No detectable recycling at the "John Wayne" Airport in Orange County CA

I had a weird epiphany of sorts in the John Wayne airport in California this morning.


After purchasing orange juice in a plastic bottle at the McDonalds I looked in vain for a recycling container.  I wandered from Gate 14 to the food court (gate 7?).  No recycling containers... None obvious at McDonalds, None obvious at Starbucks.  (the places putting the plastic bottles into the waste stream.)


I finally stopped and asked a janitor who smiled a gentle apologetic smile and motioned to the trash bin.  I gave up and tossed them in.


Ironically I walked past several large advertisements for the "Nature Conservancy", the "Toyota Prius" boasting 50 mpg and another environmentally focussed advertisement.  Makes me wonder if the environmental awareness or ethos of California is highly geographical, or if it as skin deep as much of the marketing and entertainment from CA.  Maybe some of the professed "Californian progressive environmental message is greenwash. Sorry California (and John Wayne in particular) I'm sure you're doing better in other areas, but not being able to recycle paper or plastic/glass bottles at an airport in 2010 seems like a rather obvious "oversight".


In the words of John Wayne, “Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday.”
So John Wayne Airport, I dare ya to fix it and post a photo!  If you are sorting all the waste from those big garbage cans for recycling, I'm happy to update this post to reflect that, but highly recommend you also update your trash can labeling.


[UPDATE: Thanks for the update "John Wayne Airport"! (see their comment below) it seems that John Wayne IS in fact recycling, but is doing it offsite by sorting their waste!  In many ways this "hidden" approach is even BETTER than visible because it catches items that folks at the airport would mistakenly discard in the trash.  Now this seems to fit better with John Wayne's  Environmental policy and practice statement on their website.  As promised here is my update.  Thanks for the quick response. (I'm impressed)]


Cheers,
Greg.

Is Walmart Helping Customers Ask Manufacturers to be More Socially Responsible?

On Walmart.ca I read this today;
http://walmart.ca/wms/microsite/GreenerGood/en/product_form.jsp
One of our Sustainability goals is to create zero waste. To that end, Walmart Canada has committed to reducing, reusing or recycling materials that would otherwise be sent to landfill.
Our company has challenged our vendor-partners to make more eco-friendly decisions when packaging their products. We have asked them to eliminate wasteful over-packaging, to include more recycled materials and to ensure more of their packaging can be recycled.
If you believe that a product you purchased at Walmart is packaged in a wasteful or inappropriate manner, please provide us your feedback and we will forward to the manufacturer.

So I reported the eggs I had purchased that were packaged in styrofoam and shipped 3450 KM from the packer to my local Walmart Store.  We'll see if there is any response.  I know our local costco offers eggs packaged in a cardboard/paper-fiber container that CAN be recycled.  I am hoping at a minimum Walmart will offer me the choice of better packaging for my eggs.  At the most, I hope they replace the styrofoam packaging and source their eggs closer to their final destination.  I'll update this post with any good news from Walmart on the "reducing wasteful packaging" front.

Sometimes its hard to tell the difference between "greenwash" and a genuine committment to make the world a better place.  I'm hoping it is genuine for Walmart, because it sounds like they have some really good ideas for making their business more sustainable from top to bottom. Check back to see if this particular instance makes a positive change.

UPDATE:  I haven't heard a thing back from Walmart.  I suppose this was greenwash / good intentions, or something they let slip through the cracks.  Sad....  Hey corporations.  Be good.  If you're good we'll enjoy doing business with you.  If you work hard to look good without actually being good, we'll find out and see through your insincerity.  So when you say "we want to hear from you". Answer the darn email. (and not with marketing BS).  Now I'll be the first to point out that incremental improvements are good.  If a company transitions from 20% good to 40% good, that progress is positive and to be encouraged.  However, pretending that a 20% company is as good as a 40% good company is insincere.  Action not words people.

Cheers,
Greg.

Why the 2010 Olympics are truly "sustainable"

We've heard people say that past Olympic games were "green" but for me the details have always been obscured.  I was pleasantly surprised to see the detail and depth of information provided on the Vancouver 2010 website by the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC)

flickr photo credit: TylerIngram 

You can read all about how VANOC worked to make sure the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver / Whistler sustainable.  There is a fairly detailed Vancouver 2010 sustainability report offered which details items like carbon offsets, venue specific construction details, engagement of sponsors and suppliers and sustainability education for the 2010 workforce. I was impressed by the breadth of VANOC's definition of Sustainable;   


"We expanded our program beyond the environmental impacts and benefits of the Games to include the social and economic dimensions of sustainability."


This broader view of sustainability echos what British Columbians heard the Green Party offer in their platform for the 2005 provincial election.  Regardless of who said it first.  It is a brilliant idea to have this "triple bottom line".  Can you imagine what the world would be like if every business had a bottom line that was financially, socially, and environmentally sustainable.  Good job VANOC.

flickr photo credit: TylerIngram

Cheers,

Greg.

Is "Made in China" a bad thing?

My friend Pete has decided to avoid (as much as possible) purchasing items made in "that bad place". He is jokingly referring to items made in China. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find items that are not made in China, from tools, to toys, to household appliances, exercise equipment and other day to day items. Lots of the items we purchase are coming from China. More and more it seems. Let me be perfectly clear in case any of you are having a bad day and are tempted to infer things that aren't here. I am not talking about "people" I am talking about "products" and business practices. China is the location of origin specified on the products under discussion. Ethnicity is not under discussion here.

Quality
My friend's objections to buying goods imported from China have to do with safety and quality. In his opinion there have been too many cases of low quality controls resulting in a measurable health hazzard. The list of problems includes deaths from bad pet food, melamine contamination in human food, and lead paint in toys. But clearly those examples don't mean every product is defective. Just because a product is from China doesn't mean it is poor quality. In many cases products we would consider to be of high quality are manufactured in China. Apple's "iphone" and "ipod" are manufactured in China. So while the design may be North American, the manufacture and assembly is handled by companies in China. Several dimensions of quality must be considered;

• Design (is it similar but inherently flawed?) 
• Materials (are half the parts not galvanized to protect against rust?) 
• Workmanship (is it slapped together or carefully built) 
• Documentation (Are the instructions intelligible, well translated, useful?) 
• Environmental (are toxic or banned materials used in the product or its manufacture?) 

Comparison with Japan
There was a time when products from Japan (like the tin wind-up toys that were popular in Canada) were considered "junk". Now Japanese quality is considered among the top in the world. Following World War 2 Edward Demming and others introduced statistical process control. A number of Japanese manufacturers applied his techniques widely and experienced theretofore unheard of levels of quality and productivity. The improved quality combined with the lowered cost created new international demand for Japanese products. Japan even began exporting expertise with programs like the Toyota Production System. The point should be made that significant improvement of quality came through deliberate action, not a "natural" process of industrial maturation.

Cost
How can a product that is manufactured overseas, AND SHIPPED here cost less than a product built here with no shipping? I don't get it. I understand that shipping a 40ft container to the US from China costs about $8,000US.  How could the production cost be so significantly lower that after shipping and import taxes the companies involved are actually saving money? Could it be that manufacturers in China understand how reducing margins a little wins them the contract over North American manufacturers who "can't be bothered" to make a product unless they make $x.xx per item?

Overpriced wall-tap example
At my local Home Depot store I found an orange plastic wall tap (a plug expander) for grounded plugs. Home Depot wants $6.98 + tax, but the Dollar(.25) store down the street wants $1.25. We are talking about a block of orange plastic with metal wires embedded in it. There is no way it is WORTH $6.98 + tax. Given my limited knowledge of how injection molded plastic objects are created, and my understanding of how the dollar store and their suppliers insist on making a profit (not a loss) on every sale, it is safe to bet that the cost of materials, manufacturing and shipping for the orange wall tap are less than $1.25. So if getting the wall tap made and shipped to the store is less than $1.25, why is Home Depot charging us an extra $5.73?
I have a theory and it has to do with markup. Assuming both stores want a 100% retail markup the cost for each becomes $2.88 and $0.625. Lets assume HD goes through an extra "distributor" who also has 100% markup. Now we're looking at $1.44 and $0.625. If the North American Manufacturer needs to make $1.00 per item and has a $0.44 "cost", we start to see how the manufacturer in China still has $0.185 of room per item for profit and shipping. So thats my theory, I'm sure you have your own which I welcome in the comments section.

