Grand River Transit

[plam]

Only a tiny portion of the city qualifies.

Edit: Oh, and make sure you see only the actual green areas, there are many parks that look a little green, it's only an illusion.

Yes. However, that's going to be somewhat tautologically true because dense housing is dense and can house a lot more people than the suburban form. I do agree that there needs to be a lot more missing middle.

[danbrotherston]

Only a tiny portion of the city qualifies.

Edit: Oh, and make sure you see only the actual green areas, there are many parks that look a little green, it's only an illusion.

Yes. However, that's going to be somewhat tautologically true because dense housing is dense and can house a lot more people than the suburban form. I do agree that there needs to be a lot more missing middle.

Some recent suburban developments, while retaining the unwalkable car dependent nature, have been built at a might higher density that 60's development approaching that of a healthy walkable community.

It is still the case that the vast vast majority of the population lives in sprawling unwalkable car dependent suburbs.

[jeffster]

It's not defeatist at all. If we want vibrant safe communities for young families we still need this type of development. It's simply not going to stop because some people don't like houses and cars.

*rolls eyes*...can you drop the nonsense, just because you grew up in a miserable car dependent suburb doesn't mean everyone wants that for their children. There is nothing vibrant about car dependency and suburban sprawl, and there's strong evidence that it isn't good for young famillies.  It's also the case that there are vast swaths of the city already built this way and it is in fact the walkable livable areas that are in desperately low supply. Of course, none of that really change the fact that the real problem is the fact that your development is unsustainable---young families probably also want to have a planet for their children to live on in the future.

But you're just going to accuse me of hating cars and houses.  Clearly we are not even on remotely the same page, nor do you care to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_xzyCDT98&ab_channel=NotJustBikes

I for one, do not want to raise my child in such an environment, and that is one reason that we will probably leave KW.

“*rolls eyes*” — that says a lot about you. You are 100% incapable of showing other people any respect and having a mature conversation, what are you? 15? And I did NOT grow up in a miserable car dependant suburb. That shows you don’t know anything. I have no idea who shits in your Wheaties everyday for you aggressiveness, but obviously something is happening.

For what it’s worth, I grew up in DTK, or at least very close (Victoria and Lancaster). We did leave because of interactions with addicts, even back then. Currently I live in a very old section of the city (housing dates to the 1930’s), however, no transit as it was canceled for Ion. Secondly, my daughter was molested on a city bus, so no matter the case, she will never ride transit again, and she certainly isn’t alone with having an experience on GRT.

And yeah, families DO want to have a livable planet for their children. But guess what, NOTHING we do will make a difference. All it will do is make people live elsewhere, and depress the economy. We’re a small country population wise, with a huge area. We’re not the problem. And I have been preaching, and no parishioners obviously, cars will be mostly electric in the future.

And why do I accuse you of hating cars and houses? Because you have nothing positive to say about them. I can speak positively about GRT, I can speak positively about walking, I can speak positively about biking. I do all 3. But I won’t force other to do them, nor have a hate on for primary travel, the car.

You really do need to put yourself in other peoples feet. To understand why they choose what they choose. You feel that apartment living for you, and your family (this assumes you have children) is great. Nothing wrong with that. Perhaps you are lucky and have great co-tenants. Perhaps you have a great super and property manager. Perhaps you have no desire to have people visit you and chill outside when we have great weather. But not everyone is you.

Maybe one day, you will have to take care of an elderly relative, a kid with a disability. Maybe one day you’ll appreciate the spare time you get by having quick transportation. Maybe then, you’ll understand why some people rely on cars. Not everyone’s world is as perfect as yours, and you better hope that yours doesn’t change.

[taylortbb]

And yeah, families DO want to have a livable planet for their children. But guess what, NOTHING we do will make a difference. All it will do is make people live elsewhere, and depress the economy. We’re a small country population wise, with a huge area. We’re not the problem. And I have been preaching, and no parishioners obviously, cars will be mostly electric in the future.

You make some valid points about understanding why others think the way they do, but I feel like this part totally undercuts your argument.

