Communicating the Message

I recently came across an article on BBC.com titled "Media attacked for: Climate Porn". I'll be honest here, I'm not sure if it was the climate or the porn that caught my attention. In any event I read the article on a released report: Warm Words: How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better? by Gill Ereaut and Nat Segnit. I think I read it twice and still couldn't make make heads nor tails of what the author of the article was trying to communicate.

The gist of the article was that the report was looking at how the climate discourse was playing out in mainstream media in the UK. The article goes on to say that the report found that many media outlets, especially the tabloids in the UK were taking an alarmist approach to sell papers or raise awareness depending on which side you're on. What I was not able to work out was whether the report was trying to say that the state of communication on the environment (in particular global warming) was a mess, ineffective and that we should all just go home and forget about it. A bit baffled by this (both my apparent lack of reading comprehension and what the article was trying to say), I set out in search of the actual report to see if I could make a bit more sense of the whole situation. Well, when I found the website for the Institute for Public Policy Research yesterday, I discovered that I was actually one day early; the report was set to be published today.

I was able to take a first past on the full report tonight, and have to say I'm not exactly sure what the BBC reporter was driving at. The report is very accessible, not very lengthy, or technical and I recommend if you have a few minutes to take a read over it. I haven't had enough time to digest it to give my complete thoughts on it, but this I will say: It has been my observation, which is highlighted by this report, that the "green movement" has struggled with communicating the sustainable message. It seems that those in the movement go around wringing their hands saying "Why doesn't everybody get it?!". It's kind of like how in college that physics professor of 20 years experience, shouted back at the class "What do you mean you don't get it, it's right there on the board, it's so simple." A quote from the report's executive summary puts it perfectly:

More generally, the challenge is to make climate-friendly behaviours feel normal, natural, right and ours to large numbers of people who are currently unengaged, and on whose emotional radar the issue does not figure.

One of the major hurtles is just what the above quote describes: making sustainable living normal, a part of everyday life; making sustainability a way of thinking. I think this is one of the major points that can be drawn from this article, but I'm still stewing on this one and I'll have to let you know what I cook up.

It's the Environment, Stupid.: Carbon Trading 101

Linking in here with It's the Environment, Stupid: Carbon Trading 101 for a little intro on carbon trading.

Carbon, specifically carbon from coal is something we should be very concerned about and I not really talking about "here" I'm talking about "over there". In this particular case "over there" is China. A recent LA Times article indicated that a growing about of pollution from China is reaching North American borders. The EPA estimates that on certain days of the year, up to 25% of the particulate matter in the LA skies can be traced back to China, yes I (they) said China. As a sim in LA I can tell you that we're doing a very good job of polluting our atmosphere on our own and don't need any help from a forgein power (I can hear the conspiracy theorists talking now...). But seriously, this goes back to my introductory post on sustainability. Particularly the following section:

Sustainability affects every level of organization; this really only reinforces the first point but emphasizes the impact regional events can have on a nation or global scale and visa versa. The most important part of this point is the impact it has on the human psyche: what they are doing over there affects me sitting over here so I should care about what they are doing over there.

We should be very concerned and interested in China's activities, and I'm not talking about where they're putting their tanks, I'm talking about how they are treating our environment.

One concept that we (North Americans) seem to fail to grasp is that people elsewhere on the planet aspire to reach the same level of prosperity we enjoy (if by different means, or methods and even in different forms). The fact still remains that people on this planet want to prosper on their own cultural/social terms. In many ways I was taken back (and horrified) when I was in South Africa and discovered how much people look to the America as a yard stick to base one's standard of living.

So consider this, should resources be expended to influence developing nations to try and convince them to do as we say and not as we do, or should we rather look to ourselves to improve the role model that so many in the world emulate?

Global Cooling?!

While recently cruising the net I came across the latest for global cooling. Here's the pitch: To counter act all the CO2 we've been pumping to the atmosphere to heat up the planet, we're going to pump massive amounts of sulphate into the atmosphere to cool it down.

Does any one else miss the logic here?!

