk to paint anything. What a neat idea.

And finally, Soap For Everything -- now, I'm not normally into plugging companies, but I have actually tried this stuff and it is amazing. They aren't kidding when they say it works on anything: my aunt once used it to get red wine out of a carpet, and twenty minutes later I was washing my hair with the stuff! The peppermint scent is nothing short of divine. And it's genuinely green. Awesome.

So it turns out my initial reaction was totally misplaced, and the article is great (seriously, check out the link at the top). I guess it goes to show that I shouldn't fly off the handle if something looks offensive or stupid at first glance. Don't worry; that doesn't mean I won't.

Compensate the Green Way

2009-04-01T10:50:00.005-04:00

I just received a comment from my good friend Jim Fairthorne over at State of Affairs (great political blog, check him out); he brought this to my attention:

BTW, have you heard of Tesla Motors? A few years ago they released an electric sports car and the sedan was coming out this year some time, but they kind of dropped off the map. Do you know what's going on with them?

Contrary to Jim's belief, Tesla Motors has not, in fact, dropped off the map. In fact, they're doing rather well for themselves, and that bodes well for the future of alternative energy vehicles.

For those of us who have never heard of this company, Tesla Motors (named after famed electrical engineer Nikolai Tesla) is a Silicon Valley automobile start-up company that focuses on the production of high performance, consumer-oriented battery-electric vehicles. Since 2003, Tesla has been pushing back the boundaries of electric-car technology.

In 2006, they released their first model, the Tesla Roadster -- and why millions of people don't own this car is beyond me. First of all it's sexy as hell:

See what I mean? That's part one. Part two is the sheer economic value of this vehicle. Check this out (from the Tesla wiki):

"...the car has a range of 221 miles (356 km). The company and reviewers state that the Tesla Roadster accelerates from zero to 60 mph (100 km/h) in less than four seconds, and has a top speed of 125 mph (201 km/h) (limited for safety). The cost of powering the vehicle is estimated at US$0.02 per mile."

Two cents per mile. Say it with me. Two cents per mile. God, that sounds good, doesn't it? Beats the pants off whatever it is we're paying for gas, and of course there's that added bonus of not killing everything within a five meter radius of your toxin-spewing tailpipe.

But what, you're asking, is the price tag on this wonder of sexy, clean technology? Okay, it's a little steep for the layman -- the new sedan Model S is going to be released in late 2011 with a price tag of US$57,000. Certainly out of my budget, but -- what about all these hoity-toity corporate California types who just have to buy their sixth Hummer and use up all my air because they're compensating for something? The base model H2 retails for in and around $60,000, and even though General Motors doesn't like to admit it, the mileage for one of these automotive monstrosities is a maximum of around 15 miles a gallon. At two bucks a gallon, do the math: that means these yuppie yahoos are shelling out about thirteen cents a mile. Now compare that to the two cents a mile you get with the Tesla Roadster (which is already smaller, cooler looking and equally compensatory) and spread it out over a year. Federal standards suggest the average American drives about 15,000 miles a year. Ready for it?

H2 gas per year: $1950.00
Tesla electricity per year: $300.00

At the risk of this turning into a total math lesson, that means an average American driving a Tesla Roadster as compared to an average American driving a Hummer is going to save almost $1700 a year in gas, all the while keeping the air much cleaner, paying the same as they would for a stupid urban assault vehicle, and looking less like a midlife crisis on wheels.

What's my point in all this? Two things. First, saving the environment and looking cool doing it rocks. Second?

Nuff said.

To: Humans, From: Everything Else on the Planet -- Thanks a lot

2009-03-31T13:28:00.005-04:00

Four billion years. That's how long the Earth has been around. In that period of time, the ecosystem has gone through roughly five of what are being called "mass extinction periods", which is exactly what it sounds like: everything dies. Now, scientists are suggesting we're heading into period #6, but this time there's a catalyst that has nothing to do with giant space rocks or volcanoes or God turning down the thermostat -- take a wild guess what that catalyst might be.

It's okay, I'll wait.

Still guessing? Here's a hint. It's us.

At this point, the appearance and propagation of existing species is being rapidly outmatched by species that are vanishing, literally every day. And it's all our fault. To illustrate, here's a great quote from David Wake, professor of integrative biology at UC Berkeley:

"There's no question that we are in a mass extinction spasm right now...[A]mphibians have been around for about 250 million years. They made it through when the dinosaurs didn't. The fact that they're cutting out now should be a lesson for us."

So whatever it was that killed off the dinosaurs, we're worse. Anybody really surprised? Show of hands?

Here are some more fun facts: according to the 10,000 or so scientists who work for the World Conservation Union, 51 per cent of known reptiles, 52 per cent of known insects, and 73 per cent of known flowering plants are in danger, along with a metric ton of mammals, birds and amphibians. Not enough? We are killing off species we don't even know exist yet. Remember all those warnings we got back in the early 90's about how we could potentially steamroll over the cure for cancer or AIDS and not even know it? Yeah, welcome to the new millennium, where science fiction has become science fact.

Let's take it even a step farther, and you can take this one with a grain of salt because it's a little apocalyptic even for my new-found worldview, but check this out. Straight from the mouth of Peter Raven, past President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

"We have driven the rate of biological extinction, the permanent loss of species, up several hundred times beyond its historical levels, and are threatened with the loss of a majority of all species by the end of the 21st century."

Several hundred times. Roll that number around in your head for a minute. We have cell phones more powerful than the personal computers of ten years ago; we can text one another from New Zealand to Toronto in the blink of an eye; we have iPods and Blackberries and automatic everything and five cars a household and sex toys designed by NASA -- and even with all this human ingenuity at work, we can't seem to stop killing everything.

It's like the author of the article says: what good are all these conveniences if we manage to rape, pillage, burn and destroy our natural environment, and essentially murder ourselves in slow motion in the process?

It's time for a serious alteration of our priorities. Like, now. Right now. I'm not kidding.

Check it out.

Site redesign; new vision

2009-03-31T12:03:00.003-04:00

Hello fellow environmentalists.

By now you've noticed the site redesign which I completed scant minutes ago, and I bet you're wondering what the heck happened. That's a fair question -- it's a pretty severe redesign, and it probably shocked some people because it's a radical departure from how my blog has been run up until today.

I spent this morning reading back through the posts since I started here on Blogger, and it quickly became apparent to me that something has been missing. What do we call that elusive element that makes a blog successful?

Oh, right. Readership.

I have spent most of my adult life campaigning for environmental awareness because I genuinely care about our planet. I want nothing more than to see us get back on the right track, to find balance and harmony with our ecosystem, to fix the glaring errors of the past and develop new strategies to benefit our world and ourselves. To that end I've tried to provide helpful, positive commentary on new innovations in environmental science and useful tips on how to green up your personal life. I have done this because I truly believe in basic human goodness and the capacity to change our attitudes and way of life for the better.

And nobody seems to be listening.

Every day I scan the environmental news diggs, searching for articles highlighting positive, forward thinking motion towards realistic, eco-friendly change. But all too often the light at the end of the tunnel turns out to be an oncoming train -- a train fueled by ignorance, by short-sightedness, and most especially by an overriding sense of apathy towards these issues. I know there are people who care as much as I do out there, but we seem to be in the minority. People are far more concerned with comfort and short-term security than they are with influencing government and industry to put on the brakes before we go careening off the cliff towards which we're driving with reckless abandon. And frankly, I've had it.

So from now on you're going to get something very different from the Blog Formerly Known As Green Me Up. I'm not pulling punches anymore. If I see lies, I'm calling them lies. If I see inconsistency, I'm going to shore it up. And if I see hypocrisy, complacency or apathy, I'm going to nail it to a wall.

I haven't lost hope. I still believe in a green future. It's just time for me to take a more aggressive stance. Eco-warriors, unite! We're going to get this train back on track if we have to get out and push.

How much is it worth to you?

2009-03-30T16:12:00.002-04:00

I try to keep up on any new technological developments that could help me be more environmentally conscious (and, if I'm really lucky, some of the better ones help me save money!) But I'm torn on this one. Philips has just released their new energy-saving LED light bulb called GeoBulb that draws a mere 7.5 watts of power to run (big money saver for those of us who don't like sitting in the dark) and provides as much light as a generic 60 watt bulb. Even better, it's got a ten-year lifespan with regular use.

Sounds great, right?

Here's the catch -- a single bulb, a SINGLE BULB, is going to set you back a whopping $120.00. Now I don't know about you, but I have more than a single lamp in my entire place. In fact, if I were going to replace all the bulbs in my house with these GeoBulbs, it would run me a one-time payment of damn near a thousand bucks. Great idea, Philips, but until you find a way to make these technological wonders just a little cheaper, I'm afraid the earth is going to have to deal with my crappy old 60 watt bulbs. Because, you know, I need to eat.

But, if you happen to know somebody with the funds and the desire to go out and buy these, check out the link here.

Told you I was helping!

2009-03-26T13:30:00.004-04:00

Courtesy of the National Wildlife Federation comes this fantastic article about how social media and the internet are fantastic tools we can use to help save the planet. The article lists nine different reasons why the popularity of social media sites like Facebook, Myspace, and yes, even Blogger, are vital to spreading information, raising awareness, organizing fundraising, and educating one another and ourselves about environmental issues.

I don't like to toot my own horn or anything, but it seems that yours truly is a part of this initiative...and that makes me feel pretty good :)

Take a look at the article -- it has lots of great links to places you can start taking advantage of your social networking to further environmental causes. It's an uphill fight, folks, and that means we need to use every tool and resource at our disposal to work towards our common goals. Get on board!

YouTube "Plug" -- Plug, Get It?

2009-03-25T11:24:00.003-04:00

I don't normally like to introduce people to websites they might be more inclined to visit than mine (because I'm a sucker for the limelight), but another environmentally-inclined friend sent me a link to this guy's Youtube Channel: it's called Power On, and it incorporates some of the most interesting, informative, and sometimes downright silly videos on the environment in general, but specifically new developments with Ontario's Power Workers Union and their proposed new energy plan for the next ten years. I would go into more detail, but honestly I think you'll get more out of the videos on the channel. In case you aren't convinced, I'm including the most recent video embedded here -- one of the more hilarious things I've seen in a while, but dealing with an issue near and dear to a lot of animal-loving Canadian hearts, especially yours truly. Enjoy!

