I receive the newsletter from the government of Alberta and I just read an article that makes me shake my head violently. The most popular names as well as "unique" ones and "one-of-a-kind monikers" from 2010 in Alberta are listed. Do parents not love their children any more that they punish them right after birth for the rest of their lives with the name they chose? I'm so glad about the ordinary names of our own child and her cousin.
....
Parents drew inspiration from mythology, history, and the Bible in 2010 with names such as Noah, Jacob, Joshua, Apollo, Zeus, Maximus, and Leonardo for boys; and Sarah, Eden, Eve, Jezebelle, Pandora, Athena, and Aphrodite for girls.
The names of celebrities, politicians, and other famous people continued to be an influence with registrations, including 64 boys named Lincoln; 37 named Nixon; 10 named Lennon; four named Hendrix; three each named Clinton, Elvis and Jagger; and one each for Thatcher, Santana, and McCartney. For girls, Danica was registered 44 times; Angelina 26; and Charlize 11. There were five girls named Brittany and one named Palin. There were also 44 girls and four boys who shared the name Harper.
Albertans showed a creative flair with unique names such as Gorgeous, Precious, Princess and Diva for girls; and Freedom, Viktorious, Famous, and Canada for boys. Parents' values, ideals and the love of nature were also reflected in the choices of names such as Love, Serenity, Flower, Karma, Harmony, Destiny, Liberty, Justice, Ohm, Universe, Skye, Meadow, and Ocean.
Families also chose such one-of-a-kind monikers as Bliss, Carisma, Diamond, Soda, Eclypse, Elektra-Lee, and Infinity for girls; and Boomer, Brik, Duramax, Miracle, and Holliday for boys.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
White Water, Black Gold
Just a little add-on I almost neglected.
During the White Water, Black Gold Q&A- period three natives got up commenting on the tar sands issue. One lady with her family from Fort MacKay made the point that the native communities downstream are the most affected but are often ignored even though they are real people. A tall man with very long thick white hair raved and ranted in a first nations language that nobody understood. The third person's favourite words were moral corruption and he went on about how the oil corporations, politicians of all levels, industries related to the oil industry suffer from moral corruption. His speech ended with the conclusion that every Canadian is (morally corrupted and) responsible for what happens in Northern Alberta through their vote at elections. Hence his request to the film maker to produce a film about moral corruption before the next election. Lavalee responded that this was a very tight time line.
I don't think the tar sands will fall or rise with elections as long as there are income taxes, health care, education and similar issues that are much more personal and dear to the average Canadian than something happening somewhere north that can be pushed out of one's mind far more easily than the next visit to the doctor, the next tuition bill, ...
During the White Water, Black Gold Q&A- period three natives got up commenting on the tar sands issue. One lady with her family from Fort MacKay made the point that the native communities downstream are the most affected but are often ignored even though they are real people. A tall man with very long thick white hair raved and ranted in a first nations language that nobody understood. The third person's favourite words were moral corruption and he went on about how the oil corporations, politicians of all levels, industries related to the oil industry suffer from moral corruption. His speech ended with the conclusion that every Canadian is (morally corrupted and) responsible for what happens in Northern Alberta through their vote at elections. Hence his request to the film maker to produce a film about moral corruption before the next election. Lavalee responded that this was a very tight time line.
I don't think the tar sands will fall or rise with elections as long as there are income taxes, health care, education and similar issues that are much more personal and dear to the average Canadian than something happening somewhere north that can be pushed out of one's mind far more easily than the next visit to the doctor, the next tuition bill, ...
Sprawling from Grace
is another documentary I watched recently. It's a US-American production which was very different from The Nature of Things. It hardly dealt with the suburb itself but went straight onto automobiles and petroleum because suburbs only exist due to the car and cars need gas. Here a few bites and pieces:
China plans 65,000 miles of expressways as more and more Chinese own a car. Even a marginal increase in cars will be devastating. The car culture in US is a near-disaster, it’s a guaranteed disaster in a populous country like China but China still tries to copy the US living structure. China has 4 times more people than the US but today the US still uses 3 times more oil. China takes the money that it gets from producing Walmart merchandise and spends it on oil from Alberta, Venezuela and Libya.
