So it’s not really a graphic, but it fits the same “holy crap” style of visual comparison as the offshore drilling chart.

The amount of space required to transport the same number of passengers by car, bus, or bicycle, courtesy of our friends in Germany (7 years ago), who seem to get it way better than we do:

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.

I suspect most people reading this site will realize how much of a band-aid solution proposed off-shore drilling is, but even if you’re cognitively aware of the situation, intuition would dictate that even a little bit more domestic oil would have to be worth pursuing, no?

Seeing is believing, however, and this amazing little graphic from Architecture 2030 puts things into painfully clear focus:

If you’re not interested in doing the math, that amounts to a whopping 1.2% of total consumption. Not altogether too far off the impact of proper tire inflation, come to think of it…

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.

While I’ve been a posting hiatus (largely due to laziness, I must confess), it seems that almost every week I read about a newly planned “world’s largest” renewable energy project; it’s a game of leapfrog where everyone wins. While the freight train of cheap solar power is quickly gaining speed, I just read an article on Inhabitat about new low-temperature geothermal technology that could ultimately provide 120 GW (!) of renewable power in the United States. That’s more than all the nuclear capacity that currently exists in the US (106 GW, or 19.4% of total production in 2006).

While the article doesn’t mention cost of production, announcements like this continue to demonstrate the possibility of the impossible - that is, transitioning the world to a renewable energy economy. While much emphasis is placed on our incredible reliance on petroleum, it’s important to note that 2/3 of our petroleum is burned as transportation fuel. The important uses (that is, where there is no viable alternative) like plastic manufacturing, consume a relatively trivial amount. A future of electric trucks, superconducting trains, wind- and wave-powered barges, and freight airships is hardly inconceivable. And once we achieve low-carbon transport, we will have begun to address the perilous externalities of global trade, and the trade-off between ethics and economics becomes much less stark. This is what I spend my days doing, so that fundamental premise still holds some wonder for me.

I feel like I’m losing my edge, repeating the same optimistic tirade.

In other news, it looks like arctic ice is soon to reach a critical tipping point. Good to know, given that permafrost apparently stores 60% more greenhouse gases than we’d previously anticipated. The saying, “may you live in interesting times,” was once a curse - we may or may not have the means to change that, but there is no denying that we are living in interesting times.

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.

If your reaction isn’t “who the hell is Wayne Leibel?”, then I’m pretty impressed, but I fully expect it to be. Don’t worry, it’s ok. (Besides his mate choice research, he’s probably best known for writing regular columns in two of the biggest aquarium hobby magazines, making him one of the people I’ve admired most since I was a little kid). The point of this shitty story (shitty to everyone but me) is that it makes me feel the need to comment on how fantastic the academic community is - for democratizing knowledge and ensuring ideas are judged above all else. I have been lucky enough to attend the Ecological and Evolutionary Ethology of Fishes conference in Boston this past week, and it’s been an incredible venue for scientists from 15 countries, from students to established heavyweights, to get together and discuss their research, share their problems, and get suggestions from everyone else. Not in my wildest dreams did I think that such a venue would be so cooperative - there really is no hint of secrecy or competition, just a genuine desire for answers. There I was chatting with Wayne, the guy who “knows everything”, and we were talking about how important it is to learn from amateur aquarium hobbyists and their observations. Maybe I was too cynical going into this thing, after experiencing a life of watching so many self-congratulatory events in almost every field, but nothing here was about the accomplishments of the past. It was about reaching out to novel ideas, trying to find new ways to explain behaviour, preserve fisheries, and understand evolution. I just wish there was a way to get the rest of the world to understand the advances that could be made if egos were put aside and people actually bought into cooperative efforts.

I’m starting to get really excited about the whole open source design concept.

So I’m in Boston right now , and yesterday evening I walked past an Abercrombie store. Wouldn’t you know it - they have topless male models all around the place. Now I don’t frequent these stores, so I can’t say for sure that these models don’t exist in Toronto, but I can hardly believe they do. As I’ve thought about this, I’ve been unable to attach any positive/negative value judgement - I’ll leave that up to you guys. Right now, I’m just showing off what I believe to be a crazy phenomenon.

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.

It has become a bit of a cliché among our posts to point out the pervasive unsustainability of our society. Occasionally there are laudable developments worth mentioning, but even when we write about these, the discourse is too often tinged with cynicism. We know what’s wrong now, and what can be done, but progress is slow, and maintaining enthusiasm in the face of perpetual disappointment can be difficult. It becomes important to occasionally detach yourself from the minutiae of the everyday, and take the long view.

The question becomes, then, what should the future look like? What is required to craft a world without harmful emissions, without waste? A world where our energy, our buildings, our products, move in closed loops?

Visionary projects such as Masdar City in Abu Dhabi offer us tempting glimpses as to what one such future might look like. While it is a cost-no-object halo project for the UAE (who are wisely investing their present oil wealth into a future that is independent of it), it serves as a beacon, achieving a carbon neutral society using technology that exists commercially today. Yet the same technical feasibility that makes Masdar so edifying in shaping policy today renders it inadequate as a model for the future, given the awesome pace of technological development.

Masdar is today’s vision of a sustainable utopia, but what does 2020’s Masdar look like? Or 2050’s?

One should be able to look towards science fiction as a source of inspiration, but even here, the drama of suffering leads to endemic negavity, promoting a ubiquity of dystopian visions. Clearly, it’s harder to make incisive social commentary by portraying a happy future than a tragic one.

The call to arms for a sustainable future is being ushered in with the stick; but maybe that’s only because no one is growing carrots. I think we need both.

I’m planning to use this mandate as an opportunity to do a number of small design projects, giving a snapshot of my views for a sustainable future, from transportation, to infrastructure, to architecture, to anything else I happen to think of (and I’m open to suggestions). The idea isn’t to create a polished vision, but to develop a jumping-off point for discussion; the Internet is full of people who know a lot more than I do. Besides, my sketching skills are getting rusty, and I need an excuse and some motivation. It should be fun.