Misled Public is Real RAR Issue

As reported by the Driftwood last week, Linda Adams, CAO of the Islands Trust, said “…that (Eric) Booth’s submission to the LTC relies on a staff report written in 2005 before the RAR was enacted and details were known.”

Ms. Adam’s statement is entirely untrue and disingenuous for three reasons:

1.  As is clearly stated in my submission (see full text at https://islandstrust.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/rar-opinion-april-71.pdf), the Province’s Riparian Area Regulation (RAR) policy directive was in fact enacted in July 2004. This is not conjecture on my part, but an historical, legislative fact, one which Ms. Adams surely is, or should be, well aware of.

2. The “details” of the RAR were exceedingly clear in March 2005. In fact, the RAR, enacted the previous year, gave local governments until March 31, 2005 to implement it. How much clearer can you be? The Regulation was clearly “known” to Ms. Adams and I challenge her to produce any additional “details” which prevented any local government in BC from implementing them by March 31, 2005. In early March, 2005, Bill Barasoff, the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, confirmed there were local governments which had already implemented the RAR, and, “…those who want to move forward now can do so, and for those who have issues, we are developing a timeline that contains some flexibility.” Subsequently, the Province extended the compliance date from March 31, 2005 to March 31, 2006.  However, as is clearly stated in my submitted position, as of March 7, 2005, the Salt Spring LTC was deemed to already be in compliance with the RAR, and since then 15 Riparian Area Assessments have been conducted on the island.

3. My submission does not, as Ms. Adams suggested, “rely” upon the staff report to make my case. My case, as is clearly stated in my submission, is reliant upon (a) Trustee Lineger and my knowledge of the Riparian Area Regulation, which both of us had read and understood, (b) our knowledge of our Land Use and Official Community Plan bylaws, which we were extremely familiar with, (c) the Fish Protection Act, which enabled the RAR and SPR, (d) the Streamside Protection Act which had been repealed by the RAR, and (e) the Local Government Act provisions regarding the use of development permit areas for the protection of the environment. The March 7, 2005 Islands Trust “staff report” helped further inform us, and, supports my position that Salt Spring was deemed to already be legislatively in compliance with the RAR.

In order for Ms. Adams to claim to “know” what was in my, and Trustee Lineger’s, political heads at the time, she would have to ask us what we thought. She has not. In fact, she is willfully ignoring what we have clearly stated we did think at the time. Why?

While Ms. Adams is free to provide advice to Trustees on matters, she is not an elected representative, and does not have the authority to make any “decision” about whether elected representatives’ “opinions” are legally “right” or “wrong.” That is a job for a lawyer and/or the courts.

Given this matter is about a proposed OCP amendment, winding its way through a public process, it is however Ms. Adams’ duty to ensure the public is being properly and correctly informed, and, if there is a logical and reasoned question of authority, or legality, of a proposed bylaw, she should defer to the Trust’s legal counsel for advice, something I suggested in my submission.

The following quote is not from my website, but from the Ministry of Environment’s – “Section 8 of the Riparian Areas Regulation provides that if a local government has bylaws or permits that establish streamside protection and enhancement areas in accordance with the direction in section 6 of the Streamside Protection Regulation, on or before March 31, 2005, then that local government is deemed to have met the requirements of the Riparian Areas Regulation.” This is the basis of our position.

To paraphrase Ms. Adams, while the “Provincial roll-out of the RAR was a bit confusing” to her, Trustee Lineger and I were not at all confused on March 7, 2005, or at anytime thereafter, regarding our compliance with the RAR.

Our existing OCP and Land Use Bylaws, and our development permit process, gave, “in our opinion,” “a comparable level of protection” to the SPR, and therefore complied with the RAR. In the words of the March 2005 staff report itself  – “Assuming that the implementation of the regulation may proceed as scheduled, we (Trust staff) have considered our readiness should the regulation be implemented on March 31, 2005…There is little that local trust committees need to do at this time to prepare for the regulation….Generally, local trust committees official community plans recognize fish bearing streams as Development Permit Areas and impose setbacks from streams for development proposals.With this is place, there is no need to amend planning documents.” (e.g. OCP’s or LUB’s).”

Ms. Adams stated, “The Ministry of Environment and legal advice confirm further work is necessary to comply with provincial standards.” I hereby request Ms. Adams to release that advice to the public, because I can guarantee it will not address the basis of my submission, but in fact will ignore the applicability of the Transitional provisions of the RAR.

I also challenge Ms. Adams to correct her false statements, provide to the public a “legal opinion” or argument which contradicts the basis of my submission and cease making statements which appear to be designed to do nothing more than deflect from the real issue at hand – that the public is currently being misled.

