GR: Experience has taught me that most governments represent business interests dominated by desire for short-term profits and growth-at-all-costs. When individuals take public office, their new power over the wealth of the people elevates them to the society of investors and developers. Rather than becoming advisers that help the wealthy control their avarice, they become students and tools of the wealthy. Whatever original thoughts they had about stability and sustainability fade away. There are exceptions, but they are rare and fleeting.
The only solution is heavy public participation and opposition to development proposals. Without overwhelming threats from large numbers of people, individuals in governments will be most strongly influenced by their new society—the rich and ambitious. Activism is the answer.
The following is by Doug Draper.
“The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority – a government body created by the Province of Ontario decades ago and stacked with board members appointed by municipal governments in the region – is floating the idea of destroying at least some of that’s left of Niagara’s natural wetlands to make way for more development.
Only about 10 to 15 per cent of Niagara’s wetlands – vital to the survival of many birds, fish and other wildlife – remain in Niagara and a regional ‘Conservation Authority” is now looking at “offsetting” to make way for development. Photo by Doug Draper
“Only about 10 to 15 per cent of Niagara’s wetlands – vital to the survival of many birds, fish and other wildlife – remain in Niagara and a regional ‘Conservation Authority” is now looking at “offsetting” to make way for development. Photo by Doug Draper
“The NPCA says it is thinking of taking this idea to the provincial government for approval under the guise of something called “biodiversity offsetting” which involves (as best as one can determine from an explanation offered by Conservation Authority’s chief administrative officer Carmen D’Angelo at a public meeting this January) replacing some wetland for development and replacing it somewhere else with something the same or similar that someone would construct.
More than 200 citizens attended the January meeting, many of them to express their concern or outright opposition to the idea. And when one citizen asked NPCA representatives flat out for a definition of “biodiversity offsetting,” one Conservation Authority member stood to say they do not yet have a full definition of the term.” niagaraatlarge.com
‘Biodiversity offsetting’ must be the most ludicrous euphemism ever. It would be laughable if it were not so sad for our beautiful flora and fauna.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Animalista, I agree. The term is just another deceit that governments and developers hope will still public opposition to their continuing ruin of nature.
Reblogged this on Art, animals, and the earth.