The myopic socialist gospel is never better revealed than in this speech by Labour MP David Kidney. 1. He rejects Porritt's 2 child policy because he had three brothers and a successful mom. So I guess everybody in the UK can have 4 kids then?
2. By implication he favours Monbiot's position. It's all our fault for hogging resources, third world folks should not be responsible for how many kids they have. 3. No one has the right to interfere with reproductive choice. This laissez faire attitude is odd coming from a socialist, who by definition, wants government to interfere with damn near everything. Especially our right to free speech. 4. Lets focus new technology to help farmers grow more food for more people. Technology to replace soil nutrients? And does he think about wild habitat taken over by human pop growth? So many obvious flaws in his thinking---thinking so typical of his ilk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Population Growth
11 am
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Illsley, and I know that as usual you will be firm but fair in chairing the proceedings. It is also a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), in his place to respond to the debate. I have followed his career with great pride and joy and am pleased that he has been so successful. I wish him well in his new job in Government, which is an exciting but difficult one.
The local council in Stafford is today unveiling its proposals for a consultation on its next local development framework. The Conservative- controlled Stafford borough council will be explaining why it has agreed to a Labour Government plan for a growth point at Stafford, because it has agreed to take 20 per cent. more new housing over the next 20 years than it would have had to take under a normal calculation. I am sure that there will be great controversy locally about why we must have all that house building in Stafford in the next 20 years. When people such as myself explain that it is because of the growing population and the need for housing, people ask me where that growing population comes from and why we have to have it.
There are many explanations of our need for more housing, but much of that need relates to demographic change and not necessarily to immigration change. Those questions illustrate on a small scale in one place in this country the population growth going on around the world, which should concern people but does not get the airing and debate that it should receive.
After I secured the debate, I suddenly started to see the topic attracting comment and attention in the media. Last week, George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian about population growth being a serious concern, and argued that we should blame not the poor for having children, but the rich for hogging more than their fair share of the world’s resources. This week Sir Jonathon Porritt was reported in the Telegraph headlines for saying that there should be a two-child limit in future on the size of families. He referred to irresponsible parents who have more than two children and green campaigners who betray their membership by not debating that important issue. I would very much like to dissociate myself from his comments, particularly as I am one of four boys born to my very successful mother and father, who are both sadly dead. My approach is different, and I would like to explain it this morning.
It is important that we focus on the part that population growth will play as a more general issue in sustainable development. The population of this country has now passed 60 million and is forecast to reach 77 million by the middle of the century. The world’s population has passed 6 billion and is forecast to reach 9 billion over the same time scale. That would mean an increase in the world’s population of 6 million every month, which is a staggering statistic.
I am drawn to the debate on population because of my initial concerns for the environment and the urgency of our task to combat climate change. The Climate Change Act 2008 was a world first in setting a binding target for cutting carbon emissions by at least 80 per cent. by 2050. I took part in the debates as we crafted
4 Feb 2009 : Column 254WH
that Act. We of course have to mitigate by reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases and adapt by preparing for rising sea levels, warmer summers, wetter winters and more unpredictable weather events, but as I asked on Second Reading, where is the discussion about the effect on all our plans of the level of population we will be working with?
My approach is very different from that of Sir Jonathon Porritt. I do not think that society should interfere in the free choices people make about having children, and I want the world community to discuss all aspects of sustainable development, including population size. In this debate, I want to focus on two points that arise as a result of a growing population. First, given that there will be a larger population in the future, how can we manage the world’s resources to meet their needs? Secondly, can we agree that, on balance, the world will be a safer place if we can stabilise the population at a lower level than currently forecast, and if so, what can we do to achieve that stability?
I will look first at the resources for a larger world population. Currently, over 1 billion people—about one sixth of the population—live on an income lower than $1 a day. The balance between those living rural or urban lives shifted last year: for the first time, more of us are urban dwellers. As the population grows and land use continues to shift towards urban living, we will need smarter ways of providing water for drinking, washing and irrigation and of farming to produce enough food for everyone. As we know from our plans in the UK for cutting carbon emissions, we will have to replace much of our carbon-based energy with renewable sources.
I shall now discuss the implications for water. One in three people in the world already face water shortages, and there are significant areas of water stress now. The Pentagon produced a risk assessment a while ago that identified competition for limited water supplies as potentially a major cause of future conflicts, and we can anticipate migration away from areas of water shortage. Also, we can see that rising sea levels will create too much water in some areas, which will cause flooding, wash away people’s homes and again trigger migration.
