Review of "Two decades of failed climate change policy" by Mark Jaccard

First, I want to apologize because while I heard the second half of the lecture, I couldn't take notes as my battery died half way through (actually, exactly half way through). So, the notes you're going to read are pretty much only from the first half. Since Mark is an academic (and so am I), I think I would be making him a disservice if I wrote what I recall. The rest of my notes are pretty verbatim (I type really really fast) so I think I captured what he said.

Second, my overall assessment. I think Mark's lecture was excellent. I know that a lot of people are going to complain about certain points that he made, or about his particular viewpoints on a number of issues (for example, on why he opposes Gateway). And quite honestly, I do disagree with some of his points as well (particularly in regards to carbon offsets). But the truth is, he really made it easy for a general audience to understand the rather conceptually complex theory behind environmental policy instruments. I think that there is a place for academics like Mark who are able to connect to general audiences and explain these concepts to them in an easy and accessible way. I know three other experts in the field of climate change in Canada who have the same ability, although they are based at UBC (not SFU).

He first started by explaining four broad categories of environmental policy tools to reduce GHG emissions from fossil fuels, based on four methods of reduction:

• Energy efficiency
• Switch to renewable energy sources or nuclear energy
• Pollution control (carbon sequestration)
• Catch-all

In Mark's words, politicians don't do the above. Consumers, households and industry do it. So, governments only have policy tools to lead us to change actions. The four categories of policies he suggested are:

• Information programs
• Subsidies
• Regulation
• Financial charges

Mark made a point that I found interesting - he is NOT an advocate of a carbon tax, as often portrayed in the media, but he said he was an advocate of compulsory policy because research has shown him that's the way to do it. That's not surprising to hear (that his research is often misinterpreted and portrayed in the wrong way on the media - that's happened to a number of other researchers - just ask Robert Putnam and his latest research on social capital, diverse communities and 'hunkering')

Mark also made a point that all previous policies that had been implemented in Canada had failed to meet the target. According to Jaccard, energy efficiency is more costly than we think (what he called the second inconvenient truth), but that doesn't mean that we ought not to do it, we still should do it.

While I have a smattering of other notes, I think that the best I can do is to just give you what were his main points. He suggests that non-compulsory policies (like subsidies, information programs, etc.) are NOT a substitute for compulsory policies.

I was a little surprised (and taken aback) that he apparently doesn't advocate or even like the idea of offsets (as noted below)

With apologies to people who have worked very hard to establish offsets emissions. It can give us a sense that “we don’t need to put in the compulsory policy”. An offset is a subsidy from an individual to another individual. Still has the same problems with subsidy – we have to try to make sure that the money will indeed make people behave differently – how can you be sure of that?

I do like the idea of offsets because (a) at least they're at least a first step in reducing emissions and (b) there are systems that can be third-party audited. But then again, each one of us is entitled to our own opinion.

Overall, I liked his delivery style, and it was an interesting lecture. I think that what VTACC is doing is rather important (educating people on climate change issues). I also think that they can't stop with three lectures and they need to keep this going. You'd be surprised. I got to the Canadian Memorial Church to see a room pretty much full with people who wanted to learn more about climate change. I don't think that VTACC should stop, they should continue the lecture series (and bring lots of other perspectives, even within the academic realm).

VTACC will make his PowerPoint slides available freely on their website (he didn't want us to 'read the slides' so he only showed one or two throughout the conference). If you want to learn more about what Dr. Mark Jaccard does, you can look here.

Recognizing heterogeneity in Vancouver's urban form - The pitfalls of EcoDensity

In a very recent post, Stephen Rees links to an article written by Erick Villagomez (a Vancouver-based architect, and I might add a very fine writer) on the actual urban densities in Vancouver. Making use of really nice visualization tools, Villagomez shows that East Vancouver is highly dense (despite whatever people's perceptions may be).

Since Rees asked the question "do you think EcoDensity(R) will make a difference)?" I figured I'd answer with a short essay of my own. Furthermore, I wanted to express some ideas that relate to the concept of urban density and the realities of sustainable urban form.