Each US American consumes 5 times more oil (20 lbs) per day than oxygen (4 lbs). US Americans spend an average of 25% (another expert said 19%) of their income on automobiles – the most expensive transportation system in the world. Rich people spend about 5% of their income on their car, poor people about 40%. Consequently poor people often have to give up something that they could have spend the money on but decided to invest their limited financial resources into a car, for whatever reason.
Cars suggest freedom, safety, and achievement, cars are the icon of the American dream and every little boy dreams of driving a car one day. We actually define ourselves by the name of our cars - Explorer, Venturer, ... and whatever they are called. If you build a highway system you get congestion & pollution. With the growing population there’s not space to accommodate all the cars & have places with character (suburbs have none). Commuting times keep increasing with more cars on the road & people living further away from work. Automobiles cause 1/3 of all US greenhouse gases.
"Suburbia" is a car-depended living arrangement, where you have to drive to work, to shop, to get services, to run simple errands, to take the kids to school & other activities. It's also the greatest mis-allocation of resources in the history of the world because we know that it is the living arrangement that does not have a future. As we are trying to get out of this "stuckness" we keep putting more resources into trying to solve the problem by doing the same thing ... growing outwards. Besides, upkeeping the ageing infrastructure costs society a lot of money and adds on to the federal debt. If you had to commute by foot, public transit, or bike ... you would not live in the suburbs. Generally, living in suburbia requires trade-offs, so why not rethink city design, car efficiency, and public transit – and find other arrangements for daily life in America?
Every year 30 billion barrels of oil are consumed worldwide. Experts predict an increase to 45 billion barrels in 2020 – but consumption will outpace production. Peak oil is about the rate of delivery not the resource availability. With most of the easy-to-reach conventional oil gone, most of the oil that’s left will be expensive and difficult to get too – currently we don’t have the ability to increase supply as fast as demand. Consequences of the great gas shortage in the 1970s were cuts in the speed limit, car pooling, and switching factories from oil to natural gas and coal. But this happened when the US had lots of time and money which now they don’t have any more.
China plans 65,000 miles of expressways as more and more Chinese own a car. Even a marginal increase in cars will be devastating. The car culture in US is a near-disaster, it’s a guaranteed disaster in a populous country like China but China still tries to copy the US living structure. China has 4 times more people than the US but today the US still uses 3 times more oil. China takes the money that it gets from producing Walmart merchandise and spends it on oil from Alberta, Venezuela and Libya.
Each US American consumes 5 times more oil (20 lbs) per day than oxygen (4 lbs). US Americans spend an average of 25% (another expert said 19%) of their income on automobiles – the most expensive transportation system in the world. Rich people spend about 5% of their income on their car, poor people about 40%. Consequently poor people often have to give up something that they could have spend the money on but decided to invest their limited financial resources into a car, for whatever reason.
Americans think, thanks to advertisement, everything is choice instead of circumstances of reality! Peak oil climate change and a few other big issues aren't choice though. One wonders what are they willing to scarifies? In the film some interviewed Americans still said they didn't believe that the US will run out of oil.
There is the temptation to maintain oil resources through military actions but it will not work – it's too expensive and too intense. Venezuela is already past its oil peak and quality of oil is bad, the US itself has nearly no oil left, Canada has the tar sands but it’s expensive to produce. The US needs a new energy policy since heavy unconventional oil can not take the place of light conventional oil. There’s still lots of coal (I wished there wasn't), hydro, sun, wind to generate energy from. But there’s no single solution/ energy source that could keep up the level of oil usage. There's the dillusional thinking that the unmaintainable can be maintained for example through technological advancement. In the meantime, resources will be wasted to prop up our current comfortable living until the last one realises that when you have a shortage of energy you can't simply replace it with technology. Technology requires energy.
It takes political will to break the concept that cars are more important than pedestrian. Americans have to figure out what kind of life to they want to have, what kind of activities they want to pursue, what kind of spaces they need. Then they have to fit the buildings in. Ideas include giving a suburban city a centre, that city planners need to be walking planners, that public transit must be a "first class" alternative to get people out of cars. The city & transit planning need to go hand in hand to create "living local" that benefits people & environment. The good quality of life needs to be there for everyone not only for certain (rich) parts of city. Poorer people will be better off with public transit because they save the cost of having a car & spend it on something more valuable to them like health, education, travel.