Canada has terrible per-capita emissions, and electric vehicles aren't going to change that. Only a fundamental change to a more dense urban form, more European, will do that. Saying that it's pointless and we can't do anything is EXACTLY the problem. Per-capita we're a terrible emitter of CO2. So unless you have justification for why Canadians should be entitled to more CO2 than other countries, we need to be taking action.

Whether people want car-dependent suburbs or not is as irrelevant as whether people want private jets or not, it's not something we can afford for every person. Our CO2 budget is as real as our economic budget, people just don't like to be told that.

To be clear, I don't fault people for owning cars. I own one too (though an EV, as even if not a solution, they are better). But at a societal level, we need to be making changes to how we build our cities.

[plam]

And yeah, families DO want to have a livable planet for their children. But guess what, NOTHING we do will make a difference. All it will do is make people live elsewhere, and depress the economy. We’re a small country population wise, with a huge area. We’re not the problem. And I have been preaching, and no parishioners obviously, cars will be mostly electric in the future.

You make some valid points about understanding why others think the way they do, but I feel like this part totally undercuts your argument.

Canada has terrible per-capita emissions, and electric vehicles aren't going to change that. Only a fundamental change to a more dense urban form, more European, will do that. Saying that it's pointless and we can't do anything is EXACTLY the problem. Per-capita we're a terrible emitter of CO2. So unless you have justification for why Canadians should be entitled to more CO2 than other countries, we need to be taking action.

Whether people want car-dependent suburbs or not is as irrelevant as whether people want private jets or not, it's not something we can afford for every person. Our CO2 budget is as real as our economic budget, people just don't like to be told that.

To be clear, I don't fault people for owning cars. I own one too (though an EV, as even if not a solution, they are better). But at a societal level, we need to be making changes to how we build our cities.

Individual actions aren't going to get us out of this mess. It really does have to be systemic change with how we build our societies. Car-dependent suburbs are not viable.

Just to add onto the CO2 point: in Ontario natural gas currently supplies 29% of electricity; the rest aren't CO2 emitting. But that doesn't account for all the CO2 cost of suburbs. There's also embodied costs in the concrete that it takes to build these houses and the supply chains for them. Also, even electric vehicles produce particulates from tires and brakes. Not CO2 but it is pollution.

[dtkvictim]

And yeah, families DO want to have a livable planet for their children. But guess what, NOTHING we do will make a difference. All it will do is make people live elsewhere, and depress the economy. We’re a small country population wise, with a huge area. We’re not the problem. And I have been preaching, and no parishioners obviously, cars will be mostly electric in the future.

You make some valid points about understanding why others think the way they do, but I feel like this part totally undercuts your argument.

Canada has terrible per-capita emissions, and electric vehicles aren't going to change that. Only a fundamental change to a more dense urban form, more European, will do that. Saying that it's pointless and we can't do anything is EXACTLY the problem. Per-capita we're a terrible emitter of CO2. So unless you have justification for why Canadians should be entitled to more CO2 than other countries, we need to be taking action.

Whether people want car-dependent suburbs or not is as irrelevant as whether people want private jets or not, it's not something we can afford for every person. Our CO2 budget is as real as our economic budget, people just don't like to be told that.

To be clear, I don't fault people for owning cars. I own one too (though an EV, as even if not a solution, they are better). But at a societal level, we need to be making changes to how we build our cities.

I sometimes wonder about this, how valid per-capita emissions are as a measurement of responsibility. If Canada set a specific limit on emissions per capita, it would be fine for a businessperson to make frequent flights as long as someone else (or many other people) in the country have below average emissions to balance it out. But how about globally? Should one country be allowed to have higher per capita emissions if another country is below average? What about emissions per land area? What is the correct measurement? Do we not care about total emissions, just per capita?

If the pope flew a private jet around all the time, the Vatican would have massive per capita emissions, but it would probably be fairly sustainable. So, maybe governments regulating emissions should be taking the size of the population they govern into context. If a country specifically chooses not to grow their population (a luxury most developed countries have available to them, and developing countries could do more on this front though it's more complicated...), but maintains their per capita emissions, then they are doing better than a country that lowers their per capita emissions but grows their population at an even faster rate.