First off, we need to think about what we define as urban density. The statistical figures offered by Villagomez are in dwellings per acre. While one could criticize his data for not actually including the number of people in each dwelling, these data shed some light on whether there has been an increase in urban density (as measured by dwellings per acre) or not. Let's accept his data for the insights they provide - there are more physical units in more denser areas than there are in less dense areas. We don't know if there are more people there, but we could safely assume that it is the case (imagine 10 houses per acre with 4 people each house, vis-a-vis 10 buildings per acre with 10 apartments each with 2 people - the ratio is 40/200 or 1/5)

Clearly, from Villagomez's map (which you can find here) the Downtown core is the most dense area. There are some surprises with areas like northern Kitsilano having a comparable density to that of downtown (or at least so would appear from Villagomez's map). What I find interesting is that there is now evidence to support the statement that the West Side of Vancouver needs to increase its density.

Villagomez's point seems to be that we should look at homogeneous densification processes (e.g., achieving the same densities in East Vancouver and the West Side). That would be a good idea. The problem is that it would go against the realities of heterogeneity in urban form in Vancouver.

That is the point I am making in this essay: That we should recognize the heterogeneity of communities and populations in Vancouver. The West Side has been traditionally considered affluent and wealthy. The East Side houses more middle-income (and in some areas, low-income) population. There are natural heterogeneities in Vancouver's urban form that have been in place longer than I've been on this planet. We should find rational and smart ways to address these heterogeneities, and first of all, we should recognize them.

Now, don't get me wrong - I am not saying that recognizing this heterogeneity means that we should just keep our arms crossed. Not at all! I think what we ought to do is to call things like they are and tell the politicians that we are aware that there should be a middle-ground where some single family homes may need to remain. However, that doesn't mean that densification shouldn't occur. The chasm between the East Side and the West Side can be bridged with smart densification strategies.

One of the problems I see with urban planning consultations is that they are very prone to problems of NIMBY-ism (Not In My BackYard). Sometimes, communities even go as far as to go BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone). We should try to make it clear to the people living in areas that are potential targets for densification that the intent is not to bring crime to a certan area, but to reduce car trips, build vibrant communities and strengthen social capital. These would all be good objectives of an EcoDensity strategy. And to respond Stephen's question - no, I don't think EcoDensity is making a difference right now. But I would like it to. So, here's hoping...

Upcoming event - Ecodensity workshops (Vancouver)

It annoys me to no end that important events aren't promoted and/or broadcasted in mainstream media. Even though I was alerted to these workshops by an email from my friend J, I didn't see it in the news. Thus, I make it my duty to try and promote local, Vancouver-based events whenever I can. This is one of those important dates you shouldn't miss.

Ecodensity workshops will take place in the remainder of January 2008 and February 2008. From the City of Vancouver's Ecodensity website, here are the dates of the next workshops. If you want to meet me in person, I'll most likely be at the January 30th (unless, of course, Vancouver Blogger Meetup is the same day - which then would mean that I'd have to attend another date for the workshop).

The workshop dates are as follows:[City of Vancouver Ecodensity website]

Saturday, January 26, 1 - 3:30 pm
Van Dusen Gardens, Floral Hall
5251 Oak Street
Map

Wednesday, January 30, 7 - 9:30 am
Polish Community Centre
4015 Fraser Street
Map

Sunday, February 3, 1 - 3:30 pm
Croatian Cultural Centre
3250 Commercial Drive
Map
*Chinese facilitation available

Tuesday, February 12, 7 -9:30 pm
St. James Hall
3214 West 10th Avenue
Map

Saturday, February 16, 1:30 - 4 pm
Chinese Cultural Centre
50 East Pender Street
Map
*Chinese facilitation available

Please RSVP to ecodensity@vancouver.ca

Let me note that the locations for the workshops are fairly low-to-medium density. I wonder how would West End or Yaletown residents react to Eco-Density workshops. Same thing goes for areas like Shaughnessy or Dunbar. At any rate, I think you should participate, and feel free to spread the word.

The Provincial Transit Plan and Mexico City's case

There are lots of people raving (and some ranting) about the recently unveiled Provincial Transit Plan, with ambitious goals of a Skytrain to UBC, amongst others. Since there are other bloggers who have covered the issue much better than me (like Stephen Rees, Gordon Price and Paul Hillsdon), I figured that I should examine the issue from a different perspective, so here it is. I'm not a transportation policy expert, but I do know a few things about urban planning and sustainability.