Apocalyptica

2009-03-18T11:38:00.003-04:00

Normally I'm a bright, sunshiny person, and even though I'm well aware of the potential dangers our race faces if we keep ruining our planet, I don't usually buy into the doomsayers who predict the end of the world as we know it. I like to think positively and work proactively, but sometimes it's hard to look away when somebody is holding up the big cardboard sign stating The End Is Nigh. And this article, in particular, struck me because I'll admit to having kind of a dark sense of humour at times, and this guy was kind of funny even as he was sounding the death knell of our culture.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, predicts that if climate change continues undeterred, we could see massive worldwide disaster on a scale heretofore unseen in human history. Even a nine-degree (Fahrenheit) raise in global temperature, a conservative estimate based on studies, would result in disruption of the monsoon, collapse of the Amazon rain forest and the meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, not to mention deoxygenation of huge tracts of the world's oceans (which would prove devastating to marine life and the ecosystem in general). Based on these apocalyptic findings, Dr. Schellnhuber predicts the death of over 75% of the human population, bringing our total numbers down to a more ecologically supportable 1 billion inhabitants.

On the bright side, he told the Danish hosts of the recent climate meeting in Copenhagen, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet would "increase your usable land by, I don't know, 10,000 percent." Funny guy.

This is scary stuff. Remember, I said conservative estimates, which means Dr. Schellnhuber's calculations are a better-case scenario. It could be much, much worse. How many signs to we have to wave around before governments, institutions and individuals start taking this issue seriously? This isn't a John Wyndham novel, folks, this is real life. Wake up.

Here's the full article.

Clap On, Clap Off

2009-03-17T11:41:00.004-04:00

We all know that turning out your lights is both fiscally and environmentally responsible -- if you're not using them, why have them on? Saves you money and cuts down on emissions, right? Okay, this is a great idea on an individual level. I even think we should have a national "no power day" to promote energy conservation (remember how much fun the blackout was a few years ago? Why not plan for it?). But I can't help but think this idea isn't nearly as good as it sounds.

The author of this article advocates reduction of streetlight use in urban areas, citing the fact that it's our fundamental human right to see the stars, and also mentioning that powering streetlights produces five hundred thousand tonnes of carbon emissions every year. Right, that's never a good thing, I agree.

But are streetlights really that big a problem in the grand scheme? I mean, I'm all for reducing emissions, but has anybody thought of the safety implications of cutting back on lighting up the night? When the blackout happened a few years back I was working at a retail shop, and the minute the lights went out, fully half the people in the store grabbed merchandise and booked it. I don't really like what that says about people, and it makes me worry about the prospect of poor lighting in our streets at night, especially as a smaller-framed woman.

Also, 500,000 tonnes of emissions sounds like a lot (and it is) but there are other elements that produce WAY more pollutants every year (cars anyone?)...why would we risk the safety of our population in order to curb a relatively small portion of the problem?

I don't know about you, but when you stack up Clean Air versus Possible Rape, the risk just isn't worth it to me. Let me know what you think about this.

San Francisco's Sinking

2009-03-13T13:40:00.000-04:00

How tall are you? I'm a healthy five foot eight myself. That means that in ninety or so years, were I to visit California, my head should be above water.

According to recent studies, climate change in the next century or so will force the oceans along the coastal United States to rise as much as five feet, effectively wreaking havoc in cities like San Francisco, which are expected to be hammered by storms and serious flooding that will make Katrina look like summer rain.

Seriously. Even the Governator is taking notice of this issue and is directing further studies to be done to determine how California can protect itself from this disaster, which is coming, whether we like to believe it or not. Why can't the rest of us wake up and realize what's going on here? Is it going to take half the country sinking into the sea to get us to do something?

Check out the full story here. I'm done with this.

If You Build It...

2009-03-12T15:49:00.002-04:00

Dubai, 2009. Where else?

Architects operating out of Dubai's Timelinks company have developed a potential solution for overcrowding of sprawling city centers that is both inventive and environmentally-sound: they call it the Ziggurat.

Sounds ominous, doesn't it? Like some sorcerer should be living inside it with some kind of skull-shaped cauldron, plotting the end of the world? Yeah, I thought so too, till I *saw* the thing.

Check out the link here.

It's exactly what it looks like -- a giant, self-sufficient crystal pyramid designed to comfortably accommodate -- wait for it -- over a million people. A million. Four of them would house all of the Greater Toronto Area. Power is supplied by wind turbines, and the whole thing is about 2.3 square kilometers in base area: less than ten percent of the average urban sprawl.

Okay, it might look like something out of Stargate, but this is still a really, really interesting idea. But what's more interesting is the comments left by people, comparing it to Logan's Run or The Island. Come on folks -- save the natural landscape to be enjoyed and more-or-less left alone while we contain our human activities in self-sufficient obelisks? I think that's pretty cool. Feel free to disagree with me though -- I'd like to start responding in blog posts to people who disagree with me. Challenge me, darn it!

Nuke the Future!

2009-03-10T12:32:00.002-04:00

So everybody who reads this blog knows I'm a big proponent of nuclear energy. I'm also a little bit tired (ran a marathon all over my city last night looking for some spices to make my patented vegetarian cabbage rolls...mmm...) so I don't really feel like posting a whole blog today. So in the interest of getting some sleep and still providing you with something interesting to check out, I've embedded a lecture from Hillsdale College on the value of nuclear energy. It's very long, but well worth checking out if you're bored at work or just plain interested.

Here ya go, see you tomorrow!

Not Just a River in Egypt...

2009-03-09T13:22:00.002-04:00

In the grand old tradition of Holocaust denial and pro-Iraq War protesters comes an entirely new and exciting brand of united ignoramuses: climate change deniers.

Yes, even despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the Exxon-funded Heartland Institute has organized their yearly convention dedicated to spreading dangerous misinformation regarding the state of our natural world and feeding the woefully mistaken belief that our actions against the environment have no discernible negative effects on the quality of our air, water and ecosystems.

What's worse is this group has actually garnered the support of national leaders, or one national leader at least. Czech president Václav Klaus was a keynote speaker at this year's convention; he received a standing ovation for this quote:

"They [European governments] probably do not want to reveal their true plans and ambitions to stop economic development and return mankind several centuries back..."

He accused major governments lobbying to combat climate change of being "alarmist", and added that the climate change debate has not made any "detectable progress".

People were cheering this man. Seriously. But of course we're talking about a country where only 58% of the population actually believe that humans are having a discernible effect on climate change.

I'm all for free speech, but sticking our heads in the sand isn't going to make this problem disappear, and the more we convince ourselves that nothing is wrong, the more difficult it's going to be to come back from the brink. Thoughts and comments always appreciated, but read the article first: here's your link of the day.

Retroactive Greening

2009-03-06T11:53:00.002-05:00

In yet another move that suggests to everyone he might indeed be the saviour the United States has been waiting for, President Barack Obama is overruling the outgoing Bush administration and reinstating laws requiring construction companies to consult with environmental experts before beginning work on land.

The Bush administrators changed the rule on their way out the White House door, allowing contractors unlimited access to build essentially wherever they wanted, without any regard for the local ecosystem, but our man Barack wasn't having any of that. He literally bypassed the usual public comment process in order to get this law into effect as quickly as possible. Businesses are predictably upset, because it means a lot of "red tape" for them to go through in order to start building, but environmentalists are hailing it as a major victory in the ongoing struggle between the business sector and the ecologically-interested.

I think this speaks well for America's future when they have a C in C who is willing to jump over beaurocratics and nonsense (in a good way this time) to get positive work done. What do you think? The start of a good thing or a negative harbinger of things to come? Comment and reply!

And check out the original story here.

Isn't it ironic, dontcha think?

2009-03-05T10:48:00.002-05:00

Ah, the American military: humanity's most technologically advanced fighting force. They've gotten a pretty bad rap in the last, oh, forever, for starting unseemly wars with third-world nations and generally just being a nuisance the world over. You'd think the first thing the Powers That Be would want to do to improve their global image would rest in things like foreign policy. You would think so, and so would I, and apparently we'd both be wrong, because the next major step forward for the United States Armed Forces will be an environmental one.

Yep, the Army is going green. You heard me right.

Apparently a number of initiatives have been greenlighted for this year and the coming decade which will see increased attention paid to the environmental effects of, among other things, practice ammunition. Currently, there are millions of dud practice rounds spread out over American bases all over the world, rounds that degrade and release toxic chemicals into ground water (apparently even fake ammo is deadly). American Rheinmetall Munitions has started to produce a specialized practice round designed to not explode on contact. Instead the round will release a flash and coloured dye to show where the shell hit. Paintballs, essentially. Oh, and they're biodegradable, so the Army no longer has to worry about cleaning up after long practice maneuvers. Good thing too -- it seems cleaning up is not something these folks are particularly good at.

Hot on the heels of this initiative are other research programs with an eye towards producing cleaner jet fuel for the Air Force's attack planes, and hybrid technology to be implemented in ground assault vehicles.

Okay, let me be totally clear about this. I am definitely on board with anybody's green initiative; anything to save the planet.

But.

This is the U.S. military we're talking about -- you know, the folks who brought us napalm, fragmentation mines and the atomic bomb.

The whole point of a military force is to blow stuff up and kill people. And these are the people trying to save the environment?

The irony would be hilarious if it wasn't kind of sickening. Check out the story here just so you know I'm totally not lying. It never ends, folks.

Seriously. I don't know what to say anymore.

2009-03-02T10:28:00.002-05:00

Apparently our lifestyle of excess has reached its pinnacle.

What do you know about toilet paper? Really, what do you actually know about it? Do you spend a lot of time thinking about your toilet paper or carefully considering your purchasing options when it comes to said toilet paper? Do you have a brand preference? Is there quality control involved in that preference -- do you actually grade your toilet paper based on comfort, softness, PLUSHNESS even? I don't know about you, but if I started putting that kind of thought into what kind of product I use to wipe my nethers, I think I would probably require a reboot of my day-to-day priorities.

Not so for our neighbours to the south. According to the New York Times, major toilet paper companies are stripping bare the forests of our great continent to provide the discerning public with a toilet paper that is, and I quote, "silken, thick, and hot-air-fluffed". There's a huge push in this industry against the use of recycled paper in this product because it's too coarse for the delicate American posterior, so instead companies will clear cut virgin forests in order to keep up their stocks of long, sensuous fibers with which to make bum-cleaner.