Now of course, Canada wants to grow it's populate at a rate I strongly disagree with, as our population size is probably the single most effective tool we have to lower our total emissions.

[plam]

I sometimes wonder about this, how valid per-capita emissions are as a measurement of responsibility. If Canada set a specific limit on emissions per capita, it would be fine for a businessperson to make frequent flights as long as someone else (or many other people) in the country have below average emissions to balance it out. But how about globally? Should one country be allowed to have higher per capita emissions if another country is below average? What about emissions per land area? What is the correct measurement? Do we not care about total emissions, just per capita?

If the pope flew a private jet around all the time, the Vatican would have massive per capita emissions, but it would probably be fairly sustainable. So, maybe governments regulating emissions should be taking the size of the population they govern into context. If a country specifically chooses not to grow their population (a luxury most developed countries have available to them, and developing countries could do more on this front though it's more complicated...), but maintains their per capita emissions, then they are doing better than a country that lowers their per capita emissions but grows their population at an even faster rate.

Now of course, Canada wants to grow it's populate at a rate I strongly disagree with, as our population size is probably the single most effective tool we have to lower our total emissions.

International carbon markets are supposed to make things work out on average. The tricky part is setting what the initial budgets are. In the end, though, we care about total emissions, but thinking about per capita numbers is one measure of fairness that people can point at. It's absolutely unfair that Canada should get to have a higher per-capita CO2 budget than India, but the way forward is not clear.

Population growth in Canada is 60% migration and 40% births. So for that 60% we are mostly importing people from countries with lower CO2 emissions and converting them to have Canadian-level CO2 emissions. The 40% probably is less than replacement. To a first approximation, fewer people will also mean less CO2, but also worse for the economy as it is currently configured.

[dtkvictim]

The tricky part is setting what the initial budgets are. In the end, though, we care about total emissions, but thinking about per capita numbers is one measure of fairness that people can point at. It's absolutely unfair that Canada should get to have a higher per-capita CO2 budget than India, but the way forward is not clear.

Is it unfair? Wouldn't it be unfair for a country that manages a sustainable population to be forced to lower per capita emissions every time other countries let their population growth explode?

Population growth in Canada is 60% migration and 40% births. So for that 60% we are mostly importing people from countries with lower CO2 emissions and converting them to have Canadian-level CO2 emissions. The 40% probably is less than replacement. To a first approximation, fewer people will also mean less CO2, but also worse for the economy as it is currently configured.

The fertility rate in Canada is far below replacement level, so unless I am misunderstanding something, our growth is entirely immigration. We even have the option to enter population decline if we desired. Of course I understand we have a ponzi scheme economy that would collapse without population growth though.

For the record, I'm not advocating for a specific position here... I'm just here to ask questions.

[plam]

The tricky part is setting what the initial budgets are. In the end, though, we care about total emissions, but thinking about per capita numbers is one measure of fairness that people can point at. It's absolutely unfair that Canada should get to have a higher per-capita CO2 budget than India, but the way forward is not clear.

Is it unfair? Wouldn't it be unfair for a country that manages a sustainable population to be forced to lower per capita emissions every time other countries let their population growth explode?

I'm not aware of any countries that are rich and also have a high birth rate. The Wikipedia chart on income and fertility identifies two sort of outliers: Israel and Oman. But most of the higher-GDP countries have sub-2 fertility.

You set the allowed total carbon emissions at say 1990 levels (this is hard) and then you peg to total emissions, not per capita. That takes care of your concern naturally, I think.

Population growth in Canada is 60% migration and 40% births. So for that 60% we are mostly importing people from countries with lower CO2 emissions and converting them to have Canadian-level CO2 emissions. The 40% probably is less than replacement. To a first approximation, fewer people will also mean less CO2, but also worse for the economy as it is currently configured.

The fertility rate in Canada is far below replacement level, so unless I am misunderstanding something, our growth is entirely immigration. We even have the option to enter population decline if we desired. Of course I understand we have a ponzi scheme economy that would collapse without population growth though.

For the record, I'm not advocating for a specific position here... I'm just here to ask questions.

1.5. I guess that it depends on what you mean by "far". There's questions of the economy and also of who would pay for pensions.

