It is astounding to me that the University of Toronto continues to ignore the public and politicians calling on them to cancel the sale of David Dunlap Observatory. The DDO land and buildings were donated in the 1930's and the facility has been doing useful science on every clear night since then. Because it sits in an urban area, the 74-inch telescope is used for niche areas of astronomy: primarily stellar spectroscopy.
At the same time, Richmond Hill has adapted the growth of the town around the 190 acre park. It is now the largest and last remaining green space in the middle of town and is much needed by people and animals alike.
U of T should listen to the more than 2000 people who signed this Online Petition and 2000 others who joined the Save David Dunlap Observatory Facebook group. And the 5000 signatures we delivered to the Ontario Legislature and the University of Toronto. The University should also look at the number of newspaper articles, letters, editorials and blogs which have called the sale a "cash grab" or worse.
People do not want to fund the University of Toronto by selling the land beneath our feet.
When I read inspiring books like Bill McKibben's Deep Economy and Mike Nickerson's Life, Money and Illusion , I dream utopian dreams of a world with no cars. Instead, our roads are practically empty except for hundreds of modern, quiet, hybrid and electric buses. Lotsa buses. Enough buses that you'd almost never have to wait more than a minute or three to catch one. Enough buses to ensure you almost always get a seat. Maybe even a window seat.
And then I wake up and realize I'm standing in the middle of a crowded aisle on a VIVA bus, heading to York University. For some unknown reason, the driver refuses to open the roof vents or turn on the air conditioning. The packed load of sweating students sways with nausea as the bus lurches through stop and go traffic, navigates around road construction and dodges the SUVs that routinely cut in front.
Those of us who travel without earbuds are treated to the cacophonous hiss and pop of 30 or 40 iPods which rhythmically bash away at the eardrums of their wearers.
And then we arrive. And we stagger out of the bus like early morning drunks only to shuffle through a gauntlet of idling buses that spew diesel fumes which gather and linger around the walkways and buildings.
What I want to know is this: if we really are on the verge of Peak Oil; if a barrel of the stuff will soon cost more than $100; if the ice caps are melting, causing half the world to flood and other half to dry out; then, why can't we at least learn to turn off buses when they are parked? York Region Transit is about to raise fairs to $3 a ride. How much of this fair increase could be waived if drivers routinely shut off the engines when their buses are stopped for more than 3 minutes.
Of course, I'd prefer to see a car-less world where clean buses rule the roads. In the meantime, can we at least build buses that doesn't spew diesel and irony? Right now, they are choking the life out of us.
The Ontario Liberal's new environmental "incentive program" was unveiled yesterday. This scheme would allow the province to hand out special eco-licence plates to owners of low-emmision cars such as the Toyota Prius. The details are still being hammered out, but owners of these special green plates could be entitled to free parking and the right to use high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Woot!
At first glance, this eco-plate scheme sounds harmless enough: a low-cost, low-impact bit of PR. Look a little deeper, however, the the scheme is nothing but a minor Liberal tip-of-the-hat to the wealthiest Ontarians who could (if they wanted) purchase an expensive hybrid car. The plan will do nothing to help alleviate global warming or get cars off congested roads. And it will do nothing to improve public transit. In fact, the eco-licence will bring additional traffic and demand for parking.
Sorry Dalton, but we need tougher emissions laws now to make it hard for car makers to sell cars that spew carbon. Your recently announced $650-million fund to develop green cars in Ontario sounds like money wasted on big auto makers. Why not direct that fund into an Ontario-grown green transit manufacturer. Put green buses on the roads and help Ontario industry re-tool to build renewable energy products. Then you might get my Green vote.
If you have any doubts about whether humans should pony up and pay what it takes to stop climate change, you need to watch Bill's video. His argument is clear and concise and cuts through the acres of social and political crap that often seems to cloud this issue. Essentially, Bill (aka mav7469) presents a truth table and illustrates 4 scenarios:
| |
Yes, we act |
No, we do not Act |
| False |
Wasted cost,possible global depression |
Lucky us, Global Warming never happened. it's all good! |
| True |
Lucky us! Global Warming is averted :-) |
Environmental, economic, political and social catastrophe on a global scale |
After presenting these 4 options, he concludes that our only logical choice is to act to stop global warming. This is because it appears that all things being equal, the cost of acting and being wrong is far less than the cost of being wrong by not acting on climate change. He's right. "Wasting" money to reduce emissions if we don't have to is a much better outcome than global environmental, economic, political and social catastrophe. Bill's argument seems to be air-tight.
While he convincingly presents the 4 possibilities and his arguments are sound, they do not consider the complications that arise from illogical and selfish human thinking. For example:
- Since we know the poor will be more adversely affected by climate change than the wealthy, rich governments and individuals may gamble they will come out ahead by doing nothing.
- Even though spending the necessary money to halt climate change is logical, it will be hard to know for certain that our money will not be stolen or squandered.
In other words, Bill has defined a convenient and useful truth table, but the truth about climate change is much bigger — and much more "inconvenient" — than 4 boxes. But don't listen to me — (trust me, no one does!) — just watch the video and let him know what you think:
Interesting argument about Global Warming –
PenOpticon
I'm not sure if it was due to a fear of plants or an asphalt fetish, but my neighbour recently paved his backyard. About 2 months ago, they also took out most of the trees on the property, including two 50-foot fir trees and the remaining fruit trees that had been planted by Vincenzo, the previous owner (may he never return to see what has become of his former home!). So, as of this moment, about 3/4 of the property is paved or covered with interlocking stone and most of the lot's carbon sequestering capabilities have been removed. I'm not a hydrologist, so I have no idea what effect this pavement will have on run-off water quality or the water table, but it can't be good. They won't be fertilizing this over-sized driveway, but they will periodically re-tar it and will probably also use pesticides to keep peripheral weeds from taking over.
The above photo was pieced together using Autostitch from a dozen or so shots — hence the fish-eye effect. You can see there is plenty of room for hopscotch and chalk art, but little room for plant life.
I think I've moved beyond anger about the whole thing, but I can not understand the mind or the aesthetic that desired and was willing to pay for such ugliness. Why pavement? Why now, when gas prices are on the rise? Why now, when we are bombarded with messages about global warming, peak oil and the need to curtail carbon emissions.