Eric Booth

Former Islands Trustee (2002-2005)

Secret Meetings – Why Disrespect for Trustees Continues to Grow

Another LTC “secret meeting” has been scheduled for today to discuss the new proposed Riparian Area law.

I say “secret” because unless you happened to drop by the Trust Office yesterday, or knew someone who had, you would not have known about it, and you would not be reading this post.

As a former Trustee, I find this to be outrageous. The “Special Meeting” proviso was never meant to be intentionally used to keep the public away from public meetings.

The Trust has an email “Meetings Notification Service” which states the following:

“Sign up now for our Local Trust Committee Meeting Notifications Service and receive meeting notifications about public hearings in your Local Trust Committee Area. We will send you an email with the meeting information once a meeting has been posted to our site, and a reminder seven days prior to the meeting, if you chose that option.”

What’s the good in signing up to the service if they are not going to inform you of meetings they don’t want you to attend? Your only choice is to drop by the Trust office every day to see if they have posted a “special meeting” for tomorrow.

This is outrageous behaviour from elected representatives. Imagine if the BC Liberals had special sittings of the Legislature and didn’t bother informing the NDP or the public. Would there be widespread public outrage? You can bet on it. It would be the major news story of the year.

On Salt Spring however, we are taught by supporters of the Trustees to be more respectful of the Trustees and to support them. This is now an entirely indefensible position.

Respect is a two way street, and Trustees who fail to ensure, or who intentionally  instruct staff not to ensure,  public meetings are properly advertised and made known to the public, do not deserve any respect.

I want to hear an argument from anyone who agrees with the LTC’s actions on this. And put your real name to the argument. Why am I betting no one will rise to defend this issue?

AGW Linked to Fatigue

Feel like you need another cup of coffee to get you going in the morning? Perhaps you’re suffering from AGW fatigue, a new disorder caused by incessant haranguing by apocolypticism.


Strange Climate Fellows

So, what do Al Gore and Charles Manson have in common? You can’t debate with either one of them…at least not Charles for a few years yet…


50 Million Climate Change Refugees Disappear!

In what can only be called an amazing turn of projected events, 50 million potential climate change refugees have evidently vanished into thin air, along with the official United Nations map showing where they were going to be:


I hope this is viewed as good news by AGW believers everywhere…but why do I have doubts they will be jumping up and down with joy?

Instead I project the “disappearance” will be seen as another tragedy of epic proportions for true believers everywhere…along the same lines as the “bad” news the Himalayan glaciers aren’t melting quite as fast as some members of the UN’s IPCC would like, or how “global” temperatures have been in decline for the last decade.

I am, however, looking forward to seeing how the “disappearance,” like the recent tsunami,  will eventually be blamed on AGW.

I mean really, how long does one have to keep saying the sky is falling before it actually falls? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I do know that after years and years and years, Chicken Little is still waiting in antici………….pation.

Moral of the story? – Patience is a virtue when it comes to chickens, and those waiting for the weather to change to whatever they think is worse.

PS – Seems unseasonably cold out there again this morning. Is that good news, bad news, or just right news? I guess that depends upon who you ask – the weather half-empty, or the weather half-full, or the weather just right crowd. I’m going to go with my sense of feeling today – baby, it’s cold outside.

Its a Cold Earth Day – (2011 with 2019 update)

So, I Guess I’m Going to Find Out What It’s Like to be Gay

OK, here I am, stepping out of the closet….I’ve been considering coming out for sometime now, and, have confided in a number of my closer friends that I am finding it harder and harder to not say what I feel. However, like all of those before me who gathered up the courage to exit their closets, here I go.


Whew…..That part wasn’t as bad as I thought.

For those of you who don’t know, AGW stands for Anthropogenic (manmade) Global Warming. In other words, I don’t believe mankind is responsible for planetary warming in any significant excess of what is provided for by nature, and the sun in particular. Please note I use the word dis-“believer,” as opposed to AGW “believers” who “believe” in the theory of AGW due to CO2 increases (and, even the most staunch AGW “believers,” with a modicum of understanding of the science, have to admit it is, in fact, only a theory.)

Why am I coming out now? Well I’ve been recently inspired by Raffi, who said: We need a new lens and lexicon for conveying climate change as the greatest threat on Earth, a tragedy of epic proportions, especially for the world’s young. … It’s best addressed with systems change, beginning with belief systems learned very early. To cut pollution and GHG emissions for good, change personal belief systems. Start young.  To grow Earth stewards, steward the children and youth. This is where the restoration must focus–strategically and morally. Not only do kids get sustainability, they have the most to lose or gain.”

