No New Coal or Nuclear...Ever (!)

I'm not sure how I missed this last week, but it is well worth reposting. The chairman of the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has stated that the US may never again need to build a new coal or nuclear power plant. He argues that smarter grids along with better storage for renewables will make new conventional baseload capacity unnecessary. Many people have made the argument before. But its sure was a surprise to see it coming from such a highly placed official in the US government. More from the article after the jump.

Here's a short clip from the NYT article:

"I think baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism," he said. "Baseload capacity really used to only mean in an economic dispatch, which you dispatch first, what would be the cheapest thing to do. Well, ultimately wind's going to be the cheapest thing to do, so you'll dispatch that first."

He added, "People talk about, 'Oh, we need baseload.' It's like people saying we need more computing power, we need mainframes. We don't need mainframes, we have distributed computing."

The technology for renewable energies has come far enough to allow his vision to move forward, he said. For instance, there are systems now available for concentrated solar plants that can provide 15 hours of storage."

As covered here as well, it looks like the nuclear industry is in for hard times.

Cobenefits: North & South

Synergies and co-benefits are the “buy one... get one free!” of the climate policy world. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you reduce your energy consumption you reduce your energy bill and your energy related emissions.

While efficiency related co-benefits are familiar, the deeper you look the more opportunities there are to combine environmental goals with other things we all already value. Green Jobs are another great, and by now well known, example. So are energy and food security, affordable transportation, increased air quality, improved health, reliable infrastructure... The list goes on.

Emphasizing these win-win situations has been a key tool for selling climate change action to local policy makers. But depending on where you are, the sales pitch can be very different. Compare what counts as an attractive sweetener for climate policy in countries at different levels of development and you get a snapshot of the context that policy has to make sense in, both locally and globally.

Two recent media events give an interesting glimpse of the North American and the African take on synergies and cobenefits. Living Cities, an American community economic development organization, released its Green Cities report last week. It highlights the fact that 4 out of 5 of America's largest cities are calling sustainability a 'top priority.' They tie this to the fact that going green can open up new sectors of meaningful employment, attract green collar jobs and investment, boost public transit to help residents deal with volatile gas prices, and can help the municipality save on its energy bills.

The Climate Change and Adaptation in Africa program was also launched -- here in Dakar -- last week. The joint Canadian and UK program aims to look at ways that the urban poor can help increase the resilience of some of Africa's largest cities. As part of the launch, project manager François Gesengayire explained that “The goal is to harness the capacity of the poor to reduce environmental degradation as it relates to natural disasters, and enhance the use of natural resources for food, water, and income generation.” Take a closer look at where the project hopes to go and you see innovations that link climate change responses and disaster reduction to economic development & micro-financing, infrastructure creation, increasing the drought resistance of agricultural crops, guarding against the increased spread of malaria and other diseases and empowering women (among other things).

The seductive and inspiring part of the cobenefits argument is that it gets us away from the debilitating language of sacrifice that has been a thorn in the side of the “hair-shirt” environmental movement for ages now. Everything of course requires some kind of sacrifice, but the point is to focus on the dreams and hopes that those sacrifices can bring us. Climate Change policy has been accused of being about limiting and reducing our quality of life – in fact, smart climate policy can do just the opposite.

Looking at the different types of dreams, the different hopes that climate change policy is linked to in different regions shows how unequal our world remains. Reducing those inequalities needs to be one of the main cobenefits of climate policy. Easy to say, harder to do. Especially if we already think that we are doing enough. Especially in wealthier countries, we need to read the fine print to make sure that supposed "synergies" aren't just a way adding a green verse to a song whose chorus hasn't really changed.

Are we actually meeting our environmental, social and economic goals in synergy – or are we just using a new jingle to sell the same old thing?

Climate Change? Not my job.

[In my first two post on my time in Durban (South Africa) I covered the triple energy/food/weather crisis that has hit the city, and the renewable energy projects currently underway. Here is more on finding innovation in unexpected places.]
Why do Some Institutions Innovate, While Others Fight Change?
You'd be surprised how many times I've heard people tell me that they're concerned about climate change, but that dealing with it is just not “in my job description.” That's the difficulty – both with institutions that are firmly set in their ways, and with an issue that is everybody's problem, but no one's responsibility. Organizations like the World Bank recommend creating a solid home for climate change somewhere in the municipality. Durban has done just that – actually it has two: an Energy Office and a Climate Protection Branch.

