|
Watching the re-wilding of the old Bally Haly golf course over the past couple of years has been a delight. Without all the mowing, herbicides, and pesticides, the biggest green space in the East End has been growing greener. Clusters of flowering plants and long grasses are giving the area a new beauty. Newfoundland’s famous bees are happy. Big flocks of juncoes and other birds are feeding and nesting there. It’s been amazing.
Now the the plan to redevelop the old Bally Haly golf course has been released. Was it a coincidence that it came out just after the municipal and provincial elections? Probably, but both the redevelopment plan and the electoral platforms have something in common: almost no mention of the environment, even after the terrifying and destructive wildfires that burned surrounding houses and encroached on St. John’s this summer. Former premier John Hogan called it an “all hands on deck” emergency, and that’s actually how we should be talking about the environment more generally in a time of climate change and climate crisis. Now is the right time to be thinking of how our built environment could help us with resilience against the crisis, and this redevelopment can be part of the solution. We might not think we have to worry about it here just yet, so close to the chilly Atlantic ocean, but we have the potential for dangerous urban heat concentrations as absorptive surfaces such as asphalt collect the sun’s rays. It's already been reported as a problem in Halifax. Putting up typical new apartments and houses while installing air conditioners to deal with the heat is a bandage solution. In fact, we need to be thinking about how we build, not only what we build and where. Adaptive reuse of existing buildings in Pleasantville and downtown would make better sense in some cases, partly because of proximity to downtown, but new constructions that are built to higher environmental standards are key. If we can conserve energy through design and materials, we can improve the balance of environmental concerns and social concerns related to housing affordability. Yes, we have a housing crisis too, and we have, as Hope Jamieson wrote, "a protectionist desire to preserve the status quo for existing homeowners at the expense of those feeling the pinch of the tight housing market." I know this post can be read as NYMBYism, and I don't want to be a part of that problem without being part of a different solution for the environment. Ideally, I don't want the either/or situation. We shouldn't let a progressive agenda be divided into competing issues. But I think we can have a definite boost to available, affordable, sustainable housing without a near-total loss of the implicated green space. The old Bally Haly land is big enough, at 117 acres, to do both, while serving the interests of investors too. I’d love to see a really accessible, re-wilded park in the plan. It would be a legacy for the Dobbin family if they worked with the City to create a Dobbin Park that would give the East End a green heritage zone, something comparable with Bannerman Park in the city centre and Bowering Park in the West End. (It’s an environmental equity problem for the City not to consider the imbalance of parks here.) I’d much prefer that to the loss of almost all the green space, which is currently in the proposal. As the manager of the golf course said, “That is in the hands of the purchaser.” Some of my neighbours have said the same: the land is private property, and the developers can do what they want. But we have regulations and consultations for a reason: the public has a stake in it, not only for the sake of much-needed housing in St. John’s but also for the sake of a healthy environment in the future. It’s important to know that almost any big privately owned green space might be used, on the down-low, by the public. The old Bally Haly golf course currently supports joggers, dog walkers, playing kids, and, in winter, also skiiers, snow-shoers, and tobogganers. In reality, it’s a semi-public site that serves a public interest or a public good, and that’s important. In casual conversation with some of my neighbours, the idea came up that a green belt along the west side of the redevelopment (the Logy Bay Road side, not the Virginia River side). A green belt on that side would conserve the trees and grasses behind existing houses while providing a new loop that would allow walkers and runners to avoid the busy Logy Bay Road and enjoy a way back up to the junction at Logy Bay Road and Fairwood. A green belt is a great idea because it would get way more neighbours on board for the redevelopment (partly because it might protect our own property values), and it would serve as an at least temporary habitat for other animals. Green belts have been a part of new thinking about growing cities in Canada and beyond. Continuous green spaces in cities can also create wildlife corridors, which are not only good for animals on the ground (including people). Birds and butterflies appreciate stretches of green, too, according to Parks Canada, which endorses “ecological connectivity." That's a goal that’s good for all of us. Starting tonight at the City's Committee of the Whole meeting (Oct. 28), let's talk more with each other about the green belt as part of a legacy project that would enable a compromise between more housing and green space. It can be a win-win situation, and we can hash it out during the developer's consultation and the public consultation to follow. It can work for investors, existing home owners, future owners and renters, and everyone implicated in climate change--and that truly is everyone. Works Cited
0 Comments
An almost identical version of this post was sent to the editors of The Star Phoenix today, which is why this post is in the "open letters" category, among others. In the process of re-reading, I noticed that many of my recent posts have involved the environment in some way, so I've added "environment" as a category.
