| 1. | How can government effectively balance its responsibilities to support economic growth, deliver social programs and manage the environment? |
|
 |
| These responsibilities are not incompatible but necessarily interdependent. Real and sustainable economic growth will be good for the environment and for society. For example, industrial forestry practices must be changed so that clearcutting is not the major forest practice because jobs are being lost, work in the woods is less meaningful, debt is unmanageable, and environmental impacts are unsustainable. Similarly, it is more important to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity and wild ocean resources than to try to replace these with the products of marine aquaculture. In the long run, capture fisheries that are products of healthy marine environments are more sustainable than aquaculture fisheries that degrade marine environments. |
|
|
| This is possible. But the key is industry and industrial polluters. They must be accountable and be willing to change their practices. Government MUST take a stand and change protected area planning - scrap DNR's IRM and listen to what the broader environmental and social community wants. Listen to reports put out like the GPI where the majority of Nova Scotians want to see a reduction in clear cutting, build sustainable forestry co-ops and fish co-ops, stop engaging that the dream of natural gas (which gets shipped to the US) is going to provide sustainable jobs.
Work in collaboration with the feds, Environment Canada, Parks Canda, DFO to fight for our province and to build truly sustainable communities. Stop religning on foreign investment who only capatilizes on OUR natural resources in mining, fishing, forestry - be innovative in our government enironmental policy to be progressive.Economic growth IS possible in a sustainable way - please listen to those groups and individuals who has new and therefore sometimes threatening ideas. Weed out government's were old thinking still prevails. Truly govern with ALl considerations are in mind. Get out of industry's pocket...as that is where we sit. |
|
|
| This is a big question and I have a lot more to learn before I can submit a sound answer. But, in general, I think a good deal of the solution lies in reworking our philosophy to understand the INTERCONNECTION between economics, human welfare and the environement. Since at leaast the Insdustrial Era Revolution, humans have allowed economics to rule over the environment instead of recognizing the INEHRENT CONNECTION betwee the two. I don't know how in this day and ae, the government can balance the protection of the Earth with economics and human welfare, as economics is still viewed as the most important. I suppose one thing the government CAN do is to continue to ballance these issues. Sooner or later, however, the environmental state of the Earth is going to FORCE US to adjust our economy to respect and value the environment and the people FIRST. |
|
|
| There is no balance needed. What is needed is a philosophical shift away from economic-growth at any cost (which is eventually self-defeating) towards the realization that the economic sphere is encapsulated within the environment, and harming the environment harms the economy as well. There are an infinite number of ways that we can realign our economic sector to make use of the power of efficient designs and processes, the economic arguments are all readily available (as an example, go to www.rmi.org to see the potential gains that the Rocky Mountain Institute foresees). All that we require is the political and bureaucratic vision to make this change a reality. |
|
|
| Studies show that sustainable development has job gains (and job shift), resources are more equitable distributed and the environment is getting healthier, and it is the only way to preserve our future planet as we know it (** ** **). |
|
|
| What is needed is a philosophical shift away from economic-growth at any cost (which is eventually self-defeating) towards the realization that the economic sphere is encapsulated within the environment, and harming the environment harms the economy as well. There are an infinite number of ways that we can realign our economic sector to make use of the power of efficient designs and processes, the economic arguments are all readily available. All that we require is the political will to make this change a reality.
There are many references to the economy in the Green Plan, and promises to adopt an "integrated" approach to development. The province should commit to an economic assessment process that explicitly integrates ecological, environmental, and social costs and benefits of develo[pment. Initiatives are underway that do take into account these factors, such as the GPI. Expertise clearly exists within our research community to operform such assesssments. The province should make a commitment to embrace these progressive and rational assessment methods as a part of their Green Plan. Initiatives like the Sustainable Communities Initiative should be applauded, and many of the pressing environmental issues that have occurred in this province - such as the Digby Neck Quarry controversy, disputes over unsustainable aquaculture development in St. Ann's Bay and St. Margaret's Bay - would not have arisen with community input into decision making. |
|
|
| The MYTH that addressing environmental issues will somehow COST society needs to be dismissed by policy makers once and for all. Doing the right thing for the environment necessarily means doing the right thing for humans, communities, AND the economy.
Adopt Truly Integrated Approach to Progress – There are many references to the economy in the Green Plan, and promises to adopt to integrated approach to development. The province should commit to an economic assessment process that explicitly integrates ecological, environmental, and social costs and benefits of development. Initiatives are underway that do take into account these factors, such as the Genuine Progress Index (** **) and expertise clearly exists within our research community to perform such assessments. The province should make a commitment to embrace these progressive and rational assessment methods as a part of their Green Plan. ** **. Initiatives ** ** ** ** should be applauded, and many of the pressing environmental issues that have occurred in this province – such as the Digby Neck Quarry controversy, disputes over unsustainable aquaculture development in St. Ann’s Bay and Chester – would not have a risen with community input into decision-making. However, ways to enact community based goals raised through initiative such ** ** must be based on a rational, integrated approach such as that supplied by the Genuine Progress Index and other initiatives.
|
|
|
| With regard to forest resource management, NS should follow the lead of other governments and adopt the internationally renouned best management practices ** ** **. ** ** certification is based on the document Certification Standards for Best Forestry Practices in the Maritime Forest Region, ** ** ** **.
We feel that on crown lands, this is the only way by which the NS government can balance its responsibilities to support economic growth, social well being, and forest ecosystems. |
|
|
| How can government effectively balance its responsibilities to support economic growth, deliver social programs and manage the environment?
promote economic activity which involves protection of the environment. Promote
activity which respects and supports employees. The wealth needed for social
programs will follow when the economy of this region is based on the region’s
strengths, and resources are intelligently utilized, not given away.
make sure all the costs of specific economic activities are considered by improving the
environmental assessment regulations
there should be an interdepartmental government planning process. Make sure other departments are at the table to discuss change
make sure that value is added to resources before they leave the province. For instance,why should logs and gypsum leave our province before the manufacturing
processes are carried out? Resource extraction causes more environmental
damage than these manufacturing processes.
Tourism brings to this province as much money annually as forestry. Forestry practices should not be allowed to damage nature tourism potential.
the offshore industry has to respect the environment. A sour gas plant could affect the new tourism promotion of bird-watching on Cape Sable Island
eco-tourism itself can cause damage. Access to fragile areas should be limited. Use of ORVs has to be monitored and limited where necessary, even under the auspices of eco-tourism.
environmental planning for even relatively small installations must be a priority.
Consider the wasteland created around the satellite services ** **,destroying tourism potential.
|
|
|
| Quite simply, if the govenment focused on cleaning up the environment and reducing the destruction of our wilderness, we would have to fight off the invading tourists who would flock here. |
|
|
| Stop government support of large industries. Example. Establishment of ** lumber mill in ** with public money. This mill is too large, smacks of the overcapacity (large stern draggers) that ruined the fishery. Wood must be transported for hundreds of miles to support this operation. Also it was placed next door to a smaller, family operation that had successfully milled and supplied lumber to the surrounding area. This successful family business was jeopardised with our tax money. Another operation bordering on criminal is the export of wood chips from Sheet Harbour. Thousands of tons of large saw logs are reduced to chips to feed an offshore market. The loss of prime saw logs and value added produce is enormous. The government should discourage the export of our raw materials and promote the building of value added industries. |
|
|
| One has to see that the three go hand in hand. If we do not have an environment that promotes the health of the land and its residents the other two problems are moot.
There is so much work for the planet as a whole to do, let alone Nova Scotians, to undo the horrific damage we have inflicted on the environment. There should be work for all if we seriously undertook the task.
|
|
|
| Growth and social development without care for the environmental costs is short sighted and unsustainable. It transfers liabilities to future generations and is therefore immoral. The government must give a more prominent place to environmental protection. The environment sustains us. It should not be balanced off against other human values. It is the foundation. We need good strategic assessments of new and existing government programs, policies and plans to gauge how sustainable they are and what their medium and long term environmental costs are. |
|
|
| Select the industries you patronize carefully. Tourism is more sustainable than high volume forestry we are experiencing today. Plus it is healthier. |
|
|
| I believe that proper environmental protection will be int he long term have a dramatic effect on these costs. Becasue governmeents think they have to be concerned about short terms results (if they want to be re-elected) economic growth has tended to receive the most emphasis. (It's good to see it acknowledged in a government paper that exposure to pollutants can result in various health conditions, including cancer. Several doctors and scientist have been informing us of this link for years.)
Protection of the environment should be given the high the highest priority and the economic benefits will follow. one can readily estimate the financial losses in fisheries by not giving the environment the respect it merits.
The health costs associated with cancer are huge. The incidence of cancer in this areas is extremely high and ** ** ** ** ** Kings County, which recorded the highest level of ground ozone in the country in the summer of 2001.
When calculating the economic benefits of specific industries or practices, we nee need to factor in the liabilitities re: the environement and asssociated health risks, and estamates of related health costs, both immediate and cumulative. Only then, can we atttempt to determine the net economic effect of these specific industries or undertakings. |
|
|
| In 2003 the Chronicle Herald had an article about the Federal Government giving Russia $5 billion to clean up their environmental mess over 5 years. Seems to me thjis would be better spent in Canada. Complete madness! |
|
|
| The province is very restricted on ways and means o promote environmental protection with regard to our natural resources and encouraging industry to find ways and means to operate on a strong economic basis whiele directing their activity to betterment of protection of the environement. It would appear to be left to the 'good corporate citizens' who take these measures as part of their own company's goals. While decreasing taxes on corporations is often seen as a way to encourage this type of activiite, perhaps it is time to look for tax increases on thos who are not participating with environmental protection. The tax paters burdens are increased by lack of protection and an argument can be made for th greater burden to be placed on those who are not demonstrating diligen efforts to protect the environment.
With Canada's commitment to Kyoto there must be a greater encouragement for alternative energy sources. The use of manures for energy is one areas that deserves consideration. |
|
|
| The environment is our greatest asset, it is the foundation on which all life exists. Our priorities as a society need to reflect the central role the environment plays. We always talk about protecting or ensuring economic growth first; without the environment we have no economy. Until we recognise this fact and revamp out economic system to reflect the value of the environment all else is green wash. This change in attitude needs to happen at all levels. Many citizens are already too aware of this relationship and support a paradigm shift, its time for government to catch up.
If the environment is put centrally to all our decision-making, the social and economic well-being will follow.
|
|
|
| Study the proposal and do what is appropriate, not just say sorry, we cannot allow this operation to go forward.
The tourist industry is seasonal and employees are low paid. So less emphasis should be put on "make NS a park to please tourists" and more emphasis should be put on promoting full time industries that provide regualr emplotment with high or medium wages. We should not be living for tourists and base our conclusions on providing everything for a tourist industry. |
|
|
| The fastest growing cost to society is helath care and althought the relationship between the environment and illness is at times hard to prove and the lag time between cleanup and decreased health issues is long, it is necessary to prevent environmental problems before helath care costs go through the roof. Federal, provincial and municipal governments must force industry to comply with the latest evnrionmental regulations as they become know, so that other budgets don't suffer. Also the spinoff is the environmental industry will profit by these regulations, thus providing more employment and cash flow through their R & D and work for industrial polluters, thus offsetting the possible negative effects on the economy by the regulations. |
|
|
| In my opinion, government support of economic growth is not only over-hyped, but in an ideal world would take a backseat to eliminating poverty and homelessness and also to protection of the environment. Economic growht (and population growth for that matter) have passed the point where they are now doing more harm than good. The twinning of the 100-series highways might boost economic growth and encourage more tourism, but at what cost? Even more pollution and a landscape thrashed beyond repair, not to mention wildlife hemmed-in by a death-trap on one side and sprawling human development on the other. Social programs and environmental stewardship could be amalgamated into a "Voluntary Simplicity Income", as I explained previously. |
|
|
| Where is the balance?
The province needs to take more interest in the GPI studies - these provide many illustration of how over current notions of economic grwoth are short sighted and worse yet, no providing us with the best benefit in the present.
One example the government should be closely aware of is the Digby Quarry - we see no royalties for th gravel - there is no regard for the effect on iehter tourism or the fishery, both sustainable industries - and yet the government is allowed to proceed.
A second example is coal strip money. In Pictou County the province allwos coal (which in the 70s was meant to be guarded for emergency supplies, should there be another energy crisis)) to be strip mined for a mere 19 cents a tonne - the cost of extraction is probably about $19/tonne and NSPI buys it for about $50/tonne. We make no money relatively.
|
|
|
| Nova Scotia has historically bent over backwards to attract businesses (and provided incentives). I think that what Nova Scotia has to offer in way of life, scenery, and historic value makes it a prime area for businesses to want to be. I think we should make it harder for businesses to locate her: insist on using local work force and look upon it as a privilege to be able to locate here. We have in Nova Scotia a jewel that is becoming a rarity in the world. |
|
|
| Realize that bigger is not always better.
Precautionary principle.
Define sustainable development.
Work with communities.
Pay attention to the words of the citizens. |
|
|
| If Bill 73 is meant to support your integrated approach, it does not include a strong commitment to public consultation. |
|
|
| Provide financial support to responsible industry and small businesses. Don't allow outside interests to run our natural resources and environment. They leave us nothing when they pack up and leave. We lose. |
|
|
| The taxes on our fuel and food do not encourage tourism. |
|
|
| Promote social growth - doing with less. Again, the essential factor in the equation is always ignore (population growth). |
|
|
| Don't try to reinvent the wheel.
1. Look to other similar areas in different countries to see how they have solved the same problem.
2. Keep looking for new approaches even if a situation is okay under a present plan (there may be a better way). |
|
|
| Why suggest that there is a trade-off? In the long run a healthy environment is essential to the support of a healthy economy. |
|
|
| I feel government should put more effort in working with small local industries. If the companies are local they will be more interested in providing jobs and keeping their communities safe. Instead of encouraging large compnaies to clear cut our forests, encourage small woodlot owners to provide forest products in an environemtnal way. Also smaller farmers instead of the large wones that rely on pesticides and antibiotics to rpovide a crop. These only lead to much pollution and health care. |
|
|
| It's all one and the same - they are not contradictory. If the environmenta is taken into consideration then the cost to our economies, our communities, our health, our children, etc., is increased. It makes economic sense to ensure effective, long-term, social and environmental programs are in place. Cutting social and environmental programs is not cost-effective. It places a bigger burden on government and society in the long run (even within a four year mandate of government). It's shameful the programs that have been cut under this budget. |
|
|
| If you do not move environmental managment to the top of the list it will ultimately affect all the other issues - and cost a lot more to fix in terms of pollution clean-up, ill-health etc. |
|
|
| If you deliver good social programs and enforce strong environmental protection, economic growth will follow.