We saw last year that prices rise when food is scarce, often beyond the reach of local people, and we witnessed serious riots around the world due to food shortages and unaffordable prices. It was certainly a wake-up call for the international community and our own Government and food producers that food security is even more basic than energy security. The forecast rise in the global population means that demand for food is expected to rise by 50 per cent. by 2030, so we need the agricultural research and development I have mentioned to stimulate agricultural production in all parts of the world. It is a big ask: more food from less land. There will be less land because of the urbanisation I have described. At home and abroad, it is essential that our Government promote long-term investment in research, science and technology to support farmers everywhere.
In other words – watch me stand on my head while I bring you valuable thoughts!
Tim Murray
Sunday, July 26, 2009
EXPLODING POPULATION GROWTH AND DEMOCRACY DON'T MIX
So Obama visits Ghana to celebrate its record on democracy. Wonderful. But no mention is made of the fact that with a Total Fertility Rate of 4.3, Ghana’s population will double by 2050. With its ecological footprint exceeding its bio-capacity by 25%, what chance is there of continuing political stability?
In the rush to throw more billions of aid money into Africa to grow more food in degraded and ecologically-stressed environments, these supposedly well-briefed leaders are seemingly unaware or mute about the impossible population growth predicted for much of the continent. Nor do they apparently notice that several Arab states have purchased large tracts of land in Sudan and elsewhere in Africa to grow food for the rapidly rising populations of their own arid countries.
The Canadian Senate documented the futility of four decades of African aid in 2007. More than a half trillion dollars has made conditions even worse than were before the aid was dispensed. Feed 5,000 mouths now and 25.000 more hungry stomachs return in a generation. It is time we played hardball with democrats and dictators alike. Foreign aid must be increased, but made conditional on family planning. Empower and educate women, and tell local male politicians, bishops and mullahs in Africa, the Philippines, Haiti and the world---get with the program or get off the gravy train. No condoms, no help.
Tim Murray
July 11/09
In the rush to throw more billions of aid money into Africa to grow more food in degraded and ecologically-stressed environments, these supposedly well-briefed leaders are seemingly unaware or mute about the impossible population growth predicted for much of the continent. Nor do they apparently notice that several Arab states have purchased large tracts of land in Sudan and elsewhere in Africa to grow food for the rapidly rising populations of their own arid countries.
The Canadian Senate documented the futility of four decades of African aid in 2007. More than a half trillion dollars has made conditions even worse than were before the aid was dispensed. Feed 5,000 mouths now and 25.000 more hungry stomachs return in a generation. It is time we played hardball with democrats and dictators alike. Foreign aid must be increased, but made conditional on family planning. Empower and educate women, and tell local male politicians, bishops and mullahs in Africa, the Philippines, Haiti and the world---get with the program or get off the gravy train. No condoms, no help.
Tim Murray
July 11/09
HOW THE GROWTHIST COALITION WORKS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
Re. The profile of the local media
The Comox Valley Record is by no means the largest newspaper in British Columbia. It serves, as I say, a region of about 120,000 people, and as it is delivered via mail (and on-line) without subscription, its “reach” may approach or even exceed those numbers. Two things make it an important beach-head. One is that community newspapers across BC pool much of their material. Letters-the-editor and noteworthy stories, for example. Often a letter that is published in one such paper, like this one, is reprinted in others across the province. Secondly, the Comox Valley is a laboratory of growth, the venue for in-migration in Western Canada. It features a climate that is balmy by Canadian standards, and recreational opportunities that are second to none. Developers are like crocodiles who know that 500 wildebeests are going to cross a certain point in the river, and simply have to lie in ambush for them. But it is much more than that. Developers have not only profited from the out of province demand for land there,--- they have generated that demand.
This is how it worked. Developers looked at the booming oil economy of Alberta and saw a lucrative market for real estate purchases in the Comox Valley. Rich Albertans craved a winter get-away that would also serve as a soft landing spot for retirement. They had the money, and the ambition, but not the practical means. Why? There was no quick, convenient way to fly to the Comox Valley and back. Air traffic would have to be routed with a stop-over at Vancouver, “de-planing” , then taking a small turbo-prop jet to Comox----doubling the travelling time essentially. So developers hatched a game plan. Manipulate the local council into building a runway at the Comox airport that would accommodate wide-bodied jets so that they could fly direct from Calgary and arrive in an hour. Once an election of pliable councilors could be bought, it was a done deal. Westjet, the carrier of choice, was then enticed to offer such flights. The marketing plan fell into place. “Come to the Comox Valley on a Friday afternoon in January after work, golf all weekend, then return to Calgary on Sunday night, in time for work the next day” Or alternatively, “Come and retire in a winter paradise. Leave the frigid temperatures and the blizzards behind.” A key complementary move to this Machiavellian plan was getting local ski operators at nearby Mount Washington on board. Thus a coalition of big money was formed to have the road to the resort upgraded. Voila. A brand new “market”.
