Connect with us

Opinion

The City wants to discredit the province’s environment study, during an election year.

Published

7 years ago

5 minute read

I was on the city’s Environment Committee when the province made it’s report. Questions were raised, the panel answered, the report was accepted and the panel was praised. Concerned as I was I started asking questions and raising issues. Riverside Park monitoring showed the worst results for the city and for the region. The region as a whole has shown the worst results in the province. The province was on track to be the worst nationwide.
Riverside Park is located on the north side of the river near the 67th Street bridge. Whether this an issue or not, but one has to consider there is about 12,000 families living north of the river. There is no high school north of the river so all the high school students have to cross the river to get to high school. Blackfalds also does not have a high school so those students would have to cross the river to attend a Red Deer high school.
There is only one 40 year old recreational complex north of the river, but the most popular complex is the Collicutt Centre on 30th Ave hooking up to the 67th Street Bridge. 12,000 families have to cross the bridge for education, recreation, hospitalization and cultural activities. On the flip side, all the industrial parks are on the north side, and a large number of the 28,000 families on the south side rely on employment in the north side industrial park. They may not live on the north side because they want to live near their children’s schools, ice rinks and swimming pools on the south side.
You can imagine there would be a lot of commuting across the 67th Street bridge, not all but a lot. So what does the city do, when confronted with this information. They are building or planning 3 more high schools near 30th Ave and 67th Street bridge on the south side of town. They are rebuilding and expanding facilities on the south side. They are planning on tearing down the south side downtown Recreational Centre and rebuilding.
All the while they are planning on another 10,000 plus families north of Hwy 11A. They will commute on the 67th Street bridge until they can build another bridge on the other side of the Riverside Park monitoring station.

The city has shrunk in population by almost 1,000 residents and 777 of those residents who moved away lived on the north side of the river. That should ease the commuting portion of the pollution, but 700 new residents moved into Blackfalds adding to the commuting portion, since many will work in Red Deer or go to the south side high schools.

The city accepted the 2015 report, ignored the concerns as did the school boards, so why all of a sudden is the city acting like a tobacco company looking to discredit a report they have known, accepted and studied for over a year? Perhaps it is because there are so many bad reports out there showing Red Deer in a negative light? Highest pollution, high crime, second most dangerous city, high unemployment, decrease in population, businesses leaving, increasing tax rates, and high vacancies could be cause for concern.

Why now would we suddenly extol the possibility that our Riverside Park with all it’s green space, river and parks and industry is slightly better than the air in downtown Calgary and Edmonton. High density, high traffic parts of cities with 800,000 to 1,000,000 residents, why? To attract business, but they were doing that last year, so why now? Could it be because this is an election year? That would be some achievements, high crime, highly dangerous, most polluted region in the country. I imagine that may be why our city is starting to look like a tobacco company trying to discredit a government report on cigarette smoke.

Related Topics:

Follow Author

More from this author
COVID-19 / 26 mins ago

The Vials and the Damage Done: Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory Scandal, Part II

COVID-19 / 36 mins ago

COVID Lab Leak: Over four later, EcoHealth Alliance funding is finally suspended

COVID-19 / 36 mins ago

Elon Musk-backed doctor critical of COVID response vows appeal after court sides with medical board

National

Trudeau again blames ‘climate change’ for mostly man-made wildfires

Published on May 19, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Trudeau and the media which his government funds appear intent on blaming Canada’s wildfires on ‘climate change’ in what seems to be an attempt to justify radical public policy.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberals are once again blaming Canadian wildfires on “climate change” despite most being man-made. 

In a May 10 press release, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland lectured Canadians on the so-called dangers of “climate change” amid Canada’s wildfire season, apparently ignoring that data has revealed that most wildfires are man-made.   

“Climate change is here, and we’re making sure our communities are ready,” Trudeau stated. 

“Last year was the worst wildfire season in Canadian history, and climate change is only causing more frequent and more extreme wildfires,” Freeland claimed.  

In addition to the Liberal government, mainstream media outlets have also started publishing articles attributing Canada’s wildfires to “climate change.”

“The seeds of fire activity were sown over the winter and in past years as the world continues to warm because of human-driven climate change,” CNN claimed in a May 15 article.   

Despite the claims of the Trudeau government, the Alberta Wildfire Status Dashboard, which tracks wildfires in the province, found that 232 (72.96%) of the wildfires started this year have been linked to human activity. On the other hand, only 1 (0.31%) was caused by lightning, while 85 (26.73%) remain under investigation.   

Last month, Alberta Minister of Forestry and Parks Todd Loewen revealed that his department estimates that most of the province’s wildfires this year are man-made. 

