Vertical Farming: A Viable Solution?

The United Nations predicts that the planet will have over 9.1 billion people by 2050. As the amount of arable land continues to decline, how will we be able to provide enough food for 9.1 billion people? Providing a sufficient amount of food for 9.1 billion people would require increasing current food production by 70 percent. Many are skeptical that we will be able to meet this vast target; however, this skepticism has not stopped scientists from coming up with alternative solutions.

One of the proposed solutions is called vertical farming. The idea of this approach is to grow agriculture on each floor of a building, all year-round in cities across the world.

The benefits of vertical farming are noteworthy: lower transportation costs, a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions associated with food transportation, and less food spoilage. The idea of growing food in cities seems logical due to higher population density.

The main challenge with vertical farming is the prodigious amount of artificial lighting (and energy) that is required. However, the energy required to power this artificial lighting can be obtained through the installation of solar panels on building rooftops. Solar energy prices have dropped dramatically over the past ten years, with prices being almost equal to coal generated electricity. 

What do you think of vertical farming? Is it a viable alternative, or should we simply accept that our earth is incapable of supporting 9.1 billion people?

Check out this video from The Economist for more details:

By Trevor S.

Climate-Change deniers have a point

It's been a while since I last posted, too busy with med school these days. But after reading this Naomi Klein article and realizing that this website - http://www.friendsofscience.org/ - is the second item that pops up when "critique of canada's position on global climate change" is googled, I can no longer keep silent.

I don't mean that I'm now going to bash the climate-change deniers. On the contrary, when I read what Naomi Klein wrote, and what "Friends of Science" says, I can't help but think that a few of the denier's denials actually have a point.

(Don't worry, I haven't turned to the Dark Side...just making a suggestion to help all environmentalists become more successful. Let me explain.)

True, environmentalists aren't "sacrificing humans to the gods like the Aztecs". But we all know there are some environmental groups out there who put the environment above all else, even above the needs of fellow humans (ie. greenpeace cutting down whole fields of crops).

In fact, I used to be like this myself back in first/second year undergrad, trying to enforce my own values and standards upon fellow students in getting them not to waste food in the Queen's University cafeterias.

But this attitude is dangerous.

It only weakens support for the environmentalist's worthy ideals, and ostracizes the environmentalist group from society at large.

The environmental movement needs to shift it's focus - from one of "environmentalism" to "humanity-ism".

As David Suzuki says, the world will survive no matter what the humans do. The real question is whether humanity will survive or not, both in the short and in the long term.

The survival of the human race for many, many generations on Earth should be goal of environmentalists. In order to do that, environmentalists need a much more balanced approach - emphasizing the social, economic, and environmental aspects of sustainability, instead of just "environmentalism".

People who truly care about the future of humanity on Earth should not be forcing less privileged members of our society to make the same degree of sacrifice they themselves are making. Until people have their basic needs met and are happy with their lives, it will be virtually impossible for them to care about the natural environment.

So - instead of solely advocating for the environment at all costs, people who care about the planet/human race should advocate for environmental friendliness along with social justice, economic equality, and the like.

This ideal triad of economic, social, and environmental sustainability is not new. But it is much more complicated than just "environmental activism" alone.

Nonetheless, until environmentalists embrace this more balanced perspective, they and their worthwhile ideals will always be vehemently opposed by a significant chunk of our society.

The Economics of Water

Global water consumption has tripled since 1950 leading to vast shortages across the world. It is estimated that 1.1 billion people worldwide do not have access to safe drinking water. Since North America has 21 percent of the world’s fresh water, most Canadians and Americans do not understand or appreciate the value of fresh water.  The average American consumes nearly 350 litres of water a day—twice the global average.

The key challenge is figuring out how to preserve our precious supply of water and eliminate excessive consumption.  As David Zetland—an influential water economist currently working at Wageningen University in the Netherlands—points out in his research, water prices must increase to bridge the current gap between supply and demand. Zetland discusses water policy at length on his website www.aguanomics.com but his solution is to implement a pricing scheme that will eliminate excess consumption.  Zetland proposes implementing a pricing scheme whereby households would receive the first 75 gallons of water for free; however, every additional 75 gallons would cost $5.60. This pricing system would ensure that everyone gets a basic allocation of cheap water while forcing excessive water users to pay more. This model follows the basic economic principle that as price increases demand decreases. Pricing is without a doubt the most effective method to reduce demand because it directly impacts the end user. Further, through incorporating Zetland’s model, municipalities would get additional revenue which could be invested in infrastructure improvements or educational initiatives. Municipalities could even use their increased revenue to provide subsidies to homeowners for switching to appliances with lower water consumption (i.e. low flush toilets, low-impact showerheads, more efficient dishwashers etc).

