Cowboys Stadium: Everything is Bigger in Texas

Yesterday I attended a Dallas Cowboys football game at the new Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas.

I am by no means a football fan, nor would I have attended this game under any other circumstance than the fact that my father is turning 60 years old and he has never seen the Cowboys play in Dallas (he has been a Cowboys fan since he was a kid).

Walking into a venue like Cowboys stadium brings me mixed feelings. On one hand it is amazing architecture, it’s very high-tech, and has some amazing features that really brings the outdoors in (large windows, open sections, retractable roof, high ceilings, etc.)

On the other hand the $1.2 billion dollar stadium requires a massive amount of the earth’s resources to construct and an exorbitant amount of energy to to operate.

As the saying goes, “everything is bigger in Texas” - and they mean it. On Saturday night we visited the “world’s largest Honky Tonk”, a 127,000 square ft venue in Fort Worth Texas featuring multiple concert stages, professional bull riding, billiards, casino, line dancing, and more.

Cowboys Stadium is no different – it boasts itself as the largest domed stadium in the world – with a capacity for 110,000 people (including 80,000 seats). It also has the world’s largest column-free interior, and perhaps most significantly - it has the world’s largest video screen stretching from 20 yard line to 20 yard line.

The video screen is 160 feet wide by 72 feet high and consists of 10,584,064 LED lights, consuming 635,000 watts. It provides a 1080P resolution - though the screen may seem even sharper than 1080P because of Diamon Vision’s “Dynamic Pixel” technology which smoothens out the picture between pixel clusters. Guinness World Records certifies the screen as the “World’s Largest High-Definition Video Display”.

Here are some photos of the screen to give you some perspective (though it seems much larger in real life than in the photos):

 

… and here’s a video I quickly stitched together of some video clips I took to provide you a quick tour of the stadium:

Is it really worth the impact it has on the earth simply to watch a sporting event? Was the old stadium no longer effective? Did they really need to build a new stadium and tear down the old one? Is a 60-yard dual-sided video screen really necessary?

These are the thoughts going through my mind while attending such an extravagant venue. To football fans the impact on the earth doesn’t matter because for them football is bigger than life. There’s no way you can argue anything to the contrary.

To my Dad, this was the best day of his life – a dream come true. Fifty years of his life as a Cowboys fan flashed before his eyes as he entered Cowboys stadium. How can I possibly criticize something so close to his heart just because I hold a different view?

To me, I can’t help but be amazed by the stadium and in particular the video screen, but I have a hard time accepting this as something positive in our society. So-called “progress” is only an excuse for people to consume more, leaving a trail of destruction along the way.

I am constantly assessing my needs versus my wants and I could never see myself spending my time watching sports for any other reason than to spend time with family or friends. I would prefer to play a sport than watch it on TV or attend a game.

This may seem idealistic. I can assure you that life would be simpler for me if I viewed things differently – I wouldn’t be in a constant internal battle between accepting society as it is versus speaking out when I feel something isn’t right.

I would rather walk through a park or ride a bike or paddle a kayak or read a book or throw a Frisbee or talk politics than watch any kind of sporting event whatsoever.

But it’s hard for me to rationalize something that I’m not passionate about. Football is to my father as biking or kayaking is to me. Watching a tear stream down my father’s face when he entered the stadium is enough to tell the other side of the story - it’s 50 years of his life - 50 years of memories, of ups and downs.

What more could I ask for this weekend than a happy father spending a weekend with his 3 children watching his favourite football team in their home city? Not much.

James D. Schwartz is the editor of The Urban Country and appears on most Sundays and Thursdays, and sometimes in between. View all of James’ articles here.

CONTINUE READING Cowboys Stadium: Everything is Bigger in Texas

Traveling Water Bottles

Packing for travel is an art: you don’t want to forget anything, but at the same time you don’t want to take hours to do it.

Over the past 3.5 years of working for a consulting firm, I have periodically traveled to client sites, attending conferences and for training. As a result, I have become very proficient in packing as I found out Thursday evening while packing last-minute for a vacation I’m taking in Texas this weekend.

My brother, sister and I flew down to Dallas to meet my father (who lives in Wisconsin) to celebrate his 60th birthday and attend a Dallas Cowboys football game (my Dad is a long-time Cowboys fan but has never seen them play in Dallas).

One of the first items I pack while traveling is a stainless steel water bottle (coincidentally, I had one stolen from me earlier this week while attending a work meeting).

