Hmmm, despite my left-wing leanings, I'm going to disagree with Suzuki here, at least in terms of calling it an ecological disaster. I'm just going by the article rather than the full interview so maybe I'm taking things out of context, but Calgary's impact on the ecology of the prairie region is minimal: it's expanding outward predominantly into agricultural land, not sensitive ecosystems; it doesn't seriously alter migration routes of animals, who can safely travel through the valley for the most part, or get around the city easily enough; it's effect on local water resources is acceptable, both in terms of levels of consumption and pollution; between Nose Hill and Fish Creek, it's got some of the greatest amounts of in-city natural parkland of any city in North America; while greenhouse gas emissions are greater than they could be, greenhouse gases do not affect the ecology of the region nearly as much as smog, which is negligible in Calgary. It's one thing to criticize urban sprawl and rampant automotive use, and I'd support him on that; but to call the city an ecological disaster is playing loose with scientific terminology, and his propensity for that is one of the reasons he has difficulty gaining widespread acceptance.
|