|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2007 04 09
Reinventing The City
![]() The City of Winds image from R. Ouellette's Virtual Metropolis John Street Toronto CD-ROM, 1996 I hope all our readers have had as pleasurable an Easter weekend as I have. I was able to relax for a few days and catch up on some of the renovation chores around the house that remained undone. Why is it that when people of all types and backgrounds take on a big task we inevitably fall into the 80/20% rule? You know what I mean. The majority of the work gets done quickly but the remaining 20% takes disproportionately longer. The phenomenon is so ubiquitous in life that mathematicians have a name for it - the Pareto principal: The Pareto principle (also known as the 80-20 rule, the law of the vital few and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many phenomena, 80% of the consequences stem from 20% of the causes. Business management thinker Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who observed that 80% of income in Italy went to 20% of the population. It is a common rule-of-thumb in business; e.g., "80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients." We don't have to make too much of a conceptual leap to see how variations of this rule play out in the way we design our city. The 80% takes the form of all the infrastructure services, roads, background buildings, and initial planning. The remaining 20% is where great cities are made or miserable cities fail. Toronto's long-suffering waterfront is probable one of our best examples of this phenomenon. Reinventing our harbourfront is taking such a disproportionate amount of time that outside observers could not be faulted if they thought it was a non-issue to Torontonians. Yet, most of us long for a sustainable waterfront that has the potential to be among the best in the world. We are getting there but are in that interminable 20% zone that, like my renovation, becomes a "Waiting for Godot" existential experience. A realistic analysis would say that the 20% component of reinventing our city falls into the realm of political expediency. It seems that generally our political class gets the idea that we have to have functional infrastructure like sewers and water and electricity. Where politicians exhibit their human frailties is in the 20% zone which is seen as non-essential or even arbitrary. We now know, however, that it is in the 20% zone of city design and execution that defines who we are as a culture and a place. Maybe that's what Meis van der Rohe was getting at with his observation that God is in the details. Every project, no matter how large, depends on the success of the smallest of its components. It is that territory - of smallness - that we really know so little about. It really remains an unknown country, a place that is still foreign to us. I've argued for some time now that new information technologies will close that 20% gap because knowledge and best-practices will become more evenly distributed and available to decision-makers. We are seeing that happen to a degree but the closer we get to solving some of the intractable design and sustainability problems that face our city(ies) the more the friction of change slows us down. Do you want to reinvent the city? Instead of making one or two beautiful buildings tackle the real problem of the 80/20 rule. If you succeed, you may not just change our city - you may change the world.
2007 04 05
Trashing Our Garbage
You may have heard this week that in addition to raising your taxes beyond the level of inflation the City of Toronto is considering charging you to take away your trash. Welcome to the megacity. If the two seem connected then you’re probably like most home owners. Let’s think a bit: the cost of water is going up, taxes are going up, and garbage fees might begin. Ouch. That is a lot of extra financial burden on an already highly taxed population. Doesn’t the city argue that other levels of government are already taxing us for many of the services the city must now re-tax us for to cover the shortfalls when those governments don’t transfer the money back to our community? All of this taxing and re-taxing gets complicated. That’s why the city’s announcement that it may (you just know that it will) begin to charge for garbage removal makes for really bad timing. Why? It is simple. If we really do want the cleaner environment that pollsters say we do then paying for garbage removal will help. It is just too bad the idea seems more like another cash grab by confused governments than a smart way to reduce our environmental impact. For those readers who are complaining that this new fee is too much then I’d recommend you get Elizabeth Royte’s book, Garbage Land: On the Secret Trail Of Trash. Royte is a skilled writer and her voyage of garbage self-discovery (she asks “where does my garbage go?") makes for a surprisingly engrossing read. I’ll reveal Royte’s punchline for those of you who are working 16 hours a day to pay off your increased taxes. All garbage is bad garbage. There is no effective way to rid the environment of our trash. The only real answer is to not make it in the first place. Do you think trucking our garbage 200 kilometers south and burying it is a good idea? Well, sorry, it isn’t for a plethora of reasons from the increased carbon emissions those garbage trucks produce to the inevitable poisoning of the local water table by garbage leachates (when you’re dealing with millions of tonnes of trash all barriers designed to retain toxins fail in time). Do you think incineration is the answer? Well, wrong again. Even if all those nasty carcinogens our garbage produces are magically vapourized what happens to all the gases and all that heat energy? Global warming anyone? But wait, how about using our organic waste as fertilizer? Turns out that this is no panacea either. It is not recommended to use city-generated biosolids (a nice clean word for our crap) as a fertilizer for edible produce. No, the answer is don’t produce as much garbage as we do now. Charging for the disposal of trash will make people aware of just how much waste they produce. That, in turn, will work its way up the consumption food chain to suppliers who will have to pay for the trash they produce while making the stuff that becomes our trash.
