As temperatures rise, Londoners create more heat

[“There’s an idling bylaw all right, but because it’s so hot out there, all vehicles are exempt.” O. Katolyk, manager of bylaw enforcement, as reported in today’s London Free Press.]

The heat is on in London. It will likely only get hotter tomorrow, and (on average) year by year.

London is already a “heat island”, a low, wide city several degrees hotter than surrounding (and shrinking) farmland and forests, that was built in sprawling and extravagant fashion when fossil fuels were cheap.

Acres of concrete, metal, brick and glass atop our hard-baked landscape and endless miles of tarmac to accommodate a growing population of fossil-fuel powered vehicles - in all shapes and sizes - guarantee our urban setting will never cool off and bring much comfort during hot weather. Unless we stay indoors. Unless we sit inside our air-conditioned cars while the motor is running.

Ahh. Air-conditioning. Don’t ya just love it? How do you spell r-e-l-i-e-f? With an A and a capital C, right?


["Fresh, cooler air, beside the Thames River": photos GH]

Unfortunately, in part because of our heavy reliance on air-conditioning units in businesses, homes, cars and trucks, it will only get hotter in the future, because in order to stay cool in homes or cars, we have to burn more fuel of some kind - and heat up the outdoors as a result.

We even have an idling bylaw that makes this possible when thermometers reach 28 degrees or more.

We have created for ourselves (and our city is surely not alone in this regard) what I call a Catch-44, something like a Catch-22 but twice as bad. To cool off inside, we create more heat outside, thanks to heat creation by hard-working A/C units, heat transfer and rising carbon emissions. As it gets hotter outside, we’ll stay inside more often - with the A/C on - and create even more heat outside. Most Londoners are surely aware we won't be able to escape the heat forever.

No doubt, many people need an A/C assist on very hot days. City officials are right to encourage “those seeking refuge from the heat to use one of the public pools, splash pads and cooling stations... (in) the city.” (pg 1, London Free Press)

Because of our growing dependence upon heat-producing A/C units, I predict more pools, splash pads and cooling stations will be required in the future. But if our city remains in a "tax cuts" or “no new taxes” frame of mind, providing more relief may pose a problem.


["As I recall, Hattie Cove on L. Superior was a cool spot."]

Are there inexpensive ways to cool off urban “heat islands” naturally?

Would a million new trees do the trick? Two million?

Would two more feet of water in the Thames River provide a bit more relief? Three feet?

Would more conservation methods work?

Would a mass exodus to the shores of Lake Superior be the best answer?

***

I do like Lake Superior!

Please click here to read about a cool place to cool off inside Deforest City.

.

London’s Trees: Benefit 11 - Islands of cool shade, PT 1

I’ll bet on it.

Some Londoners will be able to rhyme off a few monetary benefits of trees in their neighbourhoods.

“Trees near the house save me a bit on heating and cooling costs,” one will say.

“The big trees on my front lawn make the property worth more,” another will say.

Still others have likely memorized monetary items from a poster Reforest London distributed a month ago on the opening day of its Million Tree Challenge, when individuals, families and businesses in London were encouraged to plant - you guessed it - one million trees over the next ten years.

“Yeah, a mature tree supplies the oxygen for four people per year, or $31,500 worth over 50 years,” a quick mind will therefore add. “Yeah, I know I’m right.”

Other Londoners will be able to spell out a few environmental benefits as well. (Oh, there are more than a few!)

During a recent informative interview, Julie Ryan, Executive Director of Reforest London, a charitable non-profit organization, emphasized to me the value of trees as a carbon sink, a natural way to slow climate change.

For example, related to easing the effect of greenhouse gases, the organization’s extensive website says, “1 acre of new forest will sequester about 2.5 tons of carbon annually. Trees can absorb CO2 at the rate of 13 pounds/tree/year. Trees reach their most productive stage of carbon storage at about 10 years.” (‘Plant a Tree’ link)

And, stressing the need for more trees it adds (among other things), “In its "Reforesting the Earth" paper, the Worldwatch Institute estimated that our planet needs at least 321 million acres planted to trees just to restore and maintain the productivity of soil and water resources, meet industrial and fuel-wood needs in the third world, and annually remove from the atmosphere roughly 780 million tons of carbon as the trees grow. This 780 million tons represents the removal of about 25 percent of the 2.9 billion tons of carbon currently going into the earth's atmosphere.”

