The King’s Green Pad

A few weeks ago I was approached by a canvasser employed by Envision Edmonton and asked if I would like to sign the “Demand the Vote” petition. I did not know much about the issue and the canvasser did not provide much explanation other than that the petition would require “a vote over whether to keep the [Edmonton] municipal airport open” if the requisite number of signatures were collected. I signed, thinking that democratic input into the existence of the airport could only be a good thing.

Since then I have heard and read more about the issue and have changed my opinion. Petitions can have a legitimate role in bringing issues to the attention of governments and the public, but I feel that this particular issue has already received due democratic process: it was already voted on in a municipal plebiscite in 1995, received open debate in City Council, and been voted on by city council (10-3 in favour of closing the airport). Our democratic system works on the principle that elected officials represent their constituents and govern accordingly; Envision Edmonton’s members and the “Demand the Vote” signatories should have voted for city council candidates who endorse keeping the airport open in past municipal elections rather than trying to waste Edmontonians’ time and money repeating a single-issue plebiscite.

Given my regret at having signed the petition, I called Envision Edmonton to request that my name be removed, but was informed that since they now have (regrettably, in my opinion) received over 78,000 signatures it would be impossible to find and remove mine. When I asked if the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the signatories were entered into a database from which mine could be found and removed, I was informed that “they were entered into lots of different computers” and particular names or pieces of contact information could not be queried.

When I asked if I would have a chance to denounce my support when contacted for verification of my signature, I was informed that only those signatories whose addresses or phone numbers violate the petition guidelines (e.g. not an Edmonton address) would be contacted for verification. I, in fact, currently reside in Winnipeg, but because I gave my parents’ Edmonton address (I was approached by the petition canvasser while on a visit home) this discrepancy would not be caught in the verification process and therefore I should not expect to be contacted. It occurs to me that any number of people could provide any Edmonton address (or any name, for that matter) on the petition and all of them could slip through the cracks of the so-called verification process. As such, retracting my signature was not only impossible, but my attempts to do so also raise doubts about the reliability of the rest of the petition’s signatures.

All of the above does not even begin to discuss the validity of the reasons behind the City of Edmonton’s desire to close the municipal airport and its long-term plans for the development the airport land – including LRT expansion, housing, and business developments. Nor does it discuss Envision Edmonton’s alternate proposal for development, one which retains the airport while also incorporating LRT expansion and which it claims will benefit tax-paying Edmontonians more than the city’s plan.

However, the questionable signature verification and collection practices (in addition to employing canvassers they also attempted to pay community leagues to collect signatures at their events) may hint at the vested interests that Envision Edmonton and those it represents have in keeping the airport open. Envision Edmonton may have developed its own alternate, shiny, ambitious development plan, but without the political will and municipal governments’ support it will never come to fruition. Instead, the petition and impending plebiscite will only serve to maintain the status quo by stalling or preventing sustainable urban development initiatives and wise land use as proposed by the City of Edmonton or Envision Edmonton.

Is the “Demand the Vote” petition a legitimate democratic exercise, or is it a case of a well-organized and well-funded group of Edmonton elites and local businesses pushing their agenda on the rest of the city?

Dave Bruinsma is an alumnus of the King’s University College, having graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Studies (biology concentration) in 2005.

Despite years of environmentally-themed courses, ecologically-focused textbooks, and conservationally-conscious parenting, I found myself inwardly cheering for deforestation earlier this week. I know…unthinkable! Before you gasp, say a little prayer on my behalf, and stop reading, please give me a chance to explain!

After participating in several health and hygiene promotions in rural Cambodia, I realized that many villagers already have a basic understanding of the causes of diseases and the importance of proper sanitation; however, their behavior rarely reflects their knowledge. Like humans everywhere, they are reluctant to change their daily routines even though they know it could improve their lives. This attitude presents a significant barrier to water and sanitation projects. Treating water, washing hands, and using latrines are wonderful ideas—in theory—but require commitment and motivation.

Sometimes educators stress theoretical reasons for behavior changes, neglecting to point out more concrete incentives. Environmental advocates, for example, emphasize the ecological benefits of using energy-efficient light bulbs, while for many people the best motivation is cost.

