I get my water from the tap

Life cycle assessment refers to calculating the environmental impact of the entire life of a product or service, from manufacture to disposal ("cradle to grave"). Life cycle calculations are usually more of an estimation, because there are always uncertainties with the numbers used in the calculations - some assumptions have to be made.

The side bar of an article on the trendiness of the environmental movement lists some of the life cycle costs of a few items, in terms of oil. For example, it notes that if 10,000 people

"stopped buying bottled water for one year, enough oil would be saved to fuel four cars for that entire year. "

Just some of the assumptions made for this estimation would have included the number of bottles of water being purchased, the brands of the four cars being fueled, and the distance the four cars were driven during the year such that that much oil was enough. Oil here is obviously representing energy. Therefore, according to the assumptions, it takes the same amount of energy to manufacture and transport those bottles of water as it does to power four cars.

But what if you assume that water was manufactured and sold locally, in recycled containers? The estimated environmental impact would probably be a lot smaller than if the same assumptions were used as for the above example.

If you're interested in doing some estimating based on assumptions yourself, I found an interesting article and accompanying spreadsheet that helps determine the most sustainable beer receptacle, the aluminum can or the glass bottle.

In the example of a car, an estimated ten percent of the total energy impact comes from its manufacture. Along the same lines, alternative fuel is usually a lot less efficient than it seems at first glance before the entire life cycle is examined, including the energy it took to create and distribute it.

Environmentalists use estimations like the bottled water example to get a point across, and get people thinking, and it usually works to serve this important purpose. But it is very important for mindful individiuals to think about the life cycle assessments, and the assumptions and uncertainties that go into them, before making environmental decisions. Most of the hard numbers you read really aren't that hard after all.

Fossil fuels

marriedtothesea.com


Sometimes, comics speak when words fail.

The Movement

Sustainable transportation has become a huge movement, and it's growing. To me, the proof is that people are talking about it, both in the news and with each other. Most people I talk to are not only willing, but very much want to share their opinion with me, from the vegan cyclists to the avid drivers. And despite what you might think, what they have to say is sometimes not that different in the end.

I personalized my Google homepage so that it loads a list of news articles related to sustainable transportation whenever I open my browser, and I'm continually amazed at what I find. The first line of this article says

"GM is committed to reducing the nation’s dependence on petroleum and reducing vehicle emissions"

and then lists how. That's great!

Locally, cycling advocates put on a Bike to the Future forum and then followed up by composing a Bike to the Future report to be delivered to city hall. They should be commended for their organization as well as for the speed the report was created after the forum took place. Way to go!

I also have to note a handful of portions of this week's Manitoban - articles about campus parking (or lack thereof), cycling, and a letter to the editor with a very special message about campus commuters. It kind of makes me wish I was still working on my undergradate honours thesis. I wrote a transportation demand management study for the Fort Garry Campus at the University of Manitoba in the winter term of 2006, just before I graduated. It was one of my absolute favourite academic projects from my entire degree, and also probably the one that I'm most proud of.

International Car-Free Day

Last Friday was World Car-Free Day. One of the big ways to celebrate is to close down streets and have a party, as Toronto did. Streets that are closed off to cars are incredibly comforting, friendly places to visit.

When I think about streets that are nice to walk in this city, I think about Old Market Square and the Exchange District, and Corydon Avenue, and Osborne Street. The Exchange hosts the Fringe and other festivals, and Osborne and Corydon are closed at least once a year each for street parties.

In Regina, where I lived last summer, I think about the street in front of the Cornwall Centre downtown that is permanently closed to cars, and the next block of that street that is closed twice a week for the Farmer's Market during the summer. I also think about Cathedral Village, which is comparable to our Corydon or Osborne and also closes at least once a year for a big, annual festival.

I think it would be amazing to close portions of the Exchange, Corydon, or Osborne, or a couple of side streets in downtown Winnipeg, from cars permanently. Potentially political suicide, yes, but amazing nonetheless.

Everything you eat, everything you wear...

... almost everything you use, unless it was grown or mined or manufactured or etc locally, more than likely travelled via truck to your city, where you bought it and took it home.

There are many arguments to buy locally as much as is practical, which I will later explore. But outside of these noble efforts, there will inevitably be some things you need to buy that were created outside your neighbourhood and had to be trucked in.

The Canadian Trucking Alliance wants the federal government to do more about improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gases, which should be commended.

"The combined benefits of the environmental initiatives proposed by CTA, [CEO] Bradley noted, would be equivalent to removing 91,000 trucks from the roads in terms of nitrous oxide emissions, 100,000 trucks in terms of particulate matter (which, together with nitrous oxide, are the primary elements in smog), and 46,000 trucks in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. "

It gives me hope that the trucking industry wants to see change too.

