http://www.therecord.com/living/article/678212--turning-80-driving-test-isn-t-what-it-used-to-be
When you reach 80, and every two years after that, you are required to take a free vision and knowledge test and attend a group education session in order to renew your license. You may also be required to take a road test if they feel you might be a safety risk.
There are stiffer rules now as well for young drivers, with graduated licensing requirements over a two-year period.
Men seem to have a harder time giving up their driver’s licence. They outnumbered the women at the group session I attended and most of them appeared more confident and relaxed. The examiner told us that her oldest applicant is a 102-year-old man who has attended the sessions 12 times. He is usually the first one finished with the written test, scores 100 per cent and leaves in a hurry to get on with his busy life.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
canada rates well in UBC eco2 index
http://www.globalnews.ca/ecosystems+and+economy+rankings/6442584985/story.html
The rankings
The top 5 countries:
1. Bolivia
2. Angola
3. Namibia
4. Paraguay
5. Argentina
The worst countries:
1. Singapore
2. Kuwait
3. Israel
4. Korea
5. United Arab Emirates
The G8 countries:
1. Canada (15th)
2. Russia (31st)
3. France (77)
4. United States (103)
5. Germany (119)
6. United Kingdom (129)
7. Italy (135)
8. Japan (144)
Read it on Global News: Global News | Vancouver scientists unveil global index measuring economy and ecology
D - Canada is top of G8, 3rd in G20.
Rashid Sumaila, a University of British Columbia environmental and resource economics professor unveiled his team’s rankings system Monday at the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting held this year in Vancouver. UBC partnered with the Global Footprint Network, an international think tank, to compile the list.
Read it on Global News: Global News | Vancouver scientists unveil global index measuring economy and ecology
Monday, February 20, 2012
warming by burning each type of fossil fuel
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/coal-not-oil-sands-the-true-climate-change-bad-guy-analysis-shows/article2343528/
... oil sands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about .36 degrees C.
... natural gas would warm the planet by more than three degrees.
... In contrast, the paper concludes that burning all the globe’s vast coal deposits would create a 15-degree increase.
Burning all the oil in the world would only raise temperatures by less than one degree, the paper concludes...
Dr. Weaver’s analysis only accounts for emissions from burning the fuel. It doesn’t count greenhouse gases released by producing the resource because that would double-count those emissions.
-------
D - there are other considerations. For example, does fracking for gas in shale cause earthquakes (see UK)? Will it contaminate ground water? These $ #s are cold, hard calculations, devoid of opinion. But the answer may not please either the green lobby or the big-energy companies. Society, however, needs to consider all holistic factors that result from the use of any particular energy source.
D - since both USA and China (followed by Russia) have vast coal reserves, we should resign ourselves to heavy exploitation of remaining coal reserves. However, let us do that as intelligently as possible.
D - the 3 ways to handle coal would be:
1) clean coal - co2 sequester at the coal (or before)
2) scrub co2 out of atmosphere
3) use various sunlight albedo schemes to offset co2 in the air.
I think a cursory look will show only 1) is viable in a cost- effective fashion, so will now simply examine "clean coal".
First of all, at present time "clean coal" is merely a catch phrase by the coal industry. It may not always be, but it is today. A handful of baby steps are being taken to test the concept.
-------------
(wiki)
Typically, clean coal is used by coal companies in reference to carbon capture and storage, which pumps and stores CO2 emissions underground, and to plants using an Integrated gasification combined cycle which gasifies coal to reduce CO2 emissions.
Options include point-of-combustion co2 capture and syngas gasification. I'd like to look at a promising approach - leave most contaminants in the coal seam underground.
------------------
(wiki)
Underground coal gasification (UCG) is an industrial process, which converts coal into product gas. UCG is an in-situ gasification process carried out in non-mined coal seams using injection of oxidants, and bringing the product gas to surface through production wells drilled from the surface. The product gas could to be used as a chemical feedstock or as fuel for power generation. The technique can be applied to resources that are otherwise unprofitable or technically complicated to extract by traditional mining methods, and it also offers an alternative to conventional coal mining methods for some resources.
Economics
Underground coal gasification allows access to coal resources that are not economically recoverable by other technologies, e.g., that are too deep, low grade, or seams too thin.[2] By some estimates, UCG will increase economically recoverable reserves by 600 billion tonnes.[10] Livermore estimates that UCG could increase recoverable coal reserves in the USA by 300%.[11] Livermore and Linc Energy claim that UCG capital and operating costs are lower than in traditional mining
Underground product gas is an alternative to natural gas and potentially offers cost savings by eliminating mining, transport, and solid waste. The expected cost savings could increase given higher coal prices driven by emissions trading, taxes, and other emissions reduction policies, e.g. the Australian Government's proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
(D - better than nothing - reinject co2 or n2 to extract more oil.)