Similarly, we focus heavily on teaching the health benefits of using latrines, when research has indicated that the primary reason most people switch from open defecation to latrines is for privacy. This is especially evident in Lvea Em, the district I work in, where deforestation has dramatically reduced the availability of secluded bushes and people can no longer do their business out of sight of their neighbours.

Our latrine program in Lvae Em has reached near-celebrity popularity, with eager families scrambling to sign up. I would like to think that this enthusiastic response was generated by our health and hygiene education…but in reality I believe villagers, keen to preserve their human dignity and privacy, are responding to the increased sight lines in their community. And who’s to blame them? Regardless of the reason, they are still taking a key step to increase sanitation and decrease the incidence of diarrhea and other diseases.
So…three cheers for deforestation?

My cheers this week were quiet because while deforestation has accelerated the acceptance of sanitation in rural Cambodia, it comes at a cost. The number of endangered species is on the rise, soil erosion is clearly evident, and a beautiful, diverse, ecosystem is being depleted. In northern Cambodia, where I visited earlier this week, local people have had forego their traditional hunting and forestry practices because they are no longer sustainable (and also illegal).

So while I’m not sure whether to be encouraged or disheartened, I am excited by the changes I’ve observed in the few months I’ve been here. Perhaps I will return to Canada as a strident supporter of deforestation, cheering loudly for the visibility it provides to impoverished communities. Only time will tell.

Photo: Representatives from the 24 families receiving latrines in Boeng Krom Grow village. High-need families are identified by village leaders and provided with the materials and training to construct the pit and base of a latrine. They are responsible for constructing the latrine on their own and finding materials for the superstructure (bamboo, metal, wood, etc.). Here they are receiving supplies after attending training and a meeting about health and sanitation.

Photo: : Jane Jendah and her family show off their new latrine outside their home in Chroy Chre village. They built it themselves and are very excited to have a private, safe place to do their business.

This post was authored by Naomi Mahaffy, a recent graduate of The King’s University College in Edmonton, AB. You can read Naomi’s regular blog HERE.

Often when we are talking about global warming we often hear someone say that they do not believe in global warming, but they do care about the environment or that some aspect of the environment is more important than global warming. However, is there any aspect of the environment which is not effected by global warming and could the reduction of fossil fuel consumption have benefits other than the reduction of global warming?

Regarding the question as to whether any aspect of the environment is not effected by global warming, let us consider a rare species of flower. In order to protect such a flower, we may want to prevent development and resource exploration and extraction in the area where the plant is found and restrict human access to that area. However, because of global warming, the plant’s habitat may no longer have sufficient precipitation to support said plant or an invasive species of plant or herbivorous insect. As a result, the rare species of plant could be for nothing.

Or suppose we want to protect a watershed. Global warming may result in the watershed being turned to a desert.

In addition, reducing consumption of fossil fuels has its own benefits and not just the reduction of greenhouse gases. These include, less pollution, less environmental disruption due to resource extraction and being able to maintain a reserve of fossil fuels, in case we have to deal with such an emergency as a super volcano.

Doubting global warming does not mean that one does not care about the environment. However, if one does care about the environment, global warming should not be dismissed out of hand. All species and all habitats could be affected by global warming. A person who cares about the environment but is not convinced that global warming is real and caused by humans should investigate the subject more deeply. They should remember that, contrary to claims by denialists, few scientists are compulsive liars. Denialists only make that claim because they can not make a scientific case that global warming is not caused by humans. The vast majority of scientists are only interested in the search for the truth and the betterment of the human race.

This post was written by James P. Yushchyshyn, a part-time science student at The King’s University College in Edmonton, AB.

As virtuous souls swelter in heat and humidity, their friends encourage them to turn on the air-conditioning.

Having just spent a week in DC, I can testify to the temptation! While considered moderate for August in the DC area, the temperature was still 33 degrees C and the humidity 75%, which according to a humidex calculator means that it felt like 48 degrees outside. Yikes.

But almost worse than the sticky heat outside (which my tender northern Canadian body finds unbearable) were the freezing cold inside temperatures. Are the people who set the AC trying to find a moderate AVERAGE of indoor and outdoor temperatures? You go from meltingly hot to freezing cold, from needing the thinnest and lightest of clothing to rummaging for socks and sweaters.

