Interesting what you find out these days.  Seems Ryerson University down the street from me is offering “…a post-degree Certificate in Food Security. This cutting-edge program is offered nowhere else in the world, and can be completed entirely through the convenience of distance education.”

Link here: http://ryerson.ca/ce/foodsecurity

And will cover hunger and poverty, food policy and programs, community development, urban food security, and global nutrition split up into four courses:

• CFNY 403 Food Security Concepts and Principles
• CFNY 405 Applied Research Methods and Evaluation
• CFNY 408 Urban Food Security
• CVFN 412 Urban Agriculture Types

Wow, this is great for those who want to understand what local sustainable food systems really are and how to implement them.

Note that some links on the site are not working as I type, so use the main link instead or contact the director of admissions on the page.  Once again, these are Distance Education courses.

Didn’t Fight Club have a joke about Jack?  We need a Jack Catalogue, a trolling reference for bloggers.  This would be a listing of every cheap shot logical argument online for easy reference.

Why?  Every thread about science today is another Fight Club, full of denial and annoying posts.  I fight that fight and am glad I do on various news website threads.  I’m sure you have also hit a thread of Jack’s and I’ll note some characteristics below.

All are fallacies, errors of logic of one kind or another designed to muddle up your thinking and be confusing, all to waste your time.  This is what education was designed to prevent you from being a victim of, so you’re not taken in by a scam artist or bad ideas.

What to do? By all means be conciliatory or note doubts, ask good questions.  That is indeed how science works.  But not lies, boldface lies, and subterfuge.  Mention a link but not dozens.  Better to just mention a source by name and title and let the reader figure it out.

If online I welcome you to call them out with a Jack Fallacy.   Feel free to label a Denier to clarify how they are using their argument. Also important, if they cop up to it or explain their reasoning, thank them and apologize.  We all need to keep the conversation going, and being polite but direct I find the most effective. (It drives them crazy)

Here’s what I have so far.  Taking the “I am Jack’s..” first person motif in Fight Club, thus a Denier would have their self-aware post talk back to them with:

I am Jack’s Misguided Conclusion

I am Jack’s Mention of Different Geography In Another Country That I Have No Control Over

I am Jack’s Irrelevant Comparison.

I am Jack’s Questionable Inference.

I am Jack’s Subterfuge And Not Really Your Friend.

I am Jack’s Tenuous 5-min Conspiracy Theory Of the Day, instead of an Experienced Honoured Multi-degreed Scientist.

I am Jack’s New Unrelated Topic Change.

I am Jack’s Multitude of Website Links That Nobody Reads.

I am Jack’s Journalist who is not a Professional Scientist

I am Jack’s Incapacity to Accept Other Legitimate Points.

I am Jack’s Closed Mind

I am Jack’s Closed Conversation.

I am Jack’s Rudeness.

I am Jack’s Child

I am Jack’s Deleted Comment

I am Jack’s Failure in Math

I am Jack’s Failure in Science Class.

I am Jack’s Lovely Leader Who Cannot Be Questioned.

I am Jack’s Linear Weather System That Has Never Existed On This Planet

I am Jack’s Illiteracy When Reading A Log Graph.

I am Jack’s Love of Pollution

I am Jack’s Unliftable Finger

I am Jack’s Ignorance of Asthma Disease

I am Jack’s Uncaring Towards Others

I am Jack’s Irresponsibility.

I am Jack’s Refusal for Change.

