Chemistry 30S - Gases and the Atmosphere!
Please read the article that Mr. Petrilli has written to the Minister of Environment. I would like you to then read the response and attached article from the Minister of Environment. Please think of these three things as you read the article, and then blog your response to the three questions.
1. Does Mr Petrilli have a valid arguement? Explain.
2. Is the Governments response adequate? Explain.
3. Yesterday (February 28, 2013), US Customs and Border Protection announced a $500 Million Cut to Border services including front line personel. This will likely increase wait time at all US/Canada border crossings for vehicles. Please comment on this issue as it relates to the article.
Thanks!
Mr Dyrland
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/english/pet_083_e_28795.html
well i dont think so its not bad but one guy isnt gonna make them change all of this. no its not they could of put alittle more concern or thought into what mr.Petrilli was saying. they should just cut so many people of jobs so quick like that. Thats to much money at one time and it already take along enough to get across the border. People will start to get angry and wont work out very well...
ReplyDeleteThis article raised a few interesting points.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Mr. Petrelli had a decently valid argument. His main concern is for the health and safety of Canadians everywhere, which if I was in a federal position would be a main concern of mine.
Secondly this article showed the non-responsiveness of the Canadian Federal Government. Instead of taking the time to address a leveled argument with actual thought, they dug up and re-hashed an article explaining the same old trash they talk about all the time. Talk is just that, talk. If you want the people of your nation to fully believe in you, you'll take action.
Now this article relates quite well to the current issues with the U.S./Canada border control. If they cut funding, which ultimately cuts jobs, that means that trucks and cars wait for longer at the border which means their engines are just running and polluting with blatant disregard to the environment. This article and the current predicament show exactly what I said about the government's inability to act. It's all just a bunch of crap in my opinion. It's wise to be concerned about the health of your nation, but then be concerned. Don't just sit around.
-Ben
I think Mr. Petrilli has a valid argument, because the cancer rate being 30% higher than anywhere else in Canada in just Windsor alone seems very high. It should have also been looked at by the federal government, because the cancer rate being 30% higher is outrageous. His argument is definitely valid, because it has to do with his health and the health of his community. The governments response is technically right (fact wise) however, the government never did answer the questions. They seemed to be giving out facts, but not saying if they would actually try to make a change, or if they were going to pay for these changes. To me, they seemed to be throwing out facts in an attempt to stall and avoid answering the questions. Therefore, I feel the governments response was not adequate. Having longer waits at the border will enlarge the issue in this article, because the longer vehicles are sitting in line idling, the more pollution that is being set into the environment. Since the issue is not yet being resolved, its just going to get worse with the increased waiting time at the border.
ReplyDeleteI think that Mr. Petrilli has a very valid argument. His main focus in the petition was on the city of Windsor, but his argument was addressed for the sake of all cities near the boarder and in general all Canadians. His concerns are about the health and heath risks that this is causing to all Canadians. I don't think that the Government's response was adequate. It doesn't seem like they have tried to make any other efforts to address Mr. Petrilli concern. Seeming to avoid his main questions but throwing in old facts and old things that are in place, but are technically correct. There just needs to be more from the Government to help reduce the health concerns, and if not things will only get worse. The fact that there was a $500 million cut to boarder services just proves Mr. Petrilli's point that the Canadian Government needs to do more. If not 30% higher cancer rate may increase to 50% or 60% more, and other places will increase as well. Things are only getting worse and the Government needs to do something about it.
ReplyDeleteTo answer if Mr Petrilli has a valid argument I believe he does in a way, I believe that his concern for the well being of his community and the people around him is a valid concern and a valid argument, he is correct, the trade industry is affecting our envoroment. I agree with Megan when she comments on how high the cancer rate is in Windsor compaired to the other cities in Canada, and this helps his argument. But I dont agree with Mr Petilli saying the ozone layer is being depleated because of trade because I dont believe that it is. The government even states in its responce that it is not being depleated because of trade. This makes Mr. Petrillis argumant less valid. I believe he has valid points when adressing the healths risks due to trade and the emmisions they give off, but the ozone layer is not a valid argument.
ReplyDeleteI believe the governments response although very detailed, did not answer the questions to the degree they could have. It appears they just copied and pasted what the regulations stated and showed what they had been doing, they gave a lot of facts that weren`t needed. I believe they could have done much more to make it more adequate. They say they will make these regulations, and have these people monitoring but it has been said for years now and nothing had really happened. If they would have answered Mr. Petrillis questions I believe it would have been more adequate, but the fact that they avoid answering them and just kept stating facts like Megan said, I believe it isn`t and adequate response for the answers Mr. Petrilli had wanted.