In yet another grand scheme to solve the symptom and not the problem, Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen has proposed a band aid solution to global warming: pump massive amounts of sulphate into the stratosphere. Simply put the sulphate particulates will act as tiny mirrors and reflect more of the sun's solar rays back into the space, increasing our planet's reflectance or albedo. By reflecting the sun's rays back into space we'll effectively reduce the amount of energy (heat) reaching the planet. The logic being: efforts to reduce the levels of CO2 production have been pitiful slow (no objection here) so we need a solution to stop the planets temperature rising. Any adverse affects of the sulphate can be dealt with since the sulphate will dissipate within a few years.

Let's review: We are currently pumping huge amounts of one substance into the atmosphere, so while we debate to what extent this substance is affecting our climate we'll pump another substance into the atmosphere with unknown consequences, but wait it's ok we can control the second substance.

Am I the only one that think this is insane?! Ok, I get the rational behind it, I can even see how someone could come up with this idea. But where does anyone on this planet, Nobel Laureate or not, get off with the arrogance to think we could pull this off.

The inconvenient reality here is that this idea will more than likely be implemented, or some variation there of. The inconvenient truth is that we're likely more capability of finding a solution to the symptom in a reasonable amount of time, than pulling together the political clout to clamp down on the problem.

Creative Industrial Design

I recently caught wind of two good pieces of news: one Ryan and Vanessa are engaged, and two Ryan has started a collaborative design studio with some like minded design professionals. I recently toured their website to check out what they have to offer, and my hat is off to the crew over at Castor Canadensis. They've been getting a lot of national press coverage lately and had several rave reviews at the Toronto Interior Design show last February. Ryan's always had an eye for design in my humble opinion as a hobbyist art/design critic, and the results from Castor Canadensis are not exception.

I serious encourage you to check out design work of Castor Canadensis at www.castordesign.ca, not only is it a very cool website but it's also displays and exhibits their work elegantly. I for one will be putting in an order for the recycled tube light when I undertake some interior design for my own apartment later this year.

Kudos to the crew at Castor Canadensis, make sure you check them out!

Good News Alert!

In the quest to seek out and identify any good news that comes through the main stream media, I'll be issuing Good News Alerts periodically. So here's the first:

Stranger saves father, 2 sons from drowning

Movie Review: Miami Vice

Director: Michael Mann
Producing Studio: Universal Studios
Trailer
KCRW Review with Joe Morgenstern
IGN.com review

With Michael Mann at the helm being entertained is nearly a sure thing. I enjoyed Last of the Mohicans, Heat, The Insider, Robbery Homicide Division, and Collateral. And in spite of my initial hesitation after screening the reviews on imdb.com, I was pleased with his latest movie.

Most of the film was shot in the similar style as Collateral with some even more free cam shots especially during the final shoot out, which helps add to the feeling of confusion. As with Heat, and Collateral all the gun shot sounds are not your typical bang bang, but ring more true to sound tracks provided by the embedded reporters in Iraq.

One of the major complaints of the critics on imdb was that the movie had no plot and seemed to jump all over the place. This is completely untrue. The difference is that Mann doesn't spoon feed the audience as most Hollywood movies do, but rather asks the audience to become engaged in the movie and connect some of the dots.

The action sequences were part of the plot and they weren't so blown out of proportion or all consuming that the bits in between feel like filler. The one weakness of the film is getting the audience to buy into the relationship between Det. James 'Sonny' Crockett (Colin Farrell) and Isabella (Li Gong). The relationship is more or less thrust onto the viewer with little to no explanation, and if you don't buy into it you're left behind for the rest of the movie since it becomes a pivotal part of the plot. Mann raises the question of how deep is too deep for undercover, but never really gets around to tackling it head on, which may have been his intent. He also doesn't take the time to provide any explanation of how a young Asian woman became the right hand of an international Columbian drug cartel. This is a fatal flaw, but since he did introduce a female mob boss (an unusually character in Hollywood) it would have been nice if he'd given the audience a little more an explanation.

All in all this was an entertaining film, and if the trailer draws you in won't be disappointed (however don't expect an action packed thriller). If you enjoyed Collateral or Heat you shouldn't be disappointed by Miami Vice either, but not much would be lost in waiting for the rental.

Movie Reviews

"A good film is when the price of the dinner, the theatre admission and the babysitter were worth it."