While traveling, most people resort to drinking bottled water, but this is completely unnecessary in most situations. Only in extreme circumstances will I purchase a bottle of water and I would estimate that I consume no more than 5 plastic bottles of water each year.

Bringing a stainless steel bottled water with you allows you to refill it at the hotel by either using tap water, or by filling up at the hotel-provided filtration systems (most exercise rooms have said device).

I don’t leave home without mine and it has proven to be extremely convenient every time.

We can all do little things to reduce the amount of waste we generate and plastic water bottles are an easy target and can be cut out of our lives very easily. A travel bottle can help keep yourself hydrated while traveling and can help to reduce your footprint.

Next time you travel, remember to pack some extra undergarments and a reusable bottle of water for good measure.

James D. Schwartz is the editor of The Urban Country and appears on most Sundays and Thursdays, and sometimes in between. View all of James’ articles here.

CONTINUE READING Traveling Water Bottles

Grocery Shopping Like a Champ

Today, Saturday October 24th is the first annual “International Day of Climate Action”, organized by 350.org, an activist organization with the goal of cutting atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions to below 350 ppm (the current level is 389 ppm of CO2). There are more than 3000 events happening around the world in 160 countries.

In recognition of International Day of Climate Action, I would like to share a product that has proved incredibly convenient for grocery shopping since I purchased it earlier this year.

In the photo above you can see the basket I bring with me when I do my grocery shopping. The “Basket On-The-Go” is produced by planetforward.ca and can hold just under 50 lbs of groceries.

It’s great for those heavy canned items that can put wear on your typical reusable shopping bag and provides a soft grip handle for comfort. It can help you transport your groceries from the store to your home, or you can use it while you are walking the aisles in the store.

The Planet Forward basket on-the-go folds up and weighs a mere 2 ounces.

Planet Forward provides “Sustainable Essentials for the Urban Environmentalists” and encourages its customers to think outside the (recycling) box and to use products that don’t generate waste.

With thousands of “green” products on the market, consumers should be aware of “greenwashing”. The Urban Country is committed to promoting products that can help us live more sustainable lifestyles.

The Planet Forward shopping basket can help reduce the amount of waste we generate while at the same time providing convenience in transporting our groceries. The Basket On-The-Go costs $24.99USD and can be purchased online on the Planet Forward website. They also offer an array of other sustainable products.

James D. Schwartz is the editor of The Urban Country and appears on most Sundays and Thursdays, and sometimes in between. View all of James’ articles here.

Note: The Urban Country is not affiliated in any way with Planet Forward and is not being compensated for promoting its products.

All Photos by James D. Schwartz / The Urban Country

CONTINUE READING Grocery Shopping Like a Champ

Diesel Trains Are NOT the Answer

The downtown Toronto City Centre Airport has been a political hot potato for many years. Airport expansion advocates were pushing for a bridge to the Toronto City Centre airport that current Mayor David Miller quashed when he was first elected in 2003.

Environmentalists and local residents often refer to noise and air pollution as the primary reason for disapproval of the airport’s existence in this seemingly never-ending battle.

As someone who cares deeply about the current state of our world and the impact we have on the environment, the island airport has been a source of contradicting feelings for me. Here’s why:

Toronto’s main airport – Pearson International – serves more than 32 million passengers a year (more than 87,000 per day). Thousands of people each day drive or take taxis to Pearson airport – many of which originate from downtown Toronto, 25 kilometres away.

Is it such a bad thing to potentially take hundreds or thousands of cars off our roads by offering flights from the downtown airport? Hundreds of thousands of people live within 30 minutes walking distance from the downtown airport.

Shouldn’t we be encouraging people to commute a few kilometres to a downtown airport rather than driving or taking a taxi 25 kilometres to Pearson airport?

The passenger airliner operating out of the downtown airport in Toronto – Porter Airlines – operates a fleet of modern Bombardier Q400 turboprop planes – known for their low emissions, fuel efficiency and quietness compared to your typical jetliner.

Why wouldn’t the city promote the downtown airport for shorter flights within North America?

Well, as I mentioned previously, pollution is the major reason for disapproval. I guess having thousands of people sit in taxis on the way to the airport 25KMs away doesn’t contribute to pollution. Or what about the pollution caused by Pearson airport? I guess that doesn’t matter because it’s “not in my backyard”.