The opinion piece by retired TC Energy executive Dennis McConaghy (Star Phoenix, 2 Dec. 2020, p. A8, and here at the Calgary Herald) appears to misunderstand the concept behind Bill C-12 and its stated goal of achieving “net-zero emissions” by the year 2050. Quite possibly it is less a misunderstanding and more an example of industrial misinformation meant to hamper the efforts to deal with climate change until a less responsive government is elected. McConaghy implies that “net-zero” means, as he puts it, the “elimination of fossil fuels.” Elimination means “the complete removal or destruction of something,” according to my dictionary. That is not what “net-zero emissions” means. “Net” is an adjective that means what is “remaining after the deduction… or other contributions.” “Gross” means the “total” or the “complete” amount. The federal government’s plan is not to reach “gross-zero emissions.” The plan is to factor in offsets to the burning of fossil fuels, such as the planting of trees, which act as carbon sinks and sequester carbon in forests and, quite often, building materials. No one seriously expects energy-intensive jet airplanes, transport trucks, and construction or farming equipment to work without the raw power of fossil fuels immediately, though that might eventually happen. Instead, the idea is to limit fossil-fuel use to the essentials, and shift less-essential uses to greener energy. Most of us drive cars or small trucks that can easily be switched to electricity, and we can generate that electricity with solar-power installations, wind power, geothermal energy, even the more hotly debated nuclear energy. Near oceans, wave power is in development too. People everywhere and in all walks of life, young and old, liberal and conservative, are more and more concerned about climate change. Even energy companies such as Shell are hoping for net-zero by 2050. The title of McConaghy’s piece demands “justification for [the] PM’s net-zero plan,” as if it were not obvious to anyone reading and watching credible news these days. The justification is climate change or, if you prefer, climate crisis and climate emergency. What McConaghy actually questions, as the piece later makes clear, is the legitimacy of the plan, because he thinks that a net-zero plan should be accepted “only… after a federal election” serving as a “referendum.” Demanding a referendum is a stalling tactic. Many Canadians are ready for a dramatic shift in energy. That’s one reason why we didn’t elect a government that had no plan for the environment. McConaghy’s piece is potentially deceptive, with the potential result of delaying a shift that must be taken seriously now, not after another federal government gets another term of doing too little. Works Cited
How to cite this blog in MLA format: Deshaye, Joel. "'Net-Zero Emissions' and Industrial Misinformation." Publicly Interested, 2 Dec. 2020, www.publiclyinterested.weebly.com. Update 3/2/2020: I have been thinking for a while about missing part of the point in this entry, and today some news helped me to expand my thinking a little. As reported by the CBC, the news was of another mass-mediated attack on Greta Thunberg, this time in the form of a sexually suggestive and aggressive decal from an "energy services company" in Alberta called X-Site Energy Services, a name now loaded with innuendo in the context of the decal's use of sexual imagery.
Here where I live we are in an official State of Emergency because of the biggest single-day blizzard in recorded history. (Another update: In fact, even though it is now weeks after the storm, we have had another, milder one that closed the university again today, March 2nd—a seemingly necessary condition of this blog!) The city has been remarkably quiet, with no traffic allowed while the snow plowing is under way, and with snow banks of two to three meters, even up to four, dampening sound. The power grid also failed for thousands of residents, in some cases for more than a day. If you have been out and about, with your senses heightened by the quiet and the dark, you will smell woodsmoke. Traditional wood-burning stoves and wood- or even coal-burning fireplaces are still legal here. They definitely seem to be more in use these days. Many of us probably even feel nostalgic when we experience this combination of these scents and the snow, but this feeling is a problem for at least a couple of reasons. Partly because of burning fuel in our own homes rather than in power stations, my province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the worst energy efficiency of all the provinces. When most of our energy is generated by burning fossil fuels, as it is here so far, it contributes to climate change and climate crisis. We made a big effort to reduce our fossil-fuel consumption across the power grid by constructing a large hydroelectricity station at Muskrat Falls, but it is widely regarded as a major failure of politics, management, economics, engineering, and ethics. We are likely to become more dependent on oil than ever—at least according to the president of the offshore oil regulator, our former premier Roger Grimes. Grimes sees oil and gas as the future, whereas anyone calling them “fossil fuels” is implying the opposite. And he has concluded that, because they are the future, he needs to convince his allies to work to change the minds of the young people who will be in charge in the future. Naming the teenage environmental activist Greta Thunberg as a risk, Grimes