I am Jack’s Overdue Debts

If you see any more Jack’s please leave me a comment!  If you can note the website thread and specifically how your particular Jack missed the point and failed in using his/her argument to make any sense.  A catalogue of this needs to be taken.

very thread about science is another Fight Club.  I fight that fight and am glad I do.I’m sure this thread will use all of these Jimmy’s noted below.  All are Fallacies, Errors of Logic designed to muddle up your thinking and confuse you.  This is what education was designed to prevent you from being a victim of.  King Lear: “But nothing will come of nothing” our cogent lesson here.  The lesson being that things left alone indeed cause havoc and can ruin a kingdom.  What to do?By all means be concilliatory or note doubts, but not lies, boldface lies, and subdefuge.  Mention a link but not dozens.  I will call you out (if online).  If I’m not here, feel free to label a Denier to clarify how they are not being a Jimmy.Thus if Deniers were named Jimmy they will answer any question with…  Jimmy is Missing the Point.  Jimmy is Comparing Different Geography.  Jimmy is making an Irrelevant Comparison.  Jimmy is Infering Something.  Jimmy is Engaged in Subterfuge And Is Not Really My Friend.  Jimmy believes Teniuous 5-min Conspiracies more than our own Experienced Honoured Multi-degreed Scientists.  Jimmy is changing the Topic..Again.  Jimmy Has Too Many Website Links.  Jimmy Can’t Accept Other Legitimate Points.  Jimmy Can’t Change His Mind.  Jimmy can’t Engage In Conversation.  Jimmy is Being Rude.  Jimmy is Behaving Like a Child.  Jimmy Had His Comment Deleted.  Jimmy failed High-School Math.  Jimmy failed High-School Science Class.  Jimmy Loves Leaders.  Jimmy doesn’t understand Non-linear Chaotic Systems.  Jimmy can’t read a Log Graph.  Jimmy Seems to Love Pollution.  Jimmy Can’t Lift A Finger.  Jimmy Doesn’t Have Asthma.  Jimmy Doesn’t Care about Others.  Jimmy Can’t Take Responsibility.  Jimmy Refuses Change.  Jimmy Can’t Pay His Debts.

I attended the Designing Transit Cities Symposium presented by the City of Toronto and the Canadian Urban Institute over the last two days, Thur Nov 19 and Fri the 20th.  I’ll probably talk a lot about this over a while, but I’ll share some examples for now.

The first day was quite well done, the opening panel with Mayer Miller providing opening remarks, with Transit his obvious love.  His call for keeping your elected officials accountable seemed odd though, since he can’t fight for the city anymore and I suppose was a shot at any mayoral candidate to continue his interests.

His presentation of the Transit City was quite excellent and I wish it was on Youtube to share.  The 122km of new LRTs (light rain transit) and why streetcars are better than subways.  Really, it comes down to money.  1/3 to 1/5 of the cost of a subway means many more streetcar lines.  With meager government funding committments this is the best bang for our buck.  Quite a compelling vision as well since it bridges the 13 impoverished communities also into the loop of the city and could mean a revolution in liveability for the city.

The followup panel was quite engaging and the two USA presentors showed what urban hell looks like and why transit and how transit can improve.  Both were quick to point out that Toronto has much to be thankful for and that we are still ahead of many cities in the USA.  As well, a description of San Fransciso’s as comparable to Toronto in terms of size but with multiple owned transit systems showed a strenght in our system not well known.   I’ll write up my notes about this later.  The first day, indeed quite good.

Second day was a 3 hours session in one of three topic areas.  I attended a Make It Happen event, what was supposed to be the business planning process for developments.  While this was largely correct, it had for me an oddly unsettling effect and overall pointlessness.

Planners and Developers are smart people, but they don’t seem to know that they are servicing people.  One out of four developers on the panel discussion was quite arrogant and disparaged on rate payer associations that fight developments.  He showed a dreary glass company building on one side and zero buildings on the other.  I guess the possibility that maybe the people didn’t want more faceless tripe was totally  lost on him.   He blamed the difference in city councillors holding back development, but if that’s what happened, then that councillor should have got an award.  Overall though this presentation was well done.  And I didn’t think about it more.

Except that the next day while talking to a friend about it, it turns out that it’s a complete social disaster.  The mall and building may be fine, but its connection to the community totally failed.

Don Mills Centre (6 months old):

1) The mall turns out to be plopped down as if from a different universe and has no connection to the community.  In a mixed racial neighbourhood of middle and low rise buildings with lower income people, is now a mall attracting high-scale shoppers with their BMW’s and Mercedes parking.  Thus nobody who lives there goes to the mall, and nobody who goes to the mall lives there.  To expensive and out of place.  A study in racial contrast.

