Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Get outside.
I have been reading a book lately (again, more procrastinating) on the loss of natural play in children's lives. Children now spend less time outside in nature, and more time indoors or in manufactured landscapes (playground, fields, etc). The result is a disconnection with nature and a host of social and psychological problems. The book cites studies that link ADHD with nature (time outdoors lessens symptoms), improved learning outcomes in children (children with more nature-based learning had higher test scores), and improved creativity and critical thinking (nature can be combined in infinite ways, while a manicured field of grass is limiting). The gist of the book is fairly simple, but speaks to a theme that is occurring in other areas of research as well. In health care, patients heal faster when provided views of natural settings. House prices increase in neighbourhoods with more green space. Crime decreases. It does seem obvious in hindsight. 'Oh you mean if my child spends more time outdoors than in front of the play station, she's likely to be better adjusted?' According to the book, yes.
When I was younger, being outdoors felt like the default option. I struggle to know how or why that is. I think it was a combination of our parents not having a ton of spare cash, liking to do cool things, and the good fortune of becoming horse and ski crazy at a young age. Winters were spent outside (the local ski hill was within walking distance), and so were the summers. I used to beg my parents to drive me out to the ranch at 8am each weekend morning, and would stay there all day. I'd come home for dinner, we'd have FB time (family bonding), then sleep and repeat. Cable was intermittent, depending on how my dad was feeling that month. Sometimes he'd declare TV the devil, and banish it from the household for months at a time. Instead we'd be forced to watch Planes, Trains, and Automobiles for the 74th time, or whatever was on channel 10. Being outside is still my default choice. Favourite summer-time moments are spent in a tent. Winter time, in a hut.
What am I really trying to say here? Get outside. Humans were not meant to live indoors, and we suffer the consequences of lives led inside of buildings in ways we cannot yet measure.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Are you doing what you love?
http://www.raptitude.com/2011/11/why-do-you-do-what-you-dont-love/
Enjoy. Live your dreams.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Going to hell, in a run-down honda civic
Last winter on my first trip to Revelstoke, I watched a couple get out of their truck, leave it running, and go into the store to buy something. We stood there staring in disbelief as they came back outside, realized we were gauking at them, and promptly explained that the truck doesn't restart reliably, so they have to leave it on. This occurred not 15 minutes after explaining to German visitors that yes, Canadians really care about the environment.
I am writing this blog post in an attempt to declare my sins, and my intentions, to snap out of it. I am but a shadow of my former bike-riding, pannier-wearing, walk-to-work self. It really is fascinating how quickly my motivations changed. Suddenly I am surrounded by vast natural beauty and clean(ish) air, so the urgency of what we are doing to the earth is diminished.
Out of sight, out of mind.
P.S. For the record, Revelstoke is a lovely blend of rednecks, hippies, mountain men and woman, and assorted people for which no category exists.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Truly Shocking
Paul Martin said it, and now Sheila Fraser has as well. Canada needs to move, and move quickly, on Aboriginal issues across the country. As a developed, wealthy nation it is ‘truly shocking’, according to Fraser, that First Nations communities around the country continue to live in poor, substandard conditions. While other Canadians experience improvements in their quality of lives, many First Nation communities continue to live in conditions that rival third-world countries. Water sources are undrinkable, housing is overcrowded or condemned due to mold, and all manner of social services from education to health care are underfunded. Some schools operate with limited or no running water, and allocated education funding is less for Aboriginal children than is it for other Canadians. Quality housing is hard to come by, and many First Nation communities have a significant number of homes requiring major repairs in order to remain habitable. Some families continue to live in homes that have been condemned, simply because there is no other choice. With the median income just $11,000 on-reserve, many residents are unable to service the debt that comes with owning a home, so instead rely on rental or social housing.
In a country with one of the highest standards of living, why do we continue to permit this country’s first inhabitants to live without clean water and safe homes? Equally as important, how do we go about fixing it? Some suggest that until Canadians care more about what is happening and demand action from Ottawa, the status-quo will continue. Others critique that we are imposing outside ‘fixes’ on a unique nation, and not relying on their traditional knowledge to guide the way. Lastly, some contend that we have created a culture of handouts; crippling communities from helping themselves. International aid organizations know from experience that providing financial handouts simply prolongs poverty and need, and does not get to the root of problems.
