Category Archives: Environment

UN calls for new paradigm on progress

Posted on by
Reply

Following up on the fascinating dialogues at Davos, where some of the world’s richest individuals discussed reforming capitalism for the 21st century, the UN is calling on the world to establish a new precedent for progress: sustainable development.

Preceding the Rio +20 Summit this year, held on the 20th anniversary of the first Earth Summit in Brazil, the UN High Level Panel on Global Sustainability has outlined the need for a “new paradigm for economic growth, social equality and environmental sustainability.” The panel says that traditional economics have notable market failures, neglecting to factor in the costs of carbon emissions or “quantify the economic cost of sustained social exclusion.”

That sustainable development is right is self-evident. Our challenge is to demonstrate that it is also rational – and that the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of action.

Some of the panel’s specific suggestions:

  • Measure growth beyond GDP and develop a new sustainable development index
  • Global sustainable development goals to replace the Millennium Development Goals
  • Incorporating social and environmental costs into the pricing of goods and services
  • A global fund for education to provide universal access to post-primary education by 2030
  • Employers, unions, and governments should establish non-discrimination policies and publicly report on progress
  • Develop labeling schemes for goods that reflect their full impact of production and consumption to enable consumers to make informed choices
  • Applying price incentives and disincentives on goods based on universal sustainable product standards
  • Establish regional and global ocean management frameworks for major marine ecosystems
  • Begin an “ever-green revolution” to double agricultural productivity while drastically reducing resource use
  • Universal access to affordable, sustainable energy by 2030; double the rate of energy efficient and the global share of renewable energy by 2030
  • Transparent disclosure of, and planned removal of all subsidies which cause the greatest detriment to natural, environmental and social resources
  • Phase out fossil-fuel subsidies by 2020
  • Sustainable development criteria for all government procurement
  • Business and governments should develop a framework for sustainable development reporting and should consider mandatory reporting by corporations with market capitalizations larger than $100 million
  • Establish a Global Sustainable Development Council to improve integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development, address emerging issues and review progress
  • Establish a peer review mechanism to encourage States to share experiences and fulfill their commitments

The panel was chaired by Jacob Zuma, President of South Africa, and Tarja Halonen, President of Finland.

I personally found the document inspiring and incredibly enlightened. Combined with the talks on Davos, it seems as though dialogue is moving towards a new model of ethical capitalism – that is, a market which quantifies and values those three dimensions of development equally: social, economic, and environmental. In a sense, it replaces capitalism’s drive for profit at any cost to one which pursues progress in a holistic sense. Under such a paradigm, expansion of the oil sands, which may provide short-term economic value, but have long term detrimental environmental impacts, is ultimately an unethical pursuit and would not be pursued when fully quantified.

As noted in many of the suggestions, moving towards this model requires a new form of economics, one that quantifies the opportunity costs within all three dimensions of sustainable development. The most obvious intervention in our current system is applying financial disincentives to that which we don’t want – carbon, for example – and applying financial incentives to that which we do want – green energy products perhaps. Pricing signals, rather than traditional regulation, would let the market naturally direct capital towards that which we want more of. Similar market reforms have been successful in reducing tobacco usage, and could be replicated on unhealthy foods which contribute to obesity.

But how do we start to quantify other attributes, such as biodiversity, or ocean health, into economics? What about the costs of “sustained social exclusion”? Neglecting large segments of the global population and relegating them to poverty actually costs society the returns investment would produce. How specifically capitalism could integrate these measure into the market without global governance regulations is unclear. Indeed, it seems as though an entire new breed of economists would need to develop such a system. However, if it were achieved, the potential results of such a paradigm shift could truly change the world.

Ethical oil? There’s no such thing.

Posted on by
Reply

One of the strongest cases made to support the expansion of the Alberta oil sands is the proposition that our oil is ethical when compared to reserves from the Middle East. From a geopolitical perspective, the purchase of oil from Canadian markets over Arab markets makes sense, but such a conclusion is simplistic at best.

