[Editor's note. Please enjoy this piece courtesy of Scott Harrison]
Manitoba Hydro claims the St. Joseph’s wind farm will be smaller than the original proposal at 300 megawatts to 138 megawatts. With Manitoba being one of the windiest places in the country (especially southwestern Manitoba), Hydro should allow for faster tendering of wind projects to be built by private corporations, the public or RM’s. These organizations will provide the finance backing to build the wind farms, rather than having the government finance the upfront costs as they are presently doing with the hydro dams in Northern Manitoba. All Manitoba Hydro has to do is follow Ontario’s lead and buy the power back from the companies at an increased rate above the six or seven cents a kilowatt-hour hydro is currently offering. If in fact Manitoba is to reach its target of 1,000 Megawatts by 2015 they better buy power at a higher price or companies will build their wind farms elsewhere (Ontario is presently offering 13.5 cents per kilowatt-hour to wind energy developers). The Manitoba government should invest in wind, solar, and geothermal energy rather than hydro because it helps to offset our dependence on one type of “clean energy”. What happens if we have a drought as was suggest by some Whistleblower’s? Other clean power sources could make up for the difference. Additionally the power lost to transmission is likely to be lower for wind farms because the power is more likely to be produced in the more densely populated southern Manitoba which consumes the bulk of the provinces electricity. Germany has an integrated system of wind, solar, biogas and hydro all throughout the country. The German and Ontarian example provides a model that we could follow here in Manitoba. If only this government was really committed to the idea of a diversified clean energy portfolio.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The logger and the caribou are both becoming endangered species in Manitoba!
No one can deny that the forestry industry in Manitoba has fallen on hard times, but for Gary Doer to suggest that the approval of the Dickstone Road through Grass River Provincial Park will somehow stabilize jobs in the forestry industry is disingenuous.
In the background information attached to the Provincial Government's November 21, 2008 News Release "Province Proposes Historic Changes To Preserve Provincial Parks For Future Generations" the government noted that the forestry industry employed approximately 2,500 people, down from the 9,000 employed in 1997.
Since then the lay-offs have intensified with Tolko's announcement of: "...an indefinite curtailment at its [lumber] plant in The Pas, Manitoba..." on January 19, 2009, resulting in an additional 107 forestry workers, through no fault of their own, being laid off.
Despite of the mill workers agreeing to wage roll-backs in January of 2006 when Tolko threatened to close the mill down., Tolko's revenues have fallen by 17.4% in 2006, and 21% in 2007. According to their 2007/2008 Business Update this was "...due mainly to a stronger Canadian dollar, reduced market demands, and export taxes."
Building a 17 km road through the middle of Grass River Provincial Park is not going to change the global market conditions the forestry industry is presently facing. It will not change the value of the Canadian Dollar, it is not going to convince Americans to buy more houses, and it is not going to convince our neighbors to the South to change their foreign trade policy.
The road development will however have a drastic effect on the local ecosystems. Of particular note are the endangered Woodland Caribou who calve in Grass River Provincial Park , and the bridge construction will have an impact on the fish and other wildlife in the park as well.
Tolko is heavily dependent on export trade with roughly three-quarters of its sales from outside Canada. This dependence on foreign trade is a double-edged sword that often cuts back during times of economic uncertainty. Unfortunately the laid-off Tolko workers know this all too well.
If the Premier really wanted to stabilize jobs in the forestry industry, perhaps rather than bicker about buy-American provisions he should consider implementing similar Buy-Manitoba clauses. If Manitobans were purchasing their wood products from locally derived sources the demand would be less dependent on external factors and therefore more stable. In this way Manitoba's forestry workers, and their loved ones, would be less likely to deal with the financial and emotional hardships created by price-shocks in a boom and bust industry.
Perhaps if we did this we could sustain our boreal ecosystem, protect our Provincial Parks and the woodland Caribou, and secure long-term jobs for our forestry workers at the same time.
In the background information attached to the Provincial Government's November 21, 2008 News Release "Province Proposes Historic Changes To Preserve Provincial Parks For Future Generations" the government noted that the forestry industry employed approximately 2,500 people, down from the 9,000 employed in 1997.
Since then the lay-offs have intensified with Tolko's announcement of: "...an indefinite curtailment at its [lumber] plant in The Pas, Manitoba..." on January 19, 2009, resulting in an additional 107 forestry workers, through no fault of their own, being laid off.
Despite of the mill workers agreeing to wage roll-backs in January of 2006 when Tolko threatened to close the mill down., Tolko's revenues have fallen by 17.4% in 2006, and 21% in 2007. According to their 2007/2008 Business Update this was "...due mainly to a stronger Canadian dollar, reduced market demands, and export taxes."
Building a 17 km road through the middle of Grass River Provincial Park is not going to change the global market conditions the forestry industry is presently facing. It will not change the value of the Canadian Dollar, it is not going to convince Americans to buy more houses, and it is not going to convince our neighbors to the South to change their foreign trade policy.
The road development will however have a drastic effect on the local ecosystems. Of particular note are the endangered Woodland Caribou who calve in Grass River Provincial Park , and the bridge construction will have an impact on the fish and other wildlife in the park as well.
Tolko is heavily dependent on export trade with roughly three-quarters of its sales from outside Canada. This dependence on foreign trade is a double-edged sword that often cuts back during times of economic uncertainty. Unfortunately the laid-off Tolko workers know this all too well.
If the Premier really wanted to stabilize jobs in the forestry industry, perhaps rather than bicker about buy-American provisions he should consider implementing similar Buy-Manitoba clauses. If Manitobans were purchasing their wood products from locally derived sources the demand would be less dependent on external factors and therefore more stable. In this way Manitoba's forestry workers, and their loved ones, would be less likely to deal with the financial and emotional hardships created by price-shocks in a boom and bust industry.
Perhaps if we did this we could sustain our boreal ecosystem, protect our Provincial Parks and the woodland Caribou, and secure long-term jobs for our forestry workers at the same time.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
SUBURBAN SPRAWL AT HEART OF WATER DEBATE
Winnipeg, and the surrounding communities, are presently beholden to the same old game of staged ideological political chicken between the city and the province, and unfortunately our water supply (imagine a barrel of water) is set to collide in between. Thus far most of the spectators have gathered just in front of the barrel of water in protest, and they nervously hold their ground as Sam Katz floors his Nissan Quest towards the barrel while screaming at the top of his lungs: “This is not the privatization of our water system, we are searching for strategic partners!” Gary appears less threatening trying to look “green” while idling his Ford Escape Hybrid on the other side of the barrel, but rest assured he is ready to slam on the gas and roar towards the barrel. In fact he is the one who dared Sammy and the city into this game of political chicken in the first place.
Water, literally the lifeblood that sustains virtually all species on the planet, is an emotional subject. It is even more distressing when we consider the fact that, although water is the most abundant substance on the planet, we are using our precious water resources faster that it can replenish itself.
