It shouldn't be a surprise that cities that have implemented a greenbelt tend to have higher real-estate prices. This is just because they are nicer places to live.

Unfortunately, this is a serious issue. However, I think it's overblown. There is this myth that in order to raise a family, you need a house with a yard. People are also appalled by the fact that a 2 bedroom apartment in downtown Vancouver, BC (say). costs the same as a 3 bedroom house in the suburbs.

Neither of these points are valid. Young families are happily moving back to Vancouver (some wealthy, some less so) to live in smaller apartments. I belong to one of those families, and I'm about to raise a child in a small apartment without a yard.

But, I still feel like this is a much better place to be than way out there with a bigger place. Like most Vancouverites, I can walk to my choice of supermarkets, parks, beaches, restaurants, and day care. I'm also still 45 minutes away from skiing. And, thanks to provincial measures to save farmland, I can drive 30 minutes to get to local farms and buy virtually any produce I want (when in season).

This is why I am gladly giving up 1000sq ft to stay here.

Do some people *need* 4-5 bedrooms and 3000sq ft of housing? Maybe those with 4-5 kids. If so, then the suburbs for them, but most people don't. They've just been brain-washed into thinking that.

Why is it that the best farmland keeps getting eaten up and changed into malls or housing? Why is it that farmers can't make a living by farming alone? They must either sell out to bigger farms, consolidate and become a big farm, take on a second or third job, or be independently wealthy. Why is it that farmers are encouraged to sell their corn at a loss (to artificially keep prices down), rather than to let the market play out and let farming be more of a free market?

There are a billion reasons for each of these and they are all inter-connected. However, the main reason that I see is that the profession of farming gets no respect. Small farmers who do not embrace technology are often seen as luddites. But, this is only the case because our food is grown so far away from us that we don't see how the technology that is supposed to help let farmers grow more food is only leading to the small farmers' downfalls---strip mall by strip mall.

Great, but then what. it's a drop in the bucket compared to the long road ahead, especially if people like Inhoufe are encouraging more energy usage.

Nothing's going to change until the people truly want it to happen. And most don't care enough yet to do anything about it.

But, look at Germany, who elected Merkel, a physicist with strong environmental leanings. She has been given a mandate by her people to do something about energy usage and climate change. And she will. America is so far behind.

(Beijing, actually)...and the food was horrible. I had real Peking Duck. It's just a big blob of fat. Not for me. I see no global crisis here as long as I can get my good Japanese, Thai, and Malaysian.

ps- the best meal I had in China was at the Marriot Hotel. We had some great Indian food!

I always used to read on the bus and never looked out the window until I got my ipod.

Now, I don't read anymore because I'm too busy looking out the window and listening to music. I'm watching the beautiful scenery (traffic) go by.

I seem to remember a really excellent article in the New Yorker about lobster fishing and cod fishing in the northeast. It compared the two and showed how with a little cooperation and regulation, lobster fishing has become quite sustainable. Cod fishing, on the other hand, was never like that and so it collapsed.

Let's see if I can find it...

Yep...here it is, but unfortunately, the full article isn't available online yet:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact_wilkinson

Keep Scott Bateman coming. Great cartoon. I laughed. I cried.