Lastly, I think that the longer waits will just add to the issue, people continually idling in there cars as they wait to travel to and from, will just increase the admissions that the goverments are trying to cut down on. I believe that it connects directly to this article because many people cross the border daily and there can already be long wait times. Instead of trying to resolve this issue I believe the US goverment is just adding to it, which will result in more complaints and a prolonged wait for this important issue to be resolved.
-Kaitlyn
In ways Mr. Petrilli does have a valid argument. The more transport going through those areas, the more pollution in the air, which is not healthy for anyone never mind the residents of Windsor. Because of this, their cancer rate is 30% higher than the rest of the country's, which is not fair. If something is not done about it now, the rate will only continue to rise. But he does not show proof that the cancer rate is actually 30% higher than in the rest of Canada. For all we know he could just be making that statistic up to help prove his argument. He is looking out for the well-being of his community, and the government is not doing anything to help them stay healthy, but until he can prove this statement I don't blame the government for not listening to him very well. Although the governments response was not adequate to accommodate Mr. Petrilli's concerns, as it did not answer his questions as clearly and well as they should have, it was still an answer. They seemed to mention a lot of unneeded facts and information rather than answering his main questions and concerns, but those are real facts where as Mr. Petrilli's may not have been. The fact that US Customs and Border Protection announced a $500 Million Cut to Border services is just going to make the pollution in that area even worse, proving Petrilli's point. The less workers, the longer the wait to cross. Which means more idoling, creating more pollution in the air, making people more sick. This is only going to make the issue worse.
ReplyDeleteI think Mr.petrelli have a valid argument.I don't think the government response was a adequate. It causes more pollution in the air which is very danger and harmful which brings more percentage to the cancer as well other then other country.not only that,cutting of job can also be extremely dangerous, Canada border control will not be in shape and people will started to stand out for a fight toward the government.government will need to help the Canadian to stay healthy and safety. This is outrageous. not understanding which is happen in a moment that could actually become harmful. 30% of cancer rate than other country and cutting of 500$ million cut to border is going to create a issue in society.
ReplyDeletesally jang
1. Mr. Petrilli does have a valid argument because 30% is significantly higher than the rest of the country. I'm not completely convinced it's the cause of NAFTA though. That is just naturally a highly populated area of Canada so there are lots of people using their vehicles and polluting the air and soil. Anytime there is a food being grown near a highly populated region there will be toxins seeping into the food and it's pretty much impossible to fully prevent. I do think he's right though, for thinking the government needs to conduct more tests for the health and safety of those living in the region.
ReplyDelete2. I think the government's response is a whole lot of talk and not a whole lot of action. They made the response much longer than needed I think to make it seem like they have enough policies and such in place and there is no need for concern. Although I appreciate that they are conducting tests and taking certain measures I feel they could be doing much more.
3. I assume with longer waiting lines at the border there will be a lot more idling, even though it's discouraged, which causes more air pollution. And all of that could lead to even higher cancer rates near the border. So I can understand why people would be concerned.
1.i think that Mr. Petrilli does have a very valid point because having a 30% cancer rate from Windsor to Quebec city is a very high amount for a small distance. and with the amount of emissions already being released into the air it would be a good idea to cut down on the amount of trucks that are shipping goods.
ReplyDelete2.with how much i saw that the government says it will do a lot but lately the Canadian government hasn't been doing much of what they say they will be doing which is causing a lot of trouble for Canadians.
3.well if the U.S. customs and borders protection made a $500 million cut that might make waiting time a the boarder longer won`t be helping the environment because the people in their cars will have their engines running releasing more pollutants into the air.
1.Mr Petrilli does have a valid argument. If there are cancer causing pollutants in the air, he has the right to complain and ask for assistance.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the governments response was adequate. If the government actually does what they say they're going to do.
3. The $500 million cut at the border won't help the situation. It will make it worse due to the increase in cars waiting and the amount of engines running will only add to the pollution.
1) Yes, I believe Mr. Petrilli has a valid point because there must be a serious issue if his city as a 30% higher cancer rate than the rest of the country. If the amount of fuel being put into the atmosphere is causing cancer rates to rise, it wouldn't be too big of a problem to simply try and reduce thus by a bit.
ReplyDelete2)I think that the government's response to Mr. Petrilli didn't exactly mean a whole lot. They talk about how they've recieved the letter and addressed the concerns, but it seems as though they can;t talk and walk at the same time.