I've written before about the benefits of finding other sources of pulp and fiber to supply our material needs (things like hemp in favour of hundred-year-old carbon-eating trees), but this baffles even my ability to engineer a clever response. Toilet paper. Say it to yourself again. Toilet paper. Paper that goes in the toilet after being sullied by the remains of last night's chili burrito. It's literally a product designed to clean poo and then be easily discarded. Why, oh why, oh why, must it meet standards of quality control that might also be applied to thousand-count cotton bedsheets? This is the most absurd extravagance I've ever read about, ever.

Now, I'm not advocating the use of sandpaper or newspaper as an acceptable substitute, but come on! Recycled paper really isn't that bad (it's what I use, so I know) and it's infinitely better for our environment. What would you rather have -- a beautiful forest to walk through that helps clean the air and keep endangered species alive, or a luxurious butt-wiping experience?

Please tell me what you think about this -- I can't be the only one outraged by this whole debate.

The original story can be found here.

Yes They Can

2009-02-26T10:55:00.002-05:00

Hot on the heels of President Obama's inauguration and his promise to focus on renewable energy and green jobs, the young people of America have started to make that vision a reality.

According to the New York Times, enrollment in major and minor Environmental Science programs has skyrocketed nation-wide, sometimes rising as much as 45% over the last few years.

I don't really have an awful lot to say about this little piece of news, but I do have some questions that I'd like to pose to you, the reading public. How much do you think this trend is affected by the charismatic new president and his calls to greenify his country? I have posted other blogs mentioning that green jobs are becoming more popular in a stagnating economy because it's one of the few industries still generating jobs -- do you think the trend is pragmatic, that people are just looking for some kind of job security and are training in the appropriate field (regardless what field that might be)? Or do you think it's a question of personal accountability -- do these students really have a drive to make the world a better place?

Your comments are welcome, as always, and you can check out the full story here.

Good idea, bad idea...

2009-02-25T11:10:00.003-05:00

I have always been a huge supporter of NASA. I think the idea of going into space is, in a word, awesome. There are countless things we can learn about our world and our place in the universe by venturing beyond the boundaries of our own atmosphere.

Take, for example, the recent NASA initiative to launch a specialized research platform into orbit -- the Orbiting Carbon Observatory was designed to monitor greenhouse effects in the atmosphere in an attempt to learn more about the process and, hopefully, how we can curb the negative properties of the greenhouse effect.

Awesome, right? Right.

Except it fell into the sea.

Yes, you read that right.

You know, I really want to give these guys a lot of rope. They're the people that put men on the moon, for goodness' sake. They've charted far-off galaxies by sticking a huge telescope in orbit; they have pushed back the boundaries of scientific exploration farther than our parents could ever have imagined. Clearly, these are some of humanity's greatest minds.

So why can't they make things work the way they're supposed to?

Challenger. Columbia. The Mars rover. And now this. Two exploded shuttles and a handful of dead astronauts, a robot that journeyed millions of miles just to smash into a planet, and a $256M orbital platform that now resides at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

Like I said, I'm all about finding new and innovative research methods to help us understand our planet better. But I can't help but think that $256M might have been better spent elsewhere. If you're going to invest that kind of money into a project it would help if the project was a success.

NASA -- get it together!

We can't please everyone...

2009-02-20T11:40:00.003-05:00

The quandary into which we've inserted ourselves as a culture is becoming increasingly clear to me. There are a lot of people out there, some of them lawmakers and politicians, who recognize the importance of "going green" and supporting initiatives to clean up the environment, but we've been walking the same road for so long, we've become extremely dependent on a wasteful and harmful way of life. It's so much this way that policy changes are never "good" all across the board -- sooner or later, somebody has to pay the piper, and it seems that it's never the people who should be paying.

Take for example the recent proposal by Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick to impose a higher registration fee on large SUVs and trucks (luxury vehicles, essentially). This isn't a new proposal -- the idea has been around since 2001 -- but this is the first time a sitting governor has actively backed the idea. On one hand it sounds great, because it is a good incentive for people to invest in smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, but as always, there's another shoe.

Opponents of the proposal have cited the fact that small businesses and the self-employed will suffer as a result of this fee -- the people who actually need trucks and SUVs and don't just want them are going to pay the price for the extravagance of others who will invest in these vehicles as a luxury and not an occupational necessity. I can dig where they're coming from on this point -- I have an uncle who works in construction by day and is a gigging musician by night, so his truck is a non-negotiable part of both his jobs (hauling concrete or a lot of music gear requires the use of a pickup). He's self-employed and has enough trouble making ends meet as it is; an additional taxd on his head would hardly be fair.

We can't make everybody happy, unfortunately, but I rather wish there was a way for us to tax people who deserve taxing and exempt others who can prove they don't just want the thrill of driving an urban assault vehicle to their kids' soccer practice.

Check out the full article here.

At Least They're Trying...

2009-02-20T10:35:00.003-05:00

I don't know quite what to make of this, but I'm going to try and flesh it out.

Over the next century, about 4000 oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico are going to be decommissioned (side note: yay!). Usually the government does to these rigs what they do to everything that's no longer useful -- they blow them up. This has the unfortunate side effect of killing everything in the sea for miles around Ground Zero, go figure. It also costs really a lot of money, to the tune of millions of dollars per unit, due to the precise nature of controlled detonation (can you really use a word like "precise" when you're talking about thousands of pounds of high explosives? Guess so).

Enter Morris Architects, who have developed the potentially brilliant (and potentially dangerous) idea of turning these metal behemoths into Dubai-esque luxury hotel/resorts. According to BLDGBLOG the total surface area of each rig is somewhere in the realm of 20,000 square feet -- multiply that by four thousand rigs, and you're looking at a massive amount of real estate, ripe for development (according to Morris Archtiects).

Initially when I read about this, I thought "what a great idea!" but that was honestly the result of my knee-jerk reaction to the fact that Morris wants to make these oases eco-friendly and self-supporting (always a plus in my book). But then I got to thinking about it and I read some of the comments left on the original article. One reader mentioned that he works on oil rigs for a living and regardless how many bells and whistles you might add to one, it's still an oil rig and a crappy vacation destination. Another reader stated simply "hurricanes"...good point there too.

Here's another one: if these rigs are slated for decommissioning, it's probably not because there's no more oil to be had in that particular part of the world (much as I keep saying we're running out, we're not quite THAT low yet). If the government is seriously considering exploding these structures, I'd imagine it's likely because they've reached their operational capacity and are no longer structurally sound. Translation: they spent a hundred years in salt-water and are about to fall over into the sea.

Also: the logistics of this project are staggering to say the least. Morris Architects made a big deal out of how easy it would be to transport the necessary materials to the rigs, but leaving aside all the other arguments I've already made, what about getting the PEOPLE out there? And who's going to go? Rich folks, that's who, because nobody else could begin to afford the price of such an extravagant vacation. So who does it help? Realistically -- nobody.

I'm all for making use of existing platforms instead of just demolishing them, but instead of turning them into luxury items for the upper class, what about setting up hydroponic farming or even just "floating forests" to help clean the air?

I'd appreciate your responses to this -- I think it's an idea that needs consideration, but I don't think Morris Architects' idea is the right way to go. Feel free to agree or disagree.

It's Getting Hot In Here...

2009-02-17T13:44:00.002-05:00

For those five people out there who live under rocks and have no interest in the outside world, Australia is on fire. No, really. Wildfires have been raging across the continent, wiping out entire towns and killing almost 200 people at last count. It's a very, very bad situation, and while it's not unprecedented (wildfires are common in some parts of the Australian outback) it's far and away the worst, most widespread series of fires in recent history.

As usual, the culprit is global warming. According to recent studies, Australian greenhouse emissions are getting so bad, scientists expect a 3 degree upward standard in the next twenty years, and a 6 degree raise by 2070. That doesn't bode well for a country ill-suited to deal with widespread fires (though you'd think they would have figured out more efficient protocols by now).

Seriously folks, this is only the first wave in a long series of negative repercussions we're going to see as a result of global warming. I hate to beat a dead horse, but isn't it time we start treating this issue with the gravity it's due? How many people have to die because of our negligence? How far must this fire spread before we all realize that all the stop-gap extinguishers in the world aren't going to stop the flames? Prevention is key, here, in my opinion.

Check out the full story here.

The Algae Will Save Us...

2009-02-13T11:48:00.002-05:00

Every so often, in the slew of environmental news I try to keep up on day-to-day, something really strikes me as being a light at the end of the tunnel. With the world in economic recession and the ecosystem a total shambles, it's sometimes hard to keep hope that we'll start finding some legitimate answers to these self-created problems. Then I read something like this, and my hopes are reignited, even just a little.

Everybody knows that green plants help to clean up the atmosphere by converting CO2, yeah? Well how about this: ALGAE. Infinitely renewable, easy to grow, and after some time, it decomposes into vegetable oil that can be used to create biodiesel, jet fuel and plastic products.

Companies all over the world are jumping on this initiative, including American groups Sapphire Energy, OriginOil, BioCentric Energy and PetroAlgae, Japan Airlines, and Brazil's MPX Energia, which plans to trap anywhere between 10 and 15% of the carbon emissions from a coal plant by feeding them to algae.

We're a long way from having this idea become commercially viable, but it's a step in the right direction. Who would have thought that pond scum you avoided like the plague at the watering hole as a child might hold the key to cleaning up our act?

Wonder Twins Unite! Form of Common Sense!

2009-02-13T10:58:00.003-05:00

As though this actually comes as a shock to someone, researchers have decided that merging all our climate-control and anti-pollution initiatives under one flag might just save some money. Right now, all the major organizations and treaties regarding global warming (the Kyoto Accord, etc.) operate independent of one another, which to me is absolutely absurd. When one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing, the chances are any and all efforts towards the common goal are going to be inefficient at best.

The Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo (CICERO) is suggesting that the European Union alone could see savings in the billions of euros if only these organizations would work in tandem instead of independently. They also suggest that merging these functions might help convince some of the worst Kyoto offenders (like China) to start working more comprehensively towards an anti-warming goal.

The full story is here, if you're interested, but the general consensus seems to be that working together is a Good Idea. Who knew. Of course, the fine folks at the Environmental News Network just HAD to mention that some pollutants actually help to curb global warming (something about particles in pollution reflecting some of the sun's energy back out of the atmosphere), which to me is like saying that cigarettes will kill you, but the upside is that you look really cool. I don't even want to get into that.

