Topic

Environmentalism

4 petitions

Started 6 months ago

Petition to Dawn Arnold

Abandon the lawn mowing bylaw

The city of Moncton is proposing a bylaw that would institute fines of up to $2,100 for homeowners who let their grass grow taller than 20 centimeters. This latest treatment of the citizens of Moncton as cash cows is unacceptable. This bylaw will force some home and business owners to expend more time and resources to combat a non-existent problem of long grass.  We, the undersigned, OPPOSE the creation of a lawn mowing bylaw in the City of Moncton for the following reasons: 1. The bylaw is vague enough to be abused. By not defining clearly the minimum size of a patch of 'grass and weeds' considered to be 'too long' it can and likely will open citizens and businesses to undue harassment from bylaw enforcement for things as simple as a few stalks of timothy near a building. With the expectation of using the law as a revenue generator, it is likely that this will be the case. 2. It is not environmentally sound. If the city is truly committed to 'green spaces', it must be reminded that these green spaces are not just for aesthetics. Green plants provide much needed oxygen production and cutting them constantly hampers their efforts causing them to produce less.  Lawns are often treated with artificial fertilizers and pesticides or herbicides to remove unwanted dandelions and other weeds. When your family and pets walk or play on the lawn, those chemicals get absorbed through the skin. The runoff from these chemicals is a major source of groundwater pollution.  3. Fuel Consumption and carbon footprint. By mowing lawns more often, more pollution is released into the air. This fuel consumption, thanks to federal efforts, costs even more with the newly added carbon tax.  For every hour a gardener runs a gas-powered lawn mower, they produce the same pollution as driving a car for 320 kilometers. Annually, gas-powered lawn mowers create about 80,000 tons of greenhouse gases and use 151 million liters (4 million gallons) of gasoline. (Source - GreenMoxie, Huffington Post) 4. The argument 'It just looks better' is not valid. "Its Pretty" doesn't justify forcing people to expend their finite resources. Many people in the city that would be targets of these fines are low income and are barely getting by as it is. Not being able to afford a lawn care service, having a disability, or even requiring 2 jobs to pay your mortgage therefore not having the time for regular lawn maintenance should not be reason for punishment. 5. Property values will be affected. It is not in the best interest of the property owner for his property assessment to be raised, and therefore it only benefits the city tax collectors. This is another seemingly valid argument disguised as a way to squeeze more money from the citizens. 6. Health and Safety. In today's safety culture, it seems counter-intuitive to encourage citizens to engage more in an activity that is proven to be a danger. More than 253,000 people were treated for injuries from lawn mowers in 2010. Almost 17,000 of those injuries were to children under the age of 19. The average lawnmower produces sounds that are 95 dB and above while the ‘safe’ sound level is 85 dB and below. That means that prolonged exposure to the sound of a lawn mower can significantly contribute to hearing loss. In conclusion, the people of Moncton, or any other city of New Brunswick, should not be burdened further with this selective tax by bylaw enactment, or required to expend additional resources in the pursuit of an aesthetic. This bylaw serves only to generate another avenue of revenue and intrude further into the lives of the citizens.

Brian Lawson
24 supporters
Started 9 months ago

Petition to City of Winnipeg, 6165347 Manitoba Inc., 7138793 Manitoba Inc.

Drop the lawsuit against the Rooster Town Blockade defendants

We, the undersigned, demand that the two numbered companies owned by the private developer Andrew Marquess drop the lawsuit against the peaceful protestors who, along with their supporters, protected the Parker Wetlands in the summer of 2017. We further demand that the City stop any current or future projects with Marquess until the two numbered companies he owns drops the lawsuit against the peaceful protesters, given that his actions are not consistent with City values, including the Indigenous Accord that was unanimously adopted by City Council on March 22, 2017. Background A total of 49 people who allegedly participated in the peaceful Rooster Town Blockade at the Parker Wetlands between July and September 2017 are currently being sued for “millions or tens of millions of dollars” by two numbered companies owned by the private developer Andrew Marquess. Mr. Marquess is the owner of Gem Equities and related companies, who acquired the Parker Wetlands in 2009 pursuant to a controversial land swap that is the subject of significant public scrutiny and formal reviews. The Parker Wetlands had long been used as a place to walk, meditate and relax, and was once designated by the City as an ecologically sensitive natural heritage area. Those who participated in the peaceful blockade were greatly concerned about respect for Métis and First Nations sovereignty, the destruction of pristine animal habitats, the elimination of a vital wetland, and the loss of a significant and extensively used green space. Although Fort Garry residents fought for a decade to keep this green space, their clear mandate to the city was ignored. The defendants in the lawsuit include university students, low-income workers, Indigenous land defenders, retirees, environmentalists, local dog walkers, and others who were erroneously named even though they did not set foot on the property. The occupation was called the Rooster Town Blockade after the nearby Métis community that was expropriated and demolished in 1960 to build Grant Park Mall. During the blockade, Winnipeg mayor Brian Bowman issued the statement: 'We’re hopeful the developer can pause cutting trees down until such time as the development plan is approved. We think right now it’s in everyone’s best interest to pause.' According to Bowman, the developer had agreed not to remove trees until the development plan was in place. That was apparently ignored. Participants respected the court injunction to dismantle the blockade and leave the site, and have not returned. Almost all of the wetlands and aspen forest have since been destroyed. On April 9, 2018, the City of Winnipeg rejected a development plan by Andrew Marquess' company Gem Equities to construct a residential community called Fulton Grove on the Parker lands. This situation is fundamentally about the democratic right for citizens to express their convictions, and we believe that members of Winnipeg City Council should advocate for that right to be maintained by requesting that Mr. Marquess’ companies immediately drop their lawsuit. You can donate the legal defense fund of the defendants here: www.gofundme.com/481wbf4 Miigwetch/Marcii/Thank you Here are some links to articles if you wish to learn more: An Indigenous Blockade in Winnipeg Is Halting Deforestation Efforts: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/evdj3z/an-indigenous-blockade-in-winnipeg-is-halting-deforestation-efforts Parker Lands consultations would give Métis a say on ancestral land: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/opinion-parker-lands-consultatioon-1.4221809 Métis-Anishinaabe land defender establishes Rooster Town blockade in Winnipeg to protect wetlands:https://canadians.org/blog/m%C3%A9tis-anishinaabe-land-defender-establishes-rooster-town-blockade-winnipeg-protect-wetlands Coverage of Winnipeg’s Rooster Town Blockade Reveals Media’s Anti-Indigenous Biases: https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/coverage-of-winnipegs-rooster-town-blockade-and-medias-anti-indigenous-bias Protesters quietly leave Parker lands: https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/protesters-quietly-leave-parker-lands-444778673.html  Winnipeg Developer Sues Protesters Who Occupied Parker Lands Construction Site:http://www.themanitoban.com/2017/10/winnipeg-developer-sues-protesters-who-occupied-parker-lands-construction-site/32553/ City rejects plan for housing on Parker lands: Proposal for homes and towers contravenes land-use rules, planners say; Developer Marquess launches appeal:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/parker-fulton-grove-marquess-appeal-1.4610533 Chilling public protest: Is a lawsuit against Winnipeg land defenders a new form of legal intimidation?:https://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/chilling-public-protest-rooster-town-slapp