Oil displacement by carbon dioxide injection relies on the phase behaviour of the mixtures of that gas and the crude, which are strongly dependent on reservoir temperature, pressure and crude oil composition. These mechanisms range from oil swelling and viscosity reduction for injection of immiscible fluids (at low pressures) to completely miscible displacement in high-pressure applications. In these applications, more than half and up to two-thirds of the injected CO2 returns with the produced oil and is usually re-injected into the reservoir to minimize operating costs. The remainder is trapped in the oil reservoir by various means.
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/plotting-a-road-map-for-a-low-carbon-future/article2341616/
The gathering was organized by the Waterloo Global Science Initiative, a partnership between the University of Waterloo and the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, a research centre started by Research in Motion co-founder Michael Lazardis.
Their report lays out five key areas where technologies need to be advanced and deployed commercially to achieve a low-carbon, electrified future: battery storage, enhanced geothermal, advanced nuclear, off-grid power and smart urbanization.
---------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/air-pollution-hazardous-to-chinas-economic-health/article2279684/
Pollution costs China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, hundreds of millions – perhaps billions – of yuan annually. It also threatens the ability of the world’s second-largest economy to evolve into a fully developed, first world country from its current industrializing state.
“There’s no way they can grow to high income levels with the levels of pollution they have,” said Carter Brandon, environmental co-ordinator for the World Bank in Beijing.
The World Bank estimates that, in 2009, the effects of air pollution were equivalent to about 3.3 per cent of China’s gross domestic product. The impact on health alone, including premature deaths, amounted to about 700 billion yuan ($110.2-billion U.S.) in 2009.
---------
D - food for thought. Economic growth that masks pollution costs is false growth. It does not contribute anything, yet still contributes to inflation, as well as immediately impacting on productivity by way of health complications. Wage increases in China are rapidly pricing them out of the less-developed nation work market. Pollution that is not addressed contributes to this - it makes them uncompetitive. Any economic growth policy that does not vigorously address pollution is as damaging as a national policy that does not keep inflation in check directly. A wise nation would implement strong anti-pollution safeguards simply as a long-term economic policy.
Friday, February 17, 2012
no incentive for fuel economy
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/new-cars/auto-news/are-consumers-to-blame-for-stagnation-in-fuel-economy/article2340647/
“I find little fault with the auto manufacturers, because there has been no incentive to put technologies into overall fuel economy,” says Knittel. “Firms are going to give consumers what they want, and if gas prices are low, consumers are going to want big, fast cars.” And between 1980 and 2004, gas prices dropped by 30 per cent when adjusted for inflation.
Aha, so it’s cheap gas that’s to blame. Yes. And gas is cheap, notes Knittel, because politicians are too cowardly – not his exact word, but mine – to take the one, foolproof and overwhelmingly simple route to nailing down outstanding fleet-wide fuel economy and the lower tailpipe emissions that come with it: raise fuel taxes. Want to suppress demand for gas guzzlers? Make them prohibitively expensive to drive.
“It’s the policymakers’ responsibility to create a structure that leads to these (fuel-saving) technologies being put toward fuel economy” rather than building the bigger, faster, more powerful vehicles consumers will buy if fuel is cheap, he says.
------
D - funny. The gov't is forcing fuel efficiency standards that consumers don't care about. They don't care since the actual cost of gasoline (and driving cars) is not built into the price at the pump. The cost of oil rig-to- atmosphere is not built in.
We would not need big-gov't regulation of vehicle standard if we had smaller-gov't 'incorporated negative externalities' in the gasoline price in the first place. Ditto the health cost of accident due to cars in the car price.
But in the absence of this Mills-ian tweaking of supply and demand via this reality-based 'sin tax' in the gas/car pricing, we need the much more onerous and heavy-handed car MPG standards.
Over the course of a car's lifetime, the new fuel efficiency standards typically pay for themselves TWICE over. But this seems negligible and distant to a new car buyer.
See my earlier blogs on the real cost of cars.
“I find little fault with the auto manufacturers, because there has been no incentive to put technologies into overall fuel economy,” says Knittel. “Firms are going to give consumers what they want, and if gas prices are low, consumers are going to want big, fast cars.” And between 1980 and 2004, gas prices dropped by 30 per cent when adjusted for inflation.
