Ran across the mention of a car powered by air on Scott Adam’s blog today. Check out the video, it is pretty fascinating.
There are more videos on the company website taken from different television features.
Ran across the mention of a car powered by air on Scott Adam’s blog today. Check out the video, it is pretty fascinating.
There are more videos on the company website taken from different television features.
I remember when I first arrived in university back in 1999. I had heard of people being vegetarian but when someone told me they were vegan, first thought was, “What on earth is a vegan?” The answer hit me like a tidal wave when we ordered pizza and there wasn’t any cheese.
It is always interesting to me to hear about food because for the most part, it is something we enjoy and experience on a day-to-day or somewhat hourly basis. Very few thoughts have run through my mind with regards to the impact I have when I eat what I eat. I generally believe in a “balanced diet” — too much of anything is generally bad. I do like to eat healthier but it depends on the cost and if it is generally good food (i.e. flavour). I keep in mind that the chicken or the cow (which I actually haven’t eaten in two years because of medicinal reasons) gave up their life so that I have nourishment. I acknowledge the fact that the agriculture industry isn’t necessarily working as it should (i.e. hormones, space and feeding practices) and many other issues surrounding food, but I had yet to think of how I affect others in this world when I take a bite out of a chicken burger or nibble on a french fry or enjoy a donut in the afternoon.
Mark Bittman makes some really interesting points and comparisons when he points out how many animals are killed a year, a production process that takes up massive amounts of land, and how this is connected to other farm productions that is focused on corn and soy.
Personally, I don’t eat out much. Too expensive. People often tell me to shop locally because of a number of reasons but I don’t think that’s the right mindset to encourage people. I think it’d be more effective to explain to them that when you are picking up that piece of meat or bag of fruit, you are affecting others. By supporting the current distribution of food, we are supporting the use of trucks. By supporting organic products, we are still supporting a certain method of distribution which may still be inorganic.
How do we deal with such a big picture effect? It would be way too overwhelming. The only way is to simply reduce the amount we eat and the number of times we eat out. Even better would be to eliminate the fast-food chains. I think the key to making an impact on the bigger picture is to continually ask ourselves how our actions can impact others — this goes back to being considerate but it is no longer just about manners or being polite — it is about cities and their polluted air with people suffering from allergies and asthma; it is about farms shutting down and massive suburban expansion, etc.
The interesting thing about this video is that it’s primarily American focused. Being a Canadian of Chinese descent, I often don’t really just eat a slab of steak or just a chicken burger — Chinese cuisine tends to draw upon many different food groups and blend them together. Since this is cultural and so many dishes have historical significance, I wonder how this has impacted the world…
TED has introduced Al Gore’s new presentation on environmental concerns. Some of the most fascinating points that he makes is that in order to act on his new findings concerning global warming, people need to feel a sense of urgency (I guess we’re still procrastinating…) — and after listening to military historians — he suggests that we can start thinking on three levels: local, regional, and global.
What was most fascinating to me was how Al Gore compared Earth to Venus. Venus being a planet that contains majority of its carbon in the form of gas within its atmosphere while majority of Earth’s carbon is in some form of solid or fluid form. So what are we doing now? Are we striving to become Venus by taking our carbon-based resources and converting it into gaseous form?
Al Gore’s presentation displayed how frustrated he is with the current situation but also showed his deep understanding of how democracy and freedom is intertwined with the decision for people to “buy in” and support the environmental cause to change the way we live, play, and do business. The question is — when will it be too late to wait for individuals to do something on their own? Everyone procrastinates but unfortunately there is a huge chunk of the world’s population who will continue to procrastinate and consider this a low-er priority issue until it becomes urgent. Can we override the daily concerns of an average individual and place the environment as a higher or greater cause?
It is funny because on some level, we need to fight on a daily basis for our survival. We go to work; we earn a living; we purchase food; we need to rent or acquire land and shelter for ourselves and our families; we need to transport ourselves to work in order to earn a living; and we are dependent on so many factors for our daily survival. Yet we don’t see the “asteroid” that’s about to hit our planet. We know it’s there, we want to do something about it on some level, but we puzzled or we just don’t want it enough.
