The Vancouver “Olympic Line” started running today on Thursday January 21, 2010. Since I got a day-off, I decided to hop-on before it’s taken over by tourists.

The Olympic Line in Vancouver is shorter than I expected. The ride takes less than 5 minutes over the 1.8 km track. As a demonstration project, the vehicles run only from Granville Island to the Olympic Village Station. The two Bombardier “modern streetcars” run on the historic railway. Personally, I wouldn’t call the vehicle a “streetcar” since it runs on good-old-fashioned rail road, but it is “modern” alright. The vehicle is not wider than a regular bus, but its interior is certainly nicer than its on-road counterparts.

For selfish reasons (living few blocks away from Granville Island, and my fascination with things running on tracks) I really hope the city would expand the line to cover Downtown areas. Streetcars allow you to see the city, not just getting from point A to point B. The being said, the potentials of streetcars are not fully developed in the demonstration project because it covers mostly residential areas. I believe streetcars can benefit smaller local businesses and give residents opportunities to explore the city.

The Olympic Line will run until March 21. It runs 18 hours a day, starting at 6:30 a.m. to midnight at 12:30 a.m.

Oh, did I mention it’s free?

Olympic Line in motion video:

Vision for a Net Positive Energy and Water Campus: Through an Incentive Program for Maximizing Resource Efficiency

UBC is in desperate need of an overarching institutional framework that creates incentives for efficient and disincentives for inefficient resource usage. Rather than focusing on ad hoc improvement projects, it is more important to establish a system that generates innovative ideas everyday, not just when there’s a contest.

The problem is the broken chain of accountability. With the cost of fossil fuel, carbon offsets, and carbon taxes piling up, UBC will very soon pick up a sizable tab for its share of environmental responsibility. However, I doubt most students and faculties will make significant changes because neither incentives nor disincentives are in place. The stick and carrot stop at UBC as a collective, not passed down to departments, faculties, and individuals as it should. An incentive program can fix this by distributing the share of responsibility effectively and align interests in every level. The result is an institutional framework that focuses on maximizing resource use efficiency.

How such program could work in UBC:

1. UBC sets its annual targets for a number of resources, which may include natural gas, electricity, water, waste, and etc.
2. Allocate the quotas for each building based on the number of people it serves.
3. Track the building’s heating, electricity, water, and waste generation on weekly basis. Produce reports showing if it is below or exceeding the quota.
4. At the end of the year, buildings or departments that operate below the quota receive a portion of the saved money from fuel, offsets, and taxes. The money could be spent on buildings upgrades, distributed within departments, or even in the form of tuition reduction. On the other hand, those that use resources inefficiently could face budget cuts or tuition increase.
5. Efforts on the reduction of emission and energy consumption by students within or outside of the campus could be counted as credits.

Under this system, departments, faculties, and students are obligated (not just encouraged) to take proactive roles because their efforts are measurable (through weekly usage report), comparable (against the targets and other buildings), and would directly affect them. Since the key indicator is the resource use efficiency (measured in, for example usage / person hour), it takes into account building size and user number, and gives a comparable ratio throughout the campus. While some buildings are built more efficient than others, it is unfair to give them preferential treatments. It should be up to the users to come up with plans for decrease consumption or increase usage. For example, a classroom is twice as efficient when it is used by 20 people instead of 10.

While I believe the incentive program will produce innovative solutions for efficient resource use, there are several specific improvements that could be adopted immediately.

1. Smarter heating control: computerized heating control that allows automatic shutoffs when a classroom or building is not used. It could be determined through motion sensors or course schedule. Alternatively, timers could be installed that automatically shuts off heater.
2. Smarter lighting control: similar to heating, lights from unused sections of a building should be shut off automatically, through motion sensor, course schedule, or timer.
3. Upgrade insulation for windows especially to minimize escape heat.
4. Install two levels flush toilets, collect rainwater for plant operations
5. For campus residences, make utilities non-inclusive and send out usage stats. People will be more aware of their consumptions.
6. Leverage talents within campus for improvement projects.
7. Financial support for paying upgrade costs in installments

With a proper incentive program in place, UBC could foster a culture of active participation in innovation. The program would not only encourage great ideas but more importantly, great results.

Before anything could be done, we need more awareness. For the meantime, tell the clerk that you don’t need a bag. It’s more of a habit rather than necessity.

