What about the good building structures and viaducts we tear down to rebuild, only because there are restrictions on how tall or dense other areas can go in order to protect view corridors? Isn't that contrary to going green and trying to achieve carbon neutral as well? Also, what about allowing single family homes to exist in prime urban areas while sprawl continues to happen, resulting in more commute time with private passenger vehicles. We need to take all that into account. As of now, we are not green at all, even though we try to think that we are progressive in that arena.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby
Nothing Vancouver, British Colombia or Canada does unilaterally will make any meaningful change on sea level rises (if there will even be any noticeable rises in the next 100 years).
The only think Metro Vancouver could do is build dykes and other structures to keep water out (like the Dutch have) and/or raise land elevations in the most at-risk areas.
I think that funds would best be used to ensure less environmental damage from our actions, such as reducing particulates in the air, more recycling and better land use.
|
Agreed that what we do here don't contribute to sea level rises, but the steps we put in can let us enjoy the fresh clean air and water that we've always enjoyed, and allowing nature to flourish in the urban areas without having more low-density urban sprawl. I think Burnaby is doing pretty well in that regards.