The City of Vancouver is finally taking steps towards developing homes that consume less energy on smaller plots of land.
These new ‘eco-density’ housing developments will, hopefully, have solar technology, perhaps geothermal units, natural lighting inside the homes to save on hydro and energy efficient appliances and lighting.
Above all, eco-density homes will be located close to major centres to encourage people to leave the family car at home when going to work or picking up groceries.
This, eco-density proponents say, will result in fewer cars on the road, saving the environment from countless tones of fossil fuel emissions each year.
In theory this sounds great, but...What are the chances that people will choose to walk instead of drive?
And, how do you ensure that people will choose to live close to where they work?
The eco-density plan seems hopeful, and I would love to see fewer cars on the road and an average ecological footprint per-person in Vancouver of below eight hectares.
But, who wants to see, or live in for that matter, more overcrowded apartment and condo complexes where people practically live on top of each other?
Realistically, eco-density homes seem to be heavy on the ‘density’ and lower on the ‘eco.’
Nevertheless, they are a step forward, and I would like to see more improvements in a similar direction.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
Tories Drop the Ball on the Environment…Again
The Tories’ environmental record has been so marked with dark spots, and far too many shortcomings, that one might characterize them as the proverbial black hole of environmental inactivity.
Rona Ambrose’s plans for the environment were anything but rosy and John Baird has so far been rhetorical but ineffective. Which is why Stephen Harper’s two-speak on reducing climate change while abandoning the minimum Kyoto targets for greenhouse gas emissions is almost comical if not just plain sad.
Harper didn’t even show up when the Senate voted on Bill C-288, despite his strong words of opposition to the Bill.
Ironically, it seems the Conservatives could have used Harper’s support, as the Bill passed and the clock is now ticking.
The Bill promises to put some ‘teeth’ into the Kyoto targets, forcing the minority government to come up with a solid plan to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions in 60 days.
This whole situation made me a little nostalgic.
Paul Martin’s Liberal government may not have done much in terms of lowering Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, I always got the impression that, at least on the surface, the Liberals cared about the environment.
Jean Chrétien ratified the Kyoto Protocol, perhaps a legacy-making move on his part. And Martin promised to fund Ontario’s transition to coal-free power generation (see page five here).
What strikes me about the Tories is that they don’t even pretend to like environmentalists or the climate-saving banner of the Kyoto Protocol.
Instead, they seem to scoff at legislation that would help to speed along Canada’s recovery from smog-infested cities to cleaner airspace and more environmentally-friendly modes of production.
Whether Harper likes it or not, Canadians, and the majority of the Senate, do care about Canada’s inactivity on meeting Kyoto targets.
Environmental problems won’t be going away any time soon; and, the Conservatives can expect to feel even more pressure on the issue of climate change as the temperature heats up.
Perhaps another scorching-hot-and-humid summer in Ottawa will be enough to melt Harper’s icy-blue heart.
Rona Ambrose’s plans for the environment were anything but rosy and John Baird has so far been rhetorical but ineffective. Which is why Stephen Harper’s two-speak on reducing climate change while abandoning the minimum Kyoto targets for greenhouse gas emissions is almost comical if not just plain sad.
Harper didn’t even show up when the Senate voted on Bill C-288, despite his strong words of opposition to the Bill.
Ironically, it seems the Conservatives could have used Harper’s support, as the Bill passed and the clock is now ticking.
The Bill promises to put some ‘teeth’ into the Kyoto targets, forcing the minority government to come up with a solid plan to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions in 60 days.
This whole situation made me a little nostalgic.
Paul Martin’s Liberal government may not have done much in terms of lowering Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, I always got the impression that, at least on the surface, the Liberals cared about the environment.
Jean Chrétien ratified the Kyoto Protocol, perhaps a legacy-making move on his part. And Martin promised to fund Ontario’s transition to coal-free power generation (see page five here).
What strikes me about the Tories is that they don’t even pretend to like environmentalists or the climate-saving banner of the Kyoto Protocol.
