My mind isn't necessarily blank, but more or less a mashing of thoughts, all of which I can't put my finger on to write something coherant.
I suppose they all come together at one point. Today I was thinking about how much land there is...area wise...that is untouched and unaffected by human activities. I'm sure pretty much all of the United States is affected...A lot of Canada too. Very few places.
Just think about that...it's quite overwhelming. Any area that is "affected" might include a park that seems as if it's unaffected, but just from the proximity to a city (or something similar) or maybe there is activity going around this hypothetical park. At any rate, any large animal that requires a lot of land, would be removed from this system.
An example would be Assiniboine Forest here in Winnipeg, where, surrounded by the city and houses and highways and shopping malls, seems like an oasis at first. It is a large tract of land...but is devoid of major predators and other animals that require lots of land.
This is how we are affecting the earth. We are quite literally changing the way the world works. We're changing patterns of how things interact and work with each other.
The world only seems like a big place.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Wind Farms
This post more or less about a Wind Farm project in Scotland, featuring a whopping 18o wind turbines, that upon massive opposition to their construction, will most likely be a kaiboshed project.
Now I'm not here to say that wind farms are bad, or good. They can be good, and they can be bad. They must be VERY carefully planned. There are many issues at stake. Local residents will oppose the sight and noise of these things, migratory paths of birds will be disrupted, the land will be affected by the construction of these giant things.
In Scotland's case, they were to be built on top a wetland. Actually, they were to be built on an island of Scotland, on top of a wetland. The wetland dissapears, all unique wildlife with it dissapears. The land use changes, that affects things. Clearly, five thousand residents who complained are affected.
And all the politicians, and energy company people can say, is how it will boost the economy, create jobs.
Let's step back and see what we can learn from their mistake.
The people of these islands are clearly, CLEARLY, opposed. Obviously for good reason. They don't want to see their island turned into a generating station! Of course they will oppose that, and prefer the alternative, which is less "economic development" and just simply leaving their land and island alone. Leaving it alone. What a phenomenal concept.
Let's see what a local counselor had to say: "They must make it clear what their vision is for the islands. Are we to become an environmental museum? Is any development at all to be allowed in the Western Isles?" - Angus Campbell, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (similar to a counselor.)
Well well.
This is the state of almost all politics at all levels of government. About "development." Creating jobs. That the construction of the wind farm will have but a negligible impact on the surrounding local environment. It happens here in Manitoba...just see the story on the construction of BiPole III.
To say something like "are we to become an environmental museum?" just about brings me to total rage. Especially in this day and age. This counselor would have been a local hero if he SUPPORTED the opposition to the wind farm.
It's time we stop messing with what hasn't been touched. Open, untouched land, cannot be looked upon as something to "develop" anymore. It needs to be left alone. The Western Isles of Scotland, just the same as the Boreal Forest of Manitoba, need to be set aside as "environmental museums." If you don't, they'll be squandered for energy projects or other such things high up in a political agenda, and there won't be any more land available for an "environmental museum" when somebody actually wants to make one.
Let's start protecting areas like this instead of looking upon them with dollar signs and cash registers ringing off in our eyes. We can "develop" other areas, things that have already been developed and can thus improve upon them...isn't this what development means? Taking something pristine and bulldozing it is not "development" anymore. That isn't improving anything, except for the size of somebody's pocket book.
Kudos to the people of the Western Isles in Scotland for opposing such a massive project. It's more important to leave land like this the way it is. Let's hope more people realize this sooner rather than later.
Now I'm not here to say that wind farms are bad, or good. They can be good, and they can be bad. They must be VERY carefully planned. There are many issues at stake. Local residents will oppose the sight and noise of these things, migratory paths of birds will be disrupted, the land will be affected by the construction of these giant things.
In Scotland's case, they were to be built on top a wetland. Actually, they were to be built on an island of Scotland, on top of a wetland. The wetland dissapears, all unique wildlife with it dissapears. The land use changes, that affects things. Clearly, five thousand residents who complained are affected.
And all the politicians, and energy company people can say, is how it will boost the economy, create jobs.
Let's step back and see what we can learn from their mistake.
The people of these islands are clearly, CLEARLY, opposed. Obviously for good reason. They don't want to see their island turned into a generating station! Of course they will oppose that, and prefer the alternative, which is less "economic development" and just simply leaving their land and island alone. Leaving it alone. What a phenomenal concept.