2) All kinds of cycling rings but never a cycle locked up.  No connection to the community modality types.

3) High-school kids who would hang out, now have no where to go and no protection from the elements with the new store-to-store design.  With now zero local amenities some small percentage may consider gangs? They are certainly not to be thankful facing inequity everyday.

Surprisingly the day before where this project is given a goldstar from planners turns out to be a total lie and evidence of the total disconnect of what planners do, and what they influence into a community.

This was a lost opportunity.

a) Connect the community together with mixed mall tenants of varying price like a co-op housing, or to add grocery etc not just Shi-Shi tenants.  Reduce parking and build the mall close to the street, thus connecting the street to the mall.

b) Allow kids to hang out and/or provide some type of local amenity to the families there.  Make it a destination worth caring about that is not fearful from residents or tenants.

c) Build geothermal into the building so that in 7 years the building has reduced need for external energy and thus keeping rents affordable. (Every developer mentioned “sustainability” in their presentations but had zero examples or showed no knowledge of it)

Overall I felt the event was quite good, but after an external analysis  I see now that planners are not implementers, and know nothing of the impacts they create in our communities.  Worse, as a result some communities like around Don Mills Centre will now suffer for it.

We need a new vision.

Many planners are not like this developer, and do not share his vision as I found out after the talk.  There are many good projects out there, but to give praise where praise is not due, does not give oneself confidence and only undermines it further.

This makes my need to be useful and going back to school more stark than it needs to be.  I was sad to experience that change cannot happen and that so many otherwise talented people are basically wasting our time and money.

I’ll followup with some positive ideas later.  I just wanted to separate this from my mind before going into the new ideas I have from this symposium.  Seeing so many people proud of transit and their cities was quite fun and I’ll look for this again in the future.

 

Dear MOE,

Unfortunately not two words mentioned in your email reply helped
answer my questions.  I’ve rewritten them below in hopes of a clearer
answer.  As well, I included the OPA representative mentioned in your
post to this email in hopes of a broader opportunity for answers and
perspectives.

Basically in a nutshell consider :

Item:  What are the local or Ontario equivalent tree planting
abatement amounts for the pollution that will be created by this new
power plant?

Item:  If you are not using the planting of trees to offset the
pollution created, why not?  Is another abatement method used?  MOE
has a tree planting program to cut pollution.  Can it not be put to
use here?  Again, I don’t understand why the dots are not connected,
directly, with specific projects that cause pollution.  Please
explain.

Item:  If you create pollution in the community you have to remove it.
Thus actually using trees to remove pollution would reduce the cries
from residents that you’re polluting their homes and not listening to
their pollution concerns wouldn’t it?  I don’t understand why this is
a challenge.

Item: No matter the technnology, pollution is an inevitable result in
mostly all industrial processes.  What is your pollution abatement
policy ie: 1 tonne of emissions  = x number of trees?  State it for me
please or whichever abatement process you have.  If none, just say
none, but explain why it is so.

Please reply via human being, not misdirected copy-paste.  Pray tell
me you can answer these simple points, on topic, or redirect to some
other human who would be willing to try.

