Connect with us

Opinion

When it comes to the Aquatic Centre’s location can we compare Apples to Apples? Please?

Published

2 minute read

Comparing apples to apples may make it easier to see the injustices.
Approximately 1/3 the residents of Red Deer live east of 30 Avenue which is similar to the number of Residents living north of the river.
East of 30 Avenue you will have 5 high schools.
North of the river you will have no high schools.
East of 30 Avenue you will have 2 sports fields, pickle ball courts, Collicutt Centre and the new Aquatic Centre.
North of the river you will have the Dawe Centre.
The city will have to buy land east of 30 Avenue for the Aquatic Centre.
The city will have to buy land north of the river for the Aquatic Centre.
The city has already supplied services for the subdivisions east of 30 Avenue around the aquatic centre.
The city will be supplying services for the subdivisions north of the river around the aquatic centre.
Locating the Aquatic Centre east of 30 Avenue would be fairly hidden and far from hotels for out of town tourists and athletes.
Locating the Aquatic Centre north of the river and near Hazlett Lake visible to the QE2 and near hotels and a lake would be a draw and convenient to tourists and athletes.
The city grew and profited from the visionaries who built Collicutt Centre in the south-east corner of Red Deer. You would be hard put to find anyone regretting the building of the Collicutt Centre,
The city could grow and profit from building a Collicutt style Recreation Centre but with the 50m pool if it was built in the north west corner of Red Deer.
The city should look at this as an investment and not be the council who squandered away an opportunity when it came knocking.
If you have concerns or questions, you can e-mail the city at [email protected]. I do.
Just Saying.

Follow Author

Bjorn Lomborg

Despite what activists say, the planet is not on fire

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

 

Nearly half of young Canadians surveyed in a 2022 study said they believed humanity is doomed because of climate change, while more than three-quarters said they were frightened. No wonder. They have grown up bombarded both by footage of natural disasters, not just in Canada but around the world, and by activists’ claims that climate change is making the planet unliveable. But that’s just wrong.

The ubiquity of phone cameras and our ability to instantly communicate mean — the “CNN effect” — that the media can show more weather disasters now than ever before. But that doesn’t mean the disasters are deadlier or costlier.

As we saw in the first article in this series, deaths from climate-related disasters have dropped precipitously. On average in the 1870s five million people a year died from such disasters. A century ago, about half a million people a year did. In the past decade, however, the death toll worldwide was fewer than 10,000 people a year. As global population has more than quintupled, disaster deaths have declined 500-fold. And this dramatic decline is true for all major disaster categories, including floods, flash floods, cold waves and wind disasters, and for rich and poor countries alike. But you never hear about that during disaster reporting.

Floods are the most costly and frequent Canadian disasters. But the common claim that flood costs are rising dramatically ignores the obvious fact that when a flood plain has many more houses on it than decades ago and the houses are worth much more then the same flood will cause a lot more damage. We need to keep these changes in mind and measure costs in proportion to GDP. Even the UN says that’s how to measure whether cities and towns are safer.

Though peer-reviewed analysis for Canada is lacking there is plenty to draw on elsewhere. As so often, the U.S. has the most comprehensive data. It shows that while flood costs have increased in absolute terms, that’s only because more people and property are in harm’s way. In the country’s worst year for flooding, 1913, damage exceeded two per cent of GDP, though the yearly average in that era was 0.5 per cent. Today it’s less than 0.05 per cent of GDP — just a tenth what it was a century ago.

We know adaptation makes disasters much less threatening over time. Consider sea level rise, which threatens to flood coastal zones around the world. A much-cited study shows that at the turn of this century an average of 3.4 million people a year experienced coastal flooding, with $11 billion in annual damages. At the same time, around $13 billion or 0.05 per cent of global GDP was spent on coastal defences.

By the end of this century, more people will be in harm’s way, and climate change could raise sea levels by as much as a metre. If we don’t improve coastal defences, vast areas will be routinely inundated, flooding 187 million people and causing $55 trillion in annual damages, more than five per cent of global GDP in 2100. This finding does routinely make headlines.

But it ignores adaptation, which research shows will cost much less. On average, countries will avoid flood damage by spending just 0.005 per cent of GDP. Even with higher sea levels, far fewer people will be flooded — by 2100 just 15,000 people a year. Even the combined cost of adaptation and damage will be just 0.008 per cent of GDP.