Let's see what a local counselor had to say: "They must make it clear what their vision is for the islands. Are we to become an environmental museum? Is any development at all to be allowed in the Western Isles?" - Angus Campbell, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (similar to a counselor.)
Well well.
This is the state of almost all politics at all levels of government. About "development." Creating jobs. That the construction of the wind farm will have but a negligible impact on the surrounding local environment. It happens here in Manitoba...just see the story on the construction of BiPole III.
To say something like "are we to become an environmental museum?" just about brings me to total rage. Especially in this day and age. This counselor would have been a local hero if he SUPPORTED the opposition to the wind farm.
It's time we stop messing with what hasn't been touched. Open, untouched land, cannot be looked upon as something to "develop" anymore. It needs to be left alone. The Western Isles of Scotland, just the same as the Boreal Forest of Manitoba, need to be set aside as "environmental museums." If you don't, they'll be squandered for energy projects or other such things high up in a political agenda, and there won't be any more land available for an "environmental museum" when somebody actually wants to make one.
Let's start protecting areas like this instead of looking upon them with dollar signs and cash registers ringing off in our eyes. We can "develop" other areas, things that have already been developed and can thus improve upon them...isn't this what development means? Taking something pristine and bulldozing it is not "development" anymore. That isn't improving anything, except for the size of somebody's pocket book.
Kudos to the people of the Western Isles in Scotland for opposing such a massive project. It's more important to leave land like this the way it is. Let's hope more people realize this sooner rather than later.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Suburbia. Again.
Yet another bit on suburbs. And why they don't make ANY sense. Take a look at these statistics from Stats Canada.
And how is this all related?
As amount of population in suburbia increases, car useage increases. Bus ridership goes down. Everything else goes down. But car useage goes up.
And just think of all those wonderful suburbs we have going up! Waverly West. There's some in East St Paul, Headingly, West St Paul. On Lagimodiere, by Grassie and also by Bishop. Nevermind Mr Pat Martin, who thinks ripping the rail yards out to put, yes, yet another suburb in, would be a good idea.
And the striking part? OUR POPULATION ISNT INCREASING THAT MUCH! So where do these people come from? Nowhere? At any rate, each household produces at LEAST one extra car on the road. Per day. This has huge consequences. Let's think about some of them.
Impact on the land? We're replacing farming fields with concrete and Kentucky Bluegrass. The average household is a water consumption machine. East St Paul has already been fighting with the province, to approve the use of a second aquifer for it's water needs. All because of developing suburbs. I'm not even convinced the actual amount of water each person uses increases, it's just that everyone wants to water their fucking lawn.
I mean, this just doesn't make sense any more. I was taught, in school, and still am to this day, about sustainability. This is not sustainable in any way, shape, or form. With suburbs come Wal-Marts and Home Depots. How do you get there? You drive. And where do these things go? That attract thousands of people a day? THE SUBURBS!!!!
So here we are in Winnipeg. And we have counsellors, mayors, all kinds of politicians, we have the public and we have the media, all seem to be wondering, how do we "revitalize" our downtown?
We aren't HELPING it! By building suburbs, just as car useage increases, amount of people who go downtown for things decreases. I'm going to go out on limb and say proportionally. It just, doesn't make sense, to drive downtown and park, when all of your conveniences are a 5-10 minute car ride away. Oh that includes restaurants by the way, with the franchises going up that people oh-so-dearly love.
And they say "well theres nothing to do downtown." That's because NOBODY LIVES THERE!
We come to this issue month in and month out it seems. Well, this is just proof guys, I'm sorry to say. You want to go downtown and have a good time? Can't do that here. Not in Winnipeg. You have to go to Vancouver or Montreal for that.
We DID have some promising news this past summer, when somebody wanted to build an apartment building behind the remains of the Upper Fort. Oh, but, that made too much sense, and nobody even read the fucking newspaper article, all they read was the first paragraph. Then everybody rose in anger, you can't destroy the fort! Ah, but like I said, nobody who was involved in kaiboshing this wonderful plan seemed to understand that NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN TO IT!
Here in Winnipeg, we impede progress. We make it hard for ourselves, and we make our downtown area slip further and further and further away into abyss.
In 20 or 30 years, the infastructure of these suburbs will need major repair. Who knows what the price of gas will be in a couple decades. Will it still be feasible to drive your car everywhere? Will you wish you had a bus route to your suburban house? Would you sell your car to buy a (probably) even more expensive hydrogen one, so you can continue your lifestyle?