And of course, Albertans came, and according to one realtor I spoke to, accounted for 25% of the new home purchases in the region, way up to my island too. Word got out that there was now a worm-hole from Alberta to the Comox Valley and the North Islands, eg. Quadra Island. The developers used Alberta media to advertise that fact. This is in addition to the job the internet has done in luring rich Americans as well. The consequences of this in-migration are analyzed in my paper “Sustainable Tourism---an Oxymoronic Delusion”. They come initially as tourists, and leave as speculators or absentee owners who inflate the cost of land beyond the reach of locals, build large houses, and leave them empty for most of the year. Low income locals are denied the chance to rent them, so there is a chronic dearth of affordable housing. Or those homes that are made available for local renters in the winter are denied to them in the summer. The locals must play musical chairs every year, moving twice each calendar year. An upheaval that many young families cannot tolerate for more than a few years, and are essentially driven away from the community they grew up in---which is ghost town in the off season and a zoo in the tourist season. The business sector thrives on this circus show. The realtors reap big commissions. A home maintenance and property management business for empty homes has sprung up. Tradesmen feed off the home construction and renovations ordered by a wealthier caste of clients. Small shops and stores and tour operators feed off this seasonal boom that gives ballast to their books so that they may survive the winter. And the victims, the lowly paid service workers, dare not oppose a process which pays their pitiful wages. And the media, again, depends on business advertising. Not an audible voice is heard against this transformation, which divides the community and impacts the environment. Neither wildlife nor commoners have a say. They are like the evicted farmers of the enclosure movement. It is a story played out across British Columbia and much of the world. In the west of Ireland, in Australia, in New Zealand, in Hawaii and in Europe. Every formerly quiet haven from the rat race is shopped around the world by the profiteers of growth, and visitors come and conquer. We are sold down the river to the highest bidder. Gentrification and the dispossession of natives is the price of global tourism. It is in fact, the signature of capitalist industrialism, from its inception 250 years ago in your once green and pleasant land to the present day of time-share condos and bustling airports. Bring on $200/barrel oil !
What is most galling is that after engineering and stimulating this kind of growth, the regional planners of the district then went to communities like ours and said that we must accept our “share” of growth by casting aside or remaking our community plans to provide for greater density. Growth, after all, was “inevitable”. And the boy scouts in the Sierra Club responded, not by uncovering this plot or challenging growth, but by rushing in to make sure that it was done “right”. The environmentalists are, as I call them, dutiful janitors who come to tidy up the mess, like an indulgent mother who fixes her son’s room every day rather than tell him to stop turning it into a pigs-sty.
Galling too is the fact that this story has not be told. I have tried to break through numerous times but have been rebuked, scorned and ostracized. The media depends heavily on real estate advertising, and anti-growth letters and articles are bad for business. Not so the articles and letters written by the Sierra Club and their green colleagues. They don’t oppose growth, they only want to channel it. In fact, they are an asset to developers because they make growth more palatable. But the ecological consequences are still severe. More people leave a greater footprint, regardless of where their homes are compacted.
My conclusion remains the same. In order to save the environment, the environmental establishment MUST BE DESTROYED. Their role is to harvest public discontent and re-direct out of harm’s way, away from confronting the growthist coalition of developers, cheap labour employers, energy companies, credit institutions, and the media. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The Comox Valley is Canada in microcosm. In fact, it is a case study relevant to the world at large.
Tim Murray July 11/09
The Comox Valley Record is by no means the largest newspaper in British Columbia. It serves, as I say, a region of about 120,000 people, and as it is delivered via mail (and on-line) without subscription, its “reach” may approach or even exceed those numbers. Two things make it an important beach-head. One is that community newspapers across BC pool much of their material. Letters-the-editor and noteworthy stories, for example. Often a letter that is published in one such paper, like this one, is reprinted in others across the province. Secondly, the Comox Valley is a laboratory of growth, the venue for in-migration in Western Canada. It features a climate that is balmy by Canadian standards, and recreational opportunities that are second to none. Developers are like crocodiles who know that 500 wildebeests are going to cross a certain point in the river, and simply have to lie in ambush for them. But it is much more than that. Developers have not only profited from the out of province demand for land there,--- they have generated that demand.