Presumably if people are moving to Canada they think their lives would be better in Canada. And I think Canada benefits from newcomers.

[danbrotherston]

*rolls eyes*...can you drop the nonsense, just because you grew up in a miserable car dependent suburb doesn't mean everyone wants that for their children. There is nothing vibrant about car dependency and suburban sprawl, and there's strong evidence that it isn't good for young famillies.  It's also the case that there are vast swaths of the city already built this way and it is in fact the walkable livable areas that are in desperately low supply. Of course, none of that really change the fact that the real problem is the fact that your development is unsustainable---young families probably also want to have a planet for their children to live on in the future.

But you're just going to accuse me of hating cars and houses.  Clearly we are not even on remotely the same page, nor do you care to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_xzyCDT98&ab_channel=NotJustBikes

I for one, do not want to raise my child in such an environment, and that is one reason that we will probably leave KW.

“*rolls eyes*” — that says a lot about you. You are 100% incapable of showing other people any respect and having a mature conversation, what are you? 15? And I did NOT grow up in a miserable car dependant suburb. That shows you don’t know anything. I have no idea who shits in your Wheaties everyday for you aggressiveness, but obviously something is happening.

For what it’s worth, I grew up in DTK, or at least very close (Victoria and Lancaster). We did leave because of interactions with addicts, even back then. Currently I live in a very old section of the city (housing dates to the 1930’s), however, no transit as it was canceled for Ion. Secondly, my daughter was molested on a city bus, so no matter the case, she will never ride transit again, and she certainly isn’t alone with having an experience on GRT.

And yeah, families DO want to have a livable planet for their children. But guess what, NOTHING we do will make a difference. All it will do is make people live elsewhere, and depress the economy. We’re a small country population wise, with a huge area. We’re not the problem. And I have been preaching, and no parishioners obviously, cars will be mostly electric in the future.

And why do I accuse you of hating cars and houses? Because you have nothing positive to say about them. I can speak positively about GRT, I can speak positively about walking, I can speak positively about biking. I do all 3. But I won’t force other to do them, nor have a hate on for primary travel, the car.

You really do need to put yourself in other peoples feet. To understand why they choose what they choose. You feel that apartment living for you, and your family (this assumes you have children) is great. Nothing wrong with that. Perhaps you are lucky and have great co-tenants. Perhaps you have a great super and property manager. Perhaps you have no desire to have people visit you and chill outside when we have great weather. But not everyone is you.

Maybe one day, you will have to take care of an elderly relative, a kid with a disability. Maybe one day you’ll appreciate the spare time you get by having quick transportation. Maybe then, you’ll understand why some people rely on cars. Not everyone’s world is as perfect as yours, and you better hope that yours doesn’t change.

I really don't appreciate the direct personal attack here. I rolled my eyes at you because you consistently repeated the same statements, and accuse me of the same falsehoods. In response, you call me a child and call me aggressive, how would you react if I called you names?

"But guess what, NOTHING we do will make a difference." this is straight up false, our nation is a huge environmental issue, our emissions per capita are among the highest in the world. We, not other countries, are stealing the future from our children. Our nation also has immense political clout, we should use it to push for a better future, not to enrich ourselves by pushing more of our dirty oil. This is not an opinion, this is objectively true. EVs do not solve any of these problems, we need systemic and policy changes.

You accuse me of hating cars and houses because you do not listen to what I say. I have never said I hate cars, nor do I hate houses, I hate our car dependency that forces people to drive cars. I hate how we are forced into an unsustainable lifestyle. You continually accuse me of not understanding why people make the choices they do, but YOU are the one who does not understand. I understand very well the policies and systems in place to force those choices. You continue to deny those systems and policies.

This is why I roll my eyes. You are right about one thing, I'm showing you the same respect you showed me when you continue to accuse me of the same things over and over again, respect is earned, one way you earn it is by listening and not repeatedly accusing me of hating cars.

[danbrotherston]

You make some valid points about understanding why others think the way they do, but I feel like this part totally undercuts your argument.