Once again, my point remains -- why can't we all just get along? The world is a rough enough place these days as it is; why not try to work together towards a common goal -- like survival??

Desperate times...

2009-02-12T11:15:00.002-05:00

...breed desperate measures, at least as far as the Big 3 auto manufacturers are concerned. In an amusing move (at least to me), Ford has announced that it's going to aggressively pursue "green" automobile initiatives this year, in the interest of turning their profit margin around and digging themselves out of the shallow grave dug for them by a downturning economy and a total lack of consideration for the environment -- a sentiment that hasn't garnered them an awful lot of public support as more and more Americans are looking for ways to make their lives more environmentally-friendly.

The full story is here, but the thrust of it is basically Ford backpedaling like mad and trying to convince people they really do care about the state of our environment, which is why they're suddenly, conveniently interested in the green initiative. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Japanese companies like Toyota and Honda have been making hybrid cars for years, and before the economy tanked people were far more inclined to invest in them than the urban assault vehicles made by the Big 3.

I can't help but laugh a little when I see major companies forced into taking their customers seriously, instead of just telling us what we want. Hopefully this is a sign of good things to come.

Team North for the Win!

2009-02-11T13:03:00.002-05:00

In a time when people are bandying around a lot of opinions on sustainable energy, it's nice to see that some people are still chasing that elusive answer empirically.

A team of students and faculty from Ryerson University, U Waterloo and Simon Fraser in BC have joined forces to develop a fully solar-powered home which will illustrate the potential uses of solar energy in everyday life. This team is one of only two Canadian teams to be accepted to the prestigious 2009 Solar Decathalon competition (a yearly competition sponsored by the United States Department of Energy).

Team North (as they're called) is developing their "North House" to suggest marketability of solar energy to middle-class families with active lifestyles. In addition to increasing the popularity of this renewable resource, it is hoped the North House project will highlight ways to make solar energy affordable to the average household in North America.

Personally, I think this is a fantastic initiative, well worthy of Canadian involvement; though at the same time on some level I kind of wish major organizations like the Department of Energy would be more interested in pursuing these initiatives on a day-to-day basis instead of a once-yearly project. I think we can all agree that developing alternative energy sources is a worthwhile endeavour any day of the year.

Check out the original article here, and tell me what you think -- do you suppose making a competition out of the initiative helps boost its public image, or do you figure more funding should be put into following these projects all the time?

Another one bites the dust...

2009-02-11T12:24:00.002-05:00

And another species hits the endangered list -- finally. This is something that really grinds my gears. According to the Environmental News Network, the California tiger salamander has been waiting to be put on the "protected" list for almost five years. The original petition was turned down by the Fish and Game Commission in 2004, basically because they didn't want to put the species on the list. The Commission went on to falsely claim they lacked "proof" that the species was in fact endangered, despite repeated attempts by the Center for Biological Diversity to show empirically that the salamander deserved to be on the list. One commissioner repeatedly referred to the species as a "problem", citing that the salamander's presence on private land constituted a nuisance.

Great idea guys -- let's deny protection to any species we deem inconvenient. There's a species that's even more troublesome than the tiger salamander -- I'll give you three guesses. Chances are you won't need the first two.

It's okay, I'll wait.

Still haven't got it?

It's us.

Seriously, who are we to start playing God and deciding what species gets to thrive and what species gets the axe? Who are the commissioners of the Fish and Game board to make those kinds of decisions? We don't run the planet...and if it wasn't for our intervention, chances are the salamanders (among the thousands of other endangered species) would probably be just fine. It bothers me on a very fundamental level that we think ourselves so high-and-mighty as to take the power of life and death away from Nature or God or whatever and start making determinations that could change life as we know it on this planet for the worse. Okay, maybe the tiger salamanders don't play a HUGE role in the ecosystem, but if they didn't play A role, it's likely they would have died out on their own.

This planet's ecosystem is far, far too complex for us to begin to be able to comprehend it -- and therefore we're making sweeping decisions based on incomplete information. What a terrible thing to ponder.

Oh well, something is better than nothing, I guess, and I'm glad to hear the salamanders finally made the grade. Maybe if we're lucky we can save this species from disappearing altogether.

Read the original story here.

It's All Related!

2009-02-03T09:41:00.002-05:00

The more I read about continuing research into alternative fuel sources, the more I'm tempted to make an entire series of blog posts entitled "Damned if we do, damned if we don't" because it seems to me that every time we make inroads into potential green fuel, we're flummoxed by yet another road block.

Take, for example, this article. It's been long thought that bioethanol (usually derived from corn) would be a great substitute to run our internal-combustion engines. It's cheap, clean and renewable, right? Apparently not.

First of all, according to studies done by scientists in the biofuel field, growing all the corn to produce the ethanol is actually jacking up food prices. Just like any other form of agriculture, the demand for corn will lead to extensive clear-cutting of forests to provide room for the fields (which is a whole other kettle of fish), and as far as cost goes...this is my favourite part.

Using computer-generated tests developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, scientists in the United Kingdom have generated a cost-to-benefit scale which places the total environmental cost of gasoline at 71 cents per gallon. The total cost of corn-based ethanol biofuel? 72 cents per gallon. On some level this is almost laughable (I mean, it's a cent!) but on the same token, multiply this number by a few billion per year, and suddenly that 1 cent difference becomes a difference of hundreds of thousands -- maybe millions -- of dollars. And that's an unflattering proposal for a biofuel that isn't all that efficient.

Happily, research in this field continues, and it's hoped the next generation of biofuels will be able to eliminate some of the negatives found in corn-ethanol, but once again we're getting pushed back down another rung in our climb towards a nature-friendly, efficient fuel source. It's disheartening -- but we can't give up just yet!

Move over Jenny Craig -- count carbon instead of calories!

2009-01-28T11:08:00.003-05:00

Okay, this one is just weird. Walker's Crisps (the U.K. division of Pepsi-owned Lay's Potato Chips) have just instituted another fun number to track on their packaging -- in addition to all the regular nutrition information (sort of a misnomer when you're talking about potato chips) they're now listing a "carbon label" that states, in this case, that 75 grams of carbon were emitted to bring you the tasty 35 gram bag of crisps. That number counts the amount of carbon emitted in production, in getting the bag to the store, and so on -- essentially, it's the bag's personal carbon footprint.

According to this article this move on Pepsico's part is going to initiate a new marketing war in which all manner of food products will feature similar labels, in the hopes of garnering increased sales from the green-friendly demographic. What brand of overpriced sugar water do you want to buy -- if the nutritional elements are more-or-less the same, they're hoping you'll go with the one that sports a lower carbon emission label.

Once again, I'm really big into positive change and social responsibility, but this seems like a cheap marketing ploy to me. There's no context -- clearly if there's a brand that produces less carbon emissions that's a good thing -- but really, how is the layman to know the environmental impact of five or six grams of carbon? I think it's going to be an excuse to jack up the already-inflated prices on consumer goods in the interest of pretending to be "green". Carbon is carbon, whether it's 50 grams or 30 grams.

Food For Thought

2009-01-28T10:52:00.003-05:00

Surprise, surprise. You mess with nature, you get unintended consequences. According to this article provided by the Environmental News Network, scientists attached to the Nature Institute have begun tracking all the wild and wacky side effects associated with feeding genetically modified food to various test animals.

Am I the only one totally not shocked by this? I'm all for progress, but the idea of genetically modified food has always been kind of scary to me -- I mean, nature puts genes in order for a reason, right? Who are we to monkey with it? And what happens in the long term when we start changing the fundamental building blocks of life?

I'm by no means a traditionalist -- I believe a lot of things need to start changing if we're going to save the planet and ourselves -- I'm just not sure that playing God with our food is the right way to go.

Comments and thoughts appreciated, as always!

Not-So-Happy Feet

2009-01-27T10:31:00.002-05:00

Sigh. Another day, another species slated for extinction thanks to our continuing squandering of our world's natural resources.

Those cute and cuddly Emperor penguins, as seen in Happy Feet and March of the Penguins, are expected to die out in the next hundred years if current trends continue. Scientists estimate by 2100 there will be no more than 600 breeding couples left in the world; that's a 95% decline in less than a century. Thanks to global warming and the decline of the polar ice caps, the fish species the Emperors feed on are dying out, resulting in a food deficit for the penguin population.

Yet another reason we need to start thinking proactively and working to stop the destruction of the ice caps. Nobody is going to speak for those penguins -- unlike the movie, it's up to us to help these poor creatures out in their hour of need.

Check out the full story here.

Steps forward!

2009-01-27T10:15:00.003-05:00

For all those nay-sayers who don't believe in the efficacy of electricity as a viable alternative to fossil fuel, check this out.

The Westchester Airport has replaced its aging fleet of gas-powered auxiliary vehicles with green-friendly electric trucks in an effort to save overhead costs and help out the environment. In addition to saving the airport somewhere in the realm of $200,000.00 a year in fuel costs, the changeover is estimated to prevent 27,000 tons of greenhouse gases from being released into the atmosphere over the next 14 years (the vehicles have a 14 year lifespan).

I'm thrilled to see this story come out because it supports what I've been saying all along -- despite the high initial cost of transferring to electric energy, the benefits are undeniable. Now if we can get everybody on board with this initiative, we might start seeing some significant changes in the quality of our air inside our lifetimes. Breathe easy friends!

This is a bit of a departure...

2009-01-26T15:38:00.002-05:00

...but I think it's still an important topic in the interest of a greener future.

I read a lot of science fiction when I was a kid, and a lot of the really apocalyptic stuff dealt with population explosions and the resulting efforts made to either a) contain the problem or b) expand to allow more space for everyone.

As we near the end of the first decade of the 21st century, a lot of the problems foreseen by Isaac Asimov and Kurt Vonnegut are starting to come to pass. The U.N.'s medium population projection suggests that Earth will be "supporting" a population of close to ten billion humans (maybe more) inside of forty years. I put "supporting" in quotations because realistically this planet can't take that kind of pressure. We've already stretched our natural resources to the breaking point, and that's with a little more than half the projected population.

So what do we do? Short of a disease epidemic or world war, we're not liable to see a lot of people killed off in the next few years, so it seems the only option we have is planned parenting (i.e. birth control and education). I came across this article that uses Iran as an example of a nation where population control based on planned parenting has started to turn the tides of overpopulation, and frankly -- I don't mean to be rude, but if a nation as morally opposed to birth control as Iran has been in years past can overcome that bias and embrace population control as a conscientious move to help ourselves and the planet, well, what excuse does the western world have to not follow suit?