Labour practices
Does the low cost for some products made in China necessarily mean that the people making them are being treated unfairly? Sometimes this is the case. In 2006, the Mail on Sunday alleged that sweatshop conditions existed in factories in China, where the contract manufacturers, Foxconn and Inventec operate the factories that produce the iPod. The article stated that one iPod factory, for instance, had over 200,000 workers that lived and worked in the factory, with workers regularly doing more than 60 hours of labor per week. The article also reported that workers made around $100 per month were required to live on the premises and pay for rent and food from the company. Living expenses (required to keep the job) generally took up a little over half of the worker's earnings.[154][155][156] Immediately after the allegations, Apple launched a full investigation and worked with their manufacturers to ensure that conditions were acceptable to Apple.[157]

The standard for "fair treatment" needs to be both acceptable to the people designing and purchasing the products. (Nothing to hide) as well as acceptable to the people performing the work and running the companies. Working for $x per day may sound awful in North America where the cost of a house is very high. Folks in other nations may be thankful for $x per day and could conceivably be raising their standard of living at those wages. So we can't have an overly paternal response where we need to control, nor an overly naive response where we leave the manufacturer to their own devices. The discussion of what is "fair treatment" is a larger discussion better handled separately, but I'd be cheating you if I didn't draw attention to the issue. 

Assuming the question of "fair treatment" is defined reasonably. If an offshore manufacturer can offer better prices by "mistreating" their workers, they are being unethical. If a company contracting work out to the manufacturer knows this, or turns a blind eye, they are acting unethically. Respecting the people involved must always come first. The response by Apple to ensure that the people assembling their products are treated ethically is commendable whatever the motivations. This blog has discussed "Fair Trade" products in the past. There is no reason this model couldn't work for manufactured goods as well.

Outsourcing our Manufacturing Base

I've seen ships piled high with logs.  Logs bound to go overseas where they will be milled and transformed into consumer goods. I've wondered why we wouldn't build those consumer goods here and take the associated jobs and the associated profits.  Seems weird to me that someone can ship logs half way around the world because it is a better deal.  Maybe companies overseas pay a bit more for logs to keep the jobs and profits for the finished goods.  Here in British Columbia I keep hearing news about mills closing.  I see a risk if North American corporations decide to continue this trend of "outsourcing" their manufacturing.  We'll have fewer factories, fewer trained factory workers, less equipment, and less capacity for manufacturing.  To think a dark thought for a moment.  What happens in a widespread armed conflict that spans continents if North America has "outsourced" it's manufacturing capability.  Before we could produce equipment, we'd need to first plan and construct factories, source and deliver raw materials.  Maybe we're past that point and all the new wars will be fought with dollars.  Lets hope we don't make shortsighted decisions that shoot our feet off.

Conclusion

I think in looking at this issue we need to fight our way through a lot of stereotypes like the arrogance of assuming North American design is superior.  In a world where the true costs are not transparent its hard to know where the money is going or why choices are being made. The long and the short of it demands that we treat everyone with respect, and that we identify hidden costs that might not be apparent.  I think there is the potential for a global community driven project that aims to divulge the "True Cost" of the products we purchase on a daily basis.  As explored above some of the health and safety costs may not be worth paying even though the "sticker" (retail) price looks attractive.

Cheers,

Greg. 

Our Carpool saves us $1000s every year.

OK, this post has been cooking for about 2 months and it is ready to be served.  I've got numbers.  I've got something I want to share, I'll do my best to put the numbers and the message together here.

My other posts on carpooling shared many of the benefits of carpooling, and I continue to enjoy those benefits.  Apart from the social benefits and the greater environmental responsibility, there are also some very real cost benefits. If you have the slightest financial inclination you know that expenses (like purchasing fuel) come after tax, and that for every $1.00 you avoid spending, its around  $1.40* you don't have to earn.  *OK, I live in British Columbia, Canada, where where we have a sales tax of 12%, an income tax and other federal deductions that eat 27% of each pay-cheque. So if you managed to save $1000, its like getting a $1,400. So that is my mindset and you'll have to forgive me if I jump to the "earnings saved" now and then.  I want to raise my family's quality of life without having to work longer hours to earn more money.  And since my commitment to Jesus precludes bank robbery as a reasonable means of acquiring "extra" money, I'm stuck with the ethical stuff like carpooling.  Financial benefits to carpooling... Today I'd like to start tackling those so that I can let you in on the secret that many (but not all) carpools already know.

So lets start a list of the dollar savings a carpool creates.  If I miss some feel free to add yours in the comments;

• Fuel costs
• Regular maintenance costs
• Wear and tear (unexpected repair costs)
• Exposure to accidents and damaged
• Vehicle replacement
• Insurance?

Fuel costs

OK, so the fuel costs are a no-brainer right?  Of course if only one car is rolling down the highway towards work with 1,2 or 3 carpool vehicles parked, you are saving serious dollars on fuel costs.  So my carpool avoids driving 60,000 KM per year, and with fuel sitting at around $1.00/Liter, and 10L/100KM being reasonably average, we avoid spending $6,000 on fuel each year (and avoids the need for us to earn $8,400.)

Regular maintenance costs

Oil changes every 5000KM are a good way to help your car's engine last as long as the rest of the car.

At 100,000km you probably need to change a timing belt, you should replace brakes before they disappear completely, air filters and other parts deserve replacement.  At 60,000km/year, we displace the need for 12 oil changes.  The "interwebs" suggest that $35 is an average price for a dealer to change oil, so for our carpool, we save ourselves $420 a year

Wear and tear

we have to replace tires, things go "crack" or "rattle".  I needed to replace my tires for$600 at 100,000km,   so $6/1000km seems like the price for tires.  At 60,000km/year, our carpool saves $360 a year on tires.

Exposure to accidents and damage

We get stones in the windshield, people put dents in the car doors.  The point is that leaving your car in the garage is the safest place for you.  Every time that car gets on the road you've got roadside salt and sand abrading the paint, random objects placed in your lane, manholes strategically placed to ensure your suspension gets its daily workout.  

Vehicle Replacement

OK, this is the big one. (I think?)  In Canada, the average purchase price for a light car is about $27,500.  Normal folk drive their cars about 25,000 KM/year and replace the car when it is 10 years old.  This lets us infer that the cost of a vehicle is about  $27,500 per 250,000KM  or $0.11 per km. (Honestly somebody help me out with these numbers)  given our carpool's 60,000km/year, we save $6,600 per year on vehicle replacement.

Insurance & Parking?

OK, my insurance company has a rule that I can insure the car for pleasure use and still drive it to work 5 days a week. Now, if there were zero disruptions in carpool, I'd drive to work 5 times.  life happens, and I'll always be hitting 6-8 days a month, so this one doesn't work for me.  BUT maybe your insurance company allows you a discount based on the percentage of the time you don't drive.  Its worth asking about.  They totally save money by avoiding risk.  They like it when you leave your car in the garage too!

Parking.  We currently pay for parking 4 times, but perhaps you have a better parking situation where sharing a parking pass among vehicles is acceptable (given that you'll only use one parking space).

So lets see what we have in savings given the numbers I could crunch above.

Vehicle replacement $6,600

Tires $360

Oil $420

Fuel $6,000

--------------------

Total $13,380

So there are 4 of us splitting the take on the carpool for a tidy savings of $3,345

Together as a carpool we all enjoyed a standard of living that otherwise would have required us to earn an extra  $18,732

So yes.  Our carpool saves $1000s every year.  You can too.

Save Time and Reduce Waste with Better Handling of Flyers & Community Newspapers

I don't like clutter.  I know advertising works (which explains the billions spent on it) the question is...  Why would I subject myself to advertising and allow my house to be cluttered just to give someone else my money?

Four times a week we receive a community newspaper.  Now the paper is mostly ads, advertisements, paid advertising and ads.  There are relevant local articles, but it hardly seems worth the "filtering" to get to the content.  Out of 40 printed pages, I'd guess 4 or less actually contain news.  Now I don't believe in mindlessly reading advertisements (and don't know anyone who will admit to this), but I must admit my relationship to the printed newspapers that appear on my mailbox has been undergoing a transformation.

