The Bownesian Urban Permaculture Project

This past week-end, we set out to help Rob Sinclair & Lauren Mangion transform their urban Bowness lot into a permaculture-inspired oasis & garden. Lauren took my “Intro to Permaculture” course in January and was inspired to take some next steps….. I offered to help them out with the design and implementation.

With some basic principles in mind we wanted to create a place where conscious garden design has been melded while respecting nature’s most basic principles.




Conventional agriculture & gardens

Our conventional industrial agriculture approach is the result of the farmer asking himself: “What can I get from this Land?”. This question arises unsurprisingly from our societal-view of the environment and natural resources as something to be conquered. Once the commodity is decided upon we then use copious amounts of external inputs such as fossil fuel, fertilizers & human labour to maximize this yield.

Our conventional gardens often mimic this industrial straight-line approach. Our gardens require tilling, fertilizing, and dreadful weeding! If our typical gardener stopped weeding the garden (i.e. external input) unwanted species would likely colonize the black soil between the garden rows eventually taking over and choking out much of the garden. To keep pests away, chemicals are used and to replenish depleted nutrients, synthetic and polluting fertilizers are sprayed.

“When the needs of a system are not met from within, we pay the price in energy and pollution.”
- Bill Mollison

The permaculture-inspired garden

Permaculture design starts with a different premise: “What does this land have to give if I co-operate with it?”. This subtle wording difference actually results in a completely different world-view than the previous question of “What can I get from this Land?”.

The first step in this new approach is to consider nature’s most obvious and important teaching: interconnectedness creates robust, resilient, non-polluting and sustainable systems.

To illustrate, consider a natural forest-system. Strong & redundant connections among plants, insects, soil & other animals form a resilient & natural web. The forest system produces its own fertilizer, and the “waste” streams from one element are used up by another. In addition to not needing any external energy inputs to maintain itself (other than the sun!), take one species out and another species will fill the void & function. This balanced system is also inherently resistant to diseases and pests.

In ecological-garden design (& permaculture), the goal is to replicate, as much as possible, the forest ecology. We want to take cues from the way nature works and stop considering nature as an enemy or something to be conquered or restrained.

A few principles to consider in ecological garden design

Nature abhors a vacuum. Bare soil is perfect habitat for weed seeds. Weeds are really just pioneer species that have evolved to quickly cover bare ground, extract nutrients from the soil and repair nutrient-deficient soil. By planting cover crops, such as field pea we provide several essential functions to the garden. We outcompete the “weeds” and leave them no place to fill in, and by choosing a nitrogen-fixing species we condition the soil and fertilize using nature’s way.

Nature doesn’t usually mono-crop. Planting only one species either in large fields or in isolated garden blocks is a definite signal to pests and diseases. There’s no question that plants work in relationships with one another, particularly with other plant species. Guild planting is a technique, which has been used by centuries by indigenous peoples, where mutually beneficial plants are planted together. When Michelle & I visited the Zapatistas in Mexico, we learnt about their tradition of planting corn, beans & squash together in a field.

Nature can be the gardener’s ally. With clever design, micro-organisms can work to benefit us, minimize our labour & maximize the productivity of the landscape. For instance, why till, add fertilizers and other chemicals, when worms perform these very functions? Why not plant things that attract beneficial insects and predators that will minimize pests? The truth is that we’ve been conditioned to only see elements as performing one function and in isolation from each other. Put on your “Permaculture glasses” and think about things holistically.

Rob & Lauren’s Design

I sat down with Rob & Lauren over a month ago to give them some ideas and get them started on their design. My goal is not to design people’s garden, but to provide them with the tools to do it themselves and provide feedback and suggestions.

Rob & Lauren came up with a lovely layout including curved edges and numerous “key-hole beds”.

The good news about living in a four season region is that everyone is just itching to get their hands dirty in the spring time. A great group of friends and volunteers showed up at Rob and Lauren’s on Saturday to cut up sod, mark out paths, dig out swales, build up garden beds, and shovel mulch. We even braved hail in the afternoon and were so eager to finish that almost no one stopped working!

I’ll have to get some more photos of their yard as the summer progresses.

Rob and Lauren have designed more than a garden. This is a place for insects and habitat for animals. It will provide food to nourish them and inspiration to guide them and connect them with Mother Earth.

Transfering our Blogs

Hey Everyone - We are in the process of transfering our articles and blogs from our previous Travel Website, to this new blog site.

We've started, but still have a ways to go. For now, see the remainder of our articles here.

How to Build an Earthship - Our Adventure in New Mexico

Throughout the last year Michelle and I have been searching for green building methods that use little to know grid energy for space conditioning and electrification. So far we have seen a straw bale house, and underground concrete building, adobe brick and Michelle has extensively studied the envelope of the passive haus standard in Germany. All of them provided various pros and cons and everyone it seems has an opinion on the subject which we have discovered can vary from the logical to the insane. While we were in Teotiucan I was surfing the net and came across the Earthship website where I discovered a week-end seminar on Earthship construction. An Earthship is the brainchild of the eccentric architect Michael Reynolds. It is basically a house made of rammed earth and tires, usually in a U shape with the backside of the U earthshelter (i.e. burried into a hill). The dates for the week-end seminar lined up perfectly with our trip through New Mexico and Michelle and I decided that it was an experience worth attending.

We arrived late Friday night at the earthship headquarters which of course is an earthship. We watched Garbage Warrior, a documentary based around the earthship creator Micheal Reynolds and his struggles with the building codes in New Mexico. It is a great movie and paints a perfect picture of Michael, who is quite the character. The rest of the week-end was a mix of lectures by Michael about the history of the Earthship concept, how the structure goes up, how the thermal mass works to keep the earthship warm in the winter and cool in the summer, how the energy and grey water systems work, etc. We also spent a good part of the week-end pounding tires! Man is that a good workout.