By Trevor S.

Greens Gone Rotten

A self-proclaimed eco-company dedicated to environmental conservation, New Forests Company, is taking advantage of the carbon-credits system to make money while planting trees.

Sounds win-win? Think again.

The catch is that in order to plant the trees, the company has evicted thousands of people in Uganda from their homes, using force if necessary. It's so serious that Oxfam is now involved in stopping this eco-friendly New Forests Company.

Sad to think that two organizations that should have the same goals and ideals are now in opposition. Once again, we are reminded that being eco-friendly and economically-beneficial alone is not enough to be sustainable. We need to be socially-just as well.

Transit in Hong Kong

One of my favourite aspects of travelling throughout Asia was observing and using public transportation systems. After using public transportation in Japan, Thailand and India, I was curious to learn whether we can apply similar strategies in Canada. I blogged about transportation in Japan in the past, but I wanted to explore Hong Kong’s public transit system, known as the Mass Transit Railway (MTR). With over four million weekly users and the highest utilization globally, it’s fascinating that the MTR is an entirely private (and profitable) organization.  

What specifically grabbed my attention about the MTR is its approach of using property development as an additional channel of revenue. The MTR develops properties like shopping centres, large housing complexes and office buildings on top of stations. The benefits of this approach are twofold: first, the MTR gets immediate cash flow from rental fees, and second ridership rises due to increased economic activity around stations. For instance, businessmen working in towers located overtop MTR stations will choose to use the MTR over driving due to convenience and affordability. Interestingly, the MTR’s properties generate more profit than transit fares. In 2009, the MTR made a net profit of HK$7.3 billion; of this amount, HK$3.55 billion came from property and HK$2.12 billion came from transit fares.

Hanford Plaza Located Overtop a MTR Station

 

What do you think about the MTR’s approach of using property development as a revenue source? 

By Trevor S.

Eco-Packaging Solutions in Canada

I recently did some research on the various forms of eco-packaging to determine which option has the strongest environmental benefit; both in the manufacturing and disposal stage.

I looked at three options: compostable, PLA and recycled PET (RPET). I’ve provided a brief outline of the three options below.

Compostable packaging is the most commonly known eco packaging- largely because of the compostable SunChips bag.  In order to receive the compostable packaging claim, the pack must be able to break down within a specified period of time in an industrial facility. I was not able to determine the specified period of time, but Sunchips takes about 14 weeks to break down which is a good benchmark. However, the major downfall of compostable packaging is it requires an industrial facility to be broken down; you can’t throw the compostable pack in your backyard. Further, compostable packaging isn’t currently accepted by green bin programs in Canada. Therefore, products like Sunchips end up sitting in a landfill where they may not even biodegrade.  However, this may change as companies lobby municipalities to accept compostable packaging.

Sunchips Compostable Bag

PLA packaging is made from renewable resources. It’s is typically made from corn, but it can also be produced using other resources like sugarcane and switchgrass. PLA’s greatest strength is that it’s made from renewable resources. However, there are ethical implications. PLA packaging drives up the demand for corn which causes a significant increase in commodity prices. This detrimentally impacts developing nations who consume corn in their daily life.

Noble PLA Bottle

Last, but certainly not least is Recycled PET. PET is the most common form of packaging and is often found in bottles and jars.  Recycled PET is in my opinion, the best option as reuses plastic that would otherwise go to a landfill. Further, there is an established market for RPET since there is an abundance of PET plastic. Since both PLA and compostable packaging are made from renewable resources, the availability of supply is often a concern (if there is a drought or other natural disasters the price of packaging rises and you may not have enough supply). 

Innocent Smoothie Bottle made from RPET

What options do you think have the least impact on our environment? 

By Trevor S.

Airships in Canada's Arctic

It seems that airships may be the ideal source of transit for remote areas. Requiring less fuel to run than airplanes and reducing the need for runways, blimps could be an idea worth floating.

Info Source: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/43291--northern-aviator-signs-first-arctic-airship-deal

World's Largest Solar Farm (to date)

Behold! The world's largest solar farm at 80MW, generating enough power to meet the needs of approximately 12 000 homes. Where is this you may ask? The sunny state of California, tech savvy Tokyo or the green tech crucible of China? All good guesses but this farm is found in Sarnia, Ontario, and was a joint project between Enbridge and First Solar.

The contract for this farm is not under the new FIT program but its predecessor the RESOP program. Thus, the next time you may feel that Ontario is dropping the environmental torch, just remember Sarnia Solar!