I was curious what the impact was on my time and on the environment to handle all the paper associated with the unsolicited flyers and community newspapers I receive. To try and estimate the impact on my city, I'm assuming everyone in town does exactly what I do, and I'm believing the newspaper's circulation figures (averaged to 40,000 per paper) which I found on the Internet.  You will see some high dollar figures here, and this is because the cost to consumers is generally left out of the equation and ignored... Retailers don't incur that cost, it is the consumer's problem, so why would anyone bother to track or estimate that cost...  This is only a rough but fair estimate.  Now I'd love to make this more accurate, so if you take issue with the numbers, do us all a favour and contribute some research.  Here is the transformation in chronological order:

Handling Flyers and community newspapers (original version 1.0)

Initially we would bring the paper in, sort through the flyers "in case there was something good there", and put the papers on the coffee table to be read.  Then I would flip from front to back through the paper making sure I didn't "miss anything.  So including all the "handling time" bringing in the paper, reading through it. Picking it up off the floor after the small children decorated the room with it. Recycling it. I probably spent 30 minutes per paper and ended up skipping half of the papers completely.  The time spent "reading the paper" was time I didn't spend with my kids etc, so I'm going to think of that cost to me as $20/hour for my like many people earn.  The 150 grams estimated weight of the paper is based on Canada Post's "weight restriction" for mailing community newspapers (mine is probably larger) and 37 grams of flyers.  So 150 grams 4 times a week is 0.6 Kg per week or 31.2 Kg per year.

• My yearly time spent "handling" newspapers and flyers: 52 hours $1040


• My papers and flyers sent to recycling: 31.2Kgs (68.8 lbs)


• My city's yearly time spent "handling" newspapers and flyers: 2,080,000 hours $41,600,000   (this is the cost of consumer's time!)


• My city's papers and flyers sent to recycling: 1,248,000 Kgs (2,751,369 lbs)

Handling Flyers and community newspapers (updated version 2.0)

Then I recognized the time I was spending "tidying up" these papers all over our living space and I wanted to get the papers re-routed to recycling at the earliest point possible.  What I would do is "intentionaly"  sit down and skim the newspaper articles for 5 minutes, if there was relevant content I save the paper for my wife and tell her what is worth reading, if not, I recycle it and all of the flyers stuffed inside before the paper even makes it up the stairs to our living space.  (Sorry advertisers, your advertising budget was not effectively spent).  But this skimming is still an interesting activity to me, I'm not doing it because I am (at that moment) interested in reading the paper or learning something specific, I'm "reacting" to the newspaper being delivered to my door.  I'm voluntarily spending at least 20 minutes per week filtering out advertisements....   Hmm, how is it that someone else is "making me" spend time reading their paper....  That wasn't my idea.   Hey I could have used that time for something I WANTED to do.

• My yearly time spent "handling" newspapers and flyers: 17 hours $340 <reduced>


• My papers and flyers sent to recycling: 31.2Kgs (68.8 lbs)    <No change>


• My city's yearly time spent "handling" newspapers and flyers: 680,000 hours $13,600,000   <reduced>


• My city's papers and flyers sent to recycling: 1,248,000 Kgs (2,751,369 lbs) <No change>

Handling Flyers and community newspapers (New Era version 3.0)

So I noticed that when those friendly guys from the "Globe and Mail" would call, I would answer.  "Not really interested, I use the Internet." and they would simply drop it and let me go with no more "sales"... hmmm..  Maybe I could just use the Internet and replace my local community paper...  So I testsed this.  What I could find online (in several locations) had all the information with much less advertising.  In many cases it offered more than the news (videos and such).  I bravely asked my wife what she thought and when I learned that she really didn't use those grocery store flyers I'd been saving for years, our course was set.  We put a "No Flyers or Newspapers" sign on our mailbox and suddenly our house is neater, our recycling is lighter, and I'm facing much less temptation to purchase things I would not have otherwise purchased.  I'm estimating that I only spend 15 minutes per month looking for local news and information.  Only God knows the value of the "impulse purchases" I'm not making.

• My yearly time spent not "handling" newspapers and flyers: 3 hours $60 (Internet time) <reduced>


• My papers and flyers sent to recycling: 0 Kgs (0 lbs) <reduced>


• My city's residents potential yearly time spent not "handling" newspapers and flyers: 120,000 hours $2,400,000 <reduced>


• My city's could potentially save  1,248,000 Kgs (2,751,369 lbs) of paper from going to recycling (or worse) <Join Me! It's free!>

Adding back "The Internet"

Sure there is time spent on the Internet to find local information, but I don't think it is the same as putting a paper on your doorstep.  I think that when someone is actually pursuing information, and not just having it "forced" on them, they are able to dig deeper and learn more.  Sure I will likely look up some local events using the Internet, maybe 15 minutes per month when I NEED to know something specific.  But that is one of the major points I'm making.  Newspaper delivery was someone else's idea that consumed my time and wasted paper.

Other Resources for breaking your flyer addiction

• I liked the vision expressed by http://www.reddotcampaign.ca

We are fortunate to live in abundance where one of our major issues is TOO MUCH STUFF! And to keep us buying more, Canadians are inundated with $19 Billion worth of advertising each year. If the old adage is true, "half of all marketing works great, if only we knew which half" why don't advertisers spend more resources understanding which half works and spend the other half supporting community?

• Another small but useful site is:  http://www.iwilltry.org/w/index.php?title=Flyers_against_flyers_campaign which advocates convincing your neighbours to join you in giving up flyers.  They had some great images you could print out and tape to your mailbox (download the originals from their site).

• The Canadian national "Do Not Call List" operated by the government of Canada promises to reduce phone based solicitation.  https://www.lnnte-dncl.gc.ca/


• The "Canadian Marketing Association has a "Do not Contact Service" designed to get your name on a list their members might check before sending out mailed advertisements. http://www.the-cma.org/?WCE=C=47|K=224217


• A ?grassroots? attempt to produce a better "do not call list" http://www.ioptout.ca/ trys to overcome limitations with the "Do Not Call List" (charities are not restricted etc).

(Use the comments to evaluate the usefulness of these links).

Please comment to let me know what you think of all this.  Do you have paper taming tricks? ways to find local information that work for you?  Would you consider joining me with a simple "no flyers or newspapers" sign on  your mailbox?  Why or why not?

Cheers,
Greg

Save Money - Give your things away!

I'm going to let you in on a little secret...  The beauty of this secret is that it scales really really well, so the more people you tell, potentially the more people who can contribute and benefit.

[caption id="attachment_538" align="aligncenter" width="360" caption="freecycle logo"][/caption]

I'm talking about free-cycle.  You probably have a free-cycle group operating in your area.  The concept is really simple.  If you want something, you ask for it, and if somebody wants to give you that thing, they will contact you to come and pick it up.  If you have something you want to get rid of, you post it and people will contact you to come and pick it up.

Our family started with a micro-wave stand.  We probably could have got $15 bucks for it, but really... I don't want to operate a garage sale, I don't want to fight with someone over whether I'll take $12.50 rather than $15, and well I really just want to get rid of it so it doesn't waste my space.  My "interest" is unloading something I don't want to keep in my house.  The other person's "interest" is in getting a free microwave stand.  The environment's "interest" is that a piece of furniture did not need to be manufactured, stored, shipped and sold. (We've previously talked about "The Story of Stuff") The object's "interest" is that it becomes useful rather than just wasting space.    Sound "interesting?"  

This truly is "re-cycling" something useful to another person.  Because there is no exchange of money or other consideration, the opportunity for fraud / theft etc is super low (making this safer than other systems where money is exchanged for goods).

It works quite well, and I'm really pleased with the free wooden rocking chair I'm looking at across the room.  Not everything you ask for will be given.  "Lego" is a hard sell.  Nobody wants to give up their "Lego"!  It is an email group.  So don't use your work email. use a "junk email" that can receive a steady stream of offers.  

Getting started with free-cycle.

1. Chose a "junk" email address to use, because you are going to get lots of emails.

2. Find a group in your area by visiting free-cycle.org and typing in your city

3. Read the "rules" (guidelines) so you learn what kind of behaviour fits with free-cycle

4. Start reading and respond to items that interest you.

 

It is better to give than to receive.  Freecycle helps you do both in a way that is responsible; socially, fiscally and environmentally.