The earthship inventor, Michael Reynolds decided after graduating from Architect school that the world did not need any more architechs designing standard building envelopes that were energy hogs, and as suseptable to grid failure as the utilities. Seeing all of the large landfills, peak oil, massive and global warming on the horizon he set out to start building green buildings out of what ever he could find. His first buildings were as crazy looking as the materials that he used. Michael started with bricks made from six beer cans. This made sense as there was no recycling back then and he loves to drink beer. He then tried to build with beer cans without making bricks but using the individual cans as bricks. Both of the concepts worked well structurally but did not provide the thermal mass that he was looking for. A short while after he started these crazy building projects the architechts association withdrew his license indefinitely. With nothing left to loose and a little more than a couple of pennies to rub together he decided one day that he would build a house out of tires. As weird as it seems you can’t argue with his logic. As Micheal says, they are indigenous to the planet, they are virtually indestructible, waterproof, have a big footprint and basically make the best brick in the world. Typically the homes are designed as a large U or a series of U’s parallel to each other with the open part of the U facing south in the northern hemisphere, and north in the southern hemisphere. The orientation of the U’s is based on maximizing the solar gain that the house receives. Once the shape of the house is determined the U’s are draw on the ground, and a survey of the land takes place so that it can be flattened out. Next the first row of tires is placed forming the U’s which means that it is time to start filling the tires with dirt and compacting the dirt with fledge hammers. This is by far the hardest part of building one of these structures as it is intense and slow physical work. We were told that if we wanted to determine the amount of time it would take to build the walls to assume that one man could pound 20 tires a day which is a drop in a bucket considering the average earthship has 1000-1500 tires. The tires are stacked in an offset pattern similar to traditional bricks, the difference being these bricks weigh 150 kg! As the tire wall goes up earth is burmed around the outside with an insulation skirt about three 1 meter away providing frost protection and support to the tires from the outside. After the walls are built trusses are spanned and a greenhouse is added to the front of the building. The roof is insulated to R 70 and sloped in order to capture rain water for the inhabitants. For those of you who have a good understanding of building you may have noticed that there was never a foundation, grade beam or piles driven to support the building. This is one of the many advantages of this building. Because the tires are very wide they have enough surface area to span the load and do not require a footing. The walls in the building are finished with a cob mixture which covers the tires and beautifies the building. Michaels goal for an earthship has always been to make them completely self contained with a very small environmental footprint. For this to happen he had to come up with ways to deal with grey water, sewage, electricity, and thermal energy.

The thermal energy completely provided for by the sun via the southern greenhouse. The thermal mass in the tire walls store the heat from the day and release it at night. The highly insulated roof ensures that minimal heat is lost to the environment.

Greywater is any water is considered waste water that contains no sewage. In the earthship water that is captured from the roof is stored in on site cisterns where it is drawn, filtered and used for sinks, showers and dishwashers, this water (grey water) is sent to a biological water treatment cell located in greenhouse where plants clean the water. Excess water in the grey water biofilter is then collected in a sump and sent to the toilet. After the water is used in the toilet it is considered black water and treated in a different system.

Black water is any water that contains sewage. This water is sent to a septic tank where the solids and liquids settle out and then it gets pumped into a similar biological cell to the grey water cell which is planted with perennial fruit trees. This cell is lined with thick poly to protect the ground water and is equipped with an overflow tank which can be pumped if there is any additional sewage left over. The overflow tank is placed there to satisfy the building codes and to date no system has flowed into it. Michael also mentioned that water has been tested after going through the sewage cell and it is always clean.

Because the earthship was designed in the desert where less than 300mm of rain and snow fall annually it is important to ensure that the water is used as many times as possible. With the aforementioned systems water is used

1. For drinking, washing, cooking ect.

2. To feed a food bed in the front greenhouse

3. To provide flushing water to the toilet

4. To feed a perennial black water bed providing fruit trees.

Electricity is provided for with solar PV, wind generators or micro hydro depending on what is available on site. The system is a standard power system but interestingly enough it is one of the first components to be installed in a house as it provides the power for the saws, drills and cement mixers. This allows them to build anywhere there is renewable energy!

Biofuels - Fueling the World or Fooling the World?

Just over a month ago, I (Michelle) sat through a presentation called the "Myths of Agrofuels". Most of the information was new to me, and I found the facts presented rather astonishing as I had always thought of agrofuels as a legitimate part of the transition mix. I felt compelled to research the topic thoroughly and draw up some conclusions of my own based on scientific research, reputable publications and responsible sources. I became so convinced that the use of imported fuel crops would have such major adverse consequences that I have since become involved with a network of organizations, scientists and individuals calling for a moratorium on the recently announced EU biofuel policy.

To summarize the issues, I believe that Agrofuels:

• risk increasing greenhouse gas emissions leading to further global warming
• greatly accelerate deforestation and loss of biodiversity
• are a threat to communities and to indigenous peoples in developing countries due to land conflicts, food insecurity and will further exacerbate existing socioeconomic inequalities

The backbone to the anti-agrofuels network here in Europe is the UK organization, BiofuelWatch. The campaign is gaining momentum, public attention and recently, was covered by UK-based Sky News. The seven minute news broadcast is shown below, followed by a more detailed discussion of the broader impacts of agrofuel use and agrofuel government policy.