I take the bus

In 2004, California set some auto emission standards. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers filed a lawsuit in an effort to set the precedent that only the federal government in the United States could do so.

The alliance estimated new vehicles would cost about $3,000 US more if automakers complied with the California standards. Air regulators estimated $1,000. Either way, this makes sense as a concern. If cars cost more money, it is probable that less people will buy cars, reducing sales for automakers.

However, the alliance

"also said the regulations would reduce consumer choices because manufacturers would likely dump vehicles with higher emissions, such as full-size pickups with large engines. "

So when people want to buy a new vehicle, they may have to buy one with lower emissions instead of the gas-guzzling pollution-mobile they might have anticipated purchasing. In this respect, how is reducing consumer choice a bad thing? Should we fail to regulate the amount of trans fats in the food that Canadians eat because it limits the varieties of chips or doughnuts we can eat?

Interestingly enough, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers webpage can't say enough good things about what it's doing for the environment. The splash page alone lists that there are 9 million alternative fuel autos on the road today, and that manufactuers are committed to increase that number, and links to a whole "Environment" section that goes into further detail.

The latest info I can find is that a judge will be ruling on this lawsuit soon.

In a strange twist of fate, California is now suing automakers for global warming caused by their vehicles. I'd make some sort of Arnold S. joke here, but I'm too impressed by his recent actions to make any kind of joke on the matter.

The Economist

You know you've got problems when even The Economist laments America's lack of action against climate change.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7884738

However, from what I've read, carbon sequestration ("capturing carbon produced by dirty power stations and storing it underground") is not the prime candidate this article suggests for keeping down energy prices. The earth just doesn't have the capacity to make the huge difference that is needed.

Climate change vs technology vs blame

Welcome to the climate crisis (Ottawa Citizen)

This article lists the ways to tell if a politician is serious about fighting climate change.

Some good points to take from it:

• Climate change cannot be solved with any one technology (clean coal, nuclear, wind, whatever). That being said...
• "Technological change alone cannot achieve the 70-per-cent reductions in fossil fuel use needed to stabilize climate." Science can't fix everything, because we also need to change our attitudes, behaviour and habits.
• It is not all China's fault. Blaming the developing world in the climate change debate is fruitless.

"The Chinese, who use an eighth as much energy per capita, are only beginning to burn fossil fuel in large quantities, and they're using it to pull people out of poverty, not indulge their taste for Lincoln Navigators."

toxic nation

toxic nation - a report on pollution in Canadians

"No matter where people live, how old they are or what they do for a living, they are contaminated with measurable levels of chemicals that can cause cancer and respiratory problems, disrupt hormones, and affect reproduction and neurological development."

There is a lot of crap in our bodies. This should come as no surprise - everything that enters the air, water, and soil cycles around the planet and is completely interconnected with all the living things in it, including the most destructive animal of all, the human.

Remember that, next time you read about "acceptable" limits set for toxic substances.

Bag it up... or not.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2006/09/01/leafrapids-bags.html

Way to go, Leaf Rapids!

Plastic bags are not recyclable in Winnipeg. They get caught in the machines that sort recyclables, so make sure to reuse your plastic bags to the extent possible and then throw them out and not into your blue box.

To reduce your plastic bag useage, follow these easy tips:

• Don’t get a plastic bag for really small items (shove in your purse or backpack) or really large items (already in their own package, just carry).
• Take reusable canvas bags with you to the store so that you don’t use bags at all, or take reused plastic bags with you so that you don’t use new bags.
• Box rather than bag your groceries (e.g. 2 purple plastic boxes at Superstore hold about $100 worth of food, give or take)

You could even use old concert tees to put together a neat looking bag (thanks for the tip, N).

green building in Winnipeg

Manitoba Hydro is building a huge, green office space right in the heart of downtown Winnipeg.

http://www.hydro.mb.ca/issues/downtown_cams_north.shtml http://www.hydro.mb.ca/issues/downtown_cams_south.shtml

I have seen the plans and it is not only going to look awesome, but also going to save a lot of energy and be a great addition to the urban environment.

Also, our airport is getting some major renos - a whole new terminal that is going to be LEED-certified.

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

Great things are happening in this city!

Behavioural change towards sustainable transportation

I wrote the article on Page 14 of the Manitoban for this week.

http://www.themanitoban.com/2006-2007/0906/manitoban.current.issue.pdf

Climate change is a big problem, but there are actions that YOU can take to reverse the trend.

How are you transporting yourself sustainably? Have you taken part in the One Tonne Challenge? Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth? Did you change your behaviour as a result of either? Leave a comment and let me know.