This is how it worked. Developers looked at the booming oil economy of Alberta and saw a lucrative market for real estate purchases in the Comox Valley. Rich Albertans craved a winter get-away that would also serve as a soft landing spot for retirement. They had the money, and the ambition, but not the practical means. Why? There was no quick, convenient way to fly to the Comox Valley and back. Air traffic would have to be routed with a stop-over at Vancouver, “de-planing” , then taking a small turbo-prop jet to Comox----doubling the travelling time essentially. So developers hatched a game plan. Manipulate the local council into building a runway at the Comox airport that would accommodate wide-bodied jets so that they could fly direct from Calgary and arrive in an hour. Once an election of pliable councilors could be bought, it was a done deal. Westjet, the carrier of choice, was then enticed to offer such flights. The marketing plan fell into place. “Come to the Comox Valley on a Friday afternoon in January after work, golf all weekend, then return to Calgary on Sunday night, in time for work the next day” Or alternatively, “Come and retire in a winter paradise. Leave the frigid temperatures and the blizzards behind.” A key complementary move to this Machiavellian plan was getting local ski operators at nearby Mount Washington on board. Thus a coalition of big money was formed to have the road to the resort upgraded. Voila. A brand new “market”.
And of course, Albertans came, and according to one realtor I spoke to, accounted for 25% of the new home purchases in the region, way up to my island too. Word got out that there was now a worm-hole from Alberta to the Comox Valley and the North Islands, eg. Quadra Island. The developers used Alberta media to advertise that fact. This is in addition to the job the internet has done in luring rich Americans as well. The consequences of this in-migration are analyzed in my paper “Sustainable Tourism---an Oxymoronic Delusion”. They come initially as tourists, and leave as speculators or absentee owners who inflate the cost of land beyond the reach of locals, build large houses, and leave them empty for most of the year. Low income locals are denied the chance to rent them, so there is a chronic dearth of affordable housing. Or those homes that are made available for local renters in the winter are denied to them in the summer. The locals must play musical chairs every year, moving twice each calendar year. An upheaval that many young families cannot tolerate for more than a few years, and are essentially driven away from the community they grew up in---which is ghost town in the off season and a zoo in the tourist season. The business sector thrives on this circus show. The realtors reap big commissions. A home maintenance and property management business for empty homes has sprung up. Tradesmen feed off the home construction and renovations ordered by a wealthier caste of clients. Small shops and stores and tour operators feed off this seasonal boom that gives ballast to their books so that they may survive the winter. And the victims, the lowly paid service workers, dare not oppose a process which pays their pitiful wages. And the media, again, depends on business advertising. Not an audible voice is heard against this transformation, which divides the community and impacts the environment. Neither wildlife nor commoners have a say. They are like the evicted farmers of the enclosure movement. It is a story played out across British Columbia and much of the world. In the west of Ireland, in Australia, in New Zealand, in Hawaii and in Europe. Every formerly quiet haven from the rat race is shopped around the world by the profiteers of growth, and visitors come and conquer. We are sold down the river to the highest bidder. Gentrification and the dispossession of natives is the price of global tourism. It is in fact, the signature of capitalist industrialism, from its inception 250 years ago in your once green and pleasant land to the present day of time-share condos and bustling airports. Bring on $200/barrel oil !
What is most galling is that after engineering and stimulating this kind of growth, the regional planners of the district then went to communities like ours and said that we must accept our “share” of growth by casting aside or remaking our community plans to provide for greater density. Growth, after all, was “inevitable”. And the boy scouts in the Sierra Club responded, not by uncovering this plot or challenging growth, but by rushing in to make sure that it was done “right”. The environmentalists are, as I call them, dutiful janitors who come to tidy up the mess, like an indulgent mother who fixes her son’s room every day rather than tell him to stop turning it into a pigs-sty.