Finally there's the option to wait until the pain arrives and change then but it will be awefully expensive. Or you can change now while the US still has the strength and energy to do it without facing so much pain and it will work better - unfortunately it's harder to sell to people too. If politicians started change now it would prepare cities better for the future and make them more competitive. The knowledge, information, and expertise is there already. But there's a lack of vision, a lack of realisation how psychologically rewarding and economically sustainable a life without car & oil dependence could be.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
The end of the line - good & bad practices
Successful practices of fishing are happening but they are still rare. In Alaska the catch is shared between a limited number of boats (limited permits given out) and fishing is only allowed within certain time limits. The fishermen there recognized that this practice will secure their jobs in the long-term as it keeps the fish populations in Alaska alive.
In Europe the situation is different. Iceland is the good example. It has strict regulations but the fishermen adhere to them, can still make a living and see a future for their profession. There's practically no discard of fish. Good for them! It is important to have the fishermen on the right side. As long as there is fishermen out there that deny the collapse and disappearance of fish bad (illegal or legal) fishing practices will continue. Film review & Icelandic fishing practice
The European Union is world-leader in overfishing and still protects the fishing industry more so than the fish. But the EU commission, it sounds rather ridiculous, is working on eliminating the discard of fish. Especially the North sea is "mixed fishing" which causes lots of discard. When a fishing boat has reached their quota for one fish they keep fishing to reach their quotas for other fishes. In doing so they have by-catch of the fish whose quota has already been reached so they throw it back into the water. While some politicians urge to stop discard now, others are willing to wait until 2013 to implement new rules. "Unethical" fish discards have to end, EU commission says
Googling "European fish catch quotas" comes up with lots of articles calling for radical change in regulations for the European fishing industry. Politicians are slow to act though and getting the whole EU to an agreement is often a painful, time-consuming process. But time's running out. That's why certain fisheries have started to take on their own changes. Scotland, terribly overfished, is trying a new quota system. "The Scottish Government was able to make conservation a priority while securing increased fishing opportunities for some stocks, and minimise reductions where science supported such action". New catch quota scheme progressed, Scotland
If only we would learn faster from the success of others and change quicker for the better.
In Europe the situation is different. Iceland is the good example. It has strict regulations but the fishermen adhere to them, can still make a living and see a future for their profession. There's practically no discard of fish. Good for them! It is important to have the fishermen on the right side. As long as there is fishermen out there that deny the collapse and disappearance of fish bad (illegal or legal) fishing practices will continue. Film review & Icelandic fishing practice
The European Union is world-leader in overfishing and still protects the fishing industry more so than the fish. But the EU commission, it sounds rather ridiculous, is working on eliminating the discard of fish. Especially the North sea is "mixed fishing" which causes lots of discard. When a fishing boat has reached their quota for one fish they keep fishing to reach their quotas for other fishes. In doing so they have by-catch of the fish whose quota has already been reached so they throw it back into the water. While some politicians urge to stop discard now, others are willing to wait until 2013 to implement new rules. "Unethical" fish discards have to end, EU commission says
Googling "European fish catch quotas" comes up with lots of articles calling for radical change in regulations for the European fishing industry. Politicians are slow to act though and getting the whole EU to an agreement is often a painful, time-consuming process. But time's running out. That's why certain fisheries have started to take on their own changes. Scotland, terribly overfished, is trying a new quota system. "The Scottish Government was able to make conservation a priority while securing increased fishing opportunities for some stocks, and minimise reductions where science supported such action". New catch quota scheme progressed, Scotland
If only we would learn faster from the success of others and change quicker for the better.
Friday, April 8, 2011
The end of the line
subtitled "Imagine a world without fish" is a Docurama production, after the book of Charles Clover, about the overfishing of wild fish in all of our oceans.
