Respect shipping is part of our culture
Administrator | Aug 27, 2024 | Comments 11
To the Editor:
In 1784 Kanien’kehá:ka and Loyalists arrived in the Quinte region. Prince Edward County was so named on 16 July 1792. By 1850, the County had a population of around 20,000, dropping to a low of 16,700 in 1920, and stable at around 25,000 for the last eighty years. Under various municipal structures, the County has always been governed democratically.
Shipping has been an integral part of County life, tradition, business and prosperity. We are famous for ship and boat building, for exports during the Barley Days (and rum running). We exported 20 million cans of vegetables and fruit in 1944, the height of the Second World War — yet a time of full employment, good jobs, retention of our younger generation and no housing crisis.
Our respect for shipping is part of our culture, but we made it “official” in 1961 by writing it into our “Official Plan.” Our latest, current, Official Plan of 2021 is clear: “Objective 17: The integrity of major transportation corridors and facilities which move goods, services and people such as County Highway 33 (Loyalist Parkway), County Highway 49, Picton Airport, and Picton’s deep water port will be protected and promoted.” This is what we, County people, have “officially” asked the municipality to do.
So … we have democratically asked our Municipality to “protect and promote” our deep water harbour. This is, very apparently, what our Councillors are doing — respecting what they were elected to do.
If a few of our 25,000 residents, who may not have done “due diligence” when they bought homes next to a decades-old industrial property, are unhappy with the way County people have voted for many decades, they can make their voices heard next time around — or even run for a council position.
In the meanwhile, please let us get on with shipping by water transport — by far the most environmentally friendly way of moving goods — and “protecting and promoting our deep water harbour”. The County’s voting majority sees a few kilos of salt that leaked into Picton Bay from Picton Terminals as insignificant compared to the hundreds of thousands of kilos of salt that we spread on our roads every winter, washed down the storm sewers into Picton Bay every spring time. A bucketful of dirty oil (boomed, contained, emulsified and removed) that was spilled from a visiting barge is insignificant compared to recreational use of outboard engines and all our vehicular leaks washed down the sewers.
Let us get back to common sense — County common sense — the basis of what has been good for all County people for 240 years.
Dr Paul Adamthwaite
Picton
Filed Under: Letters and Opinion • News from Everywhere Else
Paula Peel rightly cites the County “Official Plan” Objective 16: “Develop and maintain the transportation system in a manner that has regard for the impacts of climate change and the environment … “, but this is totally compatible with “protecting and promoting our deep water harbour.”
Some may be a little bit confused about the environmental impact of marine versus road shipment. Heidelberg Lehigh (the “old” McFarland cement plant) has spent many millions of dollars over the years to be an environmentally friendly enterprise, burning some fuels (200 tons of “Alternative Low-Carbon Fuel” or ALCF per day) that otherwise could be “dumped” for posterity.
Their 2022 environmental approval process (Ontario Reg. 79/15), publicly available, indicates up to 300 trucks carrying 6,083 tons per month arriving via Highway 49 and avoiding Picton. Let us assume, maybe over-optimistically, that all of this could be water-borne; the closest major shipping port to the geographic collection centre of these low-carbon fuels is Hamilton, about 300 km by road and 250 km by water.
So, let’s look at some numbers (sources: International Chamber of Shipping, MIT and others), and apply County common sense. 6,083 tons per month is a small, short-haul ship load, and would account (at 0.035 kilos CO2 emission / ton / km) for (.035 * 250 * 6,083) or 53 tons of CO2. Trucking accounts (at 0.2975 kilos CO2 emission / ton / km) for (0.2975 * 300 * 6,083) or 543 tons of CO2. If you believe that CO2 leads to global warming, an annual decrease of nearly 6,000 tons of a greenhouse gas is not negligible. Forget the wear and tear, risk of accident, and congestion on the 401 and Highway 49 … And, by the way, if this comes from the USA, presumably Rochester, the CO2 beneficial impact nearly doubles, as the distance by water is less, but by road is appreciably higher.
Lastly, I have no knowledge of what Heidelberg might be planning, but they do have their own deep water harbour docking facilities — remember the old “Stephen B. Roman” and the top-hat for opening the season year after year. County heritage.
Paul Adamthwaite,
Picton
County spreads salt like non other. Sidewalks are like walking on marbles.
Paula…3-5 million tonnes of road salt used per year in Ontario, and lots in the County for sure. When you meet a plow truck and you feel, see and hear the little white blocks bounce against your car, that is road salt.
https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/water-environment/live-green-toronto/greener-living/reducing-the-use-of-road-salt/#:~:text=In%20Ontario%2C%20chloride%20enters%20water,method%20for%20winter%20road%20maintenance.