According to Merriam Webster, ‘ethical’ is defined as that which “conforms to accepted standards of conduct.” This definition inherently recognizes that ethics are not static – they are created, endorsed, and re-shaped over time by society. What may be ethical or accepted behaviour in one place may not be shared by another. These standards of conduct shift due to accepted understandings of what is right or wrong, based on our knowledge at a particular time.

For example, it was not long ago that slavery was accepted as ethical behaviour. The notion that human beings could be bought or sold and had no rights of their own to freedom was simply taken as a norm. It was not until this notion was challenged and acceptability changed that slavery was abolished and outlawed. Individuals heard arguments for and against slavery, and ultimately decided that it was in fact unethical.

In the case of oil, modern society has gone through its own process of debate and, I dare say, enlightenment. During the industrial revolution, the use of fossil fuels to power our machines was not questioned. The immediate effects of pollution were dealt with by the rich, and later the middle class, by leaving the inner city for healthier, suburban spaces. Technology was also created to help reduce and mitigate this pollution.

The lesser known, more latent effects of that fossiel fuel usage is, of course, climate change. While on the radar for nearly three decades by scientists, a generally global consensus that, one, it is occurring, and two, it is man-made, has only emerged in roughly the past five years.

Five years ago, the source of your oil was of ethical concern. A country like Canada or Norway, with better records on human rights, would be a more ethical purchase than oil from Russia, Latin America, or the Middle East. But based on our new global consensus on the negative effects of fossil fuel usage, the purchase of any oil, no matter where it comes from, is no longer ethical.

When we are aware of the harmful and long lasting, perhaps irreversible, effects of climate change on people around the world, any corporation, person, or country that continues to purchase and burn oil is acting unethically.

Now there are those who will argue that anyone who currently relies on oil, or fossil fuels, for any part of their lifestyle, are therefore acting unethically. Often this argument is thrown at environmentalists, deeming them to be hypocritical for taking a flight or driving a car. Of course, under the new paradigm this is indeed unethical, but the burden placed on the individual is far too great, when said person has such a limited control on their options for survival. We would not accuse a middle-class individual for choosing to be fat if their neighbourhood is surrounded by fast-food restaurants and grocery stores filled with processed foods. Their choices are constricted by the larger societal processes, leaving much of the responsibility to corporations and governments.

When renewable and clean energy sources are available as freely and priced at the same rate as fossil fuels, and individuals have a legitimate option available, if they continue to purchase the non-renewables, they ought to be deemed as acting unethically. If they switch to the clean energy option, they are choosing to adopt ethical behaviour.

With this in mind, when a corporation – Enbridge – and a government – Alberta and Canada – actively seek to expand the oil sands for export to energy hungry nations, they are choosing to be irresponsible global citizens and are acting against the best interests of society. The ethical option would be to take our existing wealth to invest in clean energy sources, a move that would drive down their costs and put them on a level playing field with fossil fuels.

We are living in a new era where we deeply recognize and understand the negative impacts of fossil fuels. Corporations and governments that refuse to shift their behaviour in this new environment fail to grasp that our ethics have evolved, our norms have changed, and that such choices are no longer acceptable.

100 billion dollar oil windfall for Canada? Not quite.

Posted on by
Reply

With the hearing on the Northern Gateway pipeline having just begun, the oil industry is already on the offensive, pushing several reports that are proclaiming over a hundred billion in economic activity for the country as a result of the project. To the layman, hearing that one pipeline could bring in such a huge amount of money almost makes the environmental risks seem negligible. In an era of fiscal tightening, the pipeline seems to be an obvious economic boon. As I soon learnt, when things sound too good to be true, it’s because they are.

To get to the bottom of this, I went straight to the main source: a report from the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy released late December. Here’s a blurb from the press release:

“With better access and new pipeline capacity, oil producers will see more efficient access to international markets which can add up to $131 billion to Canada’s GDP between 2016 and 2030,” the authors write. “This amounts to over $27 billion in federal, provincial and municipal tax receipts, along with an estimated 649,000 person-years of employment.”