Thank you
Walter

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:48 PM, MOE CCU (ENE) wrote:
>
>
> Thank you for your e-mail to the Minister of the Environment regarding
> concerns about a proposed power plant in Oakville.  I am pleased to reply on
> behalf of the Minister.
>
>
>
> First, let me assure you that the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) is
> committed to a healthy environment for all Ontarians.  Clean air is a key
> component of that commitment.  The MOE’s role is to ensure the environment
> is protected in the planning, development and operation of electricity
> projects through requirements under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA),
> the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and the Ontario Water Resources Act
> (OWRA), where applicable.
>
>
>
> As you may already know, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) administers the
> South-West Greater Toronto Area (South-West GTA) procurement program.  The
> OPA was established under the Electricity Act as the province’s planning
> authority for electricity supply.  Under the South-West GTA procurement, the
> OPA received proposals for the supply of up to 900-megawatts of new, natural
> gas-fired generation to be located in the South-West GTA.
>
>
>
> On September 30, 2009, the OPA announced that TransCanada Corporation was
> the successful proponent to build and operate a proposed 900-megawatt power
> plant, to be located in Oakville.
>
>
>
> For further information about the OPA’s procurement process, I encourage you
> to contact [...]  Director of Procurement, Electricity Resource Division,
> OPA [...]
>
>
> In addition, all natural gas-fired generation facilities must be planned and
> developed in accordance with the Environmental Screening Process (ESP) under
> the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA).
>
>
>
> The ESP is described in the “Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements
> for Electricity Projects”.  The guide can be found on the MOE web site at
> www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/4021e.pdf.
>
>
>
> The ESP requires that proponents evaluate the project against screening
> criteria set out in the guide to identify the potential for any negative
> environmental effects that may be caused at any stage in the project life
> cycle, as well as describe mitigation measures and net effects of the
> project.  Several of the screening criteria address issues which you are
> concerned about, including the potential for the project to have negative
> effects on health and the environment.
>
>
>
> TransCanada must finalize the required Environmental Review Report and make
> it available for public review and comment for a minimum 30-day period.  The
> company will be required to provide adequate notice through measures that
> may include newspaper advertisements, notice on its web site and letters to
> adjacent property owners.
>
>
>
> In addition to the EAA requirements, the facility will also require a
> Certificate of Approval from the MOE.  TransCanada cannot apply for approval
> until it has fully completed the EAA process.  Before a Certificate of
> Approval can be issued, the company must demonstrate that the facility can
> meet or exceed provincial standards and be operated in an environmentally
> responsible manner.  I would like to assure you that TransCanada Corporation
> will also be required to address the potential cumulative impacts of its
> proposal.
>
>
>
> I have attached a fact sheet which also summarizes the environmental
> assessment and approvals processes.
>
>
>
> On September 30, 2009, the MOE announced that it will establish a Task Force
> to develop, with a community advisory committee, an action plan for
> improving air quality in the Clarkson-Oakville Airshed.  The Task Force has
> a mandate to report back to the ministry by the end of June 2010 on an
> action plan that includes targets, timelines, strategies and reporting
> requirements that address local industrial, vehicular and residential
> sources of air pollution.  Further details on the Task Force will be
> announced in the near future.
>
>
>[...]
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Name Omitted
>
> Director, Central Region

Sent a nice email to Metro over their decision to cut the Equality brand.  I for one am not in favour of every food being modified when I clearly had a choice.  Now that choice is gone.  Feel free to ask Metro why yourself here: http://www.metro.ca/on/utilities/contact.en.html

Hello Metro,

I was wondering what happened to the Equality brand for cheeses?  When I buy brick cheese it would normally not have more than 5 ingredients and nothing that said “modified” in it.  Only “”"Milk, bacterial culture, salt, colour, microbial enzyme”"”.  That’s it.  Very nice.

Now unfortunately the “Selection” brand includes “modified milk ingredients” along with a dozen other ingredients.  That’s quite a quality change.  I’m not interested.

I would like to purchase cheese that is not modified nor partially modified.  I had though that now being from Quebec we’d have higher quality cheese, not less so.

I’m quite surprised.  Thus here’s my email to support local cheese minus modified ingredients.  Even to ask you to consider a non-modified food section.  This change makes me wary of the “Selection” brand if it’s just a label over modified products I would otherwise not purchase.

In particular this store is beside Ryerson University.  Likely students will want cheap food to be sure, but some will also perhaps be more mindful of the ingredients and would be happy to support local providers.  As a local resident I am certainly one.

Please let me know why there are zero non-modified cheeses available for purchase at Metro today, and why this sudden change of practise over the last month.

