Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
My feedback
48 results found
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
Given that the fuel efficient car owners are already realizing savings on fuel, would it not be preferable to divert the fees collected from parking etc. to an ecocharity of the choice of the car owner. We need huge sums of funds to support the infrastructure for the electrical vehicles. Second rewarding automobiles is a two edged sword and defeats the target of cutting congestion. Fewer cars is a lot more desirable goal than green cars.
-
10 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
And where is this money for everything going to come from? That makes all money based green suggestions impractical. Please suggest revenue neutral ideas which might have a chance of being implemented. City has no money to spare.
-
10 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
Heavy reliance on taxes to go green is counterproductive and would be akin to shooting own foot. The trouble is that the "tax" money is not green to begin with and by fuelling green revolution with un-green cash we are not going to ever be able to catch our own tail. The bright thing is to reallocate the money that we already have and cut demands of all resources.
-
13 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
Can we all get along folks? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHlopjHepEw
-
226 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
Given our abundance of water and unrelenting rain, water conservation is a very low priority for Vancouver in going green. In any event it is lot more important to get smarter than going green, read details about this at the discussion Urban Intelligence Score Elevation (UISE) http://vsrbc.web.officelive.com/UISE.aspx Once we get smarter going green would be a piece of cake, Becoming dumber is making it harder to fight the sustainability battle.
-
5 votes
-
Start a chain of coffee shops that sells exclusively day old baked goods and expired dairy products.
7 votesAn error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
Numerous suggested ideas are overly zealous and ill-conceived for failing to weigh all the relevant considerations that ought to have been done. While creativity is appreciated and might be innovative, the need to reinventing the wheel is wasteful as well. This is another of those impractical idea and irrelevant for the purpose of City of Vancouver or even the Province of B. C., to do anything about. If there is to be selling of day old bakery merely creating the necessary demand would facilitate the vendor behaviour accordingly. But why not seriously cut back or completely stop eating out as it is a high carbon behaviour. For more going green wisdom visit http://vsrbc.web.officelive.com/
-
Create signs to alert tourists that water, pop, juice and alcohol bottles are refundable, not trash.
9 votesAn error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
Even if people are aware of the refundability of the discarded plastic and glass containers they would still not find the motivation or the time to get them converted into cash given the weak incentive and the arduous nature of the work involved. The idea is very weak and without high commitment from public it would not be put into practice by the affluent. The homeless crowd would have to be relied to scavenge upon these discards. Their motivation too would be strengthened if the cash is raised. for more climate wisdom visit http://vsrbc.web.officelive.com
-
22 votes
Financing tools (currently under development) may encourage building owners to improve the performance of their buildings rather than rebuild.
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
Such a decision making might not be most prudent because in many cases demolition and rebuilding would be cheaper and smarter. It has to be an individual decision depending on location and several other factors.
-
21 votes
This action is outside municipal jurisdiction, since schools are organized and governed under the Provincial Ministry of Education, with local school boards and associations. The action has merit from a Green Transportation perspective, but must be weighed against other issues faced by school boards around enrollment, understanding current and future neighbourhood demand, etc. Using schools for additional community programs after hours may be a way to get better value from existing resources. This item also relates to neighbourhood planning initiatives to provide more housing choice for families that will help support existing schools that are currently experiencing declining enrollments. Response
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
To stop school closures public has to cough up the money that the public does not have. What to do?
-
72 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
While subjected to be corrected, the reason why the City of Vancouver sought public input was likely with the intention that creative minds of Vancouverites propose cost effective locally applicable strategies that would permit Vancouver to boast and gloat about some ten parameters as the topmost. Entire concept of green city and small ecological footprint of a city is flawed. What matters is global ecological footprint of humanity. Technically if we use just ten criteria and a panel of 3 or 5 judges renders this pointless judgement Vancouver could be ruled the most livable or lovable city and the greenest city and so on but in an uninhabitable globe. What good is that. Who does that label really helps. But still it is nice that City of Vancouver is at least thinking about reducing its ecological foot print, a thing that if repeated worldwide would lead to the ultimate care which in all likelihood is going to evade us. There is little chance that Vancouver would meet its target and even if met they are meaningless at the global level. We therefore can't be a green globe or world without taking care of our oceans. Once we are dealing with ocean health we are into global realms and outside the jurisdiction of our Mayor. Sure we need urban marine protected areas but there Federal and B. C. Governments and even US government would like to and must poke its nose and do their parts. In fact Feds would not let City to deal with many aspects of oceans. Strict regulations for oil tankers are not a municipal matter nor is the habitat enhancement purely City responsibility. We can sure deal with the best sewage treatment in the world but that is going to cost us money that we don’t have. Pesticide bans are easier said than done because once we begin to go organic we are into unaffordability and even inability to feed us all. Beach clean-ups would not even be needed if people would not litter. We do need to start to revere and respect the might and powers hidden in the oceans and what it provides us but maybe we have wrecked it enough already that it is not providing us much any way and things are going to get worse from now. What has to change is the mindset of public that our air, soil, freshwater and marine water matter. To date that is not how people think. How do people suggest that our dear Mayor make people change their mindsets and habits. That is where we are really stuck. What we need to do is adopt new sustainability faith that I call Rediluvism Read more about it here http://vsrbc.web.officelive.com/REDI.aspx
-
229 votes
Transit (and transit fares!) are controlled by TransLink, not the city. Having said that, reducing or eliminating transit fares is an interesting idea.
