Letter to Mark Holland: Sustainability and Vancouver Island communities

[Editor's note: The following letter, from Parksville resident Charnal Macfie, was received at CITinfoResource, and directed to Mark Holland, partly in response to Mark's recent contributions to CITinfoResource on the subject of community sustainability. Ms. Macfie's comments are symptomatic of concerns that many of us have about our communities, especially as we grapple with what exactly "sustainability" means for our communities. Thank your letter Charnal. We look forward to hearing from you about how your community is coming to grips with the various challenges – ecological, social, and economic (among others) – to your community's future.]

Hi Mark,

After attending 2 planning sessions in Qualicum Beach and reading an item in the local paper about Qualicum's plans for a sustainable community, there still exists, for me, a conflict in the basic premise of sustainability that is being presented to the community.

A Decembler 11, 2009 news item quotes you:

"Water comes up often with communities...... it can be possible to have no net loss to your quality of life while reducing our use of water from 30 to 50 percent. That translates into a population issue, because if you can reduce your use by 50 per cent you can actually absorb twice as many people on that water supply."

The conflict I'm referring to is found in your above remark. Doubling the population of our communities just isn't sustainable. Even if every individual changed their lifestyles and reduced their waste, emissions, and consumption habits by 30 to 50% (which is very unlikely for ours and the next generations), can Vancouver Island support another 750,000 people? How would an additional million people impact our environment, our ecosystems, our water sources? Do you know what is the maximum number of people this island could support while not negatively impacting our environment, resources and ecosystems?

Image via Wikipedia

The contradiction in many sustainability plans is that they promote sustainability, but ignore the negative consequences of growth - both economic and population growth.

Like the Comox Valley sustainability plan, the Qualicum Beach sustainability discussions include topics such as:

• lifestyle changes,
• targets,
• alternative transportation,
• green buildings,
• food security, and
• growth.

Continuous population growth and economic growth are simply not sustainable. These sustainability plans are about accommodating growth, about striving for prosperity (a word often interpreted as material wealth?) while trying to retain a quality of life we have enjoyed in the past. I prefer to use words like healthy or strong communities and economies rather than prosperous.

Do you really believe that we can continue to grow without having a negative affect on our environment?

Qualicum Beach OCP has a population cap. Some of the residents of Qualicum have commented on the importance of securing this population cap in the OCP or even reducing the number. I hope your final summary to the public will include this important aspect of Qualicum's sustainability plan. It may be the most useful, practical, easily implemented tool we have to begin creating a sustainable community.

Another issue that I'm curious about is how communities can integrate strategies, guidelines, bylaws, or policies into their sustainability plans and OCP documents that help the community combat man made environmental threats to their communities and region. For example, destructive logging practices in watersheds, coal mining, forest land reserves that are sold to developers, and other economic development projects by large corporations. Has this issue ever come up in any of your community projects?

Regards,

Charnal Macfie

Parksville, BC

Related articles

• Mark Holland talks about his Resilient Cities Manifesto (communitytransition.blogspot.com)