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!!!

For The Love Of Conservation

Gone are the days when one left the tap running while brushing our teeth. Gone are the days when leaving all the lights on in the house made one feel safer, more at home. But still we drive six blocks to the store. Fault of the city planner? This post is about working on the little things.

I’d like to blast out a little tune-up on several little things one can do to be the mini-environmentalist without even working too hard. Here are critical areas we should all be conscious of:

WATER: This is an easy one to conserve and is of utmost importance. All I’m saying is do what you can. Be more efficient in doing the dishes (don’t just leave ‘er running). Put a (well sealed!) Gatorade bottle full of sand (or water) in the toilet tank to save just that much each time you flush. Shower with a purpose. All the little things count, and if you’re on the west coast you know we’re in a bit of a drought now.

In British Columbia our electricity is supplied by at least 70% hydro power, so when there’s a drought we’re low on power too…

ELECTRICITY: This one’s been covered time and again, but it’s important to keep stressing. Do more of the little things like changing your lightbulbs (energy efficient) for the long-run. You’ll save in the long-run, there’s no doubt about that. If you live in Vagas you may think it’s a lost cause – but do the little things for your own wallet and you won’t mind as much.

GAS/TRAVEL: Uh-oh, here we go again. Find ‘alternate’ ways to carpool and/or commute. There, I said it. The fact that I bike to work and around my town clearly makes me a better person than you. Har har, just kidding. I’m too cheap to own a car, and you know what, that’s reflected in my savings account. I think that it’s been made clear (in many and most cases) that personal vehicles are utter overkill. Utter, I tell you. Keep it simple on two wheels, and get those legs working for you!

There we have it. I believe that change is becoming accepted as normal, but there’s still some thick skulls out there. I’ve been surprised myself at who’s never cared so little in their life. It has opened up my eyes to the fact that not everyone is willing to change the larger picture, but we can start with the smaller and work our way up.

Big change is scary. Good luck.

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.

That Fancy Green – more than just a colour of underwear

LEED, which stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, indicates a property’s overall sustainability by awarding points for just about any sustainable feature imaginable, from bike racks and rainwater collection and reuse systems, to energy-efficient lighting and low-flow plumbing fixtures. It is comprised of specific programs tailored for new buildings, existing buildings and tenant build-outs, and awards different tiers of certification such as Silver, Gold or Platinum, the highest.

Over the past few years, LEED has emerged as the industry’s de facto sustainable property rating system and become nearly synonymous with the term ‘green building’.

As much as I respect bike racks and rainwater collection, don’t mind me as I call LEED on certification shenanigans (in the simplest of terms) in awarding ‘certification’ for Green Building with low ratings in perhaps some of the most important categories.

See Orchard Garden Hotel. 26/69 points, 37%. A pass?

Enegry and Atmosphere, 1/17. Yea, not important, “energy”.

Neither is water efficiency at 2/5.

I only just ran into their site while researching something else and wanted to take note. Things labelled ‘green’ should be planned from the ground up, not just labelled and certified later in their lifetime to increase investment and occupancy.

Is Green much more than a pansy-ass word? I thought greenwash would be towed away…not yet it won’t.

The Words ‘Global’ and ‘Climate’ Shouldn’t Lead to Political Babble

I’ve been hearing some chatter, as well as read a little, about the US decision to put polar bears on the ‘threatened’ list. Some of the comments I hear, and from journalists who don’t know shit-all, say that it’s ridiculous because that population is apparently thriving. They can’t believe that the polar bear is a symbol of the threat of global warming, and can’t help but call out the ‘eco-radicals’ on their shenanigans.

Here’s a segment from an “article” I found (among top of Google search, which makes it all the scarier):

“What’s really going on here?

Kenneth Green at AEI exposes the politics behind the eco-radicals’ polar bear campaign and the consequences:

Listing the polar bear as a threatened species would have significant public policy consequences. It would set a new precedent, representing the first linkage of species endangerment with global warming. Such a listing would basically wall off the entire Arctic region to exploration, resource extraction, and development–at least by U.S. companies–and a threatened species listing would give environmental groups the ability to sue future U.S. governments to force them to reverse climate change by whatever means necessary.”