Before you watch the clip, note that although this blog is focused on the European government policy the Canadian government recently announced a regulation requiring 5% renewable content, such as ethanol, in Canadian gasoline by 2010. There are also plans to develop a biodiesel fuel target of 2% by 2012 and the Canadian Government's ecoEnergy for biofuels initiative will invest up to $1.5 billion over 9 years to boost Canada?s production of biofuels.

This newscast looks at the agrofuel industry in Indonesia and the deforestation, loss of wildlife habitat and biodiversity that is currently occurring in the race to increase fuel crop production. As well, a villager whose village was demolished to make way for a large-scale agribusiness palm oil plantation is briefly interviewed.

Sky News (UK)- Biofuels, Driving a Catastrophy?

What Is The Difference Between Agrofuels and Biofuels?

Agrofuels / biofuels are biomass-derived fuels designed to replace petroleum and used mainly in the transport sector. Although the two terms are often used interchangeably a distinction must be made. An agrofuel, is a type of biofuel, consisting of crops and/or trees grown on a large scale (i.e monoculture). Examples include fuel crops such as maize, corn, oil palm, soya, sugar cane, sugar beet, oilseed rape, canola, jatropha, rice and wheat. The term agrofuels does not include biofuels derived from waste, such as biogas from manure or landfill, or waste vegetable oil.

The call for Moratorium does not include the use of locally and sustainably grown biofuels. It covers only large-scale monocultures (agrofuels) and especially imports of these fuel crops from the Global South into the EU.

What Is The European Biofuel Policy?

The European Union (EU) has a climate policy aimed at limiting global temperature changes to no more than 2ºC above pre-industrial levels. In March 2007 the European Union Heads of States approved a draft energy action plan with the objective of developing a sustainable integrated European climate and energy policy. The targets include a 10% minimum for the share of biofuels in the overall EU transport petrol and diesel consumption by 2020. Two important conditions were imposed onto this target: (1) biofuels should be produced sustainably, (2) Second-generation biofuels should become commercially available.

The official legislative proposal for revised biofuels is expected to be published late 2007 or early 2008.

What Is Contributing to Climate Change?

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, an independent review commissioned by the UK government and published in October 2006, is the largest and most widely known and quoted report of its kind. The review ultimately concludes that ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth and that strong, early action considerably outweighs the cost. Using scientific evidence, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines, and the World Resources Climate Analysis Data, the review produced an interesting pie-chart showing the GHG emissions by source for the year 2000.

What this chart tells us:

• 35% of emissions are from agriculture and changes in land use
• Land-use change is the 2nd largest source of emissions (18%), after the power sector (24%).
• Agriculture emissions are equal (14%) and land-use change emissions are greater (18%) than the contribution from transport.

Agriculture emissions due to intensive farming stem primarily from two sources: nitrogen fertilizer production/utilization and emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) from the field. Because of the very powerful GHG effect of nitrous oxide (300 times that of CO2) even relatively small emissions can have a significant impact on the overall GHG balance.

Deforestation is the single largest source of land-use change emissions, i.e. the conversion of forest to pasture land. The carbon stored in vegetation and soil is released directly if the forest is burned (i.e.slash and burn) or more slowly if it is left to decay. Also, the re-absorption of CO2 (sequestration) through photosynthesis is reduced, leaving more CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere. Greater than 90% of land-use change emissions originate from tropical (developing) countries. Of that ninety, thirty and twenty percent are attributed to deforestation in Indonesia and Brazil respectively.

Do Agrofuels Lower GHG Emissions?

It seems only logical that, if governments, supporters, agri-business and industry are supporting the widespread adoption then it must reduce overall GHG emissions and help the environment, right?

Well - it depends.

First, to truly compare the two fuel types, a full cycle environmental impact must be performed. In the case of transport fuels, this is also commonly referred to as a well-to-wheel (WTW) analysis, representing that the fuel source has been evaluated from its source (i.e. oil well) to the wheel, which would include everything from land preparation to fuel combustion.

Numerous WTW?s have been performed by scientific organizations and industry groups and have shown a wide range of GHG balances for agrofuels, from increases of 70% to decreases of 80% over conventional fossil fuels.

This wide range is because the calculated emissions crucially depend on a number of factors:

• Nitrous Oxide Emissions: Farming contributes significantly to the agrofuel GHG emissions due to nitrogen fertilizer production/utilization and direct nitrous oxide emissions from the field. Factors such as yield, climate, soil type, ground cover and cultivation method assumptions have a very large affect on estimated emissions.
• Base case assumptions: What was the original land-use? Did de-forestation occur to make room for the fuel crop?
• Pathway: How was the fuel made? In the case of ethanol production, the use of co-generation with a gas-fired turbine over conventional production schemes has been claimed to reduce GHG emissions by 45%. However, using coal would wipe out the GHG savings as compared to gasoline.
• By-product usage: Were the by-products of the distillation process used as animal feed or for fuel?

The lowest overall GHG emissions (up to 80% reduction over fossil fuels) are attainable when biodiesel is made from waste cooking oil or methane from liquid manure.

Nitrous Oxide Emissions- What?s the Big Deal?

To describe the exact methodology for estimating N2O emissions is somewhat complicated, outside of my own knowledge base (yuck, chemistry!) and likely more detailed than any of my readers care for. To describe it simplistically, biofuels studies have typically adopted two approaches for estimated N2O emissions from soils: (1) take actual field measurements, (2) use published IPCC guidelines.

The problem with actual field measurements is that the results from one field cannot necessarily apply elsewhere. N2O emissions will vary from field to field by more than two orders of magnitude depending on a complex combination of climate, soil composition, crop and farming practices. Studies have also shown that emission rates for tropical vs temperate soils can be between 10 and 100 times greater for the same quantity of fertilizer. Therefore, some substantial (and potentially unfair) assumptions must be made when using this method make a generalized comment that "agrofuels have a lower GHG balance than fossil fuels".