Encourage added-value industry. |
|
|
| Put less emphasis on industrial scale and traditional industries and out-dated (though still predominant) economic ideas. Consider the full costs, life-cycle accounting; utilize principles of evironemntal and ecological economics.
Put less emphasis on subsidizing large industry, and more on locally-grown, value added enterprises. Stop delivering social programs that can be and are being abused. Listen more to the environmental and scoail groups, sicne they more colosely reflect the viewss of the public than do industry lobbiests and others with significant economic and other self-interests at stake. Think long term and ecologically. (Think like a mountain.) |
|
|
| Critical to sustainable environment is an immediate action plan to select and designate more large blocks of public (crown) lands for protection. We are in crisis mode as the province is being clear cut before our very eyes.
There needs to be a moritorium on harvesting and road, or other development, in all environmental hot spots in the province, such as the Ship Harbour Long Lake Wilderness, until environmental assessment and community planning is completed.
Woodlot owners should be rewarded through excellent tax incentives for practicing low impact or other green types of harvesting
Industry must pay the full costs of environmental remidiation as determined by third party evaluation.
Look to creative value added industry for natural resource use instead of shipping raw materials out of the province at basicly subsidized rates. CASE: orhern Fibre/Mitsubishi Corp harvesting of crown land out of Sheet Harbour. |
|
|
| Environmentally sound practices often turn out be be less costly and more efficient that traditional, unsustainable practices. Economic growth, in the long run, depends upon a healthy environment, and healthy people. Social programs will benefit in numerous ways from a healthy environment with clean air and water, outdoor recreational opportunites, and a diversity of species to share the province with. Government cannot effectively manage these responsibilities unless it makes maintaining a healthy and sustainable environment a top priority. |
|
|
| it's important to realize the connections between environment and economy and human health in a long-term sense - ie, we need clean air, clean water, fisheries and forests for economic well being and human health. there's no short-term economic substitute for these things. |
|
|
| There is a growing realisation that what currently passes for "economic growth" that is a continued annual percentage increase in all ecenomic activities, and in the standard of liviing, is not sustainable. That has been seen in the fishery and is now being seen in the forest industry. It has been estimated by some groups that, at the current standard of living the Earth can sustainably support between 500 million and 1 billion people. Earth's current population is over 6 billion and it is expected to peak at 9-10 billion later this century.
Bring back the Atlantic Canada Plus programme, to identify products made or grown in the Maritimes. For over 5 years, we have not purchased beef or pork at the grocery chains. Why use the energy to transport beef from Alberta when there is locally produced beef that tastes better, is a lot cheaper, and keeps the money here in Nova Scotia. Our turkeys now all come from a free-range turkey farm down the road. When Sobeys replaced their eggs from the ACA Coop in New Minas with ones from central Canada, we switched to buying ACA eggs at the local convenience store. The eggs are larger, and even cheaper. We don't purchase apples unless they were grown in Nova Scotia, etc.
Encourage more people to grow some of their own food. A big problem with many people, especially those who live in cities, is that they have lost the connection between the environment and where essentials come from. water comes "out of a tap", food comes "from the store". |
|
|
| Economic growth should consider more general 'quality of life' issues. Quality of life is not simply measurable as dollar values, but through other non-monetary values. Therefore 'growth', even 'economic growth' goes far beyond placing a dollar value.
Also, it should be taken into account, that many environmental concerns, unless they are addressed NOW, will deteriorate into issues that cannot be remediated. In many cases, following the precautionary approach, is essential.
For instance: invasive alien species, in most cases, cannot be eradicated once established in new environments; all efforts should focus on the prevention of their introduction.
We need long-term strategies and visions to address anvironmental issues; however, this does not release us from making concrete commitments and setting targets (e.g. a certain percentage of preserved land area in NS by 2020). Simple mission statements are not enough.
Modern economies elsewhere have recognised that unless they are 'green' they have no future. Hence, we need to understand that economic growth in the 21st century will only happen through GREEN growth, not through unsustainable ways. We should be focussing on renewable resources / energies; rather than fossil fuel production, to give just one example.
Including social issues in these concepts can be achieved by decentralisation - to think globally, but act locally is the key to many problems.
'Green' economies are also socially desirable in that they create jobs etc. |
|
|
| In order for the government to balance its responsibilities with regard to economic growth, social programs, and the environment, it must develop a different view with respect to the economy. The concept of perpetual growth, which has caused many of the provinces’ health and environmental problems, must be discarded. In order to afford the social programs our citizens need, we must develop the economy in an environmentally friendly direction. Environmental sustainability and environmental impact should be the key goal for all projects. For example, the province should require that all industry use solar collectors or heat pump technology to reduce electrical demand from the provincial grid and to reduce the volume of oil used for heating. There are federal programs for energy efficiency which the province could fully exploit. |
|
|
| Everything we have of value in this province flows from a healthy, sustainable environment. We did NOT sustainably harvest the cod, so our fishing communities are now in crisis. Our economic decisions are largely based on the short-term corporate and/or political view - to the next quarter or to the next election. Those short-term views cost us the cod, so we now have long-term pain for short-term gain. A healthy environment costs surprisingly little and provides much in the way of quality water, forest products, wildlife and tourism values and so on - but degrade that habitat and the cost to recover what we once had is astronomical. Just think of Halifax Harbour or the Sidney Tar Ponds. Thus I don't but the "jobs or environment" trade-off often mouthed by politicians. A jib gained at a loss to the environment is a job that will some cost several others and disappear itself not long after the next election occurs. Thus we need to long-term vision, we need to convince the public of its importance, and we need to have the guts to implement measures to insure that we have a sound, sustainable environment, even if it means temporary discomfort. |
|
|
| Education. Education is the key to changing the current environmentn or economy dicotomy. Currently, there are many individuals that don't understand the long term effects that an unhealthy environment will have on the economy. The 'world view' needs to be changed starting with communities across the province. With better education, the priorities of the individual will change. This will lead to a change in community priorities and some of the challenges that are currently part of balancing environment and economics will be non-starters. |
|
|
| I would like to see laws enforced. I would leave things as they are for now until some common sense is applied to a different consultation workbook is put together. |
|
|
| If the government properly and responsibly manages the environment there will automatically be economic growth (and revenue) which can (and should) be used to deliver social programs and environmental management. |
|
|
| By implementing a strong regulatory framework which ensures that economic growth is undertaken in an environmentally sensitive manner. It is essential that a shift is made toward promoting greener industries that rely on renewable energy sources and progress is made toward a "zero ecological footprint".
By promoting sustainable industries, there will be healthier communities living in a healthy environment. |
|
|
| Identify and proctect more wilderness area throughout Nova Scotia. |
|
|
| More funds are needed and if that means a tax increase then so be it. More money put into actual programs, less administrative costs. Money should not be spent on advertising, studies (that end up sitting on shelves) should go directly where it is needed. no go betweens. Sacrifice - politicians and citizens need to work for the common good rather than individual pleasures and consumption. |
|
|
| I think there is absolutely no question that the environment has to take top priority. Not protecting the environment is like spending all one's capital and having nothing left for the rest of your life, or selling the family farm for a parking lot. Secondly, we must pour as many resources as we have into educating the young. If the young of today are educated they will look after things....they will know how! |
|
|
| If we don't have economic growth the population will decline, thus the tax base will decrease.
Governments must make timeframes achieveable and monitor their progress. New industry would have to meet all enviornment standards prior to commencing operations!!! |
|
|
| Probably the first thing to do is to recognize that improving social programs and environmental consideration in development will automatically result in economic growth. |
|
|
| Responsible management of natural resources? Don't 'sterilize' areas to make them inaccessible to mineral exploration.
Existing legislation may need updating, streamlining, not re-writing.
Legislate a green belt along highways in logging areas, much the same as is in place now for rivers and streams to 'improve the veiw' as people drive the highways.
To deliver social programs you will need revenue, Page 18 shows $1.55 Billion in lumber exports, plus the revenue from lumber used here at home, plus all the wages and benefits of the mainly rural workforce. That must be about $3BILLION total. Provincial Parks, Trails and Beaches bring in between $16 & 32 MILLION. How much do we SPEND maintaining these? $1.3 Billion in tourist revenues, generated mostly in Halifax? We routinely allow the destruction of Historic Buildings. More thought should be given to preserving these. Tourism revenue is not necessarily sustainable. |
|
|
| Forget economic growth. It's a lie. Get with the GPI measurements and understand what real growth is made of! |
|
|
| The wording of this question suggests that these three things are in opposition. In fact, this province needs “smart” economic growth – economic growth that does not draw down environmental resources and pollute the environment. If economic growth comes at the cost of the environment, this comes at the cost of future economic growth and likely the need for more social programs (e.g., health care). Many of Nova Scotia’s industries need a healthy environment – fisheries, forestry, tourism, etc. We should be promoting economic development that allow these and other industries to occur in a sustainable way. |
|
|
| By providing incentives for industry to act in an ecologically responsible way, and disincentives for those that don't. |
|
|
| make a committment to be an effective manager of the provinces water resources by committing to compelting the regional waer resource evaluations of the province - determine how much fresh water we have, where is it, how much is replenished each year, how much has to be left for other organisms (fish trees) - how much is available for man. Back this up with efficient long term monitoring programs for both quantity and quality in boht groundwater, surface water and climate systems. |
|
|
| First - recognize that economic "growth" is not necessarily a desirable goal if the things that are growing undermine wellbeing and quality of life. I suggest you change the designation to economic development, which indicates qualitative improvement rather than quantitative increase. See many GPI reports for detailed explanation on how environmental sustainability supports beneficial economic development, and how blind economic growth can undermine wellbeing. |
|
|
| By identifying opportunities that overlap these 3 issues. For example, creating jobs related to recycled products that can be tied to an EI program. Or set up an enviromental daycare program for children from Low Income households, that would inolve children in environmental projects such as clean ups, gardening projects (creating organic vegetable gardens to be used by members of the community as a source of food), wildlife conservation projects (building bird/bat houses, monitoring wildlife populations/activities), or other fun and useful projects. Local environmentally involved business could get involved, such as a local restaurant specializing in organic meals providing food in return for some publicity. And it's never hard to find some business that can offer something and take something from a project.
I guess I would have to sum it up to say that fresh thinking and input from various groups will create ways to balance the above-mentioned factors. |
|
|
| Improve education, roads, and technical research and economic growth will take care of itself. Healthy, sustainable development will automatically take care of these issues ie. environmental management. |
|
|
| Not sure but I am open for consultation |
|
|
| The economy cannot grow infinitely because it is part of a finite ecosystem that has physical limitations. The longer we ignore this fact the more we are puting our future generations in debt. We must base our economic system on a cyclical and sustainable model in which everything is put to use including 'waste'. By doing so the amount of money and effort need to take care of environmental waste and environmental health problems will be decreased. This will allow for that money and effort to be reallocated in social programs (ie. education, skill building and community strengthening programs). The environment does not need management, what needs management is human activity and our goals. |
|
|
| Manage the environment, YES. Mandate Land lockups and sterilization, NO. You will not stimulate any economic growth if you dicate to people where they can go, what they can do, where they must live,etc...they simply will not comply with unruly demands on their lifestyles. If the whole province is made into a park (which seems to be the way things are going!) you will not be able to sustain the tax base to do the above 3 things you want comments on as everyone will move. Too many protected areas to administer and pay for does not make sense.
|
|
|
| It seems academic that no government really controls industry to any significant degree and often subsidizes the negative impacts of this sector on environmental quality. Interim measures to temporarily offset negative industrial impacts must include both strong regulations (e.g., the offshore oil industry) and strict zoning that isolates polluters who's continued presence is neccessary to insure a viable local economy that has the potential and resources (tax revenues) to make ongoing incrimental improvements to the environment. |
|
|
| the government should not "manage" the environment. It should protect the environment from develpment for future generations. |
|
|
| The environment is an integral part of our economic growth and cannot be ignored if we wish to have sustainable growth.
If we generate electricity with renewable resources such as wind or tidal power, we not only clean the air, but we reduce generation costs.
If we maintain a sustainable fishery, we keep local fishermen off social assistance, and have more money to direct to women's shelters.
Any choice we make to improve the environment in which we live also provides us with a healthier place in which to grow. Health care costs will reflect that. - Check Ontario's rates of childhood respiratory diseases. |
|
|
| - keep badgering the federal government for more money toward health care
- encourage the federal Liberals and provincial Conservatives to keep increasing the funding for research on environmental issues
- we do not need any more tax breaks; tax breaks do not cause economic growth, they just decrease important government revenues
- instead, tax factors that contribute to adverse medical conditions, such as cigarettes
- also, institute a massive tax on licences and registrations for dirt bikes, ORVs and snowmobiles ($500 a year or more for each and every year) that will both decrease usage of these noisy and destructive machines and raise money to repair the damage they cause
- at the estimated 50 000 ORVs in Nova Scotia, this would generate approximately 25 million dollars a year to be put toward environmental issues |
|
|
| These areas can all work together and need not compete. It depends on political will and understanding how the areas are all interconnected. Realistic environmental and social indicators (NOT the GDP) can help as well as a sustainable approach to economic growth. Many illnesses can be prevented before the necessity to spend hugh amounts on technology for health care. |
|
|
| create jobs. manage env. by getting after large companies to clean up pollution. |
|
|
| Edcuate people that the economy can infinetly grow, but our natural resources are only available in finite levels. Educate people that without a healthy environment, we won't have a healthy economy.
