Fwd: Fraser River coal port approval undermines Paris negotiations

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Laura Benson <dogwood@dogwoodinitiative.org>

This is an international embarrassment.

On the first day of global climate talks in Paris, Port Metro Vancouver
issued its second approval for the Fraser Surrey Docks coal port – setting
the stage for giant Panamax ships to travel up the Fraser River to load
dirty U.S. thermal coal for export to Asia.

The entire world is looking to Paris for meaningful action on climate
change, while at home in B.C. we're promoting the export of the world's
worst carbon fuel to Asia.

Our post-election hopes for positive change are being tarnished by the
cynical Conservative era appointees at Port Metro Vancouver. But there's
still a way to stop this project.

Public pressure is mounting for the port authority to put the proposal on
hold. Two weeks ago Delta MP Carla Qualtrough pledged to contact her cabinet
colleagues to ensure the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal doesn't go ahead
without a fair environmental assessment. In just three days, Dogwood
collected over 5,400 signatures to support her move.

The port leaders are feeling the heat and trying to sneak this one in under
the wire. We can't let them get away with a bogus Environmental Assessment
that ignores climate change and health impacts.


The Beyond Coal team is working to ensure federal and local officials take
action and reign in the rogue port authority, but we can't do it without
you.

Laura Benson, on behalf of the Beyond Coal team

P.S. Like the National Energy Board, Port Metro Vancouver's leadership is
stacked with Conservative government appointees who refuse to accept that
we've moved into a new political era. It's up to us to make them clean up
their act. Please support our work today.

PLEASE DONATE
https://dogwoodinitiative.org/donate/give

Dogwood Initiative - PO Box 8701 - Victoria, BC V8W3S3


"If you have two shirts in your closet, one belongs to you and the other to
the man with no shirt."
~St. Ambrose of Milan

Fwd: [Velolove-Vancouver] Bike helmet laws have little effect reducing head injuries, says UBC study - British Columbia - CBC News

Bike helmet laws have little effect reducing head injuries, says UBC study - British Columbia - CBC News

as of Mon Nov 30 2015 02:37:27 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

"

… Better to build separated lanes than force people to wear a helmet says author of cycling study CBC News Posted: Nov 06, 2015 4:24 PM PT Last Updated: Nov 06, 2015 4:24 PM PT Mandatory bike helmet legislation doesn't necessarily reduce cycling-related head injures according to a UBC study.   The long-held assumption that helmet legislation helps lower the rate of head injuries to cyclists is being challenged by a new report from the University of British Columbia.   The study published last week in BMJ Open [British Medical Journal] compared data from provinces like B.C. that have introduced mandatory helmet laws to those without them. Although helmet legislation was effective in getting more cyclists to wear helmets, it did not translate into fewer head injuries.     http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/11/e008052.full.pdf+html?sid=47f00350-32ae-4ab4-b8b9-674becb1133c   "Helmet laws didn`t make a difference to hospitalization rates for head and brain injuries," said study author Prof. Kay Teschke.   Teschke says the study yielded more surprises including that the rate of hospitalization amongst cyclists actually dropped as the rate of cycling went up.   She says this may be a result of motorist and cyclist getting used to each other as rates of cycling increase, and also a reflection of better and safer cycling infrastructure enticing more people to get on their bikes.   Professor Kay Teschke say building better cycling infrastructure is a better way to prevent cycling injuries than forcing people to wear helmets. (CBC)   The report also showed women cyclists are hospitalized at a much lower rate than men who account for nearly 75 per cent of all cycling injuries. Teschke says women, on average, tend to cycle slightly more slowly than men, and choose safer routes, separated bike lanes and quiet streets more often .   Teschke believes the results of her study support the kind of policy choices made in places like Denmark and Holland, where cycling is prominent.   "They haven't emphasized helmets at all," she said. "They've put their emphasis on separated infrastructure, making infrastructure that attracts people to cycling. And their injury and fatality rates are quite a bit lower." …

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bike-helmet-laws-have-little-effect-reducing-head-injuries-says-ubc-study-1.3308238
as of Mon Nov 30 2015 02:37:27 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

Personally: I like being able to have a helmet, but the law about it is bad policy.