The PenOpticon

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?)

The birds came back. In spite of my many fears (some rational, some not so much) over global warming, run-away development and loss of habitat, da birds came back. Denise and I burned serious amounts of carbon in order to see this miracle once again, but the birds did not disappoint. Over the past few weeks we've been to Point Pelee, Rondeau, Thickson Woods, the Carden Alvar and also managed 3 or 4 treks through the wilder parts of York Region. We found 125+ species in Point Pelee over three days and 50 during a short day at the Cardin Alvar.

Of course, my subjective view about the number and variety of birds returning this spring means nothing. As mentioned, human activity has altered or destroyed many natural habitats — and global warming isn't helping either. Experts such as York University's Professor Bridget Stutchbury (see Silence of the Songbirds), have observed a significant decline in the numbers of North American songbirds. 

With fewer birds and fewer natural wetland and forest habitats, it's no wonder that a birder has to drive a long way just to see 'em.  But for those lucky enough to escape the gray and steel of a North American urban landscape, the trek is worth it.  Now more than ever, we need observers — people in the field — who watch, identify and record the evidence of the natural world.  Great observers like Jamuudsen help us to remember the beauty that may be slipping through our fingers. Here are a few highlights from our own observations:

Rumours are circulating that Paul Wolfowitz may have finally negotiated an exit strategy with World Bank directors. The deal is supposed to "clear" him of conflict of interest breaches in exchange for his hasty departure.  Given Wolfy's penchant for preemptive strikes which he justified by saying "you can't wait until you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody did something in the past…", it's amazing he has held on to the job as long as he has.  By all accounts he should have been preempted some time ago. Fast-tracking Ali Shaha Rizza into a $190,000 income illustrated Wolfowitz's bad judgment and an attitude of greed and privilege. More worrying, however, are recent allegations that Wolfowitz sought to dismantle the Word Bank's Family Planning policies. In a world of dwindling resources — where every new pair of legs expands our collective carbon footprint — any policy that takes away a person's freedom to control the size of their family, is downright evil. It would be evil in any kind of world. So, no matter how you slice it, Wolfowitz is just another symbol of the ethical bankruptcy that permeates the Bush administration. Let him go now before he does any more damage.