The Olive Ridley Crawl. Yes, same name, but it is not hosted by wordpress.com any more.

Why? Because my web skills had degenerated to the point of no return, so I needed to get a bit more active.

Update your rss feeds if you please.

Hey! Want to watch a bunch of cool feminist folks rock out and play some original material from the first feminists’ rock camp in Victoria? Want to watch them jam with some cool musicians?

Then come to the Fort Cafe, Sunday August 22nd. Doors open at 6. Also, look for the fabulous Galen Hartley, Athena Holmes from Montreal and Victoria, Tina Pearson, Anne Schaeffer, and some Reverend Owl goodness!

Look forward to seeing you there! Download the flier if you’d like to put one up on your fridge, or your work fridge, or anywhere you fancy.

Tickets at door and in advance; contact Feminists.Rock.Camp(at)gmail(dot)comma

Consider myself a little more encouraged, I shall write more, soon, no pressure

On behalf of Michael Ignatieff, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your recent email regarding Bill C-311, The Climate Change Accountability Act.

Mr. Harper is isolated on the environment – he’s behind the provinces and our peer countries when it comes to taking leadership on climate change and the environment, and has undermined international progress at every turn.

The Liberals are taking the Harper Conservatives to task over their failure to commit to a principled environmental policy backed up by real action. We’re calling on the government to immediately put in place a national climate change plan with economy-wide regulations on emissions and strategic investments in renewable and clean energy.

Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party are also supporting Bill C-311 as part of our staunch opposition to Mr. Harper’s laissez-faire approach to the environment and climate change. We support its central principle – that Canada needs to take immediate, ambitious action to get us back on track to reducing emissions and improving our renewable energy sources.

We must be clear, however: Bill C-311 is not a climate change plan. It picks targets, but it does not lay out a plan on how Canada can reach those targets. That’s where it comes up short. The Liberal Party has put forward a credible, achievable climate and clean energy strategy that will create jobs and make our economy – and our country – one of the cleanest and most competitive in the world. Canada cannot afford to miss this opportunity.

Thank you for taking the time to write the office of Michael Ignatieff on this important issue.

Bill C-311, Canada’s Climate Change Accountability Act, is back in the “news” (no silly, not the media, who have more important things to worry about). I had written about this before the Copenhagen meeting. This bill sets Canada up with greenhouse gas emission reduction targets that would put Canada in a respectable mainstream position, 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. But the Conservatives, in one of their classic legislative gambits, have forwarded the vote for April 14th, Wednesday. If the bill doesn’t pass here, it’s dead, and 4 years of countless committee readings, and multiple votes to pass would be wasted. And Canada will not have any climate change legislation whatsoever.

Serious business, isn’t it? Climate Action has more, including what you need to do (I know, short notice, that’s apparently how important decisions get made around here).

The Liberals hold the key. It was they who voted with the Conservatives the last time to scuttle the pre-Copenhagen vote. As of writing this post, no official word from the Liberals on their position.

A call to Michael Ignatieff’s office, (613) 995-9364 gives me little hope of passage. I was told that the MPs had met, that Mr. Ignatieff would not be voting (apparently, because it’s a private member’s bill, leaders don’t vote, weird). Also, the official position of the party is that because it is a private member’s bill, that every MP would be free to vote on their “conscience”. Given that the Liberal party could not even defend women’s health in a recent whipped vote, I wonder where their conscience is on this.

A call to David McGuinty’s (the Liberal Environmental Critic) Office, (613) 992-3269, elicited the rather helpful response that they would not be commenting on their stand till after the vote.

Of our local MPs, both Denise Savoie (NDP) and Dr. Keith Martin (Liberal) will be voting to preserve the bill, they are on record saying this at a forum on climate change last week. Of course, Gary Lunn (Conservative) is not part of the equation here, pointless.

So, call, call and call away, the Liberals need to hear about this. They don’t appear to understand the most basic rule of opposition politics, you get no points for supporting the government, except from pundits in the mainstream media. Only if you inflict some defeats on the government will the people of Canada take you seriously.