The timing of Toronto’s pay-as-you-dump announcement is just plain bad, but let’s not discount it as a money-grab just yet. This is one time when government’s hand in your pocket might just be good for you.
2007 04 04
Corporate Knights On Energy & Conflict
Are Canadian energy companies damaging human rights? The recent issue of Corporate Knights magazine included a powerful analysis by writer Caroline Law on how some of these companies lack human rights policies that could guide them when their operations are in conflict zones.
Law reveals that of some 21 oil and gas companies operating in conflict zones, only 5 have human rights policies in place.
To read more about how companies are representing Canada’s commitment to human rights, see the online version of this story here.
2007 04 03
Green Camp Tonight
Green Camp 2 is on tonight at the University of Toronto’s McLennan Physics Labs. Here is their manifesto—of sorts.
I’m attending the evening and hope to see you there. The speakers tonight are George Belostsky (George Belotsky is a software architect who has done extensive work on high-performance internet servers, as well as hard real-time and embedded systems. His technology interests include C++, Python, and Linux. He is also the author of the Flightdeck-UI open source project.) and Garrick S. Ng.
Time: 6:45, Tuesday April 3, 2007
2007 04 02
Sydney Dims Lights, Saves World?
Here is a story that fills me with hope. Maybe we are smart enough to deal with the looming global warming crisis before it is too late. World newspapers reported Sydney Australia’s symbolic dimming of its lights. As many as two million city residents and businesses turned their lights off for 30 minutes on Saturday night. World Wildlife Fund spokesperson Andy Ridley said, “It gives you a lot of hope about humanity.” WWF organized the event but expressed surprise when more than 50% of the city turned off its lights. Overall energy consumption dropped 10.2 percent between 7:30 PM and 8:00 PM. As a result of their conservation, 24.86 tons of carbon dioxide was not released into the environment. Organizers expected only half that response. The WWF hopes that next year it can convince citizens of all the world’s cities to turn their lights off in a sequenced “domino” effect of darkened lights that will circle the globe. Let’s ensure that Canada makes a worthy contribution to the project. Last week’s news about bee die-offs and predator annihilation had me feeling pessimistic about the future. I think back to the world I enjoyed as a kid and am more and more aware that it is increasingly and systematically being destroyed. However, as a designer I am dedicated to the idea that considered design decisions can slow our decline—but we have to act soon. Sydney’s symbolic act is, I pray, a turning point representing a critical mass of citizen activism aimed at protecting the environment.
2007 03 30
McGuinty Government Moves To Ensure Most Vulnerable Share In Economic Growth
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2007/22/c5643.html
Will Environment Concerns Bring Down The Conservative Government?
The minority Conservative government is unhappy with the way opposition parties have rewritten the draft clean air legislation.
Tory environment minister John Baird fought back at the opposition’s contention that the Conservatives were slow to respond to environmental issues.
Liberal environment spokesman John Godfrey replied that the Conservatives asked for major changes to the legislation and got them.
Reuters reported today that:
Whichever party ultimately claims the environmental high-ground, Canada and Canadians must embrace the idea that there is no longer an environmental free ride. Every day we are shown signs that the environment is nearly some kind of tipping point that, if reached, will mean our work in protecting the environmental and ultimately ensuring our long-term survival will become exponentially harder. Yesterday those signs included reports of mysterious massive die-offs of honey bees. Today it was the report that the mass decimation of sharks is resulting in our-of-control growth of scavenger species whose activities compete more directly with resources needed by the earth’s human population.
2007 03 27
Ethanol Is Not The Answer
The Washington Post ran a story this weekend about something we at Corporateknightsforum.com have argued for a while now: Ethanol is not the answer to our energy problems.