3)I believe that cutting $500 million to the border service was not the brightest plan. Sure it saves you a lot of money, but at the same time, because of the long waiting times, more pollution will be released into the air. More cars running for a longer period of time because they're waiting at the border equals more gas being released into the atmosphere.
1. Health and safety is a significant concern and I'm glad Leo Petrilli stood up and fought for this issue. He made his point evident and it was clear as to what he wanted to be done to address the issue. There is no denying the validity of his concern considering the hard facts he drops: A 30% higher cancer rate is just ridiculous and I'm surprised the government let it get that far in the first place.
ReplyDelete2. It was said that air quality is a significant environmental concern yet they haven't clearly addressed the issue that was brought up. I will only start to believe this priority when they take action as opposed to how they broadly addressed pollution as a whole. This broad approach they used was to avoid the issue.
3. The increased waiting time will inevitably cause more idling. This will cause an increase in pollution and will make living in that area less safe. This plan will only work if they can use that $500 million to fix this addition of pollution.
Miles Duce
I belive that Mr.Petrilli is raising a serious problem. A thirty present increase in cancer rates is insane.
ReplyDeleteThe responce from the government is just stupied, all they do is say they reseved the letter and address him consern, but no where do the say they will do something about it, big suprise.
And finaly I think that these budget cuts are just plain dumb. If anything America should cut budget from the military, and not ruin the days of travelers just trying to have a nice trip.
1. Mr. Petrilli does have a valid argument with this point. The pollutants in the air are dangerous and he's only trying to express his concerns for the Canadian population. Expressing concern for this is only natural given how we treat the planet and how much we destroy it on a dialy basis.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the government's response was very inadequate because all they did is try and get away from the actual issue and push facts at Mr. Petrilli trying to distract him with all they are 'attempting' to do. They may not even try and combat the issue and just be trying to get him of their back's.
3. Making budget cuts at the border are only going to be more difficult for the government. It will release more pollution in the air and cause people to be more angry about this issue. While waiting in line to get through the border it'll cause even more pollution. -Sierra Bednarz
1.
ReplyDeleteI think that Mr. Petrilli has a definitely valid argument. Because the cancer rate being 30% higher than anywhere else in Canada in just Windsor alone seems very high.
2.
I don't think that the Government's response was adequate. The government seemed to be throwing out facts in an attempt to stall and avoid answering the questions. They seemed to be giving out facts, but not saying if they would actually try to make a change, or if they were going to pay for these changes.
3.
The fact that US Customs and Border Protection announced a $500 Million Cut to Border services is just going to make the pollution in that area even worse, proving Petrilli's point. This will create more pollution in the air, making people sicker. This is only going to make the issue worse.
1. Mr.Petrelli has voiced a valid argument. His concern is for the people of his town and the fact that illness rates are higher in windsor than in any other city/town in Canada is enough for him to voice concern.
ReplyDelete2. It seems as though the government is skipipng around the issue Mr. Petrelli is raising. They are avoiding and answer by giving out facts that have minimal impact on the solution. A response like that makes you wonder whether or not the government has any concern for the people's needs
3. With the government cutting $500 of border funds line will definitely increase and this will cause more pollution because people will be waiting longer and their cars will keep producing the emissions Mr.Petrelli is saying cause cancer in the people of his town... The problem he has will only get worse.
1. Mr.Petrelli had brought up a valid point. His town is vulnerable to the air pollution that the travelling vehicles emit, resulting in many health risks for the people who live in the Windsor area. Illness rates in this area are also quite high for a Canadian city, and the fact that cars and trucks are always passing through to cross the border ties in with that statistic.
ReplyDelete2. The Canadian government had a very inadequate response. The government never stated anything about helping the Canadians in the Windsor area from the pollution problems that were occuring. All they said was how they were researching the levels of pollution in that area, never saying anything about preventing the harm of the people who live there and the surrounding environment. They seemed to just completley ignore the issue and just did nothing to help the people in need.
3. This cut to border funding will only make this issue worse. As vehicles will have to wait longer, more pollutants will fill the air in this area. Also if traffic is backed up from the wait times, the emmisions given off will increase incredibly since more cars are just sitting there doing nothing while they wait. This increase in pollution will only intensify Mr.Petrelli's problem, more health problems will occur in the Windsor area, the environment in this area will become affected as well, possibly ruining the natural ecosystems that surround the border crossings.