Would you rather have a lively downtown, with plenty of unique restaurants and pubs and events every day?
It's one or the other. At Winnipeg's suburban development pace, you can't have both.
And how is this all related?
As amount of population in suburbia increases, car useage increases. Bus ridership goes down. Everything else goes down. But car useage goes up.
And just think of all those wonderful suburbs we have going up! Waverly West. There's some in East St Paul, Headingly, West St Paul. On Lagimodiere, by Grassie and also by Bishop. Nevermind Mr Pat Martin, who thinks ripping the rail yards out to put, yes, yet another suburb in, would be a good idea.
And the striking part? OUR POPULATION ISNT INCREASING THAT MUCH! So where do these people come from? Nowhere? At any rate, each household produces at LEAST one extra car on the road. Per day. This has huge consequences. Let's think about some of them.
Impact on the land? We're replacing farming fields with concrete and Kentucky Bluegrass. The average household is a water consumption machine. East St Paul has already been fighting with the province, to approve the use of a second aquifer for it's water needs. All because of developing suburbs. I'm not even convinced the actual amount of water each person uses increases, it's just that everyone wants to water their fucking lawn.
I mean, this just doesn't make sense any more. I was taught, in school, and still am to this day, about sustainability. This is not sustainable in any way, shape, or form. With suburbs come Wal-Marts and Home Depots. How do you get there? You drive. And where do these things go? That attract thousands of people a day? THE SUBURBS!!!!
So here we are in Winnipeg. And we have counsellors, mayors, all kinds of politicians, we have the public and we have the media, all seem to be wondering, how do we "revitalize" our downtown?
We aren't HELPING it! By building suburbs, just as car useage increases, amount of people who go downtown for things decreases. I'm going to go out on limb and say proportionally. It just, doesn't make sense, to drive downtown and park, when all of your conveniences are a 5-10 minute car ride away. Oh that includes restaurants by the way, with the franchises going up that people oh-so-dearly love.
And they say "well theres nothing to do downtown." That's because NOBODY LIVES THERE!
We come to this issue month in and month out it seems. Well, this is just proof guys, I'm sorry to say. You want to go downtown and have a good time? Can't do that here. Not in Winnipeg. You have to go to Vancouver or Montreal for that.
We DID have some promising news this past summer, when somebody wanted to build an apartment building behind the remains of the Upper Fort. Oh, but, that made too much sense, and nobody even read the fucking newspaper article, all they read was the first paragraph. Then everybody rose in anger, you can't destroy the fort! Ah, but like I said, nobody who was involved in kaiboshing this wonderful plan seemed to understand that NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN TO IT!
Here in Winnipeg, we impede progress. We make it hard for ourselves, and we make our downtown area slip further and further and further away into abyss.
In 20 or 30 years, the infastructure of these suburbs will need major repair. Who knows what the price of gas will be in a couple decades. Will it still be feasible to drive your car everywhere? Will you wish you had a bus route to your suburban house? Would you sell your car to buy a (probably) even more expensive hydrogen one, so you can continue your lifestyle?
Would you rather have a lively downtown, with plenty of unique restaurants and pubs and events every day?
It's one or the other. At Winnipeg's suburban development pace, you can't have both.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Just Think....
Man. My "meteorologist" "friend's" comments are still pissing me off. Might be good for the economy. Well, let's take a look at what this will mean globally, economically.
Water...well well. Yes, water tops the list, hands down. Why? Because there won't be any increase in the amount of fresh, drinkable water if all the ice melts. Most of that will go to the sea, ocean water. As population increases we pollute more and more of our precious fresh water resources. Suburbia drains well water to water their lawns instead of drink it. Suburbia uses a fuckton of water. Too much to be "sustainable." As if that term has any meaning any more. So, how will water shortage affect the economy? Certainly not positively! Think of all that money government will have to spend to ensure communities have drinkable water.
Superbugs. Oh yes, the superbugs. Granted not REALLY affected by climate change. But we made them, nobody can dispute that. How are we going to fight these things? They end up in our livestock, in our hospitals. How will we fight them? Certainly not with...
Medicinal plants. Which face the unprecedented threat of extinction. Rainforest deforestation is no doubt taking with it plants that may have the cure to major diseases. No doubt some have already gone extinct that were medically priceless. Climate change threatens these forests. Can you put a price on health? Combine this one with water. Yeah, future doesn't look bright.
