Toronto city council is now actively looking for a way to do something about all the fast food waste (mainly coffee cups) that we’re so happy to produce.  Strategies proposed so far include a tax, a deposit system, or an outright ban on the garbage.

It seems to me that the only good solution of those three is the ban.  While a tax may make the city some cash, paying an extra dime or so for a cup of coffee is not going to encourage people to bring reusable mugs - it will just enrage people and get them mad at environmentalism I think.  A deposit system would probably be better at keeping the streets clean, thanks to our enterprising hordes of homeless folk, but also doesn’t really help tackle the core issue.  We make too much garbage.  However, I can’t really imagine the logistics of a ban - do you always have to have a mug with you?  I try my best to carry one around, but getting a bite/a drink is often an impulse decision, and if we want to encourage people walking/cycling around instead of driving, it doesn’t seem reasonable to demand people carry around all this extra “what if” shit.  I don’t know if this would work that well.

The University of Guelph has also tried to find a solution to this problem, and I quite like it.  It almost falls into the tax category, but instead of charging you more to get a disposable cup, all the coffee outlets charge the price of a small coffee to fill a mug, which are usually bigger than the large sizes.  And there, a ridiculously large number of people carry reusable mugs.

Blah.  That wasn’t supposed to be what this rant was about.  When tackling any big problem (i.e. environmental degradation), it only makes sense to grab the low hanging fruit first - solve the easy problems that would have the biggest impact to start, and then work towards the more complicated solutions.  The city of Toronto seems eager to be a leader in the sustainability movement, but I often wonder if our priorities are a bit out of whack.  Is spending what will probably be months of council’s time debating ways to reduce the amount of coffee garbage we produce really giving us the best bang for our buck?  Wouldn’t it make more sense to tackle to big issues that will have a huge impact?  What about building new subways, streetcar lanes, or bike paths?  Toronto promised a measly 50km of new bike paths this year.  They’re not going to come anywhere close to that laughable goal even.  This coffee cup issue, while definitely legit, seems like a bit of a distraction from much bigger problems with solutions not hanging much further up the tree.

What the hell was Jack Layton thinking when he announced his intentions to keep Elizabeth May (leader of the Greens) from participating in the leaders’ debates this current Canadian election cycle? This is the man who claims to be the voice for the little guy in Ottawa, leader of the party that constantly talks as if it supports democracy and equality for Canadians. Incidentally, the NDP also tend to claim to be the party most supportive of environmental stewardship. Why then is the NDP leader seeking to block the Green Party from the democratic process? While admittedly the televised leaders debates no longer carry the meaning they used to, what with the constant politiking now permitted by the internet and 24 hour news networks, the symbolic meaning is still enormous. Real parties are allowed to participate, while fringe parties are kept out. Why then is Mr. Layton refusing to acknowledge the arrival of the Greens on the political stage - especially now that they finally have a member of parliament?

“We have someone who wants to participate who supports another member in the debate…”

I guess that’s the reason, then. The Greens and the Liberals both agree that climate change is a pressing issue, and that implementing financial incentives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions might work. I thought the NDP was also “committed” to fighting climate change. Maybe they have a slightly different strategy in mind, but shouldn’t they be excited to have an open forum to discuss ways to reduce our environmental impact? Shouldn’t Jack Layton be especially excited about the possibility of having another leader aching to turn the focus of the debate to global warming? No… it seems that Layton is just another bullshit politician, rehashing the same old shit about working together and finding real solutions, while letting his actions show that all he really cares about is preventing the Greens from stealing too many NDP votes. Fuck you Jack Layton, and shame on you.

The plight of the gorilla has been well known in biology/conservation circles (and to a lesser extent known to the general public - can someone please tell me how the sea turtle situation became so well publicized?) for decades, and the reports that have been coming out year after year have been increasingly bleak. In the 1980s, it was thought that there were maybe 100,000 gorillas across Africa, and this estimate had been slashed to half that in recent years. However, a team of scientists from the Congo and the Wildlife Conservation Society have just completed the most thorough census ever, and the news is good. One of the highlights of this new effort was expanding the search for gorillas into the swamps of central Africa - swamps that take days and days of trekking on foot to get to, over a hundred kilometers from the nearest road. And in these swamps, scientists found the highest density of gorillas ever reported, up to eight individuals per square kilometer. The new estimate for African gorillas is over 125,000. This makes me happy, although I fear it may weaken the motivation to establish more reserves for these awesome beasts. For now though, they remain listed as critically endangered, and that probably won’t change.