Not surprisingly, Alberta, with its robust oil reserves, will be the principal beneficiary, but the authors stress that “most every single province and territory will realize fiscal and economic gains.”

“These are impressive figures,” concluded co-author Michal Moore. “The rewards of additional pipelines for all of Canada are too great to ignore.  Pipelines must be a national priority.”

The final paragraph is perhaps the most revealing in how dedicated the authors are to spin their meagre results. A real look at the numbers shows that, while the figures may be impressive to Alberta, there is a negligible benefit to the rest of the country. My analysis would argue vehemently with the conclusion that this project is in the national interest.

Another interesting element, hidden between the lines, is that these calculations are based not just on the Northern Gateway pipeline, but on the construction and expansion of several others, including the Keystone XL project currently on hold in the USA. Also, while the revenue windfall sounds large, it is important to acknowledge that this is on a 14 year time horizon.

Let’s take a look at the details.

The report is predicated on the realities of the existing market: world oil demand remains robust, but our main source for export is America, which has become saturated. In addition, oil sands bitumen faces bottlenecks in the mid-west, where current pipelines end, a ways from the large refineries in the Gulf Coast.

The report calls for the Keystone XL pipeline, which would directly connect the oil sands to the refineries in the Gulf, eliminating the production bottlenecks and opening up the resource to a larger market quicker. It also calls for expansion of pipelines down to California, where there is an excess of refinery space for the oil sands and ports for export. Finally, the Northern Gateway pipeline is deemed necessary to export the bitumen to Asian refineries, which would ultimately help the Albertan industry escape the captive American market and command higher prices. The financial conclusions assume that all three of these expansions are completed on schedule.

The report says that, from 2016 to 2030, the projects would create $131 billion in economic activity in Canada – let’s deconstruct that a bit. 87% of that figure results from the Keystone XL pipeline, while only 8% is derived from the Northern Gateway project. At eight percent, the economic boon drops down to $10 billion for the Gateway pipeline; over 14 years, that brings us to $750 million in economic activity annually.

That’s not the whole story though. 95% of that economic activity is destined for Alberta, with 2.7% for Ontario, 1.2% for BC, and the remaining going to the rest of the country. One of the most prominent narratives put forth by the oil industry and reinforced by the federal government is that Northern Gateway is in the ‘national interest’. Poppycock.

This project clearly benefits Alberta, and Alberta only. Considering BC is taking on the majority of the risk with regards to oil spills, the benefits are grossly in favour of the producer province rather than the coastal one. Additionally, if 95% of the economic activity of this pipeline remains in Alberta, how can one argue that this will improve the life of Canadians in Nova Scotia, Nunavut, or Quebec?

The answer to that question is often parlayed into the government royalties and tax revenues that will result from the project. The report collated the increased government revenues that will head into municipal, provincial, and federal coffers, and sorted those monies down by province. Let’s take a look.

In the media, one will see the figure of $27 billion dollars destined for our governments, money that presumably would help fund healthcare and education. Once again, that figure is for all three projects, one of which, Keystone, is expected to bring in $23 billion. The Northern Gateway pipeline actually only contributes $2.17 billion to that figure – over 14 years.

Again, the ‘windfall’, if it can be called that at this point, is not distributed fairly. 92% of the government revenues head to Alberta. 4.3% are destined for Ontario, 1.6% for BC, 1% for Quebec, and a pittance for the rest of the country. To BC, that means an additional $350 million over 14 years, or $25 million annually in government revenue. To put that into perspective, out of BC’s 2011 budget of $41.9 billion, $25 million amounts to 0.005% of the total provincial coffers. $25 million can buy 50 buses or one recreation centre or high school.

For argument’s sake, let’s assume all three projects went ahead, and that the government revenues were in fact in the national interest; how much of a windfall is $27 billion over 14 years. That equals almost $2 billion a year – sounds like a fair chunk of change, eh? However, within the context of Canada’s 2009 federal budget of $237 billion, it amounts to just 0.82% of annual federal spending. But, that’s irrelevant, as 92% will go to Alberta anyways.