Deforestation. Climate change good for the economy? Not for Canada's Boreal Forest, threatened by the Pine Beetle which, due to a slightly longer season can juuuuuust baaaarely fit in two lifecylces instead of one. We're supposed to be conserving our Boreal Forest. All of that is of course though, lost to the unstoppable force of the Pine Beetle. How will the government compensate the forest sector? Instead of producing wood, Canada will be importing wood. Jobs will be lost, logging companies will fold. Yeah last time I checked, that wasn't too good.
Coastal Cities. How much will it cost to ensure that Vancouver doesn't go under water? Or New York City? Los Angeles? Billions. If of course, that's even possible. What can you do? Build a 5 metre dike all the way around Vancouver Island and the coast of BC? Unlikely. That's just in Canada. What about the Indo-Pacific? The countless volcanic islands, just poking above sea level. Islands that are home to uniqe, endemic plant and animal species. Why is that important again? See the aforementioned medicinal plants.
The North. In Canada, few, but the few still count, people live in the North. In many places, depend on the ground being frozen in order to get around. If it unfreezes? Remeber, effects of climactic change will be felt greatest in the North. In fact, they're already feeling them up there. When the ground melts and turns to mud, how will the government act to make sure these people, with no roads to connect them, get food and supplies? With no ice, there will be no seals. A lot of the wildlife they depend on will dissapear. How much will the government need to invest to ensure they can survive?
All of these compound, and that's GOOD for the economy? Get your head out of your ass! That's billions of dollars every year spent on these few items, and many other, unforeseeable ones. That's billions spent, instead of spent on social programs, and investing in growth and development. Lost potential.
The funny thing is, there is money and capital in developing "green" businesses and technology. Instead of being behind, you can be a front runner. But no country really seems to be doing that. Are we waiting for the inevitable to come anyway because nobody is really sure if it will come? Are we just going to wait until we can't drive our cars and consume our plastics anymore to start thinking about these things?
Yes, a future with full climate change effects does not have a good economy. I believe Mr Stern already put that in writing. But hey, he's the Economist. Not me.
Water...well well. Yes, water tops the list, hands down. Why? Because there won't be any increase in the amount of fresh, drinkable water if all the ice melts. Most of that will go to the sea, ocean water. As population increases we pollute more and more of our precious fresh water resources. Suburbia drains well water to water their lawns instead of drink it. Suburbia uses a fuckton of water. Too much to be "sustainable." As if that term has any meaning any more. So, how will water shortage affect the economy? Certainly not positively! Think of all that money government will have to spend to ensure communities have drinkable water.
Superbugs. Oh yes, the superbugs. Granted not REALLY affected by climate change. But we made them, nobody can dispute that. How are we going to fight these things? They end up in our livestock, in our hospitals. How will we fight them? Certainly not with...
Medicinal plants. Which face the unprecedented threat of extinction. Rainforest deforestation is no doubt taking with it plants that may have the cure to major diseases. No doubt some have already gone extinct that were medically priceless. Climate change threatens these forests. Can you put a price on health? Combine this one with water. Yeah, future doesn't look bright.
Deforestation. Climate change good for the economy? Not for Canada's Boreal Forest, threatened by the Pine Beetle which, due to a slightly longer season can juuuuuust baaaarely fit in two lifecylces instead of one. We're supposed to be conserving our Boreal Forest. All of that is of course though, lost to the unstoppable force of the Pine Beetle. How will the government compensate the forest sector? Instead of producing wood, Canada will be importing wood. Jobs will be lost, logging companies will fold. Yeah last time I checked, that wasn't too good.
Coastal Cities. How much will it cost to ensure that Vancouver doesn't go under water? Or New York City? Los Angeles? Billions. If of course, that's even possible. What can you do? Build a 5 metre dike all the way around Vancouver Island and the coast of BC? Unlikely. That's just in Canada. What about the Indo-Pacific? The countless volcanic islands, just poking above sea level. Islands that are home to uniqe, endemic plant and animal species. Why is that important again? See the aforementioned medicinal plants.
The North. In Canada, few, but the few still count, people live in the North. In many places, depend on the ground being frozen in order to get around. If it unfreezes? Remeber, effects of climactic change will be felt greatest in the North. In fact, they're already feeling them up there. When the ground melts and turns to mud, how will the government act to make sure these people, with no roads to connect them, get food and supplies? With no ice, there will be no seals. A lot of the wildlife they depend on will dissapear. How much will the government need to invest to ensure they can survive?