The move to Ethanol-based fuels is about to politicize the food business and if that happens western governments will open a Pandora’s box of social disparity. Already in Mexico there are complaints that the demand for corn has changed it from a food commodity to an essential energy source and driven corn’s local price up more than 100%. SInce corn is a staple to regional diets, we have the situation where people can’t eat so North Americans can drive their cars. We call this situation a recipe for long-term social disaster.
2007 03 26
The End Of Net Neutrality
The Internet—as we commonly use it today—has been around now for about fifteen years. To say that it has changed the way we do things is to understate the obvious. Virtually every component of knowledge-driven human exchange has or will be influenced by this remarkable communications platform. The reason why is partly technical to be sure, but the underlying technology is not the only reason. If the Net had not been conceived of as a fundamentally democratic system where no node had dominance over another or no circuit hierarchical influence over a competitor, then it would not be as influential as it is today. The Internet has given us the power to change the world for the better through the rapid exchange of ideas and information. Look at the http://www.wikipedia.com as a classic representation of this ideal. Some economists and business theorists argue that the Internet represents one of the greatest wealth generating opportunities ever. All is not good in Net-land though. There are large corporate and governmental forces who don’t like the idea that you can phone Australia for virtually nothing using your Skype connection or bloggers with open-source news networks, for example, can influence elections. It is funny how companies embrace innovation and “free market” ideas when they can dominate but revile those things when their companies have to change or be superceded. A few big companies do not want to be dissintermediated, so they’ve come up with a plan. Their scheme goes something like this: You will have to pay more to ensure your circuits can effectively carry VoIP transmissions. Or, certain kinds of content will only be available to you if you pay more. Right now, everyone has access to the same content. If those arguing for a tiered system get their way this will no longer be the case. A great experiment in social democracy will soon whither into clusters of have and have nots. Paradoxically, this may give our greatest global competitors a huge advantage if they, wisely, choose to keep their systems democratically open. You do not have to be a business innovation theorist to know that open systems with bottom up information flows and equitable knowledge exchange will kick the ass of closed, controlled systems every day.
The people at Corporate Knights Forum ask you to let your politicians know that you want Net-Neutraility. For more information on the topic go to netneutrality.ca. Also take a look at Will Pate’s posting and video on the same subject.
2007 03 22
Al Gore Testifies Before The US Senate
“An Inconvenient Truth” subject and environmental advocate Al Gore testified before the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee. “We are facing a planetary emergency,” Gore stated. The problem, he insists, is a “moral issue,” not just a political one.
How can the U.S. reduce its carbon emissions to a manageable level? (This is where Gore’s views parallels in many ways those of Corporate Knights’ Editor, Toby Heaps)
2007 03 20
Federal Budget Provides Incentives For Fuel Efficient Vehicles
We will not provide a full analysis of the federal budget’s impact on the environment. We will, however, take a moment to look at the tax breaks on fuel-efficient vehicles. If you are buying a true hybrid—think Prius here—then you will get a $2,000 reduction in your tax. If, on the other hand, you want to buy a Hummer then you will be paying $4000 more. Seems fair to us (look at yesterday’s post about “externalities” to see why we think this). Already we are hearing the so-called “big three” auto makers in North America complaining that these taxes will hurt their already tenuous businesses. It is hard to feel sorry for them. I always am in awe to hear these kinds of complaints from free market companies who don’t see the big buying trends coming their way or see them and do not respond to them. Instead, they continue building vehicles that are recklessly energy inefficient. Gas prices go up - who would have imagined that - and, of course, people buy fuel-efficient cars. Gas guzzlers sit on the lot and get turned into scrap metal to be recycled another day. Did the budget go far enough in protecting our environment? No. The last word goes to Greenpeace: Greenpeace Canada spokesman Steven Guilbeault said the government “is clearly failing Canadians.”
2007 03 19
Does Free-Market Environmentalism Work?