LOOK AT THE LONG TERM (ie. 20+ years)
Example: Without proper planning, HRM development will grow at rates that will increase environmental problems (less green areas, biodiversity, more polluted waters, and more air pollution from the big transportation problems and energy demand). Yes, this development is good for the economy, but it will hve long lasting environmental problems. Proper planning and a long-term vision are key.
Finally: Promote innovative technologies such as wind and solar energy. These have environmental benefits and product more jobs than conventional energy sources. |
|
|
|
Make sure that short term economic benefit is not being delievered at the expense of longer term economic gain.
Also, it seems that the province tends to sell the resources and not get enough for them.
There are ways to support economic growth, that is sustainable, and supports the environment at the same time. |
|
|
| Now this is a rather substantial question? If I answered this with lots of vauluable content, suggestions, etc. I would deserve to be Minister. As it is, we elect people to do the thinking, based on available research, resources, funds, etc. The latter are all available to you. If you are proud of this effort - please: 1. Look in a mirror 2. Take giant steps backwards and let people who can be results oriented, problem solvers and broad minded activists move into the job. Anyone can spout lofty ideals. The devil is in the details. That is what we expect from you. Of course I want to share my ideas and suggestions but this is undeserving - an indication of ineptness, limited objectivity and lack of ourcomes-based approach to teh very significant problems. What a total waste of our money! |
|
|
| The three are not necessarily mutually exclusive! EXCEPT, we must accept that there are limits to growth, realizing that the natural systems which support all of our activities have a finite capacity to both provide resources and deal with the wastes we produce. Therefore, we must place boundaries on growth, and instead strive for sustainability. Nova Scotian enjoy a high standard of living - and growth is not necessary for the improvement of our quality of life. |
|
|
| Exiating legislation is O.K. , it may need
finetuning but not rewriting. To deliver social programs you need revenue which won't be possible if we all work in tourism/service/call centre sector. Mining and forestry deliver revenue . It is also shown that call centres actually have a negative impact socially in studies. |
|
|
| Our systme isn't so bad:
- Use an open democratic process while maintaining human rights will pretty much solve the problem. Each interest will content for the resources and hopfully the results will be just.
- The government could use the ombudsman's office to ensure fairness.
- Perhaps the government dpeartments could employ researchers so they could prove the governement was not being sold a bill of goods by one interest group or another. |
|
|
| Knowledge of what is around and how to use it the right way. |
|
|
| Grow with the community. More recycling should be done. At present there is next to none in this province - about 3%. For a high technology age we are dropping so far behind we will never dig out, with or without this survey. We have too much new technology that we are not using. Electricity is 100 years behind the time except when it comes to paying the present day exorbidant rates. |
|
|
| I am not going to answer this question quite the way you would like.My answer:Years ago we had a wonderful view of the harbour from Citidal Hill.When the highrise buildings were consructed,people were upset because the view was gone.The government's answer at the time was that a stratigic view remained,where tourists would get a view of the habour. I hope the solution to your question does not include stratigic site for tourists to visit,stratigic wilderness sites for people to walk through etc.Get the picture!!! |
|
|
| Industries that impact the environment negatively should have their processes gradually altered so that their impact is significantly reduced. In cases where jobs are put on the line because of this, the government should provide funding to help retrain the workers to work in more sustainable industries. |
|
|
| It is simply a matter of priorities. Government is afraid to give the environment the priority it deserves because it will cost money that would otherwise go towards things politicians think will get them elected. On a priority basis put the environment where it belongs and then begin to work. You can start with the Halifax harbour. |
|
|
| It is uncontrolled economic growth that is destroying the environment and with it the incrdible decline in species all over the earth is at a rate not seen for many thousands of years. There has to be a cap on the constant desire for more growth and expansion. Industrial society cannot continue the way it is - by seeing everything as a commodity for human use/profit. We need to scale back our use of 'resources' in oder for the earth to actually be able to sustain its self in the future. |
|
|
| Don't sacrifice the environment for jobs, etc. It is too important. |
|
|
| Create short and long term employment improving sustainable resources in and with the private sector.I may be mistaken but there is more privately owned lands in Nova Scotia than crown.Work with private land owners along watersheds to ensure proper forest management for the habitat of all indigenous species.
Taxes answer the rest of the question. |
|
|
| My comments on attacking suburban sprawl address these concerns. |
|
|
| It could do that if they were accountable for the monies they waste, and stop robbing Peter to pay Paul. You couldn't run a household the way government uses money.
Clean Drinking Water: Most of rural N.S. is on wells and are getting polution from acid rain, farming practices, road salt, some waste water and sewage.
The statement Poluter Pays always finishes with the little guy at the end of the line and never the big firms unless gov. is pushed. |
|
|
| very carefullly. One should not have priority over another effective managemant would be teh answer. |
|
|
| Responsible management of natural resources? Don't 'sterilize' the area to make them inaccessible.
Existing legislation may need updating, streamlining, not re-writing.
You could effectively reduce complaints from anti logging groups to clearcutting by legislating a green belt along highways, much the same as is in place now for rivers and streams, as this is as close as most of them get to the bush.
To deliver social programs you will need revenue, which you will not have if we all work in the tourism/service/call centre sector. Page 18 shows $1.55 Billion in lumber exports, plus the revenue from lumber used here at home, plus all the wages and benefits of the mainly rural workforce. That must be about $3BILLION total. Provincial Parks, Trails and Beaches bring in between $16 & 32 MILLION. How much do we SPEND maintaining these? $1.3 Billion in tourist revenues, generated mostly in Halifax I presume, where we routinely allow the destruction of Historic Buildings. More thought should be given to preserving these.This tourism revenue is not necessarily sustainable, all we need to do is offend someone by, say, not playing in their war games, and it dries up. |
|
|
| Decrease government bureaucracy through combining ministries to improve efficiencies and create synergies. Smaller government for a small province!! NS is over governed and inefficient compared to larger provinces in Canada. |
|
|
| Research what other countries do and learn from their good examples. In Scandinavia, they know that raising environmental standards ends up saving money as industry learns to be more efficient. You can save money by using the same energy for many different uses and by minimizing or cleverly using by-products of industrial processes.
Goverment should showcase and encourage innovation about environmental practices and not let tired old rhetoric about jobs and growth obscure the fact that green production is good economic sense.
|
|
|
| All of these things are important, but the environment has to be considered as THE MOST IMPORTANT! The environment affects us all and a clean planet is essential to the continuance of humankind. The environmental plans in this report are excellent and MUST be implemented - our future depends on it! |
|
|
| A healthy environment should be the cornerstones of the plan for our economic success as a province. It is tiring to constantly be told we need to sacrifice our environment for our economy.
Why is it seen as something we need to balance? Why can't we incorporate it into the economic plan?
Capitalize on it. Turn the green into GREEN ($).
Build on the success of programs like our recyling and composting, wind power etc. Promote these programs! People will come here to see how we are doing it right and to enjoy our natural beauty.
Let's sell our ideas for keeping this province beautiful instead of literally selling what makes this province beautiful. |
|
|
| designate protected areas (crown land)
|
|
|
| By raising the priority given to the environment. Think ahead- if we allow the environment to continue to be degraded, then there will no useful place for the economy or the social programs to operate. At present, departments like DNR tend to be puppets on industry and have a much greater voice in governemnt than does DEL. |
|
|
| Government needs to take a long term view.
If we pollute we increase health care costs.
If we do not protect and increase wilderness areas and increase recreational space health care costs will increase and other social welfare costs will increase. Local sustainable industry should add value to the product before exporting. The value should be measured in meaningful satisfying work not just GDP |
|
|
| This frustrates me because of the lack of political will in this area. Subsidies are handed out to so many industries it just sickens me, but we can't have tax reductions for environmental products and services. Growth and environmental/health protection can be symbiotic. I suggest you promote the wind and solar energies in nova scotia. Use dalhousie university to establish research in new technologies for energy and waste reduction. Don't be afraid to try new technologies (such as energy from the tides). Don't be afraid to invest in the future and not just the next election. |
|
|
| By sacrificing short-term, environmentally unsustainable projects for the "bigger picture" of our environmental health. Demanding that projects undergo extensive environmental reviews, monitoring and inspections. Insisting that developers assume the responsibility financially for the environmental protection needs
related to their operations.
Setting environmental protection as a higher priority when balanced against economic gain.
Stop seeing the "resource" sector as the best way to bring economic prosperity to a community. Some communities are not sustainable, this must be accepted and centralization of services and infrastructure and people will be necessary. |
|
|
| I don't really see these things as seperate. Not managing the environment in order to increase economic growth is a shhort lived plan, at best. It is a matter of not paying all the costs now - they will still come later. There are all kinds of examples of cases where the environent was ignored, and now costs to fix problems are astronomical. We all need to consider whether the prices we pay for goods and services really reflect the true costs. Perhaps we can't, as a society, afford to continue with our present lifestyle when we concider the real value of the products we want.
This would require a real change of attitude among people, and I doubt a government would be willing to take the risks required to really tackle this problem. |
|
|
| Give up on the oil and gas dream and put the millions of dollars that go there to work where we can all benefit, not make MobileOil and the others richer |
|
|
| I believe it is quite simple if one just keeps those objectives always in mind. Economic growth through sustainable development will enhance us. Keep in mind that Nova Scotia is a tourist attraction for its beauty. It also attracts "brain" workers, ie IT, product promotion, film production, etc. because of its appeal. People are willing to accept generally lower incomes in exchange for living here. We need to continue to make it worth it.
Social programs need to keep environmental goals in mind. Instead of so much welfare for individuals, why not communal living arrangements with job training in environmental areas, concerns. Rural women and children are especially in need. |
|
|
| -these three responsibilities are inter-related, you cannot have one without the other
-government programs that support communities, and individuals, instead of corporate interests will do this |
|
|
| Ultimately I think environmental considerations should be part of all decsion making. Being environmentally conscious or supporting environmentally sustainable industries does not have to be counter to economic growth. |
|
|
| Priorize sustainable development by creating jobs through businesses and programs set up to maintain and protect the environment over or in preferance to those areas of development which detract from the renewal or resources and in fact damage them. |
|
|
| In past, the environment has generally been the loser, as it cannot speak for itself the way other interests can, such as developers. However, for a healthy future, we MUST have a healthy environment. The only conclusion I see in this is to greatly increase the attention that the environment gets in striking the "balance". |
|
|
| 1. They are not in conflict. You donor manage the environment. The population manages its environment and needs to be taught how to see the world around them. Special taxes, garbage police, endless regulations on domestic garbage and a holier than thou attitude do not win hearts or minds.
Tax reductions on environmentally efficient behaviour would be helpful. |
|
|
| I reiterate - there needs to be a more agressive emphasis on long-term conservation and sustainability, not short-term job creation and economic growth. Begin from the assumption or premise of CONSERVATION first. |
|
|
| by investing in economic projects only after environmental assesment and only after they meet the criteria for low damage and long term sustainabuility. Invest in sustainability and learn your lessons from the boom and bust towns built on non-renewable resources. |
|
|
| I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to go through this entire workbook.
Thank you for hearing my concerns and suggestions.
K. Reed |
|
|
| If you are TRULY interested in sustainable development, you will actually meet all THREE PILLARS of sustainability. You must ONLY support decisions that meet the triple bottom line. If something is economically viable, but not socially and environmentally friendly then you CANNOT go forward with it. This is reality in our finite world. If we don't deal with this now, we will deal with it in the future.
We must REDEFINE our notion of progress so that economics is only a small portion. Using a figure like the Genuine Progress Indicator would be more helpful than the GDP.
Nova Scotia should be a Canadian (and world) leader in developing responsibly! In the end this will make for a strong economy.
p.s. what about supporting our workers up in Cape Breton by getting them working on sustainable wind farming. There is a tremendous amount of skilled labour up there just waiting for a long-term opportunity. |
|
|
| First and formost... UNDERSTAND THAT RESOURCE-BASED INDUSTRIES ARE NOT THE ECONOMIC GENERATOR IN NOVA SCOTIA any more. It's TOURISM and tourists want clean and pristine natural areas with good roads to get there. |
|
|
| By supporting legislation that is in place now, rather than finding new legislation to create. By streamlining redundant legislation that is in place now, and by issuing permits to the people of Nova Scotia promptly and without delay (i.e. remove barriers to development) for projects in rural areas. |
|
|
| | |
| 2. | We have identified priorities that support responsible growth and environmental protection (for details see pages 16-20). We are interested in your thoughts on the best ways to meet these objectives. Please organize your answers by the headings listed below. You can respond to as many, or as few of these headings as you choose. If you need more space, please use a plain sheet of paper.
Please read our commitment on innovation and trade within the environmental industries sector (bullet on p. 17). Please provide your comments on this commitment and any suggestions you may have about its implementation. |
|
|
| Innovation and trade within the environmental industries sector:
your promise to “eliminate unnecessary barriers to responsible growth” sounds
dangerous. Citizens should be considered stakeholders and given possibilities for
meaningful input regarding changes.
your goal of promoting innovation and trade within the environmental industries sector
sounds good. Will you provide research and staff to make this happen?
|
|
|
| The Aquaculture Environmental Monitoring Program is a laudable initiative. In order be and appear to be legitimate, however, this program should include independent representatives from the scientific and conservation communities. Also, as well as assessing sites for ecological damage post-development, the programme should be re-vamped so sites are assessed before development so that sites designated for aquaculture development and the scale of this development does not result in environmental damage in the first place.
Of course, invasive species issues MUST be incorporated in these assessements. |
|
|
| I think that Nova Scotia should set an example and become one of the 'greenest' places on the planet with respect to it industry and economic sectors. It is not out of reach. There is much important work going on in this province eg, the recycling program; the current moratorium on development so that a sound plan can be developed; ** ** ** ** ** |
|
|
| There are too many industries who are "environmental" that destroy the environment (** ** **). The motives of these industries must be closely scrutinized to ensure they truly co-incide with the values of sustainability. |
|
|
| See previous answer. The pressure for raw material is greater when these are exported as such. The demand would be less if these were converted to a value added commodity. |
|
|
| NS was able to exceed national waste diversion targets during the 1990's. This has become a model for other jurisdicitions and our experiece can be sold around the world. More forward thinking and bold actions like actually trying to do difficult but real steps toward sustainablility will be the stuff that we will sell to the world in the future. |
|
|
| If this ‘commitment’ is a statement of support for environmental industries, then it should include support for environmental organizations that work to protect Nova Scotia’s environment. Providing professional development seminars for environmental groups that would make them more effective and allow them do their work more efficiently would be a good initiative. Helping environmental groups to become better organized, helping them develop retirement funds, health plans, and other basic long term employment incentives would go a long way to help Nova Scotia environmental protection.