Aha, so it’s cheap gas that’s to blame. Yes. And gas is cheap, notes Knittel, because politicians are too cowardly – not his exact word, but mine – to take the one, foolproof and overwhelmingly simple route to nailing down outstanding fleet-wide fuel economy and the lower tailpipe emissions that come with it: raise fuel taxes. Want to suppress demand for gas guzzlers? Make them prohibitively expensive to drive.
“It’s the policymakers’ responsibility to create a structure that leads to these (fuel-saving) technologies being put toward fuel economy” rather than building the bigger, faster, more powerful vehicles consumers will buy if fuel is cheap, he says.
------
D - funny. The gov't is forcing fuel efficiency standards that consumers don't care about. They don't care since the actual cost of gasoline (and driving cars) is not built into the price at the pump. The cost of oil rig-to- atmosphere is not built in.
We would not need big-gov't regulation of vehicle standard if we had smaller-gov't 'incorporated negative externalities' in the gasoline price in the first place. Ditto the health cost of accident due to cars in the car price.
But in the absence of this Mills-ian tweaking of supply and demand via this reality-based 'sin tax' in the gas/car pricing, we need the much more onerous and heavy-handed car MPG standards.
Over the course of a car's lifetime, the new fuel efficiency standards typically pay for themselves TWICE over. But this seems negligible and distant to a new car buyer.
See my earlier blogs on the real cost of cars.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
one week in city leads to heart attack
http://www.elyrics.net/read/d/dio-lyrics/one-night-in-the-city-lyrics.html
Or a week.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120214171040.htm
The researchers acknowledge that the magnitude of association found in this study is relatively small compared with those of classic heart attack risk factors, such as smoking, hypertension, or diabetes. "Nevertheless, the population attributable fractions of each pollutant is not negligible because the majority of the population, including young and disabled patients, is exposed to air pollution, particularly in urban settings, and thus an improvement in air quality could have a significant effect on public health."
D- visit city for a week, increase risk of heart attack. Nice.
Hazrije Mustafic, M.D., M.P.H., of the University Paris Descartes, INSERM Unit 970, Paris, and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the association between short-term exposure to air pollutants and the risk of heart attack, and to quantify these associations. The major air pollutants included in the analysis were ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (PM) with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm (micrometers; PM10) or less and those 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) or less.
The researchers conducted a search of the medical literature and identified 34 studies that met criteria for inclusion in the analysis, which indicated associations of statistical significance between all analyzed air pollutants and heart attack risk, with the exception of ozone. The subgroup analysis, based on study quality, yielded results comparable with those from the overall analysis.
Or a week.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120214171040.htm
The researchers acknowledge that the magnitude of association found in this study is relatively small compared with those of classic heart attack risk factors, such as smoking, hypertension, or diabetes. "Nevertheless, the population attributable fractions of each pollutant is not negligible because the majority of the population, including young and disabled patients, is exposed to air pollution, particularly in urban settings, and thus an improvement in air quality could have a significant effect on public health."
D- visit city for a week, increase risk of heart attack. Nice.
Hazrije Mustafic, M.D., M.P.H., of the University Paris Descartes, INSERM Unit 970, Paris, and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the association between short-term exposure to air pollutants and the risk of heart attack, and to quantify these associations. The major air pollutants included in the analysis were ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (PM) with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm (micrometers; PM10) or less and those 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) or less.
The researchers conducted a search of the medical literature and identified 34 studies that met criteria for inclusion in the analysis, which indicated associations of statistical significance between all analyzed air pollutants and heart attack risk, with the exception of ozone. The subgroup analysis, based on study quality, yielded results comparable with those from the overall analysis.
Friday, February 10, 2012
walkable NYC means 6-7lbs less FAT
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/giving-city-streets-built-in-safety-features/
It is served nearly everywhere by extensive, inexpensive and largely dependable public transportation. City children have long been able to walk, skate or scoot to school, though these days fewer attend schools in the neighborhood.
Because so many New Yorkers use their feet to get them from place to place, they weigh on average six or seven pounds less than those who live in suburban America, said Dr. Richard J. Jackson, professor of environmental health sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, and moderator of a public television series called “Designing Healthy Communities.”