We all know that a man dying of thirst would undoubtedly give his life savings for a cup of fresh water, but would it be morally just to profiteer in such an occasion? None of us want to end up in the predicament of the dehydrated man, which is why the water we drink, like the air that we breathe, is a public good that should remain common to us all. It is not something that should be commodified for the benefit of a few.
Given the stakes then, it is not surprising that citizens are understandably alarmed about the City's proposed replacement of the Waste & Water Department (W & WD) with a Municipal Corporate Utility (MCU) and what that would mean to them and their water bill. Certainly a debate about our water usage and the impacts of our current capital and water intensive sewage system is well over-due, but the current debate is being framed around ideological hyperbole rather than objective analysis on the facts.
The proponents of the MCU need to provide us with more detail, we need more than naked assumptions. They claim that synergies will result in a 1.0%, and 1.5% reduction in costs in the first and second years respectively through purchasing synergies, but they do not specifically outline what these purchasing synergies are. We need details! Provide us with a list what the W & WD presently buys, from whom and for what price, then provide us with some details on how the MCU intends to lower these costs. The MCU model is supposed to be more responsive and thereby more likely to attract private investment. Corporate model, or not, with sewage contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars I do not suspect that it is that difficult to entice private firms to bid on them, and it is not entirely clear why a corporate model is automatically more responsive (other than the right-wing ideological assumption that business can always do everything better).
Entering into a 30 year contract is tantamount to entering into a marriage, it is not a decision that should be taken lightly. Yet in less than a year the City wants to move from the courting process to the altar. Is it wise to marry someone known for less than a year? Could we find a great partner? The “conservative estimates” of 10-15% reduction in costs might be attainable if this is the case. On the other hand, the partnership could be a disaster, as was the case for Hamilton and Atlanta, and we may be left with a hefty divorce tab. Perhaps prudence would dictate that we go back to the drawing board and sketch out a few more details before this motion is rushed through City Council?
Those who oppose the MCU have similarly distorted the facts with an ideological lens. They have incorrectly labelled the debate as the “complete privatization of or water” a “monumental robbery” and a sure fire way to “hike water rates”. To be fair, this is not an accurate reflection of the present MCU proposal, and water rates are already slated to continue to increase regardless. Threats toward privatization of our water supply exist, and it is good that we have an active vanguard of citizens who serve as watchdogs to prevent this from ever occurring; however their ideological viewpoints, and perhaps their party loyalties, have kept them from focusing on the true marionette master who is pulling most of the strings.
As reported by Bartley Kives of the Winnipeg Free Press (WFP) in his article “Debate about water utility not deep enough” notes:
The province... is in love with the utility. Six years after forcing Winnipeg to engage in a $1.8-billion upgrade to waste-water treatment that the city can barely afford, the Doer government will soon be forced to order bedroom communities such as Stonewall and East and West St. Paul to make sewage upgrades of their own.
The Doer government was correct in mandating that municipalities remove Nitrogen and Phosphorous, but this means very little when they provide neither the correct direction nor the adequate funding for municipalities to achieve this objective.
Given the City's present cash-strapped financial situation, and the Mayor's ideological pro-business predilections, should we be surprised the City is presently entertaining the idea of private funders?
The province's “plan” as indicated in their draft Public Land Use Polices (PLUPs) released this past March is to have Winnipeg contract sewage services to neighboring municipalities. Should we be surprised to see the City of Winnipeg follow the direction as recently outlined by the province?
Isn't the city ultimately still dependant on the province to pass a regulation under s. 212 of The Winnipeg Charter to establish the corporation?
Regardless of whether it is performed by the present city-owned Waste & Water Department or a future Corporate Municipal Utility extending sewer services out into Winnipeg's commuter-shed, this is a poorly thought out idea as it will clearly lead to more urban sprawl!
Winnipeg already faces an estimated infrastructure deficit of $7.4 billion and the South End sewage treatment plant is already operating at capacity and due to the population growth (caused by new developments in the South End of Winnipeg like Waverly West), and it will require significant upgrades to accommodate the required volume. Winnipeg already faces the difficult task of managing the competing objectives of rehabilitating the aging infrastructure in the city centre while also incorporating new developments within the perimeter. New developments will undoubtedly bubble up from the sewage infrastructure as it extends out beyond the perimeter, thereby compounding these problems even further.
While both the City and the Province see this as a win-win way for Winnipeg to generate revenue while achieving Nitrogen and Phosphorous removal on schedule, they have clearly not taken the time to look holistically at the larger picture. The corresponding urban sprawl will decrease Winnipeg's population density further and with fewer people to service more infrastructure the obvious result will be a reduction in service, increased taxes, or both. Our city will become even more car dependent resulting in further greenhouse gas emissions, valuable agricultural land will be paved over, and the few remaining wetlands (the kidneys of the planet) which remain on the outskirts of the city will needlessly be drained. In short the revenues do not justify the additional costs.
The framing of the debate as left vs. right, or public control vs. private control misses the deeper issues that lay underneath. As much as this debate is about the public control of our infrastructure, it is perhaps even more about how we intend to design our city in the years to come. At the Mayor`s Environmental Symposium in April of 2009 numerous participants outlined urban sprawl as an issue of concern. We cannot change the sprawl of the past, but we do have the ability to stop the sprawl of the future. The line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. Speak up Winnipeg! And not just to Katz, Doer needs to hear you as well. We only have one barrel of water and it really doesn't matter if Katz or Doer hit the barrel first. If the barrel spills we are all in trouble!
Water, literally the lifeblood that sustains virtually all species on the planet, is an emotional subject. It is even more distressing when we consider the fact that, although water is the most abundant substance on the planet, we are using our precious water resources faster that it can replenish itself.
We all know that a man dying of thirst would undoubtedly give his life savings for a cup of fresh water, but would it be morally just to profiteer in such an occasion? None of us want to end up in the predicament of the dehydrated man, which is why the water we drink, like the air that we breathe, is a public good that should remain common to us all. It is not something that should be commodified for the benefit of a few.
Given the stakes then, it is not surprising that citizens are understandably alarmed about the City's proposed replacement of the Waste & Water Department (W & WD) with a Municipal Corporate Utility (MCU) and what that would mean to them and their water bill. Certainly a debate about our water usage and the impacts of our current capital and water intensive sewage system is well over-due, but the current debate is being framed around ideological hyperbole rather than objective analysis on the facts.
The proponents of the MCU need to provide us with more detail, we need more than naked assumptions. They claim that synergies will result in a 1.0%, and 1.5% reduction in costs in the first and second years respectively through purchasing synergies, but they do not specifically outline what these purchasing synergies are. We need details! Provide us with a list what the W & WD presently buys, from whom and for what price, then provide us with some details on how the MCU intends to lower these costs. The MCU model is supposed to be more responsive and thereby more likely to attract private investment. Corporate model, or not, with sewage contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars I do not suspect that it is that difficult to entice private firms to bid on them, and it is not entirely clear why a corporate model is automatically more responsive (other than the right-wing ideological assumption that business can always do everything better).
