my tev meeting tonight was pretty exciting. there were representatives from both toronto hydro and enbridge there to talk about what they were doing in the environmental sectors of both the city and the province and i don't think they were too happy with me.

the first presenter, a woman from toronto hydro was quite happy to be working for the publicly held corporation and made special mention of what a great job the company was doing environmentally. she made sure to mention that they were big supporters of Canada's first urban wind turbine and that it's a "very important symbol" for the environment.

to which i asked: that's great and everything, but it's been a few years since it went up... why is there still only one? we're spending all of this money on overpriced nuclear power and doing this big campaign on energy conservation, and yet you're still happy with a single wind turbine?

i wasn't as curt as that sounds, but i wasn't shy about it either. she was however caught off guard. apparently she expected to just come and talk to us for an hour and leave confident that she's "educated" another group of environmentalists.

her response was essentially that they don't have the power to do that, and that since they're a government regulated body, they have to defer to the provincial government.

translation: they can build a "symbol" but they can't (or is it won't?) do anything with it. they'd rather burn coal or generate radioactive beryllium.

here's the deal in ontario: power is generated in places like niagra falls (hydro dam), pickering (nuclear) or missasauga (coal) by ontario power generation and transferred to city centres like toronto by way of hydro one. (8% of the power is lost in transit alone.) then, companies like toronto hydro distribute the power to the rest of us in our homes and bill us for the privilege. the problem though is that power generation on that scale is costly (think billions. yes, that's billions, with a "b") both to generate and transmit and there's no need for it when power can be cleanly generated close to the source that uses it.

but this is the problem. the ontario government doesn't do small stuff. they're the provincial government, they do provincial things. but from the impression i got from these presenters, toronto hydro isn't interested in doing anything else. ...you'd think i was in bc, where people would rather smoke pot and do nothing, not toronto, home of "those who get shit done". it's frustrating and i'm not sure what can be done about it. but if the city is to start generating it's own power, toronto hydro is going to be the company to do it. unless we deregulate and let private business do it...

in related news, a major UN backed report for a global inventory of natural resources has finally been submitted regarding humanity's impact on the earth. the article does not paint a happy picture:

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), approximately 60 per cent of the planet's "ecosystem services" - natural products and processes that support life, such as water purification - are being degraded or used unsustainably. What is more, this degradation increases the risk of abrupt and drastic changes, such as climate shifts and the collapse of fisheries.

-- newscientist.com

i just got this letter from joe pantalone's assistant. he'd sent me an email earlier this week asking me to detail out all the stuff i wanted to do in toronto, so i sent him that big long list. for the purposes of good linking, here's the initial letter i sent to his office, and the following was his response:

Daniel,

There's a lot here, which is why I'm sure it took you a year to compile, so I'll take them one at a time. I should note that although Deputy Mayor Pantalone is the Chair of the Roundtable on the Environment, but that the Roundtable's role is to provide advice at the request of City Council. It is not, as of yet, directed to act as a think-tank for new initiatives. Instead, you may wish to forward waste-related issues to the City of Toronto Works Committee for consideration. You could do so by writing a letter to Councillor Jane Pitfield, Chair of the Works Committee.

I can tell you that the City has had some similar ideas in recent years, and is already implementing some of your solutions. As you requested, these are simply my comments.

• Better recycling boxes on the street: You're right that there is a lack of consistency. The City is currently piloting new bins which will make separation much easier. The pilot project, in conjunction with EUCAN, hits the streets in the next few months. In fact, mechanical separation has improved so much that we can do a lot of it ourselves, and just focus on getting people to put waste in any receptacle (not as easy as it sounds).

• Multi-residential recycling: Recycling isn't nearly as user-friendly as it needs to be in apartments and condominiums. For every person who does the right thing and separates their garbage, walking it down to the appropriate bins, there's another one who stuffs it down the garbage chute. You're right that there needs to be incentive for property managers to promote recycling.

  In the recent budget cycle, the city raised fees on garbage in multi-residential units as a way to push property managers to accommodate waste diversion programs, like recycling. We'll be expanding the green bin program into multi-residential units soon. Also, I know of at least one developer who has installed a waste-separating garbage chute -- residents switch the bin remotely from the garbage chute access on their floor, so their waste is dumped into the appropriate bin below. It's still in the early phases, but developers are finding solutions.

• Re-usable Fast Food Containers: This sounds like an interesting idea. However, the City doesn't have the regulatory powers required to force fast-food companies to implement it, the money to enforce it, nor does it have the capital required to fund it. Famously, the City once tried to force the LCBO (the world's largest purchaser of alcoholic products) to implement a bottle-return system, and the Harris government introduced last-minute legislation to prohibit the City from following through. The provincial Ministry of the Environment might be a better place to start. You are right, however, that a greater degree of responsibility should be placed on the producers of waste to be responsible for it. This is already the standard in many countries with much more developed environmental policy.
• Wind Turbines: The wind turbine in the City is actually operated by Windshare, in a multi-partner relationship. The best organisation to consider your idea would be Toronto Hydro, who are already working on developing new projects for wind power in the City of Toronto. I'm sure they'd appreciate your suggestions.
• Pro-rated Toll Roads: The last idea is, as you suggested, not something the municipality is considering. During the election campaign, Mayor David Miller was clear that he would not consider tolls on Toronto roads, as they have done in cities like London, England. Many environmental groups, such as the Toronto Environmental Alliance, have asked for consideration to these kinds of tolls that are pro-rated by size of vehicle.

Thank you for your comments.

so now there's all these different directions to go and no real clear path. my brain is pretty cooked right now from a minor sunstroke i picked up from the beach in north carolina, so i'm going to give this more thought in the coming days, but i'd like to hear some suggestions / recommendations from the lot of you.

one of the new employees at my company brought in her own little toy for her desk the other day and i asked: "so what's his name?" you know, trying to be friendly and all. well she was quite surprised by the question, asking in her chinese accent: "he doesn't have a name. do you name all your things?" to which i replied: "well yeah :-) i named every one of my stuffed animals".

she thought it was cute and i let her get back to work. but the next day i came back: "so you have a name yet?" "is name is 'daniel'" she said. i was so thrilled, i had to take a picture of him and post it here.

the second picture is one i took a few nights ago while walking down college street past a new development for the university. the idea is that the joint facility, funded by both the government and private business will benefit both parties... but i have to say that i share the sentiment of the vandal.