-----------
D - but that takes PLANNING.
http://designinghealthycommunities.org/
http://www.walkable.org/
http://www.upmagazine.com/canadas-most-walkable-cities
Canada's Most Walkable Cities 2010
Vancouver
Victoria
Montreal
Toronto
Halifax
Quebec City
Ottawa
Calgary
St. John's
Winnipeg
D - if your city is not on this list, maybe you should ask, "Why not?"
----------------
http://www.livingabroadincanada.com/2011/04/28/best-places-to-live-canadas-top-10-cities-2011/
Here’s the complete MoneySense Top 10:
Ottawa-Gatineau, ON
Victoria, BC
Burlington, ON
Kingston, ON
St. Albert, AB
Fredericton, NB
Brandon, MB
Edmonton, AB
Repentigny, QC
Winnipeg, MB
In general, smaller cities and suburban communities scored higher than Canada’s larger cities, with Toronto ranked #88 and Montreal at #123. For many people, though, particularly newcomers to Canada, the vibrant cultural life and overall career prospects in the major cities outweighs some of the drawbacks.
Among the better-scoring large cities, beyond the Top 10, were London (ON) at #14, Calgary at #16, Halifax (NS) at #21, Quebec City at #25, and Vancouver at #29.
http://www.livingabroadincanada.com/2011/04/28/best-places-to-live-canadas-top-10-cities-2011/
It is served nearly everywhere by extensive, inexpensive and largely dependable public transportation. City children have long been able to walk, skate or scoot to school, though these days fewer attend schools in the neighborhood.
Because so many New Yorkers use their feet to get them from place to place, they weigh on average six or seven pounds less than those who live in suburban America, said Dr. Richard J. Jackson, professor of environmental health sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, and moderator of a public television series called “Designing Healthy Communities.”
-----------
D - but that takes PLANNING.
http://designinghealthycommunities.org/
http://www.walkable.org/
http://www.upmagazine.com/canadas-most-walkable-cities
Canada's Most Walkable Cities 2010
Vancouver
Victoria
Montreal
Toronto
Halifax
Quebec City
Ottawa
Calgary
St. John's
Winnipeg
D - if your city is not on this list, maybe you should ask, "Why not?"
----------------
http://www.livingabroadincanada.com/2011/04/28/best-places-to-live-canadas-top-10-cities-2011/
Here’s the complete MoneySense Top 10:
Ottawa-Gatineau, ON
Victoria, BC
Burlington, ON
Kingston, ON
St. Albert, AB
Fredericton, NB
Brandon, MB
Edmonton, AB
Repentigny, QC
Winnipeg, MB
In general, smaller cities and suburban communities scored higher than Canada’s larger cities, with Toronto ranked #88 and Montreal at #123. For many people, though, particularly newcomers to Canada, the vibrant cultural life and overall career prospects in the major cities outweighs some of the drawbacks.
Among the better-scoring large cities, beyond the Top 10, were London (ON) at #14, Calgary at #16, Halifax (NS) at #21, Quebec City at #25, and Vancouver at #29.
http://www.livingabroadincanada.com/2011/04/28/best-places-to-live-canadas-top-10-cities-2011/
Thursday, February 9, 2012
bike walk bus .... train? pricing
http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/667530--regional-council-ok-s-private-partner-for-rail-transit
What it’s costing you
Regional property taxes are rising by up to 12.3 per cent by 2018 to install street-level trains and expand buses.
By 2018 it’s estimated an average house will have paid $821. By then annual taxes are estimated at $189 higher on a house valued today at $254,000.
So far an average house has paid $63 to launch trains and add buses.
Source: Budget documents, Waterloo regional government
-----------
D - put in context, not so much to pay.
Now imagine how CHEAP a decent network of bike lanes/ trails would be by comparison.
If we discussed disconnected stretches of train tracks without continuous connection along the entire stretch from point A to B, you'd look at me as if I were mad.
But do so with bike transit and it's par for course.
So WHO is crazy?
What it’s costing you
Regional property taxes are rising by up to 12.3 per cent by 2018 to install street-level trains and expand buses.
By 2018 it’s estimated an average house will have paid $821. By then annual taxes are estimated at $189 higher on a house valued today at $254,000.
So far an average house has paid $63 to launch trains and add buses.
Source: Budget documents, Waterloo regional government
-----------
D - put in context, not so much to pay.
Now imagine how CHEAP a decent network of bike lanes/ trails would be by comparison.
If we discussed disconnected stretches of train tracks without continuous connection along the entire stretch from point A to B, you'd look at me as if I were mad.
But do so with bike transit and it's par for course.
So WHO is crazy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)