-Alfred Hitchcock

Miami Vice (07/30/2006)

Smack Down

First apologies for the lack of posting... it's been a long and hectic two weeks. But we're back!

So I usually don't take much notice or really care about celebrity news, whose dating/marrying/devoicing/ who (and in this town believe, ignoring this news is an active effort, celebrity news usually makes it into the 6 o'clock reports!) but this is damn funny.

If you don't know who Lindsay Lohan is you're living in a hole and shouldn't be reading this blog, so just stop reading and scurry away now, but apparently she's been partying a bit too much, and her bosses (this time Morgan Creek films) aren't buying the "I'm feeling sick excuses" any more.

The SmokingGun.com has posted a letter from the head of Morgan Creek Productions, James G. Robinson that is a serious smack down for her recent actions. Enjoy and revel in the hilarity of it all.

The Smack Down

The Lost News

Have you forgot.....

What's happening with H5N1 Avian Flu? There use to be daily reports on watches on the spread of avian flu, the latest number of people killed, when it was going to reach North American, and how much we humans really are at risk. Searches of CNN.com yielded nothing, BBC.com was still running a very detailed section, and receives topic marks. Time.com had a blog entire from July 13th. What appeared to be the latest search result from MSNBC (07/07/06) was actually written in October of last year. Reuters.com probably had the most current news informing us that today (07/19/2006) the 42nd human died from H5N1 avian flu in Indonesia. The Associated Press only had one hit for the last seven days. I even tried foxnews.com, just for kicks; their most current was from June 23rd informing us that H5N1 had mutated for human transmission.
*Searches performed with "H5N1 Avian Flu" for all agencies.

How about New Orleans and the reconstruction after hurricane Katrina? Here's what they had to offer:
CNN.com - focused article on health care staff accused of killing patients
BBC.com - again top marks extensive in depth coverage.
Time.com - excerpt address the estimated miss use of $2B in Katrina funds.
MSNBC - decent with a questionable top result (at time of writing reports on Emmy Nominations for coverage during the disaster)
Reuters.com - respectable
Associated Press - respectable
Foxnews.com - laughable (top New Orleans news story at time of writing, you have to read this)
* Searches performed with "New Orleans" for all agencies

What else has fallen by the wayside? Iraq (momentarily); Darfur conflict in Sudan (anyone even remember this?) Rebuilding after the 2004 Tsunami? (200k plus were killed, remember?) Iran? North Korea (they were firing missiles not more than 2 weeks ago)? I'm ashamed that I can' remember more... what have you been allowed to forget?

More important... what's the latest good piece of news you can remember? Someone please tell me they have something better than this.

Welcome To Texas

Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) Car Rental Terminal

Adding to the no Travel List

Well up until about a week ago, my no travel list was fairly short: Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Nigeria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and the Congos (Democratic Republic, Republic). Considering there are 194 countries in the world, not too bad.

The events of the last week would have me adding Israel, Lebanon, and Syria to the list. Admittedly I didn't have any real plans to go to any of these places, and they were definitely towards the bottom of the list.

I don't know enough history to even begin to try and dissect this conflict, so I won't. What I've found interesting over the last week is the shift in media focus. If you picked up a paper today or cruised major media websites you'd find nary a hint of the nuclear issues with Iran, or escalating the missile/nuclear issues with North Korea. History will tell us which of these conflicts is the more important and where we should have focused our attention, but one does have to admire the medias ability to very quickly shift or divert our attention from one part of the world to another. And in reality there is very little that we can do about it. True, with the the Internet there is greater access to search out different points of view, or seek out news stories. The reality is that in general the media has the ability to saturate the market and shift our focus at will.

Will big media help me with two questions: 1) was this the plan all along? and more importantly 2) has anyone else in our governments noticed?

Neo-Green Defined

I was going to make this the Wikipedia definition of the day, but wasn't able to find it on Wikipedia... so instead I'm going to turn to a fellow blogger and let his blog do the talking.

Thanks a lot to Mark Caserta over at 3rblogging for putting it together so perfectly.

Read about Neo-green

Best to Start at the Beginning....

It's aways best to start at the beginning of any story, occasionally you'll start at the middle or the end, but it can be more confusing, and for this story it just doesn't plan work. Though this I guess really isn't so much a story as much it'll be a commentary, not formal enough to be a dissertation, and not to far from a pitch.

