Dorothy had it right by saying “there’s no place like home”; just arrived back with Caryn last night from a long trip from MUC to YVR via YYV. Our flight was delayed leaving Munich and they said it was because of some bikes they were loading, and since they missed their push off, the delay for a spot over the ocean(600 to 800 at any one time)  was now 90 minutes; terrible they actually blamed it on that because it was obvious to many passengers who the family of six, who had been on a bike tour through Europe, were. Luckily they snuck us off without the full delay. 

So it was great to hang out with Thomas again, here’s a picture of us beside his new demo trailer. He was rocking it on the bike, he was doing a high jump thing with a small kicker and made it up 16 pallets, so smooth!

I met up with Mark from Singletrack magazine while in Kaprun, and he was with my buddy Sanny from Scotland who hosted me in Glasgow for a film festival a few years back. We were hanging out for dinner and Mark was brainstorming ideas for a top ten list of things Austria has contributed to the world for his blog; I think they did a pretty good job!

By the way, I think the fact that per capita, Austrians emit only 2.34 tonnes of Co2 compared to Canada’s 5.46 should make the list….although they have much work to do, their footprint still requires more than two earths to sustain if everyone adopted their lifestyle.

Caryn and I met some pretty amazing people during the last couple weeks, we truly are fortunate to experience the culture and see the sights of such an amazing part of the world.

“WIRED” magazines’ latest headline is as follows, “Attention Environmentalists: Keep your SUV. Forget organics. Go nuclear. Screw the spotted owl.”

Whew! Just wanted to share a few thoughts that might unwire a few of these front cover claims (although the big corp might have won my dollar by buying the magazine, I won’t necessarily buy all the jargon claimed by it).

There are ten instructions to action suggested by the magazine, I will comments on each. There are many great points, ones I am in total agreement with, but in general these are shortsighted, ‘cut carbon at all costs’ solutions that will perhaps benefit the current generations, but may leave the future ones in a jam.

1. Live in Cities

The current suburban model in North America, and many other countries who are following in our footsteps, just does not promote a sustainable way of living. Check out this map representing the amount of CO2 emitted per househould in the greater San Francisco area. I think it paints a pretty clear picture.

I’ll let Alex Steffen use his words to firm up the point, “Billions more people living in suburbs and driving SUV’s to shopping malls is a recipe for planetary suicide. We can’t even afford to continue that way of life ourselves.” Ahh the American Dream. But perhaps if everyone traded their grass lawns for vegatable gardens, and took their grid dependant homes off the grid with sustainable energy technology that is now available, we’d be going in the right direction…the extreme commuting is another story.

2. A/C is OK

This is an interesting analysis, and important to consider. Generally what they are hinting at is that it takes more energy to heat a home than it does to cool one with A/C. Good point, but don’t run with it, be conscious, whether you are heating or cooling; a few degrees either way makes a big difference.

3. Organics are not the answer

After the catchy title above, they go on to wisely say ,“Organic produce can be good for the climate, but not if it’s grown in energy-dependant hothouses and travels long distances to get to your fridge. What matters is eating food that’s locally grown and in season.” The other point under the ‘organic is bad’ heading is that of the cow. First regarding dairy “So it takes 25 organic cows to make as much milk as 23 industrial ones. More cows, more emissions.” It is a valid argument, but many other things must be taken in to consideration. I will still stick to buying local, organic milk sold in glass jars, over drugged up industrially produced milk from far away sold in plastic jugs. The third point is that of beef, again they say organic is worse. Perhaps they are right, but please do the homework for each situation. A local chunk of hamburger is much greener than those industrial patties that are raised on farms where tropical rainforest used to live, then shipped overseas to your belly. Increasingly, I am leaning towards the vegetarian route, not because of the poor little cow, but because of a myriad of environmental reasons; WIRED gave the interesting stat that meat eaters produce 1.5 tons of greenhouse gas per year more than a vegetarian. Hmmm, good healthy food for thought.

4. Farm the Forests

This is the first point that really made me cringe. The basis of the argument is that trees begin to lose the capacity to absorb as much carbon at about 55 years of age. If that fact is taken without any other considerations, then the math seems intriguing. But as Alex Steffen, from World Changing commented, “But even if WIRED’s math were correct, this would still be a crap fix for climate change. Chopping down forests causes massive soil erosion and leads to desertification, making repeated tree plantings a dodgy prospect. As monocultures, tree farms are far more vulnerable to pest infestations. And batches of trees planted at the same time are more susceptible to wildfires, causing the carbon they’re supposed to be sequestering to go up in smoke.” I think the ‘cut carbon at all costs’ attitude needs a little adjustment before all the trees are killed.

5. China is the solution, Not the problem

My knowledge is somewhat limited on this one. Wired states that 35% of the world’s solar cells are manufactured in China, and that they may be banking big on the green energy revolution. My suggestion, is that whatever product you are purchasing, consider a locally produced one over the ‘Made in China’ stamp.