Mr Petrelli brings semi valid point. I say semi because air pollution is a problem on a grander scale than he makes it out to be. I feel that what he is asking is possible, but requires a lot more effort that he might expect. It would be a lot easier to just tell everyone not to use cars and make them illegal to solve the problem, and even then that would be a daunting task. It does however bring another argument to the floor. What are we doing to help. I may seem main stream but we should be doing our job to help so that the government can do they're job (theoretically).
ReplyDeleteI find the Minister's response completely valid. There are people out there that, believe it or not, are trying to "fix" what we have "broken". I feel that the projects and research and programs mentioned are more than adequate.
I fail to see how a budget cut helps this situation. I know that there are experts out there that are paid to know more about this than I do, but I see this cut causing a lot of civil problems, so even if we fix one problem we cause another.
Niklas MOhsen
1.I think Mr. Petrilli has an absolute valid point. A 30% higher cancer rate among people is a great cause of concern. Higher growth of cancer is just a beginning and air pollution is a source or major diseases and is a cause of concern all over the world. It is very good that he stood up against the growth of air pollution and it is a shame the government wasn’t doing anything about it before. He also gives an example of how recklessly the planet is exploited.
ReplyDelete2.The government’s response is not adequate. In this case the government is all say and do nothing. They say that the issue has been raised but no significant changes that actually improve the environment and health of the people in that area. Although the government has given a detailed response, they haven’t quite DIRECTLY answered or responded to Mr. Petrilli’s concerns.
3.A $500 Million dollar cut will sure save a lot of money but at the same time it is harmful for the environment. Long waiting periods mean vehicles will have to drive/wait for a longer time, resulting in engine burning much more fuel. This will not be beneficial to the main cause of concern at this time, which is air pollution.
Dazzy Shah
1. I believe Mr Petrilli has a valid arguement. He wrote"My city has 30% higher cancer rates than the rest of the country." and "There is a link between diesel pollution, smog, ozone depletion, acid rain, and various types of cancer. Thousands of transport trucks travel through my community every day." He worry about canadian health and safe.
ReplyDelete2. No. Because the goverment didn't say how to change problems. They just say they know problems.
3. That is bad for environment because there will be more cars in USA and Canada. It means there are more vehicle exhaust and dust. When the cars are waitting time, they will burn more gas. It will make the problems worst.
1. I believe that Mr. Petrilli has a valid argument -- not only because his city has a 30% higher cancer rate but, because it concerns the health and well-being of the Canadians breathing in the highly polluted air.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the Government's response is actually quite satisfactory because, they understand that there is a problem; so, they have put a 10-year plan into action. It's like that saying "Rome wasn't built in a day"... They have to do their research before they can take action so that they can better the issue to the highest of their capabilities. I also agree that they can't just act upon one persons request to do something; otherwise, they would have to do that for everybody. I do believe, though, that they should take quick action to help, as much as they can, the Windsor area with their air pollution problem due to their area having a 30% higher cancer rate.
3. With there being a $500 million cut from the border services, this will obviously worsen the problem due to the fact that more cars will be sitting on the border idling for long periods of time; causing much more pollution to that area.
- Sara Varnes
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Mr. Petrilli has a valid argument because his concern is mainly about the safety and health issues for Canadians and his city Windsor has 30% higher cancer rates than the rest of the country. According to the article, there is a pollution zone known as the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor and a link existing between diesel pollution, smog, ozone depletion, acid rain, and various types of cancer. This is an issue that shouldn’t be ignored because it contains harmful, dangerous diseases and risks of people’s lives that also has a huge possibility of being spread throughout the world. However, the government’s response wasn’t adequate. In addition, the government did not really come up with any methods to prevent this issue. They never mentioned anything about supporting the Canadians in Windsor who are struggling with polluted environment and diseases and therefore there wasn’t any change that could prevent people’s health and improvement of environment. The $500 million cut from the border services will obviously be harmful and will cause the environmental problems worse because people will have to wait for long time in a line In addition, a great amount of cars will release pollutants and harmful gases that will affect the air negatively and people will receive diseases. In conclusion, this will cause the environmental issue to become even worse.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think Mr. Petrilli's argument is valid because it is the government's responsibility to create environmental and pollution laws to protect the health of humans and the environment. Democracy is intended to be of the people, by the people and for the people. Is it not in the best interest of the people in the Windsor and Quebec City areas' to provide them with protection from air pollution? Mr. Petrilli states that his city has a 30% higher cancer rate than any other Canadian city and scientific fact claims that diesel pollution is directly related to, "smog, ozone depletion, acid rain, and various types of cancer."
