"I figured you'd like pink"

Now that Obama's pretty much wrapped up the Democratic nomination, I might as well share a personal story with you all since I've spewed out enough environmental and political articles in the last month or so.

On Thursday night after hanging out with my cousin, he dropped me off in front of my building by pulling over on the wrong side of the road. Within seconds, the police were right behind his car with their cherries on.

The officer seemed pretty cool (he was probably the same age as us). After we explained why my cousin had pulled over on the wrong side of the road, the officer asked us how much we've had to drink; to which my cousin replies "He's had a few, but I'm straight". The officer responds "I wasn't asking about your sexual orientation". We all had a good laugh at the officer's witty response.

Then my cousin asks if the officer would like to him to take his registration out of its holder, to which the officer responds "Yeah, pull it out". All 3 of us started laughing at that comment, and the officer clearly said it by accident before realizing what he had said.

Then to top it all off, my cousin asks the officer if he'd like to see the yellow insurance slip or the pink one, to which the officer responds "The pink one". My cousin then says something along the lines of "I figured you'd like pink". Once again, the officer was laughing when he realized that he had been defeated in his own game.

Go Obama!

Back in early November I decided to support Barack Obama for the 2008 United States Presidential election. Since I'm not allowed to vote in the United States, I might as well reach out to my 4 avid blog readers instead, and maybe 3 out of those 4 people will reach out to 4 of their friends, and they will reach out to their friends, and from the Urban Country, we will expand to millions.

If you haven't seen the Obama "Yes we can" video yet, I urge you to watch it. The fresh new energy and hope that Obama brings is inspirational to me, and I can see a glimmer of hope for a new America. 2008 will be the end of a sad Administration that has resorted to sending "rebate" checks to 130 million American taxpayers in the hopes of stimulating a faltering economy after the sub-prime mortgage scandal (Yes, scandal might be a little harshly worded, but that's essentially what it is). In the coming months I'll be putting together a list of all of the events that have happened under the Bush Administration's watch that has made the world a crappier place for everyone.

I'm also planning to throw a huge party in November when Obama is elected in. Watch the "Yes we can" video:

Why eat less meat?

After a recent article I wrote, someone had told me that they had no idea that eating meat was harming the environment. Most things that harm the environment are common knowledge such as automobile emissions, burning coal, pumping oil, etc. But the impact that meat has on the environment doesn't get as much press. So my job for today is to enlighten myself and my readers on why eating meat is harmful to the environment.

First lets go over some facts that I got out of a recent publication on Greenpeace [1]. According to a report, "The total global contribution of agriculture to climate change, including deforestation for farmland and other land use changes, is estimated to be equivalent to between 8.5 -16.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide or between 17- 32% of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions."

That is obviously a huge percentage of the overall carbon output in the world, and it is a very big problem that we are facing. The reasons that agriculture is emitting so much carbon are described in the quote below from the report:

"Industrial, chemical-intensive agriculture degrades the soil and destroys resources that are critical to storing carbon, such as forests and other vegetation. The highest direct emissions from agriculture are due to the overuse of fertilisers. The solutions are sustainable farming practices that build up carbon in the soil and use less fertiliser. The report details a variety of farming practices which can reduce agriculture's contribution to climate change that are easy to implement."

So it all comes down to farming practices. I can imagine that farming is a competitive business, and cutting costs and increasing production output is probably important for a farm business to succeed. So I think there are 2 approaches to changing the way farms do business. First, the consumers need to demand that the products they are purchasing are manufactured in an environmentally-friendly fashion. This is already taking place, especially in the cities where people are demanding "organic" products and there are local farmers markets popping up all over the city these days. Secondly, the government needs to step in and do its part to force farmers to comply. Greenpeace suggests the government introduce taxes on fertilizers, tougher regulation on pesticides, and provide more money to promote local and organic agriculture.

What can you do about it? You can purchase local and organic foods, you can cut down on how much meat you eat every week (fish is a good alternative), and you can talk to your local government representative to push them to introduce higher regulation on agriculture in your country.