The last thing we should be doing, in my opinion, is encouraging our children to have huge families -- why don't we teach them about sustainability instead?

If you have opinions on this charged subject, especially if they're in opposition to what I'm saying, please don't hesitate to comment -- I could use a little debate now and again!

I knew there was a reason...

2009-01-26T15:28:00.003-05:00

...everyone was so excited about electing Barack Obama as the new President of the U.S.

According to the Environmental News Network, President Obama is planning to revisit a California proposal to impose limits on CO2 emissions produced by civilian vehicles. The proposal was (surprise surprise) turned down by the Bush administration, but Obama is interested enough in California's desire to cut their emissions by 30% over the next seven years that he's willing to give the plan another chance.

The full article is here.

I foresee only one negative out of this whole situation, and it's a bigger-picture problem. I know that Obama's policies sound great on paper, and doubtless he's a fantastic public speaker, but what his supporters both south of the border and here in Canada need to remember is that all this much-touted "change" is not going to appear overnight, or probably even in the first year. Case in point, it's going to take California until 2016 to reduce their toxic emissions by a third. At that rate, I'll be going through my midlife crisis and menopause by the time they drop their emissions to zero (if they actually could, which they can't). My point is, give the guy time to work. Change is coming, I'm sure of it, but it's not going to be as simple as some people seem to think.

Just food for thought.

Damned if we do...

2009-01-20T10:51:00.003-05:00

It never fails. In our never-ending quest to retroactively fix all the damage we've done to our environment, humanity spends a considerable amount of time, effort and money trying to wean ourselves from non-renewable resources like oil -- we look for alternative ways to power our lives. Of course, I'm all for these initiatives, but sometimes our attempts to do right by our planet have unforeseen consequences.

Almost forty years ago, anthropologist Louis Leakey sent three female scientists into the depths of jungles worldwide, hoping to gain a better understanding of our simian ancestors. Everybody knows who Jane Goodall was (the chimp lady) and some people might remember Dian Fossey, but few -- if any -- recognize the name Birute Mary Galdikas, the woman in charge of studying orangutans. As of this writing, Galdikas is the only one still working in the field, and what she's discovered recently casts a serious shadow on our green initiatives.

Palm oil is widely regarded as an acceptable substitute for gasoline as a fuel for our internal combustion engines (the thing that powers your car), and is in high demand the world over. Unfortunately, in an effort to provide for this increasing demand, Indonesian forests are being clear-cut to make way for palm oil plantations, resulting in serious damage to the ecosystem of the native red apes. This noble creature is now on the verge of extinction because their habitat is being destroyed to make way for the "green" fuel of the future.

I guess this is the result of our consistent abuse of our natural environment over the last several thousand years -- now, even when we learn from our mistakes and try to fix them, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we can't come up with an alternative source of power, we risk further deteriorating the ozone layer and putting life as we know in jeopardy. But palm oil requirements are also destroying precious elements of the global ecosystem. So what do we do next?

Read the article for more information on this important issue.

Power Up!

2009-01-16T12:41:00.003-05:00

For those of us (like me) whose knowledge of nuclear power is woefully outdated, I happened upon an informative video that helps explain it from the ground up. We all know it's a good idea -- now here's why.

The Answer Is Blowin' In The Wind...?

2009-01-14T11:27:00.002-05:00

Anybody who reads this blog knows very well how staunch a supporter I am of green initiatives and environmentally-conscious thinking. The idea of green power supplies makes me fairly tingle with delight. But sometimes I'll read an article like this one and I start to question the validity of some of these technologies.

Wind power makes a certain amount of sense to me -- it's about as clean as you get, and from what I understand there's a lot of energy to be had by tapping into air movement -- but on the same token, it seems like there's an awful lot of work involved for very little payoff. Now, obviously, there's work involved in saving the world, and I'm the first person to step up to that plate. But it seems to me that we're going to do more harm than good in building, as the article suggests, a wind turbine for every rooftop...I mean, in order for these turbines to be effective they have to be constantly fed, well, wind. And if you figure you clog up an entire neighbourhood with giant fans on every rooftop...won't that sort of cause a mass drop in efficiency for each individual turbine? Wind resistance and all that? I'm not a physicist, so I don't really know how this works...maybe one of you can enlighten me?

Rather than propping up giant fans all over the place, I'd be more interested to see a larger initiative that would place several large (very large) turbines about 20,000 feet up where the wind activity is severe all the time, and have those turbines power generators on the ground. I know, me and Isaac Asimov, right? But it's food for thought, and to me, makes more sense than millions of tiny generators all over suburbia. What are your thoughts on this issue?

Out of sight, out of mind??

2009-01-13T13:50:00.003-05:00

You know, I thought we were past the point in this culture that we figured water resources could serve as bottomless pits for our toxic waste, but apparently not everybody is on the same page.

A mining company in Alaska has petitioned the Supreme Court for permission to dump toxic mining tailings into a nearby lake, even though that action would kill every living thing in the whole body of water. Their reasoning is that, when they're done, they could just restock the lake with "no harm done". Apparently Justice Antonin Scalia is down with this proposal, going on record with this gem: "Isn't it arguable that the best place for really toxic stuff is at the bottom of a lake so long as it stays there?"

No, Mr. Scalia. I would argue there isn't really a "best place" to put toxic waste to begin with. Leaving all our crap at the bottom of some lake in Alaska doesn't make it go away. For reference, I'd point you in the direction of the Great Lakes -- supposedly the biggest freshwater deposit in the world -- and you can't even swim in them anymore, thanks to people like you who figure that out of sight equals out of mind.

Thankfully, some level heads have recognized the importance of this issue -- a positive ruling in favour of the miners would set a precedent throughout the United States basically saying it's fine to use lakes, streams and rivers as industrial dumping grounds. But the overwhelming ignorance of some of the top minds on this case give me pause. Justice John Roberts, for example, seems to think that as long as the fish in question aren't on the endangered list, it's no big loss -- "[t]here are millions of them somewhere else, right?"

Yeah, there are, but if this motion gets passed, it won't be for long. To my American readers -- if you have any interest at all in making sure your drinking water isn't full of mining material, you might want to contact your local government representative and show a little support for the environmental initiative here. Let's try to keep our water clean and our fish alive and swimming, shall we?

See the story here.

Huzzah for Green Schools!

2009-01-13T13:11:00.004-05:00

Remember back when you were in grade school, when every other week there was either a choir performance, a really bad play featuring half the kindergarten class dressed up as trees or something, a community bake sale, or any of a host of other extracurricular activities your parents ostensibly wanted to know about?

Right, so do I, but at the time, for some reason I never remembered to tell my mom that I needed a home-made tree costume until the night before the play, and come to think of it, none of the other kids ever bothered telling their parents about any of these functions either. So the schools would send home newsletters with us in our already-cluttered backpacks so our parents would be kept in the know.

Of course, that never really happened either -- those newsletters would either be mixed in with the local paper, junk mail from the pizza place, and the ever-present pile of bills on the kitchen table, and therefore lost until two months after the tree-costume-debacle, or else they would never make it out of my backpack and I wouldn't find them again until it came time to throw out all my leftover homework at the end of the school year. Pretty wasteful, and very inefficient all around.

Luckily, school boards in Illinois have gotten the hint and decided to kill two birds with one stone, by opting to provide an online school newsletter in place of the old paper variety. Their reasoning was twofold. First, the online newsletter is a far greener option as it cuts down on what I can only assume are millions of tons of waste paper every year that never actually get to the parents anyway. Second is related to the first -- having an online option in this day and age is actually a far more reliable way to get information to parents when their kids (like me) drop the ball and forget to hand off the newsletter.

It's a simple but effective idea, and I'm actually surprised that more schools haven't gotten on this bandwagon. If you have kids in a public school, bring up this idea at your next PTA meeting. Every little bit counts, folks!

Check out the original story here.

Indoor Gardening Tips!

2009-01-09T13:59:00.014-05:00

Gardening as a source of food, to anyone without access to a couple square feet of fertile soil, may seem like a bit of a stretch. This is especially in the case of an apartment dweller, with little room (or money) for large hydroponics systems. If you can't invest in something like the AeroGarden, a unit that makes growing tomatoes indoors a reality, herb gardening is probably the best option for you.

To begin you'll need to choose possible containers, here are some options but a visit to your local home and garden center and an assessment of the space you wish your garden to occupy will probably give you some ideas as well. Make sure to choose a location with lots of light and which will largely be undisturbed by drafts during the colder months or any heating vents.

Container Options:

Window box
Hanging baskets
Terracotta pots
Plastic pots
Empty plastic containers (food containers are typically best, even yogurt cups)
Foam cups (reminds me of elementary school when we would plant beans)

Other required items:

Potting soil (sterile)
Gravel
Herb seeds (pick them depending on your diet, the location of the garden and your skill level)
Sunlight (or grow lamps/fluorescent lighting)
Organic bug repellent to keep bugs off your plants (several homemade recipes available on the web, such as cayenne pepper or soap)

Beginners can start with something as simple as mint or basil, before growing a large garden.

Certain herbs benefit from being dried (concentrating the flavor) however ensure the following:

Harvest herbs before they flower in the early morning after dew has dried
Cut annuals at ground level, perennials three quarters of the way down
Rinse in cold water
Depending on the herb, drying times and method can vary however it is possible for mold to form on certain plants such as mint

It is possible to freeze herbs, but make sure to clean and blanch them before doing so.

There are several kits available for indoor gardening, including deluxe aeroponics units like AeroGarden that cost upwards of $150 with seed kits priced at $19.95. That being said, its hardly a cost-effective option however it is a very convenient one that appears to yield great results.

Some great resources for indoor herb gardening:
Growing Herbs in the Home Garden
Indoor Herb Gardening (Window boxes, growing herbs inside)
Gardening Guide: Homemade bug repellent recipes and remedies

Environmentally Friendly Products: Bamboo Yarn and Bamboo Needles

2009-01-08T14:37:00.011-05:00

I love how my interests outside of environmentalism can lead me to interesting new environmentally-friendly products. What are these amazing products? Bamboo yarn and bamboo knitting needles!