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government's response to Mr. Petrilli's request is adequate because they have created a clear and concise action plan for the next 10 years to fight air pollution in Canada. Government legislation is a slow process since bills have to be approved and signed by all the right people before they can officially become law. Leo Petrilli's request will not solely benefit him but the entire country. It only takes one person to make a difference and its apparent that Mr. Petrilli is trying to do just that. I will believe the government's intentions will come to fruition once definite action is taken, plans can be made but there will be no real change until a solution is found.
The U.S. Government is currently experiencing an economic downfall and cutbacks are necessary in order to reverse some of the effects of the massive debt but ideally it would be beneficial for the government to find different ways to reduce expenses. Of course we don't live in an ideal world and the division of Republican and Democrat in congress prevents actual changes from being put into effect. Reducing funding to border services may solve some issues but creates more, idling vehicles will contribute to pollution and long wait times may discourage Canadians from traveling to the U.S. to shop. Reduction of tourist activity could have a negative economic effect as well. This was not the best decision that the government could have made but its understandable, the position of leaders in politics is never truly easy and every decision has its pros and cons.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Petrilli's argument is valid due to the fact he mentioned in his argument that his city have 30% of higher cancer rates. He is mainly concerned about every Canadian citizens health and he wants our government to take action and prevent the risk of getting ill due to pollution produced by large trucks which produces toxic exhaust and oils that drips on the road which would be absorbed by the soil and the toxic waste will get into the water. It is not fair that the government aren't taking things into actions about this conflict which affects pretty much everyone of us.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the government's response to Petrilli is inadequate because they didn't say anything about actually helping the people struggling with pollution in his city, therefore there wont be any change at all with the environment.
The cut of $500 million from the border services would just make things worst because the people would have to wait longer for any improvements and in the meanwhile, the pollution problem is not being fixed and more toxic will be release by all the transportation and factories.
1) I do believe that Mr.Petrilli does have an extremely valid and important point. Air pollution is rising and it needs to be addressed everywhere. If his city has a 30% higher cancer rate than the rest of the country this is HUGE. There is something wrong and it needs to be changed.
ReplyDelete2) Along with may others I do agree that the governments response was inadequate. Even though the government does list multiple ways they are trying to help with pollution, they never once say how they are going to help his city specifically.
3) The $500 Million Cut to Boarder services will take a toll on not just the people waiting in line for hours, but also the environment. The cut will cause slower lines, which means more vehicles idling. The idling cars will cause even more pollution in Mr.Petrilli's city.
Kendra Smith
1) I think Mr. Petrilli does have a valid point. He talks about the air pollution in his city, and close to the border. He talks about ways to help it, which would benefit all of Canada. He clearly states how in his city cancer rates are 30% higher. That's already a big enough reason to help and get involved.
ReplyDelete2) I don't think the Governments response was adequate because yes, they did have examples of ways they were helping and contributing, but while I was reading all of that information it just seemed like all of those things were from years before & there wasn't really anything that recent.
3) I think that cutting $500 million to border services was a mistake because that is a lot of money, and people are going to have to wait even longer at the border which is going to cause more pollution to the air.
1. I think Mr. Petrilli has a valid argument. If he is concerned about there being an issue about cancer causing filth in the air, he should be able to complain about his concern to the government do something to prevent it from happening.
ReplyDelete2. I, personally, do not think that the government's response was adequate. Although, they provide information about what they are doing to help with the pollution, but they are not specifically explaining how they are going to help the city itself.
3. I think the $500 million cut to border services was not a great idea. Since this increases the wait time at the border, this affects the environment because of the cars that are waiting at the border are releasing fossil fuels into the air which is causing more pollution.
Robelie Aaron
1. Mr. Petrilli has a very valid argument. He mentions that the pollution in his area is increasing, and backs it up with an alarming fact, his city has a 30% higher cancer rate than anywhere else in the country. This has to be fixed.
ReplyDelete2) I do not believe that the governments response was adequate. All the government did was outline a few policies they've had in place indicating that they were helping get rid of the whole pollution problem.But the problem is, is that nobody has heard of these policies, and have they done anything since they were created? I don't think so.
3)This was a poor decision by the US. Some of the wait times are long enough, and increasing these length times will result in two things, less revenue, and more pollution
I think Mr. Petrilli has a valid argument, he mentioned in his statment that his city have 30% of higher cancer rates. Pollution produced by large trucks which produces toxic exhaust and oils that drips on the road which would be absorbed by the soil and the toxic waste will get into the water.