One of the main reasons I started this blog was get myself to start engaging in a discussion on sustainability, specifically sustainability in the built environment, but sustainability at large. Hopefully, I won't have to discuss this with myself but if I do, so be it. There will still be posts on passing interests, noteworthy, or just plain amusing stories, and then the nonsensical. This blog is after all about Reaching Ix.

Before we even start, it's best to understand what I mean when I say sustainable or sustainability. The June 25th Wikipedia of the day was Sustainability. I don't think this is the be all and end all of what sustainable is, but I also don'’t think I'’m far off and it's definitely a good starting point.

I'’ve presented here what in my view is the definition of sustainability. It will likely be refined with time, as I am introduced and explore new ideas and modes of thinking. It is a fluid process, a work continually in progress.

Wikipedia defines sustainability as:

a systemic concept, relating to the continuity of economic, social, institutional and environmental aspects of human society. It is intended to be a means of configuring civilization and human activity so that society, its members and its economies are able to meet their needs and express their greatest potential in the present, while preserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems, and planning and acting for the ability to maintain these ideals indefinitely. Sustainability affects every level of organization, from the local neighborhood to the entire planet.

The definition of sustainability offered up in the now famous Brundtland Report (full text of report found here) of 1987: "“Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs."” is more succinct than the Wikipedia definition but I think it provides little to no frame of reference.

The Brundltand definition doesn'’t identify any of the major participates, it doesn'’t address the nature or scope of sustainability. There are several key phrases in the Wikipedia definition that I think are integral to an understanding of sustainability.

The Wikipedia definition identifies sustainability is a systemic concept; all parts are related and are affected by one another. You cannot change one part of the system without considering the affect it will have on the whole. This is important because thinking systemically or holistically is not built into our modes of thinking. As a result, a new mode of thinking, a new set of skills, in fact an entirely new thought process is required to think systemically and integrate sustainability into our society. For a few, this comes naturally, developed through interactions with the people and the world around us. For the vast majority of us it is learnt well after other modes of thinking have been developed, requiring us to unlearn our old practices before we can study to integrate the new.

Sustainability affects every level of organization; this really only reinforces the first point but emphasizes the impact regional events can have on a nation or global scale and visa versa. The most important part of this point is the impact it has on the human psyche: what they are doing over there affects me sitting over here so I should care about what they are doing over there.

Both definitions are in agreement that at the core sustainability is about providing for the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This is all very well and good, but it is a very open ended task. Those of us sitting in the present are able to grasp the concept of future generations, but largely lack the perception to comprehend and understand those future generations. The task needs to be framed, and importantly the Wikipedia definition provides one: our society, its members and its economies.

The needs of these three items must be not only meet their current needs, but must have the capacity to “express their greatest potential”. At the same time the items to be preserved are clearly identified: biodiversity and natural ecosystems. It is in fact a very tall order but frames the magnitude of the task well, permitting few short cuts or simply solutions. For example, banning all unnecessary travel would be unacceptable, because it would compromise the ability of the members of todayÂ’s society to express their greatest potential.

Hopefully you're starting to get the idea here that I'm not talking about going back into the caves, or that we should all go and hug a tree. If I had to use a term to describe myself I'd use neo-green: I believe that the environmental threats we face today are very real, serious and require our immediate attention, however I also believe that extreme tractics are not only ineffective, but are an unreasonable burden for our society to bare.

Linked

Last month it was Al Gore starting out from the cover of Wired Magazine, this month, Rupert Murdoch, multimedia mogul (think Tomorrow never Dies and you get the picture) looks down at you from what is clearly a dominant position.

Even if you've never heard the name Rupert Murdoch, you'd have to be living in a cave not to have heard from his empire, News Corp, it's holdings include any company with Fox attached to it (20th Century Fox, Fox Television, Fox News) newspapers including the Times and the New York Post (click here for more) Needless to say he's a media giant controlling almost 1/3 of the company. If you want to read the Wired Article you can find it here.