Entering into a 30 year contract is tantamount to entering into a marriage, it is not a decision that should be taken lightly. Yet in less than a year the City wants to move from the courting process to the altar. Is it wise to marry someone known for less than a year? Could we find a great partner? The “conservative estimates” of 10-15% reduction in costs might be attainable if this is the case. On the other hand, the partnership could be a disaster, as was the case for Hamilton and Atlanta, and we may be left with a hefty divorce tab. Perhaps prudence would dictate that we go back to the drawing board and sketch out a few more details before this motion is rushed through City Council?
Those who oppose the MCU have similarly distorted the facts with an ideological lens. They have incorrectly labelled the debate as the “complete privatization of or water” a “monumental robbery” and a sure fire way to “hike water rates”. To be fair, this is not an accurate reflection of the present MCU proposal, and water rates are already slated to continue to increase regardless. Threats toward privatization of our water supply exist, and it is good that we have an active vanguard of citizens who serve as watchdogs to prevent this from ever occurring; however their ideological viewpoints, and perhaps their party loyalties, have kept them from focusing on the true marionette master who is pulling most of the strings.
As reported by Bartley Kives of the Winnipeg Free Press (WFP) in his article “Debate about water utility not deep enough” notes:
The province... is in love with the utility. Six years after forcing Winnipeg to engage in a $1.8-billion upgrade to waste-water treatment that the city can barely afford, the Doer government will soon be forced to order bedroom communities such as Stonewall and East and West St. Paul to make sewage upgrades of their own.
The Doer government was correct in mandating that municipalities remove Nitrogen and Phosphorous, but this means very little when they provide neither the correct direction nor the adequate funding for municipalities to achieve this objective.
Given the City's present cash-strapped financial situation, and the Mayor's ideological pro-business predilections, should we be surprised the City is presently entertaining the idea of private funders?
The province's “plan” as indicated in their draft Public Land Use Polices (PLUPs) released this past March is to have Winnipeg contract sewage services to neighboring municipalities. Should we be surprised to see the City of Winnipeg follow the direction as recently outlined by the province?
Isn't the city ultimately still dependant on the province to pass a regulation under s. 212 of The Winnipeg Charter to establish the corporation?
Regardless of whether it is performed by the present city-owned Waste & Water Department or a future Corporate Municipal Utility extending sewer services out into Winnipeg's commuter-shed, this is a poorly thought out idea as it will clearly lead to more urban sprawl!
Winnipeg already faces an estimated infrastructure deficit of $7.4 billion and the South End sewage treatment plant is already operating at capacity and due to the population growth (caused by new developments in the South End of Winnipeg like Waverly West), and it will require significant upgrades to accommodate the required volume. Winnipeg already faces the difficult task of managing the competing objectives of rehabilitating the aging infrastructure in the city centre while also incorporating new developments within the perimeter. New developments will undoubtedly bubble up from the sewage infrastructure as it extends out beyond the perimeter, thereby compounding these problems even further.
While both the City and the Province see this as a win-win way for Winnipeg to generate revenue while achieving Nitrogen and Phosphorous removal on schedule, they have clearly not taken the time to look holistically at the larger picture. The corresponding urban sprawl will decrease Winnipeg's population density further and with fewer people to service more infrastructure the obvious result will be a reduction in service, increased taxes, or both. Our city will become even more car dependent resulting in further greenhouse gas emissions, valuable agricultural land will be paved over, and the few remaining wetlands (the kidneys of the planet) which remain on the outskirts of the city will needlessly be drained. In short the revenues do not justify the additional costs.
The framing of the debate as left vs. right, or public control vs. private control misses the deeper issues that lay underneath. As much as this debate is about the public control of our infrastructure, it is perhaps even more about how we intend to design our city in the years to come. At the Mayor`s Environmental Symposium in April of 2009 numerous participants outlined urban sprawl as an issue of concern. We cannot change the sprawl of the past, but we do have the ability to stop the sprawl of the future. The line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. Speak up Winnipeg! And not just to Katz, Doer needs to hear you as well. We only have one barrel of water and it really doesn't matter if Katz or Doer hit the barrel first. If the barrel spills we are all in trouble!
Monday, June 8, 2009
It is your job to improve bus service!
In the Winnipeg Free Press' June 8th, 2009 article about the Commuter Challenge Councillor Bill Clement comments that, "Anybody that would be thinking clearly would understand very quickly that nobody representing that ward can travel it by bus and do it justice,”; perhaps then Councillor Clement should be working on doing his ward justice by ensuring that they have bus service that can accommodate the needs of all. If bus service is inadequate in his ward, then it is Councillor Clement`s job to see that is improved. This flippant behaviour is simply unacceptable from a elected official from any level of government.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Political Will a Prerequisite to Sustainable Planning
The title from a May 14, 2009 press release from the Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba (PCWM) says it all: "Manitoba’s Proposed Land Use Policies Encourage Urban Sprawl".
(I highly recommend that readers check of the PCWM response at: http://www.mts.net/~pcwm/plup_response.pdf)
In the PCWM response to the PLUP consultation, they quip that "...the March 2009 draft should more accurately be entitled, 'Provincial Infrastructure, Servicing and Land Use Policies' as it moves away from the focus of sustainable land use planning and concentrates more on providing infrastructure and services to low density, scattered 'urban centres', rural residential and cottage development. This will promote urban sprawl, particularly in Winnipeg’s commuter-shed. This direction is unsustainable both environmentally and economically."
Having attended the Provincial Land Use Policies (PLUP) consultation process, held at the Norwood Hotel in Winnipeg, MB on April 27th, my observations were concurrent with those of the PCWM.
In short, these regulations are pure "greenwash". Many green buzz-words are incorporated throughout the 63 page draft, but words do not give this document the strength to promote sustainable land use. It is disingenuous for the NDP to cast about carelessly these buzz-terms, while at the same time promoting the continuation of our car-dependent, water- and energy-intensive infrastructure systems.
First off, the draft regulations are nearly toothless. They are not binding laws but are merely advisory in nature. According to the section entitled "Scope and Application": "The Policies are to be read as a whole and ...are to be applied to the circumstance or consideration." (pg 8).
The only problem is PLUP are so contradictory, however, that they cannot be read as a whole.
Too elaborate I provide two examples: Infrastructure Development and The Mid-Continent Trade Corridor Concept.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The PLUP on "Infrastructure" delineates that "alternative solutions" rather than extending or expanding existing infrastructure should be considered and in particular "demand side management techniques and low impact development" should be utilized (pg 48; PA:6.6 b.).
These policies are then utterly undermined by the mandate to connect both new developments and existing self-sufficient developments to centralized pipe-based wastewater facilities (pg 49; PA6:8).
On one page the PLUP outline that we should not extend or expand our current infrastructure, and on then on the next page they instruct the extension of the same old piped wastewater infrastructure -- which is dependent on continuous quantities of water to maintain the flow and therefore wholly incompatible with demand management techniques.
How are these policy interests to be reconciled with each other?
