Jump to content

David Broadland

Moderators
  • Content Count

    203
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Focus Magazine Nov/Dec 2016

Sept/Oct 2016.2

Past Editions in PDF format

Advertorials

Focus Magazine July/August 2016

Focus Magazine Jan/Feb 2017

Focus Magazine March/April 2017

Passages

Local Lens

Focus Magazine May/June 2017

Focus Magazine July/August2017

Focus Magazine Sept/Oct 2017

Focus Magazine Nov/Dec 2017

Focus Magazine Jan/Feb 2018

Focus Magazine March/April 2018

Focus Magazine May/June 2018

Focus Magazine July/August 2018

Focus Magazine Sept/Oct 2018

Focus Magazine Nov/Dec 2018

Focus Magazine Jan/Feb 2019

Focus Magazine March/April 2019

Focus Magazine May/June 2019

Focus Magazine July/August 2019

Focus Magazine Sept/Oct 2019

Focus Magazine Nov/Dec 2019

Focus Magazine Jan/Feb 2020

Focus Magazine March-April 2020

COVID-19 Pandemic

Navigating through pandemonium

Informed Comment

Palette

Earthrise

Investigations

Reporting

Analysis

Commentary

Letters

Development and architecture

Books

Forests

Gallery

Store

Forums

Downloads

Blogs

Calendar

Article Comments posted by David Broadland

  1. Reader Ken Waldie has pointed out that Stantec's report actually found industrial GHG emissions were "Not Occurring" and that the IPPU emissions it found were from "Product Use" only. Ken notes, "The number reported for IPPU is from consumer use of products that emit SF6 and NF3 (refrigerants, aerosols etc.), which the report notes the City has 'little influence' over. Moreover, these emissions are only crudely estimated in the Stantec report. That's no reason to exclude them of course, and at the very least the City's report should have explained their calculations. I have no doubt that this was a deliberate effort to deceive the public. But this error raises doubts about the accuracy of other elements of your report so it might be worth correcting."

    I had completely missed this line in Stantec's report. There are various "industrial processes" occurring around Rock Bay and Selkirk Waters that produce emissions, including two asphalt plants, the concrete batch plants and other industrial operations. I presumed that Stantec had included those in its report under "Industrial Processes."

    Based on Ken Waldie's expert information (he is a former senior policy advisor for Canada's GHG Offset Systems agency), I have removed from the story this paragraph: "Why would the City eliminate the Industrial Processes and Product Use category? A significant IPPU emission source in Victoria are the concrete batch plants around Rock Bay, which supply much of the concrete used in construction of buildings in the Downtown core and in the city’s neighbourhoods. The City has no intention of restricting such growth, of course, because new construction increases the City’s tax base. So it got around that pesky problem by deleting the category."

×
×
  • Create New...