David McGuinty – (613) 992-3269
Michael Ignatieff – (613) 995-9364

As always, remember that it is the Liberals that will be blamed for this bill’s demise, we all know the Conservative position on climate change. The NDP and Bloc Quebecois have voted repeatedly to pass this legislation. It is Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals who will stand in the way of Canada’s environmental progress.

There is a buzz about green buildings. But the question is: what does one mean by building green? And how does one design policies to make the green homes of our dreams?Green is not about first building structures using lots of material and energy, and then fixing them so that they become a little more efficient. Building green is about optimizing on the local ecology, using local material as far as possible and, most importantly, building to cut the power, water and material requirements.

via Green buildings: how to redesign | Centre for Science and Environment.

Sunita Narain makes some excellent points about building in India, and how western architecture influenced glass facades, closed buildings, etc. make little sense in India, and how traditional building concepts, optimised for local conditions would make more sense.

Two points:

1. Traditional buildings are not necessarily optimised for density. To fit a lot of people in a little space, you need to build up. No, not 100s of stories, but fives and tens? It would be interesting to figure out that contradiction. But I’m no architect and I don’t know the answer
2. The glass facade concrete skyscraper jungle look is associated with aspirational prosperity, ask any affluent Indian what they like about Hong Kong, or New York, or Singapore, and the shiny buildings will figure pretty high on the list after cleanliness and shopping. This is the kind of building associated with modernity and “class”. Making a sealed glass and concrete hell hole work in regions of high heat and humidity without large amounts of energy use for air conditioning is difficult.

It appears, though, that at least some people are thinking about this, as this book, helpfully titled Tropical Sustainable Architecture, would attest to.

BTW,
Sunita Narain’s editorials for the Down to Earth magazine are always thoughtful, and required reading for anyone interested in India’s development and environmental issues.

In what follows, I will offer a brief survey of the economics of climate change or, more precisely, the economics of lessening climate change. I’ll try to lay out the areas of broad agreement as well as those that remain in major dispute. First, though, a primer in the basic economics of environmental protection.

Magazine Preview – Climate Change – Building a Green Economy – NYTimes.com.

First off, it is well written, aimed at simplifying the economics of pollution so most people can understand, what you’d expect from him!

1. Basic Economics and how externalities work, and why free markets alone will never solve moral problems of reducing pollution, or providing health care
2. How the work of Pigou, a 1920s economist is the basis of all all environmental economics, with a small sidetrack on rabbits! This is well written, it captures the essence of what needs to be done with pollution – Simple prohibition is not enough, imposing a fair cost on the pollution works much better
3. What are command and control, cap and trade, carbon taxes, and what they do. Krugman prefers cap and trade approaches where there is certainty on the pollution. But he stresses (and this is very important) that it is essential to put additional control elements in place, for example, fuel efficiency requirements for cars in addition to just carbon costs, or severe limits on coal fired power plants
4. He talks about developed, and developing countries, and how to handle increasing emissions in China, India, etc. He postulates a combined carrot and stick policy, where China and India can trade emission permits with the rich countries. His contention is that since the Chinese economy is less efficient, the costs of cutting pollution in China are likely to be a lot lower. The stick involves the imposition of carbon tariffs on imported goods to Europe and the US if China does not play ball. So, the rich countries pass money to the poorer countries to reduce emissions, but impose taxes if they don’t
5. He thinks that carbon costs should increase quickly rather than slowly
6. He compares the costs of action to the costs of inaction, no surprise that the costs of inaction are orders of magnitude larger than the costs of action.

Of course, he ends with the caveat that the political will to do this is going to be sorely lacking.

What do I think? While it pretty much encapsulates what I think of as the big picture approach, Krugman hand waves around the many personal changes in consumption, land use, urbanization, localization that all have to occur. All of that is included in “additional command control based changes”. I don’t necessarily believe in Homo Economicus, the rational human who responds to economic incentives. So we will have to, as citizens, agitate forcefully for local actions that set us in the western world up for reduced consumption and increased efficiency. In addition, we have to simultaneously support national level politicians that are serious about climate change and punish the ones that are not, so they can help enact the right national and trans-national policies.

Anyway, all in all, an excellent read.