One of the things that surprises me (to this day) is the size of the Metro Vancouver region (formerly the Greater Vancouver Regional District) and it poorly designed transit system. Compared to Mexico City, Metro Vancouver has roughly one-tenth of the population, and a GDP per capita about ten times higher. However, if you look at the Metro system in Mexico City, the latter is so much better and so much more used than the Skytrain, that it does beg the question - why is it that a city in a third-world, relatively poorer country can have such a stellar transportation system as compared to Vancouver (which is supposed to be a world-class, affluent, wealthy, first-world kind of city).


The Metro system in Mexico City [Photo credit: Wikipedia's entry on Mexico City Metro]

Don't get me wrong. There IS a reason why I live in this city. But it's not its transportation system, for sure. I am well aware of the air pollution problems in Mexico City, and I also know the argument that these problems are in large measure due to the excessive number of cars (here is a link to a study that looked interesting). However, it is indeed true that the Metro system in Mexico City kicks ass. You can get pretty much anywhere within the urban core. So much that, when having conversations with residents of Mexico City, they make geographical references to specific Metro stations. For example, one of my very best friends used to live a block away from Metro Mixcoac. The bus station is at Metro Autobuses del Norte. The Benito Juarez International Airport has a station at Metro Terminal Aérea. The Zócalo has a Metro station, so does the Palacio de Bellas Artes, and the Plaza de las Tres Culturas is pretty much within five blocks of Metro Tlatelolco.

Having enjoyed the Metro system (and the peseras) in Mexico City less than two weeks ago (accompanied by a Canadian, indeed), I can't help but laugh at the irony that Mexico City's transportation system can be so much better than that of the whole province of British Columbia (in my opinion, of course ... if you have enough data and a good solid argument to defeat my proposition, I'm happy to discuss it).

Viewing this issue from another angle, if you think about it, unless Metro Vancouver creates a smart growth/smart transportation strategy, its air quality going to end up much worse than Mexico City. Just think about it for a second... if it is true (I still have my doubts) that Mexico City's air pollution is due to the excessive number of polluting cars and other vehicles, even with a kick-ass, world-class Metro system like the one it has, can you imagine what will happen to Metro Vancouver a few years down the road?

Sometimes, when analyzing policy (and creating new policies), it's useful to look at how other cities/regions/countries are doing things, and first-world countries can learn from third-world countries too, just as much. It would be good for Metro Vancouver to look at Mexico City as an example of a solid transportation system that moves millions of people around. Thoughts anyone?

Transportation policy Hillsdon-style

I learned about Paul Hillsdon's blog through other bloggers, such as Miss604, Keefer, Gordon Price, Erika Rathje and Stephen Rees. I was shocked at first to hear that he was just 16 (at the time, he's now 17). His posts are extremely well written, coherent and articulate.

Well, his readership is exploding now, in part because he wrote a really well-researched plan for transportation South of the Fraser river (I would suggest you go to Price' or Rees' blogs for discussions on the matter, as Paul's server is overwhelmed - you can also check the Livable Region Coalition blog).

The point I would like to make (since I am not really a transportation kind of guy - but I do have other strengths in urban planning and sustainability) is that instead of just complaining, Paul's plan is making suggestions. I would like to encourage other bloggers, readers, citizens of Vancouver and the Metro Vancouver (formerly GVRD) area to write proposals and offer suggestions. It's easy to rant and whine, and hard to research a topic and put countless hours into developing a coherent and well-analyzed report. Let's all try to follow Paul's example and use the second strategy. Congratulations Paul!

Upcoming event - Homelessness Action Week 2007

The connections between urban sprawl, sustainability, extreme poverty, homelessness and unaffordability of housing are undeniable. The residential housing market in Vancouver has grwon stronger in the past few years. However, it is also undeniable that social housing is a need in the Metro Vancouver area. The Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness has designated October 15th to 21st, 2007 as Homelessness Action Week.