But climate change involves all aspects of what city's do: from coastal management, to transportation, to health and economic development. One (or two) small teams aren't going to change all that on their own. What they need (as much as adequate staff and funding ) are other departments in the municipality who are willing to say “I've got my job description covered – now let's do something different!”

In my last post about Durban, I gave a snapshot of the ways that the water department (DWS) is pulling renewable energy out of its sewage and water distribution system. The opportunity for hydropower and biogas was there. But plenty of opportunities go unrealized – particularly when you are paid to do something else. Why has DWS jumped at the opportunity to build renewables, while other departments – like the municipal electricity distributor – haven't? I spent some time talking with people from DWS about exactly that.

Trained Incapacity: You're So Good...You're Bad
Officially, it's a classic case of co-benefits. Neil McLoed, the head of DWS, made the whole thing sound very mercenary: “ It's all business to us, it's all about the bottom line. All our energy from waste projects, they are purely to try and minimize our electricity bills. The fact that it benefits climate change is incidental to us.” He, and other people at DWS, also linked the energy from waste projects to municipal priorities to push economic development, and improve health and quality of life. But just below the surface, it was clear that they were also motivated by the rewards of innovation itself.

Many institutions and professions train employees not to innovate. Rules are followed with dogmatic precision. There is “a right way” and “a wrong way” to get things done. Requirements that employees conform are built into job descriptions, performance evaluations and promotions. What comes out the other end are people so focused on one way of doing their job (and of understanding the world) that they can't see (or can't act on) opportunities for change. Old approaches can persist, even when they've long stopped being good policy (see the current mess that American automakers are in for a good example).

It's not a new problem. 100 years ago sociologists were already criticizing what they called “trained incapacity.” (a.k.a. you are so good at something you can't do anything else.) Rather than use departmental structures to encourage over-specialization, DWS has engineered them to do the reverse.

A Culture of Innovation
McLoed speaks pointedly about the need to create a culture of innovation in the department, and the pressures it can put on people: “you tend to find that people that like change and innovation stay [in DWS]. ... There are lots of people who don't and they either leave or are asked to leave.”

At an individual level, employees are expected to see their job descriptions as the minimum level for their work. Beyond that, the organizational culture of the department pushes employees to think critically about how to achieve their objectives and how to address problems. “Take responsibility and challenge everything that you do in your job.” McLoed said, “ I always tell people, don't come with a problem, come with a solution. Here is the issue, here is how we can solve it. Always going to your boss for a solution becomes very limiting both for you and for me.” It might sound clichéd laid out like that, but it seems to work.

At the level of the organization as a whole, similar principles apply. Cross-level meetings bring staff together to collectively brainstorm solutions for problems that they are having. “We get everyone from clerical staff right up to senior management in the same room looking at the same problem and bringing their own perspectives in,” McLoed explained. The department also holds a monthly sustainability lecture series, to bring in fresh ideas from researchers and consultants on everything from food security to LEED buildings. It was brainstorming here that was the starting point for DWS's biodiesel projects (see last post).

DWS is a learning organization. It has institutionalized the need to innovate, and encourages employees both to seek out new opportunities and to take risks on new ideas. Facing a future that is hard to predict, it seems to me that these are the kind of organization that will do us the most good. They are also inspiring places to work. Responding to climate change is a staggering challenge. But it's also an amazing opportunity. From what I've seen, when you give people the room to think creatively, and to push the boundaries of what they do, they thrive. They definitely deliver a lot more than just what is in their job description.
For more on my time in Durban see:
pt.1 Durban and the Climate Future
pt.2 Sewer Pipe Power: Urban Renewables

Conservativism (heart) Public Transport: Apple Pie meets Jane Jacobs

David Schaengold, of the Conservative U.S. Witherspoon Institute, has a very interesting piece on the contributions that public transportation can make to upholding Conservative values. He argues that Community, Family and Entrepreneurship all benefit when the state acts to promote transit and remove the current bias toward building more highways.

I have to say that I disagree strongly with many of the arguments made by the Institute on other issues like gay marriage and abortion. But that just makes Schengold's piece all the more interesting. Along with the much discussed “greening” of the economic recovery, this seems to be another example of the way environmental issues are loosing their old ideological associations.

