Recent comments

best of luck to her battle, seems like an uphill one all the way. digg

Yes the environmental community was definitely mistaken for not trying to appeal more to the rural Canada. смесители But this is a catch for us too, since the environmental community is surely not having any business with the Canadian agencies, this make our work even complicated. Fixing of the pillars and setting up a perfect roofing over the new apartments is a tough task to perform without the help of the Canadian labors.

Tim, thanks for bringing our attention to this. We are following it up and will get back to you.
Marcia Ruby
Art Director for Alternatives Journal

Professor Mark Gorgolewski has provided an excellent overview of current practices in reusing materials for building construction. The international scope of this endeavour to re-invent materials & resources for the construction of new buildings is well worth sharing.

I particularly like the idea that a Dutch firm has published a map for local availability of such reusable materials, not unlike the popular Ontario maps of produce availability at area farms.

Professor Gorgolewski, also, realistically, points out obstacles and challenges to large-scale adoption of such practices.

However, it is important, as the article shows, to make a start somewhere. Clearly, as he has outlined, efforts are being made.
This knowledge is a hopeful aspect of the process along with the creative potential for entrepreneurial spirits (new grads in Architecture, Environmental Studies, newly apprenticed contractors, MBA programs) to make an impact by re-utilizing resources, publicizing their availability.

To borrow from History, the industry could use some boosters such as those individuals documented by Canadian Historian Alan Artibise in Shaping the Urban Landscape. By boosting/promoting the wisdom of this sustainable building practice, reusing the old to build anew, the communities of the future will benefit all of us.

Across disciplines, across cultures and careers, it is a win-win situation.

I would like to read anything that raises awareness of the importance of trees. Their critical function in groundwater recharge and air and water quality should compel all urban areas to have urban forestry departments and urban foresters helping us see that old growth or mature growth.. all contribute to reducing our heat islands and protecting biodiversity.

Certainly, we need to be less rigid in the way we deal with environmental issues. In my mind,the changes needed are quite evident and generally need to happen sooner rather than later. Two quick examples are: when land erosion is happening, restoration needs to happen quickly before the erosion becomes staggering; with water pollution the smell and the visible matter are recognized so clean up is needed before more pollution is noted.
Often action happens after an environmental disaster happens, foresight implies that it could have been detected earlier. Prevention in land and water pollution is important within big picture visionary work we need to illustrate what needs to be done now before a problem is expressed. Insight and stewardship work hand in hand when thinking and designing programs that will assist the environment in some real fashion.

Integrated environmental work crosses many disciples, I believe this is what
Buzz Holling does well. He points out clearly what is unknown and what we will experience on the road to positive change. Hats off to him for an integrated response to environmental problems. Certainly he has a very interesting biography, I hope to read more about his life's work. Thank you.

While I agree that sometimes symbolic action is important I seriously doubt that there isn't anyone who uses substantial amounts of electricity that isn't aware of their environmental impact.

I am one of those people who works hard year-round to ensure that I'm minimizing my footprint. One hour is not going to significantly increase that effort.

I think the time for symbolic action is done and that those who are seriously committed to progressive change should walk their talk. Time is probably running out and I worry that the false sense of action engendered by these kinds of symbolic actions is not positive inasmuch as it can reduce the sense of urgency for action. Some people seriously think that they will have done their part by sitting in the dark for an hour.

I was lucky enough to find Wendell Berry early on in university (through reading Barbara Kingsolver) who has wrote a lot on this problem. In particular is an essay called 'Conservationist and Agrarian.' I think a lot of work could be done applying Berry's ideas of good work/farming/life to an urban/city setting and something along the line of Jane Jacobs to ideas about planning in the country/rural setting. One particular incidence of this problem is Canada's Federal Government. As much as a sustainable "wilderness" would/should benefit country folk more than city folk it seems that only the Conservatives speak effectively to non-urban Canadians. In particular the Liberals, I think, need to do a lot better at this because as much as I would like there to be more options and more party representation in the government, in the near future at least, our Prime Minister is either going to be a Conservative or a Liberal. I would prefer a Liberal Prime Minister myself, ideally with a minority government including a good number of NDP, Green and Bloc MPs, but it isn't going to happen unless Liberal MPs are elected in country ridings by rural Canadians.

Having recently entered a university horticulture program, I've been researching jobs. One of the biggest problems, especially in the agricultural area, is the low rate of pay as compared to the high cost of education. And the labour intensive greenhouse food production jobs are treated by the companies as jobs for people for whom minimum wages and minimum working conditions are 'good enough'. If the sector really wants to attract people, they'd better start treating those people decently. This, too, is a reflection of the attitude that growing crops is menial work.

Two observations having lived in huge cities and in villages. The first observation is about language. I now live in the country, now a rural area. We divide people by the language choices we make. Rural and urban instead of city and country draw real and hard lines in conversations from my experience. The second barrier is not considering the 'other' person's situation. We often treat 'other' places like a novelty, amusement or theme park - whether city or country. The country is not a personal picnic area to wander about and dig out wildflowers at whim. In the same way that the city is not the place to toss garbage on the subway or be rude to strangers. If want to work with people for our collective good we need to acknowledge that people live where they live. I have seen too many well-intentioned policies get passed that result in further impoverishing our farmers. Just think of the Northern Shrike protection on the Carden Alvar that resulted in ranchers cutting down Hawthorn trees to avoid further impact income and the perseption of devalued land, which is inessence many farmers retirement fund. We too often define being environmental with taking the people and their everyday life out of nature to protect it. The world doesn't work that way. We need to redefine how we live with(in) nature and its limits.

Great comments, Peter... I've always felt that the environmental community was mistaken for not trying to appeal more to rural Canada. Not only is this an opportunity to effect real change - it's also essential. Farmers care about their land, and they have intimate, life-long experience living and working on it. In short, the fact that environmentalism is often considered an "urbanite" endeavour by the vast majority of Canadians, is perhaps our largest obstacle to making any progress. I hate to say it, but environmentalists themselves share some of the blame for furthering this perception. No time like the present to change that.

Small-scale and local production systems would work if we weren't trying to feed 7 billion people. If our goal is to feed everyone on this planet, then small-scale/local often makes little sense from an energy and material efficiency perspective. It also makes a lot of sense to consider the life cycle of a food product when deciding if small-scale and local is the better option. The environmental benefits of small-scale local food production may be lost if the product is overly packaged or is driven to market in pickup trucks by individual farmers. Alternately, a large-scale overseas food production system may use very energy efficient modes of production (i.e. human labour) and use very energy efficient containerized shipping to get their product to the North American market. Of course, you then get into issues of different environmental standards, potentially weak labour laws, lack of fair trade options, etc... There is no easy answer to the debate of small-scale/local vs large-scale/global in the context of 7 billion people. There is no way of escaping the fact food production systems, whichever form they take, will result in some level of environmental impact. There ARE easy answers when it comes to choosing whether or not to eat meat, however. Study after study shows that even a small-scale, local diet consisting of meat will be more energy and resource intensive than a vegetarian diet from near and far. Emma in Sointula, BC