Cheers! Enjoy the free stuff.

Greg.

Observations on Mexican Transportation

For those of you who know my passions, you will recognize the sparkle in my eyes since traffic is the topic.

I couldn't believe my eyes as we left the Cancun International Airport.  A divided highway with overhead lights on the median.  Not only in the city , but in the country stretching for many kilometers.  The highway was well marked, well signed, well maintained and in most ways as safe as any other north American Highway.

 

[caption id="attachment_503" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Good Highway in Mexico South of Cancun"][/caption]

 

Illuminated LEDs embedded in the roadway guided vehicles to merge.  it was impressive even if this tourist highway was not typical of highways elsewhere in mexico.

This highway was a "1/2 freeway" not Interstate standards, but pretty close.

The highway was limited access, had some at grade crossings as well as overpasses.  Also seperating it from freeway standard was the provision of the uturn "retournos" where traffic could exit the fast lane, turn around and enter the opposite fast lane.  The roadways in mexico often use metal speedbumps embeeded at different interfals where traffic is expected to stop for a police check or an at grade intersection.

 

[caption id="attachment_505" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Mexican Police checkpoint"][/caption]

 

I noticed other modes of transportations in cities.  Playa del Carmen had more scooters than I'm used to.  and more bicycles.  Playa had dedicated bidirectional bicycle lanes seperated from traffic by a curb.  Practical tricycles pedalled by union tricyclests carry many local deliveries.  

Taxis (Playa is a tourist area) are plentiful as well as busses and collectivos.  The taxis were similar to anywhere else except for the reputation that Mexican taxi drivers have for being daring.  Taxis are not metered there, so negotiate your price before you get it and pay when you get there. 

The busses are like the greyhound or charger coaches seen in Canada and USA.  Plush seats, airconditioning, TVs, curtains (some seatbelts).  Taking a 20 minute ride between towns cost only $1.80 which is a bargain considering a similar trip would cost $5-15 in Canada.  It seems that those busses run very regularly.  Hourly or every 15 minutes.  In Canada you are lucky to get 1/2 a dozen busses in a day.  So as a Canadian I can't help feel like we are being ripped off here.  A poorer country like Mexico can make nice regular cheap bus service an option? (Maybe everybody owning a car up here has made that a difficult challenge for the operators here?) I wonder what I'm missing here?

Mexico has something special I haven't seen elsewhere in North america.  Collectivos are 15 passenger vans that operate somewhere between bus and taxi.  Heading down the freeway they will pick up people who need a lift as long as there is room left.  When full, the collectivo will travel at alarming speeds to get you to your destination and it becomes more like a taxi at that point, leaving main roads to drop you at your destination.

 

[caption id="attachment_504" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Collectivo"][/caption]

 

Those are the neat observations I made about Mexican transportation.  Thanks for listening, I'm glad I could share some of the things that impressed and surprised me.

Peace
Greg.

Carpooling Etiquette

Carpooling makes sense, you've been enjoying the benefits of carpooling for a while, you've adjusted to sharing commuting space and what seemed like a brand new adventure now seems normal.  Overall it has been good and you want your carpool to carry on, but there are these "minor annoyances" that are making carpooling a little bit tougher.  It started with the really strong perfume that made your car smell like... really strong perfume, then there was the coffee spill on your uphostery.  Life happens you know it could easily have been you, but then there were those surprises where some in your carpool just didn't show up without letting anyone know.  You waited patiently at first, now its almost a running joke that the carpool does not leave at the time you all agreed to.  You have put up with these annoyances, ascribed them to personal style or just plain ignored them thinking that maybe the behaviour would improve.  It hasn't...

Does this sound familiar?  I hope not, but for thousands of carpoolers, that is the reality of their carpool.  The carpool finds itself held hostage to bad behaviour, rudeness, inconsideration and the ambiguity of unclear expectations in order to retain the benefits of carpooling.  With the possible exception of a cement truck with no brakes, nothing will kill your carpool faster than carpoolers who don't respect each other. Let me encouage you to prevent that situation through the following approach to carpool Etiquette;  

[caption id="attachment_428" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Bono Holds the Door (flickr credit: dpnash)"][/caption]

Clearly outline your carpool's rules

It is only fair.  Otherwise one person's high standards and another's low standards could be in conflict even though nobody is actually intending disrespect or breaking a rule.  By letting everyone in the carpool know about the expected standard of behaviour, everyone can be absolutely crystal clear when they are not respecting the group.  Writing things down tends to make things much more clear than just chatting about them in the carpool lane at 110km/h.  Since carpooling is optional, a member of the carpool who doesn't want to abide by the rules can either negotiate, or find a carpool with more lax rules.

Abide by and enforce your carpool's rules

The strongest teacher is example.  If you are always "running a couple minutes late", you shouldn't be surprised if the others in your carpool also "run a couple minutes late".  If you can't follow the rules, then don't have them.  Rules are actually there to be followed.  On the other side of the equation, if there is no consequence for not following the rules, or the group is so fearful to point out infractions, then you might as well not have rules at all.  If the carpool feels free to point out violations, it sends a clear message that disrespect is not accepted by the group.

Carpool Etiquette - Rules you might choose for your carpool


So what rules should you have for your carpool?  maybe your carpool is composed of like minded individuals who share the same values, or perhaps there is a real diversity of backgrounds, and what means respect to one person is completely optional to another.  I've been hunting online for a list of carpool rules and drawing from my own experience to give you the following selection of rules to strengthen your carpool and improve everyone's experience.

• Be prompt.  Perhaps you think 5 minutes is nothing, but when it happens twice a day and 3 other people are waiting you just wasted 30 minutes of other people's time.  In our carpool, we wait up to 5 minutes then we leave. Leaving work on time after work is as important as being on time in the morning.  That providential meeting in the hallway at the end of the day needs to end before carpool is scheduled to leave.  If carpool leaves at 7:30, then 7:32 may be fine for everybody getting settled and buckled in, but 7:39 is clearly not "on-time".


• Don't run errands when you are driving the carpool.  This includes not stopping at the gas station.  Always have your car full of gas so you don't make your carpool sit at the gas-station while you fill up.  The point of carpool is getting to and from work effectively.


• Safety first. Everyone should feel safe, so the whole carpool adjusts towards the driving style of the safest driver (not the most hesitant driver).


• Avoid strong fragrances; perfume, hairspray, scented hand lotions all have fragrances which the others who are enclosed in the air-tight vehicle may not choose.


• If your work requires you to sweat or otherwise get dirty, respect your carpool by covering their seats with towels to protect the vehicle.


• The car should be reasonably clean and odour free in preparation for the carpool.  Clean seats give your fellow carpoolers confidence when they sit down in their best business clothes for the commute.


• Be sensitive with the choice of music.  No music is easier to manage.


• Life happens.  Call if there is a problem.  Communicate early! Lots of warning lets people plan. Remember they are counting on you. So have everyone's contact information.  Yes you can phone my house at 6AM if there is a problem.  Getting to work is important enough for my phone to ring.


• Let the driver drive.  His job is to keep everyone safe in traffic by paying attention and using his judgement.  Backseatdrivers need not apply. (imaginary brake pedals for the passenger are fine, call it a reflex).


• Set food rules;  Is coffee or food allowed in the car? (each car may have different rules).


• Don't have long cell phone conversations while you’re in the carpool.  It says something if you are ignoring the person beside you while having an enthusiastic conversation with someone who is not present.  Short calls to check in at home, leave reminders and take care of telephone errands are usually acceptable. (remember your audience includes those present).


• Avoid discussing controversial topics like religion or politics unless you know your fellow carpoolers well. While some people enjoy debating the issues, others may prefer a quieter commute.  Depending on the enthusiasm of co-workers in your carpool, you may want other rules to limit the amount of "work" conversation that occurs en-route.

Carpooling is about relating with others.

Rules are useful and necessary for bringing order and predictability to your carpool, but be sure to employ them with flexibility for maximum impact.  

• Think in terms of equity, fairness and putting yourself in the other person's shoes.  


• Discuss carpool costs together. If members agree to rotate the driving equally, then money doesn't have to change hands. But if only one person drives the carpool, passengers generally chip in to cover the costs of gas and parking.