As for the 2006 IPCC guidelines, numerous other studies have pointed out the assumptions and simplifications made result in underestimating actual emissions. The most credible study is the recently published (August 2007) report by Paul Crutzen, who has a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on climate change. The study challenges that the nitrous oxide emissions from agrofuels is 3-5 times greater than recommended by the IPCC. Also, the outcome is that the production of commonly used biofuels, such as biodiesel from rapeseed and bioethanol from corn (maize), can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2O emissions that cooling by fossil fuel savings.

This is the key point: Agro-fuels will not bring about the intended climate benefits that are being used to promote them. This has largely to do with our large-scale, heavily fertilized, monoculture crops and industrialized production methods. And although I?m going to continue this article and point out many other legitimate reasons why the expansion of agrofuels is a bad idea, if you are tired of reading you can stop here- as I believe the case is strong enough already. In the event you are looking for more ammunition for the next debate on agrofuels you take part in, please read on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Do Base Case Assumptions Affect the GHG Balance?

As mentioned in a previous section, land-use change (i.e. deforestation) is a huge contributor to global warming, larger than even the entire transport industry, and second after the power industry. When performing an agrofuel LCA, how the land would have been used otherwise (i.e. base case) is important to consider.

To understand the likely scenario for the base-case land use, it is important to consider the magnitude of the demand. Renewable Energy targets are being announced by governments all over the world. On the Bioenergy Wiki, I found some information on renewable fuel targets for various countries:

Brazil: 20-25% ethanol, 5% biodiesel in 2010

China: 100% E10 (10% gasoline-ethanol blend) by 2012

India: 5% ethanol in certain states, 20% biodiesel by 2012

Thailand: 20% ethanol and biodiesel by 2012

The Philippines: 1% biodiesel by 2008 and 3% by 2010

The United States has numerous targets, including a 2010 target for 30% of transport fuel to come from ethanol, natural gas, hydrogen, electricity or other replacement fuels, and a 2017 target for 35 billion gallons of alternatives fuels.

Canadian government recently announced a regulation requiring 5% renewable content, such as ethanol, in Canadian gasoline by 2010. There are also plans to develop a biodiesel fuel target of 2% by 2012.

And of course, the EU draft energy action plan calls for a 10% share of biofuels in the overall EU transport petrol and diesel consumption by 2020.

I'm not even confident that this list is exhaustive or entirely up-to-date, but you can see already that the demand for biofuels is growing substantially worldwide. How much land will it take to supply all of the demand? How much will the transport sector continue to grow over the next 15 years? Will countries use domestic lands to produce their renewable fuels or will they import fuel crops?

Considering that we live in a global commodities market we know that a large portion of the fuel crops will be imported from the Global South, purely from an economics standpoint. The climatic advantages result in higher yields and almost all countries in the Global South have significantly lower labour and land costs. Demand will significantly increase pressure to convert land in developing countries to energy cropland.

Carbon is instantaneously released into the atmosphere when mature trees are cut down and burnt and it has been estimated that it would take 60 to 270 years of growing biofuels to offset this initial CO2 release. Therefore, to get a positive GHG balance for agrofuels one must assume that the biofuel crops came from set-aside areas or unharvested grass. Is this a realistic assumption?

The two projected largest exporters of agro-fuel crops are Brazil and Indonesia. It is not a coincidence that these two countries also lead the world in tropical deforestation rates, as shown below.

Supporters of agrofuel policy claim that safeguards and certification schemes can be put in place to prevent the unsustainable harvesting of agrofuels. I?ll dispute this claim in an upcoming section.

One last point- Allowing natural vegetation to regenerate would sequester 20 tonnes of CO2/hectar/year. Should we be focusing on the supposed carbon mitigation by agrofuels or concentrating on simply saving and restoring forests?

Is It Fair To Exclude Social Impacts?

Although there are many, an exceptional document focusing on the social impacts of large scale agrofuel crops is called Biodiesel, Palm Oil and Afro-Columbian Communities. It is published by the Schumacher Institute for Sustainable Systems and focuses on the current palm oil production inColumbia and its impact on already marginalized communities. The author discusses how small scale farmers will not be able to compete with industry and agribusiness monocultures designed for export. Considering that approximately 80% of agricultural land in developing countries is owned by 3% of landowners, the most likely impact is to simply exacerbate the existing socioeconomic inequalities. To quote: "Corporate actors have used their power, alongside the International Monetary Institutions, to create the best regulatory system for their investment, not for small scale farmers and policy recommendations to encourage small scale production go against the financial interests of large economic actors".

The author also recounts the story of an Afro-Columbian woman: "In her village in El Choco, she had no need for employment, as she had access to the necessary resources. Her family shared a communal plot of land where they grew their food. When armed actors arrived in her village she and her husband and children were forced from their land. They now live in a slum of Bogotá where they have no access to land on which to grow food on".

This is not an isolated example. Any research to find social organizations in developing countries or even a quick Google search will bring up many reported stories of people losing their villages, land and homes to make way for agri-business and large monoculture crops in developing countries. The NGO Friends of the Earth Netherlands has published a report in July 2007 outlining the unethical, un-environmental, unfair and illegal practices of the largest palm oil trading company in the world.

Numerous other reports include a warning from the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues that five million indigenous people in West Kalimantan are threatened with losing their land due to agrofuel cropland expansion, and in Paraguay, 90,000 rural farmers have been pushed off their land by the expansion of soya crops.

