 |
| picture by Koivuneva/Kaleva |
And here's a link to related story in the local newspaper Newspaper Kaleva story with a video of kids arriving at school.
Showing posts with label newspaper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label newspaper. Show all posts
Thursday, January 29, 2015
School yard in Tyrnävä
Here's what a School yard in Finland might look like in the winter:
That picture above makes me wonder if there's enough gritting or too much? Bikes like sand, potkukelkkas (kick sleds) do not. Obviously the sleds are 'in' at the moment. I did sometimes go to school with kicksled when I was a kid, too, bot that was ages ago. Walk, bike, kicksled or ski. (Skiing is the easiest way to transport skis to the school for the gym class. :-)
And here's a link to related story in the local newspaper Newspaper Kaleva story with a video of kids arriving at school.
And here's a link to related story in the local newspaper Newspaper Kaleva story with a video of kids arriving at school.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Urbanization is not a solution to climate change
The local newspaper had an article about a thesis by Jukka Heinonen from Aalto University. The English name is "A carbon consumption comparison of rural and urban lifestyles". He compared the metropolitan area and villages and towns of different sizes.
His study found that people in Helsinki metropolitan area have nearly 30% bigger carbon footprint than people living in the rural areas. In rural areas the carbon foot print is less than 9 tons of CO2, vs. almost 13 tons in the metropolitan area. So based on the C02 footprint, urging people to move into more densely built cities to combat climate change is wrong.
Obviously people in rural areas have long distances to travel and their transportation produces 1,96 tons of CO2. The difference to the citizens of the capital is not big, as they produce 1,6 tons. This shows that people in the cities are using their car a lot for commuting and other daily trips. Helsinki does have a small metro and obviously there are buses. But car seems to be the king.
Interestingly, the diagram in the article shows that public transport causes more CO2 (a bigger share of the pie) in rural areas than in towns and cities. How can that be? Did they also count the kids? In many villages the bus only comes twice a day: in the morning to take kids to school and in the afternoon to bring them back? Well, maybe they also count taxi trips to the hospitals and such. Those could bring the averages up a bit.
All the computers and tv's and other gadgets use electricity, and it's also used for heating. Not so much for air conditioning. :-P A third of the footprint is caused by heating and electricity. That's not a big surprise, as there's a long cold and dark season called winter. Using Incandescent light bulbs would make sense in those conditions, but they're phasing out. Might I note that some energy saving light bulbs do not work well in cold.
City dwellers also have higher room temperatures in their apartments than their rural cousins. Often the heating energy bill is part of the rent or maintenance charge, and if it's not measured and billed for each apartment separately, there's no incentive to save energy. In a high-rise, the controls are behind locked doors in the maintenance rooms, and people are not to touch anything. Where as in the country, each homeowner sees the energy bills and can fiddle with the controls as much as he likes to save energy. And almost all houses in the country can be heated by renewable energy from firewood.
The biggest cause for the difference is money. The greedy big-city slickers :-) earn "big bucks" and they also spend the money. They travel abroad, drive around the city to buy things and to see ballet and opera and concerts and eat at fancy restaurants, where they throw a lot of food away. All that driving around on free time and consuming makes a lot of CO2. Apparently Australians have noticed the same thing in their studies.
Where as the income level in the countryside is lower. All those fancy big city things are so far that it takes a whole day to go there so country people don't go see them often even if they had the money. If there's no way to consume, there will be no CO2 either. The footprint of food is similar everywhere, but I can't be sure if they considered gardens people might have in the country side, or meat they got by hunting. Bullets and guns have a high footprint so maybe it evens out. :-)
The study finds that living in a densely built urban city does not automatically mean it's a more ecological than living in a rural area. It's the choices that make the difference.
His study found that people in Helsinki metropolitan area have nearly 30% bigger carbon footprint than people living in the rural areas. In rural areas the carbon foot print is less than 9 tons of CO2, vs. almost 13 tons in the metropolitan area. So based on the C02 footprint, urging people to move into more densely built cities to combat climate change is wrong.
Obviously people in rural areas have long distances to travel and their transportation produces 1,96 tons of CO2. The difference to the citizens of the capital is not big, as they produce 1,6 tons. This shows that people in the cities are using their car a lot for commuting and other daily trips. Helsinki does have a small metro and obviously there are buses. But car seems to be the king.
Interestingly, the diagram in the article shows that public transport causes more CO2 (a bigger share of the pie) in rural areas than in towns and cities. How can that be? Did they also count the kids? In many villages the bus only comes twice a day: in the morning to take kids to school and in the afternoon to bring them back? Well, maybe they also count taxi trips to the hospitals and such. Those could bring the averages up a bit.
All the computers and tv's and other gadgets use electricity, and it's also used for heating. Not so much for air conditioning. :-P A third of the footprint is caused by heating and electricity. That's not a big surprise, as there's a long cold and dark season called winter. Using Incandescent light bulbs would make sense in those conditions, but they're phasing out. Might I note that some energy saving light bulbs do not work well in cold.
