11779 replies to this topic

[sebberry]

No, but CoV taxpayers paid for the "carbon offset" of her flights so all is good.

 

Great, so the carbon goes into the air... but it doesn't?

[Awaiting Juno]

I wonder how the increase in airline emissions corresponds with the increase in conferences on climate change?  Is it possible that increased talk about climate change without concrete action (ie. going from in person conferences to 'virtual' conferences) does nothing?  It is also a very interesting coincidence that actual action on climate change might coincide with protectionist trade policies.  A huge portion of emissions result from the transportation of goods to market, good that historically were made domestically are made in other countries, and the goods we make here are largely traded to other countries.  So if the emissions associated with production and trade are a large share of the problem, shutting down trade should reduce those emissions (a climate justification for large tariffs on carbon intense goods - call it a carbon tax, but really its just another tariff).  Of course shutting down trade means that we won't be producing the goods that were most efficient at producing, nor will anyone else, world production will fall and there will be real consequences to that.  So either you can have people dying because the climate changed, or you can have people dying because there's not enough food, clothing and shelter to go around.  

 

Sometimes the specter of an overwhelming problem that is complex (ie. climate change, addictions, homelessness, etc.) - will drive bad policy and paradoxically will result in outcomes worse than the problem that was trying to be solved in the first place.  I'm not convinced a carbon tax is the right tool for the job, although I do think a better understanding of the "carbon footprint" is a step in the right direction.  "I paid a sin tax", definitely seems less virtuous than "I didn't sin in the first place." 

[Awaiting Juno]

And again, this is in Ms. Helps' jurisdiction how?  I really wish she'd focus on being Victoria's mayor and doing the things she actually has control over doing to reduce the actual carbon use of the city.  I don't want her jetting around, I want her demonstrating her commitment to the environment through her actions and policies at the municipal level.  There's a big difference between being green and being green-washed.

[Nparker]

I think it's pretty clear at this point that Her Worseship's second term is all about spreading the Lisa Helps' brand in anticipation of her post-mayoral career.

[Nparker]

The City of Victoria has pledged to plant 5,000 trees by the end of 2020 as part of a United Nations challenge, becoming the first Canadian city to sign on to the initiative. Mayor Lisa Helps participated in the launch of the United Nations Trees in Cities Challenge in New York City on Saturday...Helps is in New York to attend the UN Climate Summit, which started Saturday and ends Monday...

https://www.timescol...enge-1.23953736

Perhaps these newly planted trees will help recover some of the carbon expended by Her Worseship's return flights to the NYC conference. Maybe they will be money trees and the costs to CoV taxpayers for the lastest segment of Lisa's Rainbow Tour can be recovered as well.

[rmpeers]

Perhaps these newly planted trees will help recover some of the carbon expended by Her Worseship's return flights to the NYC conference. Maybe they will be money trees and the costs to CoV taxpayers for the lastest segment of Lisa's Rainbow Tour can be recovered as well.

Ah... the glamour and priviledge of being an Official Big City Mayor... please ignore the people OD-ing on the streets, I have a flight to catch! Never mind that downtown is devolving daily into Little East Hastings, I got to attend a special UN conference and figured out we just need a bunch more trees!

[aastra]

I'm just hoping 5,001 mature trees won't need to be cut down in order to make way for those 5,000 new trees.

 

From the city's Urban Forest Master Plan:

 

 

Challenges:

- Low levels of tree cover in large areas of the city;
- An aging street tree population that lacks diversity (many street trees plantings are even-aged, over-mature and single-specied);
- Conflicts with the built environment (including underground infrastructure and new development);
- Increased densification leading to mature tree loss and the erosion of available greenspace for future urban forest;
- Species at risk, degradation of natural areas and loss of sensitive ecosystems;
- Emerging climate change impacts; and
- A constrained fiscal environment for local government and taxpayers

 

The bolded bits could have been excerpted from pretty much any city's tree management documentation, FYI. They're all telling the same story, regardless of where the city happens to be located or how old the city happens to be.

 

 

In areas where there are significant amounts of tree cover, it will be challenging to maintain these levels in the short- to mid-term. This is because a significant fraction of Victoria’s urban forest is getting elderly... The City’s street tree resource is particularly vulnerable to this demographic "bubble". As this aging trend progresses, older trees will be replaced with young specimens at an accelerating rate. This will result in a temporary reduction in over canopy levels for a time, increasing again as this new cohort of trees matures.

Edited by aastra, 23 September 2019 - 08:37 AM.

[Nparker]

I'm just hoping 5,001 mature trees won't need to be cut down in order to make way for those 5,000 new trees...

As long as Lisa gets her face time and looks good to the green power brokers.

[aastra]

Like I say, the name of the mayor is irrelevant.

[Nparker]

The mayor's name may be irrelevant to the issue of old tree preservation, but it is not irrelevant to the motivation behind the decision to plant new trees.

[mbjj]

I heard her on the radio this morning, it was sort of "me, me, me". "I spoke to this person and that". I had to turn it off.

[Matt R.]

She was on the CBC around 5:30 this afternoon and I think will be back on As It Happens in the next hour. As yet they’ve just announced an un named BC mayor will be interviewed from New York.

She said that the city will be announcing more action on climate change in the coming weeks but can’t talk about it yet.

Matt.

[Sparky]

We are Earth scientists, academics, and members of the public who either don’t fly or who fly less.

https://noflyclimatesci.org/

[Nparker]

Nice. More jet fuel for me. 

[vortoozo]

She was on the CBC around 5:30 this afternoon and I think will be back on As It Happens in the next hour. As yet they’ve just announced an un named BC mayor will be interviewed from New York.

She said that the city will be announcing more action on climate change in the coming weeks but can’t talk about it yet.

Matt.

 

Yes, she was on As It Happens and did address the concern that some share of her and others using fossil fuels to attend.

[vortoozo]

Nice. More jet fuel for me. 

 

What is that supposed to mean?

[rmpeers]

Yes, she was on As It Happens and did address the concern that some share of her and others using fossil fuels to attend.

How did she address or justify it? I mean, it's not as if she needs to fly in terms of achieving any benefit for the city or its residents. Clearly it benefits her, but that isn't a valid reason. Not on the taxpayers' dime.

[vortoozo]

How did she address or justify it? I mean, it's not as if she needs to fly in terms of achieving any benefit for the city or its residents. Clearly it benefits her, but that isn't a valid reason. Not on the taxpayers' dime.

 

The transcript is here: https://www.cbc.ca/r...mayor-1.5293778

[rmpeers]

The transcript is here: https://www.cbc.ca/r...mayor-1.5293778

Ah. Right. It was an emergency meeting, in New York. All makes perfect sense.

[Matt R.]

Plus the self imposed carbon tax makes it mostly ok.

Matt.