the official grace & cello blog

check out this company that will be rolling out its all-electric SUVs and SUTs in 2010, they are called phoenix motorcars.

you can reserve one now, and hopefully if everything goes well you’ll be driving one in 2010!

if you’ve visited this site before, you might have recognized that i am not a fan of the automobile … not in our cities anyway. a fantastic film like who killed the electric car frustrates me from two levels … the first being that we have the technology available to have zero-emission cars, but the car companies don’t want them to roll out … so they keep them from us. if you haven’t heard of this, watch this documentary …

the second level being that electric cars aren’t even the answer! … they are simple the worse-case scenario that we should allow ourselves. there are countless other environmental and social consequences that our car culture contributes to. roads are a huge issue for wildlife and waterways, and in the cities they take up so much space that room for people and their kids is very limited.

if we didn’t have to build so many roads for cars, what would we do with the space filled by roads today? look out your front window and imagine that as a grass (wild grasses, not lawn) covered lane, with more trees, some wildflowers, and maybe a small creek flowing by … the point being: there doesn’t have to be a road there.

not only would such alternate uses of roads make life more enjoyable, it would make being a kid so much wonderous … just run out the door and there is a world ready to explore and run around in, where there aren’t cars zipping by every 2 seconds … kids should catch frogs, not car exhaust when they are playing outside with their friends.

… my very convoluted point being that electric cars are not the answer. the answer is that we need to replan our cities, creating transportation systems that allow us to live without automobiles on a daily basis. we need to do this for the environment (there is no doubt), but also because it will improve our lives, it will bring beauty back into places that are currently rather ugly, and because it is simply a better way to live.

… but in the meantime, we still need to get around while our cities are being reimagined … and to do that, we should only be using all-electric cars (hybrids are not enough).

so, put your name on the list, and drive one off the lot in 2010!!

ps - there are a bunch of electric car options out there, some smaller than these … do some searching and see if you find something that interests you! … this treehugger article might be a place to start …

c.

… for three saturdays in a row, the city will be shutting down some major thoroughfares. the idea being to reconsider the idea of the road … from something used by destructive, ugly pollution machines to something that ressembles a park …

there isn’t a day that goes by that i don’t long for parts of montreal to do the same, although with greater vision. i say pull up the asphalt on some neighbourhood streets, and turn them into green zones, with grasses, shrubs and flowers giving our kids (and adults) places to play.

the time for roads is done in my opinion.

… and yes, there will be adjustments that need to be made … figuring out deliveries for businesses, and helping those with limited mobility and/or large parcels get around … but these are small problems that can be solved …

but first we have to give ourselves the right to solve these problems, and make our lives more liveable.

here is the article on new york’s experiment.

hey, check out this video!

it is of a planned city to be built outside of abu dhabi … all green. carbon neutral, “zero” waste, no cars (more or less), and all made within a futuristic, up-scale (yet traditional) sort of way.

here is the article that goes along with it.

whether you agree with all their plans or not, it is this sort of thinking and imagining that we need to do more of, because ideas like masdar city will only lead to other ideas that will then lead to others …

and in my opinion, that what we need most right now in terms of urban planning. and interesting that this is coming from the middle east.

north america is certainly not the leaders in this sort of thinking, but i sure wish we could be (and i’d love to be on the planning committee!!).

c.

have you ever heard of zaproot? it is a “green video-network” and i have only recently discovered them. actually, i have already watched a couple of their episodes, and i think what they are doing is definitely worth checking out and passing around.

the current episode is about the “green” (heavy on the ironic, or sarcastic) building that is going on in dubai, as well as the ubiquity of corn in the diet of north americans.

anyway, check it out … and if you have similar links, please pass them along!

c.

