Voting For Real Change – and the Enviro!

Resisting the temptation to post – yet again – about financial shenanigans, let us comment briefly on the Environmental importance of the upcoming Canadian election.

Truly, the level of voter apathy may turn out to be stunning this year. Prime Minister Stephen Harper (and correct me if I’m wrong) has called a mid-term election in an attempt to win an overwhelming government election. This would be disastrous, and here’s why:

ONE: The Oil Industry is in his backyard – and is the heart of his voter group. He may quite literally be the driver of both the oil boom (new-boom circa 2004), as well as the housing overconfidence in Alberta – which by the way will make a sweet crack once it all comes tumbling down on exaggerated values. Here’s the problem – all the environmental damage that is being done now at an increasing rate because of our oil sands extraction (see: tailings up the wazoo) will be in vain as the industry is in the process of crumbling. I have read, and sorry, I am my own source, that our oil sands are only producing profitably at over $101/barrel oil. Watchout: we are approaching $50-60 oil according to some technical analysts. And, even if we don’t reach $50/barrel oil, the oil-sands projects could spend many a year trying to work towards profitability.

**On that note, when buying Canadian mutual equity you’re basically buying into oil/energy. Pffft! And my “advisor” keeps pushing me to buy-and-hold…can you say generational divergence? Mutual funds are out for me. Screw you all, bankers!!

TWO: To assist the struggling forest industry, Canada’s other economic heart, we need leadership that will, 1) recognize the ecological importance of protecting old-growth and original forest, and 2) assist the sector in both marketing and innovation for the use of second-growth timber. Forestry is a top employer in Canada and there’s no way the industry can be forcibly scaled down (free-markets take care of that) – our jobs need to be protected, and at the same time innovation and protection needs to keep jobs in Canada. For example; our top problem is the export (to U.S. and beyond) of raw logs. That leaves too many processes and jobs out of Canadian hands. In an upcoming recession – jobs need to be forcibly kept on Canuck soil.

In summary: Harper will continue to convince us that the Oil industry is Canada’s heart, but the truth is it must be scaled down before more irreversible damage is done. Stop damaging investing that will destroy our land and pocketbooks.

…and: if we don’t vote change into the Canadian federal system (VOTE GREEN!) – not enough is going to change. Liberal and Conservative agendas may speak for change, and show enough difference to convince us of a multi-party system…but what has the last 10 years given us besides the same thing, over and over again??

The same goes to American votes – vote real change!!!

Eye Of The Tornado – my late commentary

As the American public sits back – some reacting, some not – and wonders what their administration plans to do with their money, I set my sights on pounding out a new post on one of my all time favorite areas; investing and finance. I don’t write about it often, but it is a practical hobby of mine to swing-trade and invest, even in these sketchiest of times.

How does it feel, my friends, to have no power while your country may go another $700+ billion into debt? That China and the Middle East own massive amounts of your money? I’m actually asking, not just being rhetorical. Canada may see similar problems soon seeing as we mirror our neighbours down south eventually. That’s okay with me, as four years from now may be the perfect time to buy a house. I hope to buy one from a really depressed young couple with 1.5 children who jumped in too early for the sake of image and lifestyle. It would make me “the” happiest to buy a home in an aura of dark humour.

Here’s where I stand on the stock market: it will continue to shit and/or puke blood. Not all in a row – but until this sorts itself out.

Citibank Chart - which way is down again?

(chart from somewhere within Timing Logic)

My general thinking is that we have another 50% (value) more to fall before we reach 2002-2003 levels – which is when money, oh, sorry, CREDIT, really started to be snatched up out of thin air. The key is that this is not money money. This is money without the inflation (cheap credit) – and the inflation is yet to come. That comes when the bailout forces the hand of god to create more money out of again, nowhere. Something from nothing is still nothing.

Those who thought that being able to afford a house and or lifestyle that was clearly reserved for the actua-rich had this coming – now the other millions have to pay for it. Perhaps we could blame it all on Gen-Xers.