• Compromise where you can - They want to leave at the crack of dawn, you want to leave 30 minutes later.  Try leaving at 15 minutes after the crack of dawn. 


• Realize that not everyone in a carpool has the same degree of flexibility.  While some members may be leaving a "spare" $23,000 SUV in their driveway, others may be single car families with much less flexibility since the rest of their family may have plans for the car when it is not driving the carpool. 


• Keeping money out of the equation may move you from a transactional carpool which is interested in the exact dollars and cents owed towards a relational carpool where you focus on giving and receiving a benefit.


• Consider seating arrangements.  Those needing more space or prone to car-sickness up front, and the most compatible or compact folks in the back seat where there is less room.

It is my hope that the tips I've shared above make your life and your carpool better.  If you have tips or carpool experiences to share, hit the comments below.  Thanks! Greg.

8 Suggestions for Starting to Carpool Successfully

So you are interested in the idea of carpooling but you aren't sure it will work for you.  Don't worry, you aren't alone.  Most carpoolers have stood in your shoes and wondered about the benefits and costs of carpooling.  With some encouragement and a little experimentation you can make carpooling work for you.  The following tips are born of my experiences and are provided to help you increase the success of your first foray into carpooling.

[caption id="attachment_411" align="aligncenter" width="240" caption="carpool lane (flickr credit: Richard Drdul)"][/caption]

1. First of all, take "Baby steps" and "try before you buy".  Rather than committing to carpool full-time right away, test-drive the idea of carpooling.  With some of the friends from my office, we started with carpooling a couple days a week.  This meant that 3/5 of the days were business as usual, but 2/5 were trying out carpooling.   Even if you only end up carpooling a couple days a week, you realize many of the carpooling benefits which might include; saving money, less stressful driving, carpool lanes, less wear and tear on your vehicle.  Pick a duration for your carpool trial and re-evaluate at the end of that time.  Say; "Well, I'm just not sure how I will feel about not having my own space on the commute, but I'd like to give this a try to see how well I do with this.  For the next month, lets carpool on Mondays and Tuesdays, and evaluate at the end of the month." Did you notice how the language was around your own experience, and not around the other person's driving or conversational skills?  This way you can easily say "No" without anyone feeling judged.

2. Pick good people, set yourself up for success.  Try carpooling with people you know.  Sharing a common office environment and of course knowing the people increases the safety of the situation.  You might find it harder (and probably should) to drive off with a stranger in their car. Sharing an office also improves the chances that you share common working hours and will have very little conflict regarding when the carpool arrives and leaves.  Choose people you are comfortable with, people you can get along with who you won't mind having in your commuting space.  Good people make all the difference in the world.

3. Schedule driving days in advance.  Unless it is Christmas, nobody likes surprises.  If the people in your carpool are forewarned about which day they are driving, they can; have gas in the car, have the car clean, and not promise the car to their wife that day.  Having members of the carpool drive on certain days, (I always drive on Mondays) gives a rhythm and predictability to the carpool routine that reduces stress. Naturally you will want to keep things fair so on some days there will be variation in who drives. (Wednesdays could be Greg, Jen or Mo) That variation should be predictable too, so break out your favourite spreadsheet tool and build a schedule (to keep at your desk, on the visor of your car, and on the back of your door at home) so everyone can avoid being "surprised" when it is their day to drive.

4. Clearly agree on how the carpool will work.  Will it be like a carpool bus-route, where the driver goes to several houses to collect people in the morning and drop them off at night, which requires only one vehicle to be in motion on a given day.  This is the most car efficient, but depending on driving direction and distances, may not be the most time efficient.  Will your carpool meet centrally so everyone is responsible for getting "down the hill" to the rendezvous point?  This could mean adding a couple minutes of buffer to everyone's schedule prior to rendezvous so they don't keep anyone waiting.  Will your carpool meet at the house closest to destination with cars left on the street or in a driveway?  It means a lot less hassle for the person with the handy house, but uses more cars and may mean those furthest away may be commuting many more minutes a day just to make the carpool work.

5. Be flexible.  Life happens.  Communicate early! Lots of warning lets people plan. Remember they are counting on you, so if something comes up lead time is really valuable.  Chances are you are carpooling because of the benefits you will receive or because you recognize the opportunity to make a positive impact through how you commute.  Keep this in mind when your carpool has complications.  Refuse to be "high-maintenance"  Did someone miss a day because of medical appointments? Relax, adapt, next time you might be the one requiring grace.  The need to keep a running total of how EVEN everyone is may be a sign that your carpool is headed for trouble.  That being said, it must be fair and feel fair. 

6. Drive well.  You just found some people that were willing to trust you with their lives on the morning commute. Honour that trust by keeping everyone safe.  In fact strive to raise the safety of your driving to match the safest person in your carpool.  Nobody should be scared in the carpool, and if someone expresses their fear, say "Thank you" and take it as a compliment that they felt you would be open enough to receive constructive criticism. Drive "Silky smooth". Richard in our carpool coined that term and we look forward to a "Silky Smooth" commute every time Richard drives.  This helps everyone feel comfortable, saves fuel and helps those prone to motion sickness to not feel seasick after the commute.

7. Bulk up your carpool for resilience.  If you have a 2 person carpool and 1 of the 2 people can't make it, the carpool is dead for that day.  If you have a 3 person carpool and one person can't make it, the carpool lives on.  3 and 4 person carpools are very resilient and able to continue on even if one person is sick for a week and another person has random work schedule changes...  You carpool when you can, and your carpool extends benefits to whoever can carpool on a given day.  Some days our carpool saves $10 in gas, other days it saves as much as $30 in gas.

8. Enjoy yourselves.  It's about community and it's much more than a business transaction.  If  you are social with carpool, after a short while you will find yourself  looking forward to the time you can spend with friends on the ride home.  Some of the tools to improve your carpool's enjoyability include; agreed upon audio books, baking or coffee in the morning, carefully selected music, the odd DVD movie (back seat only), and the normal exuberant conversation that comes after a long day at work. You'll have inside jokes and your own secret carpool language in no time... Well OK maybe just some inside jokes.

Carpooling is about achieving something together that you could not on your own.  With the 8 suggestions above you will greatly increase the chances that you can start carpooling successfully.  Then you get to enjoy the benefits that brings.

I hope that helps!  Leave your suggestions in the comments below so others can benefit from your experiences.

Greg.

Carpooling puts CA$H back in your pocket

By carpooling I probably save over $1500 a year in after-tax dollars.  I think there are other advantages to carpooling that you should know about which you may not have considered.

Let me start by saying that I never thought I would carpool.  The idea was fine for other people but, I liked the convenience of being able to come and go as I pleased, even though I arrived at work and left work like clockwork.  I thought I was probably a better driver than anyone I would carpool with, so from a safety perspective I didn't want to put my life at risk.  I also didn't really want total strangers in my personal space yet worked in an office that probably had 20 people I knew driving the same commute.  So I had objections which no longer apply at this point.

[caption id="attachment_363" align="aligncenter" width="160" caption="Carpool"][/caption]

In commuting all year with 2 other people on a 1 hour commute, we have gas costs of about $10 per day and the mileage driven is roughly 100km/day.

I have discovered the following benefits when carpooling;

• Less wear and tear on my car because I drive about 15,000 kilometers less per year


• Less parking costs when we are able to use one parking spot for all 3 of us


• We have personally reduced congestion in traffic by taking 2 cars a day off the road


• Saving about $1500 a year in gas


• By removing 2 cars per day from the road we have each reduced our contribution to air pollution by 2/3rds


• By reducing our gas consumption by 2/3rds we are reducing North American dependence on imported oil and conserving existing fuel stocks


• By leaving my car at home 3 days a week, my wife can use it to run errands, and we can operate our household on 1 vehicle rather than 2 (Save $1500/year on insurance, Save $2300+ per year on the capital cost of purchasing a car + financing)


• Since I drive only 1/3rd of the time, I am less exposed to an accident in my vehicle (which would be on my insurance).


• I've become a better driver through closely observing how the other drivers drive.  Jen calculates an optimal route and sticks to the plan.  Claudiu does not sweat the small stuff in traffic and maintains his cool etc...


• I experience "debriefing" time on the way home which allows me to get work out of my system with people who will listen, before I get home which benefits my family.  Along the same lines, conversing with my co-workers outside of work improves my perspective on things that happen in the office and gives an opportunity for me to solicit input outside of formal work channels.