Some highlights:
Pro-highway, anti-transit, anti-pedestrian policies work against the core beliefs of American conservatives in another and even more important way: they create social environments that are hostile to real community.

Sadly, American conservatives have come to be associated with support for transportation decisions that promote dependence on automobiles, while American liberals are more likely to be associated with public transportation, city life, and pro-pedestrian policies. This association can be traced to the ’70s, when cities became associated with social dysfunction and suburbs remained bastions of ‘normalcy.’

A common misperception is that the current American state of auto-dependency is a result of the free market doing its work. In fact, a variety of government interventions ensure that the transportation “market” is skewed towards car-ownership.

Consider how small businesses are affected by Americans’ dependency on cars. Since businesses are obliged by zoning restrictions to locate far away from residential areas, most Americans drive to every store they visit. This means that store visits are often discrete trips that must be undertaken consciously and planned out ahead of time. As a consequence, shoppers will want to visit stores that carry the most diverse inventory—Wal-Mart, Costco, et al.—and avoid shops that specialize in one particular kind of good—the local paint store or flower shop, for instance.

As the market diminishes for these specialized stores, so too does opportunity for small-scale entrepreneurship. If opening a small business were a viable option in more markets, more Americans would be interested in starting them. The current situation, where only very large stores can compete in most retail environments, makes starting a business impossible for the vast majority of Americans.

Dense, walkable settlements are not just a pleasant lifestyle choice. They are a precondition of the strong, inter-connected communities that social conservatives desire. It is not difficult to envision how these communities can make our lives comprehensively better. Americans are not obliged by any law of nature or rule of the market to live in mediocre, anti-social places. With changes in public policy, over time we can begin again to create neighborhoods that promote real community.
Early American conservation movements where also, well, Conservative. But it is interesting to see this being extended to transportation policy. In the past, high profile conservative critics have argued that public transit amounts to mobility welfare and should be designed to serve the working poor. Let the elite drive their cars!

I have a feeling that I would disagree with Schaengold about the apple-pie-meets-Jane Jacobs values that would guide these denser more walkable communities. But if walkability and transit really do create stronger ties – something that I also believe – I am sure we'd have a chance to talk it over when we bump into each other down by the corner store.

Rethink, Retrofit & Renewables: The three "R"s for the 21st Century

ReNew Canada is a great infrastructure magazine with a strong focus on green and innovative design. The most recent issue has an article that I wrote on the place of sustainable infrastructure renewal as part of the greening of the economic recovery. I've reposted it below.

We seem to be in the midst of an infrastructure epiphany. You can hardly open a newspaper without seeing investment in infrastructure discussed as the cure for our global economic woes, or at least something that will lessen the pain. In Canada, as we head into what the OECD is predicting will be a deep recession, we have seen the current government come around to accepting the need for both increased spending and a quicker roll-out of money from the Building Canada Fund. They are even considering running a deficit again.

All of that is pocket change compared to what is going on in the US, where both Obama's incumbent government and major financial players like Citigroup (the world's largest bank) have made clear their interest in infrastructure as we try to find our way through the coming years. This is all in the context of a global rush on infrastructure, with nations either building or re-building the systems that keep them ticking.

Thanks goodness for the Infrastructure Deficit! Who would have though crumbling roads, bridges and utilities would be good for so much?

The truth is they aren't. If we are going to make the most of this opportunity to cushion our economies, retrain our workforce and rebuild our cities, old definitions of what counts as “infrastructure” and how we build it need to come under real scrutiny. Comparison's to the New Deal aside, the rush to spend can't be an excuse to re-live the 20th Century.

Energy: Drain or Gain?
This is nowhere more clear than when it comes to the issue of energy. The low economic multiplier effect of energy spending is already well known. A dollar spent on energy leaves behind few benefits; the impact of investment in traditional utilities is only slightly better. A dollar spent on energy efficiency, by comparison, creates both direct and indirect benefits to the local economy far higher than other forms of spending. Given that increasing efficiency is far cheaper than building new generation capacity, and also helps us reduce our carbon emissions, we seem to have a winner on our hands. There is also an obvious market: we live and work in a sea of stunningly inefficient buildings. Retrofitting them would both create employment, spur local industries and save money that could be re-invested into the local economy.