Peter Fricker recently wrote an article in the Globe [2] about eating less meat, and he notes that simply cutting down on the amount of meat that you eat by 10% can slow global warming considerably.

[Update - Feb 11] - One important point that I failed to mention is the second largest factor of agriculture's impact on the environment in addition to fertilisers - Cow flatulence (Cow dung is also a contributor). "The second biggest direct emitter in agriculture is animals. When digesting fodder, animals produce – and emit at both ends – large amounts of methane; a potent greenhouse gas. With an ever increasing demand for meat, methane emissions are expected to rise continuously over the coming decades. Beef and lamb have a large impact on the climate. Each kilogramme of beef produced results in 13 kilos of carbon emission; for lamb each kilo produces 17 kilos of emission. Pork and poultry create less than half of that."

[1] http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/recent/agriculture-and-climate-change
[2] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080122.wcomment0123/BNStory/International/home

Pollution vs. Greenhouse emissions

For a while, I had always put pollution in the same category as greenhouse emissions, simply because to me, the cause and solution to both of these issues were the same. We’re addicted to driving, driving is a cause of pollution and driving causes greenhouse emissions. Some solutions to both of these problems are to reduce how much we drive, increase public transit and invest in hybrid vehicles. True, but after you dig a little deeper you'll find that it's not the whole story.

According to a wheels.ca article written by Gerry Malloy,

"The fact is, the auto industry has done more to address the smog issue over the past four decades than any other. The smog-forming gases in the exhaust from new cars and trucks have now been reduced by more than 99 per cent.

In some highly polluted areas, new vehicles are actually said to be air purifiers, in that the exhaust coming out the tailpipe is cleaner than the air going into the engine.

Cumulatively, new vehicles contribute less than a tenth of 1 per cent of Canada's smog-forming gases annually – an inconsequential contribution.

Conversely, one 20-year-old vehicle, even if it is in top condition, produces as many smog-forming emissions as 37 new vehicles."

Malloy points out that the problem with pollution and smog is a result of older cars. I can attest to this from visiting China, where it's common to see very old cars on the road. The entire fleet of police cars in one city I visited was made up of HMC station wagons that appear to be from the 80's; and trust me when I say that you can smell the pollution when an older car passes you in China. It reminds me of the old days when a black cloud of smoke would come out of the exhaust of a city bus and it would cause you to start choking.

Malloy's suggestion is to penalize drivers who have old cars instead of penalizing all drivers and for the government to provide incentives for people to get new cars. But Malloy's article should be taken with a grain of salt. I took David Suzuki's advice and checked to see who's paying Malloy, and of course, Mallow is a journalist with 25 years of consulting experience, with a clientele that included "most of the world's major automakers". (See his bio).

But Malloy still makes a good point nonetheless, that the majority of pollution and smog is caused by older cars. Smog and pollution is partially caused by Tailpipe emissions, broken down into 1) Hydrocarbons (Causes liver damage and lung cancer), 2) Nitrogen oxides (Causes smog and rain), and 3) Carbon monoxide (Dangerous for people with heart disease), as well as Evaporative emissions, caused by the evaporation of fuel, and Life Cycle emissions, caused by manufacturing, maintenance and disposal of automobiles. [1]

Global Warming is concerned with the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from cars. See this cool diagram that explains the carbon dioxide output of each different method of transportation (including driving, flying, trains and bus). The idea of fighting global warming is to address the issue of individual carbon dioxide output. The Kyoto protocol calls to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but as we've seen Kyoto was unsuccessful since carbon dioxide emissions have increased since the Kyoto protocol was drafted.

Here's a PDF that has some statistics about Canada's energy consumption and projection for the future. Look specifically at page 24 (Describes Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas and by Sector) and page 30 that describes Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Province.

It's going to take major lifestyle changes from all people in order to make an impact, and as Suzuki mentioned, now is an exciting time because even the most cynical people are starting to open their eyes.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_emissions_control
[2] http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/es/ceo/outlookc.pdf