Sincerely,

Berchmans Keaney

I’ve worked with heavy industrial machines. To call them “efficient” is laughable at best. The power needed to level an old growth forest is no comparison to the amount of driving I did. Nice assumption though. Still see they continue to compromise the majority of your arguments…

So you propose that nobody (least of all the industries responsible for environmental degradation) should have to front the bill for brown fields?

Well, no that’s not true. The problem is that the city cannot force the company that polluted the brownfield to clean up the mess if it has declared bankruptcy (which is usually the case.) The law stinks, but it is a federal law, not a municipal one. As for potential new owners, the city cannot force anyone to buy land and build on it. And given an expensive brownfield site in Guelph or a cheaper Greenfield site somewhere else, where do you think the investor is going to site his plant? And even if the investor wanted to “do the right thing”, how long until his company goes out of business because some other company can sell its products cheaper?

As for the buried trees—. It stands to reason that a mature forest is carbon neutral, simply because it is completely recycling its biomass. It has relatively more carbon than secondary growth, but it is no longer fixing carbon and removing it from the atsmosphere (i.e. acting as a “sink”.) In contrast, a secondary growth area (i.e. young trees) has less carbon than an old growth area, but is pulling more out of the atsmosphere. If you bury the old growth then it ceases to interact with the atmosphere (that is how our coal beds were created—hence the term “fossil fuels”.) Either way, I wasn’t seriously proposing this as a solution, just to point out that when people say “old growth areas are carbon sinks” they don’t know what they are talking about.

As for the carbon being released in the process of buldozing the forest, not knowing how you spent your vacation, I might speculate that if you were travelling and didn’t do so by walking or bicycling, you probably released far more carbon doing that. (Heavey machinery diesel engines are very efficient compared to automobile, bus or jet engines.)

Sorry for the long delay in replying. I was on vacation and then working pretty much constantly upon my return.

So you propose that nobody (least of all the industries responsible for environmental degradation) should have to front the bill for brown fields? I just recently read an article that simply because something can be done more cheaply doesn’t mean it’s necessarily better for the environment, sustainability or human health. In your situation, it’s essentially guaranteed it’s a DETRIMENT to all of those things! Eventually businesses will be forced to use brown fields anyway when all the “virgin” land is paved over around cities anyway.

As for your carbon sink theory. It seems essentially flawed. If you simply bury the trees via bulldozer as you suggest, to begin with will be using vast amounts of carbon emissions in the process. Secondly, you ignore the fact that dead trees release the carbon they had sequestered their whole lives. Larger tree carcasses (from the old growth forest) means more carbon being put back into the air. You also fail to note that old growth forests continue to sequester carbon. You only put them only as a “stable” CO2 collected source. If this were the case, why do many Intergovernmental panels (most notably the IPCC) and many NGO environmental groups place rain forest and other old growth forest as critical to combatting climate change?

You seem to be ignoring a lot of scientific evidence and never really cleared up your strawman comments…

Office of Major, City of Guelph and related offices are obligated according to it’s mandate to provide enjoyment, well being, health and safety for people wishing to do so at this site. People are holding said parties responsible for any damages up to and past this point, as this includes the judiciary it is also included in these judgments.

In short: Ms Karen Farbridge and related parties, you are in a lot of trouble no matter which way you try to spin it.

We all know RESPONSIBLE, CONTROLLED construction CAN save frogs, salamanders and environmental space. After the years of planning, adjusting and compromising, we now have a plan for a controlled, responsible growth.

Jennifer Evans said ‘the destructive powers of corporations and developers run unchecked’

Then do your bit to check it: divide your group and send some to stand in front of Carson Reid’s chainsaws. It shouldn’t be a problem for those who have travelled so far to come to Guelph to move a little further to another site.

If we own the loaf why are we willing to accept half or none at all when it should be ours to dispense to begin with?

I am not interested in yelling at the teller and neither are you, those that want to yell at the teller let people know there is a problem, you seem to have some knowledge to help those that want to take action take it in the right place. I have already received emails from people who are willing to do the research. Where do we begin?

It makes it much easier to start hacking at the root if we know where to dig. Where do we begin to dig?

Is it elected or who appoints it? Who has say and who has sway? Who do we want to talk to? Who will stone wall us for self concern? Where do we begin?

Everyone else that has seen the bad press for the protesters, get out there! show your support, they have done the difficult part of bringing awareness to the public’s eye, do the easy part and say that you agree if you do.

My email is berchmans@me.com

The city thinks IT is going to “protect” the environment against damage? What a load of I-won’t-even-say-what. Nice job PR people! Turn this around against the environmental activists! Because we all know construction saves frogs, salamanders and environmental space.

You also seem to think that it accomplishes something to yell at the bank teller when the big boss decides to up your service charges.