|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 3, 2005 18:34:41 GMT -5
I had a reminder about one of the most fundamental issues surrounding growth when I read an article at www.balance.org/articles/sprawl.htmlAmong many other ideas presented are these two: "We must not forget that the criterion for determining that a nation or region is overpopulated is not land area, but carrying capacity. Fundamental carrying capacity "factors" such as potable water, topsoil and energy are limited and/or difficult to increase." and "High-density living merely shifts consumption to other forms and has increasingly adverse affects on the environment of areas outside the designated "high-density" zones. Some forms of consumption are even increased, such as per capita energy use, not to mention an increase in waste production accompanying each added person’s high density living requirements. Urban areas must import resources and export garbage and other waste material. This two-way transfer requires vast areas of land outside of any given urban growth boundary, typically leaving an increasingly large ecological footprint, thus simultaneously reducing the carrying capacity of outlying areas." I find it interesting that our current council seems to wish to stuff as many people as possible into this city -- in denser development in the cores and the unarrested sprawl that continues to this day -- without leaving any sort of buffer in the carrying capacity, and really without clearly defining what that carrying capacity is. The example listed above only lists a few of the carrying capacity issues. A few more include air quality, water pollution, and traffic congestion. Interestingly, I helped my son move into his new house on the Westside yesterday, and one of his friends commented that he was headed to Peachland for a swim because he finds the water off Gyro beach just "too gross to swim in," even in years when the geese aren't around much. That area is close to one of our main sewage outfalls (and close as well to one of the city's water intakes), so I wonder if anyone has experience with the water in that area 20 years ago or more. Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 13, 2005 11:31:57 GMT -5
It's clear from all the discussions in the "limits" threads that carrying capacity is more than the availability of land, water, shelter, and food.
To that list, we need to add things like psychological health carrying capacity, emotional health carrying capacity, quality of life carrying capacity, and many more.
To date, these issues have been largely ignored, presumably because they are relatively difficult to quantify, but those references that we have posted on these issues are clearly pointing to the negative impact of growth.
When I see people care so little about other people that they are willing to create even more pollution, traffic congestion, crowding, noise, and so on, I have to wonder if we haven't already exceeded that psychological and emotional carrying capacity.
|
|
|
Post by nick on Dec 10, 2006 13:38:17 GMT -5
Is there any information available as to the carrying capacity of Kelowna under current conditions, estimated or otherwise? Projections for the future? I understand the calculations are pretty involved and there are plenty of variables, but still wonder if anyone has actually assigned some hard figures to the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Dec 10, 2006 14:41:50 GMT -5
It's a great question, and the short answer at present is "no," there are no hard data which conclusively state what the carrying capacity is. In terms of water supply, Environment Canada is currently studying the entire Okanagan watershed to determine the amount of available water. In the interim, there is a moratorium on granting additional large water licenses until the amount of water is known. That, of course would be a seasonal average, and personally I don't wish to be at the point where we are using all of that average amount from year to year as it leaves no environmental margin of safety for drought years, and for the predicted decline in water supply due to global warming.
It's also interesting to hear the responses from the pro-growth crowd that, because we don't know the carrying capacity, and because we seem to be able to continue to build and grow our population, that we shouldn't worry about it.
I appreciate Herman Daly's comments, echoed by researchers at UBCO, that we should exercise the precautionary principle here. If we have any indications that we are nearing the carrying capacity (such as watering restrictions, reservoirs drying out as in Summerland and Vernon, huge costs to increase infrastructure, and so on), we should consider halting population growth immediately. Otherwise, to paraphrase Daly, we will just wave to that carrying capacity number on the way by, and create an unsustainable situation which will have horrendous environmental and social costs.
Of course, another issue is whether or not we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet, as an increasing number of people are claiming. If that is the case, then I believe that we need to immediately implement strategies for reducing the population (natural attrition can take care of that if we can reduce the birth rate in certain countries). Continuing to allow speculation and rapid population growth in Kelowna will only be setting a bad example for Canada and the rest of the planet. One way or the other, there will be severe consequences if we have exceeded, or when we do exceed, the planet's carrying capacity. We can try to minimize the disruption, or just blindly carry on until we experience a complete ecological and social collapse.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Dec 10, 2006 21:39:28 GMT -5
Speaking of carrying capacity and water, there was a slide show of some humorous cartoons presented by Jerry Berry, City Manager for Nanaimo, at the Building Sustainable Communities Conference. One cartoon showed a man dressed in a clown suit and the caption below read, "I told you a thousand times, I'm not the planner for Tofino."
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Dec 10, 2006 22:13:15 GMT -5
Given what happened there, I think it's appropriate to ask "Tofino had a planner?"
Given the amount of rainfall in the area, I wouldn't try to claim that Tofino's situation was any sort of example of exceeding carrying capacity. However, it certainly is one more example among many of how poorly we humans seem to be able to anticipate and plan for growth, disaster, limits, and so on. Perhaps that is one reason why the issue of carrying capacity is just not on the radar for so many people.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Dec 10, 2006 22:37:30 GMT -5
One of the problems with this issue is similar to the issue with sustainability -- having a clear, concise, and generally-accepted definition. For example, does carrying capacity mean having just enough people so that everyone continues to enjoy a decent standard of living, clean environment, and a quality life; or does it mean that we stuff the absolute maximum number of people possible into an area while living right on the brink of environmental and social collapse? Or is it something in between?
Classical economists don't even consider it to be an issue, having failed to internalize environmental and social costs, and assuming that economic growth can continue forever. These economists are, apparently, the major policy-makers and the major influence on policy-makers on much of this planet. Their way of thinking is just one of the many parallels between our current situation and the collapsed civilizations analyzed by Ronald Wright in "A Short History of Progress."
