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.