|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 12, 2005 18:31:40 GMT -5
I believe the selection of what information is relevent or not should be left to the individual, and not decided by a biased summary. Cathy, do you really have such a low opinion of the people participating here that you think they can't "decide" for themselves after reading everything?
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 12, 2005 18:57:42 GMT -5
Vancouver's example reduced emissions by 30% with a 42% increase in population because the population only grew by that much. That is not saying it could only be done with a 42% population increase; that's simply what they had to work with. Again, that is apparently a deliberate distortion. The quotation I provided from the GVRD says that the pollutants of concern did not decline by 30% but rather stayed relatively constant, and are projected to begin increasing. All the while, greenhouse gas emissions have increased. Even the GVRD is saying that some of the worst offenders -- nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and ozone -- either are increasing or will increase beginning very soon. So, Cathy, Vancouver is not a model of clean air. That idea is reinforced every time I go to Victoria and return on the ferry. The brown wall of smog is clearly visible most days over Vancouver, and often right up through the Fraser Valley to Hope. That seems to be what you want for Kelowna too, so we can be just as good as them, right? So, here are some yes/no questions. Let's see if you can answer them. 1. Without other initiatives, has it been clearly demonstrated that, in general, increased traffic leads to increased air pollution? 2. Has it been clearly demonstrated that, in general, increased population density leads to increased traffic? 3. Does the GVRD predict that air quality will deteriorate in the near future (within the next 20 years)? I have more, but it's your turn, so answer, then ask away.
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 12, 2005 19:41:18 GMT -5
No, Mr. Shea, I think you do, since you felt the need to provide a summary of what I posted leaving out some key points of information.
Sorry... didn't I already answer these??
(ie: Does an increase in traffic result in poorer air quality, at least in practice?) and (Does the city of Kelowna state that population growth will only exacerbate those [traffic and pollution] problems?)
3. Does the GVRD predict that air quality will deteriorate in the near future (within the next 20 years)?
"The forecast shows further decline in CAC emissions to 2005, after which emissions are relatively stable until 2025. On an individual basis, GVRD per capita CAC emissions declined 58% from 1985 to 2000, and are projected to continue declining, but at a slower rate, to 2025."
While some pollution is expected to increase, action is being taken to prevent the increase.
I also wonder why you continue to ask me questions, when you have a backhand to every answer I give, and a different or "better" answer to each.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 12, 2005 21:12:27 GMT -5
Can you please just answer the questions with "yes" or "no?" There are some important points coming, and I just wish to be clear.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 13, 2005 0:00:27 GMT -5
1. Yes, with exceptions 2. Yes, with exceptions 3. No (As far as I can see)
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 13, 2005 0:13:25 GMT -5
I note that Cathy has modified her previous post, after the fact, to make her answers clear.
What we have established is that increased traffic leads to increased air pollution. Certainly, there are some initiatives that can temporarily reduce the problems, but we have established that increasing population will only increase them again.
Given Kelowna's abysmal record in dealing with all the other problems related to growth, given that Kelowna has no effective counter measures in place and does not seem to have any in the works, it is reasonable to predict that increasing traffic congestion and worsening air quality will only continue regardless of where the growth occurs, and that Kelowna will be the rule rather than the exception.
Even in jurisdictions such as Vancouver, where initiatives have temporarily reduced some of the pollutants, worsening air quality is expected, and the ongoing level of pollution poses a significant health risk even now.
Given all of the above, it is incredibly callous to promote even more growth in Kelowna unless and until we have mechanisms in place to deal with the increased health risks due to the additional pollution of even one more car. Indeed, it is clear from the city's own documents that we already have significant health issues that have a serious impact on peoples' lives. Writing off the health and the lives of citizens of this world is, in my opinion, a criminal act.
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 13, 2005 0:16:41 GMT -5
You may answer the questions yourself, Mr. Shea, but please do not "assume" my answers to be anything.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 13, 2005 9:22:56 GMT -5
Thank you for going back in and modifying your previous post after the fact to make your answers clear.
And, despite the best intentions, critical pollutants in the GVRD airshed are predicted to become worse, or already are becoming worse. Even now, there are serious health risks.
One day Cathy will realize that, for many people and organizations, there's a huge difference between what they say and what they do (or what they CAN do) -- that's the difference between wishful thinking (or deliberate deception) and reality. Talk the talk, and walk the walk...and all that.