AEI – who chose to ‘expose eco-radicals’ (above) and write about how our bears are ‘just fine’, is funded by Exxon Mobil. Go figure.

I recommend only visiting that site if you want to continue to browse radical conservative shyte. I’ll save you the pain, and here are some comments regarding that post above which I found silly and misguided:

**WHAT?!? The polar Bear population is 5 times MORE than it was in 1960!!! WTF does an animal whose population is INCREASING land on the endangered list?!

**When will people wise up to this global warming farce? What a joke…

**I have lived in Alaska since ‘74 and I can tell you first hand it is NOT getting any warmer here. Of course we are sometimes influenced by the warm currents from the Pacific Ocean and so even in winter we can sometimes have a warm spell. I am all for a little warming, but it a’int happening!

**The polar bears at the Houston zoo do fine in the summer,average temp of around 95 with 90% humidity.

After throwing-up a little, I figured that it needs to be understood that the concern is more than imagery of a warming planet, and an ice-less polar bear (a threatened list doesn’t have the power to influence climate policy, yet): There should be focus on protecting land from further, and unprecedented development. So, lets say all that arctic ice melts back and polar bears die off. Saying that the concern is the bears themselves puts their previous habitat at risk of development free-for-all. That gives us all the more reason to protect what might be a future forest or grassland. Thanks, global warming.

An important step in curbing public opinion is creating a monument that opinions rally around. For example, how much would you care about the Bald Eagle going extinct if it weren’t a symbol of a nation? The bird may be a glorified crow when it comes down to it, but its bold eyes and American-esque wingspan make it a symbol of freedom and power. Like magic, we care.

Can we not leave human development out of at least selected habitats? It seems that when an initiative does so, there’s always a way to complain. We are perfectly capable of turning land into ecological disasters in every-which way, so don’t give me your politics to screw this one up.

Politics and ‘eco-radical’ bashing utterly confuses the situation and makes no sense. We should be seeing the habitat as fragile, and not focusing on just the bears.

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.

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.

How (the choice of) Identifying With Culture Can Be Bad For The Environment

I have come under (rather small) scrutiny for ‘preaching’ that certain lifestyles (or taxes) are better than others, that I am certainly subjective, and that I shouldn’t be making others feel guilty for their lifestyle habits. In which case I am guilty of ethnocentrism: the feeling that one’s own culture is superior to that of other cultures. Here is the problem: environmental and resource care and Green trending is seen as a culture. It spreads like a culture, it acts and it is marketed as one, so it faces the same limits as one. Although I feel that the sustainability movement should be independent of cultural biases (which will limit its proliferation) and that it should rather be seen as practical necessity – it will survive best as culture, and hopefully become as big as religion.

Look at this blog, this guy lives a culture! The culture is healthy, and the culture is working. But, it’s going to see adversity from people who’s lifestyle culture is based on supposed freedoms to act as they will…or will be trumped by pure laziness. The problem arises because when you’re faced with the culture of environmental morals, you now have the choice as to whether you want to identify with it or not. Remember, no one’s asking you to save the world.

Change is difficult: Change is tough, but it is worthwhile to change habits, and even location if it benefits your impact on your surroundings – as well as your comfort. Again, why should it take identification with culture to make the effort to recycle? Why effort!

The ‘how come they get to pollute?’, mentality: This is true for both individuals and nations. It is one of the (generalized) standing reasons for why Bush wouldn’t sign with the Kyoto protocol – third world polluters, as bad or worse, are not being pressured to sign to allow for their development, i.e. they all need to experience their industrial revolution. As for individuals, the difference will come one by one – like when we realize that our status symbols are major polluters. Maybe you can finally quit those battles for downtown parking: quit the battle and you win, as well as take the first step against laziness. Furthermore, realize these two destructive thought processes:

1) “if I don’t ‘X’, someone else will do it anyway – so it may as well be me“; and

2) It has already been produced, so I may as well consume it.

