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
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
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Time for Politicians to take the bus?
Although I am sure some people do take issue with the idea of being surveilled, I personally do not oppose the installation of cameras on buses (they began installing cameras on buses years ago). I do, however, take real issue with the governments' claim that this will somehow improve transit service within Winnipeg.
Transit has been my primary means of transportation for the seven and a half years that I have lived in Winnipeg, and I have travelled the city extensively on various different routes. I have seen unruly and rambunctious people creating problems while riding on the bus. In these situations, it was not the presence of a camera, but the actions of a fellow bus-rider or bus-driver that resolved the issue. Therefore, I question Vic Toews' assumption that the presence of cameras will “deter potential criminal activity.”, although that footage may be a useful source of evidence for the criminal justice system after the fact. They began adding cameras on buses years ago and for the average bus rider the installation of cameras has had little effect on their transit riding experience; I doubt that adding a few more cameras will make much of a difference.
Yet according to the politicians the installation of the cameras will incite the public to clamber onto the Transit buses, possibly exclaiming: "I'm on T.V.!"
Steve Ashton boasted this was part of "...the province’s vision for a clean and green economy by providing Manitobans with alternative transportation choices." Likewise Gord Steeves proclaimed: "With increased ridership, we must continue to improve our existing transit system to capture that increase and provide positive transportation alternatives to our citizens."
Wait a minute guys...I'm a little confused? How does placing cameras on the transit buses already in operation 'provide Manitobans with alternative transportation choices'? If our ridership is increasing, (or if you would like it to increase as part of the plan for a greener Manitoba), would it not be more logical to improve our transit system by running more buses, more frequently, rather than installing more cameras on the buses already in operation?
The key to getting more people to ride the bus is to provide good service at a fair cost. If the buses in Winnipeg had attractive fares and the bus came every five minutes, ridership rates would skyrocket. But all too often bus-riders are stuck waiting in the blistering cold 10-40 minutes for the next ride. I wonder how often Ashton, Steeves, or Toews have faced the daily challenge of waiting for their bus in the deep chill of Winnipeg winter?
Transit has been my primary means of transportation for the seven and a half years that I have lived in Winnipeg, and I have travelled the city extensively on various different routes. I have seen unruly and rambunctious people creating problems while riding on the bus. In these situations, it was not the presence of a camera, but the actions of a fellow bus-rider or bus-driver that resolved the issue. Therefore, I question Vic Toews' assumption that the presence of cameras will “deter potential criminal activity.”, although that footage may be a useful source of evidence for the criminal justice system after the fact. They began adding cameras on buses years ago and for the average bus rider the installation of cameras has had little effect on their transit riding experience; I doubt that adding a few more cameras will make much of a difference.
Yet according to the politicians the installation of the cameras will incite the public to clamber onto the Transit buses, possibly exclaiming: "I'm on T.V.!"
Steve Ashton boasted this was part of "...the province’s vision for a clean and green economy by providing Manitobans with alternative transportation choices." Likewise Gord Steeves proclaimed: "With increased ridership, we must continue to improve our existing transit system to capture that increase and provide positive transportation alternatives to our citizens."
Wait a minute guys...I'm a little confused? How does placing cameras on the transit buses already in operation 'provide Manitobans with alternative transportation choices'? If our ridership is increasing, (or if you would like it to increase as part of the plan for a greener Manitoba), would it not be more logical to improve our transit system by running more buses, more frequently, rather than installing more cameras on the buses already in operation?
The key to getting more people to ride the bus is to provide good service at a fair cost. If the buses in Winnipeg had attractive fares and the bus came every five minutes, ridership rates would skyrocket. But all too often bus-riders are stuck waiting in the blistering cold 10-40 minutes for the next ride. I wonder how often Ashton, Steeves, or Toews have faced the daily challenge of waiting for their bus in the deep chill of Winnipeg winter?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)