All my statements still stand regarding the future of Kelowna's air quality.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 13, 2005 9:41:16 GMT -5
No, Mr. Shea, I think you do, since you felt the need to provide a summary of what I posted leaving out some key points of information. Actually, I made it clear that it was a summary, and that it was only for the sake of brevity. Naturally, I assumed that readers would go back if they were truly interested in the issues. These are serious issues, and I assume that the people who participate in this forum can give them the serious thought and due consideration that they require. Given that you were the one who clearly implied that readers could not make up their own minds, I have to ask that you be more charitable in the future. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 13, 2005 10:56:20 GMT -5
I'm not sure where you got this idea, but making a summary of some of my points while completely ignoring others which do not support your argument seems to be trying to make up the readers' minds. If they are to know all the facts, they don't need some pointed out and not others now, do they? Except for the Central Okanagan Regional Air Quality Program and the Okanagan Air Quality Technical Steering Committee, which are working to educate the public, and which run programs such as the wood stove exchange program, cash for clunkers, vehicle emissions clinic, etc., and are clearly working to improve air quality. www.city.kelowna.bc.ca/CM/Page554.aspxCity council has also proposed goals for Kelowna's air quality, including the plan to: Provide Lean Green City Government Promote Active Transportation Encourage Environmental Practices Create Healthy Urban Centers www.city.kelowna.bc.ca/CM/PageFactory.aspx?PageID=887&PageMode=PrintQuestions... my turn now?? Would you agree that, assuming inevitable growth, some kinds of development are better for preserving good air quality than others? What might these be? Are there things that can be done to limit traffic to and from existing sprawled areas?
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 13, 2005 11:17:16 GMT -5
Rick says Cathy says
Then you need to go back and re-read your posts, and again I have to ask that you be more charitable in the future.
The key word in my statement was "effective." Even the city of Kelowna has admitted that increased traffic is expected, and that increased pollution will result. Traffic congestion continues to increase all over the city. The "plans" are just the same as everywhere else in the world -- an attempt to placate the public while conditions simply continue to get worse. I'm surprised that you buy into them.
I don't share your unfounded and naive assumption that growth is inevitable. And I have not seen any examples of any growth anywhere that does not cause a detioration in air quality. So my answer to your first question is "no" at this point. Yes, some of the New Urbanist ideas may help to mitigate against even larger increases in pollution, but that does not "preserve" air quality. Given that, I can't answer the second part of that question.
Absolutely! As already noted, I walk and cycle as much as possible from one of the new sprawl areas in Kelowna. That is a personal choice, so all we have to do is convince more people to make that choice. How would you force more people to do this? I should add that the city is doing all it can to encourage even more traffic by continuing to allow growth in the sprawl areas, approving rezoning of agricultural land for residential use, and so on. I wouldn't look to them for any ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 13, 2005 11:42:55 GMT -5
I also wonder why you continue to ask me questions, when you have a backhand to every answer I give, and a different or "better" answer to each. I'm just trying to get you to think a bit more about some of the nonsense you have posted. After all, you did state that you came to this forum to learn. These issues, including this issue of air quality, are so important for all of us that they deserve better. And I can understand why you would use the inflammatory word "backhand" but mine really are just reasoned and supported responses. Knowing how to use a library and a search engine, and knowing how to filter the good stuff from the garbage, is a critical skill. Finally, you might think about why you used the word "better," even if you did place it in quotes.
|
|
|
Post by propeopl on Jul 13, 2005 13:58:07 GMT -5
I agree with Rick.
Cathy said "I believe the selection of what information is relevent or not should be left to the individual, and not decided by a biased summary."
Cathy, your saying that we're all ignorant and cant make up our own minds. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 13, 2005 19:43:34 GMT -5
Please stop refering to my posts as "banal", "nonsence", "naive" etc. My comments are researched and discussed with those educated in, or involved in the matters. If you ask me questions you have answers to which you consider better, you are more than welcome to provide the information yourself, rather than waiting to critisize what I say.
The summary was unncessary. If it summarized all of the information in a non-biased manner, thus leaving all the information for the reader to see in brief, it would not have been a problem.
I didn't say I believed that growth is invitable. The question was that if it were evitable, would there be better or worse ways of developing to help with air quality. Refusing to answer the question because you didn't like it is still refusing to answer the question.
As I pointed out in the answers to your questions, some things, such as commercial development plans, may have served to reduce traffic by providing more local services, but were abandoned do to lack of public support. A recent example of this is the Sarsons commercial development plan.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 13, 2005 19:50:44 GMT -5
I didn't say I believed that growth is invitable. The question was that if it were evitable, would there be better or worse ways of developing to help with air quality. Refusing to answer the question because you didn't like it is still refusing to answer the question. . I answered the two part question with two answers: No, and n/a Yet you say I "refuse" to answer. Hmmm.....
|
|