This well designed and well executed study provides rather conclusive proof that High Fructose Corn Syrup, the sweetener most commonly used in North America, makes you gain weight in a way not explained by calories alone. These rats gained more weight on HFCS compared to a sucrose (regular sugar) diet even though they were fed the same calories. The effect was seen in the short term and in the long term, and abdominal fat increased the most. Gut fat, if you did not know is related to the infamous metabolic syndrome, causing diabetes, hypertension, coronary disease, etc.

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) accounts for as much as 40% of caloric sweeteners used in the United States. Some studies have shown that short-term access to HFCS can cause increased body weight, but the findings are mixed. The current study examined both short- and long-term effects of HFCS on body weight, body fat, and circulating triglycerides. In Experiment 1, male Sprague–Dawley rats were maintained for short term (8 weeks) on (1) 12 h/day of 8% HFCS, (2) 12 h/day 10% sucrose, (3) 24 h/day HFCS, all with ad libitum rodent chow, or (4) ad libitum chow alone. Rats with 12-h access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than animals given equal access to 10% sucrose, even though they consumed the same number of total calories, but fewer calories from HFCS than sucrose. In Experiment 2, the long-term effects of HFCS on body weight and obesogenic parameters, as well as gender differences, were explored. Over the course of 6 or 7 months, both male and female rats with access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than control groups. This increase in body weight with HFCS was accompanied by an increase in adipose fat, notably in the abdominal region, and elevated circulating triglyceride levels. Translated to humans, these results suggest that excessive consumption of HFCS may contribute to the incidence of obesity.

Miriam E. Bocarsly, Elyse S. Powell, Nicole M. Avena, Bartley G. Hoebel. High-fructose corn syrup causes characteristic of obesity in rats: Increased body weight, body fat and triglyceride levels. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 2010; DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2010.02.012

For a more layman friendly summary of the article, read the sciencedaily release.

Do reconsider your food habits to avoid HFCS. Note that this whole corn syrup boondongle is made possible by the US government’s insistence on providing billion dollar subsidies to its farmers to grow corn while imposing tariffs on cane sugar from the tropics to make it less attractive. Free trade, my A$$.

Thanks to Tom Laskawy at grist for the blog post.

Anyway, we were having a couple of people over for dinner, and I was in the mood for either an aviyal, or a Chettinad Fish concoction of some kind. But one of our guests was vegan, so no fish and no yogurt, what to do?

Note, this may already be a well known dish, but it is new to me!

A Chettinad style Aviyal

Spices for Seasoning

• 1-2 tsp of mustard seeds
• 1/2 tsp of fenugreek (methi) seeds – these are bitter and add texture and body
• 1 tsp of black peppercorns – Same, texture and surprise pockets of spice
• Curry leaves

Spices for Grinding

• 1 Tbsp coriander seeds
• 1 tsp cumin seeds (jeera) – Always be mindful of the magic ratio, 3:1 for coriander:cumin)
• 2 tsp aniseed – the magic ingredient, aromatic and fresh breath smelling, but interesting flavour as well
• 1-2 tsp of chilli powder. You know how hot your chilli powder is, you know how hot you want your dish to be, careful to begin with. It is also okay to add chilli powder towards the end, it is a prefried and ready to use spice.
• 1/2 tsp turmeric

Vegetables for Steaming
A mix of what you would consider “avial” vegetables, so plantain, pumpkin, are nice. I also add carrots, peas, beans, broccoli, does not matter. Whatever you use, think of the colour, and the mix of using a starchy vegetable (potato, plantain, etc), a squashy vegetable (pumpkin, zucchini, etc), some fibrous ones (carrots, beans) and peas are always nice. How much? Well, as much as can fit in about 3-4 cups of stew and you know whether you like it all vegetabley or mostly liquid!

The Base

• One large onion
• 2-3 medium size tomatoes – juicy, not beefy
• 3-4 cloves of garlic, more if you want to repel vampires (and other people)
• A can of coconut milk, look for one without preservative, no idea why they have to add preservative to something that is already in a can. If you have time, make it yourself

Strategy
Why does cooking need strategy? Because parallel processing is fun and you’ll be done sooner, so you can get on with the more important things in life!