What really caught my eye was not so much that Rupert has further strengthened his media ambitions with the recent acquisition of MySpace.com, but rather the theme running through the article: audience driven content, audience produced content. It made me think back to the August 2005 issue of Wired which looked back at 10 years of internet boom and bust. One article in particular looked at how wrong the experts had been about how the web would form and be used. The number one point they failed to take into consideration was the amount and content driven by the users, not big business.

Articles like this really make you realize that the internet and the information age have changed our lives, society and planet in ways we couldn't have possibly imagined. You also start to realize that we still haven't even started to tap the internet's full potential.

Albert-Laslo Barabasi's book Linked: How Everything is Connected to Everything Else and What it Means for Business, Science and Everyday Life. looks at how networks form and the interactions that occur within a web, with particular attention paid to the internet itself. I have admittedly not finished the book, it's a bit labored and repetitive dragging on without raising many new points.

The internet is young, very young, 10 years ago it didn't really exist for the average consumer. In some ways we'd like to thing we've got it all figured out, but I'm excited to see what's going to happen over the next 20-30 years.

This is history; during our life times is when the internet started. Just as the printing press revolutionized the world beyond print, the internet has and will change the world in ways we can't even imagine. The switch for the largest machine in the world was turned on, and nothing short of global annihilation will turn it off.

The power of the internet is that it further reduces the ability of multinationals and governments to control people. It allows for the free flow of information and thought; while the recent terror related arrests in Canada and Florida have shown that this free flow allows the circulation of evil ideas as well as good, I think overall the net affect is positive. Any platform allowing the communication of thoughts, the sharing of experiences, especially across borders and cultures will only increase our ability to realize that all in all we're not all that different. This isn't some "let's all get along" shtick it's the simple fact that distrust, misunderstand and poor communication are the common thread running through any conflict regardless of whether it is a dispute across the street or on the other side of the world.

San Francisco

Bit of a break in the posts, sorry about that, but was up having some fun in San Francisco. Great city and definitely recommend making the trip to anyone, and as an added bonus take the 1 up or down the coast from San Luis Obispo. No the photo is not a postcard or a web pix, I took it while I was there!

I'm gonna tell mom.....

Four short words that can bring an aggressor to heel, be used to taunt, or incite a wrath beyond belief. For those of us whose parents felt that one child wasn't enough, or just plain forgot how to use birth control, we all know that this short statement can mean.

In fact, if you look on this blog you'll see that I've recently had this said to me, and I'm in my late twenties. I'd venture to say that within every blood brood, it takes on different meanings.

It's interesting really, but you don't hear in many families (and certainly not mine) "I'm gonna tell dad." Maybe it's because dad isn't around, or isn't interested, but I think (not being a father myself) that it has more to do with the male mentality of letting people (mostly guys) sort it out for themselves. It's the 'don't cry to me attitude'. Don't get me wrong, I think fathers are compassionate, caring and willing to correct a wrong or settle a dispute, but I also think (at least in my experience, that you're also more likely to get in trouble yourself if you go to dad.

It's our instinctual nature as children that we know we're going to get more support, and sympathy from good old mom by telling on big sister for disturbing our calm. I know in my family, whenever my brothers and I get into arguments or "discussions" and mother is around, (and it seems more true now that we've all moved out of her house), that she steps in to settle the dispute.

Invoking the I'm gonna tell mom card requires some very careful consideration. The fact of the matter is that at some point in our lives our siblings with get some dirt on us that can be used against us. Really, when it gets down to it, you're giving up your rights to a cleaner. What incentive does big brother have not to blow your cover or reveal your secrets to the 'rents when you're willing to sell them out on a moments notice?

Now I know, that in my family I'm holding all the cards. Sure I have eight years on my next brother, which gives me a significantly longer time to start collecting dirt to put in my back pocket, but it also means I'm way ahead of the game with them on deception. They'd be working our tricks I had figured out eight years ago, and only sometimes would I be willing to share trade secrets. They were after all hard earned, and it seems I was so easily sold out.

That's not to say that older siblings are always ahead, in fact I'd bet that in most families the cards are more evenly dealt. Parents are routine, they go to bed at certain times, but little brothers and sisters could be roaming the house or trying to watch a little more TV late at night, and catch you in the act. I'd say that being younger they're all the more happy to have caught big brother out on a limb, and often a high, irrational price must be paid for their silence.