In other words, the challenge to add one million trees in ten years to our local landscape is but a starting point.

On a personal note, during a walk together on Ferguson Place yesterday - temperature-wise it was a real scorcher - grandson Ollie and I experienced another benefit of trees firsthand.


["Escape the heat islands; stroll down Ferguson Place.": photo GH]

The specific benefit is listed as #11 of 29, under the heading ‘Why Plant a Tree?’ at the aforementioned link. Those who have memorized the list already know what I’m talking about.

As a public service to others, however, I share it below:

“Shade from trees cools hot streets and parking lots. Cities are "heat islands" that are 5 - 9 degrees hotter than surrounding areas. And cities spread each year.”

Ollie and I certainly appreciated escaping the "heat island" while on Ferguson, and later on, on Elmwood Avenue.

***

More to follow.

Please click here to read a bit more about trees.

.

Recommended Reading: Books about eating, breathing and blankets of coal dust

I was pedalling hard on the exercise bike when I reached Chapter 15 of The Omnivore’s Dilemma.

After several complicated mathematical calculations I discovered I was two-thirds of the way through the book, an excellent read and education to that point.

From page 268:

"These days farmed salmon are being fed like feedlot cattle, on grain, with the predictable result that their omega-3 levels fall well below those of wild fish. If the steer is fattened on grass and the salmon on grain, we might actually be better off eating the beef. The species of animal you eat may matter less than what the animal you’re eating has itself eaten."

Ch. 15 is entitled The Forager. Is that what he’s recommending I become? I’ll find out tomorrow.

And in another 16 years I’ll discover if I can still breathe the air.

In Heat, the second book I’m reading while trying to burn calories, I read that "in 2025, according to the US government’s Energy Information Admin., the United States will burn 40 per cent more coal than it does today." (Hack, hack. I live just north of several Ohio Valley coal-fired hydro-producing plants.)

"China intends to treble the electricity it produces from coal by 2020." (pg. 82)

And why we ask? Because natural gas supplies in North America (used in the production of hydro) have already peaked and are going to decline and 90 per cent of the remaining energy reserves in the US are coal. So get used to that black cloud hanging over your head.


Or should I say ‘clouds’?

The third book I’m reading, The Little Green Handbook, said the following:

"The process of global warming is faster than previously thought. In the 20th century, the mean global temperature increased by 0.6 degrees C, and it is projected to increase by up to 6.0 degrees C by the end of this century."

So, if we’ve experienced some climate instability because of a 0.6 degree change, how many clouds will hang over our heads as the temperature changes ten times as much? I’m not sure but I think we’re going to find out because a business as usual philosophy rules the day.

Where’s the Lorax when we really need him? (Calling Dr. Suess!)

[Link to the above three books in right panel, under Recommended Reading]

Live Small and Prosper: re Houses, how small is big enough?

What would it take to get me out of my 1,050 sq. ft. house (not incl. almost equal-sized basement, 100 sq. ft porch and 360 sq. ft. deck) and into something smaller?

Would someone have to twist my arm, bribe me with cash, put chocolates on my pillow or throw in a big-screen TV?

No, on all counts (though I wouldn’t turn down a large bag of chocolates kisses), because as far as I’m concerned, the smaller the house the fewer expenses, household jobs and renos I’d have to face for the rest of my environmentally-friendlier life.

But how small can I go and still feel it’s big enough for my very important collection of stuff?

While reading Heat by George Monbiot I came across a sentence [see A Quote That Clicked; side panel] that inspired me to draw a few more experimental floor plans for small homes inside the back cover. My favourite is of a 900 sq. ft. model (heated with a geothermal unit) with half the basement space and 750 sq. ft. of porch and deck space.


And, lo and behold, after only a few conversations my wife is showing a bit of interest too. Usually I have to talk about one of my ideas non-stop for a year or more before I wear her down.

But can we live comfortably with a 34 per cent reduction of indoor living space?

I’m not sure but I think I know how I can find out.

Stay tuned.

[In the meantime, please amuse yourself with a post about a $1,350 corn flake and an even more expensive bowl of cow-country oatmeal.]