Galling too is the fact that this story has not be told. I have tried to break through numerous times but have been rebuked, scorned and ostracized. The media depends heavily on real estate advertising, and anti-growth letters and articles are bad for business. Not so the articles and letters written by the Sierra Club and their green colleagues. They don’t oppose growth, they only want to channel it. In fact, they are an asset to developers because they make growth more palatable. But the ecological consequences are still severe. More people leave a greater footprint, regardless of where their homes are compacted.
My conclusion remains the same. In order to save the environment, the environmental establishment MUST BE DESTROYED. Their role is to harvest public discontent and re-direct out of harm’s way, away from confronting the growthist coalition of developers, cheap labour employers, energy companies, credit institutions, and the media. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The Comox Valley is Canada in microcosm. In fact, it is a case study relevant to the world at large.
Tim Murray July 11/09
SCOTIABANK JUST LOVES IMMIGRATION
Is it any wonder why the big banks contribute to the environmental NGOs (eg. Sierra Club, David Suzuki Foundation, Nature Conservancy)? Buying their silence over immigration for relative peanuts compared to the billions to made in home mortgages and construction financing. Read on. Tim
Scotiabank says recent immigrants now driving force in real estate market
By B.H. Mckenna – 5 hours ago http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gT1PzsRLrmSqBr1Jhp7KajThqAnQ
TORONTO — At least two of Canada's big banks have found encouraging signs in the country's housing market, one financial and the other social.
A commentary from TD Economics on Thursday said there are encouraging signs that a bottom may be forming under the Canada's depressed homebuilding market, citing an eight per cent increase in housing starts in June on top of a 10.8 per cent increase in May.
Although homebuilding activity overall remains one-third below the pace of a year ago, the report prepared by TD economist Pascal Gauthier noted that the June climb "marks the second consecutive monthly increase in starts after a long string of nearly uninterrupted slides that started last fall."
On a regional basis, June's urban starts increase was lead by a 59.4 per cent surge in the Prairie region, followed by a 25 per cent gain in B.C., and a more modest 3.1 per cent increase in Ontario.
On the flipside, urban starts slid by 6.3 per cent in Quebec and 3.9 per cent in the Atlantic region. However, the bank said regions east of Ontario have generally not seen the same extent of decline as elsewhere.
Overall, the figures "provide more evidence that the Canadian economy has certainly passed the worst of what can be expected in terms of residential investment contraction," TD said.
Meanwhile, Scotia Economics issued a report Thursday saying it has been recent immigrants who have been driving housing demand in Canada.
The report cited census data that showed 72 per cent of immigrants lived in a dwelling owned by a household member in 2006, up from 68 per cent in 2001.
By comparison, the percentage of people born in Canada living in a dwelling owned by a household member rose only two percentage points over the same period, from 73 to 75 per cent.
Because the analysis was based on 2006 data, it was unclear what effect the current recession might be having on the number of immigrants and others entering the housing market.
But it was clear from the report that Scotiabank expects that trend in real estate to continue.
"Given Canada's aging population and relatively low fertility rates, longer-term household formation and housing needs will be largely determined by immigration," said senior economist Adrienne Warren.
Based on standard assumptions regarding immigration, fertility and mortality rates, Warren said immigration could account for 75 per cent of the growth in Canada's population a decade from now, up from 60-65 per cent today, and for almost all of it by 2030. Most of this growth will be in Canada's urban areas.
Among other things, the report highlighted that the faster transition to home ownership among immigrants was supported in part by strong labour markets, which saw the employment rate for core working-age recent immigrants jump 3½ percentage points between 2001 and 2006 to 67 per cent.
This was faster than the 1½ percentage point gain among their Canadian-born counterparts, which rose to 82.4 per cent.
"The better labour market performance of recent immigrants may reflect a favourable skills mix, with many employed in high-growth industries such as engineering, construction and skilled trades," Warren said.
"It may also reflect a greater geographic mobility to meet shifting regional labour requirements," she added.
Of the more than one million immigrants that came to Canada between 2001 and 2006, 69 per cent settled in the three largest metropolitan areas, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, according to the data cited by Scotiabank.
A growing proportion - 28 per cent - settled in somewhat smaller centres, most notably Calgary, Ottawa-Gatineau, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Hamilton and Kitchener.
Less than three per cent chose to live in a rural area.
Scotiabank says recent immigrants now driving force in real estate market
By B.H. Mckenna – 5 hours ago http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gT1PzsRLrmSqBr1Jhp7KajThqAnQ
TORONTO — At least two of Canada's big banks have found encouraging signs in the country's housing market, one financial and the other social.