To be fair I need to point out that the issues that I have discussed regarding agrofuel production in developing countries is not isolated. Truthfully, this is a problem that stems from our current political-economic system and industrial agriculture as a whole. These points can be used equally as ammunition against eating beef from Brazil or using palm oil products from Borneo (to quote a good friend :) ). Margarine, face creams, soap, chocolate, toothpaste, and many more products can contain palm oil from deforested land. However, the substantially increased land demand due to agrofuels use and forced agrofuel targets will severely exacerbate these existing issues. We need to oppose policy which blindly promotes the increased consumption of agrofuels without consideration of the maximum local and sustainable production amounts.

I've read a number of articles regarding the benefits for the poor and developing countries that an agrofuel industry would bring about. "Promises and Challenges of Biofuels for the Poor in Developing Countries" by the International Food Policy Research Institute is one of them. The article points to income for poor farmers, employment opportunities for the poor, and discusses why they believe agrofuels will not increase food insecurity. But the author is counting on certification schemes and international safeguards to create a pro-poor biofuel industry. Also, the irony of "creating employment opportunities for the poor", is that before having been kicked off his land, the farmer did not need a job. He was able to provide for his family and live off his own crops. I do not believe that a pro-poor agrofuel industry is achievable with our current free-trade policies, the power and control of corporate agri-business and world trade organization barriers. How can we believe that the system can and will create fair and sustainable schemes when we already import so many unsustainable crops including soy and palm oil for food, massive amounts of soy protein for animal feed and other industrial products? Let's not fool ourselves as our governments start talking about creating "sustainable imported agrofuels". This is a misnomer.

As for food security, I'm not going to say much, as this is already a highly debated and front-and-center argument. Unless you've not picked up a news paper or watched the news in the last year you should be well aware of the tortilla prices in Mexico, the price of beer in Germany, and so-on.

Lastly, a great discussion on ethanol, US security and policy was done by CBC reporter Avi Lewis in June 2007. He interviews and challenges an ex-CIA director who is now the co-chair of the Committee on the Present Danger. Watch him stump the ex-CIA director with his comments regarding US foreign policy (It's great!). You can watch the 5 minute newscast here.

Will Second Generation Biofuels Save The Day?

The second criterion of the EU draft energy plan is that second generation biofuels become commercially available. Second generation biofuels aim to improve performance, usually using the whole plant therefore improving CO2 balance and costs. A wider range of feedstocks could theoretically be used including trees, plant waste, grass and straw. While the technology is currently unproven, promises about the future of the 2nd generation are being used to promote agrofuel policy and production of the 1st generation type. Development of economical net positive energy balance 2nd generation biofuels could take a significant time while emission reductions are required in the immediate future. Also, there is no evidence that large-scale 2nd generation agrofuels would be sustainable or climate-friendly.

Considerable resources are also being invested in genetically modified (GM) research for agrofuel production. For numerous reasons I fiercely oppose the use of GM crops, but here is not the place to go into a detailed debate. The Future of Food is a documentary, and one the many excellent resources discussing the sustainability issues inherent with GM crops. The Biotech industry hopes to use genetic engineering to improve agrofuel crops and obviously expects that strong public opposition, mostly related to health concerns and food crops, will fade. However, the risk for biodiversity, other biohazards and contamination for all non-GM crops still exist and will likely be significantly intensified if GM 2nd generation agrofuels are introduced.

Can These Issues Be Solved By Certification?

I've been primarily focused on European policy with the work I've been doing here at the Folkecenter and can't comment on how the Canadian government is handling the certification issue. However, I suspect that the scheme eventually adopted by the European government will be imitated by other governments. Much of the information presented in this section is adapted from the Transnational Institute's publication, Paving the Way for Agrofuels.

Proponents claim that certification can effectively ensure that only sustainable sources are imported. But who gets to determine what is sustainable? The agrofuels "sustainability" debate in the EU and internationally excludes many actors, especially the farmers, villagers and communities in the Global South who are directly affected by the international biofuel policies and expansion of agrofuel crops in their home countries.

In the spring of 2007, the EU published and requested feedback on its Possible Way Forward consultation paper. Interestingly, only two sustainability criteria were suggested in this proposition: (i) GHG balance, (ii) high biodiversity value evaluations.

Based on these two criteria alone, agrofuels linked to land evictions, human rights abuses, loss of food security or any other social issue can still be considered "sustainable". Therefore, the issues most relevant to the most affected stakeholders are ignored. Currently proposed certification schemes cite the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules as a barrier to including social criteria such as child labour, soil degradation, land conflicts, etc, into the certification debate.

A "Book & Claim" type system is being proposed as compared to a "Track & Trace" method. This type of system uses trade-able certificates instead of tracking a product from beginning to end (i.e. Track & Trace). It is less administratively burdensome and hence cheaper, but also easier to cheat. Regardless of which system is used, there is always the challenge of verification, monitoring, and enforcement. Another barrier to the certification process is that the WTO mandates that voluntary certification is allowed, but only if no measures are taken to inhibit trade in non-certified goods.

The EU proposes to use existing "stakeholder" groups including the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) and the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) to both certify goods. However, these two groups are heavily dominated by transnational agri-business corporations, including Round-up-Ready soy producers who have a huge stake in getting genetically modified organisms (GMO?s) accepted under a "responsible" certification scheme. Also, both organizations have been heavily criticized by NGO's in the Global South as members have been found guilty of illegal acquisition of land, land-clearance through fire, deforestation and failure to protect biodiversity. Let us also remember that the wide scale conversion of natural habitat to monoculture can in no way be considered "sustainable". These groups are more interested in the long term sustainability of their industries and profits, and not sustainability in the sense of the environment.