On Oil and Gas I feel the same. Their charts are looking mighty “sick” as some would say. The thin air between today’s (and especially 2007’s) levels is low pressure air looking to collapse. This chart covers the support/resistance points. He sees a short term bounce before we break that level at 140 which was set in 2007. It was all fake and trade – and we’re probably going to see it fail.

Basic trend - Oil and Gas

(chart stolen from Slope of Hope – Tim Knight)

I find it unfortunate that Natural Gas will follow suit in an Oil stock failure, but that’s how it’ll go as they’re linked in trade. Natural Gas may eventually trade as an alternative energy, as it’s better for the environment – but for now one cannot invest in Natural Gas under the impression that it is a clean alternative.

So as the stock market, economy, and world markets tremble like a flame-throwing lion with a bad case of the shits, I wish you the best. Be smart, and don’t buy in the “dips”, at least not yet. I’m short both the S&P and Oil/Gas using ETFs SDS and DUG. Don’t take my “advice” though, read-up or stay out of the markets. Oh yea, and if you own mutual funds try to go more conservative with them too – as low as 30% equity.

More to come…

For The Love Of Balance

Being environmentally-friendly is often about the larger-picture balance, and reconsidering the things you take for granted. Maybe you see your ability to get around by car as a given freedom, even a fundamental right. Propose to yourself that perhaps you’re wrong – and that years of habitual culture and advertising have told you that. Perhaps environmentalism, for you, is about sacrifice.

How about trading in your car for a motorbike?

In my and their defence, when someone comes across as anti-car, chances are they’re simply anti-overkill.

This is overkill:

Hummer Overkill

This is not:

While I woulnd’t call motorcycles the “environmentalists choice”, it sure is a viable and efficient motorized way of getting around.

Generally, a ‘fuel-efficient’ car comes in at about 45 mpg at best (excluding hybrids). Motorcycles like this Yamaha average about 78 mpg. That means that if you’re riding it consciously you could probably do better. Like not accelerating up hills, for instance. A simple four-stroke (one cylinder) engine is all one needs to get around (for fair distances).

Some reasons you might not want to get a moto-bike is 1) safety, if that’s your concern, 2) bad weather discomfort, if that’s your concern, 4) inability to lug things around, and/or, 4) your girlfriend won’t let you (and wants to see you in a Hummer) – see above picture.

To conclude, motorcycles are neat (see also: “cool”), and don’t drag around extra weight. In my opinion that is the overkill factor; one person occupying a hollow metal machine, dragging ass around the city. Driving half a mile to the store for milk and beer isn’t overkill, but 30 million people doing the same thing is.

For The Love Of Dissent

Just had an interesting experience at work:

An employee of my company conducted a survey on our collective carbon footprint a few weeks ago. I thought it was a good idea and volunteered to be the liaison for our branch, and to help set up the presentation on the results.

I did a quick walkthrough of the office asking when people would be available for the 15 minute presentation and out of 9 people I talked to I got:

**Two eye rollers stating:

“Why should I care, when there’s other countries of billions making one hundred times the waste…”

- ages 40 and 26.

**A moderate dissenter stating that it was a waste of his time, and company time etc – age, 26.

**And a serious dissenter arguing that “F*ck no, I can’t believe this person is wasting my time and company time on such a survey and presentation…” – age, 50. He also walked me through the fact that everyone in the company wasted 10 minutes on this, calculating the lost dollars.

I argued briefly (and only briefly) that it is important, seeing as we’re consultants who drive trucks around the province and work with and for forestry companies. We may be the heart of the carbon industry.

Honestly, I didn’t know we had such lackluster environmental consultants here (at work). Give them a paycheque and a map, and all else can turn to shit.