So how do we solve the problem of pollution and gridlock caused by all the cars driving to Pearson airport?

Many Torontonians think that the city needs a rail link from downtown to Pearson airport and the proposed plan to provide this service has been approved and is moving forward. But at what cost?

The rail link being proposed by Metrolinx involves hundreds of diesel engine trains traveling the 25KM from downtown to Pearson airport. The media often cites 400 trains per day, a seemingly high number given this would result in a train leaving every 3 and a half minutes, 24 hours a day (or a train leaving both Union station and the airport every 7 minutes).

Is this really the solution that we want? The Clean Train Coalition doesn’t think so.

Let’s think about this for a moment. Our solution to reduce gridlock and pollution is to run 400 diesel trains a day, primarily supporting downtown residents and visitors only? Does this really sound environmentally friendly? It sounds ridiculous to me.

If the trains were electrified, at least we would be adding less pollution to our skies, but running 400 diesel trains will only add more pollution.

Okay, okay, I’m not being totally fair because recently, Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment (MOE) recently mandated the trains use cleaner Tier 4 diesel technology for the 400 daily trains - a more fuel efficient and environmentally-friendly technology (that doesn’t even exist yet). Yes, you heard it - we’re investing in a “less dirty” technology that doesn’t even exist yet.

Blah, blah, blah, “clean diesel”, “clean coal”, these are just oxymorons.

But still, something doesn’t add up. Our solution to reduce pollution is to run 400 diesel trains a day, using diesel fuel, and a technology that doesn’t even exist.

I have a simpler solution. Expand service at the downtown Toronto City Centre airport for flights within North America, and invest in electric technology that already exists to bridge a connection to Pearson airport.

All we would need to do create an above-ground electric rail link from Kipling subway station to extend an existing underground electrified system to the airport – a mere 11 kilometres away.

We have already invested billions of dollars in our subway system. Why not expand that system to reach the airport?

Over the years I have been on many business trips where I needed to fly. Almost exclusively, I ride the subway system - reaching the airport in merely 45-60 minutes from my downtown King West residence. An extension to the subway would cut that time down and improve reliability.

Alternatively, for flights within North America, I could walk to downtown airport - a mere 2KM away from my home.

Sometimes the simpler, cheaper solution is the better solution. At least until we are ready to invest in full electrification.

Photo courtesy of Never Was An Arrow II

James D. Schwartz is the editor of The Urban Country and appears on most Sundays and Thursdays, and sometimes in between. View all of James’ articles here.

CONTINUE READING Diesel Trains Are NOT the Answer

Shawano Vying to be America’s First LEED Gold Certified Elementary School

All photos courtesy of @somervilleinc  / Twitter

As we approach the holiday season when people are more inclined to over-consume, we should take a moment to reflect on how sustainable our lifestyles are (or aren’t). More importantly, we should consider the example we’re setting for our children – the future leaders who will be responsible for cleaning up the mess we’ve left behind.

Is it in our children’s best interest for us to teach them that an over-consuming lifestyle is acceptable?

Well I came across a great example of something they are doing in Wisconsin that teaches our children a more sustainable way of living.

The new Shawano Elementary School is under construction and they are seeking to achieve the LEED Gold status – the first elementary school in the United States to do so.

To achieve the LEED Gold status, the school would need a total of 60-79 points under the following main categories:

• Sustainable Sites (26 possible points)
• Water Efficiency (10 possible points)
• Energy and Atmosphere (35 possible points)
• Materials and Resources (14 possible points)
• Indoor Environmental Quality (15 possible points)
• Innovation in Design (6 possible points)
• Regional Priority (4 possible points)

The project is being led by Miron Construction, a company that seems to have extensive LEED qualifications. Surprisingly, the Shawano school hasn’t received a great amount of media exposure, and it has been arduous to find detailed information about this project.

Thankfully the architect (Somerville Architect) has posted some photos on their twitter account. Here is the geothermal system under construction:

  

It’s great to see these types of projects happening, and there is no better way to achieve sustainability than to set an example for our children that it is important for us to care about their future.

Now if only we could convince parents to go through the holiday season without filling our homes with more junk.

James D. Schwartz is the editor of The Urban Country and appears on most Sundays and Thursdays, and sometimes in between. View all of James’ articles here.