Tensions are rising in the Middle East in the aftermath of Iran’s ballistic missile testing. Israel has been undertaking major military exercises in the past months, which some have seen as a lead-up to an air strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities (nevermind that they can’t actually produce nuclear weapons). The concern is that when Iran receives its new Russian anti-aircraft weapons systems, it could neuter the effectiveness of a pre-emptive Israeli strike. As with all arms races, this has created a frighteningly real impetus for action in the short term.

Of late, Iran has renewed its threats to respond to any military action by closing the Strait of Hormuz, a shipping lane through which 20% of the world’s oil supply travels. While this is nothing new - Iran’s geography and influence on the oil trade is its main strategic advantage in a conflict between it and the West - it still represents a serious threat to the oil trade.

So should war break out with Iran, and the Strait of Hormuz closes, where does that leave us? An instant spike in the price of oil up to $200+ per barrel would be a huge hit to the economy, driving explosive inflation in the price of food, consumer goods, and transportation; the perfect trigger for a recession.

The price of diesel fuel has already nearly tripled in the past year - while this has been painful for the trucking industry, it’s also shown up in the price of nearly everything we buy, as a result. While the price of jet fuel has ‘only’ doubled in that same period, airlines are folding at a rate of one every week - on some routes, the price of fuel now represents more than half of the total ticket price. Oil prices (and the present misplaced emphasis on food-crop biofuels to compensate) have played a huge role in the global food crisis, and a further spike in prices could have devastating effects on the developing world.

But maybe its exactly what we need. I’m loathe to put a price on lives, but dramatic short-term pain may be the only way to bring the severity of the global energy crisis (and climate change, by association), into clear focus. Despite complaints from SUV drivers, the average person in the U.S. has largely been able to tread water with $150/bbl oil. At $200/bbl, the prognosis changes. The entire world, developed and developing, would need to take notice, and a short-term crunch today could alleviate catastrophic suffering in the distant future, at a time when we may no longer be able to address it.

This situation is not without precedent. The 1973 oil crisis spurred rapid and widespread societal change in America. Government policies were instituted to promote conservation (some of which were silly and ineffective, such as daylight saving time), including, for the first time, vehicle fuel economy standards. Buyers abandoned large gas-guzzlers in droves, embracing tiny, poorly-built (but efficient!) imports, heralding the slow decline of the American auto industry. Brazil began its highly effective sugar-cane ethanol program, which today supplies 40% of the fuel for Brazil’s transportation fleet. Alternative energy in the form of solar and wind power experienced a nascent boom, despite immature technology.

In today’s world, I expect the impacts would be at least as stark. Automotive efficiency is already under serious scrutiny by industry and buyers alike. At current prices, commuters from the GTA into Toronto spend nearly $10,000/year on gasoline alone. If prices increase another 30-50%, the suburbs will die, or they will collapse in on themselves, becoming self-sustaining communities, rather than mere dormitories. Commercial electric vehicles, mass-transportation systems, and thoughtful urban planning will become imperative. Already this summer, gas prices have led to a surge in urban commuters who walk, ride, or take the TTC, rather than drive. On the utility front, at $200/bbl, the economic incentive for pursuing renewable electricity and storage becomes impossible to ignore. High gas prices would be more than enough to sustain the solar industry over the hump in 2010, when a huge increase in supply is expected to depress growth (from its current triple-digits down to a more modest 20%, perhaps). And while it is wishful thinking from a veggie, the price of food may even nudge people into changing their eating habits - while the government heavily subsidizes meat prices, the costs stand to grow exponentially with the price of grain. Even now, chicken is supplanting beef due to its healthful image - with the useful byproduct of a significantly reduced environmental footprint.

From my bubble of privilege, I say bring on the blockades, Iran. Let’s shake things up.