On Solutions, Bikes, and Tax Rebates

Carrying my bike up the stairs to my apartment I ran into a neighrbour on his way down, also carrying a bike. I backed off, letting him through, and he said, “What are the chances!?”, “Pretty slim”, I said, adding “…but getting better with gas prices and all”… It’s the modern pill – take to the solution when the problem has finally come far enough.

So while some move to bikes, in suburban America houses are losing value as gas prices go up. What used to be a good trade off and selling point – cheaper house for added commute – is no longer adding up.

Rack up a new inverse correlation: gas prices to real estate value…what exciting times we live in!

————————————————————————————–

In other news, I got my $100 Climate Action Dividend rebate from my friendly Provincial government last week. It is supposed to be an incentive to “help British Columbians live a lower carbon lifestyle”. That said, they’d like us to spend it on something to help us become (or continue to be) environmentally friendly. I like the idea, and I may spend it either on bike parts which I needed anyway, or one of those apartment (balcony) worm farm composting trays…yet to be decided.

Some potential problems with the friendly rebate:

• People will spend it on gas, directly or indirectly
• It will get lost in their chequing account, and spent on food. Or on gas getting to food.
• They were all sent out on paper cheques, in envelopes. Accompanying those cheques was a pamphlet with ideas on how to spend your carbon friendly rebate.
• Free-ish money sends mixed messages.

The population of British Colombia is approx 4.3 million, that’s:

• 4.3 million pamphlets wasted (or hopefully recycled)
• $430 million back to taxpayers, at least $200 million back to oil companies (sigh)

Positives:

• Conscious people will spend it on the right things, i.e. change light bulbs to energy efficient bulbs, water saving technology, etc. – and I like to think British Columbia is packed with conscious people.
• $430 million injection into the local economy, layered throughout the summer.
• We can look forward to more rebates/savings, this time available through the actual gas/carbon tax now (as of July 1st, Canada Day) officially implemented in British Columbia.

So, will we start to see more personal and government action? Will it be, again “the more things change, the more they stay the same…” ? From what I’ve seen and heard, Canadians are ahead of their government when it comes to environmental consciousness. That’s normal, as bureaucracy takes time, especially implemented through dinosaurs.

But here we have the chance, with ‘free’ money, to make a personal change thanks to the government.

If you’re in BC, what will you spend it on? If not, what would you spend it on? Do express.

LA River Part II: Restoration vs. Social Enhancement

Today, ecosystem care is a response. When we’ve trashed something enough that people start to feel the effects, it’s time for a ‘fix’. When it’s time for a fix, it is usually up to money – and whether it’s there or not – to decide which direction a project moves. Usually, when projects won’t turn quick profit the money won’t show up. The LA River group is likely led by business groups and advised by scientists; to find the money and think long-term, respectively.

The LA River project is one that I’ve written up as being rather groundbreaking. Its goals are listed below, and are predominantly social and economic. It is only groundbreaking because the publicity it will get – and following movements it will spark could be great. But I’m afraid that it may not be as landscape focused as it should be. Landscape restoration (which is what ‘restoration’ should be) takes into account the natural systems that surround a system, as well as the ecosystem at hand. That’s called connectivity, and should be a part of the initial planning phase for any restoration project no matter its size.

LA’s river project looks more like an ‘enhancement’, and much of the riverbank may turn out like this project in San Antonio:

Fair enough. It cannot be denied that the river is highly urbanized. Can we hope that the project will be designed to allow for the river to maintain itself naturally, through natural steam flow and tributaries? Probably not. What I do like is the community awareness and pride aspect. I just hope it encompasses some eco-based pride, and not just prime picnic space.

Are the project leaders seeing, but not particularly focusing on the greater story of the ecosystem? One needs to remember that Los Angeles rests on what was in fact a wetland and river system. All of which was eventually paved over, even the rivers. Where do rivers run? How will the ocean react? One of the first things that should be planned and assessed is the river enhancement’s effect on the ocean. To name but a few we should be seeing increased sedimentation, perhaps less water, and more organic matter. All of which would be okay (with an adjustment period), but the effects would have to be accounted for very early on in the process.