"The pressure to extend water, sewer, roads, transit and other services and infrastructure will tax these services to an unsustainable degree. It could lead to the demand for major infrastructure expansion such as twinning the aqueduct from Shoal Lake that has a finite water supply. Winnipeg currently has a massive infrastructure deficit. To ask the city to spread its services and infrastructure throughout the region is simply not sustainable nor is it fair to the citizens..." elaborates the PCWM.
MID-CONTINENT TRADE CORRIDOR
The Development Plan By-Laws require various appropriate studies be undertaken and made public before the approval of any new development, including among them studies on "greenhouse gas emissions inventories and forecasts" as well as "climate change vulnerability/risk assessments" (pg. 20; BL: 3. f, g).
Yet the Capital Region is ensured of the 'protection to capitalize upon any identified economic development advantages' including an expanded 24-hour airport and the concept of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor. (pg 62; PA 9: 2).
Yet going back to the By-Laws where are the public studies for the greenhouse gas/climate change impacts of the Mid-Continent Trade Corridor? Clearly the construction alone, let alone the increased air, freight, and rail traffic will caused an increase in emissions.
In the PLUP section on "Agriculture" the preamble states:
"It is expected that rising fuel costs and climate change may place an increased demand on the production and protection of local food sources. Producing food for local consumption reduces food miles traveled and consequently greenhouse gases;" (pg. 31; PA 3).
Given that nearly all goods are transported by our fossil-fuel based transportation system it generally holds true that reducing the miles traveled of all goods in general will consequently reduce greenhouse gases, dependent of course on the method of transportation used.
The concept of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor however is entirely dependent on the notion of transporting goods across the globe. It is also heavily dependent on air travel, which has the heaviest footprint of any form of fossil-fuel based transportation.
So which policy directive is to prevail? The one that calls for planning to reduce greenhouse gases, or the plan to build a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor which is wholly dependent on unsustainable greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuel based transportation infrastructure?
Further to this, Downtown Winnipeg stands to lose the Greyhound Bus Depot and the Post Office Headquarters to the proposed Mid-Continent Trade Corridor. How does this fit in line the PLUP "Settlement Areas" which make a commitment to maximize investment in the downtown (PA 2: 8., 9.)
This is just two examples of how the PLUP often contradict themselves, but how can conflicting policy directives constitute a land use plan. Ultimately political considerations will prevail in the planning process. What is needed, perhaps even more than better planning policies themselves, is the political will from our politicians to commit themselves to a sincere rather than a face-value commitment to sustainable land use planning.
[Note: Draft PLUP can be read at http://www.gov.mb.ca/ia/plups/draft.html or in pdf form at http://www.gov.mb.ca/ia/plups/pdf/draft.pdf. Referenced by page number and policy. -- Eg. (pg 42; PA5: 3.a.) refers to page 42 pdf version; Policy Area 5: directive 3.a.]
(I highly recommend that readers check of the PCWM response at: http://www.mts.net/~pcwm/plup_response.pdf)
In the PCWM response to the PLUP consultation, they quip that "...the March 2009 draft should more accurately be entitled, 'Provincial Infrastructure, Servicing and Land Use Policies' as it moves away from the focus of sustainable land use planning and concentrates more on providing infrastructure and services to low density, scattered 'urban centres', rural residential and cottage development. This will promote urban sprawl, particularly in Winnipeg’s commuter-shed. This direction is unsustainable both environmentally and economically."
Having attended the Provincial Land Use Policies (PLUP) consultation process, held at the Norwood Hotel in Winnipeg, MB on April 27th, my observations were concurrent with those of the PCWM.
In short, these regulations are pure "greenwash". Many green buzz-words are incorporated throughout the 63 page draft, but words do not give this document the strength to promote sustainable land use. It is disingenuous for the NDP to cast about carelessly these buzz-terms, while at the same time promoting the continuation of our car-dependent, water- and energy-intensive infrastructure systems.
First off, the draft regulations are nearly toothless. They are not binding laws but are merely advisory in nature. According to the section entitled "Scope and Application": "The Policies are to be read as a whole and ...are to be applied to the circumstance or consideration." (pg 8).
The only problem is PLUP are so contradictory, however, that they cannot be read as a whole.
Too elaborate I provide two examples: Infrastructure Development and The Mid-Continent Trade Corridor Concept.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The PLUP on "Infrastructure" delineates that "alternative solutions" rather than extending or expanding existing infrastructure should be considered and in particular "demand side management techniques and low impact development" should be utilized (pg 48; PA:6.6 b.).
These policies are then utterly undermined by the mandate to connect both new developments and existing self-sufficient developments to centralized pipe-based wastewater facilities (pg 49; PA6:8).
On one page the PLUP outline that we should not extend or expand our current infrastructure, and on then on the next page they instruct the extension of the same old piped wastewater infrastructure -- which is dependent on continuous quantities of water to maintain the flow and therefore wholly incompatible with demand management techniques.
How are these policy interests to be reconciled with each other?
"The pressure to extend water, sewer, roads, transit and other services and infrastructure will tax these services to an unsustainable degree. It could lead to the demand for major infrastructure expansion such as twinning the aqueduct from Shoal Lake that has a finite water supply. Winnipeg currently has a massive infrastructure deficit. To ask the city to spread its services and infrastructure throughout the region is simply not sustainable nor is it fair to the citizens..." elaborates the PCWM.
MID-CONTINENT TRADE CORRIDOR
The Development Plan By-Laws require various appropriate studies be undertaken and made public before the approval of any new development, including among them studies on "greenhouse gas emissions inventories and forecasts" as well as "climate change vulnerability/risk assessments" (pg. 20; BL: 3. f, g).
Yet the Capital Region is ensured of the 'protection to capitalize upon any identified economic development advantages' including an expanded 24-hour airport and the concept of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor. (pg 62; PA 9: 2).
Yet going back to the By-Laws where are the public studies for the greenhouse gas/climate change impacts of the Mid-Continent Trade Corridor? Clearly the construction alone, let alone the increased air, freight, and rail traffic will caused an increase in emissions.
In the PLUP section on "Agriculture" the preamble states:
"It is expected that rising fuel costs and climate change may place an increased demand on the production and protection of local food sources. Producing food for local consumption reduces food miles traveled and consequently greenhouse gases;" (pg. 31; PA 3).
Given that nearly all goods are transported by our fossil-fuel based transportation system it generally holds true that reducing the miles traveled of all goods in general will consequently reduce greenhouse gases, dependent of course on the method of transportation used.
The concept of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor however is entirely dependent on the notion of transporting goods across the globe. It is also heavily dependent on air travel, which has the heaviest footprint of any form of fossil-fuel based transportation.
So which policy directive is to prevail? The one that calls for planning to reduce greenhouse gases, or the plan to build a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor which is wholly dependent on unsustainable greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuel based transportation infrastructure?
Further to this, Downtown Winnipeg stands to lose the Greyhound Bus Depot and the Post Office Headquarters to the proposed Mid-Continent Trade Corridor. How does this fit in line the PLUP "Settlement Areas" which make a commitment to maximize investment in the downtown (PA 2: 8., 9.)