City dwellers also have higher room temperatures in their apartments than their rural cousins. Often the heating energy bill is part of the rent or maintenance charge, and if it's not measured and billed for each apartment separately, there's no incentive to save energy. In a high-rise, the controls are behind locked doors in the maintenance rooms, and people are not to touch anything. Where as in the country, each homeowner sees the energy bills and can fiddle with the controls as much as he likes to save energy. And almost all houses in the country can be heated by renewable energy from firewood.
The biggest cause for the difference is money. The greedy big-city slickers :-) earn "big bucks" and they also spend the money. They travel abroad, drive around the city to buy things and to see ballet and opera and concerts and eat at fancy restaurants, where they throw a lot of food away. All that driving around on free time and consuming makes a lot of CO2. Apparently Australians have noticed the same thing in their studies.
Where as the income level in the countryside is lower. All those fancy big city things are so far that it takes a whole day to go there so country people don't go see them often even if they had the money. If there's no way to consume, there will be no CO2 either. The footprint of food is similar everywhere, but I can't be sure if they considered gardens people might have in the country side, or meat they got by hunting. Bullets and guns have a high footprint so maybe it evens out. :-)
The study finds that living in a densely built urban city does not automatically mean it's a more ecological than living in a rural area. It's the choices that make the difference.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Construction for "The Big Dig" starting in June
The local newspaper says the construction of the underground parking garage will start this summer, unless complaints cause delays. The last price I've heard is 73 million euros, more than double from the original 30 million estimate and a bit more than the 60 million quoted last year.
Today's paper had an opinion piece complaining how the Administrative Court dismissed the case (complaint) against the decision to build The Dig. The court found that the city council followed the laws and procedures of making a decision. But the court said preparing and informing the public about the decision to be made were not their problem, the complainant should go to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman exercises oversight to ensure that public authorities and officials observe the law and fulfill their duties. The scope of oversight includes also other parties performing public functions. The aim is to ensure good administration and the observance of constitutional and human rights.
The writer of the opinion piece claims the Ombudsman can not do anything about the case. He claims the public was not told what the city council decided in an unofficial meeting in 2002. No records were kept, but it is known three alternate plans for underground car parking in the downtown area was discussed.
In 2010 the costs had doubled, and the city council decided to cancel the plans. But only a few days after the meeting a working group was set to compare the options for parking. The public was not informed about this, and opponents thought the underground garage plans were buried and thus they didn't prepare alternate plans for the city council meeting 6 months later when the parking garage resurfaced and got approved.
The complainant also claims the public was lied about the finances. Instead of being profitable, the garage will need subsidies for the whole 30 years. Or maybe it more accurate to say it is profitable as a whole, with private businesses and large chain stores reaping the profits from the customers and the tax payer subsidizing the parking.
€73 million for 900 parking places means each costs 81000 euros. Thirty years times 365 days is about 11000 days. So each parking place should earn about 7,3 euros each day just to pay the construction costs without interests and other fees. At 2€/hr the dig would need to average 4 hours of parking in every place they have. That's 4000 cars every day, and I don't believe that is realistic. Half the lot will be empty except weekends.
I have to admit as I haven't recently paid for parking, I had no clue what the prices are at the parking meters. A quick search on the city's web page says street side parking is 1,2-2€/hr in the area of The Dig, and at parking garages about the same. Monthly fees at garages are only about a third (75€/month) of what a place should cost at the the Dig (7x30=210€).
Today's paper had an opinion piece complaining how the Administrative Court dismissed the case (complaint) against the decision to build The Dig. The court found that the city council followed the laws and procedures of making a decision. But the court said preparing and informing the public about the decision to be made were not their problem, the complainant should go to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman exercises oversight to ensure that public authorities and officials observe the law and fulfill their duties. The scope of oversight includes also other parties performing public functions. The aim is to ensure good administration and the observance of constitutional and human rights.
The writer of the opinion piece claims the Ombudsman can not do anything about the case. He claims the public was not told what the city council decided in an unofficial meeting in 2002. No records were kept, but it is known three alternate plans for underground car parking in the downtown area was discussed.
In 2010 the costs had doubled, and the city council decided to cancel the plans. But only a few days after the meeting a working group was set to compare the options for parking. The public was not informed about this, and opponents thought the underground garage plans were buried and thus they didn't prepare alternate plans for the city council meeting 6 months later when the parking garage resurfaced and got approved.
The complainant also claims the public was lied about the finances. Instead of being profitable, the garage will need subsidies for the whole 30 years. Or maybe it more accurate to say it is profitable as a whole, with private businesses and large chain stores reaping the profits from the customers and the tax payer subsidizing the parking.
€73 million for 900 parking places means each costs 81000 euros. Thirty years times 365 days is about 11000 days. So each parking place should earn about 7,3 euros each day just to pay the construction costs without interests and other fees. At 2€/hr the dig would need to average 4 hours of parking in every place they have. That's 4000 cars every day, and I don't believe that is realistic. Half the lot will be empty except weekends.
I have to admit as I haven't recently paid for parking, I had no clue what the prices are at the parking meters. A quick search on the city's web page says street side parking is 1,2-2€/hr in the area of The Dig, and at parking garages about the same. Monthly fees at garages are only about a third (75€/month) of what a place should cost at the the Dig (7x30=210€).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)