As it stands the publicized goals of the project are largely social, and mildly natural:

• …create economic development opportunities to enhance and improve River-adjacent communities by providing open space, housing, retail spaces such as restaurants and cafes, educational facilities, and places for other public institutions.
• Improve the environment, enhance water quality, improve water resources, and improve the ecological functioning of the River.
• Provide public access to the River.
• Provide significant recreation space and open space, new trails, and improve natural habitats to support wildlife.
• Preserve and enhance the flood control features of the River.
• Foster a growth in community awareness of the Los Angeles River, and pride in the Los Angeles River.

On restoration background, this is a good story showing that by restoring one element, others will naturally follow suit:
…”Part of the reason the Picayune Strand (Florida Everglades) is succeeding is because its objectives and strategies were sound. The project’s core initiative, to restore water flow, was right on the money. Restoring the flow of water impeded by canals brought back the flora, and now the fauna follows.

Though we have yet to see its real development, the LA River project stinks of visual enhancement. Like filling a lake with a certain species to ‘enhance’ the fishing experience, I fear ‘open green space’, (read: grass) so that people can walk and enjoy the scenery whilst shopping. It does have its charms, but serves a human purpose first. It’s no secret that they’re calling it revitalization, and if it weren’t so community oriented I’d bitch even louder. Oh, the horror!

re Revitalization : What do you think should be most vital to the LA project? Any comments regarding if city planning, in general, is natural systems focused at all?

Your World View and Our Planet

I’m glad I wrote my previous post which made me feel like a total capitalist once I had posted it. I’m not really sure what I am, but it serves as a good example of how I, and we, can all change for the better. Furthermore, it can serve as an example of what a few days of landscape ecology related (and the ethics and philosophy that surround it) education can do to one’s world view.

Much of what we think and do is at some point affected by our overall world view. That is, your philosophy, ethic, and work ethic. It can be changed. Before that, we have to accept that there are ways in which we can improve the way we see our surrounding landscapes. Think past the ’stage of life’ you’re in; whether you are family or career oriented, or take the bus enough times a week so that people can shut up already. Ignoring the fact that we are not thinking enough in terms of our surrounding ecosystems is egocentric and anthropocentric (that humans are the central concern).

Ecocentric is where we should be aiming more often, considering that we are much more intertwined in our respective locations than we think we are.

Looking at my position as a resource consultant, what I do is inherently anthropocentric, so far. Our general and most used definition of sustainability is essentially human oriented; it’s about developing so that we have something to invest in for the future. Ecocentrism and humanism can be mixed (I’m happy with making a living managing land and resource use), but ecological integrity is sidelined at our own peril. How we view our freedom to emit and consume is bound to change whether you like it or not. That is what it boils down to. Your grandchildren and their children will know what went wrong when they’re living with 95 million Bangladeshi refugees – and trying to get them to take taste tests to determine if they prefer Pepsi or Coke.

Which leads me to a challenge to brilliant marketers out there: Are you sure you’re promoting the right business? I can only wish we had as many clever minds trying to sell crappy products as we had trying to sell the importance of our land and general ethic.

My first ecological restoration course went swimmingly and I highly recommend, even for general interest and knowledge, that you find the time to attend something similar. It’s never too late, and new ideas and information are appearing all the time. For the next few weeks I will be continuing discussions on landscape ecology as it refers to you and me.

Update your world view, have a look:

• Eco restoration primer, some context: http://www.ser.org/content/ecological_restoration_primer.asp

…ecological restoration aims to initiate or facilitate the resumption of those processes which will return the ecosystem to its intended trajectory.

When the desired trajectory is realized, the ecosystem under manipulation may no longer require external assistance to ensure its future health and integrity, in which case restoration can be considered complete.