With Best Regards,
Walter

While on the surface this is good news, the 17-16 vote means that the OMB will likely approve it along with the 1,387 condo development when the developers go crying to them.

This is crazy!  We’re not going to solve issues of climate change and peak oil at 12-26 storey buildings developments.  No. Not even in a dream. Density only works with 100% inputs of energy from somewhere else and not locally sourced. To have condos is to need nuclear power. Insisting on density reflects the insanity of our age on so many levels.

Given city council ignorance of any topic of environmental focus this looks to be only a fluke delay, not denied.

Toronto Star Link: Council rejects Don Mills community centre offer

bye bye cute building... thanks for all the history

Partial blog thread from TheStar article ” ‘Car-free’ condo: 42 storeys, no parking” located here: http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/newsfeatures/article/696394

Here’s a current outrage to relentless condo development.    The central theme is that we are building condos at any cost and after Peak Oil condos will be useless anyway.  Poor little building, probably the last history on University Ave from a century ago.  Notice how human scaled and stylish it is?  Versus how the buildings around it make you feel like an ant.  This is a building worth saving, not the monoliths around it.

I was surprised I had a majority positive agreement on some posts noted below.  Condos are an easy target though, so I don’t think its due to understanding energy.  Anyway, given the positive feedback, maybe the city isn’t so blind to its environment after all?   Unfortunately it will be too late for this building.  Better book a tour now before it’s gone.  This little building for the Royal Canadian Military Institute on University Ave was build in 1907.  Survived building booms over two World Wars, including the 1960’s and 70’s concrete and glass marvels left and right to it.  Now slated to be … condos.  What a sad pathetic joke to think our city cares about anything.

Thread posts follow…

<SNIP>

---

only a few more years to go…

Funny but that building would have survived Peak Oil. Now, with it’s demise underway, and our disdain for history apparent, that 1907 building which is a part of our heritage will be gone forever over nothing. Ironically, this is the only building in that area that can be renovated to be 100% off grid with geothermal and passive solar. Otherwise all condos and all buildings of crazy density require 100% energy inputs. Buildings rely on cheap abundant energy to exist. When that goes, so does the rationale for tall buildings. As Peak Oil goes, so too the end of the condo. This little one held for over 100 years, if only a few years more.

Submitted by energyblogwalter at 2:02 PM Wednesday, September 16 2009

* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree 2
* |
* Alert a moderator

---

Another condo for the Generation of Denial

Condos rely on natural gas and electricity and nothing else can power them. It is next to impossible to generate enough local energy per person because there are too many people there, as natural systems require comparable surface area (above or underground). Thus condos rely on natural gas and nuclear power to exist. If you are pro-condo but anti-nuclear this is a hypocrisy that you may not have considered. The historical building should be left alone. It won’t matter in a few years anyway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

Submitted by energyblogwalter at 2:08 PM Wednesday, September 16 2009

* Agree 5
* |
* Disagree 3
* |
* Alert a moderator

---

Peak Oil

Survived Peak Oil? The peak oil crisis has more to do with cars and low density suburban housing and the decline of that. Energy is mostly created by nuclear and hydro. Although some is created by Fossil fuel, its a small portion in Ontario. While this is not to say that there is no energy issue because there is, the biggest peak oil issue is low density housing. Most of these tall glass buildings are heated by electric, not oil. Different energy, different crisis.

Submitted by jdub at 2:22 PM Wednesday, September 16 2009

* Agree
* |
* Disagree 4
* |
* Alert a moderator

---

@jdub 2:22pm

uh, no, if you’re in Peak Oil and you live in a condo, you can no longer drive oodles of distances everyday of the week. With shopping so far away and no ability to have a garden for even supplemental help, it is a living arrangement that cannot survive. New electricity generation is natural gas(NG) powered, since renewables aren’t ready, thus fast condos drive fast NG development. Contrast this with net-metered homes that do not drive dependency on fossil fuels. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Submitted by energyblogwalter at 3:11 PM Wednesday, September 16 2009

* Agree 4
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Alert a moderator