A commentary from TD Economics on Thursday said there are encouraging signs that a bottom may be forming under the Canada's depressed homebuilding market, citing an eight per cent increase in housing starts in June on top of a 10.8 per cent increase in May.
Although homebuilding activity overall remains one-third below the pace of a year ago, the report prepared by TD economist Pascal Gauthier noted that the June climb "marks the second consecutive monthly increase in starts after a long string of nearly uninterrupted slides that started last fall."
On a regional basis, June's urban starts increase was lead by a 59.4 per cent surge in the Prairie region, followed by a 25 per cent gain in B.C., and a more modest 3.1 per cent increase in Ontario.
On the flipside, urban starts slid by 6.3 per cent in Quebec and 3.9 per cent in the Atlantic region. However, the bank said regions east of Ontario have generally not seen the same extent of decline as elsewhere.
Overall, the figures "provide more evidence that the Canadian economy has certainly passed the worst of what can be expected in terms of residential investment contraction," TD said.
Meanwhile, Scotia Economics issued a report Thursday saying it has been recent immigrants who have been driving housing demand in Canada.
The report cited census data that showed 72 per cent of immigrants lived in a dwelling owned by a household member in 2006, up from 68 per cent in 2001.
By comparison, the percentage of people born in Canada living in a dwelling owned by a household member rose only two percentage points over the same period, from 73 to 75 per cent.
Because the analysis was based on 2006 data, it was unclear what effect the current recession might be having on the number of immigrants and others entering the housing market.
But it was clear from the report that Scotiabank expects that trend in real estate to continue.
"Given Canada's aging population and relatively low fertility rates, longer-term household formation and housing needs will be largely determined by immigration," said senior economist Adrienne Warren.
Based on standard assumptions regarding immigration, fertility and mortality rates, Warren said immigration could account for 75 per cent of the growth in Canada's population a decade from now, up from 60-65 per cent today, and for almost all of it by 2030. Most of this growth will be in Canada's urban areas.
Among other things, the report highlighted that the faster transition to home ownership among immigrants was supported in part by strong labour markets, which saw the employment rate for core working-age recent immigrants jump 3½ percentage points between 2001 and 2006 to 67 per cent.
This was faster than the 1½ percentage point gain among their Canadian-born counterparts, which rose to 82.4 per cent.
"The better labour market performance of recent immigrants may reflect a favourable skills mix, with many employed in high-growth industries such as engineering, construction and skilled trades," Warren said.
"It may also reflect a greater geographic mobility to meet shifting regional labour requirements," she added.
Of the more than one million immigrants that came to Canada between 2001 and 2006, 69 per cent settled in the three largest metropolitan areas, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, according to the data cited by Scotiabank.
A growing proportion - 28 per cent - settled in somewhat smaller centres, most notably Calgary, Ottawa-Gatineau, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Hamilton and Kitchener.
Less than three per cent chose to live in a rural area.
TO STOP GROWTH, YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT IT CAN BE DONE
Comox Valley Record http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_north/comoxvalleyrecord/opinion/letters/50412432.html
NOTE: I am shocked and ecstatic. The wall of censorship has been penetrated. The growthsts in Campbell River and the growth "managers" on the green-left finally have to suffer a challenge to their news management. The Comox Valley Record published this unedited, completed with hits on mass immigration, developer financing and the corporate infiltration of the Sierra Club. If only the complete truth could get out about these corrupt money-grubbing corporate lackeys and their condescending and willfully ignorant green yuppie dupes, who won't even do basic reseach to check the filtered drivel they get from this despicable organization, the Sierra Club---the NDP in hiking boots.
Published: July 09, 2009 6:00 PM
Updated: July 09, 2009 6:17 PM
Dear editor,
“We can’t stop growth and development. That is the reality in our world.” (Wendy Masterson, Comox Valley Sierra Club, Global BCTV News, July 5, 2009)
That is the Sierra Club in a nutshell. “Ya can’t fight city hall.”
In the past two federal elections, they have given top marks to the NDP and the Greens, both of whom favour an immigration quota 24 per cent higher than the Harper government’s outrageous level, a level that has given us the highest population growth rate in the G8. And then they wash their hands and say that we can’t stop growth and development.
So let’s sweep the demographic dirt under the carpet. Let’s keeping packing people into denser urban feedlots out of harm’s way. It has already been tried, and it has failed time and time again. Portland, Oregon, will testify to the stupidity and futility of “smart” growth nostrums, for which it was famous.