All of these compound, and that's GOOD for the economy? Get your head out of your ass! That's billions of dollars every year spent on these few items, and many other, unforeseeable ones. That's billions spent, instead of spent on social programs, and investing in growth and development. Lost potential.
The funny thing is, there is money and capital in developing "green" businesses and technology. Instead of being behind, you can be a front runner. But no country really seems to be doing that. Are we waiting for the inevitable to come anyway because nobody is really sure if it will come? Are we just going to wait until we can't drive our cars and consume our plastics anymore to start thinking about these things?
Yes, a future with full climate change effects does not have a good economy. I believe Mr Stern already put that in writing. But hey, he's the Economist. Not me.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
How Ignorant Can One Be?
I saw an old friend from high school today.
Old friend, because there's a reason he's not still a friend. And, other than my personal opinion of him, now I know why. We got to talking about what we were doing. Turns out he's studying meteorology.
As a fan of alternate media (never can trust The Man, you know), I asked him if he had heard of a US Military project in Alaska which involved beaming high frequency radio waves into the atmosphere, in an attempt to control the local climate. This is of course, closely related to some scheme about beaming microwave energy from satellites in space, to US troops in Iraq.
Being the guy that he is he of course laughed at me (Fuck you, by the way). I mean really, is that so far-fetched to believe? I don't think I'd be skeptical of any report I read about crap the US Military is working on. Although mildly accepting his criticism, I then asked if it was really so hard to believe, based on George Bush's Administration's stance on climate change?
You know what he said?
Holy fuck, I couldn't believe it. He said, oh well I'm taking this climate change course and blablabla and "...the evidence isn't too convincing."
...
How fucking convincing does it need to be?
Giant glaciers falling into the ocean? There's new satellite data from Nasa showing a giant crack in the ice on some part of Antarctica. NO SHIT SHERLOCK! I mean, climate change isn't going to be that obvious. Blatantly obvious. Until the ice melts, then the self-perpetuating ice-renewal system goes caput. Water holds a fuckton of heat, you know. That will change things. Globally. You don't need to be a bloody meteorologist to understand that water retains heat.
Not only that but then he said "oh well, it'll be good for the economy."
....NO IT WON'T!!! Seriously. This guy, not only doesn't see the big picture climate wise, obviously does not immerse himself at all, in any way shape or form, other sources of information. If he did, he would know about the Stern Report. Wouldn't he? I mean, if one of the world's leading ECONOMISTS is woried about impending change in the CLIMATE doesn't that say something?
Is this how our universities work? Or is this just how the masses of people think?
Because I'd like to think that if you're going to become a meteorologist, or an ecologist, or an engineer, a botanist, a realtor, an entrepreneur, a politician...ANYTHING. I'd like to think that regardless of your area of expertise, you strive to become better. And learn more. Learn all issues encompassing all the aspect of YOUR area.
I read newspapers. Then I go online for different versions of those stories, because I don't entirely trust the newspapers. I read business reports, press conferences, scientific journals. I want to know how businesses and whatnot affect their immediate surroundings. I want to go beyond that and see the big picture.
I mean, a meteorologist who doesn't think climate change data is convincing? That's like a housing developer that thinks a 500 house development doesn't impact the land it's built on. Or a farmer who doesn't think that herbicides affect things other than his crop.
How ignorant can one BE?
And this person will go into the workforce like this. Who knows, maybe he'll end up with a high-end position, making important decisions. And he'll get there with this background?
Folks there aren't enough Mr. Sterns in this world. Not enough Al Gores, or Kevin Rudds. Hell, I have phenomenal conversations with the guy who cuts my hair.
Is MY generation growing up like this? A lot of people I know don't even VOTE. Let alone read a newspaper or watch a news program, visit cbc.ca, or the Winnipeg Free Press website. Anything. Are we a generation of whatever is opposite of "in the know"?
Old friend, because there's a reason he's not still a friend. And, other than my personal opinion of him, now I know why. We got to talking about what we were doing. Turns out he's studying meteorology.
As a fan of alternate media (never can trust The Man, you know), I asked him if he had heard of a US Military project in Alaska which involved beaming high frequency radio waves into the atmosphere, in an attempt to control the local climate. This is of course, closely related to some scheme about beaming microwave energy from satellites in space, to US troops in Iraq.