I began to notice that the heat felt worse after being inside, while if I stayed outside I gradually became more accustomed. I began making behavioural and psychological adjustments that helped, at least a bit, to navigate the heat. I also noticed that I started to feel ill from the frequent, severe temperature and humidity changes.

From other travels and stories I know that this practice of over air-conditioning is widespread. I also don’t know of anyone who claims to like it this way.

Why? The unnecessary excess energy consumption, increased emissions, and expense, not to mention the discomfort, are obvious reasons to stop this practice. Surely we can simply turn down the AC a bit? A closer match between indoor and outdoor temperature would be healthier for us, for the planet, and maybe even snowball into less overall reliance on AC as we learn to live with the climate rather than fighting it.

A friend just returned from a holiday in Texas, which is suffering under a dangerous heat wave. While not denying the risks of intense sustained heat, I was interested to hear that she stayed near water and jumped in for a dip whenever things got too uncomfortable. Granted, that’s not always an option…or perhaps we could consider adjusting our activities to the seasons, and stop expecting ourselves to function at the same intensity year round?

So let us melt, and make no noise,
No whining, nor sigh-tempests move;
‘Twere profanation of our world
To insist on keeping our AC love.

(sorry, John Donne!)

This post was authored by Dr. Heather Looy, Professor of Psychology at The King’s University College.

This May, I had the amazing opportunity to attend the Great Lakes campus (Michigan) of the Au Sable Institute for Environmental Studies. Three weeks of Natural History later, I have to say to everyone age 18 to 80, if you get the chance to take a course at any of the three campuses (two in the U.S. and one in India), go!

What makes Au Sable so great, you ask? I spent three weeks in one of the most beautiful natural environments I could imagine: a primarily deciduous forest all but obscured the view from building to building on the campus, bracken fern brushed against my waist as I walked along the wood-chip paths, and kayaking on the lake after class always offered a respite from the flies. The community at Au Sable is kind and active. Dish duty isn’t a drag when you’re doing it to music with four of your classmates! After-dinner volleyball matches, Ultimate Frisbee, jumping in the lake, and hilarity over Taboo, Cranium, and Settlers of Catan filled the hours when we probably should have been studying. Weekends, many people would catch a movie in town, go down to a cabin, or take a trip to Mackinack (pronounced “Mackinaw”) overnight. Those who stayed on campus would go to church together on Sunday morning, and Sunday evening saw Vespers bring the whole community together in the lodge to sing, reflect, and pray.

It wasn’t all perfect. The tent caterpillar infestation was particularly bad this year, and I have pictures of caterpillars as long as my finger clinging to the edge of my dorm room! At times, if you stood still too long, they’d start crawling up your shoe, and if you weren’t looking for long spider-like strings hanging from trees, you might end up with a collection in your hair! Flies were an annoyance too, but fortunately they weren’t of the biting variety, or we would have been a very itchy group indeed! We still got anxious about our midterm and our final exams, and still had reading and homework most nights, just like ‘real’ school. But the enthusiasm of our professor (Dr. David Dornbos, or “Double-D”) for what he taught, late-night ‘shining’ (where you drive through the brush with a bright spotlight, looking for light reflecting off dusk-roaming critters), and my first-ever field course experience made it more than worth the few struggles.

All-round, Au Sable was both an excellent academic and recreational experience. Many “AuSableites” come back year after year, and while I don’t have the time or money to travel there every year, I hope to return before I graduate. It simply taught me too much to stay away!

(Check out www.ausable.org for more detailed information on their campuses and programs, including internships, diplomas, certificates, and many courses in agriculture, biology, and chemistry)

This post was authored by Theresa Looy, a second year Environmental Studies student at The King’s University College.

One of the most important accomplishments of Galileo Galileo was his astronomical observations which confirmed that the Earth orbited the Sun rather than the Sun orbiting the Earth. Unfortunately, the conclusions of his research put him at odds with the Roman Catholic Church, which taught that the Earth could not move. In 1633, was brought before the inquisition which required him to denounce the heliocentric theory. Mr. Today, history is repeating itself. In the State of Virginia, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, in a blatant abuse of power for political ends, has targeted paleoclimatologist Michael Mann in order to treat him the same way as the Catholic Church treated Galileo. The basis of this inquisition is that several emails from the University of East Anglia, which were released to the public by criminal hackers.