Canada’s environmental movement is like a cheerful janitor for corporate Canada — mopping up the flooding floor without demanding that the spigot be turned off. They were mum about the shocking census report of two years ago and had nothing to say when an Abbotsford couple had their 18th child. Why? Because in Sierra Disneyworld, population growth can always be “managed” with strict land-use planning.
Trouble is, as York University professor Robert MacDermid concluded in his 52-page report, Funding CityPolitics, developers fund three-quarters of local political campaigns. He used the GTA as a case study, but his findings are universally applicable across Canada. Just ask Norm Smith of Chilliwack, who tried to mount a campaign against growth in his bid for mayor last year and was outspent 10 to one by the winning candidate, a developer. And guess who controls land-use planning? Local government!
There is no durable sanctuary for greenbelts, farmland or nature reserves in the face of runaway population growth. And how can you fight climate change without controlling and reducing the number of climate changers? Especially in North America, where, on average, each immigrant quadruples his greenhouse gas emissions upon arrival here.
Rod Smith of the British Academy of Sciences stated that if we are to avoid hitting the fatal tipping point of a two-degree temperature increase, we must halt growth now. Not steer it, deflect it or manage it. Stop it. That is the reality that the Sierra Club should know about. And the greatest impediment to stopping growth is the belief that it can’t be stopped.
Is the Sierra Club paid by its corporate donors not to understand this?
Tim Murray,
Quadra Island, BC
NOTE: I am shocked and ecstatic. The wall of censorship has been penetrated. The growthsts in Campbell River and the growth "managers" on the green-left finally have to suffer a challenge to their news management. The Comox Valley Record published this unedited, completed with hits on mass immigration, developer financing and the corporate infiltration of the Sierra Club. If only the complete truth could get out about these corrupt money-grubbing corporate lackeys and their condescending and willfully ignorant green yuppie dupes, who won't even do basic reseach to check the filtered drivel they get from this despicable organization, the Sierra Club---the NDP in hiking boots.
Published: July 09, 2009 6:00 PM
Updated: July 09, 2009 6:17 PM
Dear editor,
“We can’t stop growth and development. That is the reality in our world.” (Wendy Masterson, Comox Valley Sierra Club, Global BCTV News, July 5, 2009)
That is the Sierra Club in a nutshell. “Ya can’t fight city hall.”
In the past two federal elections, they have given top marks to the NDP and the Greens, both of whom favour an immigration quota 24 per cent higher than the Harper government’s outrageous level, a level that has given us the highest population growth rate in the G8. And then they wash their hands and say that we can’t stop growth and development.
So let’s sweep the demographic dirt under the carpet. Let’s keeping packing people into denser urban feedlots out of harm’s way. It has already been tried, and it has failed time and time again. Portland, Oregon, will testify to the stupidity and futility of “smart” growth nostrums, for which it was famous.
Canada’s environmental movement is like a cheerful janitor for corporate Canada — mopping up the flooding floor without demanding that the spigot be turned off. They were mum about the shocking census report of two years ago and had nothing to say when an Abbotsford couple had their 18th child. Why? Because in Sierra Disneyworld, population growth can always be “managed” with strict land-use planning.
Trouble is, as York University professor Robert MacDermid concluded in his 52-page report, Funding CityPolitics, developers fund three-quarters of local political campaigns. He used the GTA as a case study, but his findings are universally applicable across Canada. Just ask Norm Smith of Chilliwack, who tried to mount a campaign against growth in his bid for mayor last year and was outspent 10 to one by the winning candidate, a developer. And guess who controls land-use planning? Local government!
There is no durable sanctuary for greenbelts, farmland or nature reserves in the face of runaway population growth. And how can you fight climate change without controlling and reducing the number of climate changers? Especially in North America, where, on average, each immigrant quadruples his greenhouse gas emissions upon arrival here.
Rod Smith of the British Academy of Sciences stated that if we are to avoid hitting the fatal tipping point of a two-degree temperature increase, we must halt growth now. Not steer it, deflect it or manage it. Stop it. That is the reality that the Sierra Club should know about. And the greatest impediment to stopping growth is the belief that it can’t be stopped.
Is the Sierra Club paid by its corporate donors not to understand this?