If this statement is simply saying that they will keep providing the support that they have always offered, then it is not a worthwhile goal for Nova Scotia’s government to promote.
|
|
|
| See above |
|
|
| Nova Scotians want a healthy environment, and it's great to read the DNR is making a commitment to portect and enhance biodiversity. Scientists strongly recommend forest practices that support Acadian Forest species. If these management practices are truly sustainable, FSC guidlines (or certification) can best ensure it.
We definitely need to revise the effluent discharge guidelines for fish plants. for example, considering the mercury content in farmed salmon, and educated consumer will select wild salman, and this will have an economic impact. |
|
|
| ** ** ** **, it is very clear that intensive farming, both marine and terrestrial, leads to disease and pollution. Focus on reducing densities, increasing quality and look at way to ensure we buy local produce. Keep the best here instead of exporting it to Quebec and Ontario and then buying the leftovers back from our supermarkets. |
|
|
| An excellent commitment and one the government should pursue. Support to renewable energy technology (ie. solar, wind), organic agriculture, development of the fuel cell (Ballard) and methods of dealing with climate change and environmental disasters are all needed. |
|
|
| Provide incentives to clean industries such as wind power and solar aquatics.
Place restrictions on polluting industries – establish standards on emissions and waste generation.
Stop subsidising the fossil fuel sector and allow renewable energy sources to compete on an equal basis.
Prevent big forestry interest from subverting the democratic process. Crown lands are public lands, they belong to the people and therefore should be harvested sustainably. This means preventing clearcutting and allowing companies to sell our trees for toilet paper. Again standards on paper recycling can help.
|
|
|
| Employment in environmental industry and technologies including R and D, monitoring installation, etc. will create new employment and economic spinoffs. |
|
|
| I am not sure what is meant by "environmental industries". Alternative forms of energy such as wind farms and solar power should be subsidized. Industrial hemp grown to reduce paper usage, and organic farming for provincial self-sufficiency could be encouraged. Get household batteries out of landfills! |
|
|
| As a person involved in mineral exploration I am very concerned with toughening the regulations regarding mining here. any mess that is here now was caused at the turn of the centruy. Our regultions are fine as they are and they ARE strictly enforced when it comes to mining. Any tougher and we'll never see anymore growth in this sector. We need jobs here and a continued protection of the environment. |
|
|
| Provide incentives for clean energy - Quebec has an excellent example of placing wind farms in economically depressed areas. NSPI spends $3-400 million out of province every tear on coal from Venezuela! Set targets for reducing air emissions - support combined cycle generation. Don't become reialnt on natural gas for energy - the supply is not assured and the price will go up - look to manufacture new energy efficient technologies. We ignore a world leader in solar panels - Thermodynamics, which sits in our midst.
|
|
|
| See previous page. |
|
|
| Page 17: Quote, "We will increase staff training to develop the knowledge and skills required to support industry application of these principles." How much staff will be needed? Can we afford this? |
|
|
| Excellent, but we need to think about the globe - not just NS. |
|
|
| Again, don't "promot", make it happen. See above comments. |
|
|
| Change aquaculture to land-based operations as is done successfully elsewhere and stop polluting the sea.
Promote organic and free-range farming practices |
|
|
| Value added industry needs to be developed. There should be no export of raw materials out of the province.
The gov't needs to adopt a full cost accounting system as modeled by GPI Atlantic to figure out the economics of all this.
|
|
|
| This is fine, but lacking in specific commitments or criteria, except for the reference to "cost effective solutions." Cost effectiveness should always be a consideration, of course, but I hope that this one criterion won't be used to quash innovations, especially in the start up phase before economies of scale begin to operate. Further, we need to look at the total picture. Local production of a product reduces the economic and environmental costs of transportation, even if it increases the cost of production per unit. |
|
|
| This strategy sounds good; however, on the same page (p. 17), you mention the 'Aquaculture Environmental Monitoring Program";
The problem with environmental assessment and monitoring of aquaculture industries is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest in that the regulatory agency has also the stated mandate to promote those industries. Regulation and control needs to be SEPARATED from the promotion, and the public and NGOs need to be involved in the monitoring / regulation process. |
|
|
| No comment |
|
|
| Yes, focus, for example on valued added enterprises and less resource intensive acivites. Stop exporting our natural heritage and resources for next to nothing. Stop constructing more highways, and more logging, mining and exploration roads. Reduce wasste. |
|
|
| I agree. |
|
|
| Strongly support, and should be supported to the exclusion and discouragement of environmentally questionable enterprises. |
|
|
| This commitment is vague. Are there particular technologies NS will invest in? Certainly renewable energy technologies should be a priority. |
|
|
| Without a link to these paragraphs it is not possible for me to make comments on them. Sorry. Otherwise I would have. |
|
|
| I'm not sure if the bullet on p. 17 addresses the question of Responsible Growth & Enviornmental Protection! How does promoting inovation & trade within the Enviornmental industries sector address this challange??? |
|
|
| This is good. |
|
|
| Sound Mangement Practices are not practised enough by government. There is no accountability in government. The political level is run by the beaurocratic level when it should be the other way around. There are no exceptional people in the political level. |
|
|
| It is not clear from this page what is considered to be the environmental industries sector – is it industries that use the resources of the environment, or is it industries involved in environmental assessment, clean-up, monitoring, management etc? Innovation in all industries, particularly if it results in lower impacts on the environment, should be supported. |
|
|
| Innovation is a necessity in any sustainable economy. Contests and prizes that acknowledge innovation would help. Once again I think students would be a huge resource in this aspect. Both pre and post secondary. |
|
|
| Environmental industry is a good start, however there needs to be greater protection of communities and stakeholders from the abuses of established industries. Further, potentially harmful industrial development such as oil and gas must use the precautionary principal. A greater commitment must be made to develop sustainable, renewable energy such as from wind and solar sources. |
|
|
| See upcoming GPI Solid Waste Accounts on this topic. |
|
|
| "Cost Effective" is the Key word here! |
|
|
| - industry is essential for the continued level of employment in the province
- industries should be encouraged to expand in the province, but only with strict guidelines with how they will minimise their impact on our environment |
|
|
| Again (as with others) "committment" is not used in this bullet. Promoting and committing to are different and the proper distinction should be made.
Look at long-term environmental costs vs. economic costs. Also, you must include all related aspects - such as anticipated health problems (and associated costs) resulting from dirtier (cheaper) energy production. |
|
|
| GOOD, |
|
|
| Cost effective solutions should not exclude industries considered non-sustainable as part of the equation. |
|
|
| This will not be very effective if larger areas of the province are closed to any kind of development. Marine aquaculture is not good for any area. |
|
|
| At present too many compnies are laying people off for short term jobs. |
|
|
| The environmental should always come before trade agreements. |
|
|
| Good. |
|
|
| Fair commitment. |
|
|
| This commitment is excellent! |
|
|
| see above.
Use carrot (incentives, subsidies) and stick (real penalties, time line for change) to get us moving towards green innovation.
Encourage study tours to Germany and Sweden |
|
|
| Government must be demanding of the industry associations. |
|
|
| Nova Scotia could become a world leader in wind and wave power technologies. We should promote the use of solar power in local and provincial goverment and new industrial buildings. From a local base for demand international recognition could follow. |
|
|
| It is very vague - it isn't a strong statement at all. It implies to me that if something can't be done cheaply, it won't be. |
|
|
| sounds nice, but I hate to say it again but....rhetoric |
|
|
| Start with an emphasis on conservation and then promote businesses which reuse, reduce and recycle. |
|
|
| Pollution from aquaculture and agriculture operations right now is out of control. We get into things like high-density pig farms with little knowledge of what damage might occur. We can't swim in out rivers. Once the damage happens, there is an industry lobby to defend it. Never do we follow the precautionary principle and plan according to the LIKLIHOOD of environmental damage. In debates over new industrial ventures, the government generally says that they would go ahead unless someone could PROVE that there will be damage to the environment. Similarly, most environmental impact studies are a charade. We need to put some teeth into these things, giving the environment the benefit of reasonable doubt, not just giving in every time to the promised lure of a few short-term jobs. |
|
|
| Government should probably back off industrial development even for "feel good" industries in the environmental sector. Picking winners, unlikely. |
|
|
| I like it. |
|
|
| hard to say as you have again given a pretty vague statement of intent without specifically stating how you are going to do it! |
|
|
| | |
| 3. | Please read our commitment on sustainable tourism ( p. 19, 1st bullet). Please provide your comments on this commitment and any suggestions you may have about its implementation. |
|
|
| Establish some sort of certificatin program and include ratings under it for all tourism facilities listed in the Doers & Dreamers Guide. |
|
|
| Promote guiding workshops, outdoor education, industry transfer (teach a fisherman to guide) |
|
|
| Tourism is tricky. We don't want quantity of tourists; we want quality and fewer that stay longer and contribute to the economic growth of the province in a green way. |
|
|
| Sustainable tourism involves people spending quality time here. It does not involve visits by polluting cruise ships whose passengers sail from one casino to another. Focus on inspection of service providers, give tax breaks for apprentice programs and reduce all tourism whish is destructive such as hunting. |
|
|
| I studied concepts of sustainable tourism ** ** ** **, and it is a VITAL CONCEPT to pursue here in NOva Scotia. With such a beautiful and popular tourist destination here, we must make sure we don't let it be "loved to death". Maintaining our natural and cultureal heritage is also important if we want to continue to attract tourists.
Lastly, though cruise ships bring a lot to our economy, they wreak havoc on the environment. Some control on cruise ship impacts on the environment is important. |
|
|
| Once again the sentiment is laudable; but will be for naught unless some of this is actually implemented. People have heard this before and are tired of waiting. |
|
|
| Tourism - so very important. Simply if we continue the environmental damages to places like St. Margaret's Bay, Salt Marshes, the selling off of coastal land, the riducalous amount of protected and 8%, our rate of clearcutting - people will stop coming to Nova Scotia. We know they come for the beauty. Keep the beauty and they will come - destroy it, they will not. It also will erode our pride as a province. Listen and support groups ** ** on their environmental concerns. |
|
|
| It's certainly a good marketing strategy to promote "NS as a pristine, natural environment" since that is what tourists want (along with decent roads). We should be working towards making that a true statement. Get rid of clearcutting and the herbicide spraying. many trouists are appalled by what they see flying over Nova Scotia. Let's find ways to make NS pristine. With Cape Breton recently recognized as being the second most desirable destination for tourists, we should be building on this demand. It is supportive of a pristine natural environment, and not placing the environment at risk. |
|
|
| Promoting sustainable tourism means protecting the wild spaces that such tourism relies on. The natural beauty of Cape Breton draws thousands of tourists every year, and its pristine state has resulted in the region being named the second greatest tourism location in the world by National Geographic Traveller. This prestigious magazine judged locations from around world based on criteria that included: “natural beauty, ecological quality, cultural integrity, historic preservation and future sustainability.” It is almost certain that Cape Breton would not have received such a high ranking with oil rigs on its shores. By allowing inshore oil and gas to proceed, the province is literally destroying the “goose that lays the golden eggs”. The province must rethink its stance on inshore oil and gas development off Cape Breton and declare a moratorium on development in this ecologically sensitive, highly productive, and economically vital coastal region.
|
|
|
| Sustainable tourism:
certification of eco-tourism operators would be good for both consumers and the
environment. Eco-tourism itself can cause damage. Access to fragile areas should be limited. Use of ORVs has to be monitored and limited where necessary, even under the auspices of eco-tourism.
|
|
|
| ** encourage the provincial government to promote sustainable practices within the tourism insdustry. A "Code of Ethics for a Sustainable Tourism Industry" was created in 1992 ** **. ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **. We recognize that a more speicific code of conduct for each secotr of the tourism industry would be an important step towards achieving sustainable tourism and seek the Government's involvement in the development of these guidelines.
** seek to cooperate and partner with the Department of Tourism, Culture and heritage; The Department of Environment and Labour; Department of Natural Resources; Environment Canada; Tourism Partnership coucil; Regional Tourism Industry Associations; Tour Operators; Accomodation Establishments; Cruise and Tourism Transport Industries; Environmental Organizations; Recreational Organizations and other Community Associations in Nova Scotia to refine sustainable management principles. |
|
|
| ** ** ** ** ** this commitment is very important in order to protect the ecological integrity of our protected areas. Offering workshops on sustainable practices and low impact recreation to tourist operators and visitors is one of our suggestions. Supplying interpretive information with environmental messages at trailheads is another suggestion. We also feel that monitoring tourist operator and visitor behavior is important to identify the effectiveness of these efforts and to identify areas where more effort is necessary.
** ** ** ** ** supports the commitment to promote sustainable tourism practices with those operators who run marine-based business, such as bird and whale watching tours and recreational boating associations. We feel that it is important to recognize operators who employ sustainable practices and to encourage these operators to educate the public on the importance of low impact tourism.
|
|
|
| Partner with and provide funding ** ** regarding this initiative. ** has such a program well underway and are the appropriate agency to deliver it.
Promoting sustainable tourism also means protecting the wild spaces that such tourism relies on. Providing real protection for significant terestrial and marine assets must be a priority. For example, the natural beauty of Cape Breton draws thousands of tourists every year, and its near-pristine stat has reulted in the region being named the second greatest tourism location in the world by National Geographic Traveller magazine. This prestigious magazine judged locations from around the world based on criteria that included: "natural beauty, ecological qualirt, cultural integrity, historic preservation and future sustainability." It is almost certain that Cape Breton would not have received such a high ranking with oil rigs on its shores. And indeed the authors of the rating sounded a warning that Cape Breton's environmental assets may be at serious risk. By allowing inshore oil and gas to proceed, the province is literally destroying the goose that laid the golden egg. The province must declare a moratorium on development in these ecologically sensitive, highly productive, and economically vital coastal regions.