Since the contents of those emails are known to the general public (and Mr. Cuccinelli) as a result of criminal activity, even if these emails did provide evidence of illegal activity, such evidence could not be used in court. The truth is that laws exist for the lawless, and this includes laws protect our rights to privacy and due process. These laws protect us from such fascists as Ken Cuccinelli.

The State of Virginia must not only remove Ken Cuccinelli from the office of Attorney General but must also charge him with criminal malicious prosecution. Until it does, people should not trade with or travel to Virginia. Some people might say that Alberta should not sell Virginia any oil, but I have a better idea; Ontario should not sell Virginia any cars.

This post was written by James P. Yushchyshyn, a part-time science student at The King’s University College in Edmonton, AB.

In the later 1950s, psychologist Harry Harlow conducted a famous series of experiments with rhesus monkeys that showed that well-being requires a secure and loving home base. Monkeys reared with an uncomfortable wire substitute ‘mother’ that provided only nourishment were paralyzed by fear, unable to interact with other monkeys or their environment. Those reared with a comfy terry-cloth ‘mother’ did much better: the comforting touch of the cloth reduced their anxiety, and they could explore their environment as long as they had this secure base. Of course, monkeys did best when reared by calm and competent actual rhesus mothers.

Research with young humans confirms this: As we gradually explore and interact with the world, we too need a secure base from which to venture, and to which we can return. We’ve all seen the abrupt release and relief of an upset young child when a parent arrives on the scene. When young, that base must be physically present—a source of comfort, relief from fear and anxiety, protection, nourishment. As we develop, we gradually internalize that loving base, carrying it within ourselves, but it serves a similar function.

People who have not developed healthy attachments when young struggle throughout their lives in multiple ways. They are often deeply lost, and deeply fearful. Love is the centre and foundation of our ability to flourish.

Our culture is one of fear, not of love. It isn’t rooted in a healthy attachment to anything. And thus, collectively, we live out of fear. There is a relentless and increasing clamor of voices speaking warningly, fearfully, depressingly of environmental and economic catastrophe. We’ve got to change things! Now! Before it’s too late! No wait—it’s already too late! We run about blindly, panicking. We either believe we can come up with rational solutions, give up in despair, or pretend the problems don’t exist. None of these approaches is going to help us because they are all built on the useless foundation of fear.

Henri Nouwen in his book “Lifesigns” argues that we must live in the house of love, the home of Christ. It is when we are “rooted and established in love [that] we may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that [we] may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.” (Ephesians 3:17-19) And “there is no fear in love…but perfect love drives out fear.” ( I John 4:18)

This house of love is no airy-fairy getaway cottage in an afterlife, but the secure ground from which we can move confidently in the world. Whenever the fear gets overwhelming, we are called to remember and return in our hearts to our home, where we are comforted, healed, and gently encouraged and guided as we venture forth.

I don’t know how to solve our environmental problems. I do that we are called to be rooted in love, and promised that when we are, we WILL have peace and power, through the grace of God, to experience and be instruments of transformation and healing. It’s the place to start.

This post was authored by Dr. Heather Looy.

The City of Edmonton is currently offering a $75 rebate for residents who purchase a Energy Star rated high efficiency washing machine. This is an attempt to encourage people to “preserve the environment.” The city’s environmental plan, “The Way We Green,” is the driving force behind this program, offering information on how adjustments in our lives can positively impact the environment.

Kudo’s to Edmonton for taking a great step. But is this really going to save people money? Is it really going to “preserve the environment?”

Our family bought a washer last year for $370. It would have been great to pick up one of those “high efficiency” models, but, as is the way of things for the average family, we were just too strapped to afford the $800 equivalent. Plus, after shopping around for the best deal, we were getting “agitated” to make the purchase, as the laundry was piling up at home. At our final stop, the smiley sales person whose cologne was too strong, ring too big, shirt too starched and teeth too white seemed to be loading us with a sales pitch too unbelievable. We finally left him standing in his aroma and walked over to the scratch and dent section, did an eenie meenie minie mo quickpick, and took our baby home.

So I was skeptical when I saw the announcements for the $75 rebate. Would that quick cash help an average Edmonton family if they had to make a purchase like mine? I don’t think so. The typical argument is that you also will be saving costs over the course of the next few years, so the upfront extra cash will be worth it in the end. I still don’t think so.