Add it all together, and the promise of a multi-billion dollar boon that will propel our economy and fund our social programs, well, it doesn’t sound all that valid anymore. Would there be economic opportunities? Absolutely. But when over 90% goes to one province, it’s hardly in the ‘national interest’.

So let’s not pretend that by approving the Northern Gateway pipeline, our deficits will just disappear, our taxes can be lowered, and we can properly fund healthcare and education, because the numbers just don’t add up.

How do Canadians get to work? [stats]

Posted on by
4

Inspired by this little ditty on Infrastructurist…

… I decided to make a Canadian version. All the data is from the Stats Can 2006 Census.

What I found particularly interesting is how consistent the commuting trends are across the entire country. The comparison to America is fascinating, where New York, San Francisco, and Washington D.C. all pulled in amazing transit numbers, while cities like Atlanta, L.A., and Houston were car dominated cities. There are no such fluctuations in Canada’s six largest cities.

Toronto leads the pack in transit ridership – amazing, considering how old and poorly maintained their subway system is. Ottawa pulls in huge numbers as well, especially as the backbone of its network is bus rapid transit. I was quite surprised that Calgary doesn’t have a better transit percentage, as it is consistently rated as one of the best light rail systems in North America. Edmonton had the highest driving percentage, which is understandable though as their transit system hasn’t really expanded since it was first built in the 80′s.

What the numbers really reveal to me though is the untapped potential of our cities and the need for a coordinated, national “Big City” strategy.

We are an urban nation and will continue to be increasingly so. Our cities have become a beacon to the world, symbolizing our national commitment to peaceful diversity and long term livability. In these concrete jungles, people from around the world mix and mingle over work, school, and yes, hockey. It is through interaction that ideas are shared, businesses are created, and our collective human bonds are strengthened. Undoubtedly, cities are the economic engines of this country and have enormous potential to lead us into a profoundly prosperous future. For these reasons alone, we should be investing far more as a nation in our cities.

However, there is yet another argument to be made for our cities. Livable, compact, and green urban centres are one of the most significant solutions to climate change. Cities preserve land from sprawl, they are the most efficient means of living, and enable people to thrive car-free. Overwhelmingly, the majority of Metro Vancouver’s emissions come from transportation and buildings. All other greenhouse gases are just a tiny fraction of the equation. Solve our cities’ emissions, and we’ve solved half the climate crisis.

It’s actually quite simple to do. Transportation infrastructure shapes the urban form. Build roads and freeways, you get suburban strip malls, parking lots, and single-family homes. Build streetcars, you get Main Streets, apartments, and small bustling communities. Build subways, you get towering skyscrapers of concrete and glass, unparalleled diversity of people and shops, and a world where the pedestrian rules the road.

In Vancouver, our SkyTrain network has stimulated development across its spine, creating car-free urban villages at nearly every stop. However, the network is only half complete, and until the rest of the suburbs receive rail connections to that system, the car dominated lifestyle will continue. This case scenario can be replicated across the country.

What Canada needs is a strong understanding that our national future is tied to the wellbeing of our cities, and that we must make a solid commitment to financially reinvest in their economic, social, and environmental potential.

If I were the Prime Minister, or the leader of any federal party, I would make a commitment to partner with the provinces and big cities to collaboratively invest billions to build out the rapid transit networks of Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton – all within the next 10 years. Tied to that money, I would ensure there was a regional growth framework to encourage private investment along these networks. Within that growth framework, there would be a national commitment to aggressive green building standards to ensure that all new construction is efficient and sustainable in the long term. Additionally, I would ensure that affordable housing units – subsidized housing at various rates for various types of people and families – were built at major stops along these new routes.

In doing so, our cities would see remarkable economic stimulation as long term infrastructure investments are made to carry them forward into the future. Moreover, greenhouse gas emissions would be slashed by more than 50%, new affordable housing options would be available to help combat the increasing inequities that are limiting the human capital potential of our cities, more people from different backgrounds would interact as they move about in trains instead of cars, and there would be an absolute explosion in the creative and knowledge-based economic industries.

