I have decided to throw my hat in the ring and have applied to the Board of Directors of Vancouver’s Co-operative Auto Network.  The Board of Directors is elected by members of the Co-op on the General Annual Meeting which this year will be on January 27th, 2010.  Five of the eight members are to be elected during this years AGM.  If you are a member you should have received an email indicating where the AGM is held.  If not, please contact the Co-operative Auto Network directly.

Please find below my Statement of interest.  Good luck to all candidates, and to me too.

________________________________________

By providing a middle ground to owning a vehicle and relying on transit and cycling, the Co-operative Auto Network contributes to improving the lives of its members, our communities and the environment. It is with this vision in mind that I offer my abilities to CAN and submit my candidacy to the Board of Directors.

My priority, as a member of the board, would be to expand the Car co-op network into the suburbs (Surrey, Richmond, etc.). This would benefit not only potential members currently living in the suburbs, but also those who occasionally require a vehicle in suburbia. Other projects are to provide documentation in other languages, keeping sound financial management, providing better access to the Board of Directors and a review of the complain process.

Living in South Vancouver (Marpole) since 2001, I joined CAN before there was a vehicle in my neighbourhood. Since then, my involvement has included volunteered for a few presentation shows and working in the main office as a Call Centre Manager and a Member Care Co-ordinator, first on a full time basis, then on-call, from 2007 to 2009. Fluent in French and English, I also speak decent Spanish and basic Cantonese. I am currently completing on a part time basis a certificate in Sustainable Community Development at Simon Fraser University. I also comment on social and environmental issues in a monthly column in L’Express du Pacifique newspaper and on the web: www.vancf.net.

Thank you,

Frédéric Van Caenegem

There is a funny “Family Guy” episode (http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/Peter,_Peter,_Caviar_Eater) where Peter inherits a small fortune. Obviously, this new money goes to his head and he becomes pretentious and shallow. One day, there is an auction for charity. The bets for a vase were in the few thousands dollars. Suddenly, Peter, not by generosity but because he wanted to impress his friends, shouts: “ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!”. Evidently, he did not have that much money. This will bankrupt him and lead him back to his dead-end job.

A similar phenomenon (screaming out loud meaningless numbers) also happened recently at the Copenhagen summit on climate change. When it comes to global warming, we hear talks of reducing CO2 emissions by 10% in 5 years; 20% by 2020; 25% less of now; 30% based on 1990 emissions; etc. Everywhere, officials and politicians are shouting numbers and targets. These promises and numbers have no more chances of becoming reality than I respecting my New Year resolution.

My father often says that politicians that do not respect their promises should be sent to the guillotine. While the style is a bit extreme, he has a point. Politicians do not suffer punishment when promises are broken. Even worse, they regularly are re-elected. And for that no one is to blame but us.

The Kyoto Protocol had ambitious targets and look where it got us? Most of the countries that endorsed it are in no position to reach their targets. Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol under Jean Chrétien and it made his government look good. However, that same government introduced ridiculously insignificant measures when time came to be concrete about global warming. Just read for yourself: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/08/12/kyototue030812.html. The result of inaction is an increase of CO2 emissions of 26% since 1990! We were supposed to reduce them by 6% under the Kyoto protocol. At least the Bush administration was clear that they were not even going to try reaching their targets.

The problem with the Kyoto protocol was not lack of ambitions, but lack of concrete measures. A real reduction of greenhouses gases emissions requires commitment by citizens, industry and institutions. It requires money, methods and penalties. It needs money to build green transportation infrastructures, to mass produce solar panels or protect the Amazon rain forest. And it requires stiff penalties for industries or countries that do not reach their objectives, or worse, do not even try, such as Canada.

All the media focus is on meaningless numbers. While groups are pushing for concrete measures and objectives, this gets no recognitions in press time. The extremely meagre and disappointing Copenhagen Agreement has at least one positive thing that Kyoto Protocol didn’t: measures. The agreement reached in Copenhagen, while disappointing, may be a step in the right direction. In that agreement there are no targets and numbers, but funding. The funding is not enough, however, it is probably better than some ambitious toothless protocol.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

A terrible tragedy, that cost the lives of two people, happened near Granville Island a few weeks ago:
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/in-the-garden/dead+near+Granville+Island/1267133/story.html

Back in November, I sent an email to the city of Vancouver about the same dangerous pedestrian crossing.  You can read the correspondence here:
http://blog.vancf.net/2008/11/22/an-example-of-bureaucratic-efficiency/

The City fixed the problem quickly. But, this crossing remains dangerous and is an example of urban design oriented toward car-friendly urbanism. Which happens to be often pedestrian-unfriendly design.

I do not know exactly what happened on that tragic day, I did not witness this terrible tragedy and I can not remove the responsibility of the driver, who was impaired at the time of the accident.

I can only send my condolences to the family and friends of the victims.

We sometimes do the wrong thing out of good intentions. The city of Vancouver wants to ban plastic bags. While everyone seems to think it is a good idea, there is actually a problem with this proposition: its effects might be the exact opposite of its intentions.

When it comes to the bags we use to do our groceries, the best solution is definitively the reusable bag (a generally sturdy bag that can be used more than once). Many people easily managed to use 2-3 reusable bags to do all their groceries for many years. Reusable bags have a far lessen impact on the environment than plastic or paper bags because… they are less of them! Unfortunately, any ban of plastic bags will have no consequences on the number of people using reusable bags. The only impact of banning plastic bags will be to increase the number paper bags. And studies are far from being clear on which one of the two types of bags is less polluting. Read this study for example: http://www.angelfire.com/wi/PaperVsPlastic/

There are conflicting reports regarding which type of bag is more or less polluting. However, most studies do acknowledge that plastic bags take less energy to produce and they do not use forest product as paper does. The main problem with plastic bags is that it takes longer to disintegrate then paper. But, and this is the key point of this posting, plastic bags are easier to stock and to recycle. The main problem is that most cities in the world do not recycle plastic!

There is a clear lack of scientific consensus on the subject, but according to at least some studies, the best thing our municipalities might do could be the exact opposite of banning plastic bags. It could be that paper bags are more polluting then plastic ones. If this is true, then we might be better off by banning paper bags and help facilitate recycling of plastic bags. Not a popular position I admit, but the truth needs not to be popular to remain true.

However, let us be clear, the best solution remains the reusable bag.

Frédéric Van Caenegem