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.]
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)