Early Signs of the Electric Wave

The early signs of the wave of electric cars to come are already lapping up on the shore. Above is a dedicated electric car parking spot at Conestoga Mall in Waterloo. The Provincial government has already touted a lofty goal that by 2020, every 1 in 20 cars on Ontario's roads will be electric.

Australia Joins India, the EU & New Zealand by Introducing Carbon Taxes

Australia has recently imposed a national carbon tax, amounting to about $25 US dollars per ton of carbon emitted. To prevent disadvantaged and low-income households from being harmed by the carbon tax, over 50% of tax revenue will support low-income households. The remaining funds will be used towards supporting green energy projects across Australia. Through introducing a national carbon tax, Australia joins New Zealand, the EU, and India. The question that remains is when will Canada and the U.S. follow the leadership of the aforementioned nations through introducing carbon taxes?

Carbon taxes are controversial and opponents argue they pose two significant issues: first, they claim it reduces the economic competitiveness of a country; and second they claim it harms low-income households who would need to fork out a larger portion of their income. 

Unsurprisingly, Alberta is strongly opposed to implementing a national carbon as the province produces exorbitant carbon emissions from tar sands oil extraction. Consequently, Alberta would have to pay much more taxes to the federal government if carbon taxes were implemented nationally. Ironically though, Alberta does have somewhat of a provincial carbon tax for the worst emitters, whom are required to pay $15 per ton into an "energy innovation fund". Through this provincial carbon tax, tax revenue stays in Alberta and is used for Albertans. Fair? For Alberta, the answer seems to be yes.

Perhaps the solution to passing a carbon tax in Canada is for each individual province/territory to pass their own legislation.

What do you think is the best way to implement carbon taxes in Canada?

For further information on carbon taxes check out this link.

From Yan Yu.

A Review of “Force of Nature: The David Suzuki Movie”, plus my thoughts on change

I recently watched "Force of Nature: The David Suzuki Movie". It serves both as a concise biography of Suzuki’s life, as well as another rallying call for environmental change.

In the movie, David made an interesting comparison. He compared the market economy we have today to the gods of the past. Both are not “real, natural forces” (like gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, etc), but figments of the human imagination. Yet both guide how humans act and feel. We are expected to conform to both, and to appease both. When the gods, or the markets, are doing well, humans are happy. When they’re not, humans become glum and blah.

But, asserts Suzuki, if the market economy is not a real force of nature, then if and when it doesn’t work anymore, we should change it!

The recent global recession, and the economy’s destruction of the Earth, is proving that many things aren’t working with our market economy. Problem is, no-one is looking to change it!

Ironically, the business leaders and politicians that Suzuki has met have all been telling him to be “realistic”, that the “economy is the bottom line”.

Ha, retorts Suzuki. As if the market can be more real than real forces of nature.

How do I see it? Well, of course there are generalizations and simplifications made in Suzuki’s argument. People who blindly follow free-market dogma may scoff at them. And they would be correct only in their astute observation that yes, there are simplifications.

But pointing out simplifications only serves to distract the public, and maybe also themselves, from Suzuki’s main point, which is valid.

Suzuki’s argument isn’t that the economic system we have right now is completely failing us. It’s that the long-run costs of the status-quo are far greater than the short-term benefits.

In exploiting the earth’s resources at an unsustainable rate now, we’re reducing the resources available for our survival years down the road. In messing with our climate patterns right now, the costs to future generations will be enormous and unthinkable. It’s just common sense.

And what short-term benefits have we achieved with our overconsumption and reliance on the traditional free-market?

The post-recession market growth (the “jobless recovery”) seems disconnected with people’s standard of living. Just ask the unemployed 10% of the US workforce.

Moreover, while the status of the economy (i.e. per capita GDP) can be a crude indicator of standard of living, it is far from a measure of “quality of life”. Does our overconsumption make us better off in the short run? Not really. A 2010 Princeton study of 1000 US residents showed that incomes above a certain level ($75,000) do not lead to increased happiness. The Happy Planet Index, a measure of people’s well-being and satisfaction over their ecological footprint, also ranked Costa Rica at number 1, and the USA at 114, in 2009.

So Suzuki is bang on. When our economic system does not make us any happier, something’s gotta change!

We in the western world are sacrificing future generations’ livelihoods to create more and more and more unneeded luxuries in our own lives, luxuries that do not even make us happier.

This philosophy is not only intuitively obtuse and morally corrupt, it’s also evolutionary suicide for us Homo sapiens.