Source: themissiah (Creative Commons License)

Taking up the art of knitting has been no easy task...I have been combing downtown Toronto for the perfect wool and the perfect needles. It was in one of the first stores I stepped in that I encountered bamboo yarn beyond a simple hank. I found it beside well-organized cubbies of skeins; a scarf made out of bamboo yarn in three differen colors. As I stroked the garment I was absolutely shocked to discover that it was smooth and cool to the touch, nothing at all like the stereotypically itchy woolen garments. You know...the ones grandmothers would knit with good intentions and grandkids begrudgingly put on, all the while complaining about a possible rash? This was nothing like it...this was actually rather luxurious in comparison.

I wondered if this bamboo yarn would be an inexpensive (but very comfortable) alternative to the $10 hanks that I was recommended to use with my chosen pattern. At present I am not sure however my research has come up with the following facts quoted from About.com:

Bamboo is a renewable resource. Bamboo can be harvested without killing the plant, and it only takes a few months before the plant is ready to be harvested again. That makes it an environmentally friendly choice.
Bamboo yarn, when not mixed with unnatural fibers, is biodegradable.
Bamboo yarn is often dyed with more natural dyes that are safer for the environment.
Bamboo fabric is naturally antibacterial.
Bamboo also has ultra-violet protective properties.
Fabric knitted with bamboo is quite breathable and cool and has great drape.
Bamboo has a good luster, similar to mercerized cotton.
Bamboo is strong, flexible, and can be softer than silk when spun into yarn.

Make sure to read the article for more information on bamboo yarn.

When it comes to bamboo needles however, although they share many benefits as bamboo yarn they are also great for the following:

Warm feeling, does not hurt your hands like metal needles
Oils from your hands naturally lubricate wooden needles
Inexpensive in comparison to regular wooden or metal needles
Strong and durable, although tip sharpness may vary and it is possible that some needles will require sanding if used frequently
Tends to avoid splitting yarn (bamboo needles are likely best for bamboo yarn, which splits depending on the cohesiveness of yarn)

So if you're like me and you're a bit crafty, bamboo yarn and its needle counterpart may be your best bet for your next knitting/crocheting project.

Interesting Link Alert: Energy Environment Forum

2009-01-08T13:44:00.002-05:00

My dear readers as much as I love to blog and share my ideas, interesting articles and experiences with you all I'm well aware that blogger is not the best forum in the world for commenting so I present to you:

http://www.energyenvironmentforum.com

The admins actually posted a comment in one of my earlier posts and after perusing their content I can't help but oblige. There are several discussions going on right now, so I invite you to join in (make sure to come back to my blog though). You'll find it listed under my favorite links in the right column. Enjoy!

Oh and I have been listed under the supporters of the forum here:
http://www.energyenvironmentforum.com/page/Supporters

Hope everyone enjoys this new link!

What was once Helpful may now be Harmful

2009-01-08T10:45:00.004-05:00

Source: Jeff and Annabel of Digging_for_Fire (Creative Commons License)

This news article comes from the Chicago Tribune and highlights the unfortunate turn of events affecting Canada's vast forests. Once touted as "carbon storage sink", our forests have in recent years experienced so much stress that it has caused them to begin to emit carbon rather than store it. This quote from the article sums it up well:

Earth's lungs have come down with emphysema. Canada's forests are no longer our friends.

It is unfortunate but environmentalists cite that logging should be cut back in order to stem any further carbon emissions (or worse, "carbon bombs"). Government scientists contradict this, stating that reducing logging would cause wood-dependent products to be constructed with the much more environmentally damaging production materials such as concrete, plastic or metals. Both parties have valid points however I would really like to look at what we can do to heal our forests. I hope to see a followup of this article soon, I'll try to keep everyone posted!

New Year's Resolutions Can Keep You Green (Part Two)

2009-01-06T14:09:00.003-05:00

Here are some more resolutions!

5. Keep yourself informed and be proactive

Make it a weekly habit to at least scan articles on the environment and important environmental issues affecting your city, province/state and country. Examples of key topics to keep an eye on are daily green tips, local legislation regarding laws that impact the environment (such as the recent plastic bag/bottle law in Toronto). Also keep yourself up to date on projects that impact the environment that are being proposed to your government, for example anything to do with clean coal or nuclear energy (the latest of which is something called A Better Energy Plan, you may have seen advertisements in the Globe & Mail) or the recent Metrolinx proposal for the TTC extension. Research each topic and make sure you discuss it with others as well as contribute to public forums which can determine whether the proposal succeeds or not.

6. Turn It Off! Unplug Yourself Daily (Or Weekly)

Alright, new readers may not be familiar with my blogpost on unplugging your electrical appliances and finding sustainable ways to entertain yourself. Basically, in order to make this a New Year's resolution, make a conscious effort to unplug yourself daily or weekly for a certain amount of time. This may sound really simple but you can make a conscious effort to away from the biggest electrical entertainment devices by going outside. For example, limit your electrical consumption for certain activities to a couple hours a week. It's understandable when you want to level up your character on WoW or in COD5 on XBox Live but to be honest...there's more to life than video games, the Internet and TV. I've suggested many unplugged activities but here are some more:

- Knitting/crocheting or any other arts and crafts
- Volunteering for charity or other organizations
- Card or board games (old school gaming is definitely my favorite kind), suggestions are Cribbage or Texas Hold 'Em (gambling not necessary or recommended for fun of course)
- Participating in sports leagues or other clubs
- Go back to school for...anything you choose! Learn a new instrument or a new skill, however the unplugged rule is iffy here. Choosing to learn a skill with technology may go against the unplugged concept, when the activity is done in a group that is conscious of the environmental effects, it is possible to forgo the unplugged rule. Use your judgment!

That's all for now...I wish all my readers a green and happy 2009!

New Year's Resolutions Can Keep You Green (Part One)

2009-01-06T11:50:00.006-05:00

An article from the http://sierraclub.typepad.com/ has inspired myself to write an article of my own on New Year's Resolutions that can keep you green. This will be a two part series (or longer). Please post suggestions of resolutions or comments!

1. Eat less meat

This was the tip suggested by the original article. Check out the link for more details but here's a choice quote:

Producing 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of beef emits more carbon dioxide than going for a three-hour drive while leaving all the lights on at home. (Sierra Club: The Green Life)

Keep track of your eating habits using a journal and make a specific goal of how many meals and snacks you want to keep meat-free. Remember, one serving of meat should be the size of your palm. It is more often than not we eat portions much large than this. Eat according to your age and what is recommended by your doctor or nutritionist. This chart is from the Canada Food Guide (from this helpful article):

	Children			Teens		Adults
Age in Years	2-3	4-8	9-13	14-18 years		19-50 years		51 + years
Sex	Girls and Boys			F	M	F	M	F	M
Vegetables and Fruit	4	5	6	7	8	7-8	8-10	7	7
Grain Products	3	4	6	6	7	6-7	8	6	7
Milk and Alternatives	2	2	3-4	3-4	3-4	2	2	3	3
Meat and Alternatives	1	1	1-2	2	3	2	3	2	3

This tip likely coincides with many resolutions to eat healthier or lose weight! Two (or three) birds with one stone. Wow, you might as well eat locally grown vegetables. Speaking of which...

2. Eat locally grown produce

I have previously written an article on the importance of buying local but I feel this is even more important with the struggling economic times. Buying local means you also support the local economy and invest in the future of where you live. Remember, the power of your dollar goes a long way...so vote with it! Here is quote from the article on a great way to implement this tip:

When you support your local farmer, you also support the local economy and foster a stronger sense of local community when you can actually talk to those who grew your food. You can also make a family outing of it, and teach your kids the importance of buying local, knowing where the products you consume come from, as well as teach them to be more environmentally aware! There are always things to do at the market!

3. Grow your own garden (and maintain it!)

Indoor or outdoor, growing your own garden is the ultimate way to eat locally! If you have your own backyard (or its okay with your landlord if you're renting a home) begin to plot a possible garden in your backyard as well as what herbs or vegetables will grow well in your future garden patch. Start a gardening book to keep track of your progress as well as when you should begin to plant seeds and transfer seedlings to the warm ground outside. If you live indoors, you can begin to grow your own herbs on your window sill if there is enough sunlight available. Kits are available at home and garden centers as well as stores like Canadian tire (Look out for an upcoming article on indoor gardening soon!). Remember...for research purposes, the library, Internet and local home and garden center (like Reeves for example) are great resources.

4. Walk More, Bike More, Bus More, Drive Less!

Lower gas prices may tempt you to drive to the corner store, but don't give in. Reduce your carbon footprint by making footprints with your own two feet (haha, bad joke I know)! Again this tip goes hand in hand with other resolutions such as exercising more or losing weight. Don't let the cold winter deter you from biking either! This is one of the best articles I have read on biking in the winter (although it is Chicago-centric, the tips can still apply to typical urban centers). When the weather is particularly bad, biking/walking would be foolhardy but a heated city bus is still an alternative. Just make sure to dress for the weather!

So completes part one...part two will be posted soon!

Happy New Year from Green me up, Scotty!

2009-01-06T11:42:00.003-05:00

Good morning/afternoon/evening!
I've looked back and found so many good comments! Thanks for all the support. School had to take priority over the blog so I sincerely apologize for the radio silence. Perhaps I should make it one of my New Year's resolutions to blog more. I hope everyone had a safe and green holiday!

Keeping It Green!
Christina M.

Interesting Article Alert: Why Disasters Are Getting Worse

2008-09-05T09:55:00.003-04:00

Just doing my usual morning perusal of articles and I believed this one from Time Magazine looked worthy of a blog post! At first I was confused and I believed the article was trying to bring attention away from the climate change issue however I quickly realized that these disasters were still affected by human development paving over natural barriers to natural disasters. Here's a choice quote to get you intrigued!

If climate change is having an effect on the intensities of storms, it's not obvious in the historical weather data. And whatever effect it is having is much, much smaller than the effect of development along coastlines. In fact, if you look at all storms from 1900 to 2005 and imagine today's populations on the coasts, as Roger Pielke Jr., and his colleagues did in a 2008 Natural Hazards Review paper, you would see that the worst hurricane would have actually happened in 1926.

If it happened today, the Great Miami storm would have caused from $140 billion to $157 billion in damages. (Hurricane Katrina, the costliest storm in U.S. history, caused $100 billion in losses.) "There has been no trend in the number or intensity of storms at landfall since 1900," says Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado. "The storms themselves haven't changed."

Bill Nye...has a new TV Show!