I have a confession to make, for I have sinned. I took a 13 hrs flight across the Pacific Ocean to Taiwan.

I find it difficult, even unrealistic, to convince anyone not to fly, myself included. In most cases, there is simply no reasonable alternative other than not going. I bet even the environmental activists fly to the Amazon to defend the rainforests. Sure they fly to defend the nature, and maybe their efforts would have offset the CO2 their flights emit, but how about the parents who take their kids to a trip of their lifetime? or a girl working abroad for years decides to go home for Christmas? or a sales manager whose family depends on his income has to fly to a trade show?

My point is that, everyone has a good reason to fly. Even for someone who cares about the environment, the value of flying usually exceeds the cost of the fare plus the guilt disincentive.

While I believe it is futile to persuade people not to fly, a few things I hope to see:

Airlines integrate carbon offsets plans. Make it mandatory, opt-out, or at least available for opt-in. If flying is a necessary sin of modern life, please have means of redemption ready. Passengers can buy offsets as an option with the ticket, or they could be sold on-site (well packaged of course).

An increase in price will lower demand. Perhaps a tax that goes toward technological innovation or public improvement to offset emission. People will consider the alternatives if the price isn’t right, like picking a closer destination or a mean of transportation that was more expensive without the tax. Most will still fly, but at least part of the fare will go toward offsetting the emission.

I’m not a climate scientist, use a unit I can understand. Only the hardcore activists understand what “15 tonnes of GHG” means. I still have to Google to get an idea. Tell me how many km of driving equivalent, or how many trees I need to plant to offset it (forget the technical details for now). The point is to get people thinking.

I absolutely hate getting them every year. They waste trees, energy, water, human resources, and my time. Even if you are morally ambivalent toward phone books, I’m sure you can agree that in the internet age, they are useless, heavy, and a pain in the ass to get rid off.

Get my point?

I am deeply disturbed that they keep coming every year as jumbo sized junk mails. So I decided to speak up. I emailed the Yellowpages, and actually got a reply the next morning. Here is the conversation:

Title: About the Thick Phone Directories I Get on my Doorstep Every Year

Hi,

I live in Vanocuver, and I get phone directories from you guys every year. It’s very nice of you to deliver them to my doorstep every year, but the truth is, I never use it, period. Whenever I get it I worry about recycling it. I know it’s printed on recycled paper and you guys try to make it as environmentally friendly as possible, but I think not printing them is the most environmentally friendly way to go, at least not for people who don’t use them. Furthermore, it’s potentially an explosive PR issue if environmental groups decide to pick on you guys. I know in Norway a few years back it became a huge national issue that the law mandated the companies to switch to an opt-in model.

Hope you guys can consider it. Oh and please please please don’t send me a canned reply. I absolutely hate that because I have no idea if my message has been read or not. Just something simple would be great, something human.

Thanks for your time,

Scott

Here is the reply:

Title: RE: About the Thick Phone Directories I Get on my Doorstep Every Year

What I can definitly do is pass your information on to marketing and our environmental group just to track public requests and concerns and thank you very much for taking the time to pass on your ideas.It is sort of a mixed bag as some people love the idea of strictly CD version and no paper, but then certain groups of people really do not like using the computer and prefer the book. If there is anything else please feel free to contact me.

So far not very interesting, but I like it that they deal with my email very efficiently.

*****

Note: I published this few months ago on my other blog. I figure this post is worth migrating. I think we need more people write them about this. Just found a Facebook group called The Yellow Pages Must Be Stopped! Funny how they use the same image as I did.

I talked about my annoyance toward fake personal junk mails, but I actually hate junk mails in general.

Junk mails are very resource intensive. In the US alone, every year 100 million trees are harvested to make them, and 44% of the time they go straight into trash (source: ForestEthics). This is equivalent to putting an additional 6 million cars on the road (based on the 17 trees per car figure, perhaps an underestimate). It’s ridiculous that by having a mailbox, we involuntarily become part of their wasteful marketing practice.

The solution for most people is actually quite simple according to the Red Dot Campaign. Just put up a sign that says “No Junk Mail”, and you can block most of them (in Canada). I wonder why people aren’t doing it if it’s so simple? My guess is that people are either not aware of this option or not enthusiastic to act on it. After all, sometimes coupons for deliveries do come in handy. You can buy stickers from Red Dot Campaign’s website or print them yourself, but I doubt people would do so unless they are as pissed as I am (pissed enough to blog about it).