said recently, “Unless the message has been tempered and developed and moderated and everybody understands there can be balance [between fossil fuels and greener energy], then there's a real fear of losing the battle to it [environmental activism].” As a teacher, I would prefer a less warlike and propagandistic approach to educating younger people. (See my previous post, “The Classroom as Prison Cell with Armed Guards.”) It's not a "battle" but a different kind of challenge. The problem with the generation gap that Grimes sees here is that it assumes that young people and older people have inseparably different interests that have to be harmonized, when in fact the climate crisis caused largely by fossil fuels is an existential threat to all demographics (not equally but more so for poor people in northern and coastal regions). His statement has other problems, too, such as the assumption that the extractive industries are seeking “moderation” or “balance,” when they are seeking to remain dominant. The fact is that greener energy is a small fraction of energy production and consumption in Canada and industrialized countries in the world. A lack of balance is hardly the fault of green energy producers or environmental activists, especially when the extractive industries get somewhere between $7.7 and $15 billion in subsidies. Since 1990, the rate of burning fossil fuels has increased four times more quickly than the rise in greener energy, so we won’t achieve balance unless fossil fuel usage drops dramatically while greener energy surges. Thunberg does not seem like a radical to me. She is responding to a near-consensus among scientists around the world whose thousands of studies have been condensed into reports by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Thunberg said after meeting our prime minister, Justin Trudeau, that her “message to all the politicians around the world is the same: just listen and act on the current, best available united science.” This appeal to climate science is entirely respectable. Her appeal, and that of the great many activists and concerned citizens who support her and her work, is a gesture that demonstrates how young people can learn to evaluate information and make informed decisions about their future and their future adulthood. It is deeply ironic that Thunberg's elders are infantilizing her. (Update: Most troubling is how the X-Site corporation has also sexualized her, implying a child-pornographic gaze. The story from CBC News in Edmonton describes the X-Site decal as "a black-and-white drawing of a female figure's bare back with hands pulling on her braided pigtails," pigtails being a feature of Thunberg's style. To be more obvious, the decal also seems to include Thunberg's name as if it were a "tramp stamp." I would add that the point of view of the decal is that of the same person who has hands on her braids, implying that someone is having sex with her, possibly violently. Intended or not, one interpretation of the decal is that the company, with its own sexually "exciting" name, is promoting sexual aggression against Thunberg. This interpretation speaks volumes about the limited recourses of an industry that has strong anti-intellectual elements, given its downplaying, deferral, or denial of climate-change science, and that has difficulty imagining its own future relevance.) Grimes joins the American president Donald Trump and others in patronizing, condescending to, or insulting Thunberg—in Trump's case, as if name-calling is an argument or explanation. (It is not. It's bullying.) At the Davos economic summit, Thunberg presented counter-arguments to Trump that belie the notion that young people will grow up to fix the future, in the future, with imaginary or nascent technologies. One of the major flaws in this reasoning is that it exempts members of the current establishment of responsibility for a crisis that they have perpetuated. Grimes and Trump style themselves as guardians of the good old days before scientists and young people hurt business by noisily reframing the narratives about how we (but not all of us) came to enjoy prosperity. The nostalgia here is what Svetlana Boym, in her 2001 book The Future of Nostalgia, calls “restorative nostalgia.” It means that we use the feeling to inspire us to try to recreate or regenerate certain conditions of our happiness, like relying on oil and gas for cheap energy and plastics, even if they are problematic—even if they are threatening for our future. Not to imply that there is no such thing as emotional intelligence, but the feeling overrides our thinking. That’s what Grimes and Trump are doing by hearkening back to the yesteryears of industrial growth and glory. Although I have a practical solution for one of our local energy efficiency problems that I will try to write about soon in my next entry on this blog, I also have my own message for young people. I won’t tell them not to listen to their elders, but I will say that they should listen to elders who have mainly the future at heart, not the past, unless the past is treated with much more critical reflection. Works Cited
How to cite this blog in MLA format: Deshaye, Joel. "Greta Thunberg's Young Intellectual Appeal to Climate Science." Publicly Interested, 22 Jan. 2020, www.publiclyinterested.weebly.com. |
AuthorJoel Deshaye is a professor of Canadian literature with an interest in publics, publicity, celebrity, mass media, and popular culture. Categories
All
Archives
October 2025
|
RSS Feed