This is just two examples of how the PLUP often contradict themselves, but how can conflicting policy directives constitute a land use plan. Ultimately political considerations will prevail in the planning process. What is needed, perhaps even more than better planning policies themselves, is the political will from our politicians to commit themselves to a sincere rather than a face-value commitment to sustainable land use planning.
[Note: Draft PLUP can be read at http://www.gov.mb.ca/ia/plups/draft.html or in pdf form at http://www.gov.mb.ca/ia/plups/pdf/draft.pdf. Referenced by page number and policy. -- Eg. (pg 42; PA5: 3.a.) refers to page 42 pdf version; Policy Area 5: directive 3.a.]
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Sugar-Coated Tokenism
It is galling how the "Do-little" NDP government pats itself on the back for small feel-good initiatives. When these initiatives are analyzed in context of the entirety of the government's activities it is clear that the Government is committed to nothing more than tokenism.
Today was the perfect example of this tendency. Conservation Minister Stan Struthers announced, that in collaboration with the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA), the province will be introducing a cell-phone recycling program.
I have no issues with this program on its own accord. It is promising to see the industry taking initiative. When cell phones end up in the land-fill they often leach toxins, and the mining of these metals have considerable environmental impacts.
It should, however, be recognized that cell phones are only one contributor to the province's growing e-waste problem. Nowadays it seems like everybody owns at least one, if not multiple computers, lapbtops, Ipods, television sets, DVD players, Blu Ray players, gaming consoles, and other consumer electronics. Consumer electronics date themselves quickly and within a couple of years they either end up in the landfill, or perhaps stowed away in someone`s closet/garage. Furthermore e-waste is but one part of a larger problem that revolves around our society's flagrantly frivolous production of so-called "waste".
Looking at today's press release on cell-phone recycling in isolation it becomes easy to believe that this government is at the vanguard of the environmental movement, but governments cannot be judged on the basis of a single press release alone. They need to be judged on the sum of their actions.
On Earth Day the government's press releases promised "...to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by up to 20 per cent over the next three years," and Doer pledged $7 million to the Nature Conservancy of Canada to enhance Natural Areas.
$7 million sounds like a substantial investment in our ecosystems, until you consider the fact that the week before the government announced an infrastructure investment in Winnipeg's Inland port of $111 million- that's nearly 16 times the value of the investment in the Nature Conservancy of Canada! Furthermore both the construction and operation of the proposed CentrePort port are likely to cause an increase in GHG emissions.
The Province has been bolstering the CentrePort Canada Corporation as a way to "develop Manitoba's economy". The idea is to turn Winnipeg into a so-called "inland port" whereby Winnipeg will be a worldwide centre of distribution. Such a plan is heavily reliant on the idea of increased international trade, and in particular a continuation and expansion of our current practices of needlessly shipping products around the world by plane and truck.
Apparently the government never read the memo that our current methods of transporting freight with fossil-fuels is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
Transportation is Manitoba's largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), creating 37% of the roughly 20 megatonnes of GHGs that Manitoba produces each year. It logically follows that promoting more international freight transport will further increase our GHG emissions.
The inland port concept is heavily dependent on the construction of a new airport and new roads. Has the government even considered the effects of such a massive construction project on the province's GHG emissions?
According to a 2001 study in The Annual Review of Energy and the Environment every tonne of concrete produced in North America creates 242 kg of Carbon emissions, and this does not include "...the CO2 emissions attributable to mobile equipment used for mining of raw material, used for transport of raw material and cement, and used on the plant site." In his recent book Heat, George Monbiot argues, "It is probably fair to say that a tonne of cement produces about a tonne of carbon dioxide.”
Clearly just the construction alone will be very taxing on Manitoba's atmosphere.
Air travel is also one of the fastest growing areas of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the David Suzuki Foundation "...since 1990, CO2 emissions from international aviation have increased 83%." Yet, in their most recent budget the government reduced the aviation fuel tax for domestic cargo flights and expanded their aviation fuel tax exemption for international cargo flights.
We are already proposing to spend billions of dollars on CentrePort. Why do we feel that it is prudent to deny Manitobans the tax revenue generated from international cargo flights to encourage aviation freight in spite of the clearly apparent ecological costs?
This government is baking a toxic cake, but because they have put some green icing on the outside, they want Manitoban's to believe that they can have their cake and eat it too. Hopefully we are smart enough to quit swallowing the Province's sugar-coated nonsense, because the more we eat, the worse it is for Manitoba in the long run.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/air_travel.asp
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.26.1.303 (subscription required)
http://www.gov.mb.ca/stem/climate/mb_doing.html
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=&item=5777
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2009-4-01&item=5703
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2009-4-01&item=5699
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2009-4-01&item=5665
Today was the perfect example of this tendency. Conservation Minister Stan Struthers announced, that in collaboration with the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA), the province will be introducing a cell-phone recycling program.
I have no issues with this program on its own accord. It is promising to see the industry taking initiative. When cell phones end up in the land-fill they often leach toxins, and the mining of these metals have considerable environmental impacts.
It should, however, be recognized that cell phones are only one contributor to the province's growing e-waste problem. Nowadays it seems like everybody owns at least one, if not multiple computers, lapbtops, Ipods, television sets, DVD players, Blu Ray players, gaming consoles, and other consumer electronics. Consumer electronics date themselves quickly and within a couple of years they either end up in the landfill, or perhaps stowed away in someone`s closet/garage. Furthermore e-waste is but one part of a larger problem that revolves around our society's flagrantly frivolous production of so-called "waste".
Looking at today's press release on cell-phone recycling in isolation it becomes easy to believe that this government is at the vanguard of the environmental movement, but governments cannot be judged on the basis of a single press release alone. They need to be judged on the sum of their actions.
On Earth Day the government's press releases promised "...to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by up to 20 per cent over the next three years," and Doer pledged $7 million to the Nature Conservancy of Canada to enhance Natural Areas.
$7 million sounds like a substantial investment in our ecosystems, until you consider the fact that the week before the government announced an infrastructure investment in Winnipeg's Inland port of $111 million- that's nearly 16 times the value of the investment in the Nature Conservancy of Canada! Furthermore both the construction and operation of the proposed CentrePort port are likely to cause an increase in GHG emissions.
The Province has been bolstering the CentrePort Canada Corporation as a way to "develop Manitoba's economy". The idea is to turn Winnipeg into a so-called "inland port" whereby Winnipeg will be a worldwide centre of distribution. Such a plan is heavily reliant on the idea of increased international trade, and in particular a continuation and expansion of our current practices of needlessly shipping products around the world by plane and truck.
Apparently the government never read the memo that our current methods of transporting freight with fossil-fuels is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
Transportation is Manitoba's largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), creating 37% of the roughly 20 megatonnes of GHGs that Manitoba produces each year. It logically follows that promoting more international freight transport will further increase our GHG emissions.