First step I guess is to look at how we live our daily lives. Check out the presentation below from TED. Then go to WE and sign up to take part in a global movement to help the environment.
Nathan who runs a brilliant blog called, FlowingData, posted a large number of visualizations focused on energy conservation today. We see charts all the time in newspapers and magazines as well as a number of interactive graphs that various media companies and organizations produce in order to have content that complements their body of text. To some degree — I guess we can consider this as value-added content.
I’ve seen many many visualizations, often very beautiful and NEC’s ecotonoha is no exception. It is very much a marketing site but nevertheless, this site allows people to interact with their flash-based website primarily by posting messages one a tree, and with every message — the branches grow. According to NEC — ecotonoha in 2007 had 117,101 messages posted. For every 100, a tree was planted.

Does this bring around change?
We continue to focus on replanting trees but do we as common folk, examine how we use and consume them? My point is that while visualizations bring our attention and focus to a level where we can easily grasp the impact and consequences of our actions — are we as individuals really moved by what can be considered as visual representations of statistics to care enough or do we simply move on to the next piece of information?
I think that visualizations help ease the understanding of a particular issue, just as graphs can aid in summarizing statistics but we ultimately need to address the source of the problem rather than simply allowing ourselves to feel a tad better by using interactive marketing campaigns designed by companies to plant a tree.
Don’t get me wrong — I love the idea and I love visualizations — they help us achieve what may seem far fetched but I feel that they don’t focus on the thing that matters — and that’s changing the way we live. Of course … we’re free to do what we want … it’s a choice right? Or is it…?
Make sure you check out the rest of Nathan’s list of (eco)visualizations and see what you can achieve for our home.
Whether it may be buildings that are cooled by drawing upon water from the lake or utilize the sun’s light to power some aspects of an office building’s operations — we really need to look at how much of an impact that each and every office building has on the environment, just as much as every house within a city or countryside.
Norman Foster makes a very interesting speech on developing plans to create buildings that are “basically pollution free”. Now I am not sure what that necessarily implies but it is nonetheless a worthwhile listen:
I’ve been busy lately with work and such — so being able to blog about the issues I take note of has been difficult. I try and post anything interesting via twitter.
That said, I noticed a very interesting article in the Toronto Star, one of the newspapers in my home city and it documented numerous complaints from the public and former Toronto Transit employees about Toronto’s public transit system. Apparently people are complaining about how the stations are unclean and appearances have deteriorated to all time lows. Shots are taken by both TTC employees and the public at one another and I think it’s important to understand that both sides have significant views to express.
The public is right in the sense that the buses, subways, and stations are for the most part poorly managed and there is a level of uncleanliness. The TTC has failed to do manage expectations because those who understand the TTC’s position will understand there are many funding issues that Toronto’s transit system is facing. There are a lot of issues that go beyond funding and it is essentially on the operation side. How often do we hop on a bus while all bundled up in the cold climate — only to experience extreme tropical weather inside the bus and feeling like we’re going to pass out from the heat? All too often, I notice the driver has their window open while blasting the heat. Sorry but if there’s ever a waste of energy … that would be it. It’s also very inconsiderate to expect fellow citizens and TTC customers who are dressed for the middle of winter to endure such a high temperature while the driver has shed his or her winter clothing.
Most people regard this as a minor issue but if we think about it, every action like this has serious implications. It is an action like this that would likely make someone choose driving their car to work over taking public transit. Do we want to help the environment or not? Because if we do — it involves more than funding and changes in attitude — we need public collaboration. TTC employees need to realize that their job involves more than their job. I don’t know if that’s possible but perhaps minds can be opened and actions can be changed.
That leads me to my point that the public also has responsibility for the public transit system. We vote for our city council member. We can push for a public agenda and we should be responsible for our public space. We can complain about how dirty the subway train is or how badly the washrooms are, but do we take care of the problem? We the public decide that a public organization should take care of this infrastructure, we depend on this public organization to make sure it runs but do we treat the people and the infrastructure properly?