Instead, they seem to scoff at legislation that would help to speed along Canada’s recovery from smog-infested cities to cleaner airspace and more environmentally-friendly modes of production.
Whether Harper likes it or not, Canadians, and the majority of the Senate, do care about Canada’s inactivity on meeting Kyoto targets.
Environmental problems won’t be going away any time soon; and, the Conservatives can expect to feel even more pressure on the issue of climate change as the temperature heats up.
Perhaps another scorching-hot-and-humid summer in Ottawa will be enough to melt Harper’s icy-blue heart.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Dying of Natural Causes
Over the last while, an outbreak of influenza has struck British Columbia. Among the victims, myself. As well as some real victims, like the Lower Mainland child that died of the disease.
This got me thinking more about what it means to live in crowded cities where the spread of a common cold or flu (or a deadly, gross fungus) is becoming increasingly normalized.
Population might seem like a non-issue in Canada because of its still somewhat vast wilderness and sparsely populated northern regions.
But, crowding in Canada’s major cities – like Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver – is creating patches of overpopulation.
Let’s be honest. The more ingredients you mix into the pot, the better the chances you’ll get something you didn’t expect.
And disease is just that. It’s the reaction that occurs when too many people intermingle, share germs (and other bodily fluids) and become the carriers (and mutators) of nasty diseases.
Population growth is not something people discuss at the dinner table, but it is one of the biggest impediments towards achieving sustainable communities and cities.
Similarly, it’s one of the main reasons that so many people, plants and animals get sick and die. See: extinction and disease.
There are few definitive solutions to solving the problem of overpopulation and disease, besides relying on modern science to save us when we get sick.
As for me, I think I’ll ride my bike instead of taking the bus. Cough.
This got me thinking more about what it means to live in crowded cities where the spread of a common cold or flu (or a deadly, gross fungus) is becoming increasingly normalized.
Population might seem like a non-issue in Canada because of its still somewhat vast wilderness and sparsely populated northern regions.
But, crowding in Canada’s major cities – like Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver – is creating patches of overpopulation.
Let’s be honest. The more ingredients you mix into the pot, the better the chances you’ll get something you didn’t expect.
And disease is just that. It’s the reaction that occurs when too many people intermingle, share germs (and other bodily fluids) and become the carriers (and mutators) of nasty diseases.
Population growth is not something people discuss at the dinner table, but it is one of the biggest impediments towards achieving sustainable communities and cities.
Similarly, it’s one of the main reasons that so many people, plants and animals get sick and die. See: extinction and disease.
There are few definitive solutions to solving the problem of overpopulation and disease, besides relying on modern science to save us when we get sick.
As for me, I think I’ll ride my bike instead of taking the bus. Cough.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Got a Sustainability High?
Hemp homes make an interesting alternative to the highly toxic and ecologically harmful products often used to create our modern abodes.
Production of concrete and paint requires the use of toxic chemicals. The result is the emission of fossil fuels and other chemicals into the atmosphere during the manufacturing and distribution of many home building products.
As well, man-made products can emit fumes inside your home, which can have a negative impact on your health.
Happily, a “hemp crop can be grown without the use of herbicides or insecticides and produces up to four tonnes of material per acre per year,” according to Natural Life Magazine.
The plant is so versatile it can be used to build and even paint an entire house using methods far less harmful to the environment than other building materials.
According to Natural Life Magazine, hemp houses use “less energy to build, create less waste and take less fuel to heat.”
Using hemp in building construction is nothing new.
‘Hempcrete’ was used to create a sixth century hemp-reinforced bridge in France, which still stands today as a testament to the material’s strength.
Hemp construction materials can also be useful in damp climates – like Vancouver, B.C. – for fending off the annoying mould that seems to creep over and into everything.
Unlike other insulation products, a lining of hemp/lime mixture on your house’s walls will prevent toxic mould growth.
Hemp-for-the-home is so popular that an Ontario company, Wellington Polymer Technology Inc., is having a hard time meeting the demands of consumers eager for a green fix.
But, don’t stop at hemp!