The awareness that something is going wrong in out oceans was raised when everywhere around the world local fishermen reported less and less fish catches while at the same time the global fish industry registered higher and higher catches each year. Turned out that the Chinese have been making up numbers, reporting amounts of fish that they did not actually catch - because it was not there any more. In 2002 it was sure that fish quantities have been falling since 1988. In fact, all fish stocks in the world have declined dramatically, that means by 70% and more. It seems to me the ocean is about to be emptied from wild fish and filled with plastic, other garbage and yes, dead fish instead. A tenth of the worldwide catch is thrown back into the water - dead- because those fishes do not sell well enough.
Commercial fishing has transformed entire eco-systems at a huge scale. The current fishing fleet has the capacity that could catch the world's catch 4 times over. With current technology not a single hunted animal on this Earth has a chance of survival - this includes fish that can not hide or escape the radar of the fishing boats. The world's long-lining industry sets 1.4 billion hooks each year, estimated to be set on lines that could encircle the globe more than 550 times! Even more destructive, most destructive of all are bottom trawlers, huge nets dragged along the ocean floor as if ploughing it and not leaving behind a single creature. The mouth of the largest trawling net in the world can accommodate 13 747 air planes.
A considerable part of the film was about the blue fin tuna. Blue fin tuna is an icon fish, very beautiful, fast, and considered the king of the tuna,- ìt is just a delicious fish that`s it has been hunted to near extinction. All fish are caught by quota today but the quota, set by politicians in the rich countries of the world, is often unrealistic. The quota for the blue fin tuna is 3 times higher than needed for the species to recover, and two times higher than needed to prevent the species from collapse. Recommendations from scientists are frequently ignored under the pressure of the fishing industry and the prevention of unemployment. In the Mediterranean (mostly Italians) catch twice as much as the quota, which represents 1/3 of the blue fin tuna population. The Italian government does not care.
Breaking the rules by fishermen is (one of) the biggest problem and worth $25 billions per year. It is hard to stop a bad behaviour when a few people make millions of dollars by decimating fish species. In Japan Mitsubishi is in control of over 50% of the blue fin tuna production. Rumours have it that they try to build up a frozen reserve which will be worth lots of money (and this tuna is already expensive) once stocks are depleted. Mitsubishi has sent out bigger fishing ships with more freezing & transportation capacity, while saying it agrees to reducing the quota and preserving the species for the future.
Consequences from overfishing are multiple and lots of them unforeseen. Jellyfish infestations are increasing because all the big fish, the predators are gone. There`s also more algae, plankton, and worms. Newfoundland overfished its cod population back in the 80s. Since then lobster that udes to be eaten by cod has increased. Sure, you can make good money of lobster too but what will happen when the lobster is gone? With the domino effects generated by losing one species after the other the stability of the ocean systems declines - to become a road of no return? Scientists warn that by the mid of the century all fish will be gone, if things remain the same, but things don`t get necessarily better, they could get worse too. ``In Jan 2009 a paper in science reports that fish droppings help the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide: a first link between over fishing and global warming.`` With fish disappearing climate change may accelerate! Besides, losing wild fish will have immense impacts on the ability to feed the world`s population: 1.2 billion people call fish a key part of their diet, for many more it`s an important part of their diet.
Fish farms are not the answer. Fish farms use wild fish to feed farm fish; they destroy more fish than they harvest which means that the more fish farming there is the less fish will be in the ocean. Essentially, you convert one fish into another but you don't increase the amount of fish. Therefore it`s much better to eat small fish like anchovies instead of grinding it up to feed it to salmon - anchovies are better for us any way than salmon.
First steps to protect fish have been taken and marine reserves were established where commercial fishing is completely prohibited. This fishing ban may need police enforcement but the positive effects of fish repopulating gone already be seen. So far 4000 marine reserves exist worldwide but they only cover 0.6% of the ocean! Industry is allowed to fish in 99.4% of the ocean. This has to stop. If even only a part of the annual fishery subsidies, estimated $15-30 billions, were spend on marine reserve this would help to start turning the situation at sea around.
As the three key ingredients to guarantee the survival of fish in the oceans were named:
- Political will to implement change - the future of our fish is very much in their hands
- Consumers need to change eating behaviour and question where their fish comes from and how it`s been fished
- Fisheries need to follow the rules (they would have to accept huge job losses because the commercial fleet is way too big)
All the speakers in the film agree that we don't need more knowledge to act, we can start change right now but before all, one question has to be answered, and without the right answer there will be no change: Does society want to see the sea recover?