Canada has terrible per-capita emissions, and electric vehicles aren't going to change that. Only a fundamental change to a more dense urban form, more European, will do that. Saying that it's pointless and we can't do anything is EXACTLY the problem. Per-capita we're a terrible emitter of CO2. So unless you have justification for why Canadians should be entitled to more CO2 than other countries, we need to be taking action.

Whether people want car-dependent suburbs or not is as irrelevant as whether people want private jets or not, it's not something we can afford for every person. Our CO2 budget is as real as our economic budget, people just don't like to be told that.

To be clear, I don't fault people for owning cars. I own one too (though an EV, as even if not a solution, they are better). But at a societal level, we need to be making changes to how we build our cities.

Individual actions aren't going to get us out of this mess. It really does have to be systemic change with how we build our societies. Car-dependent suburbs are not viable.

Just to add onto the CO2 point: in Ontario natural gas currently supplies 29% of electricity; the rest aren't CO2 emitting. But that doesn't account for all the CO2 cost of suburbs. There's also embodied costs in the concrete that it takes to build these houses and the supply chains for them. Also, even electric vehicles produce particulates from tires and brakes. Not CO2 but it is pollution.

It's worth noting as well, that Ontario's power is likely to become more dirty, not less dirty in the future. Between an increase in renewable energy, no investment in energy storage, and a shutdown of at least some of our nuclear plants, natural gas use is likely to increase. We've already eliminated all the coal, the result is that we are likely at a local minimum of emissions per kWh.

And yes, there are plenty of other sources of pollution.

[danbrotherston]

You make some valid points about understanding why others think the way they do, but I feel like this part totally undercuts your argument.

Canada has terrible per-capita emissions, and electric vehicles aren't going to change that. Only a fundamental change to a more dense urban form, more European, will do that. Saying that it's pointless and we can't do anything is EXACTLY the problem. Per-capita we're a terrible emitter of CO2. So unless you have justification for why Canadians should be entitled to more CO2 than other countries, we need to be taking action.

Whether people want car-dependent suburbs or not is as irrelevant as whether people want private jets or not, it's not something we can afford for every person. Our CO2 budget is as real as our economic budget, people just don't like to be told that.

To be clear, I don't fault people for owning cars. I own one too (though an EV, as even if not a solution, they are better). But at a societal level, we need to be making changes to how we build our cities.

I sometimes wonder about this, how valid per-capita emissions are as a measurement of responsibility. If Canada set a specific limit on emissions per capita, it would be fine for a businessperson to make frequent flights as long as someone else (or many other people) in the country have below average emissions to balance it out. But how about globally? Should one country be allowed to have higher per capita emissions if another country is below average? What about emissions per land area? What is the correct measurement? Do we not care about total emissions, just per capita?

If the pope flew a private jet around all the time, the Vatican would have massive per capita emissions, but it would probably be fairly sustainable. So, maybe governments regulating emissions should be taking the size of the population they govern into context. If a country specifically chooses not to grow their population (a luxury most developed countries have available to them, and developing countries could do more on this front though it's more complicated...), but maintains their per capita emissions, then they are doing better than a country that lowers their per capita emissions but grows their population at an even faster rate.

Now of course, Canada wants to grow it's populate at a rate I strongly disagree with, as our population size is probably the single most effective tool we have to lower our total emissions.

So, I wanna break this into two separate parts, per capita emissions fairness, and population.

I think the per capita emissions fairness makes some sense, we all live on planet earth, and should all be entitled to a similar amount of the resources. I don't think it's wrong for some of us to use less emissions to contribute our surplus to others, this is fundamentally been an aspect of our society since society became a thing.

However, I've raised this before, per capita emissions are not measured effectively. The emissions "I" emit are measured based on what Canada consumes, and what fraction of that I consume. It does NOT consider what I import. So if I import an EV, all those emissions that went into build that car, are assigned to another country, probably mostly China where the rare elements are mined, and also whereever the vehicle was manufactured.

I get to look great, "Canada" gets to look great, but only because we have dumped our emissions on another country. This has in fact been a reality of globalism since the very beginning, the ONLY difference here is that we are measuring CO2 as opposed to other environmental pollution, or resource extraction.