ReplyDeleteI feel the governments response is right however, the government never did answer the questions. They dipped and dodged they real questions and just contradicted the situation.
increasing the wait time at border crossings has made the situation worse than what it already was, it will create more pollution in the areas by the crossings and make more people sick.
I do think that mr.Petrilli had a valid statement. He was concerned about the harmful gases being put into the air around his community. However i do not think the government gave him a valid respose. They directed him to the enviroment Canada who gave him facts but did not seem to answer his questions. They did not tell him about any plans they had to fix this problem.
ReplyDeleteI think that the cut to border services will increase the pollution that mr. Pertilli was talking about. This cut will decrase the amout of people working which will increase line ups.
I believe that Mr. Petrilli has a valid argument, because the cancer rate being 30% higher than anywhere else in Canada. It also should have been looked at by the federal government because the cancer rate being so much higher is ridiculous. His argument is valid, because it has to do with his health and the health of his community. The governments response is technically right but, the government never answered the questions. They seemed to be giving out facts, but not saying if they would actually try to make a change, or if they were going to pay for these changes. They seemed to be throwing out facts to avoid answering questions. Therefore, I feel the governments response was not adequate. Having longer waits at the border will just enlarge the issue in this article because the longer vehicles are sitting in line idling, the more the environment is being polluted. Since the issue is not yet resolved, it's just going to get worse with the increased waiting time at the border.
ReplyDeleteI think Mr. Petrilli has a valid argument. If he is concerned about there being an issue about cancer causing pollution in the air, he should be able to complain about his concern to the government to prevent it from happening. However the government did not give him a valid response. They directed him to the environment Canada who gave him facts, not answers to his question. The didn't say anything about fixing the problem, or even discuss ways on how to make the situation a little better. I do think cutting $500 million to border services will increase air pollution, because cutting that much money means making cuts to employees, and less people working will increase the line ups and gas in the air.
ReplyDelete-Katherine G.
I dont understand what im commenting on. He has a point on pollution being high and we should consider that if it continues at this rate the future will be bleak. But i dont get why he brings up 9-11 at all it was tragic but what does that have to do with this at all. Ya it added to pollution but he started talking about the vehicles pollution and then brought up 9-11. Then he gets back on topic and it begins to make better sense when he asks what the government is doing for people about this issue.
ReplyDeleteI feel the government is all talk in this I dont see how they are gonna follow through on this at all because honestly thats how it works now promises that they wont keep at all.
What does removing border patrol have to do with anything. Its gonna make things worse at this point. The wait will be longer, so cars will be running longer and thats just more pollution. People may think this is a good idea but maybe cause they dont know whats going on fully but its like the government wants people to buy more gas so they can make more money.
1) Yes I think Mr. Petrilli is valid because it's not really possible to have 30% or higher cancer possibility in the city than other city. If the amount of fuel causing the percentage why dont they reduce the fuel that's released in the atmosphere?!?!
ReplyDelete2)I dont think goverment didnt answer what mr Petrilli wants to hear because all they talk about is that they received letter and try to fix the problem but they actually doesnt know how to.
3)I think that cutting $500 million to the border service is not a great plan because it will increase more pollution in the air. (releasing fussil fuel in the air increase pollution in the air).
I believe Mr. Petrilli does have a valid argument with this point and his main concern is the health and safety of the Canadians.The pollutants in the air caused by The cars and trucks are dangerous.Illness rates in this area are quite high for a Canadian city, and having the cars and trucks always passing to cross the border doesnt really help with the high cancer rates.
ReplyDeleteI think that the government's response was very inadequate. All they did is try and get away from the actual issue and didnt state any help for the Canadians in the Windsor area. In my opinion they seemed to just ignore the issue and didnt address any help.
I believe that the cut to boarder services was not a smart idea. Sure it saves you a lot of money, but at the same time we are wasting gas and more pollution will be released into the air. Waiting at the border equals more gas being released into the atmosphere. This will cause more health problems in the area and will only make the problem worse.- Danielle Robak
Mr. Petrilli has raised some valid points in his argument. The 30% higher cancer rate is a serious issue, and the federal government should be more conscious of such issues. And the large moment of traffic in the area is definitely worsening the already poor quality of air.
ReplyDeleteThe government parties response was inadequate, as they stated no definite or immediate solution to said issue.
Thirdly, the financial limitations in effect are going to have a negative impact. Prolonged wait times will drive attention away from crossing the border, and limit income gained from duties earned from claiming goods when re-entering the country.