The City’s information indicates that a high-efficiency washing machine can save an average family approximately $150/year in utility costs. A recent Epcor publication indicated typical average annual savings of approximately $83.25. do the math. This would mean, according to the city’s numbers, that my machine last year would have been paid off in 33 months. According to Epcor’s numbers, 61. Regardless of the accuracy of either of them, sometime in between, the crazy machine would no doubt crap out anyways, and a new one would have to be purchased.

Further, these rebates are only available for 1,500 households, first come first served. I’ll tell you right now … the majority of people able to rush to purchase a high efficiency washer, most likely own perfectly working machines already. I had an interesting conversation with an online rep from an appliance retailer about it this morning. When I asked her about the cost savings in purchasing a high-efficiency machine, and the city’s rebate offer, she surmised that for most families, they wouldn’t be able to afford a new machine, so $75 and residual energy savings really wouldn’t do them much good.

Having said that, the Climate Change Central Program, the organization administering the rebate, offers a coupling of municipal and provincial rebates to this particular initiative. If you live in Edmonton, your rebate could total $175 … that’s getting better. Regardless of all this, there are still other concerns I have.

Like hey … it’s good for the environment, no? Think again … have you been down to the dump lately? You could build a lego-like, life-sized model of the Edmonton high rise skyline with the appliances that have been dumped along the corridor of the Edmonton waste management properties. Don’t fool yourself. After this rebate plays itself out, there will no doubt be a silent increase of working washers magically appearing in our landfill. Nice.

Plus, the thing that really irks me: Why are high-efficiency washers so much more expensive anyway? I understand the R&D costing factor of “creating the better mousetrap,” but once these things are designed, and production has been established for years, are they REALLY that much more difficult and costly to build? I think people are paying more for the “green” than the machine.

Here’s my suggestion: The city may do better at offering 200 new machines to low income large families. This would mean that the people who need the machines would use them. Plus, they’d use the machine far more than a middle-aged couple with no kids who could afford the new machine, and the resulting decrease in energy consumption would be markedly better. Finally, families who need cash wouldn’t be as inclined to dump their old machine, but would resell them, so the resulting environmental impact on our landfill would be minimal.

As for me, I’m paying for food, clothing, school fees and gas this month. I’m not going to be throwing my baby out with the washer water any time soon.

Having said that, for anyone hoping to take advantage of the program, regardless of my cynicism, I surprisingly still encourage it. Find out more here.

This post was authored by Dee-Ann Schwanke, Executive Assistant to the President at The King’s University College. You can read more at Dee-Ann’s blog HERE.

Can you guess what this video is about?

Frantically hunting unpegged, errant undies that enjoyed brief freedom with neighbouring briefs in New Zealand was my first experience with letting it all hang out. I now dismiss the clothes dryer for the energy guzzling hog that it is in favour of joining the 80 per cent of Canadians who have at least once opted to air their clean laundry.

Since my current summer town in northern B.C. is situated in a wind tunnel that passes itself off as a valley, using the clothes line that spans the backyard – over our outdoor fire pit, no less – is a no-brainer. If the sun’s rays from longer days fail to dry my clothes, then the prevailing Chetwynd winds are sure to carry away any residual moisture.

To get the most out of airing your no-so-dirty laundry, follow these tips from Eniromom

* Save real estate on your clothes line by hanging wet laundry on hangers.
* Clip only one bottom edge of your clothing (like a t-shirt) to the line and let the other part hang open in the breeze.
* Use the extra spin/max extract cycle to wring out as much water as possible to decrease drying time.
* Turn dark clothing inside out to keep from fading.
* To save on clothespins, use one clothespin to clip two pieces of clothing together.
* If your line isn’t in full sun, then your clothes might not dry as fast as in the dryer. If you want to dry all of your loads on the clothesline, don’t wash back-to-back loads. Maybe one in the morning, one in the afternoon. (Yes, the dreaded advance planning.)
* Towels will get crunchy in the sun, so if this bothers you, use the dryer.
Line drying coupled with washing with cold water, investing in a high efficiency washer and wearing clothes more than once before relegating them to the hamper will not only make your wallet smile, but more importantly the planet.

Just don’t forget pegs.

This post was authored by Sheri Connolley, a recent graduate of the Environmental Studies program at The King’s University College.