The second one is prevalent in wasteful consumption, like paper plates, coffee cups etc; things that are designed to be thrown away.

Ecology isn’t only for nerds: Ecology as a career, unless you’re working for Exxon or General Electric, is still seen as the land of the nerds. One of the best things you can do to keep it simple is make an effort to personally work towards at least one enviro-friendly goal. Second, push to work for a company or vocation that has an actual positive impact – or one that does well in promoting its Green policies. Then, realize that ecology is soon to be trendy again.

It shouldn’t be completely up to environmental careerists to make it simple for the general population to conserve, recycle, and be aware of individual impact. It sure helps when they do, but for the love of god – we are at least self-aware enough to know how and when we’re being lazy.

If we begin to accept the fact that environmental and resource sustainability is not about a ‘culture’ of care, we can start to see that it should be ingrained in our lifestyle. Perhaps those in our generation don’t have the passion to be the next great environmentalists – and the way we were treated to the entirely unfruitful Earth Day as children will add to that – but are we really so low on energy that it takes extra effort to apply ourselves to minimal impact?

Making life as easy as possible for oneself shouldn’t come at the expense of your environment.

Leave Your Shoes at the Door: Three Ways To Be a Friendly Visitor to Your Environment

When you visit a friend’s place, do you leave your shoes at the door, tread lightly, and attempt to have a minimal impact on the things he or she owns? Or, do you thrash around like a baby, and take and leave what you like?

We are just visitors here, and individually, we come and go. As humans we are increasingly messy and have historically been bad houseguests to our surroundings. Some would say that it is our right – as free-world inhabitants – to consume, affect, and do as we please (see 2^nd to last / 8:14pm comment ) because our time on this earth is to be enjoyed. But, my friends, it is possible to minimize one’s impact by being aware, and simply using your surroundings with compassion. We are visitors here, yet we:

…smear concrete and asphalt like pâtés wherever we see fit. So, use it to walk where it’s pleasant.

Roads and asphalt for the purpose of transport take up to 20 percent of urban space in certain cities in England, while in North America, roads and parking lots account between 30 and 60 percent of the total urban surface. So, who likes to walk? From the same source as above: Walking accounts for 88% of all movement inside Tokyo, while this figure is only 3% for Los Angeles. It’s not your fault that too much focus has been put on the experience of getting somewhere with the culture of personal vehicles, but what you do (we are a market, remember) will have an impact on what is built for your future needs.

Luckily, urban planning and design have put new focus on pedestrian, and car-reducing design. I have always been perplexed by how unpleasant a city can be for the person, and how – clearly – someone would want to spend as much time as possible inside a vehicle.

Overall, the pleasantness of your urban experience will have an effect on how much you walk and bike, but those two options will have a priceless impact on our land and air. Over the course of a month try crossing out up to ten of those normal drives, replace them with that alien, outside experience. Then, choose your next locale based on its non-vehicle options.

… have historically disregarded the need for habitat and nature’s services. So be aware of what has replaced it and the effect on its surroundings.

Along the lines of the above point, city living can be rather unpleasant. Habitat and natural space in a city is not just for increased pleasantries though, it is important to keep hydrology and cycles in its natural state for the sake of the city’s surroundings.

The biggest issue with hydrology is the passage of surface water – as roads and general infrastructure have almost completely bypassed the cycle of water through soils. Being aware of the connection between drains and runoff is important too. In some cities (I see it here in Victoria) storm-drains and gutters will have a little seashell or starfish symbol reminding you that what goes in there sees the ocean or other water next. Just knowing that this replaces soil hydrology is an important first step. The importance of soil is underrated, and we generally don’t know enough about it and our impacts on it. When our city’s roads and parking lots cover up to 60 percent of it, how could we? It is best if we take advantage of any natural space we have, and let the important people know if you need more!

…consume resources like there’s no tomorrow. So reduce waste and be a conscious consumer.