The inland port concept is heavily dependent on the construction of a new airport and new roads. Has the government even considered the effects of such a massive construction project on the province's GHG emissions?
According to a 2001 study in The Annual Review of Energy and the Environment every tonne of concrete produced in North America creates 242 kg of Carbon emissions, and this does not include "...the CO2 emissions attributable to mobile equipment used for mining of raw material, used for transport of raw material and cement, and used on the plant site." In his recent book Heat, George Monbiot argues, "It is probably fair to say that a tonne of cement produces about a tonne of carbon dioxide.”
Clearly just the construction alone will be very taxing on Manitoba's atmosphere.
Air travel is also one of the fastest growing areas of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the David Suzuki Foundation "...since 1990, CO2 emissions from international aviation have increased 83%." Yet, in their most recent budget the government reduced the aviation fuel tax for domestic cargo flights and expanded their aviation fuel tax exemption for international cargo flights.
We are already proposing to spend billions of dollars on CentrePort. Why do we feel that it is prudent to deny Manitobans the tax revenue generated from international cargo flights to encourage aviation freight in spite of the clearly apparent ecological costs?
This government is baking a toxic cake, but because they have put some green icing on the outside, they want Manitoban's to believe that they can have their cake and eat it too. Hopefully we are smart enough to quit swallowing the Province's sugar-coated nonsense, because the more we eat, the worse it is for Manitoba in the long run.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/air_travel.asp
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.26.1.303 (subscription required)
http://www.gov.mb.ca/stem/climate/mb_doing.html
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=&item=5777
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2009-4-01&item=5703
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2009-4-01&item=5699
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2009-4-01&item=5665
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Celebrating St. Patrick's Day with the Cyclists!
I attended the Bike To The Future's (BTTF) open-house on the Disraeli cycling/pedestrian crossing on St. Patricks's day. I was surprised that none of the other Elmwood candidates attended, since the Disraeli Bridge Rehabilitation has been such a hot topic of the campaign. I suppose that active transportation is really not on their radar. It seems that most of the talk on the Disraeli bridge has centered around personal vehicular traffic. I am merely speculating here, but my understanding is that the other three candidates typically commute by car, which explains why they might be less empathetic to cyclists, pedestrians, or bus riders (read my previous post below "Politicians: Priorities Please!" or "Time for Politicians to take the bus?" for further opinion) .
It is unfortunate that the candidates missed this meeting because the one presenter hit the exact problem underlying the Disraeli Bridge closure right on the head, stating: "There is no coherent plan to decrease the amount of traffic going over the Disraeli Bridge."
It is not that I do not sympathize with the inconvenience that any bridge closure will cause (regardless of whether that is a full or a partial closure). Nobody likes to be stuck in traffic, whether you are in a car, on a bus, or on your bike. As a business owner myself I can sympathize with the business owners in the area who will more than see a decline in there profits. I know how hard fluctuations in income can be for entrepreneurs and business people.
Having knocked on the doors of many residents of Elmwood I am keenly aware how upset and divided the residents of Elmwood are about this issue! It is clear that the less time the bridge is ultimately closed the better it will be. Right now the City of Winnipeg is in the process of receiving proposals for the project, which will include details such as whether an attached or separate pedestrian bridge will be built, how long the bridge will be closed and whether this will be a full or partial closure. One of the interesting things that came from the meeting is how fast the entire process is moving and therefore how little time is allowed for public discussion from the residents of Elmwood, other surrounding communities and concerned groups. While this is ultimately a civic issue, it seems to me that the decision-making process should be opened up to the public, especially the people of Elmwood so that the community can choose the repair tender that best meets their needs.
Unlike the other candidates I do not think that adding more lanes for automobile traffic is the cure This is nothing more than a temporary treatment that will alleviate the pain. Fellow blogger David Watson has a great quote on his blog Waverly West and beyond:
"Adding lanes to solve traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to solve obesity." - Glen Hemistra
The answer is to slim down!
According to Winnipeg Transit, 20% of Winnipeggers travel by bus and 2 buses can replace as many as a hundred cars, thereby reducing traffic congestion by 90%. Therefore if we improved bus frequency and service the transit ridership rate would increase and this would decrease traffic congestion not only during the Disraeli Closure (whether that be a partial or full closure), but beyond as well.
Promoting cycling is another way to slim down traffic congestion. For cyclists and pedestrians the Disraeli Rehabilitation process cannot be completed fast enough as many are looking forward to the new segregated bike lane across the Disraeli. The high pitch of the Disraeli Bridge and the high speed of traffic on Henderson Highway make the Disraeli Bridge in its present form one of the least bike friendly locations in the city.
It is key to recognize that Winnipeg's active transportation network do not connect to each other, and this historic lack of investment in active transportation is one of the reasons that inhibit people from riding their bikes. Can you imagine if our paved roads suddenly ended and motor vehicles were forced to cross mud paths to get to the next paved road? That is the situation that cyclists currently face.
Cycling and transit need to be our priorities. They should not be merely afterthoughts, to be incorporated if it is convenient to do so. This is exactly why we presently have an incoherent bike infrastructure system across the city. At the BTTF meeting numerous residents from Elmwood and Point Douglas indicated that they would like active transportation crossings at both the Disraeli and Louise bridges. They worry the construction of a Disraeli active transportation corridor will inhibit the conversion of the Louise into an active transportation corridor as well. It is too bad that none of the other candidates were present to hear this concern.
Sources:
http://waverleywest.blogspot.com/
http://myride.winnipegtransit.com/en/inside-transit/interestingtransitfacts/
Authorized by the Official Agent for James Beddome
It is unfortunate that the candidates missed this meeting because the one presenter hit the exact problem underlying the Disraeli Bridge closure right on the head, stating: "There is no coherent plan to decrease the amount of traffic going over the Disraeli Bridge."
It is not that I do not sympathize with the inconvenience that any bridge closure will cause (regardless of whether that is a full or a partial closure). Nobody likes to be stuck in traffic, whether you are in a car, on a bus, or on your bike. As a business owner myself I can sympathize with the business owners in the area who will more than see a decline in there profits. I know how hard fluctuations in income can be for entrepreneurs and business people.
Having knocked on the doors of many residents of Elmwood I am keenly aware how upset and divided the residents of Elmwood are about this issue! It is clear that the less time the bridge is ultimately closed the better it will be. Right now the City of Winnipeg is in the process of receiving proposals for the project, which will include details such as whether an attached or separate pedestrian bridge will be built, how long the bridge will be closed and whether this will be a full or partial closure. One of the interesting things that came from the meeting is how fast the entire process is moving and therefore how little time is allowed for public discussion from the residents of Elmwood, other surrounding communities and concerned groups. While this is ultimately a civic issue, it seems to me that the decision-making process should be opened up to the public, especially the people of Elmwood so that the community can choose the repair tender that best meets their needs.