Taylor Kaye
I think Mr. Petrilli has a very valid arguement. It's good that he's concerned for his communities well being as well as the people in it. The fact that Windsor has the highest cancer rate in the country because of the trade industry helps his arguement. I don't think it's cool to point fingers and blame NATFA for this because Windsor is a highly populated area as it is. His arguement concerns the health risks and dangers to us humans rather than to the planet and ozone layer which makes his arguement less valid.
ReplyDeleteI dont think that the governments response was very adequate, they didn't really say they were gonna do anything to make a change or help make a change. Even tho they know theres problems and listed multiple ways they are trying to help with pollution.
The $500 million cut the border services will not only effect the long line ups to get into the USA, but will also effect the environment with all the idiling, polluting cars. This doesn't help Windsor's problem what so ever as well as the rest of the country.
Mr Petrilli does have a valid argument. First, Because its government responsibility to protect Canadian citizens. Second, its causing pollution and affecting many peoples lives. Its clear that this kind of problem is serious. He mentioned that Windsor has 30% higher cancer rates than the rest of the country. In fact it will increase if the government don't do something about it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government response is very inadequate. Its not clear. Whats clear to me is that they were not really saying what they were going to do about this issue. All they were giving is fact. They didn't provide any information or plans about what they were going to do about it.
I don't think that the idea of $500 million cut to the boarder services is a good thing. It could just cause another air pollution to the country.
Lien Navea
I do believe Mr. Petrilli has a fairly valid agreement. He has every right to be concerned about the health of himself and his community. It is a fact that diesel fuels and oils produced by vehicles are known carcinogens. It would make sense that the amount of transport at the border would increase health risks. However I disagree with Mr. Petrilli’s point that trade will deplete the ozone layer. Sure, transportation will cause horrible air quality and probably not help the ozone layer. But it will not affect it ether.
ReplyDeleteI feel the government did not adequately address Mr. Petilli’s letter. They, in no way, express how they plan on fixing this problem. They state that they’ll try to fix it and that his letter has been read and passed up but not how to fix the issue. They seem to avoid all of his questions and provide no direct answers to them.
This is in every way related to Mr. Petrilli’s concerns, if more vehicles are stalled at the border, more fuels will be produced. This in turn will cause more health risks. If the government continues to avoid and add to the problem. It will only get worse and worse.
-Paige Harrington
I think that Mr. Petrilli does have a valid argument. he mentions that there was a 30% increase in cancer. he is also concerned about the pollution.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the government gave him a valid response because they didn't give him a solution to tell him what to change to make the problem better.
The cut to the border services will cause a decrease in employees which will cause a increase in pollution due to the increase in line ups.
-Brett Smith
I think that Mr.Petrilli has a valid argument. He has the right to be concerned about his communities health, because the 30% higher cancer rate is a serious problem. The governments response was very inadequate because they did not give any real solutions to the problem, all they did was state facts. With the government cutting 500 million off border funds, the line ups will definitely increase and this will just end up causing more pollution.
ReplyDelete-Alana Moffat
I don't think Mr Petrilli has a valid point because in my opinion this is a a problem that should be taken care of by the municipal government of Windsor because it is a local problem caused by the location of the city. I think it is a bit obvious that a city that is so near the border will have issues of this type. Also, he's comparing the increase in air-pollution in a single city, to 9-11, something off scale and nowhere near in tragedy.
ReplyDeleteThe government's respond isn't really doing much to answer the questions in Mr Petrilli's letter, they're telling him of plans that were set down, but have not made much progress to actually make those plans happen. So they're distracting the reader form the fact that the government isn't doing anything really for us, using pretty and long words, long explanations, to give us an impression that they're doing something.
And now that there had been a budget cut on the border, the amount of trucks crowding up at the border for longer wait times will increase pollution, and more problems like the one in Windsor will be created, in more areas.
-Miriam Mazor
I think that Mr. Petrilli has a valid argument because he was thinking about their city condition i mean hes city has the highest cancer rate in the whole country because of the pollution that the trucks bringing to them. and is the government response adequate, i don't think so because they really don't do that much they saying that they are going to fix the problem but they really don't fix it. and then the us custom and border protection says that they are cutting $500 million to border service i mean that is Really not gonna do anything they are just going to make the problem worst.
ReplyDelete-Austine Brosas
I think that Mr. Petrilli has a valid argument because he's concerned about the health of the people in his community and the addition that his city has a 30% higher cancer rate. I don't think the governments response was adequate because they didn't specifically say what they were going to do to try and fix the problem they just listed a bunch of facts. Then they cut $500 million to border services which will make the situation worse because the lineups will be longer which means that more pollution will because from all the trucks that are idling.