Sustainable tourism must also occur within our cities, which are gateways to our province. An active and public transportation network should be developed so that visitors do not have to rely on private vehicles to get around to all the places of interest. Provincial government policy and funding should facilitate this. |
|
|
| Agree fully with 1st bullet, page 19. Operators of tourist facilities, tours, etc. will only continue to be successful as long as the product, ie. Nova Scotia, is pristine and environmentally sound. Making operators aware of the impact of polluting or harming the environment on their income will hopefully alleviate the necessity to resort to penalties and other legal options. |
|
|
| Eco-tourism - while being perhaps too loosely defined - is one of Nova Scotia's strongest potentials. but the irony is in the tendecy of "off the beaten track" attractions such as the so-called "Little Peggy's Cove" to become exploited once common knowledge. Mishaps like in PEI where helicopters refuelled on frozen ponds within a National Park must be prosecuted when discovered. |
|
|
| Tourists will come - sometimes many, sometimes few - depends on economics and politics. |
|
|
| Tourism is NOT a sustainable industry. The jobs pay poorly in this indsutry, they are generally only seasonal and are not secure due to the up and down cycles in our economy and neighboring countries as well as visitors countries. This province can dump all the meny it wants into tourism but at best it might break even. We need good paying industrial jobs here so I do not condone puring any more money into tourism than we currently have. |
|
|
| In the end, Nova Scotia may be the last beautiful place. It has already been jeopardized. Eco-tourism is important to the economy but the important to the economy but the beauty of NS needs to be publicized. |
|
|
| A "Code of Conduct" for tourism. What do you propose? How do you intend to implement it? |
|
|
| Worthy objective. |
|
|
| This is good. It is part of the picture but we seem to be putting too many of our eggs in the tourism basket. Tourism jobs pay poorly and the season is short. We need to have jobs that will pay our bills and allow US to be tourists. Industry (eg. mining) pays much better. |
|
|
| Codes of conduct and promote or awards of merit for compnaies that have sound environmental practices. |
|
|
| Sounds good, but you've got to make it costly for those who don't use sound environmental practices and ensure that those who do comply are rewarded. |
|
|
| The best way to keep our tourism industry is to have decent roads for tourists to drive over. |
|
|
| Tourism, at least for the time being, appears to have great potential. But tourists are fickle. We need to keep them happy, and one thing that keeps them happy are the wonderful scenic views we still have about the province. But 'cut-and-run' forestry and large scale industrial clearcuts, in addition to being inappropriate for the Acadian Forests of our province, are quite jarring to the average tourist. We need to reduce and eventually eliminate these practices for a more sustainable approach that not only will provide the attractive views prized by tourists, but till also provide higher quality forest products that will give us a better return from our forest lands. |
|
|
| No comment |
|
|
| Good idea to award operators who implement sustainable practices (carrot method); but stick and strict regulation is also needed! |
|
|
| Ideally you want to have "better" tourists, not necessarily more tourists. Otherwise you eund up requiring too much infrastructure and lose the rural nature of our province. Recent problems with congestion at Peggys Cove are an example. The recent news about Cape Breton being so highly ranked was temped somewhat by concerns that it not become too commercialised. you want to avaid the old Yogi Berra saying "No one goes there anymore, it is too crowded." |
|
|
| Sustainable tourism is very desirable, but again I urge mandatory standards, in addition to guidelines and encouragement. The management principles must recoginze that it is the total use of an area that matters, not just an individual operator's level of activity. |
|
|
| There will be no tourism industry in the province if we continue to degrade the environment in the way we have.
Depts do not share big visions around what constitutes health and well being.
Example: Dept of transport cuts down all the trees bordering our highways with the bogus argument that they are saving citizens from black ice when in fact they are promoting more hazardous road conditions because of rain, wind, blowing snow etc. AND they have given contractors access to "cream" the province and door knocking rights to all the land owners that border those roads.
More devastation more clear cuts. Forget about a tourist industry that is interested in natural beauty.
Endlessly similar situations with respect to DEL and DNR. They don't seem to talk and how can they when DNR appears to be in the pocket of industry.
I suggest the govt immediately put a moritorium on cutting and dev in Ship Harbour Long Lake. Do a wilderness assessment and figure out how to protect and grow this amazing area which is within an hour's drive of Metro.
This should be Nova Scotia's eco tourism centre. An education centre built in the area would be a huge draw and could model all that is best in new Environmental Technology ... where else is this happening?? People want to and absolutely needto know.
|
|
|
| Promote/require ecologically sustainable tourism and ecotourism practices. Discourage others.
|
|
|
| I don't know what "sustainable" tourism is, but tourists won't come if we don't fix the damn roads and provide lots of decent facilities for eating and sleeping. There are lots of lovely spots in this province, but the roads and lack of facilities can be depressing.
Provide proper services at camp and picnic sites. Look at the Quebec model for highway rest areas. |
|
|
| Strongly support all,
but stressing concern to "....conserve special values.." of Crown Land with regards to designating Protected Wilderness Areas and Nature Reserves which are clearly NOT for ALL multiple uses. |
|
|
| Tourism will be a key part of maintaining the balance between environment and economy. Sustainable tourism must be implimented to maintain sustainable environments. |
|
|
| Tour what? the highway? |
|
|
| If the government rewards conservation and sustainability, industry will follow. The tourism industry would be no different. |
|
|
| EXCELLENT, as long as no favouritism or patronage creeps into the equation! |
|
|
| There should be more regulation for tourist based activities. Whilst eco-tourism should be promoted, it is essential that it doesnt have a significant impact on the environment and species such as whales. Education programs should highlight the important of leaving no rubbish or pollution. |
|
|
| Great! |
|
|
| Is tourism "sustainable"? At best it would operate for five months of the year. Other industries must be given fair and reasonable consideration.
"Sustainable" means FINANCIALLY as well as environmentally. |
|
|
| We would suggest that better bus service between some of Nova Scotia’s more popular attractions, particularly in the summer, would help to support a sustainable tourism industry. Nova Scotia has very poor public transportation links and tourists who are used to better service at home (for example, European tourists) would receive a better impression of the province if more public transportation was available.
We also suggest that the province work with private bus and ferry operators to encourage better connections between those modes of transportation (for example in Digby, Yarmouth, and Sydney). This would mean both residents and tourists would not always need to use cars to access ferries.
|
|
|
| Sustainable tourism depends on an enlightened governement who understands that clean, nice looking roads and public places must be the priority. |
|
|
| Awareness is important, however also need to have regulations to control recreational users of the forest. IE ATV operators. |
|
|
| I think this is a great idea. More attention should be given to visitors at their point of entry, and they should be aware of our efforts and programs and results, and how to cooperate. Input from eco-tourism companies would be valuable in this aspect. |
|
|
| See GPI Forest Accounts on how sustainable forest practices can support tourism. |
|
|
| Is tourism "sustainable"? The business operators would like to think so, but the workers, getting minimum wage or not much better, are forced to subsistence living to try and earn enough points to qualify for pogy, then welfare, as tourism only lasts 5 months. Hmmm, maybe this is the 'Master Plan', cut down on emissions by making most
people so poor that they can't afford a car, or heating oil.
"Sustainable", means FINANCIALLY as well as environmentally.
|
|
|
| - I think we have a ways to go in terms of the number of tourists before we worry about their impact on the environment
- nevertheless, it is important to encourage the average tourist to be responsible in their interactions with the environment (stay on trails, do not pick flowers or handle wildlife) |
|
|
| these bullets all relate to "managing" the envoronmental use problem. This is the wrong approach. Government should protect the environment and the tourist dollars will flow from people coming to see what we have done. There is no room for "balancing use" since public lands are such a small percentage of NS. Government should protect it all. |
|
|
| Keep loud and destructive ATVs out of wilderness areas (as well as other large vehicles). |
|
|
| Get busy with cleaning up the hurricane damage on both McNabs and Lawlor Islands.This area is a potential bark beetle and fire hazard, not to mention public safety. Charge admission. |
|
|
|
I think this is vital to the development of Nova Scotia; witness the recent National Geographic report that placed Cape Breton second in the world, as a tourist destination. They commented that this rating was given before hearing of the new offshore gas exploration.
As wild places grow fewer, and development and industry spread, an accessible and beautiful location will be more and more in demand.
It is important that we do not destroy our (somewhat intangible) assets, for the sake of some quick cash. We have a diamond in the rough, here in Nova Scotia, in the unspoiled natural environment. We need to develop that, and polish it--not grind it up for diamond dust.
Stop clearcutting, quarries, other forms of destruction of the natural landscape. Develop destinations and promote natural events, such as guided tours, canoing adventures.
Make the natural environment accessible to families.
Improve the transportation infrastructure--which is pretty bad right now--so that people can access the natural environments that are there. The scheduling of buses, public transportation, doesn't make travelling very easy.
Improve roads, for tourist travel.
|
|
|
| Looks great, especially the "codes of conduct" and recognizing those that are truly sustainable. |
|
|
| Is tourism SUSTAINABLE ??? Workers get minimum wage and work if their lucky 5 months a year then go on EI .Tourism must be finanicially sustainable. |
|
|
| What you bring in you should bring out and leave nothing but footprints unless you are doing selected forestry or mining. |
|
|
| Most tourists don't spend any time off the beaten path: large cruise ships have both air and water polluting problems, etc. How do you cut down on that? |
|
|
| The question arises - how sustainable is tourism? Many jobs are low paying and often relatively short-term. |
|
|
| Sustainable tourism is possible. This should be encouraged, but again, not at a cost to the natural world where 'visitors' become a burden. |
|
|
| Is tourism "sustainable"? The business operators would like to think so, but the workers, getting minimum wage or not much better, are forced to subsistence living to try and earn enough points to qualify for pogy, then welfare, as tourism only lasts 5 months. Hmmm, maybe this is the 'Master Plan', cut down on emissions by making most people so poor that they can't afford a car, or heating oil. "Sustainable", in my eyes at least, means FINANCIALLY as well as environmentally. |
|
|
| Fair commitment. |
|
|
| Tourism cannot be relied on as an industry. Weather, transportation, and relations with other countries are but a few items which impact on tourism over which we have little control. |
|
|
| Tourism is growing and should be supported more than polluting industries, etc. |
|
|
| Develop a trail system
Regulate ATV use
Keep tourists out of very sensitive areas
Develop regulations about wildlife protection and distances from marine mammals
Designate more protected areas and nature reserves
Fund provincial interpretation programs
Regulate development of trails and cottages on beaches and coastal areas
Don't build golf courses on floodplains or wetlands |
|
|
| Tourism, in particular nature tourism, must be sustainable. In todays light Nova Scotia's tourism industry depends heavily on its nature tourism industry. The nature tourism industry in turn, is dependent on the quality of our natural areas, especially parks and protected areas. However, nature tourism has the potential to create considerable environmental damage to the very resource it depends upon. Specifically, nature tourism operators need to be bound by an environmentall conscious code of ethics. This ethic must reflect the Leave No Trace principles, which work to reduce the ecological and social impacts of tourism and recreation. |
|
|
| Tourism is a very lucrative industry in Nova Scotia. Several tourists come here to engage in eco-activities. This industry must be protected. |
|
|
| please see my comments above |
|
|
| Tourists come to NS mainly for our outdoor environment, and we are allowing it to be degraded by developmental sprawl and uncontrolled use of recreational ATVs. This must stop. Tourism is a very valuable industry. |
|
|
| Sustainable tourism is dependent on both land and ocean management, more and more of my friends who fly into the province comment on the large clear cut areas visible from the air. Not a feel good feeling tourists expect |
|
|
| Yup, sounds pleasant. Promotion can be a good thing. As sad as it is, commercials on tv can be a great way to bring the public towards a new way of thinking. |
|
|
| This should go beyone sustainable principles, but it should be required that all tourism operators, especially those that rely on the natural environment for their business should be required to operate in a sustainable manner. |
|
|
| I am all in favor of focusing on sustainable tourism as long as there is an educational element to it. Tourists should be encouraged to treat our land and waterways as if they are their personal concern too. |
|
|
| Most tourists come to Nova Scotia for out natural environment- saltscapes, forests, clean rivers and lakes. We therefore must act to protect these resources, not develop them. We can help this by completing the network of protected areas. Note that there is a conflict here with the increasing pressure to grow the network of trails for use by hikers, bikers, and ATVs, as these trails can be damaging to wildlife patterns. This shows the urgency of setting aside the protected areas, and having a moratorium on any kind of development that may be in a sensitive zone. |
|
|
| Cannot understand your "commitment" language. Get the Dept. of Tourism to send out info on how to use the province, not just what businesses like hotels want tourist dollars. |
|
|
| Okay |
|
|
| good. Tourism can be huge for places like NS who have rich culture and good natural beauty (ie see Costa Rica) |
|
|
|
I LOVE THIS: developing
"codes of conduct" and sustainable management principles, and recognizing operators who implement sound
environmental practices
THIS IS A FABULOUS IDEA! Well done! |
|
|
| The most heavily developed tourism locale in the Maritimes is in Cavendish, PEI. The average wage is less than $7 hr, and jobs last 5 months. Communities that intend to rely on tourism are not going to be, "sustainable".
The term, "sustainable", does not refer only to interaction with the environment but, refers also, by definition, to financial sustainability as well. The low paying, short term jobs created by the tourism industry leads to thinly financed tourism operators who often do not have the luxury of making environmental issues first priority. In this respect, I do not believe tourism should be considered as a, "sustainable", industry at all.
|
|
|
| | |
| 4. | Please read our commitments on responsible resource management (bullets 2 - 6, p. 19; bullets 2 - 4, p. 20). Please provide your comments on this commitment and any suggestions you may have about its implementation. |
|
|
| Complete the Protected Areas Network immediately.