Unlike the other candidates I do not think that adding more lanes for automobile traffic is the cure This is nothing more than a temporary treatment that will alleviate the pain. Fellow blogger David Watson has a great quote on his blog Waverly West and beyond:
"Adding lanes to solve traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to solve obesity." - Glen Hemistra
The answer is to slim down!
According to Winnipeg Transit, 20% of Winnipeggers travel by bus and 2 buses can replace as many as a hundred cars, thereby reducing traffic congestion by 90%. Therefore if we improved bus frequency and service the transit ridership rate would increase and this would decrease traffic congestion not only during the Disraeli Closure (whether that be a partial or full closure), but beyond as well.
Promoting cycling is another way to slim down traffic congestion. For cyclists and pedestrians the Disraeli Rehabilitation process cannot be completed fast enough as many are looking forward to the new segregated bike lane across the Disraeli. The high pitch of the Disraeli Bridge and the high speed of traffic on Henderson Highway make the Disraeli Bridge in its present form one of the least bike friendly locations in the city.
It is key to recognize that Winnipeg's active transportation network do not connect to each other, and this historic lack of investment in active transportation is one of the reasons that inhibit people from riding their bikes. Can you imagine if our paved roads suddenly ended and motor vehicles were forced to cross mud paths to get to the next paved road? That is the situation that cyclists currently face.
Cycling and transit need to be our priorities. They should not be merely afterthoughts, to be incorporated if it is convenient to do so. This is exactly why we presently have an incoherent bike infrastructure system across the city. At the BTTF meeting numerous residents from Elmwood and Point Douglas indicated that they would like active transportation crossings at both the Disraeli and Louise bridges. They worry the construction of a Disraeli active transportation corridor will inhibit the conversion of the Louise into an active transportation corridor as well. It is too bad that none of the other candidates were present to hear this concern.
Sources:
http://waverleywest.blogspot.com/
http://myride.winnipegtransit.com/en/inside-transit/interestingtransitfacts/
Authorized by the Official Agent for James Beddome
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The NDP may try to appear to be green, but we can all smell the VOC's blowing out the back-door!
The Green Party of Manitoba (GPM)--and in fact all Manitobans--scored a partial victory with the provinces March 16th decision to have the Clean Environment Commission (CEC) review Louisiana Pacific's (LP) license change request. Now I am not saying that the GPM letter which you can read at: http://greenparty.mb.ca/pdf/pr/20090302.pdf, was the the sole reason for this application being reviewed. There were many individuals and many organizations which sent in letters in opposition to this request, but it does go to show the NDP Government's supposed concern for the environment is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Fifteen years ago, then Leader of the Opposition Gary Doer was instrumental in having the RTO installed, flash forward fifteen years and this government was trying to slip an application to shut-down the RTO through the back-door when nobody was looking because the global economic recession was hurting the lumber industry. Apparently the NDP has forgotten where they came from. Apparently this government has still not grasped the concept that the environment and the economy are inextricably linked. A few dollars of economic activity is not worth the cost of comprising our clean water and fresh air.
This is only a partial victory. It should be a no-brainer but the CEC will want substantive proof as to why the RTO should not be shut-down. While LP has the money to pay for experts to argue their case for them, the ecosystems that sustain us have no legal standing and no bank account, this means that the public must speak up on behalf of these ecosystems. I would encourage all citizens to present on this issue to the CEC, or lend your expertise to the GPM we will certainly be presenting to the CEC!
You can contact me directly at: leader@greenparty.mb.ca
For more information:
http://earthkeeperfarm.blogspot.com/2009/03/louisiana-pacific-takes-pollution.html
http://thegreenpages.ca/portal/mb/2009/03/louisiana_pacific_seeks_to_dec.html
http://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/press/top/2009/03/2009-03-16-110400-5435.html
Authorized by the official agent for James Beddome
This is only a partial victory. It should be a no-brainer but the CEC will want substantive proof as to why the RTO should not be shut-down. While LP has the money to pay for experts to argue their case for them, the ecosystems that sustain us have no legal standing and no bank account, this means that the public must speak up on behalf of these ecosystems. I would encourage all citizens to present on this issue to the CEC, or lend your expertise to the GPM we will certainly be presenting to the CEC!
You can contact me directly at: leader@greenparty.mb.ca
For more information:
http://earthkeeperfarm.blogspot.com/2009/03/louisiana-pacific-takes-pollution.html
http://thegreenpages.ca/portal/mb/2009/03/louisiana_pacific_seeks_to_dec.html
http://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/press/top/2009/03/2009-03-16-110400-5435.html
Authorized by the official agent for James Beddome
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Politicians: Priorities Please!
So much of the Elmwood by-election campaign has focused on the Disraeli Bridge. One candidate campaigns on plans to spend an untenable amount of money to keep the bridge open, and the next one foolishly follows his lead--even making it his campaign slogan. The tired old politician finally wakes up midway through the campaign and issues a statement that mimics all candidates position without really saying anything at all. Why has this been the centrepoint of the debate?
The bridge is but a symptom of the real problem: poor city planning and traffic congestion.
No matter how we deal with this situation, traffic interruption will be the result. If the bridge is partially closed down, traffic will actually be congested for a longer period of time. If we twin the Louise bridge, congestion will undoutedly ensue during that construction. In the meantime we risk a catastrophe like the one witnessed in Minneapolis! Perhaps we should step back and start to examine the root causes.
This is where the Green Party of Manitoba (GPM) comes in! If the bus came by your front door step every two minutes would you consider leaving the car at home? What if you had ample room to read or relax? What if the bus had wireless internet connection? These are not impossible aims, all that is required is the political will.
The province presently gives Winnipeg Transit a mere $24 million per year under its 50/50 cost sharing operating grant. WE CAN DO BETTER! The province is spending $13 million on the Kenaston underpass and $8 building roads to a new IKEA store---meanwhile in Elmwood the streets are riddled with potholes and there is atleast one bridge that is falling down, my fair lady-- perhaps we should quit building new neighborhoods and focus investment on older neighborhoods like Elmwood.
The people of Elmwood know this better than most. They have seen the small independent corner store displaced by the new suburban box stores--all too often with the help of public money. They have seen the increased traffic run through their neighbhorhood as the suburban development has expanded in North Winnipeg.
A politician's job is to provide direction and set priorities. We are quite literally expected to anticipate the future. The other candidates were nearly condoning speeding earlier in the campaign, one even admitted to getting a speeding ticket, and the other thought that speeding tickets were about raising revenue rather than protecting public safety. Shortly, thereafter a car ran into a house just off of Henderson Highway. Are these the people that you want to leave in charge of protecting you? Your children and loved ones?
This campaign is about the political will to move us in the right direction. Is the Disraeli Bridge really our top priority? What about the children in Elmwood who go to bed hungry every night? What about the Elmwood residents who do not feel safe in their own neighborhoods? What about residents that lack adequate health care service? What about the parents that can't find suitable daycare arrangements? What about the state of our lakes and waterways? What about the perilous future of our planet?
James Beddome
Elmwood Candidate &
Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba
Authorized by the official agent
The bridge is but a symptom of the real problem: poor city planning and traffic congestion.