So long Jeb Bush, and good riddance. New(ish) Florida governor Charlie Crist, another, better republican, has just invested a very un-republican amount of money into the Everglades. No, we’re not talking the usual $100,000 or $1 million that public parks usually beg for. This is an investment worth $1.7 billion that will purchase over 750 square kilometers of land to add to the park. The best part? This land is being acquired from a sugar producer (this is an industry notoriously damaging to environments everywhere), U.S. Sugar, and will result in this company going out of business within 6 years. There is no government forcing out business here, no draconian intervention, just good old capitalism doing what it does best - tempting a business into its own death with shitloads of money.

Stolen from the National Parks Service

What this money, and new land, will allow is the connection of Lake Okeechobee to the Everglades, reestablishing the historical hydrological system. This will provide a more reliable water source for the “River of Grass”, hopefully stopping the slow degradation that has plagued the Everglades for the last few decades, and protecting habitat for everything from Florida panthers to snail kites. And if you’re a bigtime anthropocentric asshole, this new water flow should really help maintain the region’s groundwater supplies - possibly a big deal if the West decides they’d rather import water than give up trying to grow grass in the desert.

I love being able to write something positive for a change.

Alternative energy is booming. The solar industry in the US grew nearly 100% in 2007 (!), and the industry is expected to see a worldwide compounded growth of 40-50% for the next three years. No longer just the idle dream of environmentalists, solar power has become an immensely lucrative investment opportunity, and is spurring the growth of tens of thousands of new domestic manufacturing jobs in North America. In the US, where energy from oil and coal remains dirt cheap, much of this growth has been borne on the wings of federal investment tax credits.

These credits, which currently pay for 30% of the cost of solar installations, were due to be renewed in 2008 - but congress seems content to let them expire. The estimated cost of renewing the tax credit for 10 years is $1.7B - not an insignificant sum, but paltry in comparison to its benefits. The credits have spurred billions of dollars in investment into local industry, jobs, and high technology research. Energy will always be a growth industry, and low-cost alternative power has the potential to become a truly massive export for the US if American businesses can establish early dominance through their famed ability to innovate and commercialize.

While letting the investment tax credit expire represents political and economic myopia, recent news from the Bureau of Land Management comes across as nothing more than utter, blinding stupidity. The agency has proposed a 2-year moratorium on the installation of all new solar plants on public land, citing the need for environmental impact assessments. Clearly, industry of any kind can have a disruptive impact on wildlife, but there is a perverse fucking irony in shutting down growth in arguably the most promising sustainable industry in the world because of fear that solar plants might affect desert habitats.

Ignoring the fact that the solar industry already funds many environmental impact studies on new plants, enacting legislation requiring developers to conduct concurrent assessments on any new plant without completely freezing installations would be trivially easy.

If there is a more perfect example of missing the forest for the trees, I can’t imagine it.

Yeah the old bastard is dead. As you may have heard, George Carlin recently “passed away” effectively stripping me of one of my three living idols. It’s hard explaining the significance of a man like Carlin in a culture so saturated with the fruits of his labours that it becomes difficult to imagine what came before. It scares me that there may very well be a generation that doesn’t know who this man was, nor understand the relevance of his work. Not all of his jokes work any more - his social examinations were relevant and pervasive, and he was able to critique our world in a way that was funny but thought-provoking.

For me personally, George Carlin helped shape the way I view free speech, religion and reason. He refused to allow anyone to limit what he could say or think, and challenged us to fight for our own freedoms alongside. He tore apart the coddled and pretentious douchebags in our society, who hide behind soft language and censorship to remind the “economically disadvantaged” [SIC] and “differently abled” [SIC] how they should think.

“Smug, greedy, well-fed white people have invented a language to conceal their sins, it’s as simple as that.”

“We don’t have any cripples in this country any more… these poor people have been bullshitted by the system in to thinking that if you change the name of the condition you’re going to change the condition. It doesn’t happen. It doesn’t happen…. It’s getting so bad now that any day now I’m waiting for someone to refer to a rape victim as an unwilling sperm recipient”.