Being the guy that he is he of course laughed at me (Fuck you, by the way). I mean really, is that so far-fetched to believe? I don't think I'd be skeptical of any report I read about crap the US Military is working on. Although mildly accepting his criticism, I then asked if it was really so hard to believe, based on George Bush's Administration's stance on climate change?
You know what he said?
Holy fuck, I couldn't believe it. He said, oh well I'm taking this climate change course and blablabla and "...the evidence isn't too convincing."
...
How fucking convincing does it need to be?
Giant glaciers falling into the ocean? There's new satellite data from Nasa showing a giant crack in the ice on some part of Antarctica. NO SHIT SHERLOCK! I mean, climate change isn't going to be that obvious. Blatantly obvious. Until the ice melts, then the self-perpetuating ice-renewal system goes caput. Water holds a fuckton of heat, you know. That will change things. Globally. You don't need to be a bloody meteorologist to understand that water retains heat.
Not only that but then he said "oh well, it'll be good for the economy."
....NO IT WON'T!!! Seriously. This guy, not only doesn't see the big picture climate wise, obviously does not immerse himself at all, in any way shape or form, other sources of information. If he did, he would know about the Stern Report. Wouldn't he? I mean, if one of the world's leading ECONOMISTS is woried about impending change in the CLIMATE doesn't that say something?
Is this how our universities work? Or is this just how the masses of people think?
Because I'd like to think that if you're going to become a meteorologist, or an ecologist, or an engineer, a botanist, a realtor, an entrepreneur, a politician...ANYTHING. I'd like to think that regardless of your area of expertise, you strive to become better. And learn more. Learn all issues encompassing all the aspect of YOUR area.
I read newspapers. Then I go online for different versions of those stories, because I don't entirely trust the newspapers. I read business reports, press conferences, scientific journals. I want to know how businesses and whatnot affect their immediate surroundings. I want to go beyond that and see the big picture.
I mean, a meteorologist who doesn't think climate change data is convincing? That's like a housing developer that thinks a 500 house development doesn't impact the land it's built on. Or a farmer who doesn't think that herbicides affect things other than his crop.
How ignorant can one BE?
And this person will go into the workforce like this. Who knows, maybe he'll end up with a high-end position, making important decisions. And he'll get there with this background?
Folks there aren't enough Mr. Sterns in this world. Not enough Al Gores, or Kevin Rudds. Hell, I have phenomenal conversations with the guy who cuts my hair.
Is MY generation growing up like this? A lot of people I know don't even VOTE. Let alone read a newspaper or watch a news program, visit cbc.ca, or the Winnipeg Free Press website. Anything. Are we a generation of whatever is opposite of "in the know"?
Monday, January 14, 2008
Like, Like
I like, really like, find it like, annyoing when like people like, use the word like, like? To like, make their sentences and for some reason it like, doesnt occur to like, people? That they like, use the word like, like all the time and talk up at the end of their like, sentences?
Is our like, entire like, generation like, not able to like, speak properly? Cause like we cant like, make sentences and speak without like, using the word like, for like, some reason?
Am I like, the only one who like, finds this like, incredibly annoying?
Is our like, entire like, generation like, not able to like, speak properly? Cause like we cant like, make sentences and speak without like, using the word like, for like, some reason?
Am I like, the only one who like, finds this like, incredibly annoying?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Progressive....China?
Hmmm...three "progressive" posts in a row.
But...China?
Yes, China has decided that plastic bags are not a good thing and will be phased out by June.
Instead of whining and bitching about how "ridiculous" it is to do without plastic bags, we've now totally given up the oppurtunity to even be on the bandwagon. Let alone drive it. We're running behind it now, trying to catch up.
China has stated that, reusable cloth bags make more sense. And they DO. Plastic bags are not any more "convenient" than a cloth bag. And a cloth bag is more useful. It's stronger, you can use it for other things, and you can carry more.
I don't understand how it's "hard" to stop offering these things. Just, stop. Offer cloth bags for a cheap price. Many stores already put 5-cent levies on their plastic bags anyway. Hell, it makes even less sense, when you consider that the person owning the store would SAVE MONEY! Instead of having to purchase thousands of these useless things, you could not offer them, offer inexpensive reusable cloth bags.
That's a win for the store. A win for the consumer. And a win for your local landfill.
We won't start talking about the other problems in China, which include brutal air pollution, overuse of agricultural fertilizers, or overpopulation.
But we'll give them a thumbs up for now.
But...China?
Yes, China has decided that plastic bags are not a good thing and will be phased out by June.
