GAS

Admittedly, until now, the point of this blog has been to drown my sorrows. Maybe that's not obvious, but realize that I've only written when I've had some sort of posative revalation in my recent experiences. There have been downs to that roller coaster, but it seems that at the down points there is no real inspiration to write anything. At the same time, when the roller coaster is level and things are good, there's not a whole lot of inspiration either. I think the inspiration probably comes at a peak and when things are just level, the peaks aren't there, and as a result there is no noticable inspiration.

No matter really, no one follows this. But incase anyone does, there is more that goes on in the world besides me (surprise!!), and now that things are more level, I'ld like to point some of them out. I follow the blog of one of Canada's best climbers, Sonnie Trotter, and he has brought up issues regarding a ski resort development near Squamish. It seems, from what I've read, that there is a particular risk to a river that flows out of the basin which the development is supposed to be built in. It has been denied since 1997, but it seems there is some danger of the development being approved.

In general, I'm against this, although I don't know a lot about the area. However, it seem to me that Alberta ski hills are seeing less people and tourism is down in general, so how can an $8 billion development be a good idea? Not to mention the issues with the local environment.

In case anyone reads this, the link to Sonnie's blog where I first heard of this is, www.sonnietrotter.com. Although I don't know a lot about the specifics of the development it sparked some general thoughts on the matter which I posted as a comment on Sonnie's blog. They follow:

I’ve heard a lot of instances of a new ‘buzz word’, namely, SUSTAINABLE development. This usually conflicts with the main driver for development which is the ECONOMICS of the project. In other words, if you’re going to spend the money, you’d better be getting more back in return. In the article above, it mentions total construction costs of 8 billion dollars. That’s a lot of money to spend in order to get more back!!

Let’s just put this into perspective for a moment, with a dumb unrelated example. The average city interchange/overpass (in Calgary at least) costs between $25 million and $40 million. Even if you used $50 million per interchange, this would build 160 interchanges for $8 billion. This is a big development.

Now, let’s look at SUSTAINABLE deveopment and ECONOMICS. For the SUSTAINABILITY, how about portioning out a shwack of money for water treatment. Contour your golf courses to run off into a holding pond(s). Treat the water. Truck in water which is excess from what you can safely take from the water shed. I’m not necessarily saying I know what the answer is, but, whatever solutions are required protect the stream, DO IT. The point is, the deveopment causes problems with the local environment, figure out what they are and solve them above and beyond what is figured as ‘acceptable’. This is the sustainability bit.

For the ECONOMICS bit, if the budget was $500 million for water conservation, this would represent only 6.25% of the project cost. Even if this money wasn’t budgeted in the original $8 billion, if your project can’t handle the extra 6.25% to properly protect the environment, maybe it shouldn’t fit the criteria of an ECONOMIC development. These criteria lie with the governing bodies of the area, wich ‘represent’ the people. It’s not you’re government, it’s you.

Perhaps there are stages to the project where the water conservation budget would kill the project out right? Well, two things here:

1. Great
2. Find a way to stage the water conservation with the project to make the whole thing economic.

What I figure is that as long as the world population continues to grow, development cannot be stopped. However, the main driver for development is economics, and the inputs into the equation for favorable economics can be changed, or even legislated. The legislation is the responsiblity of the people acting through their Government. Now, the thing is, the companies taking on these project have a lot to gain, they’re sure of that, else they wouldn’t be risking their own money or their investors (remember $8 billion). They know the weaknesses of their arguements, and they go to great lengths to hide them. I know this, as I’ve worked for one, and participated on dollar scales far less than here. Those on the other side, wishing to protect what needs to be protected, must use their own resources and time, with no compensation save for sleeping well at night. Who do you figure puts up the better arguement?

You can’t necessarily take away the right to develop, but you can define the rules, and maybe it’s time the rules change. There is a saying that the voice of the minority is always stronger. Maybe it’s time the voice of the majority be heard?

Just saying, ya know.