CONTINUE READING Shawano Vying to be America’s First LEED Gold Certified Elementary School

Living a Comfortable Urban Life Sans Automobile

All photos by James D. Schwartz / The Urban Country 

In 2006 there were around 250 million automobiles in the United States. That is an average of about one car for every 1.2 people. Worldwide there were 590 million cars in 2002, or an average of about 1 car for every 10 people. As the economies in heavily populated countries such as India and China grow, that number will continue to increase.

Cars are simply not a sustainable method of transportation for a world with close to 7 billion people. Cars create pollution, consume vast amounts of the earth’s resources to build and operate, take up enormous (and valuable) space, and they encourage unsustainable suburban lifestyles where people travel hundreds of kilometres to work.

But cars aren’t going anywhere – they are here to stay.

The solution isn’t to eliminate cars completely – they will always have a purpose. The solution is to minimize car usage by providing alternate means of transportation that is so appealing that people can’t resist.

Many people in car-centric North America think that electrifying automobiles is the solution – but this is only a small first step and fails as a sustainable option until we eliminate coal-burning and nuclear power plants – and instead produce energy from 100% renewable sources. Not to mention there simply isn’t enough space to support everyone in the world owning a car.

For over 7 years now I have been trialing other methods of transportation as an alternative to the automobile. I’ve tried motorcycling, rollerblading, commuter trains, public transit, walking, and cycling.

Yamaha XT 225cc circa 2004 

Public transit is a great way to provide an alternative to cars, but transit requires massive up-front investment and huge operating costs and an extensive amount of electricity to operate.

In Toronto, only 60% of total public transit operating costs are paid for by rider fares and in the United States it’s around 40%. That doesn’t even include the billions of dollars of capital investment that state/provincial and federal governments pay on behalf of taxpayers to build the infrastructure to support public transit. In other words, it’s not cheap.

Although it’s expensive, public transit is still extremely important. But it would be wiser to invest some of that money in infrastructure that supports the second most sustainable method of commuting (next to walking): the bicycle.

Just ask anyone in Amsterdam or Copenhagen what the best way to get around is, and they will tell you it’s cycling. It’s healthy, it’s cheap, it’s fun and it’s sustainable.

Many cycling opponents in Toronto refer to the winter climate as the primary deterrent to cycling, but Copenhagen isn’t much warmer. In December Toronto’s average low is –4C while Copenhagen is 0C. Toronto’s coldest month of January has an average low of –7.3C compared to Copenhagen’s –1C.

Furthermore, Montreal is one of Canada’s best cycling cities and they experience an average low of –10.4C, and –14.7C in December and January respectively. Cycling in sub-zero temperatures is not as uncomfortable as one might think (snowstorms aside). The pedaling helps to warm you up, and the constant action keeps you distracted from thinking about the cold.

For the last few years I was primarily riding my racing bicycle and my fiancé Han’s vintage commuter bicycle. Neither of these bicycles provided me a great deal of comfort or convenience in the city, so I often opted to walk instead of cycling.

Recently I purchased a second-hand Trek hybrid commuter bicycle ($180) that has afforded me both comfort and convenience for cycling around the city.

Last weekend I outfitted my bike with a rear basket ($35) and a second-hand kid’s chariot ($100) to tow heavier loads.

On Wednesday morning I traveled to my ice hockey game on my bike, with my hockey stick and full equipment in tow.

On the weekend I took my Jack Russell Terrier on a bicycle trail to a far away park, something that was previously inconvenient - often resulting in leaving my dog at home.

The purpose of all this is not only to keep active, stay healthy and reduce my impact on the environment – but to demonstrate that we can live comfortable lifestyles while reducing our impact on the environment.

My goal is to encourage people to consider this alternative method of transportation, and to permanently bury the stigma that is often attached to cycling that it’s for people who can’t afford a car - or that it’s too cold, or it’s too dangerous.

These fabricated myths only create more barriers to enter this form of healthy and sustainable living.

James D. Schwartz is the editor of The Urban Country and appears on most Sundays and Thursdays, and sometimes in between. View all of James’ articles here.

CONTINUE READING Living a Comfortable Urban Life Sans Automobile

KFC’s 60 Million Buckets of Waste

Photo ‘KFC, Paris’ by sophiexphotography / Flickr 

KFC’s recent marketing campaign highlights a significant issue in our fast-food society: unnecessary waste.