Instead of whining and bitching about how "ridiculous" it is to do without plastic bags, we've now totally given up the oppurtunity to even be on the bandwagon. Let alone drive it. We're running behind it now, trying to catch up.
China has stated that, reusable cloth bags make more sense. And they DO. Plastic bags are not any more "convenient" than a cloth bag. And a cloth bag is more useful. It's stronger, you can use it for other things, and you can carry more.
I don't understand how it's "hard" to stop offering these things. Just, stop. Offer cloth bags for a cheap price. Many stores already put 5-cent levies on their plastic bags anyway. Hell, it makes even less sense, when you consider that the person owning the store would SAVE MONEY! Instead of having to purchase thousands of these useless things, you could not offer them, offer inexpensive reusable cloth bags.
That's a win for the store. A win for the consumer. And a win for your local landfill.
We won't start talking about the other problems in China, which include brutal air pollution, overuse of agricultural fertilizers, or overpopulation.
But we'll give them a thumbs up for now.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Progressive California, Again...
Now this is old news, but in case you missed it, California is going to sue the American "Environmental Protection Agency" for putting red tape in front of a plan for California to take some seriously big bounds towards improving air quality, at least or (especially) on a local scale.
"Environmental Protection Agency"....now lets take a moment to think about what that means. Okay, that didn't take too long. I THINK it means "protect the environment."
....So what in the hell is their motivation for stopping the state of California from doing so? EPA claims that states issuing their own legislation will interfere with the Bush Administration's plan to address climate change. I assure everybody reading this, that whatever comes out of George Bush's mouth will not be anywhere near the level of ambition that California has achieved by attempting to cut emissions in vehicles in that manner.
In fact, I don't think any politician on a federal level can commit as much as a politician on a local level can. California has effectively told the feds to go fuck themselves. A "you won't do it, so we will," attitude. Which is how things get done.
What I find most interesting about this story is that not just one, but 16 states have joined in the fun. Granted most of them are probably not as ambitious as California being (although California is in a unique situation that requires immediate attention) but no doubt believe the EPA is not fulfilling their purpose. By all accounts, the EPA should be approving and supporting California, not inhibiting their progress. Methinks other forces are at work here.
In Canada we have no immediate issues like California has, but there are some pressing issues such as water quality in Lake Winnipeg and the Great Lakes, the oil sands in Alberta and the pine beetle devastating our boreal forest. But action is being taken, maybe not on an impressive, headline-making manner, but it is happening. Slowly. Awareness about these issues is fairly high, and governments don't pretend as if they don't exist.
In the case of water quality in Canada's freshwater lakes, and in the case of California's vehicle emissions, at least politicians on a provincial/state level understand that the best way to eliminate the problem is to remove it from the market. Phosphorous in dish detergents will be a thing of the past in the near future in Manitoba. Do we need phosphorous in detergent? No, so lets make detergent without it. Same in California. Can we make vehicles with lower emissions? Yes? Then why isn't it happening?
'Cause in their case, the EPA is barricading the way. This is a case they can definitely win. I hope they do. I also hope they avoid the typical big-case lawyer tactics of postponing and postponing and delaying the case.
Will governments' branches ever be accountable to their purpose? They will have to be for real change to happen.
"Environmental Protection Agency"....now lets take a moment to think about what that means. Okay, that didn't take too long. I THINK it means "protect the environment."
....So what in the hell is their motivation for stopping the state of California from doing so? EPA claims that states issuing their own legislation will interfere with the Bush Administration's plan to address climate change. I assure everybody reading this, that whatever comes out of George Bush's mouth will not be anywhere near the level of ambition that California has achieved by attempting to cut emissions in vehicles in that manner.
In fact, I don't think any politician on a federal level can commit as much as a politician on a local level can. California has effectively told the feds to go fuck themselves. A "you won't do it, so we will," attitude. Which is how things get done.
What I find most interesting about this story is that not just one, but 16 states have joined in the fun. Granted most of them are probably not as ambitious as California being (although California is in a unique situation that requires immediate attention) but no doubt believe the EPA is not fulfilling their purpose. By all accounts, the EPA should be approving and supporting California, not inhibiting their progress. Methinks other forces are at work here.
In Canada we have no immediate issues like California has, but there are some pressing issues such as water quality in Lake Winnipeg and the Great Lakes, the oil sands in Alberta and the pine beetle devastating our boreal forest. But action is being taken, maybe not on an impressive, headline-making manner, but it is happening. Slowly. Awareness about these issues is fairly high, and governments don't pretend as if they don't exist.