• Those in our carpool have benefited from increased sleep time (mornings only), video time (backseat only), cellphone, reading and crocheting time and "staring out the window" down-time.  All of these are best done while someone else is driving.


• Improved safety in traffic because there are extra sets of eyes in the car which can help spot hazards earlier.


• A team dedicated to getting me home quickly and safely who work together to scan radio and websites for traffic and routing information when traffic get congested.  (Reading websites on your phone is not recommended while driving)

Others may realize additional benefits like:

• Access to carpool lanes which may reduce commuting time, stress and gas consumption/cost.


• Reduced car insurance costs if the number of kilometers they drive and the number of days they drive qualifies them for a reduced premium.

I think this list is pretty impressive, and I never would have seen all of these benefits if I hadn't started carpooling.  In a future post I plan to address carpool etiquette, and getting a successful carpool started.  I hope you find some of these reasons compelling to start thinking about whether a carpool could benefit you in your situation.

Leave your comments below if you have any questions or if you have realized other carpooling benefits.

Cheers!
Greg.

Are Myths about Clean Energy Hindering Innovation?

I have been observing clean energy since 1999, and since then I've watched some pretty amazing advances, and some pretty pathetic progress. Technology is making advances, but the practice and social aspects of change are not keeping pace. I live in North America, and here we use more energy per person than anywhere else in the world, something like 5 times as much per person as other industrialized nations. We are wasteful, affluent and often appear to not care about the impact that our “lifestyles” have on others around the globe, and on the environment. Looking to the future, it seems that this cannot continue forever, and that it would be better for us to change while we have the choice, rather than waiting until we are forced to make a drastic change.



[caption id="attachment_303" align="aligncenter" width="225" caption="coal power plant Flickr Photo Credit: Velaia (ParisPeking)"][/caption]



Energy is required to manufacture, to transport, and even to consume what has been manufactured. Currently much of the energy we have is produced by large corporations in a polluting, unsustainable and inequitable fashion that by definition of corporation and free market, has as its primary goal “making corporations money” and as its secondary goal “maintaining the status quo of those making the money”. Neither of those two goals will necessarily; Protect consumers from unfair profiteering, protect the natural environment, promote innovation, or allow for sustainable development of energy infrastructure.



[caption id="attachment_304" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Clean energy from wind power, flickr photo credit: kilobar"][/caption]



I propose that we are stuck in this place because of some of our beliefs. I don't claim to have a complete picture, but I'd like to suggest that there are a number of myths that support the status quo and thereby hinder us from moving towards cleaner energy. Lets debunk some myths that are commonly circulated:

Myth: There is a shortage of energy:

Actually every hour, the sun showers the earth with more energy than the world’s entire population consumes in a whole year. (source: Sesci.ca)

Myth: Clean energy will result in a loss of jobs.

Recently I heard a statistic that more Americans are employed by the US wind industry than the US coal industry. I think we will see a shift in jobs. New jobs might include designing, producing, selling and delivering parts for; solar cells, geothermal systems and heat exchangers, bio-gas facilities, wind turbines, hydro turbines, power storage and regulating equipment. Research and development to improve the efficiency and quality of these systems.

Myth: Clean energy costs too much money

From a consumer perspective, in British Columbia, the residential rate for electricity is 7.2 cents per KWH and 85% of our power comes from hydro dams. In keeping with Moore's law, solar cells are becoming about twice as efficient every year (as solar cell manufacturers purchase the technology no longer needed by the likes of Intel and AMD). A Geothermal system installed at a cost of $10,000 when a house is built can provide heating AND cooling at about 1/4 of the cost of conventional methods. So if $275 / month is normal, that means $825 in annual savings and a breakeven point of about 12 years. (Those with better numbers are welcome to comment). So likely a case by case comparison depending on what options are available and what energy costs are needs to be done. Certainly some forms of cleaner energy production won't be available in all locations. When we start factoring in "health" and "social justice" (no blood for oil etc) it quickly becomes apparent that there are some costs not fairly represented on the balance sheet.

Myth: Clean energy is only for granola eating hippies or tin-hat wearing wackos

Since utilities buy and sell power using the infrastructure of electrical transmission lines, your power could be purchased from anywhere. Without you knowing, your utility could purchase some power from a coal plant or a wind farm, and that clean energy would seamlessly appear in your house's electrical system. As stated earlier, in British Columbia, 85% of electricity used is from renewable (rainwater powered) hydro dams. So clean energy is something any of us could be using, whether we enjoy granola or not.

Myth: Clean energy is experimental or in its infancy, not ready for serious commercial use

Despite the persistence of solar energy displays and fuel-cell displays at local science fairs, these technology are actually well developed. Consider early designs of the steam engine which used "wet ropes" to ensure a seal for the piston. We have much more advantage now. In Denmark, the last time I checked, 20% of the nation's electricity was being generated via wind turbines. Denmark with it's shallow coastal areas realized that 7km offshore, the wind farms have nothing blocking the breeze and they are essentially silent and invisible as far as humans are concerned. Solar found a boost near its inception with the space race of the 60s if I recall correctly, and so represents a technology that has received barely 50 years of serious development. Perhaps solar finds itself in an awkward adolescence where we can see the potential, but we aren't quite ready to turn over the reins. Solar is a de-facto standard for remote installations like track side railway equipment in the Rockies, marine equipment marking channels, roadside traffic signs and solar calculators. So it seems the technology is there, the adoption however is wanting.

Myth: Coal energy is cheap

Not really, you need coal mines, transportation infrastructure, generating plants or furnaces to burn the coal, lots of air land and water to receive the sooty pollution and CO2. There has been the human health cost of mining and breathing that dirty air. An amazing amount of effort has been invested in coal energy, some of the excavators have buckets as big as a house. Leaving giant scars on the surface of the earth. Since the mining of coal and burning of coal are centralized activities, this concentrates the energy in the hands of a few (those who own large coal generating plants), now there is the added cost of distribution, such a system puts a wealthy few in a place to set the price of electricity for the people who purchase it. Coal is a non-renewable resource, which means once it is used, there is no more coal to replace it. Much like the dinosaurs who contributed to the coal, it will soon go extinct.

Myth: All energy needs to be generated using one method (All wind/ All hydro etc)

All or nothing thinking makes it very easy for a person to dismiss clean energy. However, a diversity of generating methods allow for a lessened impact on the environment and resilience in the event of a shortage of any one kind of energy generation (a shortage of rain one year might reduce the power that can be generated using hydro dams, when the wind stops blowing wind turbines are idle, when there are no waves, wave generation produces no power, when it is nighttime, solar generation isn’t effective.

Myth: Energy production must be entirely clean.

While that is a worthy goal, it isn't immediately attainable by most of North America. The myth is an error in thinking, a false dichotomy that says a half way solution, or a marginal improvement is worthless. This flies in the face of experience that teaches us that most real improvement is incremental and continuous. In other fields marginal improvements are celebrated and embraced, like the medical discovery that consuming baby aspirin fights the chance of strokes and heart attacks occurring. If we can even REDUCE our dependence on unsustainable dirty energy generation, we are moving in the right direction. So lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater, when we see improvement. Lets embrace any move in the right direction. One encouraging tidbit I have to share is that according to the Danish Wind Association (sorry if I got the name wrong guys). A wind turbine cancels out it's own environmental impact (refining the steel, machining, transportation, installation, access roads etc. in 2 months of full-time operation. 2 months is a fantastic payback for erasing ones own tracks so to speak.

Myth: Doing the right thing must provide higher profits than taking the lazy way out.

Somehow many of us have adopted the moronic thinking that somehow doing the right thing should be cheaper. We hear things like "Gee that wouldn't pay for itself for 10 years, I'm not interested", or "Gee that has a $10,000 initial capital cost" (as the guy signs a 30 year mortgage for the $500,000 house...) Sometimes doing the right thing will be as expensive or more expensive than doing the thing that will potentially poison the air.