Global Burned Area 1901-2024

Enormously ambitious emissions-reduction policies costing hundreds of trillions of dollars could cut the number of people flooded at century’s end from that 15,000 number down to about 10,000 per year. But notice the difference: Adaptation reduces the number currently being flooded by almost 3.4 million and avoids another 184 million people being flooded annually by 2100. At best, climate policy can save just 0.005 million.

We often hear that the “world is on fire” because of climate change. New Liberal leader Mark Carney repeated that in his acceptance speech Sunday. And it’s true that in 2023 more of Canada’s surface area burned than in any year since 1970, with climate change probably partly to blame. Even so, two points need to be kept in mind.

First, most studies projecting an increase in wildfires ignore adaptation. In fact, humans don’t like fire and make great efforts to reduce it, which is why since 1900 humanity has seen less burned area, not more. The data from last century involve historical reconstruction but since 1997, NASA satellites have tracked all significant fires. The record shows a dramatic fall in global burned area. Last year it was the second lowest, and in 2022 the lowest ever. And studies find that with adaptation the area burned will keep falling, even without climate action.

Second, reducing emissions is a terribly inefficient way to help. Studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency show that even drastic cuts in emissions would reduce the burned area only slightly this century. Simpler, cheaper, faster policies like better forest management, prescribed fires and cleaning out undergrowth can help much more.

The flood of disaster porn is terrifying our kids and skewing our perception, and that can only lead to bad climate policy.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

Business

Trump doubles tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum imports

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Trump announced Tuesday an additional 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum imports, raising the total levy to 50%, in retaliation for Ontario’s decision to charge Americans in three border states 25% more for electricity.

Key Details:

  • Trump declared Ontario’s electricity surcharge on New York, Michigan, and Minnesota as an “abusive threat,” vowing to declare a National Emergency to counteract its impact.

  • The president threatened to impose a steep tariff on Canadian automobile imports by April 2nd if other longstanding trade disputes aren’t resolved, warning that it could “permanently shut down the automobile manufacturing business in Canada.”

  • Trump also called out Canada’s minimal contributions to military security, arguing that the U.S. subsidizes the country’s defense by more than $200 billion a year, saying, “This cannot continue.”

Diving Deeper:

President Trump took direct aim at Canada on Tuesday, unveiling an aggressive tariff hike on steel and aluminum imports from America’s northern neighbor. The move raises the current duty by an additional 25%, bringing the total to 50%, and follows Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s controversial decision to slap a 25% surcharge on electricity exports to U.S. border states.

Trump, in a post on Truth Social, blasted Ontario’s move as an “abusive threat” to American energy consumers and promised swift action. “I will shortly be declaring a National Emergency on Electricity within the threatened area,” Trump wrote, saying this would enable the U.S. to “quickly do what has to be done” to counteract Canada’s pricing.

But the trade battle didn’t stop there. Trump also called on Canada to eliminate tariffs of up to 390% on American dairy exports, a policy the president previously fought against during his first term. If Canada fails to act, Trump warned he would ramp up the pressure by imposing new tariffs on Canadian car exports, a move he said would effectively cripple the country’s auto industry.

“If other egregious, long-time Tariffs are not likewise dropped by Canada, I will substantially increase, on April 2nd, the Tariffs on Cars coming into the U.S., which will, essentially, permanently shut down the automobile manufacturing business in Canada,” Trump warned.

In addition to the latest tariffs, Trump took a broader swipe at Canada’s role in global security, reiterating a long-held grievance that the U.S. shoulders an unfair burden for its northern ally’s defense. “Canada pays very little for National Security, relying on the United States for military protection,” Trump wrote. “We are subsidizing Canada to the tune of more than 200 Billion Dollars a year. WHY??? This cannot continue.”

Trump then again floated annexing Canada into the United States to eliminate trade barriers and lower Canadian taxes. “The only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty-First State,” he wrote, claiming this would bring economic relief and greater security. “And your brilliant anthem, ‘O Canada,’ will continue to play, but now representing a GREAT and POWERFUL STATE within the greatest Nation that the World has ever seen!”

Continue Reading

Trending

X