Desinate the Herring Cove Backlands as a Wilderness Area |
|
|
| Finfish aquaculture should be discouraged in natural waterways and encouraged as a land based operation. Vast areas of coast line in Asia have been rendered 'dead' due to uncontrolled aquaculture; this is also happening in British Columbia and New Brunswick. DFO's support of this industry makes a mockery of its so-called "precautionary approach". Shellfish aquaculture should be promoted but with strict controls. All aquaculture has a dirty name in Nova Scotia due to the Dept. of Fisheries & Aquaculture in the past sneaking in leases without public consultation and ramming them through despite public oppostion sometimes in sites unfit for this activity.
More protected areas are needed and more rivers should be designated as Heritage, ie. St. Marys River in Guysborough County. |
|
|
| Aquaculture is not a tourism industry. There is meant to be a code of practise for the forest industry, there is no enforcement. Add to the wilderness areas and make sure that they are keep free of anything except minimal human interplay, carefully controlled camping, canoeing, hiking etc. Close areas during breeding seasons. Add Ship Harbour/Long lake to the list. |
|
|
| Responsible resource management:
renewable energy should replace coal-generated electricity in Nova Scotia
Aquaculture industries need to meet higher environmental standards. The food they
produce should be required to be contaminant free.
the increasingly stringent environmental standards in export markets should motivate us, but we should be working here in Nova Scotia to exceed these standards, not
merely try to meet them
a code of forest practices should meet a high standard. Compliance from forest
industries large and small should be required
the up-to-date information on Nova Scotia’s forests should also be clear and comprehensive. The research which produces it should be more thorough than the data produced by aerial surveys. Opinion of some knowledgeable people in the industry is that our remaining forests will be gone in 10 years. The inaccurate figures we are given now hide this reality.
as for agriculture, it is good to provide leadership in setting environmental standards for the industry. Even better would be strong efforts to help farmers move to organic agriculture. People are concerned about chemical residues in their food. These people provide an economic advantage for promoting organic agriculture.
The Government should throw all its resources into promoting organic
agriculture. The image we are promoting in tourism as a great nature destination,would complement efforts to market organically produced food. The environmental and health benefits from this will extend to the whole community and save money in health services and pollution cleanup.
Why has mining been left out of this green plan?
Why have off-shore industries been left out of this green plan?
|
|
|
| The province must completely overhaul the environmental assessment process for oil and gas exploration and development. The province must also move to create a rational taxation and royalties system than acknowledges the environmental cost oil and gas incurs. The province must formally acknowledge the threat that coastal oil and gas development represents to coastal industries and communities and declare a moratorium on development off Cape Breton.
|
|
|
| - Stop subsidizing the oil and gas industry! (eg. no elimination of tariffs on drilling rigs). We need to pay the true cost of these materials.
- ** ** ** ** **, implement a moratorium on oil and gas exploration in the gulf of St. Lawrence utnil such time as a strategic EA under the Oceans Act and Canadian Environmental Assessment Act can take place.
- Continue with and increase the green power portfolio for NSP
- Enable easy access to powergird for renewably produced power by following the new guidelines for EAs in this respect.
- Do not water down the EA requirements, as recommended in the recent review, and make them binding.
- Continuous extraction form the earth's curst has to be avoided - all proposed extractions have to have an EA and and Environmental Impact Study done.
- Legislate NSP to reduce its pollution and enforce it.
- Grants for research intot he possibility of run-of-the-river micro hydro plants
- Loan guarantees for windfarms.
- No open sea cage fish farms; continue with grants and loans to fish farms connected to produce production on land.
- elminate clear cutting of forests - it is not sustainable! If this is not possible immediately, reduce the allowed clear-cut size and phase out. not even the big commerial forest product companies see the present maximum cut size as reasonable, they use smaller ones.
- Timeline for achieving Forest Stewardship Council certification for all crown land forests. |
|
|
| ** ** applauds the government in its plan to finally get in line with the rest of the developed world in streamlining regulations for the renewable energy sector. But more action is needed. The subsidies that fossil fuel companies enjoy are pervasive and often hidden, and if renewable enrgy is to compete, these subsidies and tax breaks must be identified and either eliminated or offered equally to the renewable energy sector.
Nova Scotia has some of the best wind resource potential in the country, especially along the Fundy coast and the Cape Breton highlands. If the provincial government is serious about promoting renewables, then it should help create a market for renewable enrgy in order to attract renewable industry manufacturers and designers to the region.
The province must completely overhaul the environmental assessment and approval process for oil and gas exploration and development. Currently it is simply a rubber stamp process.
All fin-fish aquaculture operations should be legislated to require a 100% closed-loop (full containment) operating system to control and contain effluent, the spreading of disease into the marine environment and the spread of parasites such as sea lice to wild fish stocks. The best option is to require that all fin-fish aquaculture operations be land-based and fully contained.
All forestry operation on Crown lands should be required to meet Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards through FSC certification and auditing. Worldwide, market forces are moving rapidly toward enironmentally sound forestry practices. Meeting this higher standard will ensure global competitiveness and access to international markets in the future. FSC is also the only forestry certitification scheme that has a set of standards developed specifically for our Maritime Acadian Forest region. Adopting this standard now for all forestry operations conducted on Crown land will acheive many desirable results including promoting better and moer ecologicall sound forestry practices, maintaining and expanding markets for Nova Scotia wood products and showing government as leading by example.
The Forest Code of Practices should require FSC certification on all Crown lands used for forestry (as above) and promote FSC on private lands. It should ban indiscriminate clearcutting . It should also revise the Wildlife Habitat and Watercourse Protection Regulatins, which are currently woefully inadequate to meet their stated objectives. In particular teh riparian buffers strips should be increased from the current 20 metres to 100 meters and elminiate the exceptioin for brooks smaller than 50 centimetres.
The proposed State of Forests report is a good initiative. It should include an "Environmental Helath" report component detailing how our current forest compares to the natural state of a helathy mixed species Acadian Forest. |
|
|
| Put a moratorium on ALL clearcutting on crown lands. Only selective cutting should be permitted.
Subsidize alternate home-based energy production systems like solar and wind. Provide workshops to help people get involved. |
|
|
| NO COAL MINING!!!
NO QUARRY in Digby Neck
|
|
|
| - base a forestry code of practice based on sustainability standards the lead to certification - set a goal to make all wood coming from NS certified such that it is recognized by the market as coming from sustainablly managed forests. Brand NS a sustainable environment province. Be bold. Streach for the difficult to clearly right way ....
We need a commitment to produce regular state of NS forest reports not just a first such report. The report should be based upon clear indicators and targets. Read ** ** ** Annual Corporate report. They have clear goals and targets.. when they meet them they report it; when they don't they report that too. Tough for government to do but it must be done if it is to have real meaning and any effect on how we manage our environment. |
|
|
| I was disappointed that not mention was made of our Acadian forests in this document. I'd strongly suggest that the province lead bt example and establish a Code of Forest Practice that has high environmental standars. Certification by the FSC on Crown land would result in more diverse species, better quality trees, and forests throughout our province being truly sustainable. There is a growing demand for FSC productss, and this would provide additional economic benefits if we produced value-added wood products from lumber off Crown land. We should NOT be using Roundup (or Vision) on our forests. Denmark has restricted this herbicide after finding glyphosate in unacceptably high levels in the drinking water (result of leaching through soil). Besides the reisk to our water, the cost of Roundup along with its associated helath riks, and the high demand for hardwood as a fuel, are other reasons why a forestry code should have standards of FSC certification (No Roundup). |
|
|
| These are all very important. Also, PLEASE REGULATE GENETIC ENGINEERING! My past comments ** ** ** address these issues.
I believe supporting organic agriculture, small, local, family farms, and biodiversity in agricultural environments is essential. |
|
|
| ** ** ** ** submitted a detailed response to “A Framework for the Implementation of Sustainable Forest Management” in July 2003. ** that response ** called for a new, open, transparent process to create a Code of Forest Practices. We advocate that documents guiding forestry practices on Public Land should be formulated in a fully transparent and accountable public process that accepts, from the initial stage, input from all stakeholders. “A Framework for the Implementation of Sustainable Forest Management” was not based on a truly participatory process, as many non-industry perspectives were missing.
** strongly supports the creation of a State of the Forests Report. This report should use information provided by the Forest Accounts of GPI Atlantic. The State of the Forest Report should provide time series data demonstrating long-term trends and should have a broad scope including biodiversity and socio-economic indicators.
** ** ** encourages the government's commitment to reduce environmental risks pertaining to resource development and enable the aquaculture sector to deal with environmental issues. We applaud the government’s Aquaculture Environmental Monitoring Program and Fish Plant Study. We feel that the aquaculture industry and the environmental health of the marine environment will benefit greatly from scientific studies of this nature and encourage the provincial government to collaborate on environmental monitoring programs with other organizations, both government and non-government, who have a focus on marine environment issues. We encourage the government to promote economic ventures that are sustainable and to minimize the impact these venture have on the marine environment.
As mentioned above, ocean noise from oil and gas exploration is a great threat to whales and we would like the province to ensure that there is no harm to noise-sensitive marine species such as whales.
We would like to see economic incentives for renewable energy.
|
|
|
| Responsible Resource Management is a mutlistakeholder process that should not be limited to government scientists. Let's ensure that other academics, other leaders in environmental resources and studies are always at the table along side government and industry. This is critical. How is it done. Ask them to join and have their opinions be truly heard. Use consensus based approaches to your models. |
|
|
| Yes, encourage renewable energy! The best way to do that is to level the playing field with fossil fuels. Renewable energy can compete in its own right if distorting fossil fuel subsidies were removed. Lets begin to look at the real cost of our energy choices not just the economics. Coal from Venezueala to produce electricity in Nova Scotia is ludicrous, we have wind and biomass and the sun.
Set targets for energy from renewable energy over time. In the electricity sector establishing a Renewable Portfolio Standard that challenges the industry is important. The current suggested standard is essentially reinforcing the status quo, we need to push back the boundaries. 20% renewable energy by 2020. That’s 1% per year. Let’s do it!
The importance of using energy efficiently cannot be overlooked here. Energy saved is more valuable than energy created. The province should establish a revolving fund for energy efficiency upgrades around the province. The money saved re-enters the fund and keeps the activities going. Edmonton has done it, so can we. You should look into it.
|
|
|
| · Encouraging a renewable energy sector is good, however it will require more than just a favourable regulatory climate. It will require investment and targeted tax incentives. The province should remove subsidies for the fossil fuel sector, and redirect these resources to the development of renewables.
· Natural resource management decisions should be based on an evaluation of what approaches bring the best value for Nova Scotia communities, with regard for future generations. The recent decision to allow the degradation of Digby Neck, in order for an American company to ship Nova Scotia land to the U.S. for highway construction is a terrible example of receiving low value for a permanent destruction of a high value resource (i.e. the stunning landscape of Digby Neck that attracts residents and tourists to this rural area).
· Multiple use can not be achieved on all pieces of Crown land, as seems to be believed by the Department of Natural Resources. Public land must be used to meet a range of public objectives, such as conservation and protected areas, recreation, hunting and fishing. Too often our public lands are devoted exclusively to clearcutting or mining, which makes them generally unacceptable for other forms of non-destructive use, even if the IRM process suggests otherwise.
The forest code of practice should ban clearcutting. This method of forest harvesting is not suited to the Acadian Forest region, which under natural conditions is driven by a gap-replacing or small patch type of disturbance regime.
|
|
|
| Clearcutting on Crown and private land has got to stop. I look forward to seeing the first "state of our forests" report. Perhaps the aquaculture industry should be moved ashore to prevent contaminiation of wild species and water-borne disease. I am of the opinion that our finite natural gas resource has been squandered, and that our last pitiful stake int he project (8%?) should not have been sold. The quarry on Digby neck must not be allowed to destroy more than its 3.9 hectares. |
|
|
| Most of NS forests are second growth - trees grow - it's a fact.
Clearcutting must be stopped and the selling of unprocessed trees must stop. Trees sold and leaving the province in the round (taking place by Irving in norhter NS on a large scale) must stop. It denies NOva Scotians work in the processing and milling of a natural resource. |
|
|
| We feel all of these bullets are very important to carry out. |
|
|
| My big question is "what about mining"? It's not even considered worth talking about here. We need to take a long hard look at facts and figures in this province. Yes! Nova Scotia has a 1.3 billioni dollar tourist industry BUT how many millions was spent by governement generating it? How much was paid out in EI benefits to employees in the off season? Nova Scotia has a major mining income from Salt and Gypsum mining. We could have so much more if it was promoted properly. I definitely do not support making any more large plots of land into "biosphere" type wilderness areas unless there is a provision to still allow explanation. |
|
|
| Bill 73 again...don't pass it. The province deserves credit for established Wilderness Protected Areas and Nature Reserves. Please strengthen that commitment by refusing to grant businesses a way around restrictions that might affect them, such as reducing the size of acreage taht requires extensive environmental assessments for mines, quarries, logging, etc.
Will there be public input into a Forest Code of Practice? You don't mention mining. |
|
|
| Aquaculture will grow in the future. Much more work must be done on the threats from aquaculture. The smae for forest practices. Forest "plantations" may prove to be a hazard in the future. |
|
|
| At one time there was a small forest management program for woodlot owners. They were helped to make the best sustainable use of their woodlots. A program like that would be very helpful. |
|
|
| What is a "state of forest" report? Why are the logs from Nova Scotia being delivered to the mills in New Brunswick for their log supply? Found wood should not leave this province. It should be processed here, supplying work for Nova Scotians. 100,000 trees planted does not create sustainability. There is a little thing like 50-100 years involved. |
|
|
| Minerals of all kinds are necessart for even a basic existence on Earth. Consult with prospecting, exploration, and mining organizations when deciding use of land, crown or otherwise. |
|
|
| No mention of mining - it is a sizeable amount of NS's export income.
Aquaculture needs to be monitored closely to make sure flushing is complete.
You don't ask about bullet 1 - it is a loaded statement that can mean whatever the person in charge wants it to. It should be removed. |
|
|
| Same comments as before. |
|
|
| If we continue to clear cut and allow our forests to be leased by large companies our forests will go the way of the cod. There are many small woodlot owners in the province. Encourage them to harvest their products in a way wthat will ensure that there will be a forest industry in the future. |
|
|
| Acquaculture needs more regulation and should be shut down if paractices are polluting the environment.
Label forest/fish products that practice sustainable harvests.
