[GREN-Exec] First draft GREN 5 year review of ROW climate action

[John Jackson]

Great work everyone. Very impressive. Sorry that i haven't reviewed it until the last minute. The current months have been insane because added onto my normal work is the teaching of my waste class at UofW totally on-line for the first time.

My comments are only a few and should be easy to integrate:
in Recs under 12 it only refers to townships. I think these are excellent and am really glad they are here, but we imply that the cities are doing fine. In the matter of creating greenspace we need greenspace created in the cities as well to provide all kinds of energy saving provisions as well as to give people who live in the city easy daily access to greenpeace. Every time a city dweller steps outside they should experience nature. And they should not have to use cars or even transit to experience some aspect of nature.
In recs under 13 on green infrastructure it again focuses on townships. This is really good and the needs for townships are different and so well pointed out. But we ignore the cities saying that they are doing "pretty good." "Pretty good" is just passable, which is far from what we need for the future. So in terms of green infrastructure in the cities: Yes they have plans, etc., but they constantly compromise when putting in infrastructure such as building roads and rebuilding old roads and streets. They regularly chop down wonderful mature trees that are major contributors to addressing cc issues, to put the priority on cars. Even if they don't cut down the trees, they shorten the lives of trees by chopping off parts of their root systems. Also the cities fund important work by REEP to get green infrastructure installed. However, this work is piece meal and will not get us where we need to be nearly quickly enough - if ever. This is not REEPs fault. It is because there is not sufficient dollars put into these programs. Also the Region needs to look at ways to require leading edge green infrastructure in new developments (residential, institutional, commercial and industrial and also rehabilitation in existing developments. E.G., change the parking lots in shopping malls, churches, community centres, etc.
The stuff on agriculture is an excellent addition. I particularly like the sentence about making the entire country-side line "permanent." Find a way to highlight this better. My biggest fear is that each time we review the ROP we will move the line outwards.
In rec 18 near end where it talks about including parks, please put into this "and benches". I am finding increasingly that benches are seen as a problem - as drawing undesirables, especially in downtown areas.

John
--------------------s---------
John Jackson
17 Major Street
Kitchener N2H 4R1
519-744-7503




> On Feb 26, 2021, at 2:48 PM, Susan Koswan <susankoswan at execulink.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi GREN exec,
> 
> I've attached the first run-through of GREN's submission to ROW's 5 year climate change review paper. Still needs a lot of work and input on How We Move. I've generally formatted both Susan B and Sandra B's input for How we live, work, build, but have done no editing.
> 
> Please. Someone take it and run with it. My brain hurts.
> 
> Susan K
> 
> <Climate Change 5 year review ROW GREN comments.docx>_______________________________________________
> Executive mailing list
> Executive at gren.ca
> http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/executive_gren.ca

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20210228/7a886d20/attachment.html>