No matter where you are on the political spectrum, odds are that as a Canadian you have an opinion on what steps need to be taken to salvage our environment. Some of you feel that government is long overdue in taking steps to reduce this country’s carbon emissions. Corporate Knights Editor Toby Heaps has argued for a carbon tax and an overall investment of $100 billion dollars. Others out there say that the free market economy will provide the means to this much needed end. “Free-Market Environmentalism,” as it is called, offers that the free market is best able to respond to the new demands of an environmentally aware marketplace. My experience suggests that like many complex issues the truth lies somewhere between the two polemics. Free markets are able to move far more quickly than government in certain areas. Governments can establish regulatory frameworks supported by law. Without the two working symbiotically we are bound to fail. Look at the corrosive expansion of the GTA’s suburbs for an example of what economists call negative externalities in the free market system. For a whole host of reasons many suburbs are unsustainable: they destroy Ontario’s food-producing lands; they virtually demand that households require two cars because essential amenities are not within walking distance; they assume cheap, abundant energy; they overload the region’s road networks; they don’t pay their share of infrastructure costs; they promote over-consumption; and so on . . . The free market drove this cancerous growth because externalities were not required to be paid for in the sale costs of those houses. In other words, the costs mentioned above were not part of the financial equation. If they were other types of housing that took external costs into account would have been developed. Clearly, government was complicit in this regulatory failure. However, as environmental awareness improves we are seeing government change its policies. Ontario’s “greenbelt" regulations are an example. In practical terms, governments must play a key role in the environmental equation. They are, after all, representative of who we are. Still, they have to be flexible enough to adopt the free market when in doing so will get us to our goals more efficiently. Can Canada set an example for the world to follow? Can we unite our free market and regulatory systems in a way that will be a precedent for others to follow? Corporate Knights think we can.
2007 03 16
Liberal’s Plan to Cut Carbon Lacking in Tough Love
Toby Heaps weighs in: Stephane Dion’s plan announced today ups the ante from what the Conservatives have on the table about five-fold in terms of impact. By relying on market instruments it will be much cheaper for the government than the current subsidy-intensive path taken by the Conservatives, but, without some lucky breaks, it is still only about a quarter of the scale that would deliver Kyoto. It’s hard to make a fair comparison, though, until the Conservatives announce their intensity caps and the Liberals announce the building and transport elements of their plan. Nice to see the carbon budget and deficit analogy, but it is missing the tough love message ‘sacrifice now to dig our way out’ that Paul Martin delivered back in ‘95. That may still be to come on the transport and building parts of their plan. The Green Investment Account to provide double dividend for GHG reduction action and keeping the money out of general revenues and in the provinces is tailored to the Canadian context and will make the Liberal proposal much more difficult to attack from a number of perspectives.
The potential holes:
Still lots of room for improvement, and I think most Canadians would agree. I am not sure that either of the two main political parties fully appreciate the extent to which the public cares about climate change. In my private conversations with business lobbyists working for heavy emitters who have done their polling, there is a lot of angst as they are finding the public is ready for far more radical proposals than we are seeing right now. Heavy emitting business may complain, but they should thank their lucky stars if this is the most severe plan they will face. I guess the bottom line is the Liberal plan puts about half the effective price of $30 on less than half of all industrial emissions. So it’s about a quarter of what needs to be done at the LFE level, but compared to the Conservative plan so far, it looks pretty good.
Dion’s Plan can be downloaded here:
2007 03 15
CK Forum’s Kyoto Gap Reality Check: Update #3
You may have noticed that the Federal Government is suddenly pouring a lot of money into green initiatives around the country. Could there be an election in the near future?
Corporate Knights Forum argues that these investments are not even good half-measures. Take a look at our $100 Billion challenge for a solution that will reduce Canada's carbon emissions to a manageable level. The following table shows how the governments commitments fall short of what is really needed. More Of The Federal Government's Recent Climate Change-Related Announcements
2007 03 14
U.K. Conservatives Go Green, Green, Green
Below are some remarks from the Leader of the Conservative Party of our Commonwealth breathen in the UK. If any of our four federal parties with seats in the house could muster up half as much green gusto, Elizabeth May would not have the total monopoly on Canada’s political greenspace right now.
|
Read what people are saying about the environmental issues that impact us all
Blog posts about wind energy
Blog posts about sustainability
Blog posts about green investing
Blog posts about hybrid autos
Blogs mentioning Zerofootprint
|
The best green news sources on the Net
Hugg
Green Car Congress
Green Girls Global
Grist
Eco Worrier
Inhabitat
Lime
Real Climate
Treehugger
World Changing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||