I'm actually reminded of the series finale for Malcolm in the Middle, where the three brothers, Malcolm, Reese and Dewey, stand around and prepare to destroy "the nuclear option". should its existence be revealed, the consequences visited upon them by their mother, Lois, would destroy them all.

So to those siblings who are still willing to lay it all on the line. Just remember who knows where all the skeletons are buried.

oh, and this:

is my brother.

I didn't have to "tell mom" about this one.
It made national news.

Inconvenient Reality Update:

Scientific reviews on "An Inconvenient Truth" - point and counterpoint.

Neo-Green

In response to articles in last months Wired Magazine one featuring Al Gore and another discussing the next green revolution, I sent in the following to Rants and Raves. Alas, it was not published.

• In the recent issue on Climate Crisis it was invigorating and inspiring to see social leaders in Al Gore’s position addressing what is a very real, persistent and often ignored crisis. As a member of the green (or should it be neo-green?) building industry it was refreshing to hear that there are world leaders out there who get it. That said, the articles could have discuss how some of our environmental woes can be solved with present day technologies, but companies, organizations and people are hesitant to embrace change, even when the economic benefits, let alone the sustainable benefits are obvious (Technologies, methods and materials exist to reduce building energy consumption, but are often overlooked or ignored; residential and commercial buildings account for nearly 40% of the annual energy consumption in the US, ref. DOE 2004 Annual Energy Report). The Climate Crisis is about more than technology it is about sustainable living and involves a different way of thinking, finding new ways to conduct business, measure value and develop economic growth; we’ll need a lot more Al Gores and a few paradigm shifts to get us all the way there.

The End of an Era: a Canadian Icon Turns 30

It's been deleted from movies to turn Toronto into Detroit, it sways 6 m side to side in high winds, and considers getting struck by lighting as part of the job.

On June 26th, 2006 the CN Tower in Toronto celebrated what will like be it's last major anniversary as the world's Tallest free standing structure on land. (a complete listing of structures broken down by category can be found here.)

For the last three decades at 553 m (1814 ft) the CN Tower on Front street has reigned supreme over the competition. But f all goes according to plan, in 2008 the CN Tower will be dwarfed by the Burj Dubai Tower in Dubai, UAE designed to stretch to reach a lofty 705 m (2312 ft). The Burj Dubai tower will not only claim the mantle as the world's tallest freestanding structure, but also the tallest skyscraper, and the all round tallest structure ever constructed by humans, on land or in the water, free standing or not.

The age of the skyscraper was thought to have come and gone, with the September 11th terrorist attacks being the last nail in the coffin. Born in the US, the love of skyscrapers has since found a new home in the likes of Dubai, Tai Pei, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and China. Improved materials and a better understanding of structural performance have allowed for buildings to reach for the stars. There are no less than six buildings underconstruction slated to beat out the CN tower before the end of the decade. In the short span of 4 years, the tower stands to see its 30 year 1st place ranking slip to 7th.

Of the top 10 tallest skyscrapers in the world, only 2 are in the United States and the tallest of those was constructed in 1974 (Sears Towers). The youngest major US skyscrapers in the top 30 were completed in 1989. China comparison has seen a considerable boom in skyscrapers over the last decade containing 30% of the 30 tallest.

Some of the towers are landmark achievements driven by a desire for recognition and a shot a the title (the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lampur come to mind.) Other's develop out of necessity of space, such as to deal with the burgeoning urban population in China.

From a sustainable point of view, towers can have considerably lower environmental impact given the relatively small footprint required for a high population density, or so the theory goes. By combining building systems into a larger system sustainable systems start to make sense, from cogeneration plants on the more conservative spectrum to living machines on the more ambitous.

The CN tower wasn't sustainable, in truth it doesn't even look very nice sitting as it is next to the white elephant. It was and still is used as a vital link the communications network across southern Ontario. For an entire summer I walked past the base of this giant needle without giving it a second thought. I haven't been up since before I can really remember. Maybe I'll make one last trek to the base of the tower and ride the lifts up to enjoy the view before this giant is dethroned.

Inconvenient Reality Update

US Supreme Court to hear EPA CO Emissions Case:
Read the article at cbc.ca
Read the article at reuters.com