I wonder if environmental groups have considered sending out those “NO JUNK MAIL” stickers? Yes, send it out like junk mails. Besides the ideological conflict and the one-time cost, I don’t see why not. I think it will be very effective because it’s simple and effortless for recipients. Just stick it on your mailbox and you are good to go.

I don’t know for sure, but maybe this will work. It could be tested first in one neighborhood, and then monitor the adoption rate a few days later.

If you really can’t live without those delivery coupons, I’m sure when enough people opt-out, they’ll find other ways to give you discounts.

Personally, I’m still trying to catch our postie in the morning because I live in an apartment building with mail slots (shown in my previous post), and I can’t find a spot to show the sticker. I’ll report back.

Hi I’m back from slacking off.

A lot had happened in 2008: the Olympics, the elections (yes, there were more than one), and the market going apeshit. I’d say 2009 will be an in-between year though. It’s not quite 2010, another symbolic coming of a new decade and the much anticipated Winter Olympics here in Vancouver.

Instead, if the predictions are correct, 2009 will be one crappy year to live through. People worry about how long the recession is going to last and more signs of trouble in environment front.

I remain hopeful though. Could it be that we are in a healthy state of fear?

In 2001, after the dotcom bust and 9/11 attack, people were fearful, governments were able to push through major decisions. Well.. that didn’t go so well. At the same time it showed that, in crisis, people are more willing to cooperate or compromise. If the leader leads, people will follow because the status quo is not working.

Now in 2009, I really really hope Obama and, more importantly, the big brains around him don’t screw up. They have the golden opportunity to make big changes and push through the necessary policies for future generations.

Thomas Friedman says the best. We need a Reboot.

Consider the following questions:

Do you think the government should do something about climate change?
Yes

Do you think industries should adopt sustainable business practices?
Yes

Do you think we should drive less and drive more fuel efficient vehicles?
Yes

Do you think we should keep gas price low?
Yes

People consume less when price is high, and consume more when price is low. I don’t see how low price and low consumption would be magically compatible in this case, but apparently plenty of people do (or wish it is).

All of us drive less in response to high gas price, by planning our routes carefully, carpool, taking public transit, driving a smaller car.

When price drops, we may not consciously drive more. Instead, we’ll just “not drive less”, and maybe get back to our old habits.

Why would anyone drive less when bus fare cost as much as gas price? Why would industries do anything different in turbulent times if the old ways cost much less again? Why would the government do anything if voters oppose long term solutions?

To illustrate, consider the following questions:

DO you agree that polluters should pay tax?
Yes

Do you agree that carbon dioxide is a major pollutant that causes climate change?
Yes

Would you support carbon tax on gasoline?
HELL NO!

It pisses me off when people blindly oppose carbon tax, saying that it will push up gas price. Hmm.. No shit! That’s the whole point. How else would everyone drive less?
 
 
Perhaps now is the best time to implement brave carbon tax policies, before people start whining about gas price again.

It’s fast, it’s convenient, it’s delicious. Heck, it’s pretty cheap too.

I can order a bento box from the Japanese restaurant just a few blocks away for just 6 to 10 bucks. I’ll get teriyaki beef (or chicken), California roll, tempura, salad, and miso soup. Good deal if you ask me.

One thing bothers me though: the heap of Styrofoam boxes I have to throw away. There’s a big box for teriyaki, roll, and tempura. A smaller box for salad. A bowl for miso soup, and a smaller one for tempura sauce, and a even smaller one for soy sauce (how considerate).

I keep wondering if there is a better way. I could just eat in the restaurant, but I like watching movies while eating. Plus I wouldn’t get the take-out discount (some are as high as 25%), and I’d have to pay 10% more for tips. So in a way I am financially rewarded for producing all these garbage. The volume of Styrofoam containers are many times of plastic bags, so how come we are only talking about phasing out plastic bags?

Let’s think about the alternatives. Asking people to bring their own plates for take-outs is not possible (or is it?), so how about changing to reusable plastic containers, like the Tupperware kind. Customers will pay a hefty deposit for each container they take away, and they can return them on next visit. I think this can actually increase customer loyalty and work to the advantage of restaurants. The containers, of course, should be made of highly recyclable materials and could be cleaned easily.

Has anyone done a life-cycle analysis on Styrofoam vs. reusable plastic container?