• U. Wisconsin Arboretum: http://uwarboretum.org/foa/

• Info, resources: http://www.ecologicalrestoration.info/firstpage.html

• Ontario and Info: http://www.serontario.org/

Feel free to email me and/or comment if you’d like some help finding resources and events for your own location or region.

On Surviving Greenwash Through Participation

I’m not 100 percent sure, but I think that the age of Greenwash – a word which has been around since 1986 (I’ll have you know) – is coming to an end. What is pulling Green back from the depths of hell is the advent of actual participation. Organizations too, are finding that it can increase profit retention and create work opportunities.

It’s like when the people you least expect start to talk about certain “investment opportunities” at work, daily. Or when your grandmother calls you to tell you that, “Gold looks like a good buy right now”. The same way parents can ruin a buzz-word, or signal its decline, reverting to greenwash-speak is no longer the way to go.

In which case, I no longer accept your “that’s just greenwashing”, (or similar) rebuttals or arguments. Technology has finally reached a usable point, and especially where technology is needing to be replaced (see in cities later in the post), green tech is the next big buy. One corporate example is the emergence of energy-based server systems (which Q9 Networks out of Toronto offers), rather than a square-footage based price models. Saving money makes it easier – and hardly a tough decision – to choose the energy efficient service.

Peter Wolchack, Editor at BC’s Backbone Magazine, says that this time (acknowledging that there are failures in the past) there is a greater sense of urgency, coupled with a greater emphasis on practical solutions. Mr. Zwick, at Schulich School of Business stresses that successful green products and services are ones that will be mainstream and cost-effective, “…because at the bottom line, there are still only a [handful] of consumers who will pay a premium for environmentally sound products.” In other words, the initiatives which work are those that deliver a benefit without requiring us to dramatically change our lifestyle.

When corporations are finding it finally profitable and marketable to be green (as it begins now), and cities join the initiative and practically force citizens to use the greener services, we all become green through participation.

**And I mean more effective participation than facebook applications and applications on blogs (which are neat nonetheless). Sometimes is takes a personal effort. Again, are we that lethargic?

In Cities: Just some examples from more than a dozen which have proposals to remove highways from downtowns.

• An ageing expressway in Oklahoma – an elevated 4.5-mile stretch of Interstate 40 – will be demolished in 2012. This will be followed by an old-fashioned boulevard and a mile-long park taking its place.
• Buffalo wants to get rid of its Skyway, an elevated highway that blocks access to Lake Erie.
• Nashville wants to replace 8 miles of interstate – parts of I-65, I-40 and I-24 – with parks and neighborhood streets.
• Washington has considered demolishing the Whitehurst Freeway, an elevated road that runs along the Potomac River in the tony Georgetown neighborhood. (the plan is on hold)
• Akron, Ohio, launched a $2 million study on tearing down its 2.2 mile Innerbelt that leads downtown from I-76/I-77.

Read the source article.

This is the greening of cities, and it is part of what I meant by practical, forced participation. Furthermore, there is no doubt that citizen participation will be encouraged and sought for the parks’ creation and handiwork; green technologies and services will be paramount in the marketing of contractors, and (therefore) the infrastructure work itself will be pushed to that end. To an environmentally beneficial extent, it has become about not being left behind: a sign of an uptrend taking its course.

So as you see your city’s infrastructure change, and your employer’s or you home life green-up, can you survive a greenwash? Can you make a practical effort to survive the fake?

Bring Back That 1st R: Refuse

In the public eye, the first and foremost of the original 1970’s “4 R’s” has been lost, and we are now seeing more of the “3 R’s”: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. Was it for the sake of consumerism, that the Refuse part was dropped? It was no doubt the most radical and important R, and it is apparently replaced with a final “Recover“.

Bring it back. Begin to refuse foremost, because we know when we’re buying too much; especially associated packaging.