What does the government of Malaysia have to say about the consultation paper? "There is a need for EU to accept greenhouse gas savings provided by exporting countries and not to impose arbitrary standards including the need to verify the data (?) Protection of biodiversity is normally under the purview of national forest policies and should not be linked with agricultural policies (?) use of words such as "environmentally-harmful" systems should be avoided as there are no internationally accepted standards (?) Criteria such as land-use change, biodiversity and CO2 neutrality should be subjected to the environmental laws and regulations of the exporting countries?. Yikes! Let's hope that the EU is smart enough not to listen to this advice!

Certification schemes cannot easily nor in a practical sense address indirect and macro effects. However, these can be significant and could completely ruin the supposed GHG reduction and/or negate any environmental benefits. For instance, if corn crops for ethanol production displace soya crops, the soya crops (say, for animal feed) may be planted in a newly deforested area. The rate of Amazon deforestation has been shown to be in direct correlation with the world market price of soy and also linked to US corn subsidies as per a 2006 scientific study and an article published in the journal Science respectively. As well, according to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, an increase in the use of rapeseed oil for biodiesel increases the demand for palm oil in the food industry.

With all of these unaddressed key sustainability issues, how can targets be set and subsidies granted? This quote sums it all up well: "[B]iofuel mandates are targeting ambitious market shares without an in-depth understanding of a sustainable production level and from where these biofuels could be supplied. There is a serious risk that biofuel quotas for demand are higher then potential sustainable supply, creating a strong incentive to cheat the system. Though theoretically possible, reliance on certification schemes to ensure the sustainable production of biofuels is not a realistic safeguard."

With all of these considerations in mind, I believe that trust in a certification scheme is like trusting that the stock tip that you received in your spam-mail will make you a millionaire.

Treating The Symptoms and Not The Disease?

Governments are excited about the notion that we can both grow our own fuel and combat climate change at the same time. They have chartered a course by providing economic incentives to industry and issuing biofuel targets for consumers. The ship is gaining momentum with strong support from industry, agribusiness, and investors although the climate benefits are seriously being challenged by scientists and numerous others warn of severe social consequences.

The realities of climate change and peak oil contrast with our eagerness to continually grow and increase consumption. We seem to be blind or unwilling to acknowledge the fact that we live in a finite world with a diminishing supply of non-renewable resources. Rather than making decisions to truly reduce our toll on the environment and our energy consumption we seek false lifeboats such as agrofuels and expect this one lifeboat to carry all the passengers of the tanker ship.

Setting biofuel mandates (i.e. a requirement for 10% ethanol content by 2020) without first targeting consumption reduction is trying to treat the symptoms and not the disease! We need to first cure our wasteful and ignorant use of resources and then look to sustainable options. Trying to find sustainable ways to carry on our unsustainable lifestyle will only sink the ship.

Here is a clear example: In 2005, the most efficient car available in North America, the Honda Insight (70 mpg) was only sold to 700 customers. In contrast, 61,000 Hummers (10 mpg) were sold.

Is It Time For A Conclusion?

"When asked whether the 10 per cent target would be dropped or adjusted if negative impacts were demonstrated, the [EU] Commission responded that this would not be the case, since it would create too much uncertainty for investors. So, investors' interests are served while sustainability promises remain empty." excerpt fromPaving The Way For Agrofuels.

Based on the technical reports I have read, the internet research that I have completed, the people that I have spoken to, and the debates I have had, this is what I have come to fear: the agrofuel craze will only turn into a continuation of resource extraction from the Global South and developing countries with the intention of maximizing the profits of transnational corporations and corrupt governments so that those fortunate to be born in the first world can continue with their rampant consumption while falsely believing that they are actually doing something good for the planet and at the same time continuing to be completely oblivious of the upcoming energy crisis.

wow - then end.

p.s. do me a favour- if you got to the end of this document, first pat yourself on the back, then leave me a comment. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this one- even if you disagree with me :)

The High Cost of Cheap Fuel

I saw things in Cairo that I thought were only true in the movies. This whirlwind trip has been a real eye opener for me, an enormous culture shock and I have come to realize my own naivety surrounding mega cities in developing countries. To give you an idea of the conditions:

- the city is home to 18 million people

- the sixteenth most populous city in the world

- a diameter of 15 km

There are two extremes here: rich and everyone else. Most people live in homes that are in poor condition at best and generally absolute wrecks. Half a million squatters are living in cemetery tombs in central Cairo.

The cost of living is quite low which allows the population to scrape by on little-to-no monthly income. I am by no means a policy expert and I cannot say that I know the history or understand the problems that the Egyptian government and people have faced, but to me it is evident thatthe subsidization of gasoline and diesel fuel is an absolute disaster.

Cairo is a therefore a perfect case study for people looking for reasons why the subsidization of fossil energy is a bad idea.

Market manipulation in the form of taxes and subsidies by governments are tools that are used to persuade the market in a direction that the government sees as beneficial to society. These tools can be used effectively, as we have seen in Denmarkto encourage local growth of community renewable power.

In Egypt, the current price for a liter of gasoline is about 0.15 CAD$. The subsidy was initiated under the pretext of protecting domestic jobs, stimulating the economy and protecting the poor from high prices.

At first glance, I suspect that many North Americans would wish that our government “came to the rescue” and subsidized our fuel prices. Think about how cheap a trip to the mountains in your SUV would be if fuel only cost 15 cents a liter!