Myth: Higher efficiency stoves/ furnaces / etc will allow us to be responsible while still using carbon based energy

While it's true (and commendable) that efficiency for gas furnaces and other items are improving, this is really little more than damage control. (putting the filter on the cigarette and claiming it's healthier to smoke). Carbon based fuels are not renewable, meaning we can't sustain their consumption. Carbon based fuels release CO2, CO and other pollutants into the air we breathe, risking our health. It is telling (and not commonly understood) that many furnaces burning "natural gas" may expel 20-30% of their heat energy up the chimney where it does not benefit the homeowner. "Higher efficiency" generally means cleaner more complete combustion so you are wasting less energy. We need to move away from dirty unhealthy unsustainable methods and start seeding the clean sustainable technologies that will outlast carbon. (Anybody know how much longer the Sun is expected to last?)

Myth: North America is innovative in energy production.

If Green-wash were a clean energy innovation, this would be true. It would seem that GM killed the (EV1) electric car despite people offering to buy out their leases. Many subdivisions in attractive neighbourhoods have covenants on the properties preventing people from putting up clothes lines or solar installations on their roofs because they are "unsightly". North Americans consume more energy, more products and more packaging than anyone else in the industrialized world. Most jurisdictions in North America have been very slow to permit/encourage net-metering and other progressive measures which would encourage de-centralized independent power production. North America keeps proposing "carbon offset credits" and other measures which essentially permit some fancy accounting and transfer of money without fundamentally addressing how the power is created. (Essentially it is purchasing the "right" to pollute by putting money in the pockets of folks who are doing the right thing.) Did you catch how the goal isn't to improve, its to "offset"? North America has incredibly skilled labour, good working conditions, lots of money and.... we are not showing anywhere near the leadership that is required to turn energy production around and get it pointed in the right direction.

Myth: If I can't buy it at Walmart it isn't really "available" (yes I heard this one)

Somewhere along the line we lost our spirit of invention, our willingness to risk, research and investigate. Anyone reading this, has the most powerful research tool (Google?) and the most powerful shopping network. (Ebay?) at their fingertips. Don't wait for Walmart to stock the $10 home fusion generators. Take some initiative and be the first on your block! :-)

I hope...

that if we could clear the air by addressing more of these myths, by getting the green-wash out of the room, by recognizing how bad the situation is, by encouraging government that would promote innovation that ordinary citizens could participate in. That we would see noticable progress. (Note: this is not the same as us sitting around watching our big TVs, waiting for government to "fix it".) Then we could find ourselves in the environment that nurtured the Renaissance of clean energy. Lets hope! Actually, join me and lets get out there and start making a difference. Anyone want to start an "at cost solar system/ geothermal system" mail-order charity?" :-)

Are there some other myths you've been observing? Add them in the comments.

Greg.

The Green Tree

Since 2002 I’ve been running this micro ISV (independent software vendor) and I’ve really enjoyed working with some great customers over the years.  In the current season, I’m taking stock of my life and auditing where I spend my time.  My small children and my wife deserve the bulk of my non-working hours, and that has never been up for debate.  Children however grow up and become more social and require more direct attention.  I’m making sure my kids get that from me, and adjusting the way that I work with GreenTree to accomodate that. 

One way that I have been attempting to honour my customers for the last 6 years is by filling in the gaps myself.  Where a customer has requested A and B, but really those don’t make sense without C, I’ve built C for them at no cost.  Where a customer has asked for a feature that requires massive re-working, I’ve shared the cost of that re-working with them.  So while they have seen some of the costs of customizing software, they have not had seen the whole cost.  I however had seen that hidden cost, often working unseen late into the evenings only to get up early the next morning for work.   So I’ve attempted recently to restore balance and cut out the overwork.

In order for my family or my business to be healthy, I must be healthy.  A tree providing shade to animals, soil retention to the land, and purification for the air, must be thriving.   I see that now, and I’m ready for this next season of re-focussing and prioritizing, of Auditing my life.  I am the green tree.

Greg.

Clearcut Housing Development

Here in British Columbia’s lower mainland, many people take the greenery for granted.  The trees seem to grow faster here than they do in other parts of the country (like Manitoba where the growing season is much shorter).

Here there are a number of constraints on the development of new houses, so new houses often displace mature stands of trees.  …we can infer that the lots for which there was a higher demand fetched a higher price for both developer and builder.  …There are plenty of reasons why a property with trees is prefereable over a lot with no trees. …

Here in British Columbia’s lower mainland, many people take the greenery for granted.  The trees seem to grow faster here than they do in other parts of the country (like Manitoba where the growing season is much shorter).

Here there are a number of constraints on the development of new houses.  We have an international border with the United States (which we can’t move to make more room for houses), We have the ocean (which isn’t moving any time soon), we have the Coastal mountains, which are quite steep and difficult places to build houses, and we have something called the Agricultural Land Reserve ALR which is a set of laws designed to protect farmland and stop ‘urban sprawl’ (Otherwise we would have a city 120 KM long and 25 km wide).

Forest land is almost guaranteed to not be a part of the ALR, so new houses often displace mature stands of trees.  For the developer it is a way to quickly regain some of the money he has spent on the land by selling the logs.  It also clears the land so there are few restrictions on where the house can stand.  Since today’s developers seem intent on subdividing land as greedily as possible (to fit as many dwellings as possible on the smallest possible piece of land, they don’t want to leave 20ft here for a row of trees, since they could squeeze another property in that space.  It would seem that the developers can’t be self-policing since they are guided by greed in squeezing the most profit out of a piece of land.  So it would fall to the cities and municipalities to ensure that the land being developed is “livable” and protected.  Despite the fact that taxes revenues rarely exceed development and maintenance costs within a city, many beureaucrats are still drawn by the allure of tax dollars.  Trees don’t pay tax dollars, but the small dwelling squeezed onto a property does pay taxes, so the trees are at a significant disadvantage.  For example Surrey British Columbia calls itself the “City of parks”, I think it should be called the “City of clearcuts”

On my way to work over the last few months, there was some land developed offering 8 lots, 3 of which were treed.  I noticed that  the treed lots sold first, I also noticed that the builders who then built houses on the treed lots, sold their houses first, it would appear that there was a higher demand for those lots which were treed, and according to common economic theory we can infer that the lots for which there was a higher demand fetched a higher price for both developer and builder.  If the value of the land was higher we would also expect that the City could realize higher taxes for the treed properties.  So we would expect that with a financial incentive to have a treed lot, that developers and cities would be pushing for more treed lots, but they aren’t.  If financial incentive isn’t enough to convince builders and developers to be self-regulating, then the incentive to preserve trees must lie in legislation and regulation that will force developers and builders to do what they would otherwise neglect.  The case for such regulation is compelling albeit mostly non-financial.

There are plenty of reasons why a property with trees is prefereable over a lot with no trees. Here are some:
1. Beauty.  The first reason is beauty.  Instead of seeing the neighbour’s oversized shed, or that freeway onramp, you see a beautiful tree that glows with the light of the sun, changes colours in the fall, fills with blossoms in the spring and displays icicles and horfrost in the winter.  Green leaves waving in the breeze help make your property a peaceful sanctuary from the rush of everyday life, while effectively hiding eyesores on ajoining properties.
2.Soil retention.  The roots of trees grip the soil and in hilly terrain can make the difference between a useable backyard, and having your house slide down the hill into your neighbour’s backyard.  Considering the cost of retaining walls, labour and proper drainage, retaining trees is a bargain.
3. Summer cooling.  A canopy of leaves can provide the indoor and outdoor space on your property with protection from the sun.  This translates to a roof that lasts longer (less thermal abuse), a yard and deck that are more enjoyable in summer, and reduced cooling costs in your house.  Conveniently enough,for deciduous trees, in the winter, those leaves disappear allowing in more sun during the darker dreary days of winter, which helps with heating your home.
4. Air quality.  Trees do a fantastic job of absorbing CO2 from the air and replacing it with Oxygen, which makes for cleaner more healthy air.  They even act as natural deodorizers making the air smell fresher, all of which is important in urban areas where there is a disproportionately high amount of CO2 and pollution.
5. Wildlife Habitat.  With very little use of space on the ground, trees provide a significant amount of habitat for birds and other small wildlife.   At our house (where we are privileged to back on a small forested park) we are constantly serenaded by pretty songbirds, something which happened much less in houses that were developed in areas without such concentrations of trees.