I won’t attempt to present a comprehensive solution here – that would take pages and pages. But I’ll just talk about a few principles that I think should guide any changes we do make.

First, government and the economy need to redefine and re-prioritize the “long-term”. It shouldn’t just refer to the 4-5 year election cycles in the USA and Canada, and it shouldn’t even be defined as the 10+ years during which businesses can alter their fixed factors of production. The long-term should be an indefinite amount of time in the future, and its importance should be just as high on the priority list as the short-term. This way, society can avoid what Thomas Friedman calls the “I’ll be gone, you’ll be gone” mindset: irresponsibility for the future, which in large part caused both the great recession and the environmental crisis.

Second, instead of trying to protect nature by putting a price on it, perhaps we should use our own morals and scientific guidance as measures to determine how much we can sustainably take from the Earth. Why not put a price on nature? The first reason is that a price on nature will simply offer poachers (and the like) the incentive to destroy nature even further. The second reason is because we will never get the price “right”. As David Suzuki says in his movie: “our economics system prices the things that are most valuable to us as worthless”. He’s right - look at the classic microeconomics example of the “Paradox of Value”: a kilogram of diamonds is priced far greater than a kilo of water! Also, in the global ecological context, the role of any one species is extremely multidimensional. If one species became hunted to extinction, the consequences to the ecosystem could range from nothing all the way up to ecosystem collapse. Despite the best ecological science, there’s no way for humans to know exactly how valuable any one species is at any time, and thus the price per orangutan or some other species is practically impossible to deduce. It’s a lot easier, and a lot better, to just minimize our impacts on nature based on our societal morals and the Golden Rule, rather than to calculate in detail how much each part of nature is worth. As Suzuki says, prices are imaginary; morals and science are real.

Third, the developing world should leapfrog the unsustainable practices of the western world. Just like how almost everyone in China now has a mobile instead of a landline phone, developing countries could go straight to renewable sources of power instead of burning fossil fuels. Why would this be beneficial, given the high cost of renewables over fossil fuels? Well, the cost of renewable energy sources is steadily declining. And, once the up-front costs are paid off, renewables will be able to provide a steady supply of essentially free electricity. No need to make weekly payments of coal, or to waste time transporting it to where it is used. For a real-life example of the benefits of distributed renewable energy, check out this excellent NY Times article about rural households in Africa benefiting from their first taste of electricity, produced from individual solar panels.

Last but not least, we as a society need to regain our sense of sacrifice and value of delayed gratification. The market economy and the status-quo cannot be changed instantaneously, and changing it will entail tough compromises such as possibly higher taxes, temporarily increased energy prices (as fossil fuel energy sources transition to renewables), and declining industries (which must retrain workers and retool their factories for a low/zero-carbon economy). So overall, we need to be willing to do not just what is easy, but what is right, regardless of how hard it may be.

There you go. Definitely a thought-provoking documentary. I highly recommend you watch it.

Speculation over Ontario's Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) program is now causing job loss

• The FIT program was started by the Liberal Ontario government a few years ago, to ween Ontario off coal-fired electricity and enhance the renewable energy sector in Ontario. It covers ALL renewable power (not just solar photovoltaic cells), and pays industries/homes that feed renewable-electricity into the grid over 10 times the standard per-unit cost of electricity.
  
• Now, with Ontario elections coming up in October, the Conservatives (who are leading in the polls) are threatening to gut the FIT program... this threat is causing solar companies to fire over half of their workers, such as the one described in this CBC news article!
• The Conservatives do have a point - Solar may not be as well suited in Ontario as in the Arizona desert, and so may not be as economical in Ontario. Currently, Solar power is expensive and the industry wouldn't survive if not for expensive government subsidies.
  
• But the FIT doesn't just apply to solar, it also applies to wind, geothermal, even tidal energy. And I think weening Ontario off coal-fired electricity is a noble goal, and would show other provinces that it can be done. Solar power can be made cheaper with larger scales of production. Not taking advantage of clean energy when it's there would just be a shameful waste.
  
• What do you think?

FUN FACT: Just last year, our Queen's University took advantage of the FIT offer and made plans to lease out the majority the university's roof space for solar panel installation, which would earn Queen's hundreds of thousands of dollars per year over 20 years (the length of the FIT contract).

Students in Serbia develop first public solar-powered mobile charger

Check out this fascinating BBC article on how a group of Serbian students from the University of Belgrade developed the first public solar-powered mobile charger.

It's truly an innovative concept and this short video demonstrates how it works.

As you can see below, the solar panels are the only source of energy. Since the equipment is public property anyone who needs to charge their phone can do so by connecting it to one of the 16 power chords. 