The causes are complex and multifaceted, and so too are the solutions. We need to seek creative alternatives that build capacity for First Nation communities, supporting them to help themselves without substituting our will for theirs. Aboriginal peoples have culture, knowledge, and relationships with each other and with nature that need to be the foundations of their future path, not relegated to museums of the past.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
If you know me, and you don't vote, we're no longer friends
I posted a blog back in January on democracy and engaging with your vote, and discussed the ease with which we can now cast our ballet. Transportation is accessible, advanced voting is accommodating, and there are more polling stations than Starbucks. I also joked that 100 years ago they had to travel by camel, and was recently informed by one of my colleagues that actually, Canada did at one point have camels. Not indigenous mind you, but still, camels in Canada!
I rode the elevator to my office this morning, and on the fancy screen in the elevator news feed it said, 'Voter turnout expected to continue to decline'. Please help prove them wrong. May 2nd, 2011. Vote.
Plug into this great organization who is helping to engage voters, particularly youth, across the country. http://leadnow.ca/
Climate change needs IT, but at what cost?
Mitigation strategies meant to address climate change often require new technologies, connectivity, and access to information in order to achieve their targets. Smart meters, smart grids, and energy efficiency buildings all rely heavily on information technology (IT) and communications as a means of reducing energy consumption and promoting or enabling energy conservation. Other mitigation strategies such as the dematerialization of goods and services (think e-books, e-services, and the proliferation of all things accessible through the web) also rely on IT, in particular the storage and computation of vast amounts of information. Facebook, Google, Amazon, and other IT players have many large data centres located around the globe providing continuous access to searching, information, and other online services (known as cloud computing). And by ‘large’, we mean ‘tremendously huge’. Apple’s new data centre, iDataCenter, is expected to use as much power as 80,000 US homes.
Data centres are an energy utility’s best friend; that is, if you are a coal powered or nuclear plant. Data centres consume a nearly constant supply of energy, creating the predictable 24/7 baseload that these plants desire. Traditionally data centre site selection, or ‘siting’, is evaluated based on three main criteria:
- Reliable, low-cost source of power
- Reliable telecommunications infrastructure with sufficient capacity
- Minimal risks such as earthquakes, floods, civil unrest, etc
As such, energy utilities and the regions that house them offer data centres large tax incentives to build infrastructure investments in their region, creating a compelling financial case. Greenpeace’s report makes the strong case for including additional criteria when evaluating potential sites, in an effort to shift data centre construction to low-carbon regions:
- Availability of and proximity to renewable energy sources; located away from coal and nuclear plants
- Carbon shadow pricing
Data centre owners have the unique opportunity to spur new demand for renewable energy and shift policies both regionally and nationally. Data centres the size of Apple’s iDataCenter can force the issue, demonstrate leadership, and create investments in renewable energy sources. Just last year, Google created a subsidiary, Google Energy, that can buy and sell electricity, effectively allowing Google to act as it’s own energy utility. Google has since invested $100 Million in a joint venture to build a wind farm in Oregon, and last year signed a 20-year power purchase agreement (PPA) with a wind farm in Iowa . The electricity will not be used in their data centre; instead Google will resell the electricity and retire the renewable energy credits.
Welcome to Canada
It just so happens that many areas of Canada, notably certain regions of British Columbia and Quebec, meet the criteria outlined above. Renewable energy is abundant, telecommunication lines runs east-west across the country, and Canada is a safe place to invest. Canada, in particular British Columbia, has an opportunity to leverage the report published by Greenpeace and advocate for the location of data centres in regions such as BC, where renewable energy sources are abundant. ISIS has recently produced a similar report (link) discussing the opportunities of creating carbon neutral data centres through proper siting and the use of direct or indirect investments in renewable energy (RECs or green premiums).
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Do we really have an impact?
To wrap up the travel portion of this blog, I spent another couple days in Luang Prabang where we did some touristy things including visiting a beautiful waterfall, ate at some incredible restaurants, shopped at the night market, and (surprise) ate more food. We also watch the morning alms at 6am, as monks gather food from the locals along the main street. I opted to cut short my trip and fly home from Luang Prabang, but went out for a farewell morning ride with everyone. It was a rainy and very wet ride, and I turned around at about the 20km to ride back into town, as I still had to track down a bike box and disassemble my bike. The rest of the group had a very big day ahead of them, including 2000m climb and 70 km in the pouring rain. Sounds like fun. I've been informed that it has rained every day since I left...a sign if there ever was one. I definitely miss the carefree and zero-stress feel of Laos, and also 'team punishment'.
I'm back in Vancouver now, and officially declare that jet lag is the devil. I also have a renewed sense of gratitude for being born and living in such a great place. Lastly, I wonder how we are going to make a difference in the world, while large swaths of the population are concerned with other issues such as making a living, surviving, and getting by.