The end of the line
The awareness that something is going wrong in out oceans was raised when everywhere around the world local fishermen reported less and less fish catches while at the same time the global fish industry registered higher and higher catches each year. Turned out that the Chinese have been making up numbers, reporting amounts of fish that they did not actually catch - because it was not there any more. In 2002 it was sure that fish quantities have been falling since 1988. In fact, all fish stocks in the world have declined dramatically, that means by 70% and more. It seems to me the ocean is about to be emptied from wild fish and filled with plastic, other garbage and yes, dead fish instead. A tenth of the worldwide catch is thrown back into the water - dead- because those fishes do not sell well enough.
Commercial fishing has transformed entire eco-systems at a huge scale. The current fishing fleet has the capacity that could catch the world's catch 4 times over. With current technology not a single hunted animal on this Earth has a chance of survival - this includes fish that can not hide or escape the radar of the fishing boats. The world's long-lining industry sets 1.4 billion hooks each year, estimated to be set on lines that could encircle the globe more than 550 times! Even more destructive, most destructive of all are bottom trawlers, huge nets dragged along the ocean floor as if ploughing it and not leaving behind a single creature. The mouth of the largest trawling net in the world can accommodate 13 747 air planes.
A considerable part of the film was about the blue fin tuna. Blue fin tuna is an icon fish, very beautiful, fast, and considered the king of the tuna,- ìt is just a delicious fish that`s it has been hunted to near extinction. All fish are caught by quota today but the quota, set by politicians in the rich countries of the world, is often unrealistic. The quota for the blue fin tuna is 3 times higher than needed for the species to recover, and two times higher than needed to prevent the species from collapse. Recommendations from scientists are frequently ignored under the pressure of the fishing industry and the prevention of unemployment. In the Mediterranean (mostly Italians) catch twice as much as the quota, which represents 1/3 of the blue fin tuna population. The Italian government does not care.
Breaking the rules by fishermen is (one of) the biggest problem and worth $25 billions per year. It is hard to stop a bad behaviour when a few people make millions of dollars by decimating fish species. In Japan Mitsubishi is in control of over 50% of the blue fin tuna production. Rumours have it that they try to build up a frozen reserve which will be worth lots of money (and this tuna is already expensive) once stocks are depleted. Mitsubishi has sent out bigger fishing ships with more freezing & transportation capacity, while saying it agrees to reducing the quota and preserving the species for the future.
Consequences from overfishing are multiple and lots of them unforeseen. Jellyfish infestations are increasing because all the big fish, the predators are gone. There`s also more algae, plankton, and worms. Newfoundland overfished its cod population back in the 80s. Since then lobster that udes to be eaten by cod has increased. Sure, you can make good money of lobster too but what will happen when the lobster is gone? With the domino effects generated by losing one species after the other the stability of the ocean systems declines - to become a road of no return? Scientists warn that by the mid of the century all fish will be gone, if things remain the same, but things don`t get necessarily better, they could get worse too. ``In Jan 2009 a paper in science reports that fish droppings help the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide: a first link between over fishing and global warming.`` With fish disappearing climate change may accelerate! Besides, losing wild fish will have immense impacts on the ability to feed the world`s population: 1.2 billion people call fish a key part of their diet, for many more it`s an important part of their diet.
Fish farms are not the answer. Fish farms use wild fish to feed farm fish; they destroy more fish than they harvest which means that the more fish farming there is the less fish will be in the ocean. Essentially, you convert one fish into another but you don't increase the amount of fish. Therefore it`s much better to eat small fish like anchovies instead of grinding it up to feed it to salmon - anchovies are better for us any way than salmon.
First steps to protect fish have been taken and marine reserves were established where commercial fishing is completely prohibited. This fishing ban may need police enforcement but the positive effects of fish repopulating gone already be seen. So far 4000 marine reserves exist worldwide but they only cover 0.6% of the ocean! Industry is allowed to fish in 99.4% of the ocean. This has to stop. If even only a part of the annual fishery subsidies, estimated $15-30 billions, were spend on marine reserve this would help to start turning the situation at sea around.