… in other words, if the environment seems like a cause more or less important to you, then make sure as a meat-eater (if you happen to be one) that you are the prius and not the hummer … because apparently the industrial meat industry contributes 25% of our greenhouse gases, meaning our fascination with eating meat, poultry and fish contributes more to climate change than transportation!

this is coming to me from mark bittman who wrote a great article in the ny times on sunday on why eating as much meat as we do (as north americans, and increasingly as asians too) isn’t sustainable. and while mr. bittman isn’t a vegetarian, he writes persuasively about why those who care about the planet should cut back on meat consumption … by at least 20%.

surprising, no? i can’t remember the last time i heard someone encouraging people to not eat meat! … just seems to me that actively proselytizing for vegetarianism (even part-time vegetarianism) is so passé! … so much so that i was pleasantly surprised, and actually quite liked the feeling … !

all the arguments we have heard in the past are here: it takes 2-5 times more grain to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as it would through just eating the grain (and it actually takes 10 times more grain if we are talking about grain-fed livestock in the usa). the livestock focused agri-business in north america is responsible for the greater part of watershed issues on the continent.

then there is the health stuff: americans eat about 200 lbs of meat a year, per person … which translates into about 110 grams of (meat) protein a day, when all that is really needed is about 30 grams (the majority (if not entirety) of which could come from plant proteins). our health suffers, the planet suffers, and all this meat obsession is a big part of why millions of people go malnourished around the globe …

 all that stuff.

anyway, i am not trying to convert you to vegetarianism! i just liked that someone at the nytimes cared enough to ‘kinda’ do that (even though he seemed to be hiding his intentions a bit). … i know today the politically correct thing is to never question how someone chooses to live their life; focus only on the good; eco is fun, sexy and easy … all that stuff. and i can play by those rules, i guess …

just thought it was nice to hear some of that old-time environmental talk still kicking around, asking us to rethink our priorities, cut back, think of the big picture and all that. i just got a little nostalgic!

… as an aside, bittman relies quite a bit on the sagesse of michael pollan and his new book in defense of food. sounds like a good read … i’ll see if it’s at the library and let you know what i think …

oh, and now that my mind is racing, just before bed … if you’re into books on food, and even maybe books on eating greener and healthier, check out frances moore lappé and her books like diet for a small planet, and hope’s edge. her newest writings include some around the world culture culinary voyages with her daughter that make for good, educational and fun reading!

anyway … night!

c.

je n’écris pas ici en français pour la seule raison que d’habitude je n’ai pas assez de temps pour le faire. comme anglophone (mais francophile), je suis (presque) capable de le faire, mais il faut travailler là-dessus plus longtemps, c’est clair.

… et je fais des erreurs aussi, mais pour moi ça n’est pas si grave …

en tout cas, j’écris ce soir en français pour célébrer un petit peu laure waridel, co-fondratrice d’equiterre … sociologue, auteur, écologiste, mère et champion de la durabilité — la durabilité de nos sociétés et notre environnement. elle a donné une conférence aujourd’hui à la bibliotèque mile end (près de chez nous) et c’est très impressionant de voir à quel point elle est savante, engagante et motivante. elle est réaliste et optimiste ! la voyant m’inspirait à renouveler l’effort pour contribuer à un meilleur monde.

… parce que vous n’étiez pas là aujourd’hui (probablement, puisque il n’y avait pas de tellement monde présent) je mets ici un lien pour sedna tv - une emission sur radio-canada - où il y a une entrevue avec laure waridel qui est très bonne. pour la voir, suivez le lien, puis cliquez sur le lien ’webemissions’, puis le lien ’webemission 10′ (la semaine de 29 octobre 2007). amusez-vous !

pour lire plus sur cette dame impressionante, voici un article de fond sur elle.

c.

so cbc is doing an ultimate canadian commuter challenge right now (on the radio), and it is really starting to bum me out a bit.

first of all, statistics canada apparently recently released stats that show that 75% of canadians use their vehicle for all trips from home!!!!! this blows my mind … call me innocent, since i use my feet for 95% of all trips from my home. …. apparently this number is up from 66% in the early 90s, which means despite an increasing environmental discourse throughout society, we continue to mire in serious structural obstacles to sustainability …

 i mean really … if 75% of people use their cars everytime they leave home, we have a LOT of work to do in order to build towards sustainability. because, like it or not canada … cars are not the future. biodiesel is not a green alternative (if it is used as a replacement for filling our cars, and maintaining the status quo).