ReplyDeleteMr. Petrilli had a very valid argument. The health of his community, being in Canada, should be a concern to Environment Canada. I feel that the response Environment Canada gave was not at all adequate. Their response was like copy and paste. They are saying how they will control these problems, but not how they are controlling them or giving examples of how they are taking action on these plans to control the problems. From what it sounds like, Environment Canada at the time (10 years ago, 2003) was all talk without action. I believe air testing should have been examined, and although the pollution from cars may not affect the ozone layer, it affects the quality of air which has a direct relation to peoples health. It has been 10 years since this was written, so Environment Canada may have actually acted on these plans, but with a 500 million dollar budget cut to border services, lines and waiting times will definitely increase, which means an increase in gas release. The popular borders will become very polluted in time and it should be further examined and watched. Environment Canada should be taking responsibility for their environment, as well as the citizens living in it, as they are in direct relation.
ReplyDeleteNatalea Roche
Mr. Petrilli does have a valid argument with this point and his main concern is the health and safety of the Canadians. 30% higher cancer rate is a serious problem if they are not take care of this kind problem i belive the 30% is increase but we don't want that.I thing the governmants did not take that much series about that what Mr.Petrilli want for them.
ReplyDeleteI don't thing so the governmant did goood job for cuting $500 million to the border services, less people working will increase the line ups it mean increase the air pollution this is all governmants want from the money the cut.
fahim
1)I think that anything that may cause cancer, and this goes without saying, is a bad thing. Therefore I think that Mr Petrellis argument is valid. The pollution caused by the trucks being absorbed by the air, water and soil is obviously bad news for all, and although im sure that cancer rates fluxuate from city to city, it would be tough to ignore these poisons as a cause.
ReplyDelete2) Humans will always find a problem with something. If the air is completely clean then people are wondering why the economy sucks, if the economy is booming then people will complain about the environment. The latter is the case here. Whenever the air is being polluted people assume we can just stop running these trucks, not realizing that may kill the local economy of Windsor. Therefore i think the governments response was adequate, as they need to think about the economy and cant just stop running the trucks. Limiting their running or making it more efficient is the right response. Removing the trucks is not.
3) How many times do you see signs to not idle? The correct answer is a lot. And hundreds of cars waiting at the border for hours more is going to clog he air with all those emissions. This will be especially bad in the Windsor area, as it is right on the US border. This could be even more harmful than he trucks.
1. I think Mr.Petrilli has a valid point to be concerned though trading can not be stopped, trucks need to pass the border. If there was a more environmentally friendly way then the government should take action.
ReplyDelete2. I believe the government is doing the best they can to fix the problem and preserve the environment. It will take time, patience and understanding by the people. If some are so upset with their area they should move.
3. I believe if people are so concerned about their environment they should shut off their cars while waiting, perhaps have a sign to remind them. People will never be happy with anything the government does.
i think mr P as a valid point. hes concerned about the health of his citizens and he has the right to be because he cant do anything about it, so he contacted the government.
ReplyDelete2. i dont think the government did a good job in anwering his concerns and addressing them, he seems to be " just another letter" they need to pass down. and they dont really respond directly to his concerns. making their response not adequate.
3.i think the $500 M cut budget is an easy way out, but it will not help the enviroment at all, there will be longer border waits making more emmisions.
-Steffan
Mr. Petrilli had a very valid argument. The health of not only his community, but everyone in Canada, should be a concern to Environment Canada.
ReplyDeleteThe response Environment Canada gave was not at all adequate.They were just saying how they WILL control these problems, but not how they ARE controlling them. I believe air testing should be done, the pollution from cars not only affect the ozone layer, but it affects the quality of air which has a direct relation to peoples health.
The 500 million dollar budget cut to border services, lines and waiting times will definitely increase, which means an increase in gas consumption and emissions being produced. Environment Canada should be taking responsibility and start caring for the environment, and the people living in it, as they are in direct relation.
-Michael jacques
i think mr Petrilli as a valid point. hes concerned about the health of his citizens and he has the right to be because he cant do anything about it, so he contacted the government.
ReplyDelete2. i dont think the government did a good job in anwering his concerns and addressing them, he seems to be " just another letter" they need to pass down. and they dont really respond directly to his concerns. making their response not adequate.
3.i think the $500 M cut budget is an easy way out, but it will not help the enviroment at all, there will be longer border waits making more emmisions.
-Steffan