Telling Canadians the same lies as in 2023 

Indeed, Trudeau and the media his government funds appear intent on blaming Canada’s wildfires on “climate change” regardless of the facts, similar to their tactics in spring 2023 when Canada faced one of its worst fire seasons.   

“Rise in extreme wildfires linked directly to emissions from oil companies in new study,” Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which gets 70 percent of its operating budget via tax dollars from the federal government, claimed at the time.   

However, similar to now, Trudeau’s claims were unfounded and contradicted both research and wildfire data.  

Indeed, despite claims that wildfires have drastically increased due to “climate change,” 2023 research revealed that wildfires have decreased globally while media coverage has spiked 400 percent. 

Furthermore, many of the fires last spring and summer were discovered to be caused by arsonists and not “climate change.”  

Last year, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) arrested and charged suspected arsonists for allegedly lighting fires across the country, including in the Yukon, British Columbia, and Alberta.  

In Quebec, satellite footage also showed the mysterious simultaneous eruption of several blazes across the province, sparking concerns that the fires were a coordinated effort by arsonists.  

Why push the ‘climate change’ narrative? 

Trudeau’s determination to push the claim that the fires are unprecedentedly dangerous and caused by “climate change” appears by critics to be nothing but an attempt to pass further regulations on natural resources.  

The Trudeau government has continued to insist on so-called net zero carbon policies, seeking a complete elimination of the fossil fuel industry in the future.

The reduction and eventual elimination of the use of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has also been pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda – an organization with which Trudeau and some in his cabinet are involved.  

While Trudeau’s plan has been pushed under the guise of “sustainability,” his intention to decrease nitrous oxide emissions by limiting the use of fertilizer has been criticized by farmers. They say this will reduce profits and could even lead to food shortages. 

Continue Reading

Automotive

Governments in Canada accelerate EV ‘investments’ as automakers reverse course

Published on May 19, 2024

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Evidence continues to accrue that many of these “investments,” which are ultimately of course taxpayer funded, are risky ventures indeed.

Even as the much-vaunted electric vehicle (EV) transition slams into stiff headwinds, the Trudeau government and Ontario’s Ford government will pour another $5 billion in subsidies into Honda, which plans to build an EV battery plant and manufacture EVs in Ontario.

This comes on top of a long list of other such “investments” including $15 billion for Stellantis and LG Energy Solution, $13 billion for Volkswagen (with a real cost to Ottawa of $16.3 billion, per the Parliamentary Budget Officer), a combined $4.24 billion (federal/Quebec split) to Northvolt, a Swedish battery maker, and a combined $644 million (federal/Quebec split) to Ford Motor Company to build a cathode manufacturing plant in Quebec.

All this government subsidizing is of course meant to help remake the automobile, with the Trudeau government mandating that 100 per cent of new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in Canada be zero-emission by 2035. But evidence continues to accrue that many of these “investments,” which are ultimately of course taxpayer funded, are risky ventures indeed.

As the Wall Street Journal notes, Tesla, the biggest EV maker in the United States, has seen its share prices plummet (down 41 per cent this year) as the company struggles to sell its vehicles at the pace of previous years when first-adopters jumped into the EV market. Some would-be EV makers or users are postponing their own EV investments. Ford has killed it’s electric F-150 pickup truck, Hertz is dumping one-third of its fleet of EV rental vehicles, and Swedish EV company Polestar dropped 15 per cent of its global work force while Tesla is cutting 10 per cent of its global staff.

And in the U.S., a much larger potential market for EVs, a recent Gallup poll shows a market turning frosty. The percentage of Americans polled by Gallup who said they’re seriously considering buying an EV has been declining from 12 per cent in 2023 to 9 per cent in 2024. Even more troubling for would-be EV sellers is that only 35 per cent of poll respondents in 2024 said they “might consider” buying an EV in the future. That number is down from 43 per cent in 2023.

Overall, according to Gallup, “less than half of adults, 44 per cent, now say they are either seriously considering or might consider buying an EV in the future, down from 55 per cent in 2023, while the proportion not intending to buy one has increased from 41 per cent to 48 per cent.” In other words, in a future where government wants sellers to only sell EVs, almost half the U.S. public doesn’t want to buy one.

And yet, Canada’s governments are hitting the gas pedal on EVs, putting the hard-earned capital of Canadian taxpayers at significant risk. A smart government would have its finger in the wind and would slow down when faced with road bumps. It might even reset its GPS and change the course of its 2035 EV mandate for vehicles few motorists want to buy.

Author:

Kenneth P. Green
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X