The latest commercial starts out with a black man with a white background holding a bucket of chicken where he nods to the camera and gleefully declares, “I’m in”. More people quickly join this man while holding their own buckets of chicken, stating: “We’re in too”, and “I’m a part of it” - as if eating at KFC is akin to belonging to some sort of secret society.

A few seconds later there are dozens, then thousands, then millions of people lined up to declare their own affiliation with the secret KFC society.

The purpose of this commercial is to highlight the fact that more than 60 million people have eaten the all new Kentucky “grilled” chicken that KFC launched back in April 2009 when health-conscious Americans finally generated enough demand for KFC to offer a health(ier) alternative to deep fried chicken.

They are calling the latest marketing campaign “grilled nation”, and there is even evidence of a gradual shift from KFC to being known as KGC. It doesn’t quite have the same ring, but perhaps after years of repetition we will become more accustomed to it.

It’s possible I see things differently than most people, but when I see millions of people standing in an endless line - each carrying their own bucket of chicken - all I can think about is the amount of unnecessary waste generated by KFC and other fast food chains.

A major root cause of the damage we are causing to the planet is laziness. We are too lazy to cook so we eat fast food; we are too lazy to walk or bike so we drive everywhere; we are too lazy to carry food containers or coffee mugs, so we use disposable cups and food packaging.

I can’t blame KFC for basking in such a radical extension to a core menu that hasn’t changed a whole lot over their 50+ years of operations. A KFC grilled chicken breast only has 4 grams of fat compared to 21 grams of fat in the Colonel’s original deep fried recipe - so there are substantial health benefits to the new recipe.

But what we really need is a radical change to how we handle fast food waste, and the first fast food chain who is progressive on reducing its waste will win the hearts and minds of eco-conscious individuals – a core value that is spreading to more people each day.

There are several ways that a fast food chain can actively reduce its waste footprint. One option would be to offer dine-in plates, cups and cutlery with on-premises dish washing. If only half of KFC’s 12 million daily customers were served on re-usable plates, it would cut their customer waste generation immediately in half.

Another revolutionary (yet simple) idea would be to offer discounts for customers who bring their own re-usable containers. Furthermore, they could sell re-usable eco-friendly containers to customers who don’t bring their own. This could accommodate the other half of those 12 million daily customers.

Lastly, I suggested earlier this year that fast-food chains could use fallen leaves as sustainable food packaging as an alternative to paper or plastic.

KFC has proven that a fast-food restaurant can evolve to offer more health-friendly options for those health-conscious individuals. Perhaps we could take a similar approach to accommodate eco-conscious individuals. When enough of us care, fast-food restaurants will have to choose whether they want to evolve or die.

When that day arrives, I just may decide to try KFC again.

James D. Schwartz is the editor of The Urban Country and appears on most Sundays and Thursdays, and sometimes in between. View all of James’ articles here.

CONTINUE READING KFC’s 60 Million Buckets of Waste

Cyclists Paving the Way for Ungrateful Drivers

Photo by earcos / Flickr

Sitting at a red light, a car driver yells out his window “Excuse me, is this the bicycle lane?”. The cyclist passively shrugs and slowly rolls his bike closer to the curb. The light turns green and the driver stomps on the gas pedal flying past the cyclist with less than a foot in between.

Many drivers feel that cyclists have no right to use the roads because drivers pay for the roads through fuel taxes and license fees. This couldn’t be further from the truth and reminds me of a modern-era tobacco industry-like outright fabrication.

Last week a National Post bigot columnist wrote a grossly ignorant and irresponsible article suggesting that cyclists should be licensed and taxed.

“But bike riders pay nothing, even though the cost of urban bicycle infrastructure, operating risks and potential liabilities are mounting. Bikers are getting a free ride that all non-bikers are paying for.”

I find it extremely sad that a journalist working for a national newspaper with 200,000+ daily circulation would make such a claim. At best it’s sheer ignorance; at worst it’s a contrived lie - both leaving Terence Corcoran absent of any sort of journalistic conduct.

The truth is, cyclists pay more than their fair share for roads. In fact, in many cases cyclists are actually subsidizing the cost of roads for drivers. Imagine that Terence, cyclists are subsidizing the cost of the roads for you – not to mention cyclists take up less space, reduce gridlock and don’t pollute.

But telling this to Terence would be fruitless. This is the same writer who made the outrageous claim that cyclists should be held accountable for the carbon emissions that they output from their breath while cycling. If this was an attempt at humour, Mr. Corcoran failed miserably.