In the case of water quality in Canada's freshwater lakes, and in the case of California's vehicle emissions, at least politicians on a provincial/state level understand that the best way to eliminate the problem is to remove it from the market. Phosphorous in dish detergents will be a thing of the past in the near future in Manitoba. Do we need phosphorous in detergent? No, so lets make detergent without it. Same in California. Can we make vehicles with lower emissions? Yes? Then why isn't it happening?
'Cause in their case, the EPA is barricading the way. This is a case they can definitely win. I hope they do. I also hope they avoid the typical big-case lawyer tactics of postponing and postponing and delaying the case.
Will governments' branches ever be accountable to their purpose? They will have to be for real change to happen.
Progressive California....
Progressive indeed.
Public transist emission free by 2020? Damn that's aggressive. Kudos. Many kudos. (link...scroll down to "Zero Emissions 2020 Plan")
Damn, if only Winnipeg could be like this. Why does it take a place like California to get things done? We can't even get hybrid buses here because the city seems to think they're too fuckin expensive.
Never mind rapid transit routes, nevermind hybrid buses or electric rails, we can't even get bus lanes, transit priority at every intersection, rider fee under $2, transfers longer than two hours, or heated bus shelters.
Why is San Fransisco so good at the public transit? Let's send our city counsellors down there. Make them take the bus. Maybe when they do, they'll see that $1.50 fees, 6 hour transfers, buses every few minutes, electric rails and bendy buses, and air conditioned buses increase ridership. Not raising the price to $2.25 in a pipe dream of a scheme to get more people to take the bus.
Get those electric rails. Make those bus lanes. Get those priority lights. LOWER THAT FUCKING RIDICULOUS FEE!
I guarantee, if hte price of a ride went down to $1.50 and the time a transfer was good for doubled, we'd see a ridiculous increase in the amount of bus users in Winnipeg.
Public transist emission free by 2020? Damn that's aggressive. Kudos. Many kudos. (link...scroll down to "Zero Emissions 2020 Plan")
Damn, if only Winnipeg could be like this. Why does it take a place like California to get things done? We can't even get hybrid buses here because the city seems to think they're too fuckin expensive.
Never mind rapid transit routes, nevermind hybrid buses or electric rails, we can't even get bus lanes, transit priority at every intersection, rider fee under $2, transfers longer than two hours, or heated bus shelters.
Why is San Fransisco so good at the public transit? Let's send our city counsellors down there. Make them take the bus. Maybe when they do, they'll see that $1.50 fees, 6 hour transfers, buses every few minutes, electric rails and bendy buses, and air conditioned buses increase ridership. Not raising the price to $2.25 in a pipe dream of a scheme to get more people to take the bus.
Get those electric rails. Make those bus lanes. Get those priority lights. LOWER THAT FUCKING RIDICULOUS FEE!
I guarantee, if hte price of a ride went down to $1.50 and the time a transfer was good for doubled, we'd see a ridiculous increase in the amount of bus users in Winnipeg.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Much to Discuss
Oh boy oh boy, yes there is.
My temporary leave from my blog during my Christmas season has left a lot on the table. I'm going to have to blog about Winnipeg's phenomenally incompetant transit system. Along with a lot of fantastic stuff going on in the (truly) progressive state of California.
But right now, I'll just say that I was a little more than irritated this morning when, upon stepping onto the bus and depositing my bus ticket, was pestered by the driver for a measly ten cents. Yes, ten cents. Because the fares in Winnipeg have gone up by a whopping 12%. And they say this will INCREASE the number of riders.
The only thing at this point that will increase the number of bus riders in Winnipeg is when the people making these decisions pull their heads out of their collective asses.
My temporary leave from my blog during my Christmas season has left a lot on the table. I'm going to have to blog about Winnipeg's phenomenally incompetant transit system. Along with a lot of fantastic stuff going on in the (truly) progressive state of California.
But right now, I'll just say that I was a little more than irritated this morning when, upon stepping onto the bus and depositing my bus ticket, was pestered by the driver for a measly ten cents. Yes, ten cents. Because the fares in Winnipeg have gone up by a whopping 12%. And they say this will INCREASE the number of riders.
The only thing at this point that will increase the number of bus riders in Winnipeg is when the people making these decisions pull their heads out of their collective asses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