In short, it would revolutionize Canada into one of the greenest, most diverse and prosperous countries in the world.

I think that is certainly a goal worth striving for. And it all starts with rapid transit.

It’s time to start building post-Olympic Vancouver

Posted on by
6

The more I learn about city building and international affairs, the more I realize that Vancouver is truly the poster child for 21st century living in this world. We’ve just gotten oh so much right throughout the years.

Vancouver is one of the most diverse, and yet exceptionally tolerate, cities on Earth. Our nation’s origins lie in the nonviolent cooperation of the British, the French, and the First Nations, leaving us with the legacy of a remarkable ability to accept, and indeed thrive through, diversity. Our open borders, and at times rocky racial history, have given us with the quaint and peaceful ethnic mosaic of modern Canadiana – perhaps the most appropriate choice for cultural diversity in a global age, at least in comparisons to the ruthless racism apparent in America and Europe.

We’re also one of the most livable and sustainable cities on the planet. Due predominantly to the beauty and awe of our natural geography, we’ve built up a city that aspires to exist in its image. We preserved our green spaces for all to enjoy, and ensured that our urban habitats attempted to live up to our extraordinary natural environments.

Age is almost certainly a factor in our success as well. Vancouver has developed remarkably quickly and is the epitome of the post-industrial city. In fact, we at times lament the diminishing supply of industrial lands, as if all good jobs relied on factories. However, the train of progress chugs on, and despite an official lack of so-called industrial properties, our economy keeps moving. Propelled by the information age, Vancouver lives in the knowledge and the creative economies. In this city, overall happiness is the most important factor to our lifestyles.

With such remarkable successes, it’s no wonder we’re consistently named the “world’s most livable city” and touted by our government as the “Best Place on Earth.” And while it may sometimes seem like we do truly live in one of Earth’s paradises, we need to ensure that the spirit of trailblazing continues. Success is no reason to stop pushing the envelope. Every improvement we make here, on the ground, contributes our short-lived experiment that is Vancouver and sets an even higher standard in quality of life in the world. We cannot rest on our laurels; we must continue to build Vancouver into an even greater, greener, healthier, more productive, and more happy city.

With that in mind, here’s a list of improvements we need to collectively begin working on in this post-Olympic era:

Revitalize Robson Square

Revitalizing and redesigning the old, rundown Robson Square into a truly vibrant, modern living room of the city. Robson Square could be so much more than it is and has the potential to become the heart of downtown Vancouver. Close Robson, pave the muddy grass, install flexible seating and a new stage, add in water and nighttime lighting features, plan programming every weekend – there’s so much potential here.

Improve our cultural institutions

Strengthen our existing, and build many new, cultural institutions. The VAG and Science World are both in the midst of renovation and expansion plans, while the Celebration of Light continues to teeter on the brink of financial collapse. The Museum of Anthropology, the Vancouver Film Festival, the VSO, and the Arts Club could be so much more if only they reached out to new audiences. Canada Day and the Christmas Parade have recently returned from six feet under. And where’s our New Years Eve celebrations, or Nuit Blanche arts festival, or vibrant street life? I, for one, am not so sure that the answer to this conundrum relies on simply more government funding either.

Build a post-automobile region

We are entering a post-automobile era in the world and Vancouver should be taking the lead. Here’s the reality: nobody in downtown needs a car, most in the City of Vancouver can survive without a car, and a number of regional town centres are up-and-coming car free centres of urbanity. Our urban spaces need to reflect this post-surburban reality by reclaiming car space for separated bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and eclectic pedestrianized streets. We no longer need the archaic half-built freeway infrastructure in our Downtown – tear them down and replace them with new urban districts. We need to build more connections and accessibility to transit forms such as streetcar networks, whose resulting increase in economic development more than pay for themselves over time. We need to provide truly safe bicycle paths and facilities so that people can ride without fearing for their lives. We need to continue to extend our rapid transit networks as quickly as possible to continue this transition to the post-suburban reality.