I disagree that: “shipping by water makes much more sense than transporting goods over our roads using tons of fossil fuels getting from here to there”. Let’s not delude ourselves that shipping is a way to reduce fossil fuels. The more stuff that ships and barges were to bring into that terminal by boat, the more trucks that will be going in and out of that terminal. We can look forward to significantly higher levels of truck traffic in the County, and it follows, to increased pollution of our environment (not to mention resultant wear and tear from all of this truck traffic on the County’s roads, which County residents will pay for in our taxes). The reality is that there will be far more trucks on County roads than would be the case if the terminal was not there.
For example, some of the ships coming into the terminal will no doubt be coming from the U.S., and some of those ships will be carrying biomass, wood from demolitions, and non recyclable paper and plastics (ALCFs) coming from the U.S. This non-recyclable garbage will need to be transported by truck to the Lehigh cement plant.
If you are all concerned about fossil fuels, where were you when Lehigh Cement in Picton was putting forward it’s proposal to burn 200 tons of ALCFs per day, involving 10-12 trucks per day going into the plant, each carrying 20 ton loads, and then leaving the plant to repeat the identical trip over and over on a daily basis for years on end?
That said, most of the trucks that leave the terminal will probably go straight through PEC to Hwy. 401, which in being a fairly long trip, involves even more needless production of fossil fuels.
I’m not buying the argument that shipping is better for the environment. It just sounds convincing when looked at through a very narrow lens.
In regards to the County’s Official Plan, I note that Dr. Adamthwaite cites Objective 17. I would also make note of
Objective 16: “Develop and maintain the transportation system in a manner that has regard for the impacts of climate change and the environment, accessibility, social, and aesthetic character and amenities of the community along with the financial sustainability of the municipality.” This is also (and I quote) “what we, County people, have “officially” asked the municipality to do.” And just to be perfectly clear, “shipping” is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the OP.
The major issue related to shipping is risk to human health and to the environment. Risk is made up of the likelihood of a disaster happening and the impact if something did happen. Discounting and minimizing the risks is what most bothers me about all of this.
Strongly agree, the county must preserve its heritage and follow through with official plan. Otherwise it’s just a redundant document that’s really means nothing.
Paula peel, I ask you to have a close look at what the plow trucks (also on provincial highways) spread on the road (and sidewalks) once winter comes around. You will be very surprised.
I didn’t read that anyone was “blaming” residents – but rather this should have been and could have been better managed by the County administration and council.
Information about these products is easily enough to find:
https://conservationontario.ca/fileadmin/pdf/conservation_authorities_section/SWP_Good_Practices_Salt_Vulnerable_Areas_2018.pdf
And your can find more details at this link which focusses on highway maintenance (associated with run off into water tables and streams):
https://www.ontario.ca/page/how-we-clear-ontarios-highways-winter#section-3
Totally agree with Dr. Paul Adamthwaite. This is a needed industry for the County and also for Ontario. Shipping by water makes much more sense than transporting goods over our roads using tons of fossil fuels getting from here to there. This new agreement with Parrish & Heimbecker to build a new bulk agricultural marine facility is great news for local farmers and the eastern Ontario economy.
Do you have anything to support your claim that the County spreads hundreds of thousands of kilos of salt on PEC roads every winter? I would like to know where you’re getting this information? As far as I know the County uses sand always (and only) for the roads ie.”Plowing and sanding routes for individual plows are designed to give priority to roads in order of the level of service” and that the County uses “a mixture of sand/salt” on sidewalks. https://www.thecounty.ca/residents/services/roads/snowplowing/
I respectfully disagree with your perception that new residents may have failed to do “due diligence”. People who move to the County do not have a crystal ball. We found ourselves in a similar situation with industrial wind turbines. It may be easy to suggest that residents are at fault but it’s inappropriate to do so, particularly when providing no evidence (again) to back this up.
What’s going on with the harbour is the typical and all to familiar story of industry encroaching on the human and natural environment of PEC – and if that’s not bad enough, leaving PEC government and residents to deal with all the problems that will ensue. I am neither opposed to industry or shipping IN THE RIGHT PLACES – i.e. in large harbours that were intended for, and designed for, the shipping industry.
Well said and very true about road salt. Virtually every kilo used in Picton and any other town/city in the Great Lakes basin is going end up in a lake with storm water. Same with oil leaks. Doesn’t allow for PT to be reckless but also provides context on incidental issues.
……..thank you and well put……legal costs are all that’s left to fight over…….Luv my County home even when my new neighbours try to change it .