However, the fuel subsidies are by no means a free-ride for the Egyptians. The money used to subsidize the real cost of fuel has to come from somewhere. In the case of Egypt, subsidies have displaced funds for basic needs such as education, health care and the environment. In the case of the environment, the subsidization creates a triple negative hit: reduced government spending to protect the environment, increased pollution from the excessive use of fossil fuels, and reduced economic incentive to use renewable and clean energies.

Over 2 million vehicles congest Cairo's roads, many of them being old carbureted gas engines, old diesels, two-stroke motor bikes and rickshaws. The air pollution in the city is unbelievable. The black smoke from the vehicle exhausts blanket the city like nothing you can imagine. It fills the streets and sticks to the building making everything grey. It is so dense that when you are in the heart of the city on a windless day you can not see the sun in the sky. There is nowhere you can go to take a fresh breath of air. The lung problems that these people are going to have in 20 years are hard to fathom.

As for economics and profit stimulation, it seems to have only brought wealth to a small percentage of already wealthy people who were able to capitalize on the system. Currently Cairo has a 20% unemployment rate.

Furthermore, the country is living in delusional cheap fuel bonanza while the commodity price of oil is steadily climbing towards 100 $/barrel. The government is being squeezed and has admitted that the fuel subsidy will have to end soon. However, society has become addicted to this cheap oil and feels that it cannot survive without it!

According the locals I was staying with, riot police have been set up all over the city in anticipation of riots and public unrest when the subsidies are stopped. My Egyptian friend claims that the removal of fuel subsidizes will also cause overnight inflation on the entire economy. Food prices, taxi cabs (the artery of Cairo's transit) and generally everything that touches any kind of transport or manufacturing in the country will be forced to ramp up prices to account for the major adjustment.

The real question becomes: how will the people making 300 $/mo or less adjust and more importantly how will the people who are unemployed make ends meet?Unfortunately only time will tell and hopefully the Egyptian Government has a plan to slowly ease the people into a substantially more expensive life.

As for North America: we too are addicted to private transport. While we have much stricter emission standards we too are going to be faced with difficult transport decisions in the all too near future. Governments need to invest more heavily in our public transportation system and people need to start using it- not only for cost considerations but also for the environment. The policy that drives the decisions in our cities and countries needs to not be only concerned about which overpass is causing major congestion but how to improve public transport and make cities more walk-able, bike-able and livable. We need to start making decisions and investments thinking about the 10-15 year plan and not concern ourselves with political platforms only aimed at wining the next election (i.e. 2% GST cuts).

In the end I can say that I enjoyed my trip. I met a great number of very humble and gracious people and can say that while the lungs of the Egyptians may not be too healthy their hearts more than make up for it. I sincerely hope that their government has a few plans on how to deal with the impending fuel crisis that this country is going to face very soon. I am glad that the companies that were represented in the course we taught are at least looking to start a wind industry. This is an enormous step in the right direction.

Even though we can selfishly think of all the good reasons for subsidized fuel, it is quite clear that one way or another we all end up paying the full price (and maybe even more) in the end. We can only avoid the true and external costs of fossil fuels for so long. Even in North America we will have to pay the piper sooner or later. If we choose sooner, we can choose our destiny, if we choose later we will likely end up in the same boat as our Egyptian brothers.

Combined Heat and Power District Heating in Denmark - A Case Study

The change to Combined Heat and Power (CHP) in Denmark created a decentralized heat and power structure that gradually can be transitioned entirely to renewable energy.

By establishing local consumer-owned and municipality-owned Combined Heat and Power plants (CHPs) ownership of power production gradually shifted from centralized power production to local, independent, not-for-profit energy supply. This change to decentralized CHP happened over the course of 10 years, in parallel with building of 3200 MW of new wind power with 85% owned and used-by-community power co-operatives referred to as Independent Power Producers (IPPs). By2001 a total of 45% of the 35 TWh of power used in Denmark was being produced by IPPs. Of the 45%, wind power accounted for 20% and CHP 25%. As a consequence the central power utilities (now owned by Vattenfall, DONG Energy and EON) had their share of the power market reduced to 55%. This transition took only 10 years to dramatically shift almost 50% of the power production from inefficient, centralized, fossil fuel companies to local, municipal or consumer-owned companies.

Coincidently this is the amount of time it takes to build one nuclear power plant, or roughly 1200 MW. This transition represented the single most important initiative to reduce CO2 emissions in Denmark.

In order to understand how Canada can benefit by following the lead of the Danish CHP and district heating model it is important to understand the history and framework that was developed and the subsequent advantages that they provided to the people of Denmark. This Danish model shows that a decentralized power system owned by the people can provide a sustainable energy future which reinforces that efficient power systems can built in a smart way to encourage local ownership and development of community renewable energy systems

History of District Heating In Denmark

During much of 1900?s fuel oil and coal made up a large fraction of the Danish heating supply on an individual basis. Typical residential homes employed fossil fuel burners to provide space heat and domestic hot water. This form of heat generation was problematic, it was expensive, dirty and required maintenance on a regular basis. In the early 1950?s the idea of decentralized community owned district heating systems started to arise which provided a cost effective, efficient solution for communities to get heat without the maintenance and at a reduced cost. District heating in Denmark started in big cities such as Copenhagen using fuel oil, coal and natural gas. Steam was produced for power and used the district heating loops as condensers thus increasing the thermal efficiency of the power generation dramatically.

The next phase was to offer CHP and new district heating distribution networks for towns and villages who were getting their heat from individual fossil fuel heating systems. In 1987 the Danish Steering Group for Renewable Energy implemented two programs to encourage the use of district heating and CHP. They included:

1. CHP for district heating systems without CHP
2. District heating loops and CHP for cities, towns and hamlets without district heating.