Image of The Public Tower

The chords used to charge cell phones. Each side has 4 chords for a total of 16.

The tower has had almost 20,000 charges to date and there is enough energy to sustain a month of demand if the sun disappears.

Bright ideas that use bright energy: what a concept! The group of students won the European Energy Award for their work making them the youngest group to win the prestigious award.

By Trevor S. (link contributed by Yan Yu.)

Top 5 Environmental Blogs (Except for ISH of Course)

As passionate bloggers, we at ISH wanted to share our five favourite environmental blogs. These websites inspire us and share some of the world’s biggest and most profound environmental innovations.

1.   Treehugger

Treehugger is without a doubt the most well known environmental website out there. Treehugger’s biggest strength is the diversity and experience of its writers with expertise in: architecture, product design, eco-living, science, technology. The Discovery Channel liked them so much that it recently acquired Treehugger for a whooping $10 million. Click here to follow Treehugger on Twitter.

2.   InHabitat

As hinted in their moto, “green design will save the world”, InHabitat focuses primarily on sharing green innovations in the realm of architecture and design that will push us towards a more sustainable future.  Click here to follow InHabitat on Twitter.

3.  Techcrunch- GreenTech

GreenTech is a section of the Techcrunch publication that highlights the world’s biggest green innovations. If you want a quick highlight of what’s happening in the environmental world make sure you check it out! Techcrunch was recently acquired by AOL. You can follow Lora Kolodny, GreenTech writer, on Twitter here.

        4.  GreenOptions

Green Options is different from the three aforementioned website as it focuses on providing YOU with practical tips to live your life sustainably. The blog is dedicated to increasing environmental literacy and education. You can follow Green Option on Twitter here.

        5.  Enviroboys

Run by two Canadian university students, Enviroboys writes about a wide array green topics including: public policy, transportation, water policy and technology. You can follow Enviroboys on Twitter here.

By Trevor S.

Innovative Thinking: Toronto Zoo turns animal poop into power

As a collective group, we at ISH love reading about organizations that are able to turn challenges into solutions. Organizations that lead the pack in creating sustainable solutions have a quintessential role, as they often change industry norms and increase the expected degree of environmental responsibility. Thus, the efforts of one innovative organization often snowball into industry wide improvements.

The Toronto Zoo is an excellent example of an innovative organization that turned a large (and smelly) problem into tremendous opportunity for cost savings and reduced GHG emissions. 

 

The organization is in the process of developing a 500kWbiogas plant that converts animal waste into electricity, heat and fertilizer. This is equivalent to a reduction in GHG emissions of approximately 10,000 tonnes of C0₂: which corresponds to removing 1,800 cars off the road each year!

The plant will be the first of its kind in all of North America and I am hopeful it will inspire other zoos to follow suit. It’s organizations like the Toronto Zoo that take the lead when it comes to sustainability rather than following the pack.

Which organizations do you think truly value sustainability? 

Which superficial organizations do you think have sustainability policies for the sole purpose of greenwashing the public? 

We’d love to hear your thoughts!

By Trevor S. (link contributed by Yan Yu)

The Difference Between Compostable, Biodegradable, and Degradable Packaging

Greenwashing is ubiquitous in the packaged goods sector. Companies will do whatever they can to appear environmentally friendly with  the ultimate goal of driving sales. Thus, it is our responsibility to be educated so we can identify these tactics, and ensure we are buying products that use lower impact energy sources. One area that is gravely misunderstood by the general public is the various forms of packaging and associated environmental impacts. I have summarized the three types of degradable packaging below:

Classification 1: Compostable Packaging

Compostable packaging has three implications: first, 60 to 90 percent of the packaging will break down within 180 days; second, 90 percent of the packaging will break down into pieces that are less than 2mm; and finally, when the product breaks down in a commercial composting facility, it will not leave toxic heavy metals in the soil. 

Classification 2: Biodegradable Packaging

Many individuals are misled by packaging that is “biodegradable” or “degradable”. Biodegradable simply means the packaging must degrade due to the functioning of living microorganisms. However, biodegradability standards do not address the amount of time the material needs to break down nor whether the material leaves toxic residue. Consequently, when biodegradable waste is buried in landfills with an insufficient supply of bacteria, methane GHG emissions are released. Furthermore, “biodegradable” materials can leave behind toxic residues such as heavy metals.

Classification 3: Degradable Packaging

For a plastic to be considered degradable, it must simply be capable of being broken down through chemical reactions in a manmade environment. These plastics are typically oil based.

This video captures the difference between compostable, biodegradable and degradable succinctly.


By Trevor S.