I have decided to write about our travels with a very underused blog rather than lengthy Facebook posts. Hope this works for everyone....
On October 6th we drove from our little campground (8 sites) in Mount Carmel to Zion Canyon National Park. Before we left town we had to take a pic of a local business that loved to advertise its "Ho-made Pies". Interesting marketing strategy!
It was a beautiful drive through steep red coloured cliffs and ranch country. To get to the main part of Zion Park we drove through the east tunnel It was built in the late 1920's when vehicles were much smaller. As a consequence traffic must be stopped at either entrance to allow larger RV's, 5th Wheels, travel trailers etc to be escorted through in a convoy that drives down the middle of the road. Luckily our trailer was below the size limit so we were able to drive right through. It was one of the most interesting tunnels we have ever driven: 1 mile long, much of it downhill with curves. There were no lights, only the occasional "window" that we later found out was the means by which the tunnel diggers got rid of stone and debris.
After setting up at the campsite we quickly donned our hiking duds and headed out to the trails. After a quick consultation at the Visitors Center we decided to hike the Angels Landing Trail to Scouts Point. We jumped on a shuttle bus for the trip up to the Zion Lodge and the trail head. The shuttles included very good informational announcements of the sights from the windows. We started up the trail and consulted with a couple of older gentlemen who confirmed the decision to only go to Scouts Point. They said the trail to Angels Landing was a scramble up a steep rock face using chain railings. They told us that "it was not so much about your falling as much as someone falling on you". So we climbed
the steep trail up 600 feet to Scouts Point while taking time to enjoy the spectacular scenery (ie a few needed breaks). Once we got to there we understood what the gentlemen were talking about. Lots of folks were attempting the climb and most of those coming back down were doing so on their butts. Thanks but no thanks. The view from Scouts Point was spectacular with rose coloured cliffs rising above the canyon floor. We could see the Virgin River wending its way through the canyon floor - it is hard to believe that this relatively small river carved out Zion Canyon.
After a relatively easy and faster hike down, we took another shuttle up to the end of the road to the Riverwalk Trail. It was a pleasant hike along the Virgin River. Walked up and back then another shuttle to the campground.
We arrived back in time to enjoy happy hour watching the sun set on the rock cliffs behind the campground. Definitely the best campsite so far in terms of scenery.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Why Scrapping Eco Fees is a Bad Idea
Recently Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservatives announced their platform which includes scrapping the Eco Fees program. This is a deliberate and cynical attempt to take advantage of the fact that most Ontarians do not understand the fees nor, ironically, do they understand the consequences on their wallets if the fees are cancelled.
How many times have we seen coffee cups littering the roadside and wished that the company selling the coffee was responsible for their disposal. We feel that if the company had to pay for the cleanup they would come up with a better way to make sure the cups did not end up blowing around in ditches. That is the premise behind Eco Fees - to force the manufacturers and sellers of a wide variety of electronics and other products containing hazardous materials (i.e. chemicals) to be responsible for recycling them. That keeps these chemicals out of our landfill sites and from polluting our environment. That's a great idea.
It is also a great way to force manufacturers to reduce the amount of hazardous materials in their products. Manufacturers pay fees for recycling based on weight, therefore less hazardous materials, less fees.
In reality, we have already experienced this premise. Have you noticed that plastic water bottles seem flimsier than when they were first introduced? The manufacturers and sellers of bottled water pay fees for their recycling based on weight - the lighter the bottle, the less they pay.
The organization that oversees the recycling of plastic bottles is the same one that is responsible for Eco Fees. Stewardship Ontario is a "private, not-for-profit organization that develops, funds and operates Ontario’s highly successful recycling programs for printed paper and packaging (Blue Box) and household hazardous and special waste." Ironically, Stewardship Ontario was created by the Mike Harris government as part of the 2002 Waste Diversion Act. The Act mandates the manufacturers of a number of products to pay fees to an Industry Funded Organization (i.e.Stewardship Ontario) to cover the cost of recycling and disposal of the products.
Unfortunately when Eco Fees were introduced by the Liberal government, the legislation did not include provisions to prohibit the manufacturers/sellers from passing these fees on to the people purchasing their goods. That is exactly what happened and consumers were very upset. Fair enough.
(By the way, having consumers pay these fee is the very definition of user fees. It is not a tax as asserted by Mr Hudak. In addition, as set out in the 2002 legislation enacted when Mr Hudak was a part of Cabinet, the fees collected go to Stewardship Ontario and not the government. Thus the assertion that the Liberal government is collecting all this money is a disingenuous attempt to buy votes.)
The Liberals should have amended the legislation to halt the ability to pass fees onto consumers. But Mr Hudak's simplistic plan is even worse. Cancelling the program will allow manufacturers/sellers to abandon paying the fees and reducing the amounts of hazardous materials in their products. Instead the Conservatives will either allow these chemicals to end up in landfills, which given the growing evidence of links between chemicals in the environment and cancer rates is a bad idea, or more likely they will download the responsibility of recycling/disposal of hazardous materials to municipalities. That means ALL citizens in Ontario will pay for this recycling/disposal, whether we use the products or not.
That is not fair. It is particularly unfair to seniors, the working poor and anybody who chooses not purchase many electronics or does not toss them out just because something newer has come along.
If we are going to reduce the threat of dangerous chemicals to our health, our children's health and our environment, we need all parties in Ontario to maintain Eco Fees and amend the existing legislation to disallow manufacturers and sellers to pass along the fees for recycling hazardous materials to their customers.