Consultants working in Portland (OR) estimate that a city wide retrofit of existing housing stock could provide 1,500 jobs and economic benefits of over 6 million dollars, annually, for 20 years. So what's stopping us? It's not a lack of technology, or proven profitability. The problem is that we haven't come around to thinking of efficiency as a utility.

Well managed energy systems and proper insulation are not rocket science and the entry of big players like Honeywell into performance contracting has shown the profits to be real. But consulting firms paid to improve the performance of a single client's operations are picking the low-hanging fruit. To tap into the larger market, local and regional governments need to aggregate the efficiency needs of the multiple smaller buildings and facilities spread across our landscape. They need to turn them into manageable units big enough to attract private investment capital that can then be used to back city-wide efficiency projects coordinated by local governments in partnership with private firms (the above housing retrofit plan for Portland would require annual investments of $125M per year). In other words we need to get comfortable providing efficiency in the same way as we provide other utility services.

There are some financial models out there that we might be able to employ – like the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, Berkeley's Sustainable Energy Financing District, or the feebate driven green building policy currently under review in Portland – but it is up to us to figure out what true utility scale efficiency efforts would look like. That will mean pursuing infrastructure investments that have more to do designing new financial models, training a local workforce and creating incentives for local manufacturers than with laying pipe or stringing wires.

Goind Beyond "Normal"
As we begin to fix ageing infrastructure, it is worth our while to consider options like these that go beyond our normal understanding of what is possible. We need to ask what aspects of our infrastructure is broken because of age or poor maintenance, and what part is broken by design. Take the confused competition between public and private transportation systems currently underway in Vancouver.

At the same time as the BC government wants to double transit ridership by 2020, it is also poised to invest tens of billions of dollars in the Gateway highway expansion project. Car centred urban planning is broken by design: even when it works well, it works badly. Not only does it use money that would be better spent on transit systems (B.C.'s transit plan is expected to fall short of funds by 2012) it promotes a form of land-use that is very hard to service with transit. It locks us into a cycle of sprawl and congestion driven expansion, while leaving local economies highly vulnerable to volatile gas prices. At the hight of gas prices this year auto dependent consumer were simply staying at home.

Gateway is an example of the type of infrastructure spending we will end up with if we continue do what we are used to doing. As we begin to repair or expand existing roadways we need to be asking how we could be replacing them altogether with other forms of mobility. The first barrier, as it was with utility scale efficiency measures, is conceptual: in this approach people, not cars, become the fundamental unit of transit and land-use planning.

Competing in the 21st C.
Since before our federal election we've been told not to panic because economically Canada is in better shape that most of our friends. While that may be true, the idea that that somehow lets us off the hook is dangerous. The way that other countries, particularly the United States, respond to this crisis will define the economy for years to come. Their focus seems to be clear: alternative energy. Echoing the advice of financier George Soros, Obama laid out his priorities in a Time magazine interview in October: “there is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy … That’s going to be my No. 1 priority when I get into office,” Our infrastructure spending needs to position us competitively in that economy.

Again, that leads us to rethink business as usual: It could mean revamping building codes to remove barriers for new energy systems, rolling out district and distributed energy generation, or changing provincial legislation, as Alberta has recently done, to allow small scale producers to sell energy back to the grid. Those types of initiatives have been successful elsewhere, notably in Germany, which has used feed-in tariffs and other incentives to support a cleantech sector that has grown by 250,000 jobs in five years. (At least one Canadian solar cell company has relocated there to take advantage of the burgeoning market.) How we spend our infrastructure dollars could play a key role in building in demand for innovative Canadian alternative energy technologies at home, and preparing them to compete in a growing global market for clean energy technology.

To deliver on our inflated expectations, investment in infrastructure needs to go well beyond roads, bridges and traditional utilities. Apart from a looming global recession, there are other reasons to take energy efficiency, public transportation and alternative energy systems seriously. In September the UK's Tyndall Centre reported that our greenhouse gas emissions are growing twice as fast as we thought they were, and experts are now predicting a shocking 4 degree Celsius increase in temperature by the end of the century. As well as reducing emissions, innovative approaches to infrastructure will build cities and regions that are more resilient to the effects of a changing climate and volatile energy costs.