Capitalize on SkyTrain by building urban villages

On that same note, we need to adopt a more aggressive policy of utilizing and capitalizing on our existing transit infrastructure. SkyTrain needs ridership to support its expansion and building adjacent development to transit stations is one of the best ways to both produce riders while also creating great urban spaces. Urban villages, the like of which have been built in Joyce-Collingwood, Brentwood, Metrotown, and Edmonds should exist at each and every station. There is absolutely no reason 29th Ave, Nanaimo, Langara, Scott Road, or Braid are surrounded either by single-family homes, or worse, deplorable industrial land. We’ve failed on this note and the only way to truly utilize our transit system to its fullest extent, and realize our collective capital investment, is to build urban villages around each and every stop.

Rail for the suburbs to transform their communities

Keeping with transit, our suburbs need rail infrastructure and they need it immediately. Surrey, Coquitlam, Langley, Delta, and the North Shore lack any significant connections to rapid transit and this is inhibiting their transition into post-automobile, post-suburban places. In fact, many of these communities are crying out for the transit investment. If we build it, and develop it properly with urban villages at each stop, the entire region will quickly come to be as livable and vibrant as Downtown. We should never have invested $3 billion into a dead means of transport; the only question now is when new money can be put into forward thinking economic infrastructure for the post-suburban future.

Region-wide green building policies

We are well on our way to a greener way of life with a variety of actions being taken by the provincial government on climate change; striking in a place already well known for its sustainable policies. However, we can and must do more. Our two main sources of emissions come from transport and buildings. If we can move far more people out of their cars and into transit, we need primarily concern ourselves with construction. The City of Vancouver already has some of the most aggressive green building policies around, but a lack of regional consensus on this matter will allow developers to skip the regulations by building outside the periphery. Taken on at a regional level, green building policies could send a strong signal to developers and investors that Metro Vancouver is ready and willing to take the long term commitment required to build a far more sustainable, and ultimately livable, urbanity for people and for the environment. There must also be programs to encourage the green retrofit of a wide array of existing and heritage buildings.

Continue to protect green spaces

Sustainability is more than just emissions though. We need to continue efforts to preserve, enhance, and perhaps even restore, green spaces across our region. We will soon have the cleanest water on Earth – a remarkable feat. Let’s aim for the cleanest air; an effort that will pay dividends in reduced health costs over time. We need to continue efforts to clean up our rivers and watersheds, our forests and our mountain ranges. How about imagining a new urbanity, one that lives harmoniously with nature? Perhaps we should welcome nature back onto our door steps and, with the help of a lush urban forest, less asphalt and concrete, and far more greenery integrated into our landscape, bring natural species such as heron or ravens back to replace the invasive seagulls and pigeons.

Promote energy self-sufficiency

While we are fortunate to have an abundance of clean, green hydro energy, we must pursue a policy of energy self-sufficiency and encourage our city centres to live off-the-grid as much as possible. We need programs in place to support and build more district energy systems, solar arrays, and wind turbines.

Develop an economy based on creative entrepreneurialism

All this comes at a price and Vancouver needs to confront the challenge of making a living while doing what you love. We are in the knowledge economy and about to enter an era of creativity. No longer do great jobs come from general manufacturing or forestry. And who said that “high paying” jobs were “good jobs” anyways? Furthermore, why can’t somebody have a living wage off valuable service employment? We need to come up with new economic realities for the people who want to have their cake and eat it too. This means doing everything we can to support and foster a sense of creative entrepreneurialism in all Vancouverites. In doing so, we can provide the citizenry with the skills required to make a self-sufficient, fulfilling living on their own terms – one that doesn’t require McJobs from America or offshore global connections to a continuously corrupt Asia.

Well, that’s only a starting point. I hope this is a call to action for you and helped imagine the possibilities, the challenges, and the wide array of exciting opportunities that we face in post-Olympic Vancouver. The most important key to remember though is that we are creating an example for the rest of the world to follow – changes that may not seem big to us are huge on the global stage and people are looking to us to lead the way. Let’s not fail them, or ourselves, by accepting complacency, but rather adopt the spirit of progress and continue to push our experiment that is Vancouver even further ahead.