“And then there's the carbon footprint. When car drivers cruise Yonge Street on Saturday night, their metabolisms are more or less flat-lined. They just sit there, burning up little energy personally but paying for the cost of their automobile's carbon footprint via taxes and fees. Bike riders grinding up the same route burn up a lot more carbohydrates, which their bodies convert into carbon dioxide and exhale, adding to their carbon footprint. The volumes are small, but it all adds up, and bicyclists don't pay.”

Let’s get back to the topic on hand since this dense National Post columnist doesn’t deserve any more of our time.

A 2004 study by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute found that cyclists and pedestrians are subsidizing drivers:

“Since bicycling and walking impose lower roadway costs than motorized modes,
people who rely primarily on nonmotorized modes tend to overpay their fair
share of roadway costs and subsidize motorists.”

Let’s look at how roads are funded. It is true that drivers support a substantial amount of the funding for highways. The Victoria study found that about 60% of highway funding comes from fuel taxes and vehicle taxes and 40% comes from general taxes and bonds. But more than 90% of cycling and walking happens not on highways, but on local roads - so the highway argument is inconsequential.

When we look at local roads, the study found that “in 2002, $27.9 billion dollars were spent on U.S. local roads, of which only $3.1 billion was from user fees.” The other $24.8 billion dollars were paid for by general taxes, of which cyclists, pedestrians and drivers all pay.

Cyclists and pedestrians pay income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes (directly if owners and indirectly if renters) and other taxes that contribute to local roads – all while automobiles are putting substantially more wear-and-tear on these roads, driving the costs even higher.

If anyone should be outraged it should be those who don’t drive but pay into the vast funds that subsidize drivers.

Instead of spreading lies, those in the media should be encouraging what they know in their heart to be the better way.

While sitting at the red light, with a streetcar directly to my left - another cyclist sits between me and the streetcar. The driver of a car behind us sticks his head out the window and says to the cyclist to my left, “is this the bike lane?”. The cyclist grudgingly rolls his bike to the curb without responding to the driver.

I turn my head to the left and say, “Excuse me, is this the asshole lane?”

James D. Schwartz is the editor of The Urban Country and appears on most Sundays and Thursdays, and sometimes in between. View all of James’ articles here.

CONTINUE READING Cyclists Paving the Way for Ungrateful Drivers

Social Change: the Forgotten Contributor

Photo by James D. Schwartz / The Urban Country 

A recent ABC News article claims that the financial crisis has driven down global carbon emissions, leading to the largest fall in emissions in more than 30 years.

Although this article concedes that carbon trading schemes – such as those implemented within the European Union - are likely a contributing factor to reducing emissions, it fails to acknowledge one of the most important and effective aspects of the environmental movement: social change.

Fair enough, I mean, a massive change in society’s concern for mother nature is not something that can be easily quantified. But it is irresponsible to fail to even mention this important phenomenon.

I agree with the assessment in this article that a rise in emissions correlates strongly to a rise in the economy or the wealth of a nation. People consume (and waste) more when they have more disposable income. But a decline in emissions doesn’t have to only be caused by a declining economy.

Let’s look at some potential causes of a decline in emissions:

• Declining economic wealth – I don’t disagree that this is a strong contributor – it clearly will impact carbon emissions.
• Carbon trading schemes – Since the intention of these programs is to reduce carbon emissions they should have a positive effect on reducing emissions.
• Improved technology – We can’t ignore that technological advancements can (and do) contribute to reducing emissions.
• Social awareness – This one is generally overlooked in the media, but can have an enormous impact on reducing emissions.

The social awareness aspect is the very reason this website - and thousands of other websites alike – exist. We’re here to increase awareness. The Urban Country’s objective after all is to “help readers (and ourselves) become more aware about how we can all help to make a positive impact.”

Often overlooked in the media, a change in society is the only way we will achieve the lofty goal of living truly sustainable lifestyles and minimizing and eventually eliminating our footprint to the earth – if mankind survives long enough.

A deep recession isn’t the answer to solving this challenge, but it can however remind us that we are living beyond our means, and certainly beyond our needs.

The rise in environmental awareness can be seen all around us. The President of the United States of America admits that something has to be done: “We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations”.

I have personally seen changes in people’s attitudes all around me and I feel we are beyond the 5-year-old arguments about whether climate change is real or not. The bottom line is that we are on a path that isn’t sustainable and we need to change our lifestyles.

