The pesky left hand

by Brandon Mayer

With each passing day, it seems that sustainability and environmental responsibility become more trendy. This is true locally just as much as it is globally. Think of Sustainable North Grenville – the local organization dedicated to issues of environmental sustainability right in our own community. This organization is not “new” anymore. This year, it will host its 14th annual Sustainability Fair. None of this is a bad thing, given the importance of caring about the planet, but “trendy” doesn’t necessarily bring about change.

I have written in the past about electric cars, and how they are no longer awe-inspiring to see because there are simply so many of them. My kids no longer excitedly shout “Tesla” when they see one because… well… they would be shouting it a dozen times in every short car ride!

One cannot trust unresearched information floating around about electric cars, or any facet of environmental sustainability for that matter. There will always be those who jump on the bandwagon and blindly celebrate trendy new enviro-tech. There will also be those who feel a surge of power and rebellion when revving up their oversized diesel engines to drive somewhere that is close enough to walk. Neither group can be trusted to follow the science. For this reason, when I heard “whisperings” that our electrical grid can’t actually handle the anticipated influx of electric cars in the next few years, I thought it was probably the “dieselheads” making up stories. To my surprise, a recent Toronto Star article from October 2022 confirms that, indeed, our electrical grid is not currently equipped to handle the number of electric cars we are expecting by 2030. Yikes!

Even if we did have enough electricity to power all of these expected electric cars without crashing our system, there is another irony at play: we generate a lot of our electricity unsustainably. In fact, a report I pulled directly from the Ontario Government website shows that in 2020 and 2021, we generated most of our electricity in this province from nuclear power plants. A measurable portion was

Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor, I wish to convey my thanks to one of your readers, Lynn Paibomesai, (Letters to the Editor NGT Vol 11 No 4 dated 2 Feb 2013) for her answer to my mystery bird query from the week before. She set me back to my first thoughts on the matter, when I first took the original picture, which were similar to what she had found out and advised me of, via your Letters to the Editor column. Lynn's input is most gratifying and this "very amateur bird watcher" is very much appreciative of her taking the time and effort to advise me of her research findings and providing me with a very plausible answer.

Cheers, John Baldwin (Baldwin's Birds) also generated using – OH NO – gas! Nuclear power has low carbon emissions, but does require an immense amount of water to produce, and creates huge quantities of toxic waste. Gas-fired generating stations produce carbon emissions just like gas cars. Seems ironic, doesn’t it? I fear that a lot of our obsession with things like electric cars is about making ourselves feel good instead of thinking about how much difference we’re actually making, and I want us to make a difference.

There is no doubt in my mind that electric cars will become the dominating force in the automotive market, probably within a couple of short decades. I just worry that at that moment, we are being divided and turned against each other for the simple reason that the right hand never talks to the left hand. That is to say that a company like Tesla achieving mass marketing of the electric car, and virtually creating a whole new subcategory in the auto market, does not automatically solve the carbon emissions problem. It’s as though the “right hand” is an impulsive younger sibling who has we are not getting Australian service for our money. great ideas but doesn’t think far ahead when implementing them, and the “left hand” is the pesky older sibling who must poke holes in the plans, knowing they simply may not work as intended.

So what do we do? I assume that governments all over the world are seeking ways to expand our electricity infrastructure to make sure that we are electriccar-ready. But does that mean more wind turbines? Wind turbines require a huge amount of materials to produce, they are frequently said to kill birds, and they can dislodge undesirable settlement into aquifers when they are pile-driven into the ground. However, each one can power about 1,500 homes. With under 2,000 private dwellings in Kemptville, that means that just two wind turbines can comfortably power Kemptville! Are the materials, bird deaths, and possible groundwater contamination worth it? I don’t know. It seems we need industry experts who can be straightforward with us. No agendas and no propaganda – just facts.

The problem is that straight facts don’t always suit the powers that be. I doubt many people reading this realize that eating meat contributes to more greenhouse gas emissions than driving your car, but it does. Livestock and their by-products account for 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation exhaust? Just 13%. This is all outlined in an interesting 2014 documentary called “Cowspiracy” which unsurprisingly supports veganism. Governments love to charge us carbon taxes, tell us not to let our gasoline cars idle unnecessarily, and offer rebates for purchasing electric cars. Do they tell us not to eat meat? Of course not. As a person who loves meat as much as the majority of the population, I can understand why. People are not about to give up something they love, and so we resort to propaganda about the things we can change instead of truth about the things we can’t.

In Quebec, it will be illegal by the end of 2023 to replace existing furnaces with any furnace powered by fossil fuels. In other words, when your furnace dies in Quebec, you’ll be switching to electric forced air. Despite above arguments regarding strain on our electrical grid,

I can see some sense in this move. The carbon tax I am currently charged on the natural gas that heats my home is senseless. I am not going to freeze myself and my family by dramatically lowering the temperature, and the reality is that I bought a house with natural gas and I don’t have cash to waste on replacing a perfectly good furnace with an electric one. This is why people, myself included, see carbon tax as a cash grab – it is not financially feasible to avoid it, so it provides no incentive to change.

New rules, however, such as a universal gradual switch to electric heating, can make sense if well implemented and if people are given the time to adjust. The only caveat is that we must be prepared for these changes. The electrical grid must be strong enough, and the cost of electricity must be affordable to avoid adding extra burden in an already unaffordable world. For that, we need something from our governments that can be hard for those in power: we need the right hand to talk to the left hand.