How many times have we seen coffee cups littering the roadside and wished that the company selling the coffee was responsible for their disposal. We feel that if the company had to pay for the cleanup they would come up with a better way to make sure the cups did not end up blowing around in ditches. That is the premise behind Eco Fees - to force the manufacturers and sellers of a wide variety of electronics and other products containing hazardous materials (i.e. chemicals) to be responsible for recycling them. That keeps these chemicals out of our landfill sites and from polluting our environment. That's a great idea.
It is also a great way to force manufacturers to reduce the amount of hazardous materials in their products. Manufacturers pay fees for recycling based on weight, therefore less hazardous materials, less fees.
In reality, we have already experienced this premise. Have you noticed that plastic water bottles seem flimsier than when they were first introduced? The manufacturers and sellers of bottled water pay fees for their recycling based on weight - the lighter the bottle, the less they pay.
The organization that oversees the recycling of plastic bottles is the same one that is responsible for Eco Fees. Stewardship Ontario is a "private, not-for-profit organization that develops, funds and operates Ontario’s highly successful recycling programs for printed paper and packaging (Blue Box) and household hazardous and special waste." Ironically, Stewardship Ontario was created by the Mike Harris government as part of the 2002 Waste Diversion Act. The Act mandates the manufacturers of a number of products to pay fees to an Industry Funded Organization (i.e.Stewardship Ontario) to cover the cost of recycling and disposal of the products.
Unfortunately when Eco Fees were introduced by the Liberal government, the legislation did not include provisions to prohibit the manufacturers/sellers from passing these fees on to the people purchasing their goods. That is exactly what happened and consumers were very upset. Fair enough.
(By the way, having consumers pay these fee is the very definition of user fees. It is not a tax as asserted by Mr Hudak. In addition, as set out in the 2002 legislation enacted when Mr Hudak was a part of Cabinet, the fees collected go to Stewardship Ontario and not the government. Thus the assertion that the Liberal government is collecting all this money is a disingenuous attempt to buy votes.)
The Liberals should have amended the legislation to halt the ability to pass fees onto consumers. But Mr Hudak's simplistic plan is even worse. Cancelling the program will allow manufacturers/sellers to abandon paying the fees and reducing the amounts of hazardous materials in their products. Instead the Conservatives will either allow these chemicals to end up in landfills, which given the growing evidence of links between chemicals in the environment and cancer rates is a bad idea, or more likely they will download the responsibility of recycling/disposal of hazardous materials to municipalities. That means ALL citizens in Ontario will pay for this recycling/disposal, whether we use the products or not.
That is not fair. It is particularly unfair to seniors, the working poor and anybody who chooses not purchase many electronics or does not toss them out just because something newer has come along.
If we are going to reduce the threat of dangerous chemicals to our health, our children's health and our environment, we need all parties in Ontario to maintain Eco Fees and amend the existing legislation to disallow manufacturers and sellers to pass along the fees for recycling hazardous materials to their customers.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
And So It Begins.....
A couple of weeks ago I wrote a letter to the editor of the Peterborough Examiner about the Progressive Conservatives election promise to can ecofees (see next blog post for an expanded version). Shortly after I received a few twitter messages from Ann Douglas, a talented writer from the Peterborough area. Ann was very kind to compliment me on the letter while lamenting the fact that you can no longer view letters to the editor on-line. She then asked if I had a blog. No I did not have one, although I had thought about it from time to time.
Many times when I worked as Executive Director of Peterborough Green-Up I wished I could voice my thoughts on government policies and practices in regards to the environment. Many times I wished I could set the record straight from the point of view of working in the trenches, particularly when partisan politics were at play in regards to environmental policy/actions. As Executive Director, I respected the fact that Green-Up is an educational, action-oriented environmental organization and not a lobby group. PGU received financial support from various levels of government and that meant working with those governments to bring about change. Public criticism would harm our efforts. However when I retired from Green-Up I promised that I would no longer remain quiet, that I would become more active in getting the message out.
Ann's message prompted me to get on with it. With the help of my daughter Lauren, I now have a blog where I can bring an experienced point of view and hopefully some helpful information to the discussion. And speaking of discussions, I lament the lack of polite public discourse these days. Everything seems to be so polarized, a kind of "if you do not go along with me, you are the enemy" approach. So called discussions have changed into on-line shouting matches where denigration of character is the norm. How sad. As a open society we need to discuss things without fear of reprisal. We need to understand that anyone who disagrees is not an ogre or the enemy, just someone who disagrees. I hope my blog brings some helpful information to polite discussions about the environment and politics.
And so ... "we're off!"
Many times when I worked as Executive Director of Peterborough Green-Up I wished I could voice my thoughts on government policies and practices in regards to the environment. Many times I wished I could set the record straight from the point of view of working in the trenches, particularly when partisan politics were at play in regards to environmental policy/actions. As Executive Director, I respected the fact that Green-Up is an educational, action-oriented environmental organization and not a lobby group. PGU received financial support from various levels of government and that meant working with those governments to bring about change. Public criticism would harm our efforts. However when I retired from Green-Up I promised that I would no longer remain quiet, that I would become more active in getting the message out.
Ann's message prompted me to get on with it. With the help of my daughter Lauren, I now have a blog where I can bring an experienced point of view and hopefully some helpful information to the discussion. And speaking of discussions, I lament the lack of polite public discourse these days. Everything seems to be so polarized, a kind of "if you do not go along with me, you are the enemy" approach. So called discussions have changed into on-line shouting matches where denigration of character is the norm. How sad. As a open society we need to discuss things without fear of reprisal. We need to understand that anyone who disagrees is not an ogre or the enemy, just someone who disagrees. I hope my blog brings some helpful information to polite discussions about the environment and politics.
And so ... "we're off!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)