Our air and water is polluted, wildlife threatened, landfills are filling up, and we are consuming massive amounts of non-renewable resources simply to sustain this “middle class” lifestyle that has become the norm in our society.

From the frequent news articles promoting environmentalism, to the CBC’s 1 million acts of green, to the hundreds of billions of dollars being invested in “green technology” – initiatives that promote the preservation of the environment are becoming extremely common in today’s society.

It’s a good feeling to see the majority of grocery shoppers finally using reusable bags. Most people I know avoid bottled water, and reusable coffee mugs are far more common now than 5 years ago. I see a lot of people doing their best to drive less, bike to work more, and using public transit when they can.

Buildings that meet the LEED Gold rating are going up in record numbers, green roofs are becoming more common, wind farms are popping up all over North America and Google is renting sheep to mow its lawn.

In the past, people would rarely question the expectation set by the corporate marketing geniuses. But now, more than ever people are questioning their own consumption. Do I really need a new car every two years? Do I really need to fill the laundry detergent cup up to the recommended level?

No, probably not. Your two-year-old car still gets you from point A to point B; and if you use a quarter of the recommended amount of laundry detergent, you will find your clothes will still end up clean.

Photo by midnightglory / Flickr 

We have to realize that auto manufacturers tell us that we need to buy new cars every two years because they want to maintain high profits in a more competitive market. We shouldn’t succumb to this level of consumption just because Ford said we should - it takes us so far beyond what our needs really are.

These are the types of questions that I see people questioning more and more these days. You might say it’s an indirect result of the recession, but there is no denying that our society is changing and we are perhaps only a decade (or less) away from hitting an environmental tipping point where we will see major changes in how the average person views mother nature.

It is a very exciting time for us to celebrate the small accomplishments we’ve made and continue in a positive direction.

Tell The Urban Country what you’re doing to reduce your footprint.

CONTINUE READING Social Change: the Forgotten Contributor

Recycling That Delivers...er...Takes Away

Photo by kino-eye / Flickr

Living as I do in a high-rise apartment, I've often been disappointed by the fact that my recycling options have been limited. For example, composting my organic waste is simply not viable since I don't have a garden, there is no green bin collection scheduled in my area, and I doubt that the users of my local city park would appreciate me spreading a bunch of partly-decomposed garbage throughout the trails.

So this last weekend, I was elated when the city made a municipal recycling program available to my apartment complex - the ElectroVan and HazMobile.

In spite of being named like a pair of ludicrous Marvel-franchise superheroes, the goal of these programs is to extend hazardous household waste and technology-recycling to multi-family dwellings.

Two large trucks come with trained operators on a weekend and park in an open area adjacent to the numerous high-rises in the area. Residents are given a couple weeks notice to assemble their used paints and solvents or graveyard-ready hardware and are encouraged to walk their wastes to the trucks who courteously take the products away from their owner's concern.

Not only does this allow for proper capture and treatment of materials that should not find their way into landfills, it reduces the carbon footprint of collecting these materials at the same time!

According to earth911.com, "(e)lectronic waste accounts for 70 percent of the overall toxic waste currently found in landfills. In addition to valuable metals like aluminium, electronics often contain hazardous materials like mercury. When placed in a landfill, these materials (even in small doses) can contaminate soil as well as drinking water."

For example, cathode-ray tubes used in large, non-flat panel televisions contain between 4 - 8 pounds of lead per unit. Mercury, a highly toxic and carcinogenic element is found in computer batteries and circuit boards. The sad fact is that event very small amounts of lead and mercury in landfill can seep into water tables, and become aggregated through the food chain to rather toxic levels that impact our entire eco-system.

And think about it a little more - I've had a dead inkjet printer/fax sitting in my foyer for the past three months, waiting for me to drive it to a computer drop-off depot. That's a trip of about 20km (there and back) that I and any one of the 5,000 neighbours (I live in a very densely packed collection of high-rise apartments) of mine might make in the course of a year. That's roughly 35 tonnes of CO2 emissions at an upper limit just to recycle dead electronics!

This week, Mayor David Miller announced that he would not be seeking re-election as Mayor of Toronto. While he has had a fair share of detractors over the six years that he has been Mayor, he has certainly done much to foster a greener Toronto and he has set a high bar for his successors with programs like the ElectroVan and HazMobile.

CONTINUE READING Recycling That Delivers...er...Takes Away