I see people yell at drivers for small mistakes like missing a stop, spit at drivers, put up their feet on empty seats, leave their garbage around, and leave newspapers accumulating in the crevasses of bus and subway seats. We may treat our home like that but public space is also the property of others which means we cannot treat it like our own home, we have to treat it like someone elses home — we are continually a guest. We can criticize TTC employees for their errors and mistakes but we also need to look at how we treat them — they are just individuals and human beings like ourselves. Having worked in customer service before, who would you want to actually provide better service to? Someone who treats you like crap, talks down to you, insults you and expects you to deliver excellent service? Or someone who respects you and believes that you will do your best to assist them in their problem?
Of course everything I state here is pure idealism — but it should be stated nonetheless attitude is an underlying factor in public transit and the first step towards public collaboration is to change attitudes on both the public and those who serve the public.
The Tyee has a great article on city densities and how a city needs to change as the number of people that live within a specific area increases. That said, the question that comes to mind is — how do we appropriately shape city areas based on demographics or population?
Erick Villagomez makes an interesting point about the eco-density initiative:
“As the argument goes, housing people closer together reduces urban sprawl and our ecological footprint by making better use of smaller parcels of land. Similarly, with more people within a designated area, higher density allows communities to support local commerce, amenities, and transit. This, in turn, allows for the potential creation of walkable and transit-friendly communities.
With regards to housing affordability, the connection to density is related to housing type. In contrast to the typical homogenous single-family neighbourhoods, the belief holds that more diverse, dense house types create more diverse and affordable housing options (due to lowered construction costs, decreased development fees, and fees saved from using existing infrastructure) for a variety of households. Furthermore, this increased density would make new, more expensive energy technologies (i.e. district heating, etc.) more viable.”

While this seems like it is definitely the right approach to housing — I wonder about people who don’t want to live in such dense areas and are willing and able to pay for more spacious land in the city. Will the supply and demand economics continue to work for real estate in this case? Or will we have to radically change our approach to urban development in the long-term? Obviously the households that are better off and able to afford more spacious living environments may reject the eco density approach. Is this wrong? I would say probably not. It is after all a person’s lifestyle, it’s neither right or wrong but what is necessary is that regardless of what lifestyle we come from, we need to re-think how we approach land and the value of land.
Robin Chase, the founder of Zipcar, makes an excellent case for how wireless technology can change our behaviour. I like wireless technology — it has the potential to help with so many issues from e-books, to pure person to person communication, flow of information and simply allowing people to change their lifestyle, if they want to…
I ran across this article on The Nature Conservancy through digg earlier today.
Nature recreation worldwide — from camping, hunting and fishing to park visitation — has declined sharply since the 1980s, and the negative consequences for nature and conservation could soon be profound, says a new study sponsored by The Nature Conservancy.
I’m not surprised by the result. The article essentially points out that majority of Americans (and most likely many Canadians as well) are more inclined to stay indoors — watch television or surf the Internet, etc. Because of this shift in behaviour, people are less likely to care about the environment.
I’d tend to agree wholeheartedly with the article despite the fact that there isn’t really anything surprising about it. It’s all about awareness. Simultaneously people react or respond differently to the outdoors — for example: my sister who is 24 years of age literally freaks out at the sight of an insect. This is a result of the lack of exposure to the natural environment at a young age. Initially when I was younger, I had a similar response although to a lesser degree, but my interest in photography is what led me into the natural environment — into forests and provincial or state parks across North America.

Photograph by Ehren Cheung
The honest truth is that there are plenty of city folk who are keen on getting out to enjoy nature but there are also a large portion of the population that want to avoid nature. Despite their interest in supporting the environment, is that healthy? I would assume that the natural environment is part of us as much as we are a part of it regardless of how much we try and redefine our environment in the more urban areas.
So how do we encourage the already nature-phobic folks to enjoy the outdoors? I don’t know if we can 100% but we can definitely start with the new generations and teach them to accept and enjoy our natural environment. The choice will be theirs in the future to care about nature, but at least they’ll have a better understanding of it.
World Wildlife Canada is holding its 18th Annual CN Tower Climb — I’m sure many Torontonians will join in to raise money for the cause — how’re you supporting your cause?
I may or may not join in on the fun. Unfortunately, I’m a tad tied up with work and school…


Photograph by Bill Wrigley