6. Accept Genetic Engineering

Again, my knowledge is too limited to comment on this one.

7. Carbon Trading Doesn’t Work

Tricky one no doubt. First off reduce (by far the most important of the 3 R’s), then if you still pollute from frequent travel, offset using high quality, gold standard offsets. That is the route I will continue to take until the ‘better route’ WIRED suggested is a reality, which is a tax on fossil fuels.

8. Embrace Nuclear Power

Again Steffen said “That’s short term thinking. If we invested the money that we would spend on new nuclear facilities more wisely (and eliminated subsidies on fossil fuels), alternatives like wind, solar, hydroelectric, and wave power could deliver a clean-energy future more cheaply and probably sooner, without any of the security and or health risks of nuclear plants.” Consider Thom Hartmann’s argument in his book, The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, “ …power producers have argued that they can label nuclear power as “green,” since, they say, it produces no air pollution. (This overlooks the fact that it takes 18 years of continuous operation before a nuclear plant begins to generate “new” electricity—the first 18 years it’s just producing an amount of energy equal to that used to mine and purify and transport its uranium fuel and to construct and maintain the plant itself.)” He also adds this statement which is the true crux of the situation, “What happens when the oil runs dry—when we no longer have stored up ancient sunlight? Where will the solar cells (or uranium) come from?”…..”This is a problem that environmentalists need to research and examine seriously.”

9. Used Cars, Not Hybrids

“A new Prius would have to travel 100,000 Miles to achieve the carbon savings that come from driving a 1998 Tercel.” The math here in WIRED makes good sense; we unfortunately can’t buy ourselves out of the situation. But be careful, WIRED suggests you should “Keep your SUV”, now that doesn’t mean that you can go run off and buy one!! My worry is that this article will be glanced over by most, and not critically examined enough to make informed decisions.

10. Prepare for the worst

WIRED, “62 years before atmospheric carbon will reach critical levels even if drastic steps are taken now.” Creating fear among the people will never work. I want to finish this post with a quote that is near the beginning of a book I’m reading right now called The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, by Thom Hartmann, “The reason most solutions offered to the world’s crises are impractical is because they arise from the same worldview that caused the problem. As you’ll see in this book, recycling won’t save the world, birth control won’t save the world, and saving what little is left of the rain-forests won’t save the world. Even if all those good things were fully implemented, our fundamental problem would still remain, and will inevitably be repeated. Even cold fusion and the elimination of the need for oil, with free electricity for everybody, will not “save the world.” Nothing but changing our way of seeing and understanding the world can produce real, meaningful, and lasting change…and that change in perspective will naturally lead us to begin to control our populations, save our forests, re-create community, and reduce our wasteful consumption.” At hint at what is involved in this perspective change is suggested in this last quote from Audrey Kitagawa, “…it means that what we must do as global citizens aware of what is going on in the global landscape, and we must turn that searchlight inwards, to do the ceaseless, fearless, self examination to see not only what must be changed, but how we must change.”  (my italics). 

I’d love to hear your comments…everyone has a different point of view, and they’re all important to consider. 

Much love folks…

I have officially been added to the David Suzuki Foundations Play it Cool campaign.

I am completely responsible for the large amount of CO2 being emitted in to the atmosphere because of my travel schedule. Buying carbon offsets is a way to neutralize this CO2 by preventing the same amount from being emitted elsewhere. Reducing is always the first priority, but after that offsetting has emerged as an invaluable step we all can take for a healthier planet.

Last year I offset over 30 tonns of CO2, and for the 2008 season I have pre offset 25 tonns. This essentially makes my travel emissions neutral.

I wrote a blog post recently exploring the responsibility of traveling for work, called “is the footprint of my career justified”. 

I think one of the emerging ethical questions of our time might be as to whether the carbon footprint of our jobs is justified. For example, travel is a huge part of my career as a professional mountain biker; and air travel is particularly harmful to the environment. Is the amount of pollution I emmit through my job worth all the positives that may come from it? Am I making enough of a difference to influence humanity toward a more integral and harmonious lifestyle? Or is my jaded western value system still tricking me, even after all the research and reading I have done, in to believing my role is important enough to travel the world?

I of course have had to justify this to myself in order to keep proceeding with my lifestyle. With this thought in the back of my mind though, I have seriously considered every trip I have been invited on, and the trips that I do agree to, I have been making sure my contribution while on the road is as complete as possible.

Education about the environment is important, this is why I linked up with The David Suzuki Fountain. When I am speaking at a school, or performing at a public event, I reference this foundation, and give out brochures about global warming. After all trips, I also ‘offset’ my carbon emissions; this has to be one of the best ways to justify polluting (although always as a last resort, reducing is the most important), as there is really no such thing as going on a trip that is “carbon neutral”. Anyway, this is enough of a rant for now, it’s nice to get these ideas out of your head and on to paper (well computer), somehow, doing this just makes the thoughts just that much more real.

Happy day everyone,

Ryan