Rooster Town Blockade Defendants
667 supporters
Update posted 9 months ago

Petition to Miller Waste Systems Inc., Green For Life, Government of Ontario

Smarter and Easier: A New Blue Bin Meets Your Curb

Blue Box litter is frustrating. On a windy pickup day, plastic bottles and papers are spread across lawns and roads. The problem doesn't end with collecting stray recycling in our streets. In York Region, wind blown litter contributes to the vast majority of waste we find in parks, ponds, and other green spaces. I've spoken to many residents in my Vaughan who are committed to clean neighbourhoods and increasing recycling diversion rates (as am I). Residents want a new recycling bin. These are the changes they are asking for: 1. To have an attached lid.  - Which will prevent wind from spreading recycling - Keeps out rain and snow, which makes Blue Boxes heavier and causes problems with processing - Keeps out pests (raccoons, flies, etc.) 2. To have wheels. - No more injuries related to lifting, pushing, or pulling a Blue Box - Easier to move for seniors/disabled - No more dragging to the curb, damaging the Blue Box - If the Green Bin can have wheels, so should the recycling bins 3. To be larger. - Fewer pickup days - Options for 2 different sizes (120L - 2 Blue Boxes worth and 240L - 4 Blue Boxes worth) - Increases diversion rates. When the Blue Box is full, the overflow often gets put into the garbage (recyclables are sent to the landfill) 4. To be stable. - To prevent wind tipping  5. To be Visible - Cars not driving into short blue bins 6. To be suited for automation. - For quicker pick ups  - Increases tax savings Sign this petition if you agree that York Region needs the new Blue Bin. It would make a positive impact on the future of waste management in Vaughan and across the Province. Share your own "Blue Box Litter" experiences in the comment section. Daniela Palma For media inquiries, email: dpalma_36@live.com

Daniela Palma
141 supporters
Started 10 months ago

Petition to John Tory, Energy and Environment Division City of Toronto, Lori Stahlbrand

Encourage Locally Grown Food in Toronto and Combat Climate Change

The global food system is currently responsible for 30% of all of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions on the planet. Greenhouse gas emissions and CO2 emissions are contributing to the greater problem our environment is facing: global warming. Carbon emissions from imported food impacts our environment significantly – by inducing severe weather changes, rising sea levels and flooding, and more directly, people.  Consumers in Toronto are buying many imported products that generate hundreds of kilograms of CO2 emissions across the globe through transportation. A local box of strawberries in season in Ontario saves around 3,263g from buying a non-local strawberry from California. Eating seasonal and local foods can reduce pollution, preserve the environment, and slow global warming. By eating local and seasonal foods in Toronto, we can reduce our footprints by up to 10%. So, what we are proposing is to redirect consumers in Toronto so that we can all reduce our carbon footprints by buying and consuming more local and seasonal produce items. As it is, consumers are not able to clearly see which products are local and seasonal in grocery stores. This petition urges the Municipal Government of Toronto to create a program for all grocery stores in the City to combat food transportation emissions and climate change. This idea aims to: o   Use clear signs for local and seasonal products in grocery stores, providing information about the distance travelled and carbon emissions you save from buying a local product as opposed to a non-local product o   Requires supermarkets to label as well non-local products that are not in season, providing information on the distance the product has travelled and how much carbon emissions it has generated through transportation and importation This idea could start with a simple petition, if we can present this to the Municipal Government, we could reduce our carbon footprints by 10% by buying local produce that is in season. Our goal is to obtain at least 100,000 signatures – with your support, we could make a difference and combat climate change together. Please sign this petition so we can make an important change in Toronto. Thank you.

Emma Helman
15,002 supporters