In other words, indoctrinate our children, and indoctrinate them as young as possible on the theory of AGW. Set the schools ablaze with the message.

Okay. Let’s start with what any intelligent person can agree with – global warming has been happening for the last 12,000 years, long before the use of fossil fuels significantly increased CO2 output in the latter part of the 20th Century.

120 centuries ago there was about a mile of ice over Salt Spring. Does that make global warming a good thing or a bad thing for Salt Spring Islanders?

And, is there strong evidence to suggest it was just as warm, or warmer, during the Medieval Warm Period as it is today?

Has the last decade, actually defied AGW computer modeling, and been on a cooling trend as the now infamous email containing the line “hide the decline” admitted?

Is there some kind of magical and wonderful, perfect, static world temperature answering the proverbial Goldilock’s conundrum/question – is the porridge/world too hot, too cold, or just right?

May I suggest there is no such thing as a “just right” climate for every living organism on this planet. Some like it hot and thrive, while others like it cold and thrive. Some die because it’s too warm, some die because it’s too cold. That is the basis of all evolution – survival of the fittest in the face of changing climate.

But here, for the AGW believers, is a sad fact – more people (who are the most adaptable creature on this planet when it comes to survival, with the possible exception of the cockroach), and therefore, likely more animals and plants, die each year from cold weather than warm weather. So, does that make warm weather better, or cold weather worse?

I mean wouldn’t it be just plain “fair” to all species to allow the planet to warm up until an equal number of organisms die of warm weather as cold weather?  I’m just kidding. We can’t let/make the planet warm up, or cool it down. That’s up to the sun silly, the source of all our heat…..and sorry for all the rhetorical questions above…but jeez…

Now, back to my reason for coming out. Like Raffi, I grew up in the Cold War era. I was old enough during the Cuban Missile crisis to be scared shitless of nuclear war. I would look out my bedroom window towards Vancouver and imagine seeing a blinding flash of light and a rising orange mushroom cloud, waiting for the roar and wondering how the shock wave would feel once it hit. My worst nightmares were of nuclear war, and, over forty years later, and twenty years after the Cold War ended, from time to time they still haunt my dreams.

Fear is the worst thing you can feed a child during their formative years.

And yet, with all the good intentions in the world, that is exactly what is now being fed to our children, by the gagging truckload, by well meaning AGW believers who proclaim they are the most concerned about our children’s well being. The fear this time isn’t limited nuclear war, but, the god-awful fire and brimstone of global warming, and the underlying associated guilt that virtually everything we do has a carbon footprint attached to it. At least the Cold War didn’t have transferable guilt associated with it.

This madness must begin to stop now. The greatest non-physical crime against children is scaring them with end-of-the-world, hellish scenarios. If you want to teach children something, teach them how to grow and provide food for those less fortunate, how to provide clean water and sanitation for the billions who don’t, how to not pollute or litter, how to help their fellow children….you know….do unto others….without the “you’ll burn in hell if you don’t” undertone, which is the original method most authoritative religions developed to scare children and keep their members in line.

I’ve just watched the video of Raffi’s anti-global warming song “Cool It” http://www.childhonouring.org/coolit.html

The song’s spoken message is we need to cool the planet down (again, as if that were humanly possible).

The unspoken message to children is that the planet is burning up, because of what we, including them, do.  In that regard it expresses the “belief,” the theory of AGW, is not imaginary or theoretical, but, is real.

The graphic effect of the planet Earth burning up is shown, not once, not twice, but three times in the video. A child can come to only one conclusion – they are on the brink of their extinction. As Raffi says AGW is “the greatest threat on earth.” I would suggest there are in fact a couple of other, much more real, and not so theoretical “greatest threats,” not the least of which would be Kim Jong-Il.

And, because their parents have told them so, the children must feel guilty about their carbon footprint, including every toy they own, the food they eat, the house they live in, the clothes they wear, etc., etc., because virtually every manmade object, including food, is dependent upon releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Quick, call the travel agency and book your kids a heavy guilt trip to hell.

With all due respect, the best way to “honour” our children is to respect the fact that they are, as Raffi points out, impressionable at a very young age, and not take advantage of them, or scare the bejesus out of them, or make them feel guilty for what theory “you,” as an adult, currently happen to “believe” in.

Think about it. I mean (and with apologies to the Pope) how “Catholic” is that?

There’s lots of time, when children are older, and less naive, for them to decide for themselves what they want to believe in. Until then, let them enjoy their childhood, promote the moral foundation inherent within them, hug them and tell them you love them, and that you will protect them from all harm. Tuck them into bed, kiss them goodnight, and then go out and protest CO2 emissions with your friends and co-believers, if you must.