• Chop the veggies for steaming – Medium size pieces so you can bite into them. Coin all cylindrical veggies and cube all others (not the peas, floret broccoli, etc). Once done, steam them, I use a pressure cooker without pressure, but you can just put in a pot with a bit of water and cover. You can also do them Italian style as well, sauté in oil, but it will take longer and won’t really work too well for the squash
• While the veggies are steaming, use your favourite pot for making the base. Add some oil (use coconut oil to be 100% authentic, or just use your favourite high temperature cooking oil).
• While the oil is heating up, chop the onions fine and locate your spices for seasoning. Once the oil is hot, add the mustard seeds. How do you know it’s hot? Why, the mustard seeds will start popping right away, chicken, meet egg! Once you hear the first seed or two popping, add the peppercorns and the fenugreek seeds. As the mustard seeds continue to pop, add the curry leaves. Of course, you’re stirring well to maximize heat transfer and hurting a bit as hot oil splatters on your arms (wait, that’s only me, nm).
• If the oil temperature was just right, the peppercorns would pop before the fenugreek seeds turn to tar, but it’s all right if that does not happen! I presume the perfect way to do this would be to add the peppercorns before the fenugreek, because the fenugreek takes very little time to fry, good tip for next time:-) The minute you smell the fenugreek seeds getting seasoned, add the onions and stir well. Adding a wet ingredient to the dry mix has the effect of stopping the frying of the dry ingredients in their tracks
• The onions should take 10 minutes or so on medium heat. Use this time to dry grind your spices to a fine powder. I have an Indian super machine now, but I’ve used a coffee grinder before (you’ll never get the vague aftertaste of anise out of your coffee ever again, so I’d buy a dedicated spice grinder). Also, chop your garlic into thin slivers and your tomatoes fine.
• Once the onions are mostly done, meaning translucent and beautiful, add the garlic and fry for a bit more after increasing the heat a little bit. Don’t caramelize, just sauté to translucent
• Reduce the heat to medium-low and add your fine ground spice mix. Fry for 2-3 minutes.
• Add the tomatoes and saute/fry under medium low until you’re getting a nice base going, meaning the tomatoes are cooked and becoming part of the liquid. It is okay to have a little bit of texture (my personal preference). Mash and stir constantly for this to happen.
• At some point in time, you should have checked on your veggies to confirm they got steamed. Drain any excess water, but keep it, you may get to use it later
• Add the veggies and mix around, let the sauce coat the veggies well.
• Add the coconut milk, and salt (okay, I did not list salt, but did you expect a saltless dish?). Add to taste, of course.
• Add some water (how much depends on how thick you like it, and it will thicken over time) and bring to a boil. Of course, if you had your veggie water saved, all the better
• Season with cilantro, or my new seasoning favourite, the green tips of green onions.

Serve with rice, or chapatis, or naans, or your favourite carb. And remember to invite your friends over to share the meal, most important tip of all.

PS: No food photograph, sorry, didn’t see the point. It will look like a off white stew with vegetables floating around in it, and bits of green seasoning…

Environmentalists are more openly at odds over two goals: the preservation of wide open spaces vs. the use of public lands for renewable energy projects.

via Green Civil War: Projects vs. Preservation – Room for Debate Blog – NYTimes.com.

This is a question that gets asked a lot, so it is refreshing to see different perspectives on how to manage needs for more clean energy with the desire to preserve pristine land. Of course, given the diversity of opinions offered, some are better than others. I, for one, don’t see this as a dichotomy, so I prefer ideas that avoid the binary choice frame of the question and suggest real solutions that will try to optimize both “choices”.

I liked David Roberts’ and Ileene Anderson’s opinions quite a bit, plugging for getting away from the large scale, utility centric model to a distributed paradigm. Daniel Kammen pitches for aggressive efficiency measures. Vaclav Smil says “Use less”, amen! Randy Udall deals mostly in cliches and says nothing very meaningful other than “we should optimize” and “some people will always complain”. Winona LaDuke makes a very important point that this is a good opportunity for Native Americans shut out of the conventional energy process to be involved in the wise stewardship of wind and solar energy. She does not provide any policy suggestions to make it happen.

Anyway, it looks like most of the panelists chosen avoided the binarification of the problem, good job! Will preserve this for a link every time someone asks me about this.