Eli and I were walking down the Brown's River Main. It was drizzling softly, no wind. The only sounds were the echo of my boots on gravel and the tinkle of the bear bell Eli wears when he's off-leash.
Suddenly, about a hundred meters ahead, a deer emerged from the woods, bounced across the road into the logging slash and along a slight ridge, then down, disappearing into the trees below.
Expecting Eli to be hot on the trail, I was surprised when instead he emerged from the pool at the side of the road where he'd been drinking, and continued ambling down the road.
Then he was abreast of where the deer had emerged. He suddenly stopped, sniffed, and shot off, following the deer's path along the ridge. He seemed to lose the scent, and I could see him circling until he'd picked it up again. He continued further down the hill, and then I lost sight of him as well.
So I continued down the road, knowing that Eli would catch up a few minutes later.
Which is what he did.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Raven Coal Mine Project
To: The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Re: “Compliance Coal Corporation, doing business as Comox Joint Venture (the Proponent), is proposing to develop the Raven Underground Coal Mine Project (the proposed Project) approximately 20 kilometres south of Courtenay on eastern Vancouver Island, in British Columbia (BC).”
Sirs:
Given what we know of the area, its environment, and the various impacts of coal extraction, it is astonishing that we should be even contemplating this “project”:
1. I am confident this project is not supported by the vast majority of residents of eastern Vancouver Island, and challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
2. The proposed extraction area drains into Baines Sound, an established and increasingly-famous shellfish-rearing area. It is also at high risk of serious earthquake activity.
The metals and chemicals potentially released by coal extraction are extremely toxic to any form of marine life, but especially to shellfish. As the case of the Quinsam Coal mine in my area has demonstrated, even under rigorous management of water and waste some arsenic and other heavy metals will leech into local water courses and find their way into fish-bearing streams. Of course, in the case of a serious earthquake it is almost inevitable that there will be a catastrophic release of very toxic chemicals and metals.
There will be a serious earthquake in this area; we just don't know when.
3. The extracted coal would be shipped overseas, probably to Korea. We would have no control over the environmental impacts of burning it. We do know the greenhouse gases produced would not be recovered. We also know, given what we know about prevailing winds, that northern Canada would receive much of the particulate pollution, adding to what is already a problem there.
The government of Canada apparently accepts that global climate change is a direct threat to humans. Why we would willingly add to the problem for so little gain is puzzling, to say the least.
4. The affected area is increasingly-important as a tourist magnet. As well, a number of large residential and recreational developments are in the planning stages. None of these projects would be compatible with a working coal mine.
5. The economic benefits to the area would be miniscule, especially considering the other economic interests that would be put at risk.
6. I conclude that this project makes no sense economically, socially, or environmentally. Therefore it makes no sense politically either.
Sincerely,
Re: “Compliance Coal Corporation, doing business as Comox Joint Venture (the Proponent), is proposing to develop the Raven Underground Coal Mine Project (the proposed Project) approximately 20 kilometres south of Courtenay on eastern Vancouver Island, in British Columbia (BC).”
Sirs:
Given what we know of the area, its environment, and the various impacts of coal extraction, it is astonishing that we should be even contemplating this “project”:
1. I am confident this project is not supported by the vast majority of residents of eastern Vancouver Island, and challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
2. The proposed extraction area drains into Baines Sound, an established and increasingly-famous shellfish-rearing area. It is also at high risk of serious earthquake activity.
The metals and chemicals potentially released by coal extraction are extremely toxic to any form of marine life, but especially to shellfish. As the case of the Quinsam Coal mine in my area has demonstrated, even under rigorous management of water and waste some arsenic and other heavy metals will leech into local water courses and find their way into fish-bearing streams. Of course, in the case of a serious earthquake it is almost inevitable that there will be a catastrophic release of very toxic chemicals and metals.
There will be a serious earthquake in this area; we just don't know when.
3. The extracted coal would be shipped overseas, probably to Korea. We would have no control over the environmental impacts of burning it. We do know the greenhouse gases produced would not be recovered. We also know, given what we know about prevailing winds, that northern Canada would receive much of the particulate pollution, adding to what is already a problem there.
The government of Canada apparently accepts that global climate change is a direct threat to humans. Why we would willingly add to the problem for so little gain is puzzling, to say the least.
4. The affected area is increasingly-important as a tourist magnet. As well, a number of large residential and recreational developments are in the planning stages. None of these projects would be compatible with a working coal mine.
5. The economic benefits to the area would be miniscule, especially considering the other economic interests that would be put at risk.
6. I conclude that this project makes no sense economically, socially, or environmentally. Therefore it makes no sense politically either.
Sincerely,
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
submitted to GlobeandMail
The Editor,
Dear Sir,
Your front-page pensions story, which suggests public sector defined-benefit pension plans may be headed for the same fate as many private-sector plans (it appears to this non-economist) misses an important point: my teachers' pension plan was fully paid for by me and my employer. It was part of my salary, and administered by an independent body, not my employer. My compulsory contributions were raised when the plan's actuaries determined that there were problems ahead, and when I retired my part of the plan was already fully-funded.
As I understand it, many private-sector pension plans, such as the Air Canada pilots' one cited, are administered by the company and are in trouble because the employer replaced actual investments with what were essentially promissary notes. Consequently, when such employers run into trouble, the pension plan is among the first things to go.
A simple law requiring all employers to put the money up front (or, better yet, increasing the contributions and payout of the Canada Pension Plan) would go a long way to solving this issue.
Dear Sir,
Your front-page pensions story, which suggests public sector defined-benefit pension plans may be headed for the same fate as many private-sector plans (it appears to this non-economist) misses an important point: my teachers' pension plan was fully paid for by me and my employer. It was part of my salary, and administered by an independent body, not my employer. My compulsory contributions were raised when the plan's actuaries determined that there were problems ahead, and when I retired my part of the plan was already fully-funded.
As I understand it, many private-sector pension plans, such as the Air Canada pilots' one cited, are administered by the company and are in trouble because the employer replaced actual investments with what were essentially promissary notes. Consequently, when such employers run into trouble, the pension plan is among the first things to go.
A simple law requiring all employers to put the money up front (or, better yet, increasing the contributions and payout of the Canada Pension Plan) would go a long way to solving this issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