The Contradictions of Efficiency
But efficiency is a double edged sword. In isolation, increasing performance often (counterintuitively) leads to increased resource consumption. The more efficient you make something the more people tend to use it, or else resources saved in one place are re-invested elsewhere spurring further resource consumption. UBC's Dr.William Rees, one of the originators of eco-footprint analysis, warns against what he calls “becoming more sustainably unsustainable.”

We are moving into a period of heightened competition for resources, pressing needs to reduce our demands on the world's ecosystems, and continued social inequality both at home and abroad. Infrastructure spending isn't going to solve these problems, but it could play a key role in figuring out how more of us can live well on less.

Keeping these multiple benefits in mind over the next few months and years will serve us well. The possibility is there that we could rapidly start to reduce the impacts of decades of inefficient development, and build communities, countries and economies that will provide livable and resilient homes for us in the future. Or ... we could sit back, secure in the fact that things “aren't so bad here in Canada”, and watch as the world passes us by.

Orwellian Waste Power Anime

Given the last post (scroll below) I couldn't resist putting up a link to this outlandish Korean Anime. From the trailer for Aaschi & Ssipak:
"In a future that’s all too easy to imagine, the world’s familiar energy supplies have dwindled, the global economy has broken down, and cities have collapsed –- only to be rebuilt again around a daring new energy source: human feces. It has become every citizen’s duty to sit on the toilet as often as possible. ... But powerful forces have conspired to create a feedback loop of passive compliance in the citizenry."

Hopefully we are headed for better times than this! [via Fantasia]

Sewer Pipe Power: Urban Renewables

Generating energy from waste is one of the mantras of sustainability. You'd be surprised what power sources we can find when we start exploring the dark corners of our infrastructure. Thanks to things like waterborne sewage, many of us get rid of our waste so easily we can almost forget that it was ever there. There's a grimy alchemy to the whole energy-from-waste process that shows us what we can do with things we'd rather not think about.

Energy from waste was a central part of the fabled (and now seemingly abandoned) Ecotopia that the UK-based firm Arup was to build in China. It's also part of the headline sustainability features of Vancouver's Olympic village. But projects in Durban, South Africa, show that opportunities exist in almost any city – not just glossy new developments.

Since early 2008, South Africa has been in the midst of a debilitating electricity crisis (see the previous post). Durban itself has no significant energy generation capacity. It gets all of its power from a coal fired national grid that – as well as being highly unstable – is one of the largest single emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. With everyone looking for a lasting solution, it seemed like the time was right for innovative energy projects.

Surprisingly, the main driver so far has been the city's Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS). While the local electricity utility remains focused on stop-gap efficiency campaigns, it's the people responsible for providing drinking water and taking away sewage who are pioneering urban renewables. They are putting in place a complementary pairing of biogas and hydro power projects that will criss-cross whole sections of the city.

Hydro and Micro-Hydro
Because of the city's hilly terrain, the water distribution system has more pressure than it can handle. Water from dams descends into the city, building pressure that needs to
be cut by as much as two thirds in some parts of the system. Right now, that pressure gets dissipated by hot and noisy pressure release valves. Soon, a series of hydro turbines integrated directly into the piping system will be turning it into electricity.

Large and micro scale turbines will yield enough power for between 10 000 and 30 000 low-cost houses (7 – 22 megawatts) depending on the extent of the roll out. The main yield will come from one large turbine installed in sync with the already plann
ed construction of a new western aqueduct. The rest will come from as many as 100 small turbines put in at other high pressure points in the system. Construction is set to start next year, and the power will come online in 2012.

Biogass & Algae Biodiesel
DWS also has plans to upgrade and expand the existing generation systems that capture gas produced by the biodigesters that break down sewage. Beyond meeting the needs of the treatment works themselves, the plants will store biogas and generate electricity to sell to the grid at peak times. In partnership with AGAMA energy they are also putting in place smaller scale applications of the same system in peri-urban communities. The set up makes it possible to provide low-cost waterborne sewage, treat effluent on site, produce cooking gas and to generate a high grade fertilizer that can be used for local agriculture.

At the same time, in partnership with a local university, DSW is looking at ways to generate biodiesel from algae grown on waste water remediation ponds. They hope to enter commercial production within a year. A special type of local grass that can be grown on the same ponds is also being looked into for its oil producing potential.