No matter how we deal with this situation, traffic interruption will be the result. If the bridge is partially closed down, traffic will actually be congested for a longer period of time. If we twin the Louise bridge, congestion will undoutedly ensue during that construction. In the meantime we risk a catastrophe like the one witnessed in Minneapolis! Perhaps we should step back and start to examine the root causes.
This is where the Green Party of Manitoba (GPM) comes in! If the bus came by your front door step every two minutes would you consider leaving the car at home? What if you had ample room to read or relax? What if the bus had wireless internet connection? These are not impossible aims, all that is required is the political will.
The province presently gives Winnipeg Transit a mere $24 million per year under its 50/50 cost sharing operating grant. WE CAN DO BETTER! The province is spending $13 million on the Kenaston underpass and $8 building roads to a new IKEA store---meanwhile in Elmwood the streets are riddled with potholes and there is atleast one bridge that is falling down, my fair lady-- perhaps we should quit building new neighborhoods and focus investment on older neighborhoods like Elmwood.
The people of Elmwood know this better than most. They have seen the small independent corner store displaced by the new suburban box stores--all too often with the help of public money. They have seen the increased traffic run through their neighbhorhood as the suburban development has expanded in North Winnipeg.
A politician's job is to provide direction and set priorities. We are quite literally expected to anticipate the future. The other candidates were nearly condoning speeding earlier in the campaign, one even admitted to getting a speeding ticket, and the other thought that speeding tickets were about raising revenue rather than protecting public safety. Shortly, thereafter a car ran into a house just off of Henderson Highway. Are these the people that you want to leave in charge of protecting you? Your children and loved ones?
This campaign is about the political will to move us in the right direction. Is the Disraeli Bridge really our top priority? What about the children in Elmwood who go to bed hungry every night? What about the Elmwood residents who do not feel safe in their own neighborhoods? What about residents that lack adequate health care service? What about the parents that can't find suitable daycare arrangements? What about the state of our lakes and waterways? What about the perilous future of our planet?
James Beddome
Elmwood Candidate &
Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba
Authorized by the official agent
Friday, January 9, 2009
Where is Manitoba on Wind Energy?
Why does this province promote hydro-electric energy at the expense of wind energy?
We wait on the sidelines to see if Australian mega-firm Babcock and Brown can pony up the $800 million to make the long awaited 300 megawatt (MW) wind farm in St. Joseph a reality, but we have no problem with our Crown Corporation taking on $18 billion dollars in debt on our behalf in addition to its nearly $7 billion of the province's $18 billion debt.
Yet, wind is cheaper than hydro! Wuskatim (generating capacity 200MW) is estimated to cost the government $1.6 billion. At $800 million for 300 MW, the St. Joseph wind farm will have more generating capacity for less capital investment.
Though hydro typically operates closer to peak generating capacity, it is not without its own costs. For instance, there are the costs of transporting the electricity to market. But more importantly, there are the ecological costs: undrinkable water, shoreline erosion, rapidly fluctuating water levels and habitat disruption. A full ecological cumulative-impact assessment of the hydroelectric dams built has never been conducted.
If hydro is so "green", why did Minnesota make its power purchase agreement conditional on Manitoba Hydro reporting how it conducts itself regarding its treatment of indigenous people and the ecological impacts of the dams? Worse yet, why did Doer and his team lobby to have the bill removed after Manitoba Hydro failed to comply with the reporting requirements?
Hydro has shown a distaste for transparency when it comes to releasing the report on the Forks Wind Power study. It seems clear that its strategy seems to be full steam ahead with hydro at any cost, while wind farm developers are needlessly buffeted by an arduous application process. Manitoba Hydro received more than 84 wind farm proposals, but only one was selected.
Why doesn't Manitoba institute a net-metering program like the one already in place in Ontario? Customers generating their own renewable electricity receive credit for any electricity that they put back into the grid. In this way the citizens of Manitoba can decide for themselves if the installation of a solar panel on their roof, or a wind turbine in their field is worthwhile.
The RM of Elton (North of Brandon), for example, has already formed the Elton Energy Co-op with the hope of producing truly clean power for the local people. This municipality, like the rest of Manitoba, are still waiting for the Manitoba Government to make wind power a reality in this province.
James Beddome
Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba
Sources:
http://www.gov.mb.ca/finance/budget08/index.html
http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=renewable.netmetering
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/03/26/minnesota-hydro.html?ref=rss
http://jimmycotton.blogspot.com/2008/12/government-of-manitoba-says-forks-wind.html
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2008-11-01&item=4795
http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wind-farms/index.html
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2007-2-01&item=1103
We wait on the sidelines to see if Australian mega-firm Babcock and Brown can pony up the $800 million to make the long awaited 300 megawatt (MW) wind farm in St. Joseph a reality, but we have no problem with our Crown Corporation taking on $18 billion dollars in debt on our behalf in addition to its nearly $7 billion of the province's $18 billion debt.
Yet, wind is cheaper than hydro! Wuskatim (generating capacity 200MW) is estimated to cost the government $1.6 billion. At $800 million for 300 MW, the St. Joseph wind farm will have more generating capacity for less capital investment.
Though hydro typically operates closer to peak generating capacity, it is not without its own costs. For instance, there are the costs of transporting the electricity to market. But more importantly, there are the ecological costs: undrinkable water, shoreline erosion, rapidly fluctuating water levels and habitat disruption. A full ecological cumulative-impact assessment of the hydroelectric dams built has never been conducted.
If hydro is so "green", why did Minnesota make its power purchase agreement conditional on Manitoba Hydro reporting how it conducts itself regarding its treatment of indigenous people and the ecological impacts of the dams? Worse yet, why did Doer and his team lobby to have the bill removed after Manitoba Hydro failed to comply with the reporting requirements?
Hydro has shown a distaste for transparency when it comes to releasing the report on the Forks Wind Power study. It seems clear that its strategy seems to be full steam ahead with hydro at any cost, while wind farm developers are needlessly buffeted by an arduous application process. Manitoba Hydro received more than 84 wind farm proposals, but only one was selected.
Why doesn't Manitoba institute a net-metering program like the one already in place in Ontario? Customers generating their own renewable electricity receive credit for any electricity that they put back into the grid. In this way the citizens of Manitoba can decide for themselves if the installation of a solar panel on their roof, or a wind turbine in their field is worthwhile.
The RM of Elton (North of Brandon), for example, has already formed the Elton Energy Co-op with the hope of producing truly clean power for the local people. This municipality, like the rest of Manitoba, are still waiting for the Manitoba Government to make wind power a reality in this province.
James Beddome
Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba
Sources:
http://www.gov.mb.ca/finance/budget08/index.html
http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=renewable.netmetering
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/03/26/minnesota-hydro.html?ref=rss
http://jimmycotton.blogspot.com/2008/12/government-of-manitoba-says-forks-wind.html
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2008-11-01&item=4795
http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wind-farms/index.html
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2007-2-01&item=1103
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)