Check out what Colette Brooks has done to her home in Malibu, L.A. to lead the good life without hurting the environment.
There is truly a wealth of information out there about greening your home.
So stop smelling the paint fumes and mould spores and start breathing in the fresh air of home sustainability.
Production of concrete and paint requires the use of toxic chemicals. The result is the emission of fossil fuels and other chemicals into the atmosphere during the manufacturing and distribution of many home building products.
As well, man-made products can emit fumes inside your home, which can have a negative impact on your health.
Happily, a “hemp crop can be grown without the use of herbicides or insecticides and produces up to four tonnes of material per acre per year,” according to Natural Life Magazine.
The plant is so versatile it can be used to build and even paint an entire house using methods far less harmful to the environment than other building materials.
According to Natural Life Magazine, hemp houses use “less energy to build, create less waste and take less fuel to heat.”
Using hemp in building construction is nothing new.
‘Hempcrete’ was used to create a sixth century hemp-reinforced bridge in France, which still stands today as a testament to the material’s strength.
Hemp construction materials can also be useful in damp climates – like Vancouver, B.C. – for fending off the annoying mould that seems to creep over and into everything.
Unlike other insulation products, a lining of hemp/lime mixture on your house’s walls will prevent toxic mould growth.
Hemp-for-the-home is so popular that an Ontario company, Wellington Polymer Technology Inc., is having a hard time meeting the demands of consumers eager for a green fix.
But, don’t stop at hemp!
Check out what Colette Brooks has done to her home in Malibu, L.A. to lead the good life without hurting the environment.
There is truly a wealth of information out there about greening your home.
So stop smelling the paint fumes and mould spores and start breathing in the fresh air of home sustainability.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Headline: Environmental Security – The Looming Threat
Climate change could lead to some hefty security issues over the next few years. The safety and wellbeing of millions of the Earth’s inhabitants could be at risk if wars break out over scarce resources.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a branch of the United Nations, published a report on the science of climate change entitled: UN climate change report: accelerating global warming and increased insecurity.
The report tenders “the strongest warning yet that human activities are heating the planet.” World temperatures may increase “by 1.8-4C by the end of the century,” the report says, adding that, as a result, the “sea level will most likely rise by 28-43cm.”
That would most likely mean that Delta, British Columbia and parts of Richmond will look like a lagoon and much of Canada’s present coastline will be under water.
The U.N. report also characterizes climate change as a potential threat to inter-state security. This is a very important issue that needs to be examined more closely.
Safety must come first
Sustainable development is often only achieved after basic human needs are satisfied. Which is why ensuring the safety of individuals is an essential step towards achieving sustainable communities.
It is operationally difficult to enact environmental and resource sustainability policy measures in countries plagued by civil and inter-state conflict. As well, it would be morally reprehensible to expect individuals to implement such policies when their personal safety is at risk.
Similar to the Malthusian model, the U.N. report predicts an increase in violent conflicts as resources, such as fresh water and food, become scarcer.
Water woes
Rising sea levels (see above) will displace large numbers of people from coastline regions, often areas of high population density.
Migrants from flooded lands will need to relocate to other settlements/communities, increasing the demands on resources in these areas.
Competition for what may already be a limited supply of resources may ensue, resulting in conflicts between persons and nations.
Although there is no way to prove for certain that such an outcome will occur, why chance it?
My two cents:
Communities and nations need to work together to achieve resource conservation and pollution reduction targets.
Population control will also play a significant role in whether nations can achieve sustainable goals and ensure everyone has enough to eat and drink to prevent the looming ‘Resource Wars.’
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a branch of the United Nations, published a report on the science of climate change entitled: UN climate change report: accelerating global warming and increased insecurity.
The report tenders “the strongest warning yet that human activities are heating the planet.” World temperatures may increase “by 1.8-4C by the end of the century,” the report says, adding that, as a result, the “sea level will most likely rise by 28-43cm.”
That would most likely mean that Delta, British Columbia and parts of Richmond will look like a lagoon and much of Canada’s present coastline will be under water.