As the three key ingredients to guarantee the survival of fish in the oceans were named:
- Political will to implement change - the future of our fish is very much in their hands
- Consumers need to change eating behaviour and question where their fish comes from and how it`s been fished
- Fisheries need to follow the rules (they would have to accept huge job losses because the commercial fleet is way too big)
All the speakers in the film agree that we don't need more knowledge to act, we can start change right now but before all, one question has to be answered, and without the right answer there will be no change: Does society want to see the sea recover?
The end of the line
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Best cities to live in Canada
Statistics are relative and every statistic that tries to figure out the best and worst places to live comes up with different results. What is hardly ever clear is how the analysed categories are weighted. The most recent statistic from MoneySense Best cities to live in Canada which looks at Canadian cities only takes weather, affordable housing, household income, new cars, population growth, job prospects, access to health care, low crime rate, and percentage of people that walk or bike to work into account. According to the Epoch Times they also rated public transit, amenities, culture, income & sales taxes but I can't see them on the on-line list of the MoneySense website.
How do you rate weather though? What weather one likes or dislikes is very individual. Edmonton might have lots of sun but it also has snow for 6 months. It does not rain much but the dryness causes itchy skin and eczema. Believing Moneysense the climate is best in Ontario, followed by B.C.; only Manitoba has one city in the top 30 but no other province.
New cars? Is it a good thing to have more cars on the road, or newer cars? Shouldn't we be aiming for less cars on the roads and better public transit? And what do they measure public transit on, compared to other Canadian cities? All of them should receive low points then.
Population growth also makes me think. Is it great to have lots of people move in? I like small places, a vastly expanding place would make me want to move away. Dave suggests that population growth implies that people want to live there. That might not be due to the beauty of the city or any other factor than job prospects. I know enough people who don't find Edmonton attractive but live here due to (husband's) employment. That includes myself.
Percentage of people who walk & cycle to work is interesting too. Yellowknife is top. Well, you can't drive anywhere from there, cars are expensive and it's still small enough to walk & bike. In winter you'll probably be safest outside with skies or snowshoes. Edmonton comes out 104 which might seem high for a city with so much sprawl but then again people may just move to the corner of the city they work in.
I would really like to see the list for income & sales taxes and wonder if it takes into account what you get for it. Alberta has generally low taxes but the city of Edmonton for example barely manages to plough the roads during winter - why not tax more & provide better service? The reason for the low taxes are the oil & gas operations, above all the tar sands. The province lives off the taxes paid by the big oil corporations but the negative environmental impacts these operations have are probably not accounted for. Are those desirable circumstances in order to keep taxes low? I don't think so.
How do you rate weather though? What weather one likes or dislikes is very individual. Edmonton might have lots of sun but it also has snow for 6 months. It does not rain much but the dryness causes itchy skin and eczema. Believing Moneysense the climate is best in Ontario, followed by B.C.; only Manitoba has one city in the top 30 but no other province.
New cars? Is it a good thing to have more cars on the road, or newer cars? Shouldn't we be aiming for less cars on the roads and better public transit? And what do they measure public transit on, compared to other Canadian cities? All of them should receive low points then.
Population growth also makes me think. Is it great to have lots of people move in? I like small places, a vastly expanding place would make me want to move away. Dave suggests that population growth implies that people want to live there. That might not be due to the beauty of the city or any other factor than job prospects. I know enough people who don't find Edmonton attractive but live here due to (husband's) employment. That includes myself.
Percentage of people who walk & cycle to work is interesting too. Yellowknife is top. Well, you can't drive anywhere from there, cars are expensive and it's still small enough to walk & bike. In winter you'll probably be safest outside with skies or snowshoes. Edmonton comes out 104 which might seem high for a city with so much sprawl but then again people may just move to the corner of the city they work in.
I would really like to see the list for income & sales taxes and wonder if it takes into account what you get for it. Alberta has generally low taxes but the city of Edmonton for example barely manages to plough the roads during winter - why not tax more & provide better service? The reason for the low taxes are the oil & gas operations, above all the tar sands. The province lives off the taxes paid by the big oil corporations but the negative environmental impacts these operations have are probably not accounted for. Are those desirable circumstances in order to keep taxes low? I don't think so.
