Calgary Top Eco-City on the Planet

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Transit on the C-Train, sure, but my gut says that Calgary doesn't have that many bicyclers/walkers. At least not in terms of actually reducing traffic. Tons of people do it recreationally but to get to work? I'd imagine other (especially warmer) cities would beat us on that easily.

However the story doesn't really dive into WHY there's no congestion, just that there is.

Yes, but some people walk 1 to 2km to get to transit, thats what I was hinting at. I started biking to work 2 years ago and I love it. In the winter I take transit.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Surrealplaces

Calgary inherits great water and air quality from mother nature.

Technically, so does everywhere. We're just able to pollute our air slightly more and have it "cleaned up" for us automatically.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by shreddog

The problem with stats is that they can say whatever you want. When calculating this measure, did they include GHG emissions that resulted from the construction of a refinery in Houston that was funded by investment bankers in NY? Or perhaps the oil used to catch the fish that was then flown by airplane from Chile and served in a resto in NY? And where are the GHG emissions attributed to the banker who lives in NY M-F but spends the weekends on his boat in the Hamptons? Finally, how large is the carbon footprint required to address the fact that NY only does primary treatment on its sewage before dumping it into the ocean?

Yeah, I agree. It is extremely hard to measure these things. Concepts such as embodied energy, carbon, water etc etc are good tools to better measure the true impact of something. As is the Life Cycle Analysis model.

But I stand next to my point that "Eco-City" is a poor name for this category and it should be "Cleanest City" instead.

[SubwayRev]

Originally Posted by fusili

Yeah, I agree. It is extremely hard to measure these things. Concepts such as embodied energy, carbon, water etc etc are good tools to better measure the true impact of something. As is the Life Cycle Analysis model.

But I stand next to my point that "Eco-City" is a poor name for this category and it should be "Cleanest City" instead.

You're right...that's what the report comes off as, despite the misleading moniker "Eco."

To the water topic, most cities in Canada barely do anything to their sewage. It's actually amazing. See Victoria and St. John's whose sewage doesn't pass through anything before dumping into the ocean. There are even signs in downtown St. John's telling you not to throw garbage into the toilet, because birds and fish might choke on it. Canada may have the worst seage record of any developed nation, and even many undeveloped nations.

In a report I saw from, I believe 2006, Calgary and Edmonton were the only cities in Canada to receive a grade above D, and they both received A+. Halifax, St. John's, Vancouver, Victoria and Montreal all received F...

[The Chemist]

^Why do citizens of those cities stand for that crap (pun completely intended)? It's despicable that so many of our cities dump raw sewage right into large bodies of water with absolutely no treatment.

I mean, it's not like building sufficient water treatment plants (at very least secondary treatment) are THAT expensive. Surely they can find some room in their budgets to build them.

[Calgarian]

lol, this made it to the Canada section.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by fusili

But I stand next to my point that "Eco-City" is a poor name for this category and it should be "Cleanest City" instead.

And they stand next to their point.

"Cleanest City" was making people think in terms of cleanliness, you know, like litter and dirt and whatnot. Calgary definitely feels like a "dirty" city to most people, especially in September or so when dust is flying everywhere and you just can't keep your car clean at all.

"Eco" just means a different thing to some people than you. You have to admit, Calgary treats its local environment pretty damned good compared to just about anywhere else. About the only possible knock that I can see is our carbon footprint, but that's distributed and really so nebulous that it's difficult to even label as a pollutant. Besides, a bit of warming might help settle down the whiners in the Construction thread.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by SubwayRev

.

In a report I saw from, I believe 2006, Calgary and Edmonton were the only cities in Canada to receive a grade above D, and they both received A+. Halifax, St. John's, Vancouver, Victoria and Montreal all received F...

Hey man! Toronto was/is a solid "B" . Moving on.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

^Why do citizens of those cities stand for that crap (pun completely intended)? It's despicable that so many of our cities dump raw sewage right into large bodies of water with absolutely no treatment.