In terms of population, I think it's wrong and harmful to question population growth in terms of emissions. Everyone on the planet should have a right to live a life out of poverty, and as a planet and a species we have the resources to make it happen, it isn't a question of supply, even at our current population level, or even our future projected peak population levels. It is only a question of fairness.

Of course, there are real practical concerns about the in between space between now, and that magical future, but, to me, the idea of limiting immigration into our country as a method of limiting global polution by forcing people to stay in lower per capita emissions countries is not morally acceptable. Our focus should be on limiting our own emissions, not trying to force others down. And fundamentally I don't think it would work anyway. Developing countries are exactly that, "developing", in their infrastructure--physical and social--and in their wealth. Those countries will get to our level of properity, wealth, and infrastructure (and privilege). We need to make where we are sustainable, if we want those countries to also be sustainable.

Edit: As a side note, is there a sustainability/climate change thread this could be moved too, it's no longer (directly) GRT related.

[tomh009]

Individual actions alone aren't going to get us out of this mess. It really does have to be systemic change with how we build our societies. Car-dependent suburbs are not viable.

Just to add onto the CO2 point: in Ontario natural gas currently supplies 29% of electricity; the rest aren't CO2 emitting. But that doesn't account for all the CO2 cost of suburbs. There's also embodied costs in the concrete that it takes to build these houses and the supply chains for them. Also, even electric vehicles produce particulates from tires and brakes. Not CO2 but it is pollution.

Fixed that for you. No, a single person isn't enough. But if a million Canadians decide to drive an EV, or even drive a smaller car, or to eat less beef, it will indeed have an impact. Not enough, on its own, no. But neither is any Canadian government policy going to solve things on its own. We are all in this together, and we all need to act, individually and collectively.

Regarding CO2, reducing industrial/commercial electricity use will typically reduce natural gas-based generation, and thus reduce CO2. EV charging at home is off-peak and can (currently!) be handled through surplus nuclear power with no CO2 impact. But "supercharging" etc increases daytime load and CO2 emissions. And if we have enough EVs, we may need natural gas generation at night, too, at some point.

[jeffster]

And yeah, families DO want to have a livable planet for their children. But guess what, NOTHING we do will make a difference. All it will do is make people live elsewhere, and depress the economy. We’re a small country population wise, with a huge area. We’re not the problem. And I have been preaching, and no parishioners obviously, cars will be mostly electric in the future.

You make some valid points about understanding why others think the way they do, but I feel like this part totally undercuts your argument.

Canada has terrible per-capita emissions, and electric vehicles aren't going to change that. Only a fundamental change to a more dense urban form, more European, will do that. Saying that it's pointless and we can't do anything is EXACTLY the problem. Per-capita we're a terrible emitter of CO2. So unless you have justification for why Canadians should be entitled to more CO2 than other countries, we need to be taking action.

Whether people want car-dependent suburbs or not is as irrelevant as whether people want private jets or not, it's not something we can afford for every person. Our CO2 budget is as real as our economic budget, people just don't like to be told that.

To be clear, I don't fault people for owning cars. I own one too (though an EV, as even if not a solution, they are better). But at a societal level, we need to be making changes to how we build our cities.

I feel like the answer below is too long, but I'll keep it up regardless. I will post a TL/DR to your points:

Driving trends between Canada and Europe aren't significantly different, which is remarkable considering our size and population differences. There is a connection between a countries general wealth and car usage, and population decline in some European countries. Over 80% of our GHG is related to industries, including farming, metal making (steel, for example), and keeping our ass warm during our 7-8 months of cold weather requiring heating to homes and workplaces, which is unique to Canada and some parts of the USA. Much of this GHG is also a result of us doing work to transfer GHG related products, like food, industrial and petro products to other countries, mostly, the USA. It's not an entitlement thing though, we feed the world, we feed ourselves, and we need to keep warm, we keep other people warm outside our country. Not many options here.

And we do need to create a more dense population and public transit nor is walking/biking everywhere a good alternative for everyone.


