Now that the 13 acres south of 32 St. between Sunnybrook subdivision and Piper Creek will be developed, you have to wonder what part of the park system could be next? Will the lure of quick cash, override any desire to protect our parks?
The wooded area north of 32 Street.between Spruce Drive and Piper Creek is called 3200 Spruce Drive and it is zoned R3 or multi-family residential. Not single family homes, not parks and recreation but multi-family residential. Will it be the next area to be bought by a developer?
Further north to 34 St. and you have more woodland west of Spruce Drive and south of Rotary Park you have 3400 Spruce Drive. It is zoned R4 for manufactured homes. Is the plan to build a gated community of manufactured homes next to Rotary Park? Will city take the cash offered by a developer to build such a community.
Someone told me that these scenarios would never happen, that the city is protective of their parklands. The city called the 13 acres south of 32 St a wildlife corridor and on February 8 of this year had an in-camera meeting to prepare for developing it by the new owner, a developer.
If the city does not want to develop the wood land north of 32 Street and west of Spruce Drive and south of Rotary Park and east of Kin Kanyon why is it zoned R3 and R4?
20 years ago a lawyer working with the city told me the city had an agreement with the Bower sisters to keep the land as it is, now it looks like it is going to be developed. Will this happen to the wood land across the road.
It is the government’s responsibility to implement policies that protect the following:
1. Its citizens, their lives and their freedoms.
2. The economy in a manner that benefits that majority of its citizens, without mortgaging the wealth of future generations in favour of short-term gain or votes.
3. The environment in a manner that preserves the country for future generations without impeding, in any material way, the points listed above.
Canada is a global leader in clean technology and adheres to some of the highest environmental regulations in the world. We need to continue to build upon this expertise and deliver solutions to global problems.
Protecting the environment is a global issue. Banning tankers on the west coast of Canada or forcing domestic energy projects to comply with crippling regulatory requirements does nothing to change emissions in countries such as China or India. If we choose to ignore what happens beyond our borders we are doing a disservice to not only ourselves but to the world.
Moving forward, government must end ideological policies that alienate millions of Canadians, destroy tens of thousands of jobs and crush our economy. Canada can continue being a global leader of ethical, socially, and environmentally sourced energy. It is through our natural resources and the development of value-added products that Canadians can continue to enjoy a high standard of living. It is through cost-effective energy production that the world will continue to prosper.
Energy and environment have co-existed for years. It will continue to do so in the future. Instead of putting our energy industry on the sidelines, we must embrace all that it is capable of doing for us. Passive houses, small nuclear reactors, liquefied natural gas and other advanced technologies would not be possible without Canada’s energy industry and are immediate and proven environmental solutions.
ECCC proposes a plan rooted in crony capitalism, wealth distribution, higher energy prices and stifling regulation. The alternatives outlined in A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy 2.0 provide realistic free market options that will not only protect the environment, but create a prosperous future for all Canadians.
When considering which options are be best suited for Canadians going forward, consider the following. The Government of Canada has added significant power, spent hundreds of billions of dollars and regulated nearly everything over the past year and a half in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Have you been impressed with the results? If not, why would you expect ECCC’s plans for the economy and environment post-pandemic, to be any different?
Stephen Koonin served as Undersecretary of Energy in former U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration. A PhD Physicist, he is a smart guy.
Referencing materials from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – an organization that is widely viewed by governments and media as the single most important source for information on climate change – Koonin demonstrates that the science of climate change is anything but settled, and that we are not in, nor should we anticipate, a crisis.
In fact, despite decades of apocalyptic warnings there is in fact remarkably little knowledge of what might happen. Over the last 5 decades of apocalyptic warning, life on earth has dramatically improved as our management of countless environmental challenges has improved.
What the evidence really shows is that as the global economy improves, our ability to deal with whatever mother nature throws at us improves. On that point, Koonin draws attention to what the IPCC experts say about the possible economic impacts of possible climate change-induced temperature changes.
Koonin notes that, according to the IPCC, a temperature increase of 3 degrees centigrade by 2100 – which some scientists say might happen – might create some negative environmental effects, which in turn would cause an estimated 3% hit to the economy in 2100.
But even as it makes these claims, the IPCC further predicts that the economy, in 2100, will be several times the size of the economy today (unless, of course, we interfere with it as the Net Zero by 2050 crowd wants us to do). In other words, a strategy of doing nothing may or may not mean a temperature increase, the effects of which if bad, are expected to represent a small economic hit to the economy, but that economy will be much, much larger.
In Koonin’s words, this “translates to a decrease in the annual growth rate by an average of 3 percent divided by 80, or about 0.04 percent per year. The IPCC scenarios…assume an average global annual growth rate of about 2 percent through 2100; the climate impact would then be a 0.04 percent decrease in that 2 percent growth rate, for a resulting growth rate of 1.96 percent. In other words, the U.N. report says that the economic impact of human-induced climate change is negligible, at most a bump in the road.”
So this doesn’t sound like a crisis to me. It sounds like a very modest reduction in extraordinary economic growth. So from extraordinary economic growth to slightly less extraordinary economic growth.
Why do I draw attention to this?
Because Canada is pursuing a Net Zero by 2050 target with a whole bunch of policies that will kill economic growth.
The IPCC predicts significant global economic growth without all the things Trudeau and other Net Zero by 2050 advocates are pursuing – massive carbon taxes, additional carbon taxes called clean fuel standards (CFS), building code changes that will make a new home unaffordable, huge subsidies for pet projects, etc. In other words, the IPCC predicts growth without crazy and wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars that will hurt citizens.
So why are we allowing Trudeau and co to pursue these things?
We don’t know the full costs of Net Zero by 2050, but every signal we have is that it is absurdly expensive. AND (thank you Stephen Koonin for making this explicitly clear) the International Panel on Climate Change says ignoring the Net Zero by 2050 target and doing nothing will mean a much bigger economy.
Prime Minister Trudeau and the activists won’t tell you that.
Nor will they acknowledge what the IPCC actually says.
Let’s all applaud Stephen Koonin for trying to do so.
Green activists are driving a radical agenda screaming at us that the science is settled. As courageous scientists like Stephen Koonin note, science is never settled and to say it is settled is irresponsible. The activists say we have to radically change our economy, but don’t tell us how much that will cost – but the IPCC tells us doing absolutely nothing would result in only slightly less economic growth than we would otherwise have.
Governments are spending massive sums of your money on Net Zero by 2050.
Corporate interests commit to this radical agenda and hide behind rhetoric of doing the right thing, while they also seek out government subsidies (which taxpayers will pay for) to meet their absurd Net Zero by 2050 commitments.
An 18 year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions.
Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.