2008-09-04T16:16:00.003-04:00

Okay so this goes against last week's advice but Bill Nye's new 13 part series on Discovery's Planet Green channel is definitely more worthwhile than the latest "America's Top Model" episode. Why? The premise of the show is this:

On his new show Stuff Happens, acclaimed "Science Guy" Bill Nye explains to viewers what happens when we use stuff, where it goes when we're through with it, and what impact it all has on the environment and the entire planet. Whether it's in manufacturing, use, or disposal, all our stuff affects all our lives and the health of the Earth.

This definitely helps the general public make the connection that everything they do impacts the environment. Many of the children who grew up watching Bill Nye explain various topics like buoyancy and global warming are only gradually realizing that the problem of climate change will not be solved by their elders before the problem reaches them. The quick-fix solution to global warming is nonexistent...not to say it is impossible but that it will take several generations of humans working together to reverse the effects of almost a century of industrial pollution.

The reason why Bill Nye was so popular was because his show was easy to follow, full of interesting experiments and injected with bits of madcap humor. The show is still being shown in science classrooms today. I cannot imagine anyone else teaching us all why we need to start making changes in our lifestyles. His show already premiered on September 2nd at 9pm! Has anyone seen it? Please leave a review! The show will air weekly on Tuesday at 9pm.

Eco-friendly Habit of the Week: Turn Off, Unplug, Go Out!

2008-08-29T12:43:00.006-04:00

Now I realize this generation is infamous for its technical knowhow, its ability to multitask using several electronic devices at once and for its inability to entertain itself in a manner that is carbon neutral. Let's change that! When should you do these recommendations? As much as possible is the ideal answer, however I recommend doing these things after you've just finished dinner, work or school. Best way to make this a habit however, is to start by doing it once a week for an evening or so.

The Conditions:
- TURN OFF and/or UNPLUG all unnecessary electronic devices must be turned off, you can keep your alarm clock, fridge and stove but your stereo or mp3 player is definitely not necessary, also remember to turn off all unnecessary lights
- GO OUT in your backyard, on your front porch, to the park...anywhere! Just don't lounge at home surrounded by the temptation of turning something on and vegging out
- Don't spend (a lot of) money, less than $10 if you really need to but be frugal!
- Don't drive anywhere
- Do ride your bike, skateboard, etc. Anything that doesn't involve electricity is a welcome activity

What You Can Do:

1) Go to the library
Expand your mind without spending a cent!

2) Go to the park
Take a walk in the park and breathe in some fresh air. Bring some sports equipment and play a quick scrimmage with your friends or some strangers if you are the extroverted type.

3) Take a walk around your neighbourhood
My parents like to do this to see what our neighbours have done to their gardens and just to spend time together, it gives them ideas for their own garden which brings me to my next point...

4) Grow Your Own Garden
Use your time at the local library to find out what veggies and herbs grow best in your backyard or even look up what plants would do well on a windowsill inside your apartment. Tending to a garden can be very relaxing and also provides you some fresh fruit, veggies and/or herbs for yourself and to share with family, friends...even neighbours! If you'd rather plant like flowers, make sure to grow many butterfly friendly species. Our famous Canadian monarch butterflies are losing many of their habitats to human development.

5) Go to a live show!
Support your local musicians or acting companies by attending their free/inexpensive shows advertised in your local paper. Also if there are free events in the area (several communities have fairs, festivals and carnivals) attend them and say hello to your neighbours! It never hurts to go to something that's free!

6) Go to the museum/art gallery/zoo/science center...
Attendance numbers are dwindling and in an appeal to the younger generation, several of these fine institutions are offering either free or inexpensive nights for all, these are usually weeknights. Remember not to spend money when it comes to the gift shop!

7) Go for a ride
Bike, skate or board in a scenic part of the city, make sure to obey your signals and traffic laws though!

8) Go to the beach/the Islands!
Walk on the boardwalk, skip rocks, take pictures or just relax.

Leave a comment if you can think of anything else!

Waste Heat Recovery, Something Different but not New

2008-08-26T11:04:00.005-04:00

Great read for the day from CNET, they're always great for new technology news. Just to convince you to read it, I'll quote something VERY promising:

One customer is taking wasted energy from a steel smelter to make 220 megawatts of electricity. That's on the order of a single large solar-power plant. Through waste heat recovery, the U.S. could generate the equivalent of 400 coal-fired power plants, Munson said.

A Note on Green Labels

2008-08-25T10:58:00.003-04:00

The article below is definitely a promising turn of events. Although several environmentalists blame multinational corporations for the majority of the destruction of our environment they have the resources and the power to fuel the innovation in new environmentally beneficial technologies such as this one.

That being said, there is always an issue of "greenwashing" taking place when companies begin to promote their environmentally-friendly policies and products. Although green is good, sometimes when a company attaches a "green" label to a product, the truth is the product/company may be masking what they are actually doing during the production process of all their products.

Before I go further I do not believe Google is necessarily greenwashing their image to the public (I am sure there are those who disagree). I think they are making a tentative investment in a new technology (that is the nature of business, you weigh the risk and invest according). Although it would be very encouraging to see Google invest $100 million into the project, they are nonetheless a business.

However there is still something to be said about those green labels you see on many of the new products on our store shelves. To be honest, buying a 'green' product is not going to save the planet. Conserving energy, buying less, reducing our consumption of nonrenewable resources and doing our homework before we buy a product are the best ways to make a positive impact on the environment. It is only common sense to not believe everything you read! Caveat emptor fellow environmentalists!

Pushing the Envelope: Google Investing $10 mill+ in Geothermal Energy

2008-08-25T10:31:00.004-04:00

Quick definition first...

Geothermal Energy: energy harvested from heat naturally stored/produced underground

According to this CleanTechnica.com article Search engine giant Google is investing $10.25 million into Enhanced Geothermal Systems, a promising new energy technology. A very interesting fact to quote is:

"According to an MIT report on EGS, only 2% of the heat beneath the continental US between 3 and 10 kilometers (depths we can reach with current technology) is more than 2,500 the annual energy use of the United States."

Link of the Day: Bioplastics Beneficial in More Ways than One According to Study

2008-08-22T15:09:00.002-04:00

According to this Discover article bioplastics made from renewable resources such as corn are beneficial to our atmosphere due to the lower amount of carbon dioxide produced during the fermentation process required to make plastics.

Before You Buy that Book

2008-08-20T10:54:00.003-04:00

Oh my, this post highlights a habit I have...its almost an addiction...to books. Now, I walk past a book liquidators booth at the CNE and I can't help but rifle through every volume and find at least 5 books I want to buy but I have to stop myself and think about the implications of just mindless book buying. For example, 24 books are made from one tree, one tree less to absorb the carbon dioxide in our air. It doesn't make sense to buy a book you aren't going to look at for more than a couple weeks. So here are some questions you should ask yourself before you buy that book!

1. How long will it take me to read this book? Can I read it within two weeks?
If you are a fast reader (like me) you can absorb a book within a week...maybe a night! If you are a fast reader you definitely don't need to buy a book that you will read in a night and not refer to again.

2. Is this book multipurpose?
If this book talks about multiple subjects you will use it as a reference for, then this book will be useful to purchase, but if not, you may want to borrow it from the library instead.

3. Can I find it at the local library/school library/company library?
Self-explanatory, if you can borrow it, why buy it?

4. How many times will I want to refer to this book again in a year? In my lifetime?
With this question you ask yourself how "useful" the book will be to you in your library at home. If it will provide a bit of information but only serve to insulate your walls for the years to come, you might as well not bother buying it.

5. Will I donate this book after I read it?
You could donate the book you buy to charity and share a wealth of information as well as help a good cause.

6. Is this book a necessary purchase?
Sometimes if the purchase isn't necessary its pretty obvious whether or not you should buy it. If its more of a "want" than a "need" you should lean towards finding a more eco-friendly way of fulfilling that need.

7. Is this book made from post-consumer recycled paper?
If you're buying the book, you might as well make sure it is as eco-friendly as possible.

8. Have I checked the freecycle postings of my local area for this book yet?
Perhaps someone has this book up for pickup, free of charge in your neighbourhood.

9. Can I buy this second-hand at a used-book store or second-hand shop?
If you must have it, buying it used means one less tree was chopped down to make it!

10. Do I need this book right now or do I have time to search for a used copy?
If you would like the book but not immediately it would be fun to hunt down a used copy in the musty stacks of a used book store. Almost like finding a treasure of your own!

11. Can I borrow this book from a friend?
If a friend recommended the book to you, ask if you can borrow their copy. Take good care of it!

12. Can I find this information on the Internet?
Several books can be found online for free at websites like Project Gutenberg. An ebook could also be available

Useful Widget

2008-08-19T12:52:00.002-04:00

This widget is pretty neat, I especially like the Steven Wright quote that pops up. Remember to pledge and see who else in your area (or where else in your area) other people are trying to reduce their carbon footprint!

Good news!

2008-08-19T11:58:00.005-04:00

Great news for me and hopefully more readers (and comments). I have recently been listed on the website: http://www.bestgreenblogs.com

My blog is under:
http://www.bestgreenblogs.com/green-me-up-scotty/

I have also been listed at http://www.blogcatalog.com

My blog is under here: http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/green-me-up-scotty.html

More posts coming soon...stay tuned!

From Four Wheel to Two Wheel...Some Things You Should Know!

2008-08-06T14:32:00.005-04:00

Considering biking rather than driving? Good for you! But here are some things you really should know before you invest in a bike.

Research!
- Go to several local bike shops for opinions on bikes as well as research online reviews to find a bike that suits your needs
- Save your money! Or that is...see if your bicycle purchase is exempt from retail sales tax, according to this website Ontarians that purchase bicycles and their related safety equipment before December 31, 2010 will not pay retail sales tax
- Local bike shops are knowledgeable about bike routes in your area and can help you plan your daily commute

Protect Yourself:
- Take a course on bike riding, not only to learn how to ride in busy areas but to learn the proper hand signals and biking ettiquette/laws
- Invest in safety equipment and wear a helmet
- Make sure your bicycle has a bell and learn traffic signals

Protecting Your Investment:
- Register your bike here
- Maintain your bike, make sure you take care of your mode of transportation
- Use two different locks to discourage thieves, most only carry one tool to work with one type of lock
- Make sure you research your locks and be prepared to use at least 10% of the cost of your bike towards these locks
- Lock up both wheels of the bike as well as the frame of the bike if possible, you don't want your bike disappearing in pieces
- Lock up your bike to a sturdy object that cannot be tampered with
- Don't leave any space between your lock and your bike, the less space a thief has for leverage to use a tool with, the better
- Talk to your insurance broker to see if it would be a good idea to insure your bicycle under your home insurance, it can cost as little as a couple dollars a month

4-Day Work Week? Telecommuting? How is your company dealing with the increasing gas prices?