Penn Gillette shared a story about how the late, great, comedian Lenny Bruce was the last man to be arrested for publicly using “obscene language” in America. During his stage act, Lenny attacked a system that had effectively abandoned its own lower classes, and he presented his material in a language that was discernible for his audience. He didn’t condescend to his fans, resulting in jokes rife with the same bad language they used in their daily lives, leading to his eventual incarceration. As Bruce was getting thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, the cops were harassing the audience members, which happened to include a dirty-haired hippie that refused to present any identification. Claiming he didn’t believe in official I.D., this teenager got arrested and thrown into the back of the same wagon that Bruce was in, leaving the two together for a number of hours. That teenager was George Carlin.

Over the next few decades, George Carlin fought against the illiberal and unjust regulations of a government that tried to control how its people could express themselves. The FCC is a regulatory commission that controls American broadcasting networks (basic television, the radio) that can effectively censor what gets on the air - there’s a reason you’re not allowed to hear swearing before a certain time on FOX, etc. This bureaucratic branch of government is getting federal sponsorship - tax dollars from supposedly free individuals - to tell the general public what words we are mature enough to hear. Premium cable and the internet are free of their restrictions, which is why pervasive media like the Sopranos, Q.A.F, and streaming video can actually represent uncut realities. George Carlin went before the supreme court, albeit unsuccessfully, to protect the integrity of artistic expression and honest and rational discussion. There is no such thing as bad words, only bad people, and Carlin fought against those that try to distract us from the real evils of the world with cozy language or by shaming us in to political correctness. Our world is a worse place without this man in it.

The following two videos are your homework, hopefully the internet survives long enough for you to see ‘em:

An astounding amount of astronomy is dependent on technological advancement, so it’s pretty neat when enough of the little things come together to allow for big breakthroughs. A group of researchers at the Geneva Observatory in Switzerland have recently used an intense Chilean telescope to survey the velocities of 150 stars, looking for perturbations of less than ONE METRE PER SECOND! (The average speed of stars in the universe is upwards of 32,000 metres per second). The fact this can be done at all just blows my mind, though the researchers claim that with continuing calibration this sensitivity can be increased further (accurate to less than 10cm per second). Anyway, the big finding: it seems that around 30% of stars (of those surveyed anyway) are orbited by planets roughly the same size of earth. This is a much, MUCH, higher proportion than was formerly commonly accepted, and lends evidence to the “crowded universe” theory - the idea that there are a lot of planets out there. I can only hope this means that the odds of finding life out there have increased substantially as well.

If you have access, read the Nature article. (I think it’s available free for the next few days)

Geoengineering is the intentional analogue of anthropogenic climate change - global scale modification of our natural environment intended to improve its habitability. In the wake of growing awareness surrounding climate change, geoengineering has emerged as a highly controversial field with vocal advocates and detractors alike. While some see a macro-scale scientific solution as the silver bullet that will save us from ourselves, the sheer scale of the topic and the host of staggeringly complex uncertainties surrounding any geoengineering scheme provide unprecedented opportunity for dangerous unintended circumstances.

I recently watched a BBC documentary called “Five Ways to Save the World.” It details five massive geoengineering schemes, ranging from a gigantic sixteen-trillion-piece space mirror, to forests of artificial chemical “trees” designed to sequester CO2. While the scientists in this documentary largely posit their plans as last-ditch efforts to avoid unmitigated climatic catastrophe, the technological proposals have given the political right another way to embrace pseudo-science in order to prop up the status quo. Lifestyle changes, compromise, conservation, and limiting growth are apparently too dramatic - instead, we should launch a perpetuity of rockets into the atmosphere, seeding it with millions of tonnes of sulphate aerosols to increase its albedo and reflect more sunlight. Sure, it might turn the sky green, swiss-cheese the ozone layer, and acidify all rain, but this way, we could still eat hamburgers all the time! Now why the fuck didn’t I think of that?

Given that we may have already overshot critical climate change thresholds, I think it’s dangerous to dismiss any potential solution out of hand. However, what disturbed me most about the documentary wasn’t even the nature of the proposals, but the sentiment voiced by several of the scientists that, “we should be starting now.” I have no qualms over modestly scaled research projects, but I fear that when any such scheme is initiated at a global scale, the unknown factors stand to overwhelm even the most sophisticated models we can develop today. Given our abysmal track record when we’ve tried to ‘fix’ nature, it’s a risk we can ill afford to take.

We are going to be upgrading to the newest Wordpress version for a little while.  If the site doesn’t work, that’s why.  We’ll see you soon.