Highway madness 0 comments

I have been driving for 32 years, and have driven in most provinces in Canada, a lot of states, as well as the U.K. and Italy. The past few years I have noticed a dramatic increase in speeding and reckless driving on highways, particularly here in Toronto. It's not just my imagination. Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) statistics show a dramatic increase in deadly highway crashes this year.

I drove from Newmarket to London last week and there was a very noticeable difference in driving behaviour - speed and carelessness around both cities compared to the rural areas in between. In Toronto the highways are very busy - the amount of traffic seems to compound the situation by both frustrating people who are in a rush and making reckless driving potentially much more deadly. In London the traffic was not so busy, but the increase in speed was obvious.

What is it about busy urban centers that starts to cause drivers to drive well over the speed limit in busy traffic?

Last summer, I vacationed in BC and Alberta and noticed two significant differences in driver behaviour. In Alberta they use a lot of fixed photo radar on highways. Those highways are clearly marked with signs showing people that speed is measured by photo radar, and I noticed that almost all the cars were keeping to a reasonable speed despite being a busy highway in Edmonton.

In BC they use a lot of red light cameras, and nobody was going through red lights there. In Ontario after the light turns red it is common to see 2-3 vehicles go straight through and I have seen up to 4 or 5 turning left after the light has turned red.

Intersection accidents can be deadly, and it is usually the innocent that pay the price.

The OPP is strained to cover the entire province and is only able to do so much with the funding they get from the provincial government. I am sure it is the same in most jurisdictions.

They feel that education and awareness is key, but from what I can see, I don't think the drivers who are exhibiting the behaviour I am talking about care about education or awareness.

With the huge increase in traffic in urban areas, and increased budget constraints, it only makes sense to look for most cost effective ways to address the problem.

Photo radar was used in Ontario when the NDP were in power, but was scrapped as unpopular and was considered a 'cash-grab'.

Most people today look at it differently. The Canada Safety Council commissioned a poll in July 2007 which shows that over 2/3 of Canadians support photo radar.

Red light cameras and fixed photo radar on key highways with clear signage will make a difference. The driving public has had enough of innocent people being killed by reckless driving.

What do you think?

Live Earth Criticism 5 comments

The Live Earth concerts are over and there has been a fair share of criticism about them in the media. Most of the criticism revolves around the feeling that they were hypocritical by asking people to save energy while at the same time the concerts used energy. There was also criticism of performers that have a large global footprint because of what they do. Lastly, there was criticism that the message was not clear and it was just about music.

First off, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and criticism in itself is not a bad thing.

I personally think the concerts were a huge success and that the message could not have been clearer. My opinion was based on the tremendous 29 hour coverage by CTV in Canada. CTV covered all the concerts from beginning to end in Live HD and they did not just show the concerts, but had rotating remote and local anchors that discussed ways to help the environment, conducted exclusive interviews with performers, actors, organizers and other celebrities, and even had built a set that was an earth-friendly condo with ideas on saving energy and promoting environmentally friendly products and ideas.

From what I could see of the U.S. coverage - it did not even come close, and was more of a recap of highlights and in my opinion spent a lot less time reinforcing the message - so kudos to CTV for bringing the message home in a big way!

Now to criticism about using energy to send a message about saving. The choice is simple - do nothing or do the best you can to get the message delivered in order to obtain a net gain overall - either now, or in the future.

Criticism is easy, but everyone uses energy. If an individual criticizes but does nothing to help, then their net effect is negative.

It would be great if the Live Earth concerts could have used no energy, but the reality is that everything we do uses energy. The organizers went to a lot of trouble to minimize the impact, using recyclable and recycled material in the stages - old tires and oil drums and low energy lighting.

Could they have done better? Maybe. We can always do better. When I hear the critics though, I think of the passage in John - Chapter 8, where Jesus said: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone."

We all use energy as we live and breathe. Some of us use more than others and some waste more than others. In our western society, we are more guilty of waste than most people in the world.

Are performers or actors or people like Al Gore worse than we are because their global footprint is much bigger?

That is a good question, but not such a simple one.

I believe we need to do two things:

1. Take a look at what people do that positively impacts our environment. A person with a large global footprint may also be able to impact our global environment in a much greater positive way than individuals like you and me. As an example - Al Gore certainly has a very large global footprint, but one could argue that his individual impact to reduce greenhouse gases is even more huge - much more so. If he did nothing to promote his cause, and even cut back on his own global footprint, the net effect would be much more negative globally. If we are not completely aware of both our own global footprint and how we contribute to improving our global environment, how can we stand in judgement of someone who contributes so much?

2. Criticism of Al Gore, Actors, Performers and high profile people is ok. As a hugely consuming western society - we need to speak up about excess consumerism and waste. If people are in the public eye and are speaking out as activists and supporters of improving our environment, we should challenge them to improve their own habits. Now wait a minute, you say. Didn't you just say we should not judge these people? I am confused. Don't be. There is a difference between judging someone and challenging them to be accountable for showing how they are improving.

Here is what I would like to see.

There are great tools available to measure your global footprint and track your progress of improvement. SOS has one that is posted as a link on our main Globespotter.com site.

I challenge the high profile people involved with Live Earth and the SOS movement to do their own ECP quiz and publically post their score. I will do mine right on the Globespotter site and if they do theirs I would be happy to post their scores too.

Now that may be a real tough thing to do, as I am sure their score will be very, very high, but the important thing will be that they are willing to practice what they preach and work to reduce the score. Publish the progress right on the SOS site.

If you have a score of 800, then show us how you can get it down to 600. If you have a score of 2000 show us how you can reduce it to 1500.

It is not so much the fact that Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio may have a huge ECP score compared to you or me - I'd like to see how their scores are going down and the critics need to do the same.

Controversial? Yup. A tough thing to do? You bet. The worst PR ever? Maybe - but sometimes you have to do the right thing, and I think it is the right thing to do.

Will it silence the critics? No. Of course it won't, but it will go a long way to showing the average people that we are all in this together and it is not about how much we consume, but rather how much we can improve and how much positive net impact we can have on our world.

So - do me a favor. Pass this on to anyone who might be able to get this message to where it will be read by the high profile people involved in the climate crisis movement. Let's use our 6 degrees of separation to quickly get the message to everyone and challenge them to honestly do their ECP score regularly - at least 4 times a year and publish the results. I will. Will you?

Edited on July 19th 2007 to add:

Today I posted in the liveearth.msn.com forum about this issue and I quoted the beginning of this post along with a link to it so people could read it. I was dumbfounded to login to the MSN Live Earth Forum later today to find my posts gone and my account permanently banned with no email or any other communication to advise why. I reviewed their Code of Conduct and cannot figure out why they would ban me for my posting. The only two things I can think of is that they did not like me posting a link to my blog (I am sure MSN can stand the competition :) ) or that they found my post "objectionable". I am at a bit stunned to say the least and not sure what that makes me think of the openness of the whole Live Earth / MSN organization.

Oh yeah - I tried their 'feedback' link but it does not work and I can't find a way to contact anyone to ask why I was banned. Nice.

Even though it was the smallest Live Earth concert with no audience attending, the concert from Antarctica was one of the most meaningful in terms of the message. Check out the scientists from the British Antarctic Survey who have a band called Nunatak playing for Live Earth!

Live Earth is here!!! 0 comments

Live Earth is here! Concert coverage of the Sydney, Australia concert starts at 10pm ET on Friday July 6th 2007.

Don't miss any of the great concerts! Tune in to TV coverage or watch on the internet at: http://liveearth.msn.com