And finally, contrary to what many on this island believe, including our leaders, the debate on AGW is not over. Saying it is, and refusing to even consider the possibility the theory may be wrong, is like a right-wing Christian saying,  “The debate on whether homosexuality is natural or not, is over, because there is a consensus, among us Christians, that being gay is ungodly.”

That analogy is similar to the rather ironic, recent public protest by Trustee George Ehring in the Driftwood over now famous satirical video, the Ehring Bunker. Trustee Ehring decried the use, in what was an obvious political satire, of anything resembling something which may be construed as offending the memory of Holocaust survivors.

And yet, what does Mr. Ehring call those who don’t believe in AGW?  Climate “deniers,” a term (used by AGW supporters to denounce and belittle dis-believers) which clearly is a reference to “holocaust deniers.”  Don’t do as I do, do as I say…

However, I am glad to say I was raised by my parents not to be too astounded by the double standards and hypocrisy of others.

I, along with thousands of scientists, including some of the most quoted ones who espouse their current belief in AGW, disagree with the current Trustees that “the debate is over.” Like any good scientific debate in mankind’s history, it’s always just getting started. And so-called “science,” which precludes debate, becomes nothing more than religious dogma.

As a good friend of mine told me, at any given time, true science is basically a string of theories by scientists asking/begging to be refuted by other scientists, in the pursuit of truth.

Religion on the other hand is based on belief, which is not to be questioned or debated, but accepted on faith as being true.

Thus it is that I look forward as the scientific debate on AGW continues, and the religious belief in AGW dwindles ,as indicated by recent polls.

Well, I’ve got to go now, and turn up the thermostat, because contrary to what Raffi sings – “The heat is all around” – it’s the middle of April and its frikken freezing in here.

Happy Cold Earth Day!

Eric Booth,

Global Warming Believer, Anthropogenic Global Warming Dis-Believer, Climate Change Realist

PS – Raffi, I know your intentions are of the highest ideals, and I don’t for a moment doubt that. However, I hope you will agree with me that the irrational emotions of fear and guilt need to be removed from the message to children.

Having just come out of the closet, I can tell you there is no global-warming monster in there. Please either stop telling kids there is, or, at least until they are old enough to properly understand your own fears on the subject. Hopefully, by then, this AGW nightmare will be over, and we can all wake up and get back to the real task at hand – making the planet a cleaner and healthier place for all, and for all the right reasons.

“There are two basic motivating forces: fear and love. When we are afraid, we pull back from life. When we are in love, we open to all that life has to offer with passion, excitement, and acceptance. We need to learn to love ourselves first, in all our glory and our imperfections. If we cannot love ourselves, we cannot fully open to our ability to love others or our potential to create. Evolution and all hopes for a better world rest in the fearlessness and open-hearted vision of people who embrace life.” – John Lennon

PPS – Fact – Currently there are about as many people who believe in AGW as there are who believe in ghosts.

PPPS – If there is someone out there who would like to carry on a reasoned online debate on the science supporting AGW, I would love to debate them. Let’s start with the basics, so, please send your first volley supporting the theories that (a) CO2 levels are higher than they’ve ever been, or (b) increased CO2 has historically caused temperature increases (the Algorian theory as shown in the Inconvenient Truth).  After we’ve beaten those around the bush for awhile, we can move on to whether the last 100 years of temperatures on the planet are “unprecedented.”

PPPPS – (I’ve never used that many P’s before) In the meantime, do yourself a favour and spend 52 minutes watching this presentation by Professor Muller, a scientist who believes in CO2 global warming –  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI

2019 – PPPPS – A father and son team of Irish scientists have used temperature data from millions of weather balloons worldwide, and applied the physics laws of gas to show graphically why the CO2 theory (radiative transfer) is wrong. I urge anyone who is concerned about, or interested in, the theory of global warming to view it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY

Then tell me the “debate” is over.

Islands Trust Staff Recommendation on RAR Mapping

I have just reviewed the presentation given by David Marlor (Director of Local Planning Services, and an Islands Trust planner for 16 years) last week.

First, I would like to compliment David on giving an entirely unbiased perspective of what he believes Trust Staff should recommend to Trustees.

His conclusion, on my assertion the LTC should have detailed mapping to accurately identify the RAR streams on Salt Spring, is as follows:

“It is possible to (establish development permit areas) without the accurate mapping, but the staff recommendation is that it’s better to have the accurate mapping.”

Are the Trustees listening to their Director of Local Planning Services?

See David’s full presentation at: http://www.imaginesaltspring.com/video/LTC7April/LTC_video7April_two.html