On Not Being Bored
The technologies are interesting, but even more interesting is how the department – with no mandate to generate electricity – came to see these opportunities and act on them. While many of the officials that I talked to in the city were generally interested in “doing something about climate change” they all fell back on the common refrain that it wasn't “what I'm paid to deal with.”

In DWS though, the answers were different. One of the managers working on the energy projects told me, laughing, “ I can design a water main with my eyes closed. There is nothing more anyone can teach me about infrastructure planning in terms of water or designing for water. I can do it. In life you need more than that, you need something that is going to interest you and stop you from yawning.”

-- In the next Durban post: More on organizational culture and retrofitting cities for sustainability.

For more on my time in Durban see:
pt.1 Durban and the Climate Future
pt.3Climate Change? Not my job.

[image: turbine & AGAMA biogass digester being built]

Durban and the Climate Future

Cities are creatures of habit – habits cemented into the bureaucracies and politics that make and maintain our urban habitats. But what happens when changing conditions make those habits obsolete? That's one of the big unknowns about climate change: whether or not services and institutions designed for business-as-usual will be able to respond when the unusual comes to town.

Being in Durban, South Africa, over the past two years I've been able to see the impacts of a triple crisis of extreme weather events, food price hikes, and a serious national energy shortage. Like cities in Australia, it seems to be living through a microcosm of what the climate future has in store.

When I got to South Africa last year, I saw what a country looks like when it runs out of power. With an economy built around the world's cheapest electricity growing at over 5% a year, and a government that heavily subsidizes connections for millions of low-income residents as part of the post-apartheid transition, demand simply overshot supply. As of early last year, no new generation capacity had been built for over ten years, demand had consumed any remaining reserve capacity. That made basic maintenance next to impossible. Finally, in February, the entire grid crashed.

Massive blackouts rolled across the country. The government declared a national emergency; mines closed and hobbled industries cut thousands of jobs (or at least used the crisis to justify layoffs). This in a country where unemployment in some areas is already over 60%. At the same time global food prices hikes doubled the cost of some staples and oils prices went over $100 a barrel. In Durban, the daily papers carried blackout schedules for the entire city. Rotating outages switched off whole sections of the city for 4 or 5 hours at a time – sometimes much longer.

All of this only a few months after the city that had finished cleaning up the effects of a massive coastal storm that tore chunks off of its sea front infrastructure in 2007, causing millions of dollars in damages. Later in 2008 heavy rains caused flooding that closed oil refineries, swept away homes and tore apart sewage infrastructure.

The concentration of rain in heavy bursts also means that fresh water supplies have decreased significantly. Dams built for more evenly distributed rainfall can't hold the bounty brought by flash floods, and then dip dangerously low during the rest of the year. It's not a pretty picture. Many residents and officials are starting say that climate change has already hit South Africa. While that might still be up for debate, Durban is a perfect test case for understanding how cities can respond to the stresses that a changing climate is going to bring.

I've written before on urban agriculture in South Africa. In these next posts on my work in Durban, I'm going to cover a few energy related projects that caught my attention. As a species, we are energy gluttons. Energy transitions are going to be key to the way we reduce our environmental impacts, and prepare for the rougher ride that we have in store.

For more on my time in Durban see:
pt.2Sewer Pipe Power: Urban Renewables
pt.3Climate Change? Not my job.

[images: Protester, South African Climate Change Summit; Durban's Flooded Coastline, 2007]

Live in Dakar, Senegal

As I've recently discovered, it's not easy to find affordable accommodation or a reliable Internet connection in Dakar. It has definitely earned its reputation for being a difficult and expensive city. But, after a lot of leg work, my partner's networking skills and the generosity of Prof. Papa Demba Fall at Cheikh Anta Diop University we are finally set up.

My research in Durban wrapped up with a marathon of interviews. The last one only an hour before I caught my plane to Senegal. Over the next few days I'll be posting on some of the highlights from my four months of research there. Stay tuned. Read more...


This is a blog for news and views on the future of sustainable cites. A major revamp is in the works. Until then I am keeping this version up as an archive of my past writing.

You can expect occasional updates, but not with the same frequency as in the past.

You can also find my writing on urban redesign and sustainability in ReNew Canada, The Mark, Sustainable Cities Canada, WorldChanging, and other more specialized academic publications.

Info on my consulting work, c.v. and current research focus is all here.