Unfortunately it’s not very feasible, at least as TransLink is currently funded. Unlike most North American cities, Vancouver’s transit problems aren’t due to a lack of demand but rather a lack of capacity. Anyone who’s ever tried to squeeze onto one of our busy buses or trains knows this all too well — there isn’t enough space even when people have to pay, let alone accommodate the additional demand that would be created if transit were free. Compare this to cities with fare-free zones, which are typically struggling for increase demand, and which typically have (a) less frequent service and/or (b) plenty of extra capacity to accommodate more riders.
In Vancouver, we need to provide more transit capacity to meet existing demand — and a LOT more…
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
I must make it clear that my considerations that go against the feasibility of a free transit have been made very cautiously while being a proponent of ****-fare public transport, also often called free public transport or free public transit, through subsidizing transit system 100% to seriously reduce usage of cars for commuting. This idea is item no 15 out of some 20 suggestions made at the page entitled : Policy Makers to do at http://vsrbc.web.officelive.com/PM.aspx
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
I am not persuaded that sufficient thought has gone into this proposed free transit idea. The anticipated “annual” contribution from property tax to fund free transit in the expanded capacity mode would be at this time clearly unaffordable and bitterly resented. Those who would not be able to use this service and would be forced to fund it would not find it fair. It sure is good social action, and therefore comes with all the evils that go with socialization like reckless overuse and costs for regulation of the process. Even if it is good for tourism it collides with the greening of the city. Tourists are a source of emissions while they travel to Vancouver and stay here. In all honesty cutting back global emissions requires suppression of tourism seriously and limit personal vacationing to local destinations only. We do not help things by promoting tourism. The real cure for climate change is hibernation of economy not promoting it. While the Transit would save the administrative costs and even the carbon foot print of preparing and vending the fare tickets, there would be huge expansions of fuel (even if it is electricity), vehicle maintenance, vandalism repairs, and manpower (operator) costs that would far exceed the saving of the administration of the fare collection. One area of savings would be the prosecution of fare evader because then everyone would be a fare evader. Whether the dispensing with the fare collection would improves safety of drivers/operators is very speculative. One can even argue that high ridership and frivolous ridership with professional criminals able to use transit with impunity would move some of the petty crime into the transit system and there is a potential for greater violence by the offenders against the riders as well as the operators. On the other hand there is going to be rise in crime rate from climate change itself so the balancing is really very delicate. The biggest hurdle at this time is that pockets of taxpayers, the city budget and the Transit budget all are running in serious deficit such that the proposal has not merely **** but a negative chance of becoming a reality. We have missed the bus in that regard as it is too late to implement this proposal, which could have been a possibility when things were bit more prosperous. So the solutions are do not travel or use your bike or your legs.
-
190 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
Here is the smartest and most trustworthy solution folks. Attend the monthly sustainability pledge taking ceremony at the City Hall and receive the ceremonial personal reusable personal thermos and get it filled at Tim Horten, Starbucks or the store of your choice. Asking the government to tax us to talk sense into your heads is extreme stupidity. Governments are simply not that smart, efficient and corruption free that they would even deliver the worth of your money. To find out where you and half a dozen of your friends can kick start this pledge taking to start changing the world go to WWW.RUN.TO/VSR
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
A remedy that has a way better hope of working out is people commit to consuming lot less coffee as it is not a basic biological need, next consume only home brewed coffee and when drinking this extravagant beverage outside the house use the ceremonial personal mug that is to be owned by everyone committed to saving the planet. That is what is consistent with the inside out or bottom up approach which has a lot better hope of success than the popular outside in or top to bottom approaches.
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
The only trouble is that in light of our civil liberties banning coffee cups is going to be harder than banning tobacco products, If that were possible I would begin by banning tobacco, partly because the most powerful anti-climate lobbyists are the same as Big Tobacco and Big Oil.
-
29 votes
The City has already started a food scraps collection program for neighbourhoods where yard trimmings are collected. These materials are currently composted. With more organic waste diversion, the City will explore opportunties to implement technolgies that produce biogas like gassifiers and anaerobic digesters.
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
It is not correct that carbon vanishes when you burn biogas, What makes more sense is that if methane is burnt down to CO2 its radiance or GHG effect would be reduced several fold ~ 27 times the CO2e that is what makes more sense that methane be burnt into less harmful or less warming producing chemical. The carbon atoms do not vanish just because we so wish upon them. Otherwise praying would be the most effective technique to combat global warming. Biogas as fuel is a halfbaked strategy anyway. Biofules have their own ecological footprint that is nasty. The ideal is to get away from our arsonist traits.