2008-08-06T13:57:00.001-04:00

With increasing gas prices employees and employers are both scrambling to figure out how to make up for the extra $100 a month gas is costing the average commuter. This New York Times article explains some creative ways employers in the US are taking on the problem.

Many are also sacrificing space and comfort for proximity to their places of employment to offset transportation costs. To those who live in cities with dedicated bicycle lanes (Toronto is...sort of one of those) it is highly encouraged that you invest in a bicycle for your own personal health as well as a cheaper form of transportation. Some notes on biking will be posted soon!

Exfoliate? More like suffocate!

2008-08-05T11:59:00.002-04:00

Fellow readers do you follow a beauty regimen that requires that you exfoliate? Do you do so using a product that has "Poly-Ethylene" listed in its ingredients? Did you know that those little plastic beads in your exfoliating scrub cannot be filtered by municipal water treatment plants and thus, enter our great lakes and oceans, only to clog up the gills of our fish?

STOP! Stop buying exfoliating scrubs unless they use natural exfoliants that will not harm our fish! Write to those companies that do use them and ask that they stop as well. Or make your own natural exfoliating scrubs (I used bath salts on my legs) and save money too!

Tuesday Tips!

2008-08-05T10:59:00.002-04:00

Hope everyone had a fantastic Simcoe day! Back to the green blogging for me!

I know I'm guilty of vanity...but I shouldn't hurt the environment with this vice now should I? Onto awesome websites that green up your beauty routine.

Natural Living for Women
Actually the whole site is full of tips for women on living green/organic.

W Network Article: Top 10 Tips - Eco-Friendly Beauty Products
10 absolutely awesome beauty products with packaging that grows into flowers or companies that have raised millions for green charities.

Recycline Online
Eco-friendly products including recyclable razors and toothbrushes.

But its not just a link dropping day...I'll be posting another blog post later on today!

Being Green: For Authors

2008-07-31T17:06:00.003-04:00

Now I think this is a rare gem! How many places do you find tell you how to green your book? Not many! Well let me direct you to this link on greening your publishing. There are several ways for you to do so but the most important things you can do is ask for green publishing and push for it!

DEET Free Bug Repellents

2008-07-30T17:18:00.003-04:00

I wanted to direct my readers to a very useful review from Grist detailing five different DEET-free bug repellents. Enjoy nature without the bites!

Keeping Positive...some reasons why

2008-07-30T10:32:00.003-04:00

I've spoken to some of my friends about consumerism, the environment and our generation. In my sociology class it was really difficult not to get depressed, realizing that our generation (specifically in the developed world) is trained to consume and throwaway what is no longer "useful". Where "useful" can mean the item is trendy and meets the latest fashion requirements, not just if it works and does what you need it to do.

But I got some news for you from the Additupontario.ca website that made me realize that we can still make a difference. We already have made a difference in fact.
- 40 years ago lead pollution was a major problem, now they are only a fraction of the levels they used to be because we reduced lead in gas and removed it from our paint
- 30 years ago acid rain damaged many ecosystems, however after reducing emissions many ecosystems are recovering
- 15 years ago CFCs and other aerosol chemicals were destroying the ozone layer, but they have been banned and the ozone layer is beginning to recover

We have done all this, but we can do more. It's not the end of the world yet, but we have to make sure it doesn't get to that point by acting now. As long as we keep working towards a green sustainable future, we can make a difference!

Tipping Tuesday: Greening Must Tips!

2008-07-29T10:50:00.004-04:00

Happy Tuesday y'all! So you wanna know things you must do in order to make your lifestyle more energy efficient and less wasteful? Now you know what I'm pretty sure a lot of these items you are already aware of but I'd like you to personally check off which ones you already do. To be honest, these are very easy things that are not simply suggestions of what to do, but basic rules to living an energy efficient and less wasteful lifestyle. Changing a light bulb won't stop global warming, but if we keep taking more and more steps towards living environmentally-friendly lifestyles we can make a difference!

1. Don't over-AC or overheat your home. Invest in a programmable thermostat that can increase or decrease the temperature in your home while you are away or asleep. Whenever possible, use fans and install ceiling fans in your home to regulate cool air when you are not using your AC. This will conserve energy and save you money!
A good temperature guideline for the summer is nothing below 25 degrees Celsius and likewise a good temperature guideline for the winter is nothing above 20 degrees Celsius.

2. Use reusable grocery bags, paper bags or no bags at all. There is a debate that plastic (the regular kind) is better than paper but the truth is that paper comes from a renewable resource whereas plastic is made from petroleum products which are not renewable (in our lifetime). Ultimately I think reusable canvas/plastic grocery bags are the best.

3. Walk, bike/roller blade, take public transit or carpool whenever possible. If you must drive do not carry unnecessary items in your car to ensure you are being fuel efficient. If you are considering a new home or apartment, look for one that has an environmentally friendly route that is also convenient for you. Close to public transit, bike lanes or pedestrian friendly areas will encourage you to take advantage of these environmentally friendly transportation systems. It'll be easier on our wallet too!

4. Don't trash what can be donated or put into the freecycle system for someone else's use! Checkout freecycle groups in your area to let other people know you have something they may want. If you look you may find something you want as well!

5. Reusable bottles (I like the special Pom ones with their funny shapes!) are great, you don't need to buy a snazzy $10 one if you already have a perfectly good plastic beverage bottle.

6. Give your wet clothes some fresh air! Rather than using your dryer, hang up your clothes. If you can't hang up your clothes, a way to decrease drying time is to put a dry towel in with your wet laundry. Also, make sure you don't overdry your clothes!

7. Control your energy use by using powerbars! Switch off your electronics when not in use and if they are connected to a powerbar, switch that off too.

8. Grow your own garden (it doesn't even have to be in a backyard, it can be a window box inside your home), buy local. Eat less meat, eat in-season and make sure you are eating food that was harvested in sustainable ways. After you finish your meal...compost and help your garden along! Use your green bin if you cannot compost. It's a great way to divert waste from our landfills.

Keep checking my blog for more!

Food for Thought: Think Soy Milk is more Environmentally Friendly than Cow's Milk?

2008-07-25T15:50:00.003-04:00

Interesting article alert!

Slate magazine has an article on whether soy milk or cow's milk was more environmentally friendly. The article is well-researched and mentions that the origin of soy beans used in soy milk may not be from sustainable environments which is something many consumers may not be aware of. It also brings up a recent story that Amazonian farmers are destroying their forests to grow soy bean crops. This demonstrates that a consumer must be vigilant about their purchases and not simply skim the surface when it comes to being conscious consumers!

Canadian Environmental Gem of a Community!

2008-07-25T15:11:00.002-04:00

Drake Landing Solar Community is located in Okotoks, Alberta, Canada and runs on 800 solar panels! Click here for the article link. What a great read!

Eco-Friendly Habit: Eating One Meatless Meal a Week

2008-07-25T14:41:00.004-04:00

Having trouble committing yourself to being a vegetarian? You don't have to convert immediately and completely, but the Earth will thank you for trying out this activity: eat one meat-free meal a week! What's one meal out of 21 (or more) meals a week? A decreased demand for livestock means less livestock will be raised and that means less greenhouse emissions (think...cows and methane).

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/09/13/meat-study.html

Support your community and buy local!

2008-07-25T11:34:00.000-04:00

So here's the scenario...

You walk into a grocery store and see a fantastic deal for say....tomatoes. You immediately reach for a bag and as you start to check the firmness on a ripe juicy tomato you look at the label on the box. "GROWN IN VENEZUELA" or another country/continent.

Now let's consider the journey of that tomato to your hands. Probably in a box on either in a shipping container or on a truck across thousands of kilometers (doesn't sound very fresh does it?). Think of all that gas polluting the air just to get that tomato to you. Now think of all the thousands of markets these tomatoes are supplied to, and the effect of the shipping pollution magnifies!

In a time when gas prices are rising to record breaking highs, the cost of all non-locally grown produce will increase to make up shipping costs. That or costs for growing will be cut...possibly in ways that will still negatively affect the consumer. Less stringent standards for pesticide use (though that's a whole 'nother can of worms!), cheaper genetically modified crops (which, if sold to the unknowing consumer with severe food sensitivities could spell discomfort if not disaster) and unhygienic growing methods (consider the tomato scare of recent news).

If you buy local, the cost of transportation will still affect the price, but they won't be as pronounced. Rather than over a thousand miles, it'll be over 50 miles...what a difference! Local farmers are regulated by laws you will be aware of, which you have control over, and which are more often than not, more stringent than those of developing country far far away.

It is much more sustainable to buy produce that is grown within 100 km of you, because you technically keep the resources used to grow the produce within your "habitat". Did you know that severe drought is affecting areas in Africa that grow huge crops of flowers to be shipped all around the world and used in bouquets? Flowers use more water than normal crops and by shipping these flowers away, you are taking away even more water from a drought-stricken environment. The same can happen with vegetable crops. Developing countries need those croplands and resources for their own people...not exporting to developed countries looking for cheaper goods. Prices at farmers markets are comparable to prices in grocery stores that do not purchase locally...so long as the crops are in season. I understand that you may desire to eat strawberries in the winter but that is a luxury you don't have to indulge in on behalf of the environment.

When you support your local farmer, you also support the local economy and foster a stronger sense of local community when you can actually talk to those who grew your food. You can also make a family outing of it, and teach your kids the importance of buying local, knowing where the products you consume come from, as well as teach them to be more environmentally aware! There are always things to do at the market!

Here are some links to check out for your local farmers market, but I'm certain you'll find more using your usual search engine!

Ontario Links:
http://www.farmersmarketsontario.com/Markets.cfm
http://www.stjacobs.com/html/shopping-farmersmarkets.html
http://www.newmarketfarmersmarket.com/index.asp
http://www.stlawrencemarket.com/

Welcome to "Green me up, Scotty!"

2008-07-25T11:16:00.001-04:00

Hello y'all! "Green me up, Scotty!" is a blog I developed for both personal and public use. This is where I will be posting all the neat environmentally friendly ideas and stories I come across in my day to day life. Let's cut a green path through this consumer-driven throwaway world and leave a trail of flowers and sustainability behind us! WOOHOO!