So this is my pitch to encourage you to buy a property with trees, to plant trees if you don’t already have them on your property.  To prefer buying a treed property if you are a builder, to not clearcut a development if you are a developer, and to not allow clearcut development in your city or municipality if you are in such a  position of civic oversight.  Thanks for reading, I welcome your comments.

Beetle Plague in British Columbia

3 000 square kilometers of forest in British Columbia have been infested with the pine beetle since 1997.

there is little discussion about why this is happening, only an accelerated logging program for the dead trees.  No emphasis on prevention, and the strange media announcement that the beetle infested wood is desirable.  Weird.  Sounds like ostriches with their heads in the sand if you ask me.  300,000 hectares of trees killed, and we aren’t asking why?

corporate denial? Government obliviousness (new word?)  sounds like a plague, and if I know my history, plagues were always sent as warnings, and people experiencing plagues stopped what they were doing and tried to figure out how they could mend their ways.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/

Fair Trade: The Bane of Slavery

Guest writers: Robert and Kim Daisley

Chocolate: the new nectar of the gods; the perfect pleasure; the sweet seductress. Oh, and it supports a multinational trade in slaves. Of course, I didn’t know this when I was gulping down Mars bars to stay awake on night shifts. Well, I mean, I knew that chocolate tasted good even though I may not yet at that point have made up the lame metaphors regarding that great taste and the hold that chocolate has on our society, but I didn’t know about the slaves. I was listening to CBC’s As It Happens and heard Carol Off promoting her new book Bitter Chocolate. She described the atrocious working conditions of many of the people who were involved in the production of the cocoa beans that are used in (and crucial to) the production of chocolate. She told how the beans can only be grown in certain parts of the world near the equator and how Cote D’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) is one of the main cocoa-producing countries. Off also described how the conditions in the cocoa industry (spearheaded by multi-national conglomerates such as Nestle) result in slavery.

When I called my wife and asked her to tune in to the program, she did, and found it very interesting. It also prompted a frenzy of research on the internet, covering websites from environmental, social justice, and capitalist (read “Nestle”) organisations. Of course, the information available conflicts in many ways, but after some analysis and discussion, we decided that the evidence weighed firmly in favour of supporting fair trade chocolate. Without rehashing all of the arguments for and against (google if you want to read them), the main reason that we decided to support fair trade was that we don’t agree with the concept of a multinational corporation dictating the “market forces” because of their near-monopoly power, the result being that the people who actually produce the goods live in poverty.

[caption id="attachment_359" align="aligncenter" width="225" caption="When you eat Fair Trade Chocolate you are saving the world"][/caption]

So we decided that we’d try to purchase only fair trade chocolate. It’s not always easy, it’s not always fun, and it’s not always possible. But we try and I guess in some small ways, we’re making a difference. For the most part, we get our fair trade products in Brandon. But since we learned about fair trade chocolate, we also learned about other fair trade products including coffee which can be purchased at our local grocery stores. Kicking Horse coffee (including the “Kick Ass” blend) tastes good and feels great.

It’s not all roses. Sure, we feel better about our purchasing decisions, but it can be hard on the pocket book. The coffee costs $12 on sale and last two weeks. But you can buy coffee for half the price in a quantity that will last four times as long. So when you look just at the economic cost at the checkout counter, it’s a big difference. And when we bought the fair trade chocolate bars, Kim noticed that they don’t taste the same and wasn’t actually too impressed with the difference in flavour.

Our bottom line, however, is that we remain firmly committed to fair trade products, as long as it doesn’t cost us too much (for the moment, we’ve drawn the line at those fancy fair trade, organic cotton shirts that sell for $30 instead of $5).

How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change the World? One. And You’re Looking At It.

Over at FastCompany.com Charles Fishman wrote an insightful article about Compact Flourescent Lightbulbs and their growing acceptance. 

"For years, compact fluorescent bulbs have promised dramatic energy savings–yet they remain a mere curiosity. That’s about to change... For two decades, CFLs lacked precisely what we expect from lightbulbs: strong, unwavering light; quiet; not to mention shapes that actually fit in the places we use bulbs. Now every one of those problems has been conquered. The bulbs come on quickly; their light is bright, white, steady, and silent; and the old U-shaped tubes–they looked like bulbs from a World War II submarine–have mostly been replaced by the swirl. Since 1985, CFLs have changed as much as cell phones and portable music players."

Personally we have put CFLs in our house in all the places where they make sense, and it feels good to be getting decent light for less money.  It even makes us feel better about leaving the lights on for safety or comfort without feeling like we're being (as) wasteful.  So head on over and read about Compact Flourescent Lightbulbs .

My response to the One Tonne Challenge

The government of Canada initiated the One Tonne challenge as an exercise to get Canadian’s thinking about how they would reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide by one tonne (1000 KG) per year.

My response: No more gas, Less wasted water, Less drafts

The government of Canada initiated the One Tonne challenge as an exercise to get Canadian’s thinking about how they would reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide by one tonne (1000 KG) per year.

No more gas

I moved into a house that is lit and heated with electricity rather than natural gas. We have our gas meter locked off. We plan to light and heat the house entirely with electricity. We have 85% of our electricity produced through green means here in British Columbia. Huge hydro electric dams capture our abundant rainfall yielding a huge benefit from that investment in this infrastructure that was made years ago. We need to keep thinking like this. Principles before profits. My friends warn me that electricity is more expensive, so I’m trying to soften the blow by making my house more energy efficient.

Less wasted water

When water is wasted there is less clean water for other uses. When hot water is wasted it contributes directly to global warming through the C02 released to heat the water. We have replaced faucets, and replaced faucet cartridges for 6 taps. We believe that this represents 22,000 litres of water saved per year. As you know it is usually the hot water taps that leak the worst. We’ve installed aerators (little metal screens) over the faucets to limit the peak water flow. 1.5 gpm (gallons per minute) for the bathroom sink 2.2 gpm for the kitchen 2.2 gpm for our low-flow shower head, 2.2 gpm for the ensuite bathroom. We have committed to only watering the lawn 1 time per week if it needs it since frequent watering encourages shallow root systems and the quick death of your lawn anyways. We have turned down our hot water tank to 50 degrees Celsius from 60 degrees Celsius. We have read that this is hot enough to discourage bacterial growth, and the reduction in temperature means that there is a lessened chance of our children being scalded with host water. I am also continuing my practice of always washing my hands with cold water, requiring no hot water heating and no water wasted by waiting for the tap to “warm up”.

Less drafts

We have installed a door sweep under our front door with brushes to keep bugs and drafts out. We have tightened the weather stripping on our 3 exterior doors so that no light is visible around the door frame when it is shut and locked. (yes we keep them locked). We have injected expanding latex foam under our door sills (lots of space for bugs there) into spaces around anything that penetrates our house’s ‘envelope’ (entry points for vents and wires). We have put drapes up over our largest windows which we close at night to reduce the transfer of heat through those windows.

Irony or tragedy?

In an ironic twist I read this on the “one tonne challenge” website:

The Government of Canada Climate Change site is currently unavailable.

We appreciate your interest in the important issue of climate change and suggest that you visit the following sites for more information:

• Visit Environment Canada’s Green LaneTM for weather and environmental information. The Green Lane helps connect Canadians, exchange information and share knowledge for environmental decision-making.


• Visit the Natural Resources Canada site to learn about the role this department is playing in helping shape the contributions of the natural resources sector to the Canadian economy, society and environment.

Now I know Canada has been getting a black eye for its “very slow movement” on the Kyoto accord and the obligations it made, but perhaps this black eye is deserved? <<Addendum>> Perhaps these comments are in appropriate. Canada has done much in the area of natural resources given its vast land area, while having to overcome the challenges of distances unknown to all other countries except perhaps Russia. We have to communicate and transport further to move resources from source to “market” we have to move resources further to move them from market to market. We have some challenges that no European country has. However, it would appear that Canadians are waiting for something. Waiting for the government to make the first move, waiting for the pollution free car to suddenly be produced by the car manufacturing corporations, waiting for the garbage they put in landfills to magically dissolve. Some Canadians deserve credit for taking initiative and reducing their negative impact on the natural environment, but others are waiting for it to magically become more convenient and less expensive to do the right thing. In this respect it would appear that our brothers and sisters in Europe have us beat as they consciously try to do the right thing at higher cost and higher inconvenience.