-
8 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
I am told that City does not permit paper recycling period. The recycling truck driver is congenial to picking up newsprint only not the size A4 sheets or other kinds of paper and cardboard products. There is lot of ignorance about what is recyclable even amongst the city of Vancouver
-
81 votes
Several private apts and co-ops already have gardens. This is done at the discretion of the land-owner.
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
Growing trees under any pretext is certainly a great idea for global reasons but BC does have enough forests and trees for regional purposes. For Vancouver and BC, growing trees here is not a high priority and it is smarter to invest those resources in other areas to gain better mileage. A fascinating and fun filled plan is to let kids own fruit bearing trees just as United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) has given 800 poor families in Tajikistan thousands of seedlings to plant not only to provide fruit, but to offset the carbon footprint of vehicles used in the agency's food aid work http://bit.ly/UNWFPagw This would serve as a powerful motivator for children to become sustainability conscience, which is a very powerful reason to plant these trees which are not really in short supply in Canada. To save the planet from Global Warming we need to turn the Sahara Green http://bit.ly/GrnSahara That is the plan B that we must now focus on after conceding that we are not going to win the battle against global warming. We simply cannot halt it, it is too late. It is pertinent to understand this all in the context of UNFCCC decoded. http://vsrbc.web.officelive.com/UNFCCC.aspx
-
15 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
There are some interesting comments about nutrient recovery in the treatise This depiction of dismal state of water supply sources that are rapidly vanishing while we Canadians pay no heed to the this impending catastrophe is based on work entitled Canada’s Water Delusion by Andrew Nikiforuk published originally in April 2009 Readers Digest which was devoted entirely to climate change where the conclusion made was Our enduring myth of endless “blue gold” has us pouring our most valuable resource down the drain. . . .
http://vsrbc.web.officelive.com/CWD.aspxPradeep K.Verma MBBS
supported this idea
·
-
195 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
Great to get some feedback and have someone hear me out. I am loaded with all sorts of insightful ideas as I have studied sustainability in dept but I need some audience, In relation to the green transportation the question that must be confronted is : Are "green cars", electric or otherwise, a dangerous diversion or planet stewards? A 5 February 2010 post entitled Automatic for the people? warns http://bit.ly/UnGrnCars : In that context, "green cars", electric or otherwise, are a dangerous diversion. For one thing, even if they were "green" (which of course they aren't in the sense of embodied energy used to manufacture, not just in the car but also the supporting infrastructure) they re-enforce the idea that we don't need to change our lifestyles at all, it's just that technology will magically make them sustainable.
Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
When one speaks of relatively clean hydro-electric sources one is attempting to be blind to the fact that hydroelectric projects have done and continue to do fair size devastation of biodiversity the evil twin of climate change. So in the end hydro electric power is not that eco-friendly after all. The idea is to use own body power or peronal horsepower than fuels or electricity of any source if we are to sustain ourselves at the 9 billion strenght. A tall order to say the least.
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
Needless to say that the electricity used in these EVs must be clean or we miss the whole idea. And getting truly green eleciticity is a nightmare so the emphasis must be on lot less travel period. The real goal has to be AMV lifestyle as outlined here http://vsrbc.web.officelive.com/amv.aspx And even the buses and trollies of City are CO2 emitters although bit less so.
-
408 votes
Provincial jurisdiction.
-
23 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
It seems necessary to point out that given this input is invited by the City of Vancouver and by extension Province of B. C., (hopefully Mayor can speak to the Premier about his experiences on sustainability) we must limit our suggestions in which City and Province can have some control through legislative or executive (planning) functions or operation. In the context of smart appliances it does not appear that City of Province can do anything. It is entirely a consumer choice matter. Role of consumers in sustainability is huge and possibly 80% while legislators are only responsible for 20% therefore it is necessary to self regulate our consumption more than begging the Province or City to regulate that for us.
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
Smart appliances can only reduce energy consumption by 20-30% while getting rid of the appliance would cut it 100% which makes a lot more sense. There were days when all clothes were laundered by hand and it gave people a good workout too. A superb consideration isn’t it. We are in a time crunch here folks to deal with the climate as well as biodiversity devastation concurrently. We cannot afford to settle for modest tweaking of 10% here 20% there. We have to go for bigger chunks of cut backs. We Vancouverites have an personal ecological footprint (PEF) that is 4-5 the permitted level making tiny nibbles of cut backs here and there is not going to bring us down to one PEF unit because if we don’t do that we are violating human rights of those whose PEFs are a fraction of a unit PEF.
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
Truly smart appliances would be thouse that run on human horsepower. It is bit troubling that no one has yet tried to harness electricity from the power lifters weights. That energy would be lot more than that harvested from the stationary bikes. Something to look into. Power lifts are really huge source of energy that is not being harvested yet.
Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Pradeep K.Verma MBBS
commented
How about smart people first before we spend money on smart appliances. They are smart enough already. What we really need is smarter people. What we have to hope is that human stupidity peaks before the GHG will ever peak. Read about Peak Stupidity here http://vsrbc.web.officelive.com/PS.aspx