Canadians waste water, flush garbage down toilet
This is a recent article in the Epoch Times and well, you may guess my reaction. Here are the facts from the 4th annual Canadian Water Attitudes Study:
- almost 3 out of 4 Canadians admit to flushing leftover food, hair, bugs, cigarettes and other items that could be disposed of elsewhere down the toilet, wasting 6 to 20 litres of clean water per flush; Albertans (83%) are most likely, Quebecois (65%) least likely do flush the wrong things down the toilet - do they not realise it's wrong?
- 55% Canadians believe water is Canada's most important natural resource
- 78% say they try reasonable hard to conserve water - how do you define reasonably hard????
- 80% know the water in the toilet has drink water quality - which does not stop them from wasting it.
- 76% are aware that almost half of the water used in a home is flushed down the toilet
- people between 18 and 35 (84%) waste more water than those over 55 (63%)
- Canadians use on average 327 litres per day - 67% underestimate this amount
- 46% leave the water running while doing the dishes
- the study assumes that Canadians waste water because they (61%) don't know what they pay for it, 70% thinks though it costs enough to be treated as a valuable resource - really? so why don't they behave accordingly?
- Canadians pay less for water than other developed nations, e.g. 4 times less than the French, 7 times less than Germans - water use there is much lower!- time to put water meters into every Canadian household and charge per unit!
Water expert Bob Sandford (remember him?) says: "They claim to care about conserving it, yet knowingly engage in water wasting activities, including using fresh, clean water to dispose of garbage." and "Canadians need to understand that water is a finite resource and there are significant social and economic implications related to wasting it." and "This data highlights, once again, that Canadians are not making the connection between their personal water use and the true value of water." and until this changes "our water wasting habits will continue."
I think lots of Sandford and I wonder if he's ashamed of being a Canadian sometimes for all he knows about water and how Canadians treat it. Some of those percentages are definitely too high. I also wonder why Canadians don't get the message. If at least the governments at federal, provincial and/ or municipal level would get it they could surely crank up the price of water. That will not get them reelected but it will save the future of this country somewhat, and protect the environment. Now pull yourselves together, Canadians!
- almost 3 out of 4 Canadians admit to flushing leftover food, hair, bugs, cigarettes and other items that could be disposed of elsewhere down the toilet, wasting 6 to 20 litres of clean water per flush; Albertans (83%) are most likely, Quebecois (65%) least likely do flush the wrong things down the toilet - do they not realise it's wrong?
- 55% Canadians believe water is Canada's most important natural resource
- 78% say they try reasonable hard to conserve water - how do you define reasonably hard????
- 80% know the water in the toilet has drink water quality - which does not stop them from wasting it.
- 76% are aware that almost half of the water used in a home is flushed down the toilet
- people between 18 and 35 (84%) waste more water than those over 55 (63%)
- Canadians use on average 327 litres per day - 67% underestimate this amount
- 46% leave the water running while doing the dishes
- the study assumes that Canadians waste water because they (61%) don't know what they pay for it, 70% thinks though it costs enough to be treated as a valuable resource - really? so why don't they behave accordingly?
- Canadians pay less for water than other developed nations, e.g. 4 times less than the French, 7 times less than Germans - water use there is much lower!- time to put water meters into every Canadian household and charge per unit!
Water expert Bob Sandford (remember him?) says: "They claim to care about conserving it, yet knowingly engage in water wasting activities, including using fresh, clean water to dispose of garbage." and "Canadians need to understand that water is a finite resource and there are significant social and economic implications related to wasting it." and "This data highlights, once again, that Canadians are not making the connection between their personal water use and the true value of water." and until this changes "our water wasting habits will continue."
I think lots of Sandford and I wonder if he's ashamed of being a Canadian sometimes for all he knows about water and how Canadians treat it. Some of those percentages are definitely too high. I also wonder why Canadians don't get the message. If at least the governments at federal, provincial and/ or municipal level would get it they could surely crank up the price of water. That will not get them reelected but it will save the future of this country somewhat, and protect the environment. Now pull yourselves together, Canadians!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)