My own opinion is that, if we don't deal with this issue very soon, Mother Nature will make the decisions for us, and perhaps already is.
|
|
|
Post by nick on Dec 11, 2006 0:36:47 GMT -5
My own opinion is that, if we don't deal with this issue very soon, Mother Nature will make the decisions for us, and perhaps already is. That's what I'm concerned about, that the powers that be are going to piddle about making pretty sounds but not taking any actual positive action. At the rate they are moving it's going to take some major calamity to drive the idea home that this is a problem that needs addressing now. Situations like Summerland's should arouse suspicions that we may be dangerously close to reaching the maximum carrying capacity, in fact for Summerland they may have passed it already. Summerland is an example of how changing one or two variables in the equation can have a huge effect. Summerland is very low in population density compared to Kelowna. Large lots, relatively few condo and/or apartment developments, and lots of agriculture. Irrigation places a high demand on the water supply, to the point where watering of lawns, parks and school grounds had to be suspended to keep agricultural irrigation available. What's going to happen when it comes down to a choice between agricultural irrigation and flushing the toilet at home? This thing is like a cancer, if we wait until it really hurts, it's going to be too late.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Dec 11, 2006 0:53:13 GMT -5
This thing is like a cancer, if we wait until it really hurts, it's going to be too late. And yet, for every person who believes that, there appear to be thousands who believe that those who sound these sorts of alarms are simply extremist fear-mongers. I, for example, have been called that on several occasions now for raising these very issues. Nick, do you have any ideas about how to convince more people that these are serious issues, to the point where serious actions will be taken? There are some environmentalists who simply wait expectantly, in a quasi-religious torpor, for Nature's Armageddon. There are many who believe that we can simply continue business as usual and that technology or some other other miracle will save us. Others, like myself, believe that we are in serious trouble, but remain hopeful and take whatever actions we can.
|
|
|
Post by nick on Dec 11, 2006 15:53:16 GMT -5
And yet, for every person who believes that, there appear to be thousands who believe that those who sound these sorts of alarms are simply extremist fear-mongers. I'm not sure if that's the case. I tend to believe that there are a few very vocal detractors who seek to persuade to masses toward inactivity, and the rest of the population who simply haven't given it much thought. Anyone who has done any amount of serious research can't help but see the validity of these concerns. The trouble is that even though these issues are real and current, I can't see anything happening in a hurry. We need a sweeping attitude change the societal level. I think this is underway already, as indicated by modest but steady increases in support for Green Party candidates. The big question is will we reach a point of positive action before it's too late. Leading by example is a good start. Observe 'sustainable' practices wherever possible in our own homes and businesses. Use your vote responsibly at all levels of government, support candidates who will be most able to facilitate change. Write letters, lots of letters, to politicians at every level and to local newspapers and other publications. Speak of these matters to friends and associates. Don't browbeat, but voice your concerns, people can recognize sincerity. Change is happening already, we just need to accelerate it. Friends, neighbours, workmates, these are all possible converts if they can just see that there is something that can be done at the individual level. As the number of informed individuals rises, the changes will come faster. The worst thing any of us can do is nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Dec 11, 2006 17:42:10 GMT -5
We need a sweeping attitude change the societal level. I think this is underway already, as indicated by modest but steady increases in support for Green Party candidates. The big question is will we reach a point of positive action before it's too late. I sent a congratulatory email to Elizabeth May for her second place showing in the recent byelection. I believe that is a significant step for the Green Party. A long time ago, I was a member of the Green Party as well, but I left because of this very issue. To date, the Canadian Green Party has not adopted population control and carrying capacity into their platform, and my own opinion is that those are actually some of the most important issues to address with regard to sustainability. The reasons why that party has not adopted those ideas could be manifold, but I believe that it is, at least in part, from a very realistic perspective that, at present, public support of those ideas would be political suicide. The "critical mass" is just not there yet within the population to allow these ideas to become mainstream. I believe that it won't be either until and unless some disaster forces people to actually deal with the issues, or until things become extremely bad. The trouble is, as you point out Nick, that by the time people in general are aware that we have serious problems and are finally willing to act, it may be too late to make a difference. That seems to be a pattern in social behaviour, according to Ronald Wright and others.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Nov 30, 2007 13:00:37 GMT -5
Sent to the Salmon Arm Observer today:
Dear Sir:
Dr. William Rees is a member of the School of Regional and Community Planning at the University of British Columbia. He helped to develop the idea of the “ecological footprint,” which attempts to quantify the total impact of human activity on this planet, as well as provide a way of calculating the impact of local activity.
Rees recently spoke at a sustainability conference in Kelowna, where he reiterated some of his main ideas. In particular, Rees is concerned that we human beings have already exceeded the sustainable carrying capacity of this planet, and he points to a variety of reasons for his conclusion.
He points out as well that the ecological footprint of North Americans extends far beyond national boundaries; we are responsible for a significant amount of pollution in other countries, for biodiversity loss in those countries, for carbon emissions in those other countries, and for causing those other countries to exceed their carrying capacity many times over. We have, in his words, “appropriated carrying capacity” from them, and made even the current level of economic activity in those countries unsustainable.
Rees is only one among a growing number of professionals – economists, planners, academics – who are calling for scaling back our economic activity and halting human population growth immediately. Many fear that we are tipping over into an ecological and social disaster which will make any disruptions caused by this scaling back seem quite benign in comparison.
Many of these professionals are optimistic, and have sufficient faith in the intelligence of human beings to believe that we can act now, based upon the growing body of evidence around us. Rees is among the optimists, but he does end one of his articles with this rather pessimistic comment:
“The bad news is that most of the world seems committed as never before to the well-worn expansionist path.”
Sincerely,
Rick Shea
|
|