In addition, the Danish CHP program started with a few demonstration plants with sizes 100 to 3000 kWel. In 1990 the triple tariff system was introduced with tariffs for peak, medium and low load operation of the national power supply. To encourage building of local, consumer owned CHP a premium of power production of DKK 0,10 (?0,013) was introduced.

These polices paved the way for towns in the size of 500 to 70,000 people to implement CHP district heating systems using gas turbines, gas engines, solid municipal waste and biomass. Smaller centers typically used CHP gas engines and small biomass combustors, while the larger towns and cities employed gas turbines, or a combination of all of the technologies. Systems were designed based on the fuel available, the geography and the needs of the cities and towns. The majority of district heating loops in Denmark were installed from 1990-2001 and they were predominantly owned by the members of the community in which they were supplying. This gave control to the people and ensured that energy was distributed to the communities at fair prices. In addition, the savings due to the increase in efficiency could be reinvested in the community or given back to the energy consumers in the form of lower heating costs.

Technology

The favored technology has predominantly been natural gas powered CHP engines coming from a basket of European and North American manufactures. Stationary natural gas engines used in combine heat and power applications boast a factor four reduction in cost compared with conventionally generated thermal coal power for same produced power.

This is because:

1. The heat can be used if the system is placed in the community increasing the thermal efficiency of the system to over 85% compared with the best thermal coal power plant at 44% thermal efficiency.
2. Natural gas has a tenth of the SOx, half of the NOx and a third of the CO2 produced from combustion. The cost of removal of these pollutants in a coal generation plant is significant.
3. The cost to install a gas fired engine is 30% lower per kWhr installed than that of a coal plant and even cheaper if removal of the emissions from coal is included. Additionally, natural gas fired engines can be installed in 6 months as opposed to 5 years for a thermal coal plant.
4. Shipping of the engine and the balance of plant can be accomplished with standard shipping channels including trucks and trains.

With these financial benefits it became possible for local district heating companies owned by municipalities or consumers to build their own CHPs and offer cheaper heat to the households. This became one of the driving forces which encouraged a rapid change to local CHP.

To the right is a comparison of emissions from central coal power production to natural gas combined heat and power for the same quantity of power produced.

Is CHP renewable?

CHP using natural gas in not renewable but CHP can be a renewable venture if the right technologies are used. Stationary gas engines can run on a variety of fuels which can be tailored to local fuel availability.

These fuels can include:

• Biodiesel
• Plant oil
• Biogas
• Gasified biomass
• Land fill gas

If these alternate fuel sources are not available natural gas can be used a transitional fuel while the community determines which fuel can be utilized in the future. In essence, district heating with CHP provides the initial framework towards a renewable energy power and heat system.

Advantages

Advantages of community based CHP units are vast, the main benefits being:

1. Reliability: Natural Gas engines are extremely reliable as they are used in the harshest of conditions where reliability is of the utmost importance. Typically these gas engines are installed in trans-ocean liners, drilling rigs, offshore oil platforms, and remote northern villages.
2. Community Autonomy: Having a local power and heat producer in the community provides the local community with autonomy giving the, ?power to the people?. This gives the community the ability to ensure that the power is developed in an appropriate manner.
3. The ability to incorporate Renewable Energy in the future: Having CHP with district heating opens opportunities to incorporate large fractions of renewable energy in the form of biogas, solar thermal heating, wind for heat, biomass gasification, plant oil based fuels and combustion of locally based biomass.
4. Scalability and Flexibility: Local CHP are scaleable and flexile to operate. This makes it easy to increase capacity in the future and matches well with the incorporation of wind and solar power in the supply system.
5. High Efficiency: Stationary Natural Gas CHP units boast an electrical efficiency of 41% and with heat recovery of the jacket water, exhaust, lube oil and turbo charger can achieve and overall thermal efficiency of over 85%.
6. Cost Effective Heat and Power: With high thermal efficiencies power cost can be reduced. As an example in 2001 Denmark had the third lowest power prices (without taxes) in Europe with Sweden and Finland being lower due to high contributions from hydro. In contrast France, with 80% of its power coming from atomic energy, had a higher power price than Denmark with its thousands of independent power producers.

To the right is an energy flow diagram comparing separate heat and power plants versus 1 combine heat and power plant to accomplish both. It is evident that using combined heat and power saves 30% of the energy regardless of the energy source.

Individual Use of CHP

In addition to community power systems, single users could also benefit from the use of CHP. Companies that already have back up power can follow the lead of the Reichstag (German parliament building) who recently started using its back up plant oil CHP unit as the main power supply for the building and using the grid as the back up. If the infrastructure is already in place then there is little to no capital cost to switch the operating philosophy, simply a management decision. Other single users of CHP can include apartment buildings, condominiums, commercial buildings, and industrial businesses.

What Next

The good news is that there are companies emerging in Canada to provide the combined heat and power service. Power Ecosystems of Calgary Alberta is setting itself up to provide CHP to commercial buildings, community rec centers and pretty much anyone who needs both heat and power. There is also a company out of New Zealand which offers a small Sterling Engine CHP called the Whisper Gen which Enmax plans on selling to its customers. Slowly the solutions are emerging but unfortunately if Canada wishes to developed the power and heating infrastructure in a similar fashion to Denmark we are going to have to embrace the concept of community owned utilities. This could be as simple as the community association of Bridgeland in Calgary getting together and setting up a community based CHP system and district heating loop to provide heat and power to the homes and businesses of Bridgeland. This concept might sound a little foreign to most Calgarians but it can be a reality if the people want it.