Need more wilderness and protected areas. |
|
|
| Instead of feel-good rhetoric the province should require industry to meet environmental standards. There should be tax incentives encouraging individuals and corportations to meet higher standards. Why is the mining industry not included? |
|
|
| Responsible resource management means getting tough on resource users.
Don't even think about giving away resources (e.g., Digby Neck quarry) for a few lousy jobs. People live and visit here (especially palces like Digby Neck) for its beauty and lifestyle, not to look at another wasteland and ugly industrial development.
Start taking citizens seriously. |
|
|
| Yes, all this and more.
Support, create a regulatory climate for renewable resource development; support also public transit, and stop building and expanding roads and motorized vehicle trails (including OHV trails and logging roads). These result in significant direct and indirect threats to wildlife.
All natural resources should be managed in an ecologically sustainable way, and we should stop thinking of them as "resources" alone; yes, a code of forestry proactices and yearly forst report are good ideas, but they must be created so as to really meet the objectives of conserving the forest.
Improve the ecological sustainability of agriculture. The proposed agreement should support and enhance organic agriculture and discourage other agriculture.
|
|
|
| Figure out the tax system so that "good" environmental practices get rewarded and others do NOT. Woodlot owners that use low impact forestry methods get bonuses, tax relief, baskets of green stars or whatever and those that don't pay through the nose for clear cutting, degrading water sheds, over fishing whatever.... you want to generate tax $$ well then make those that are destroying the planet pay up. |
|
|
| Crown land is itself a nonrenewable resource. Protecting this land, and the life it supports, must have priority over commercial exploitation. Most of the land in Nova Scotia is in private hands, and what little is now public must remain so. |
|
|
| taking the potential threats from oil and gas exploitation to fisheries seriously is important here - especially the threats realted to exploration. Also, we can encourage the federal government to take the ecosystem effects of fishing with dredges and trawls into account. |
|
|
| pg 19- 2nd bullet - What steps are foreseen that will promote the development of the renewable energy industry? Tax incentives, grants, purchase of “green” power by provincial facilities?
pg 19- 3rd bullet- Will the province continue to issue licenses for aquaculture facilities in sheltered waters or will it lead the way with land based installations?
pg 19- 5th - 6th bullets - How will the province provide “up to date” information on the condition of the forests? Aerial photos are poor indicators of age with respect to mature forest stands as the relationship between growth and height is non linear.
pg 20 -2nd -4th bullet - No comment. |
|
|
| Strongly agree. |
|
|
| aquaculture-a good way to sustain a food supply.-may cause pollution or disease in other wildlife Does conserve special values include farming,hunting,fishing,prospecting or walking in the woods? |
|
|
| Aquaculture is a high impact industry and I am very concerned about the water and air pollution and the genetic impact on wild stocks as well as the degradation of water sources. It should not be encouraged. |
|
|
| We think that the approach is good, but our track record in reforestration and forestration practices has lots of room for improvement. Also, consideration should be given to animals in the area that are effected by silvaculture and forestration practices. |
|
|
| Regarding aquaculture, I think it should be openly admitted that the potential for environmental damage is large without a regional consideration of potential environmental impacts. Limitations on development, as required by environmental surrounding should be part of the measures used to reduce the industry's impact. |
|
|
| pg.19 Bullet2-6
Mineral Exploration should be allowed.
pg.19 Bullet 7
"to conserve special values" should be removed as it is totally ambiguous and vague. Any mineral discovery wanting to be developed by a prospector or Junior mining company would potentially be subjected to the ordeal of a court battle with the United Nations or the Sierra Club. This is unacceptable, it is a Provincial jurisdiction.
pg. 20 Bullets 2-4
Agriculture is a main contributor to river and groundwater pollution?.
Farmland would not exist without the prior destruction of the forest. |
|
|
| There is no such thing as resource management, only resource exploitation. It is a linear consumption graph, not a circular one. There is no natural cycle committed to in the government concept of resource management. |
|
|
| note comment above about delineating the extent of our fresh water resources and how they are changing with time. |
|
|
| See GPI Resource Accounts (forest, soils and agriculture, fisheries and marine environment, water resources, air quality) for lots of suggestions here. |
|
|
| Once again I think a legal framework is needed in this regard to ensure responible resource management is in effect. There must be real consequences for delinquent behaviour, and real rewards for cooperation and leadership. |
|
|
| Most of these promises are very vague. Please be more specific on how you plan to do these things. Also, you need to work with agriculture to protect water resources by having regulations that are enforced and enforceable. No allowing animals in rivers, properly store and manage manure etc and make infractions punishable through fines or some other means. |
|
|
| pg.19 Bullet2-6
I don't see any specific reference to Mining. Has it been banned already?
pg.19 Bullet7 - "to conserve special values" should be removed as it is totally ambiguous and vague. A decent lawyer could construe this to apply to a blade of grass, as it is a 'living
organism, and as such, is special'. I may seem cynical, but I've seen how the radical environmentalists operate.
pg. 20 Bullets 2-4 I would think these would be major issues given that agriculture is a main contributor to river and groundwater pollution, yet the "greens" sit atop the hill at the head of the valley and admire the lush, green beauty, chanting
"NO MINES, NO DEVELOPMENT'. It's worth bearing in mind that this farmland would not exist without the prior destructio of the forest.
|
|
|
| Speaking to forestry, selective harvesting is our only option.
With selective harvesting, you have a labour intensive industry (more jobs) with a higher quality product (better industry recognition, better revenue prospects).
|
|
|
| - this is an area that will be a challenge
- sustainable forestry and fishing will be difficult to maintain, and strict limits need to be in place
- I support using these renewable resources, but we need to ensure that they stay 'renewable' and do not drive species to extinction
|
|
|
| Re-open the Debert Seed Orchard
Stop allowing the Forest Products Assoc. of NS to reap $600,000 per annum in Gas Tax to build more forest roads
Start de-commissioning harvesting/or secondary haul roads as part of the NS Code of Forest Practice |
|
|
|
Stop selling our resources to big USA corporations that have no commitment to Nova Scotia, or our communities.
At the very least, companies that want to come in here, and use the resources, should show some commitment to Nova Scotia, not just plunder the resources for as little as they can pay for them, and get out. |
|
|
| Encouraging environmentally-friendly practices must include appropriate subsidies/tax breaks to the "cleaner" group or solution. This money could come from a polluters tax paid by those that pollute the most. |
|
|
| pg 19Bullet 2-6 - WHERE'S MINING ??? OR is it
been banned already ???
aquaculture operations should be more closely examined.
pg 19 Bullet 7 - "to conserve special values" should be removed it is vague - it can only be used to the benefit of environmentalists to stop all economic activity.
It would be simply a trump card for the environmental movement . |
|
|
| - Whether or not marine aquaculture of high trophic level species (i.e. salmon) will ever be sustainable is a question that needs to be addressed! This is a fast-growing industry that needs to be regulated more stringently. |
|
|
| "To conserve special values" is very open ended. This phrase should be changed. The phrase "a comprehensive system of protected areas" is bothersome because it appears to limit access in an undefined way.
Non-disturbance acitivites on crown lands should not be banned out of hand. Therefore the rush to create protected areas may not be needed. |
|
|
| Create water management recycling to a bigger percentage. 50% and over. |
|
|
| Comments on P. 19, Bullets 7 & 8:
You ask for no comments. Is that because you will go ahead and do this without asking anyone? Who decides where and when nature reserves will be set up? Should any small group of people be able to tell everyone what they have to do? If we agree to what you say here then are we agreeing to all the bullets? Like signing a blank check. |
|
|
| Stop clear cutting and spraying pesticides. |
|
|
| Let your resource management Dept. look after their sections as always. Supply them with more manpower if required. |
|
|
| pg.19 Bullet2-6
I don't see any specific reference to Mining. Has it been Banned already?
Aquaculture operations should be moved further out of bays to increase flushing rates.
pg.19 Bullet 7
"to conserve special values" should be removed as it is totally ambiguous and vague. A decent lawyer could construe this to apply to a blade of grass, as it is a 'living organism, and as such, is special'. I may seem cynical, but I've seen how the radical environmentalists operate. Any mineral discovery wanting to be developed by a prospector or Junior mining company would be subjected to the ordeal of a court battle with the United Nations or the Sierra Club. Who do you think would win?
pg. 20 Bullets 2-4
I would think these would be major issues given that agriculture is a main contributor to river and groundwater pollution, yet the "greens" sit atop the hill at the head of the valley and admire the lush, green beauty, chanting "NO MINES, NO MINES'. It's worth bearing in mind that this farmland would not exist without the prior destruction of the forest. |
|
|
| Bullet 4, pg. 19. Please reword. Be more specific as I believe the intent here is to address forest resources, fisheries, etc. How can we manage the commercial use of the mining resource to ensure sustainability? Mining is extraction and non-renewable. |
|
|
| Excellent! |
|
|
| Don't let the forest corporations make their own rules and police themselves
Provide resources to small woodlot owners to develop harvest management plans
Put limits on aquaculture development, and again don't let them police themselves
|
|
|
| When it comes to fish farms find a better system so as not to spread disease and pollution
Harness the energy of the wind and burn less coal
More wilderness protection
Ban clearcutting especially next to waterways. |
|
|
| First of all, I have to comment on paragraph 3, sentence 3, page 18:
"The DNR is working to ensure that forest management practices are in keeping with the commitment to maintain, protect, or enhance biodiversity..."!
How can you say this when clearcutting is being allowed on crown land!?
Tell me more about the "Code of Forest Practice". Sounds great. Who will be putting it together? Same with the "State of Forests Report" - sounds good but who will conduct the assessment?
I suggest independent research consultants. The credibility of DNR is questionable (while they condone things like clearcutting).
Independant consultants acting on these two initiatives would go a long way to restoring public confidence in the way our crown land is managed.
Finally - get on with designating Gully Lake and Eigg Mountain! This plan could have at least told us when you plan to do this. Do it now! Do not reduce the proposed size of the areas!
|
|
|
| These are vital points, but I fear that the government will lack the resolve to make it happen. Look how the forest industry pushes us around.
The aquaculture industry is not good at regulating itself and must have stronger pressure from government. |
|
|
| Resource management should be based on the sustainability of the total environment |
|
|
| Make renewable energy cheaper than non-renewable.
When managing natural resources for sustainability, it should be not only an issue of suataining the economic factor, but also the resource itself. For example, replacing a logged mixed forest with a spruce plantation might make for a sustainable forest industry, but not for a sustainable forest. |
|
|
| I don't even understand what you are trying to get with in regards to the aquaculture industry. |
|
|
| -i agree with these comittments and hope that they will be carried through to their greatest potential |
|
|
| Energy: More wind power.
Aquaculture: use closed-containment systems to eliminate pollution and the spreading of disease.
Forestry: ban clearcutting.
Crown Land: protect more of it. |
|
|
| These types of resource management decisions should be made at a broad scale. For example, an entire area should be assessed for what it can sustainably support across all sectors. |
|
|
| AGREE |
|
|
| Good points. Renewable energy is critical, and we have lots of wind.
Clearcutting of forests is a damaging, short-sighted practise that must be curtailed, so there should be more specific wording on this, plus much wider green belts along waterways. |
|
|
| Good crown land use would be a start. |
|
|
| Management must be much more stringent - conservation-based, NOT consumption-based. |
|
|
| I like the creation of a regulatory climate to encourage renewable energy development. ie stop subsidizing coal |
|
|
| TO ADD:
Designate as many wilderness areas as possible (this province is not ours...we do share it with many other species that deserve as much space as we do).
Give tax incentives for people to declare parts of their land protected areas. |
|
|
| pg 19, bullet 7: should be removed and is tremendously vague. i.e., "...to conserve special values". How is a, "special value", to be defined and who will define it?
This statement is a thinly veiled pressure valve that could be used as a trump card to stop the people of Nova Scotia from developing resources by those who would define a, "special value", to be something that most people would consider to be, not so special, or say that a special value exists where one does not. It should be removed from the document. |
|
|
| | |
| 5. | Please read our commitments on climate change (5th, 6th and 7th bullet, p. 20). Please provide your comments on these commitments and any suggestions you may have about their implementation. |
|
|
| Fully support these initiatives. More support needed for the small farm. Crack down on large agribusiness which tends to be unhealthy (food additives, antibiotics etc) and environmentally unfriendly (waste removal problems). NS would not have been much affected by the 'mad cow' problem if our own beefindustry and meat packing operations had not succumbed to large out of province agribusiness. Bigger is NOT better. More people are turning to, and paying a premium for 'organic' food which is best produced on the small farm. |
|
|
| Large interconnected networks of parks and protected areas, coupled with appropriate corridors connecting these areas can provide natural pathways for plants and animals to follow as they shift their ranges in response to climate change. ** strongly supports establishing two new Wilderness Areas at Gully Lake and Eigg Mountain/James River using the entire Crown Land blocks. We also urge the Government of Nova Scotia to work collaboratively among its departments, non-government organization and other stakeholders to establish a conservation strategy across the landscape.
|
|
|
| Climate Change of course a major, if not the most important issue nationally. Keep doing what you are doing. |
|
|
| This is serious business. We need to do all we can to combat climate change. It's not easy and will require all of us to live less luxurious lives. |
|
|
| Make NS Power burn the natural gas bought but is now exporting to New England so it can meet its commitments while they burn dirty bunker oil over Metro Halfiax. This corporationis not doing its part for climate change and clean air and it needs to be brought into line. Regulate them. It seems this is the only way they will act in a responsible way. I am a shareholder and encourage you to push them into acting responsibily. |
|
|
| - Compulsory reading by all politicians and civil servants of Guy Dauncey's book: "Stormy Weather: 101 solutions to Global Climate change" (New Society Publishers) and then GET TO IT!
- This will be the cheapest and most efficient way to educate the necessary peopl to effect the needed changes. |
|
|
| Implementing NS's commitment under the NEG-ECP climate change action plan is a great statement. But the longer we wait, the less realistic it is that the target will be met. Money and time must be assigned to this NOW. This is a priority issue both nationally and globally. We shold have moved on this plan immediately upon signing, and now it is going to be that much more difficult to met the targets that have been set.