The other day at the grocery store I saw 4 packaged apples (<–see a marketing vid.) – and I’m talking ridiculous electronic-devices type packaging. It seems they are part of some ‘phenomenon’ of marketing. “Grapples: Looks like an apple, tastes like a grape”. Absolutely shameful. These things are destined to fail, so please help them do so.

Speaking of consuming – vegans had it right first. They are the best conscious consumers, but are of course the most radical. Doing it for political and environmental reasons was too much ‘back then’. No longer. Original vegans and vegetarians are showing the world that they had it right first.

Refuse. Reduce. Re-use. Recycle.

The Best Trip to Work: Adding Value to Your Commute

Part I – Green space, Commutes, and moving them below ground.

First, imagine that you had to walk or bike to work – or downtown – everyday. Imagine that it wasn’t particularly because you felt like it, it was because there were no public roads to downtown – only paths through forested greenspace. This would be my impossible city planning ideal: if downtown, one’s common Central Business District (CBD) – would be the centre of a donut-shaped Green Barrier separating the residential space from the work and social space. A barrier that not only works for the environment, but keeps chaos out of a pedestrian haven by having you park outside its perimiter.

Sadly, I’m not building a city from the ground up, and neither are you (I assume), so the best I can do is provide you with tips to make your commute useful, healthy, or productive.

Before I go on, you should know about projects like this, which are always going to suffer for lack of funding. The gist of it is that several cities are interested in “capping” their highways. The idea is to purchase land in the airspace above freeways (yep, you’ve got to purchase that), and build green space so that it “caps” the highway and keeps it in a tunnel for a portion. It allows for new parks (<–visualization) where space to build them just isn’t available. In certatin parts of LA, up to 66 percent of children do not have access to parks or open space at a walking distance. Compare that to NY where only nine percent don’t have that access. Central Park must be partly to blame for that number – and a damn fine park it is. *endnote

Part II – Value-added Commutes

…But, highways won’t be underground and embedded beneath parks for a while. Furthermore, my donut-shaped traffic-cutting green space is only a half-reality in its more minor form where it does exist. So, thinking in more realist terms, if you do have a commute here are some ways to add value to it:

1) Taking it to a train and working during that time could add hours to your at-home life. Instead of staring at the rear of the car in front of you, leave work early and bill those hours you work during your commute.

My sister – who lives in Dublin, Ireland – commutes by train or bus for up to an hour and a half in the mornings, and sometimes two hours in the evenings. In which case she’s purchasing a laptop to take the work to her commute where possible. This greatly adds value to an otherwise crap commute.

Seek out if your city offers a ‘park-and-ride‘ service. This allows people commuting in from the ‘burbs to park away from the CBD, and ride the train or other public transport for the final portion. No more parking or traffic hassles!

2) Straight-up bike. This is a more difficult option for many, but if it’s there as an option I highly suggest you take it. Just do it. Do it twice a week to start, and move on up from there. Also, try that park-and-ride service by stuffing your bike in your car and pedalling that last bit to town. When your city has a capped highway (finally), take a route through that space knowing that you’re benefiting while the drivers below wish they were biking.

Taking this active approach allows you bonus exercise when you otherwise woulnd’t be able to get it. You don’t have to search far to read about the benefits of exercise to your workday efficiency.

3) Meddling with a car habit and finding alternatives such as the above is a great way to save some time and money. Time is money. Once you are finding ways to save money on commuting you are adding value to a commute. Explore your options!

I don’t commute (in its most proper form) and have never needed to. I bike about 10 minutes, or bus when I have to. I can’t really imagine having to properly commute, but if I did I sure would look for ways to maximize that time spent, or cut it out completely. The only value I’ve been able to add to my ‘commute’ is (besides my cheap alternative of biking) 10 minutes of iPod time, or reviewing class material when I was busing to my night class at the university.

How do you add value to your commute? Any ideas to add for other readers?

**(Giant hat-tip to my Los Angeles urban connection Reid Keller for help in my last posts on L.A…Reid works in the field of urban planning and has added unequivocal value to these two posts.)