While there are many being organized around Metro Vancouver, you can check the Vancouver events here. There are two specific ones to which I would like to call your attention (from their website):

Friday October 19: Sandwich and Blanket Handout to Street Homeless
When: 4–6 p.m.
Where: Broadway Youth Resource Centre, 691 E. Broadway

Saturday, October 20: Under One Umbrella
A community service fair for people who are homeless, street-involved, or living in poverty in Grandview Woodlands and surrounding areas. In addition to services, there will be food and entertainment. For more information, please contact the Grandview Woodlands Drug and Alcohol Coalition at:
T: 604.215.3907
When: 10:00 AM - 3:00 PM
Where: Aboriginal Friendship Centre, 1607 E. Hastings St, Vancouver

I strongly believe that sustainability and social responsibility starts at home. Thus, I would like to invite you dear readers to partake in one or more of these events. Because everybody has a right to a life with dignity and a home.

Sustainable transportation in Vancouver

Today I had a really hard time taking the 99 B-Line. Most buses went through, fully loaded with people. As someone with an environmentally-minded orientation, I should be happy. But I can't be happy because, even though we are making more use of public transit, we are indeed over capacity. The popularity of the U-Pass (a universal bus pass for students at UBC and SFU) has made it commuting much easier (as it covers all three zones of the Lower Mainland).

Sustainable transportation should also be climate-neutral, in my humble opinion. I was talking about this topic with Marcela, who is very passionate about sustainable transportation. For example, she was suggesting that street-light coordination would be but just one of the many ways in which you could streamline traffic in the Metropolitan Zone of Guadalajara. I don't know since I don't work in transportation, but I'll take her word for it :-)

The World Urban Forum in Vancouver - June 19th to 23rd, 2006

Well, I picked up today my badge and registration package for the III World Urban Forum that will take place in Vancouver from June 19th to 23rd.

Given my interest in urban sustainability and the politics of environmental regulation, water sanitation, patterns of land use and zoning, it is fitting that this event is taking place in the city where I live now. Lucky me! I was unfortunately away from Mexico when the 4th World Water Forum took place (too bad, since water policy is one of my research interests). But at least I got to attend one megaconference in 2006.

But there is one substantial difference between WUF3 and 4WWF (that's how they like to be called, really!) is that WUF3 was 100% free. Gratis. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Whereas, to ensure participation in the 4WWF you would have had to shell out in the realm of $ 600.00 US (six hundred US dollars). Now, quite obviously WUF will have substantial participation from NGOs, academia and the general public, simply because it is taking place here and it is entirely free!

The Georgia Straight has a full issue devoted to the World Urban Forum, which you can check out if you click here. Note that this link may disappear after WUF, but hopefully you will be able to search the GS archives. The actual website of WUF is really neat, and I am sure that there will be lots of things to be said and discussed there.

I'll be posting some of my thoughts on WUF3 throughout the week. Besides, it is a great opportunity to network :)

Gentrification - The hip word for urban transformation

My interest in urban sustainability (and my current location) has made me reflect on the possibilities for/issues with gentrification of certain areas in Vancouver, particularly in Mount Pleasant (for a bit of history click here). I live slightly southeast of the Main and 16th Avenue area, which in recent years has become the 'hip' area in Vancouver. A few years ago (some people say it might be even 15), the Main St. area was considered "seedy" and unsafe. This blog has actually a nice discussion of the pros and cons of the East Side vis-a-vis West Side.

Noteworthy, I hang out around Mount Pleasant area, but I don't live exactly there (I live more in the "Little Mountain/Riley Park" zone, according to the neighbourhoods map I saw recently). And if you look at this, you might realize that my neighbourhood isn't that bad at all.

The sad part is that I recently learned that a Canadian, Vancouver-shot movie (Mount Pleasant) will depict this area as it used to be 15 years ago (seedy and filled with drug-addicts). I read that the director, Ross Weber, actually lives in the neighbourhood so I hope he will be very true to the current status of Mount Pleasant. I, for one, enjoy living there. And I hope that the Riley Park/Little Mountain area becomes just as hip as Main St. very soon. What scares me is the housing prices OUCH!

PS.- One of my favourite actresses, Kelly Rowan, will participate in "Mount Pleasant"... yay!