Long Version

If we're going to compare ourselves to Europe, both Canada and Europe are comparable in size, around 10,000,000 KM2. However, Europe is 20x the population. That being said, Canadians on average drive about 15,200 KM per year, while in Europe it's just shy of 13,700. Not a huge difference. Granted some countries have fewer cars, per capita, but that can easily be traced to a poor economy in many of European countries. But regardless, our large geography is not an advantage for Canada. Also remarkable consider the price of fuel, expensive gas does not keep European drivers off of the road.

Many of those same European countries have shrinking populations, not growing. The countries with population declines use cars the least. Other countries that continue to grow, like Germany and France, continue to use cars, I think the UK is the exception, though, with KM driven going down. Though the UK is small geographically. No need to explain why a shrinking population is an issue.

Another point to bring out when it comes to GHG, about 46% related to heating and electricity generation (about 1/3 of that is related to oil and gas exploration, mining, refining, etc). This amount to almost 2.5x the amount of GHG as compared to none commercial vehicles. Though perhaps that is what you're trying to say when it comes go GHG, that electric cars won't change that. If that's the case, then you acknowledge that fossil fuel cars aren't the issue.

Canada is also disadvantaged due to our weather. We need to heat our homes (GHG) more than any European country, as we have super crappy weather for a good 7-8 months of the year where we require to heat our homes. We produce "GHG" on our dime for other countries (exporting oil/gas and natural gas and other products related to GHG, for example, selling lumber, selling metal products. selling produce (like wheat)).

Now if we got rid of all of our GHG economies, with the exception of GHG for transportation, we'd have the lowest per capita. But we'd freeze in our homes or pay a tonne using electricity -- assuming we keep our nuclear reactors in shape, and can get enough energy from hydro-electric, wind and solar sources (not so much solar when we need it the most) as these are mostly, GHG free. But in order from keeping our economy from tanking, we'd need to figure out a new economy that doesn't factor in many industries that we have and depend on, including farming, which I am not willing to give up on.

But here's the question: would does this make us less guilty with GHG? We're simply transferring it to another country, assuming another country would have a different mindset than us and is OK with boosting their GHG to supply Canada (as of now, China and India don't have an issue with this).

I agree 100% we need to create a more dense population. I think our main issue is oversized properties though, not necessarily single (whether attached or not) dwelling units. I live in a semi, about a 24 wide property, if that. But many houses out there rock 60' or more. I think this is where we need to improve. As well, condo/apartment living prices need to come down.

However, even denser housing proves difficult when people continue to attack such projects. Hell, we even have people attacking that plan out on Highland Rd! That needs the mindset change. But it's not the solution to some of our other issues. Cars will still be used, for various reason, which this seems to be what the discussion was about. And places outside our cities, like Breslau, still deserve the right to grow, and have access to more built up areas.

As mentioned upstream, I think we need to continue to build on transit, friendly pedestrian roads, and bike lanes. But they are not great alternatives to private transportation. As mentioned previously, my daughter has had issues with GRT, and I also have supervised younger ones (under 25 females) who won't ride the bus ever again. They all have cars. All have had the similiar experiences as my daughter. I don't expect anyone here to understand that, as probably the vast majority of users here are males. And unless you can live, work and shop all within walking distance, you need a car. Bikes can be fine for many during the warmer months, but many cyclists put the bike away in the winter. As I mentioned before, our weather plays a negative role in our travels. Though again, not like places like Germany or France or the UK, etc., are much different.

If we want a real answer to GHG, though, we need to eliminate population. But Canada wouldn't be the place to start, as it's sparsely populated.

[jeffster]

The fertility rate in Canada is far below replacement level, so unless I am misunderstanding something, our growth is entirely immigration. We even have the option to enter population decline if we desired. Of course I understand we have a ponzi scheme economy that would collapse without population growth though.

For the record, I'm not advocating for a specific position here... I'm just here to ask questions.

It's a combination of both. But without immigration, we'd have population decline. Our economy would go into the shitter as a result, but at the same time, maybe housing would become more affordable and people would have more babies.

One thing not mentioned, in regard to housing: when it comes to apartment and apartment style condos, they don't allow for much growth of a family. As a country, we do want this type of growth. And any apartment or condo that does have 3 or 4 bedrooms, prices out most people. While those that do live in a house, can renovate places like the bedroom, add additions if they need too, and have quite large families, including having parents move in, for example.