Dear Editor,

In his letter of February 2, Mr Colin Creasey suggests that the problems in the provincial health service are caused largely by inadequate funding, which is a perfectly reasonable suggestion.

However, if there was a direct correlation between spending and quality of healthcare, then the United States, which spends by far the most on healthcare in the world (US$11,945 per person in 20201), should have the best healthcare system in the world, but clearly it does not. On the other hand, Australia, which spends relatively modestly on healthcare (US$4,919 per person in 2020), is considered to have an excellent healthcare system. Canada spends a little more on healthcare than Australia (US$5,370 per person in 2020), but clearly

What this suggests to me is that there is something systemically wrong with the provincial healthcare system, which no amount of money can fix. Instead of reaching for band-aid solutions, perhaps the provincial government would be better advised to set up a committee to study three or four of the top-rated healthcare systems in the world, with a view to replacing our current, failing healthcare system with a better model.

Sincerely,

Alistair McCleery

Dear Editor,

My mouth was watering as I anticipated the “Sweetheart Brunch”. These volunteers are amazing, perhaps miracle workers! Imagine, ham, bacon, sausage, eggs, beans, toast, fruit, cheese etc. All for $10/adult!! Small wonder this made the front page of the NGT!! But by the last page all was dashed to pieces as Mr. Gabell of the Green Party of Ontario indicates the evil we do by consuming such delicacies, perhaps with delight, and no concern for the biosphere. And then I reasoned, perhaps Mr. Gabell is in error. We are told that in early evolutionary history, man was a hunter/gatherer. And so he hunted the food he needed and as he did so, he realized he would be required to travel further to acquire enough, eventually killing most of the wild mammal food supply. And so man domesticated animals. During this “agricultural period”, man could feed himself and his livestock while being less nomadic. Since Mr. Gabell laments the livestock to wild mammal ratio, it appears that livestock is the very thing that keeps the wild mammals alive as the livestock reduces the hunting of wild mammals. This applies to poultry as well, in relation to wild fowl. Yet Mr. Gabell seems to have no sympathy for the 6,000-9,000 caterpillars that die each clutch, killed by chickadees. Perhaps chickadees should begin to grow their own caterpillars and leave the wild ones alone! Mr. Gabell makes the claim that agriculture is responsible for 70% of global freshwater use, yet makes no mention that agriculture is also responsible for feeding 100% of the human population as well as 100% of the domestic animal population. In fact, it also helps feed the wild birds and animals. Mr. Gabell laments the use of fertilizers, but makes no mention of “land sparing” that has occurred due to increased crop yields since 1961. Actual croplands used today (2019 worldwide) is

1.09 billion hectares and calculations indicated that 1.69 billion hectares additional land would be required to produce the same food, had crop yields not increased since 1961 (ourworldindata. org), leaving much more area for wild creatures. To produce the same amount of crops as 1961, only 30% of the farmland would be required today, due to yield increases. Agricultural land (hectares) in the northern hemisphere has predominantly declined over the last decade, partially due to higher yields. Yet more land is being put to agricultural use in Africa and Indo China, largely due to fertilizer inputs and food security issues. Perhaps the “Greens” begrudge peoples of all nations their daily bread. Mr. Gabell is correct on the letters cont'd on page 6 amount of agricultural land used for livestock, and so the Green’s would join Mr. Bill Gates who owns 270,000 acres of US farmland and is pushing “plant based meats” and has called for “policies requiring people in rich countries to eat 100% synthetic beef” according to “Beef Central”. Mr. Gabell also laments “light pollution”. I assume the “Green Party” would have the rest of the world follow the North

OpEd

Korean example and all sit in the dark at night as we cannot afford electricity.

Personally I am so thankful for all the people who work hard (even at night with the lights on) and innovate to feed the world, even those “terrible” farmers that work from dawn to dusk to bless the town of Kemptville to be able to come together and share in a “Sweetheart Brunch”. All that food for $10!! Unbelievable!!! Even more astounding is the human cooperation and ingenuity to make such an event possible! Perhaps, contrary to the Green’s disdain of agricultural workers that produce the food and truckers (that drive at night with their lights on) that move the produce, the real “sweethearts” are those very workers!! “Tip of the hat” to those very workers and volunteers who bless us so!!

Willem Van Dam

Bringing Boomer visitors to North Grenville

by Michael Whittaker

There are about sevenmillion retirees in Canada. The nearly 160,000 seniors in the National Capital Region have a significant cohort of baby boomers from which North Grenville can entice visitors.

Boomers are not homogeneous. Their post-WWII births spanning 1946 to 1964 include memories of the Cold War, Peace Keeping, the introduction of the Maple Leaf Flag, Expo 67 and the Centennial, and multiple musicians.

In the changing economy, there are challenges to attracting the active boomers. United, the municipal government, citizens, businesses and associations can initiate experiences for this adventurous demographic.

To reach this clientele, community collaboration is essential to craft innovative marketing strategies. A vibrant community strives to understand this target audience in order to provide first-rate visitor activities.

Odds are when young, they traveled with their parents; now they seek new inspirations presenting physical and intellectual challenges. Boomers are young at heart, often acting much younger than their chronological age, and not prone to think of themselves as seniors until well into their 70s.

Boomers prefer their diverse life experiences to be recognized. They don't want stuffy or stodgy. Cultural involvement, stimulation, and companionship make their visits fun; although some expect instant gratification.

Nonetheless, they want options. They tour not to see the sights, but to do the sights. Many have notions of being special, don't like to feel herded, and savour their