Tim Murray,
Quadra Island, BC
CBC STILL IN WONDERLAND
I just caught a fraction of another of those famous CBC News 15 documentaries. Brian McDonald hosted this one. It was about African food aid. This statement jumped out at me. “The problem (with world hunger) is not that there is a lack of food. In fact there is now 20% more food produced per capita now than there was 30 years ago.” Oh no, for the leftists and liberals, there is always “enough to go around”. It is all down to maldistribution. In this case, MacDonald said, it was because the very poor lack the means to purchase it. Several problems were enumerated, but corrupt and incompetent government was cited as the main cause.
Hasn’ t the CBC heard of Peak Oil? Don’t they realize that that 20% increase in food productivity was achieved by oil-based agriculture? What about declining aquifers?
McDonald said there always will be enough food produced for growing numbers of people. Not to worry then, about population growth. Democracy and honesty in government will meet the challenges ahead.
Tim Murray
July 8/09
Hasn’ t the CBC heard of Peak Oil? Don’t they realize that that 20% increase in food productivity was achieved by oil-based agriculture? What about declining aquifers?
McDonald said there always will be enough food produced for growing numbers of people. Not to worry then, about population growth. Democracy and honesty in government will meet the challenges ahead.
Tim Murray
July 8/09
WHO IS THE GREEN SHADOW?
Who is the “Green Shadow”? According to my Sustainability Dictionary, the “Green Shadow” is an American environmentalist. He is a “shadow” because he is apparently a
Tim Murray, nocturnal creature. In the broad daylight he is never seen (or heard) when fertility rates spike or borders overflow and the Census Bureau announces that another 3.4 million people made America their home this year. He knows and cares a lot about your individual “footprint” but not the total number of “feet” in the country. But he is feted and financially supported because only he knows what evil lurks in the hearts of hyper-consumers!
If caught maintaining their per capita consumption, Americans are sternly admonished in a sinister tone, “The weed of eco-crime bears bitter fruit. More individual consumption does not pay!” And then he slips away in his black cloak of moral superiority, back to the “green” building which is his lair, hidden a sprawling subdivision of green homes built by Centex corporation, and improved by the products of Home Depot, both benefactors of Nature Conservancy and the Conservation Fund.
The Green Shadow is a crime fighter of selective focus. He aims to reduce personal emissions but is oblivious to the number of extra emitters. His mission: to make people feel good about themselves. His motto: More and more people consuming less and less.
Although perceived as a liberal, his radio program can only be heard at the far right of the radio dial and is sponsored by the makers of “smart” cars. The Ford “Conscience”, The Dodge “Guilt-Absolver” and the Jeep “Holier than thou”. The narrator is a computer simulation of Orson Welles projected onto a very wide screen. It is rumored that Mr. Welles will soon be discharged from his role as the voice of environmentalism, because he apparently wants to warn the audience of an alien invasion, something too far fetched for environmentalists to believe in.
If you ever manage to catch the Green Shadow, it is pointless to argue with him. If you win the argument, then you are racist.
Tim Murray
July 9/09
Tim Murray, nocturnal creature. In the broad daylight he is never seen (or heard) when fertility rates spike or borders overflow and the Census Bureau announces that another 3.4 million people made America their home this year. He knows and cares a lot about your individual “footprint” but not the total number of “feet” in the country. But he is feted and financially supported because only he knows what evil lurks in the hearts of hyper-consumers!
If caught maintaining their per capita consumption, Americans are sternly admonished in a sinister tone, “The weed of eco-crime bears bitter fruit. More individual consumption does not pay!” And then he slips away in his black cloak of moral superiority, back to the “green” building which is his lair, hidden a sprawling subdivision of green homes built by Centex corporation, and improved by the products of Home Depot, both benefactors of Nature Conservancy and the Conservation Fund.
The Green Shadow is a crime fighter of selective focus. He aims to reduce personal emissions but is oblivious to the number of extra emitters. His mission: to make people feel good about themselves. His motto: More and more people consuming less and less.
Although perceived as a liberal, his radio program can only be heard at the far right of the radio dial and is sponsored by the makers of “smart” cars. The Ford “Conscience”, The Dodge “Guilt-Absolver” and the Jeep “Holier than thou”. The narrator is a computer simulation of Orson Welles projected onto a very wide screen. It is rumored that Mr. Welles will soon be discharged from his role as the voice of environmentalism, because he apparently wants to warn the audience of an alien invasion, something too far fetched for environmentalists to believe in.
If you ever manage to catch the Green Shadow, it is pointless to argue with him. If you win the argument, then you are racist.
Tim Murray
July 9/09
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