the funny thing is, i think many people of my generation, and maybe even more so with the generation a bit younger than me, i think we instinctively know that what we need is big, serious change … and not just silly band-aid solutions (like alberta’s new climate change solution of putting carbon emissions in the ground instead of dealing with them).

one such area of change will have to be a re-designing of our cities so that at the very maximum 25% of people use their cars everytime they leave the house. even this seems like too much to me. … perhaps 25% of people use their cars 25% of the time they leave the house, and for the rest they use healthier, more enjoyable technologies … liking walking, or biking. … or walking 5 minutes to the train, then taking the train. or, jumping on some other form of sustainable mass transit (be it on water, in the air, or in caravan).

what we need in order to achieve sustainability is that 75% of canadians leave their house on foot everytime they leave the house. what we need are cities structured in such ways that light, jobs, homes, services, biodiversity and areas of relaxation all mingle freely and widely across the city. we should always be a 5 minute walk from a form of public transit, and that transit should never take more than 2-4 minutes to arrive after we get to the stop.

these things are do-able … all it takes is imagination, design and planning.

i have a friend who tells me repeatedly that we have to admit that sometimes (or often) we just NEED cars to get around the city. other forms of transportation just aren’t as practical.

my response is always the same: this is true, but only because our cities were built that way on purpose. we planned it that way !!!

the good news is: we can plan for other ways too, and no it is not too late just because the city already exists.

c’mon canada …. let’s wake up! we need to create collective initiatives for ensuring our cities, and city planners keep pace with changing global realities, and with the growing wisdom of newer generations of canadians who see that our lives can be better … and our heath, quality of life, and planet will all be the better for it.

c. 

check out this talk by david keith, a professor who studies climate change (simply put). i have never really liked this guy, for a number of different reasons, but i think it is important to hear what he is saying … because really, what he is saying is what many are thinking and believing. namely, that we will be able to think up clever technological fixes to our climate change problem.

what bothers me most about this guy is not his questioning of the current climate change environment, but his cocky assurance about the scope of science’s ability … something which any objective observer would qualify as ‘limited’. for instance, we are great at starting things, or creating events (and causes), but we are horrible when coming to understanding how these fit into the systems that govern our lives.

sure we could maybe cool the atmosphere with particulates in case of emergency … but what will this do subsequently?

oddly, part of his argument is mirrored in this article from nov.14th that shows that china is far out-pacing the world in it’s ‘weather engineering’ initiatives.

… seems like we are getting a good indication of where our governments efforts will go when it comes to dealing with climate change.

c.

here is a book worth reading. … i am sure most people who would stumble across this blog probably know a lot of the stuff in this book, but there are always things to learn. for example, did you know that tomatoes have 200% more sodium in them then they did in 1950? that’s interesting … do you want to know why?

there is one thing that is abundantly clear … that certain parts of life (namely, ‘life’) should not be industrialized. more harm than good comes from industrial agriculture, and this book, the end of food, does a good job of explaining why.

c.

so, yesterday i ranted a little bit about body burden, which is this pervasive pollution that industry and chemical manufacturing has given the world. the truth is, we have allowed these industrialists to get away with too much, and now our blood, soil, air, water, plants and wildlife are all evidence of the fact that things have to change.

and in theory it isn’t that hard. all we have to do is require these companies to use products that don’t compromise the health of the planet, which in turn compromises our health.

so all we have to do is make sure they aren’t killing us while taking our money! it’s the least they could do for their cherished customer base, after all!

… but my question is, where to begin?

my very smart friend norah, and that smarty-pants over at harper’s magazine have given me the wake-up call … we can’t let industry get away with murder. we need to lobby our governments (in north america) to force industry to comply with stricter standards.

we need in north america what they have in europe … either exactly what they have, or something better.

so … where to start? does anyone have any bright ideas? norah? ….

because frankly speaking, i am ready to get the ball rolling, 

c.