I mean, it's not like building sufficient water treatment plants (at very least secondary treatment) are THAT expensive. Surely they can find some room in their budgets to build them.

It can be astronomically expensive as building the pipes requires ripping up streets, acquiring rights of way and tunneling. Acquiring the actual land for the treatment plants and overcoming NIMBY pushback is also a problem. I remember an article a few years back stating that completely separating the combined storm and sanitary systems in Toronto plus implementing tertiary sewage treatment and passive stormwater treatment would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Emerging market cities can do it for much less money as they generally operate under legal frameworks where governments can easuly acquire land and completely ignore community opposition.

[Wooster]

^ What's Toronto's excuse for shipping garbage to Michigan though?

[SubwayRev]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Hey man! Toronto was/is a solid "B" . Moving on.

Aw crap you're right! I guess I shit the bed on that one. Will you forgive me for taking the piss?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by freeweed

And they stand next to their point.

"Cleanest City" was making people think in terms of cleanliness, you know, like litter and dirt and whatnot. Calgary definitely feels like a "dirty" city to most people, especially in September or so when dust is flying everywhere and you just can't keep your car clean at all.

"Eco" just means a different thing to some people than you.

Touche!

Maybe it should be changed to "Best municipal water/wastewater/solid waste system and air quality city in the world." Rolls off the tongue nicely.

[Radley77]

On the sore spot for Calgary, the carbon footprint, I'm not sure how Calgary could have control to become less of a carbon emitter.

In 2005, the following levels of greenhouse gas emissions were observed in Calgary. The brackets indicates the amount change since 1990.

Electricity 7,844 kilotonnes (+59%)
Natural Gas 3,951 kilotonnes (+37%)
Vehichles 4,511 kilotonnes (+17%)
Waste 472 kilotonnes (+54%)
Urban Forest -13 kilotonnes (0%)

It's clear that electricity is the biggest problem for Calgarians with respect to greenhouse gases is it is both the largest and most rapid growth.

With respect to pariculate matter this has been declining since 1998 from 13 micrograms/cubic metre to about 6 micrograms/cubic metre in 2005. Also carbon monoxide concentration have been reduced from 1.3 ppm to about 0.5 ppm from 1990 to 2005. So Calgary air quality has actually been improving over the last decade due to improvements in fuel injection and combustion efficiency. 2006 Calgary State of the Environment Report

I think a common misconception is that Calgarians are major greenhouse gas polluters because of vehichle and transit use, whereas it should be directed at Calgary's dependence on cheap coal-powered generation. In 2008, coalpowered generation provided 87% of the electricity for the Enmax power grid.

My guess would be if you want to get massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta, (as opposed to just responding to increased demand by slowing adding only "green" projects) would be to apply carbon capture technology to the coal powered generation stations.

One of the other issues, is that as an electricity consumer that buys power from Enmax, AESO is responsible for bringing on power to meet demand using the most competitive market source rates available. So, Calgarians buy coal power because it is the cheapest alternative energy available.

At $15/tonne, that would mean that the carbon tax is capable of generating revenues for Calgary alone of about $118 million annually. If some of this revenue was applied to carbon capture and storage, then perhaps Calgary could finally get around to starting to see large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Whereas a $15/tonne carbon tax on fuel would only amount to about a 5 cents tax per litre of gasoline, I just can't see how that low of a tax will do anything to alter oil consumption patterns. I would think it would be more costeffective to do something like large scale carbon capture and storage and reduce electricity emissions by 50%, then to think that half of the driving population would quit driving or that people will drive vehichles that are twice as fuel efficient as the ones they are currently driving.

[Doug]

Right now, carbon sequestration only trades one problem for another. For every three coal fired plants to implement CCS, one more needs to be constructed to provide the energy. That means more land being disturbed to mine coal.

[MichaelS]

Plus it doesn't really "reduce" the amount of carbon we are producing, just putting it somewhere else.

[freeweed]

Plus... good luck convincing the public that storing pollution underground under immense pressure and plugging the well afterwards is safe.

Not for many years, anyway. It really depends how long BP dicks around.