What is required to meet this target?
1. Replace approx. 100 GWh of coal-fired electric generation per year with a renewable source. This will get the electric industry to meet its share of NS's Kyoto targets and NEG-ECP targets.
2. Establish an energy efficiency utility for both electricity and home heating efficiency. This should follow the model of the Efficency Vermont utility.
3. Establish an energy efficiency revolving fund that provides capital loans that will help pay for energy efficient retrofits.
4. Implement the plan to have 20% of the province's electricity come from renewable sources. Expand this to be 50% and include other energy uses in this (heating, transportation, fuel, etc.)
Developing a climate change impacts and adaptations plan for government is important, but should be secondary to mitigation. |
|
|
| Again, the province should move as quickly as possible to abandon the twilight industry that oil and gas and coal represent. Nova Scotia has an opportunity to become a world leader in renewable energy innovation. Let's embrace this bright future, not stay in the smog of the past. PLEASE read POWER TO THE PEOPLE, written by a correspondent to THE ECONOMIST (note, NOT the ECOLOGIST!!). |
|
|
| Ø Implement Nova Scotia’s commitment under the NEG-ECP Climate Change Action Plan.
This is a great statement. But the longer we wait, the less realistic it is that the target will be met. Money and time must be assigned to this NOW. This is a priority issue both nationally and globally. We should have moved on this plan before the ink was dry, and now it is going to be that much more difficult to meet the targets that have been set.
What is required to meet this target?
1. Replace approximately 100 GWh of coal-fired electric generation per year with a renewable source. This will get the electric industry to meet its share of Nova Scotia’s Kyoto targets and NEG-ECP targets.
2. Establish an energy efficiency utility for both electricity and home heating efficiency. This should follow the model of the Efficiency Vermont utility (** **).
3. Establish an energy efficiency revolving fund that provides capital loans that will help pay for energy efficient retrofits.
4. Implement the plan to have 20% of the provinces electricity come from renewable sources. Expand this to be 50% and include other energy uses in this (heating, transportation fuel, etc.).
Ø Assist the agri-food industry in its efforts to meet national climate change commitments.
What are the plans for other industries? Why just agriculture? What about the fisheries and industrial and commercial sectors?
Ø Develop a climate change impacts and adaptations action plan for government.
This is important, but should be secondary to mitigation.
|
|
|
| Climate change:
Climate change is happening. Nova Scotia needs to shoulder its responsibilities for
preventing it. Putting an end to generating electricity from coal would be an important step.
|
|
|
| Nothing on page 20 appears to be about climate change. Its again quite simple, reduce emissions, reduce deforestation, enforce more efficient housing, reduce gas consumption by taxing gas guzzlers, provide public transportation. Use our natural gas to power the electricity plants. Actively encourage a real drive to build alternative energy sources(not hydro dams)go for wind, solar and tidal power, encourage true net metering and distributed generation. Finally concentrate on reducing consumption. |
|
|
| We need to do our share to rupport the Kyoto Protocol. Stopping the massive clearcutting of the last decade or so houwl help, and preserve some "carbon sinks". We need to take responsibility for reducing the pollution from the province's heavy use of coal-fired energy generation plants. I agree that we should be focussing on substitutin lower carbon fuels (such as solar power and wind turbines). I oppose using nuclear power until we have a safe way of disposing of the waste. |
|
|
| These are good to implement, but once again I think the government needs to be very tough and crack down on large emitters, not to mention pollution caused by cars. Better support to public transit and the encrouagement of biking and walking is also important. Everyday citizens need to start taking climate change seriously, and not think it is too large and ambiguous a problem for them to deal with. The One-Tonne Challenge is a neat idea and should be encouraged! |
|
|
| Its about time we did something about our climate change commitments. Nova Scotia needs to act on these, the problem isn’t going to go away by ignoring it.
There are many innovative ways in which reductions can be achieved, we need to start implementing these. Please note, voluntary commitments are not effective. We need some clear restrictions but a flexible approach to meeting targets. This has to happen at all levels. Every person, institution, business and industry in this province should have a carbon cap set beyond which they cannot emit. Reducing emissions is achieved through greater efficiency whether that be transportation, appliances, lighting or industrial processes. Again, some kind of revolving fund for carbon reduction could be introduced to coincide with the emission restrictions so as not to burden individuals or business excessively. From this would emerge new products and services and so the overall impact on the economy would be negligible.
|
|
|
| INCONSEQUENTIAL - It is my belief based on the fact that Homo Sapiens are not causing the planet to heat up. Why have we had four glaciation periods where ice, kilmeters thick, covered our province? I know - everybody turned their air conditioners too low. (Ha! This is a joke) |
|
|
| Again, totally agree with these bullets. We must be proactive and initiate efforts to persuade other states and provinces to push for greater and tighter environmental regulations. |
|
|
| Nova Scotia must do its part to meet or beat its commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. If the apparatus on the rooftop at Dalhousie (the LYSER?) was not demolished by Hurricane Juan, then it should be provincially-funded to continue the research into climate change. It is - or was - the onlty one of its kind east of Montreal, if I remember correctly. People who live on the coast and riverbanks need to be less complacent about rising see levels and storm surges. |
|
|
| · The province has not shown leadership on this issue. Our energy use continues to climb, more than 10 years after the Kyoto protocol was negotiated. The government has done almost nothing to encourage energy conservation among Nova Scotians. Instead, the profligate consumption of energy has continued unabated. A glaring example is provided by the frivolous vanity lights installed on the MacDonald Bridge to mark the new millenium. These are an attractive conceit, that we can not afford. The promotion of energy conservation should be a cornerstone of the climate change strategy.
The government should also cease building new and bigger highways that promote more inefficient transportation and increase greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, government should invest in public transit, including rail, and promotion of car pooling
|
|
|
| I personally have never heard about the NEG/ECP Climate action plan so I cannot comment on it. The other two bullets sound fine to me. |
|
|
| I would like to see a target level set for using wind power. |
|
|
| Fine. |
|
|
| Organic farm operations need encouragement and start up funds and markets. Agriculture needs to distance itself from the chemical and genetic managed plant interests. |
|
|
| Page 20: Bullet #3 - Manure is a natural fertilizer. Are you suggesting that we sterilize our land? For what purpose? Will it be of any value except to walk on or drive ATVs on? |
|
|
| Looks good. |
|
|
| AGAIN!! Worthy goals but doomed to failure against exploding human population. No mention of the most important factor. |
|
|
| It is also necessary to focus on mitigation and ensure that the infrastructure is in place so that people can reduce their GHG emissions. Everyone must be include in theis (individuals, business, industry, etc.) |
|
|
| Why isn't NSP mentioned? Why are there no plans to discourage the recreational use of fossil fuels? |
|
|
| Develop tough standards on emissions and enforce them. Nova Scotia could be a model for environmental protection. |
|
|
| no comment |
|
|
| Climate change proses one of the most significant threats over the long term of any other environmental problem. The effects are not just limited to changes in ecosystems and the disruption and loss of species. More frequent and more severe weather (Hurricane Juan, the recent blizzard, drought in the Annapolis Valley, etc.) will not only disrupt personal lives, but place huge monetary burdens on governments that have to deal with the aftermath.
Unfortunately, it appears that these changes have a lot of "inertia" and that even if the Koyoto Protocol targets were met right now, there effects of the existing greenhouse gasses will produce significant changes for decades to come. |
|
|
| again, to stop importing and burning coal is the obvious thing. also, encouraging industries like agriculture for local consumption means less trucking. the government can create local-buying policies for large institutes like hospitals. |
|
|
| We must strive to be leaders in our response to climate change. On a national and continental level, we must be a strong voice, since we are downwind of much of the continent and will receive pollutants through wind and rain, and will share in continuing global climate change, which may well have unexpected and devastating effects. |
|
|
| Yes, all these and more. We need to go beyond the committments and/or to commit to more. Yes, we definielty need an impact and adaptations plan. This should have a primary focus on enhancing the ability of biodiversity, wildife, ecosystems to survive the transition, since these are are most basic life support system.
Adaptations of human infrastructure, etc, should not further imperil biodiversity. Efforts should focus on coastal communities and ecosystems, since these are the most at risk areas, since sea-level rise and storm surges are predicted to be our major threats from climate change.
Obviously, summer water shortages will also be an issue, so the Annapolis Valley, such as in Kings Co., should be making plans for this, including significant water conservation measures. |
|
|
| Climate change is the biggest problem on the planet right now. It can only be solved when this fact is accepted and adequate resources are directed towards it. The centre suggested above might be one place where research and policy could be generated to tackle these issues. An environmental think tank and public education centre. |
|
|
| bullets 5,6,7 should be put on hold so all stakeholders have a chance to study all the details.Bullet 1 should be removed it is not relevant to this section. |
|
|
| Fully support. |
|
|
| We have no knowledge on these subjects. |
|
|
| Certainly implementing the agreement under NEG/ECP Climate Change Action Plan is a must. However, where is transportation in these commitments. Singling out agriculture regarding climate change is likely inappropriate given that most of the climate changing emissions in NS come from transportation. |
|
|
| There should be very real financial advantages for people who choose products which reduce emissions. It is unacceptable that these products continue to be the most expensive. There should be adequate public transport in the province to reduce our reliance on motor vehicles as well as tax incentives for low emission purchases, such as vehicles. |
|
|
| Innovations, and promotion, of the 'Hydrogen Economy' should be pursued. |
|
|
| As long as the oil industry receives so much subsidy, directly and indirectly, from all levels of governement, we are not serious about climate change. |
|
|
| We urge the government to take a pro-active approach to climate change among all industry sectors. Transportation is the source of 25 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in Canada (Source: Transport Canada). Promoting rail use and the use of public transportation is important to help Nova Scotia meet its commitments. |
|
|
| THese are good. For the third bullet, developing a climate change plan, I hope that the government seeks detailed input from environmental groups. |
|
|
| . support research into the determining the impact of climate change on our fresh water resources
. increase the number of precipitation chemistry monitoring stations - require 1-2 in Cape Breton in different hydrological regions. |
|
|
| See GPI Greenhouse Gas Accounts for detailed suggestions on implementation. |
|
|
| I think more attention must be paid to our own power generation. We should be more innovative in our approach to climate change. We need a longer term point of view, and long-term planning and spending. |
|
|
| When do we get to see the action plan? Realize that the only way we can reduce the emissions of climate change gases is through fewer people and less development. MOre development and more people increase the amount of these emissions regardless of the controls that are in place. |
|
|
| no comment |
|
|
| - public awareness is important here
- Nova Scotias are not as wasteful as people in other provinces, but it is still important to encourage carpools and the use of public transit
- increase the bus and train network outside of Halifax, and reduce fares to encourage people to use these services |
|
|
| Recognize that the anomalies in our weather (Hurricane Juan) have happened because of climate change and may continue. This is a crucial area. There was almost no discussion of this in the media after the storm. |
|
|
| Any changes addressing Climate Change should be immediate and lasting. It is important that voters have a chance to see the economic benefits from the choices the current government is making. These benefits are not immediate, and therefore you need as much time as possible to let these economic trends become apparent to the average voter. |
|
|
| NS should adopt Kyoto on its own if for some reason the feds drop ti. Likewise, Kyoto targets should be exceeded by NS. Kyoto should be mentioned.
Specify that NS Power significantly reduce levels of air pollution, and make sure targets be specified (if not done already by other strategies) and have a renewable energy component. |
|
|
|
Offer tax breaks or incentives for people to reduce emmissions; fund and support alternatives to fossil fuel. |
|
|
| All of these programs are extremely important! |
|
|
| We have a Federal government. We do not need another level of government dealing with international affairs. |
|
|
| World wide problem? Too little too late. |
|
|
| Good luck. |
|
|
| Climate change is the biggest threat to humans throughout the globe. We are already seeing affects of climate change with several large storms in recent months here in Nova Scotia. This must be taken very seriously by government at all levels. I feel that not nearly enough is being done to help slow the change in climate. |
|
|
| Hydrogen |
|
|
| Make Nova Scotia Power clean up its dirty smokestacks. |
|
|
| fair commitment. |
|
|
| Mandatory emmissions testing
Fund the transit system |
|
|
| Climate change affects us all. I think these are great commitments. |
|
|
| Lets get a plan of action on the go. |
|
|
| Do it! Give it clear timelines and be insistent. The future depends on action now. |
|
|
| Climate change is happening now. It could be too late. Reduce emissions by energy conservation measures such as solar, wind power. Creating communities that minimize the need to commute. Communites that are pedestrian and cycle friendly not only reduce greenhouse emissions but may reduce health care costs by increasing overall healthy live styles |
|
|
| Incentives need to be implemented to bring alternative energy sources online in Nova Scotia. Wind power, in particular, should be promoted in appropriate locations around the province. This will reduce our dependency upon burning fossil fuels, which will limit the amount of carbon dioxide spewed into the atmosphere which will help address climate change issues. People should also be allowed to purchase "green power" specifically, to help drive demand for alternative energies. |
|
|
| Try to get every person in the province involved in programs like the One Tonne Challenge, or the Energuide program. Create energy efficiency requirements for new housing. Give business and industry incentives to reduce emmissions and power use. There are a lt of easy ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emmissions by every person doing a little bit. |
|
|
| Sounds great, but where is the eliminate coal energy from nova scotia by 2010. Or the provide greater funding for mass transit or the Provide subsidies for solar panels and low energy consumption appliances. THose are going to make the real differences and not some crappy action plan that will take 5 years to come up with and 10 years before even one point is acted on. |
|
|
| Implement climate change action plan. |
|
|
| Very important! Also develop strategies for individuals to reach greenhouse gas reduction goals and encourage compliance from all residents of Nova Scotia. |
|
|
| AGREE |
|
|
| Very important initiatives. |
|
|
| Not meaningful. And NS is not really a serious player, so not significant. Stick to your knitting. |
|
|
| good |
|
|
| These are great ideas...I would like to see how you will do them! The impacts and adaptations plan is less pro-active, but I understand the need for it |
|
|
|
 |
|
* In keeping with the privacy provisions of the NS Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act, [S.20] personal information has been removed from these comments. |