The U.N. report also characterizes climate change as a potential threat to inter-state security. This is a very important issue that needs to be examined more closely.
Safety must come first
Sustainable development is often only achieved after basic human needs are satisfied. Which is why ensuring the safety of individuals is an essential step towards achieving sustainable communities.
It is operationally difficult to enact environmental and resource sustainability policy measures in countries plagued by civil and inter-state conflict. As well, it would be morally reprehensible to expect individuals to implement such policies when their personal safety is at risk.
Similar to the Malthusian model, the U.N. report predicts an increase in violent conflicts as resources, such as fresh water and food, become scarcer.
Water woes
Rising sea levels (see above) will displace large numbers of people from coastline regions, often areas of high population density.
Migrants from flooded lands will need to relocate to other settlements/communities, increasing the demands on resources in these areas.
Competition for what may already be a limited supply of resources may ensue, resulting in conflicts between persons and nations.
Although there is no way to prove for certain that such an outcome will occur, why chance it?
My two cents:
Communities and nations need to work together to achieve resource conservation and pollution reduction targets.
Population control will also play a significant role in whether nations can achieve sustainable goals and ensure everyone has enough to eat and drink to prevent the looming ‘Resource Wars.’
Thursday, February 1, 2007
The Pine Beetle Cometh – Polluters Beware
Hot and dry summers are quickly approaching British Columbia, which could spell sudden disaster for the province’s trees.
According to a recent report, the mountain pine beetle is expected to spread throughout the Okanagan this year, which could lead to the deaths of millions of trees. (I think it’s appropriate to anthropomorphize trees in situations like this).
As if this wasn’t bad enough, chances are that the pine beetle could infect other Canadian or American forests.
The pine beetle spread to parts of Alberta in the late 1970s to mid 1980s. Park officials and volunteers managed to eradicate the outbreak by quickly burning infected trees. Whether they would have been so successful had the outbreak been more widespread is unknown.
Policies need to be enacted now to prevent one of the leading causes of the pine beetle outbreak: Climate change.
Unlike Alberta, the pine-beetle is native to British Columbia. So, the bug is not an invasive species brought in from distant nations, but a natural part of the B.C. environment.
As our B.C. climate grows hotter and dryer, trees become weaker and less immune to the presence of the beetle. Although healthy trees can fend the beetle off, older trees, like those that make up the primary composition of our present-day old-growth forests, are less resistant to the beetle and more susceptible to infection.
The best solution? Prevent long, hot and dry summers by polluting less!
There is no quick fix to this problem, but if everyone pitched in and reduced their overall greenhouse gas production by driving less, buying only reusable/recyclable products and protecting green spaces, B.C.’s trees might have a chance.
According to a recent report, the mountain pine beetle is expected to spread throughout the Okanagan this year, which could lead to the deaths of millions of trees. (I think it’s appropriate to anthropomorphize trees in situations like this).
As if this wasn’t bad enough, chances are that the pine beetle could infect other Canadian or American forests.
The pine beetle spread to parts of Alberta in the late 1970s to mid 1980s. Park officials and volunteers managed to eradicate the outbreak by quickly burning infected trees. Whether they would have been so successful had the outbreak been more widespread is unknown.
Policies need to be enacted now to prevent one of the leading causes of the pine beetle outbreak: Climate change.
Unlike Alberta, the pine-beetle is native to British Columbia. So, the bug is not an invasive species brought in from distant nations, but a natural part of the B.C. environment.
As our B.C. climate grows hotter and dryer, trees become weaker and less immune to the presence of the beetle. Although healthy trees can fend the beetle off, older trees, like those that make up the primary composition of our present-day old-growth forests, are less resistant to the beetle and more susceptible to infection.
The best solution? Prevent long, hot and dry summers by polluting less!
There is no quick fix to this problem, but if everyone pitched in and reduced their overall greenhouse gas production by driving less, buying only reusable/recyclable products and protecting green spaces, B.C.’s trees might have a chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)