The PenOpticon

When I read inspiring books like Bill McKibben's Deep Economy and Mike Nickerson's Life, Money and Illusion , I dream utopian dreams of a world with no cars. Instead, our roads are practically empty except for hundreds of modern, quiet, hybrid and electric buses. Lotsa buses. Enough buses that you'd almost never have to wait more than a minute or three to catch one. Enough buses to ensure you almost always get a seat. Maybe even a window seat.

And then I wake up and realize I'm standing in the middle of a crowded aisle on a VIVA bus, heading to York University. For some unknown reason, the driver refuses to open the roof vents or turn on the air conditioning. The packed load of sweating students sways with nausea as the bus lurches through stop and go traffic, navigates around road construction and dodges the SUVs that routinely cut in front.

Those of us who travel without earbuds are treated to the cacophonous hiss and pop of 30 or 40 iPods which rhythmically bash away at the eardrums of their wearers. 

And then we arrive. And we stagger out of the bus like early morning drunks only to shuffle through a gauntlet of idling buses that spew diesel fumes which gather and linger around the walkways and buildings.

What I want to know is this: if we really are on the verge of Peak Oil; if a barrel of the stuff will soon cost more than $100; if the ice caps are melting, causing half the world to flood and other half to dry out; then, why can't we at least learn to turn off buses when they are parked?  York Region Transit is about to raise fairs to $3 a ride.  How much of this fair increase could be waived if drivers routinely shut off the engines when their buses are stopped for more than 3 minutes.

Of course, I'd prefer to see a car-less world where clean buses rule the roads. In the meantime, can we at least build buses that doesn't spew diesel and irony? Right now, they are choking the life out of us.

The Ontario Liberal's new environmental "incentive program" was unveiled yesterday. This scheme would allow the province to hand out special eco-licence plates to owners of low-emmision cars such as the Toyota Prius.  The details are still being hammered out, but owners of these special green plates could be entitled to free parking and the right to use high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Woot!

At first glance, this eco-plate scheme sounds harmless enough: a low-cost, low-impact bit of PR.  Look a little deeper, however, the the scheme is nothing but a minor Liberal tip-of-the-hat to the wealthiest Ontarians who could (if they wanted) purchase an expensive hybrid car.  The plan will do nothing to help alleviate global warming or get cars off congested roads.  And it will do nothing to improve public transit. In fact, the eco-licence will bring additional traffic and demand for parking.

Sorry Dalton, but we need tougher emissions laws now to make it hard for car makers to sell cars that spew carbon.  Your recently announced $650-million fund to develop green cars in Ontario sounds like money wasted on big auto makers.  Why not direct that fund into an Ontario-grown green transit manufacturer.  Put green buses on the roads and help Ontario industry re-tool to build renewable energy products. Then you might get my Green vote.

If you have any doubts about whether humans should pony up and pay what it takes to stop climate change, you need to watch Bill's video. His argument is clear and concise and cuts through the acres of social and political crap that often seems to cloud this issue. Essentially, Bill (aka mav7469) presents a truth table and illustrates 4 scenarios:

After presenting these 4 options, he concludes that our only logical choice is to act to stop global warming. This is because it appears that all things being equal, the cost of acting and being wrong is far less than the cost of being wrong by not acting on climate change. He's right. "Wasting" money to reduce emissions if we don't have to is a much better outcome than global environmental, economic, political and social catastrophe. Bill's argument seems to be air-tight.

While he convincingly presents the 4 possibilities and his arguments are sound, they do not consider the complications that arise from illogical and selfish human thinking. For example:

• Since we know the poor will be more adversely affected by climate change than the wealthy, rich governments and individuals may gamble they will come out ahead by doing nothing.

• Even though spending the necessary money to halt climate change is logical, it will be hard to know for certain that our money will not be stolen or squandered.

In other words, Bill has defined a convenient and useful truth table, but the truth about climate change is much bigger — and much more "inconvenient" — than 4 boxes. But don't listen to me — (trust me, no one does!) — just watch the video and let him know what you think:

I'm not sure if it was due to a fear of plants or an asphalt fetish, but my neighbour recently paved his backyard. About 2 months ago, they also took out most of the trees on the property, including two 50-foot fir trees and the remaining fruit trees that had been planted by Vincenzo, the previous owner (may he never return to see what has become of his former home!).  So, as of this moment, about 3/4 of the property is paved or covered with interlocking stone and most of the lot's carbon sequestering capabilities have been removed.  I'm not a hydrologist, so I have no idea what effect this pavement will have on run-off water quality or the water table, but it can't be good. They won't be fertilizing this over-sized driveway, but they will periodically re-tar it and will probably also use pesticides to keep peripheral weeds from taking over. 

The above photo was pieced together using Autostitch from a dozen or so shots — hence the fish-eye effect.  You can see there is plenty of room for hopscotch and chalk art, but little room for plant life. 

I think I've moved beyond anger about the whole thing, but I can not understand the mind or the aesthetic that desired and was willing to pay for such ugliness. Why pavement? Why now, when gas prices are on the rise? Why now, when we are bombarded with messages about global warming, peak oil and the need to curtail carbon emissions.

Woke up on National Clean Air Day, took a deep breath and gagged on the humid grey sludge that passes for air in these parts. I briefly considered keying every Hummer I could find, but wussed out and hopped on the VIVA to get to work as per usual.  I guess I shoulda cycled. When the weather is warm, I try to get on the bike and huff the 17Km to work, but on days like June 6th, every breath felt like sucking a lung through a meat grinder. Besides, the bike was already at work, left there from the previous day's commute. So VIVA it was — a prompt and uneventful trip.

In any case, I did get on the bike around noon and cycled over to "Getting Vaughan Moving", an event/photo-op showcasing VIVA buses, carpooling, car sharing, electric scooters, Segways and every other mode of land transport that does not involve single occupant 4-wheeled vehicles.  I was hoping to get some interesting pictures of people on Segways, balancing on scooters, etc, but there were so many cameras clicking, I spent more time drooling over fancy DSLRs instead of taking many of my own.

It's good that the region is finally getting serious about smart commuting, but the fact that the event was held in a parking lot, and the fact that very little of the official speechifying could actually be heard (due to the din of an adjacent freeway), makes me question the motives of the whole thing. After all, the reason we have a transportation problem is because the will of the federal government, the province with the complicity of many local politicians has lead to a cancerous rate of growth and development in York Region. While the politicians preach "intensification", the GTA continues to sprawl and scrape its way toward Lake Simcoe and beyond.

In reality, we do not have a transportation problem or an energy crisis. What we now have is a population that is out of step with the full spectrum of resources needed to keep it healthy and productive. As we race to replace our best farmland with Walmarts and subdivisions, we depend more and more on Chile, China and other countries for the food we eat. We depend on a supply chain that grows longer, more complex, more expensive and more precarious with each passing year. Could we do things differently?

I like to think so. We work to control growth and conserve valuable resources (including water and farmland), we can effectively engineer abundance. We could learn to live well within our means — but only if we take the trouble to fully understand what we mean by "our means".

In the meantime, we're told to accept run-away growth and intensification (1.6 million people in York Region by 2031). The politicians smile and say never you mind the numbers. Just get in the Smartcar, take a spin on the Segway. Mill about on the steaming blacktop and chow down on the free greasy burgers. 

Shall we all just smile and get with the program? 

Donna Cansfield,  Ontario Minister of Transportation boasts about how much money Ontario contributes to the region:

Vaughan Smartcar Photo-Op-Mobile:

Suit on a Segway

Getting Vaughan Moving (can I move somewhere else?)