Things are changing fast: people are increasingly environmentally aware, and we have long passed any sort of industrial revolution; but the best time to have an impact by curbing consumption is now, recession-wise, and Dip wise. There is no better time to show resource, material, and crap-you-don’t-need producers that the future of their product is changing. Curbing consumption is the quickest way to a producers heart, especially of the things that will long outlive us – like cars, chemicals and plastics. As a visitor, know that when you leave it is only polite to try to leave as little an impact as possible, especially waste wise.

Companies that produce resource products, logging co’s for example, need to focus on either 1) re-stocking, or 2) restoring sites in light of the fact that there is a tomorrow. Being a conscious consumer is part of the equation too. One should at least attempt to buy the product that took the least amount of fuel to get to you. If that brings down Canada’s timber another notch, so be it: I’ve always been a supporter of corporate sacrifice for landscape positives. There are ways to do it, and consultants like myself need to find the ways to make them viable.

The message is simple and plausible, act the cautious guest. At the risk of seeming morbid, imagine that next to your gravesite (or what have you) when you die lies a pile of things that you have consumed and discarded over your lifetime – especially the non-recyclables. Finally, pass a good ethic to the generation below you, ensuring that they are cautious visitors, that their ‘death-pile’ will be considerably smaller than yours.

Three Baby Steps to Appreciating Land and Resource Use

It’s a big world, shit happens, and life goes on: just three reasons why people feel that resource use and the industry are out of reach. There’s such a massive disconnect between ourselves and where energy and wood is produced (for example) that it becomes very difficult to imagine having an effect on industry. But the truth is that our requests and complaints have a very small effect on their choices; it is about us as a market and the numbers they see in us. Believe me when I say that things only change when we need more, or we need less.

The other day I realized that we are making a mistake in using a name like “Mother Earth.” It implies that it cares for us, that it is nurturing. Our traditional approach with Earth and mothers is that they care for us, and when it gets old and fragile we care for it. I vote for the compassionate approach.

This is our Baby Earth, and these are some introductory baby steps to appreciating what it gives us.

**Appreciating Our Forests: There’s something to say for ‘seeing the forest for the trees’, but it’s hard to see them as anything but a resource when it comes down to it.

• People travel great distances to use them for recreation, this makes them a resource;
• They provide our cities and landscapes with stability. They provide cooling properties to our disturbed land (roads, buildings and pavement); and
• Alongside their products, they provide us with great need for discussion and citizen action. In fact, they bring people together for protest.

Here’s a bit I picked off the net to bring a factoid into this post: Starbucks uses up to two billion paper cups a year, of which 10 percent is recycled. That is not including the cardboard sleeves served with them, another two billion I would assume. Be weary of automatic consumption.

Overall, the best first step is becoming interested. I went ahead and decided that I have a favourite tree here in my city. You don’t have to be such a nerd, but it certainly helps to be appreciative.

**Appreciating Our Freshwater: Water brings to us what we need, takes from our homes what we don’t need, and flows through us day after day. Water is incredibly versatile, and more limited than we like to think.

Almost everything we do on land will have an effect on hydrology, one of nature’s most important systems. Land relies on water, water relies on land. Everything we do that affects its cycle should be taken into consideration.

**Appreciating Generations: Often, when aboriginal communities (and us that work with and for them) create anything that resembles a land use plan, they use what they call the Seven Generations Plan. Simply put, they are considering every move and its effect on the next seven generations that follow. Most importantly, ensuring that there will be resources to care for seven generations from now – pushing us to do our part in sustainability. As a community, and well versed at small-scale resource use, they are much better at ensuring sustainability.

The key to appreciating generational thinking is realizing that resource use and community are so interwoven that they cannot, and should not, be separated.

One of the hardest things to do is imagining what we will be leaving our children and grandchildren. We do – in a very general way – appreciate that what we affect carries on, but we are such an urban species that we feel individually inconsequential. Our effect on the land though, is entirely en masse.

Being aware of land use is easier as we are (after all) terrestrial creatures, but where water is concerned, we are used to its continual availability through taps and pumps. Try counting how many times you flush, shower, wash, rinse, drink and flush again. Think of the deterioration of a resource that needs to be available seven generations from now.

Think Baby Earth, and know its weak points.