“We need to take the lessons and limitations learned from the Air Care program and see if some revisions might make it a valuable program in Prince George.”

Great!…The air care program is coming to a end in Vancouver,but now they want to implement it here!!!

Plus don’t blame the cars in PG for the rotten cabbage smell we are so known for,we all know were that stench comes from…dont believe me! ask your visitors from out of town.

People jump on this farce right away,its not free to have your vehicle tested!

What a frickin joke!

Also a side note…. not all minimum wage earners can afford a new car to drive!

I hope that Terry Robert from PG AIR doesn’t read the comments on this site.

If he does, Terry, the negativity you will see here is chronic and not reflective of this story in particular nor of the majority of citizens of PG.

You are doing a great job for this community.

Thank You.

“In 2005, 61.4% of the particulate matter was attributed to road dust and mobile emissions”

I thought this was a report about 2011 figures. Where is the linkage? What was it in the intervening years? Waht is it in 2011? What size of particles are we talking about? There are three “bins” that are measured – 2.5; 10; total.

Why are we talking about downtown only? What about the BCR? Gladstone? What about the effect on those starting to move closer to the BCR in the new development at the end of Malaspina now? Would be nice to get some sort of measurement there. Noise and air quality were a consideration at the time the subdivision was approved. The proponent even made suggestions that opening windows were going to be on the backs of houses. I do not see any of that. Those were issues at the time of getting development approval

What are the actual values? Without a total measure, a percentage standing on its own is meaningless.

Canfor improvements are one thing. How abut the mill shutdowns? If one is going to report out on a point source being lowered as a result of improvements made at one or more plants, how about reporting out about mill shut downs and the actual reduction of permitted emissions.

Thhen there are the weather patterns over the year. We have seen declines over longer peripods of say 5 years before, which appeared to be mainly due to changing weather patterns, and then followed by sudden increases for several years.

I cannot see this media release being of any value to anyone who understands the issue.

A link to the report would have been nice ….. I’ll hunt for it, I guess.

So whelen. Tell me whether my feedback is negative and, if so, why you think so.

http://www.pgairquality.com

Hey, whelen. I got some more negatives for you.

1. the home page of the site latest “recent news” is a March 30, 2012 item urelated to this. That is over 2 months ago.

2. The 2008 air monitoring report is the latest one cited on the home page … where is 2009, 2010, 2011?

3. The #2 items lnlks to the Ministry page which has the 2009 report …. 2 years ago … was posted there in SPtember 2011.

So, we are getting snippets of some numbers for 2011, but those of us who understand the issues are getting half baked information from which no credible individual could reach any integrated, big picture conclusions.

Its called opinion 250 whelen…. you must be one of the few that thinks this council is doing a good job,if you don’t like the negativity, then this site is not for you!!

Particulate matter and odour are two completely different things. I am in favour of AirCare but only if diesel locomotives and trucks larger than pickup trucks get first priority for emission testing!

Hey whelen … started skimming through the 2009 report … page 7 …

“The frequency of calms from the Gladstone site was 32.6%. This high frequency could be caused by the bearings in the instrument needing replacement.”

Kind of a reasuring note about the maintenance of instrumentation ….. Sounds like the MoE has maintenance problems as well …. does not talk about waht they are going to do about it. Watch whether the calms are going to increase to 100% one of these days and then fix it?

Some people think of constructive criticism as a purely negative effort while others see it as a positive contribution to the effort of continuous improvement and advancement.

Hey, whelen …. for your sake I hope that the KPMG core services review does not have too many negatives in it. LOL

Ain’t that the truth, Prince George.

NCP gone, Rustads gone, Lakeland possibly gone.

I find it kinda funny when we spend all sorts of money on air care programs and the 3 possible biggest helps to the local air have nothing to do with the efforts of these programs.

Keep the propaganda coming.

We need to take the lessons and limitations learned from the Air Care program and see if some revisions might make it a valuable program in Prince George.”

I was in the lower mainland during the early years of aircare, what a farce, if you failed you only had to produce receipts for a certain amount to show you were trying and you got a pass. Certain “aircare certified” shops were selling receipts for 50 cents on the dollar.

I can see this being about as popular as Skakum’s proposed gas tax.

“The province is crediting companies like Canfor, which have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in equipment upgrades to reduce emissions and odour”

Exfrikkenscuse me!

Does the province forget exactly whose money Canfor used for these upgrades????

I think the “PROVINCE” owes the taxpayers of this country an apology.

Oh right, we are dealing with the BC Liberals aren’t we.

Pretty sad when our own govts steal our hard earned money and gives it to corporations to clean up their mess, then praises the corporations for doing such a fine job.

Whats wrong with this picture?

“There is no doubt the air quality is improving” says Robert, “But it is important that the improvements are consistent over time.”

I can only agree with this point of your comment, but I can’t help thinking that this is just a bunch of suit’s grappling for their own jobs for which I can understand.
If you plan on going after the average citizen whom does not own a 2 year old vehicle or better, then your going to have an awful fight on your hands.
Thank you Canfor for trying to improve your emission’s,but I can still smell ya and the pit of my stomach doesn’t lie and besides after 40yrs it was and is about time.
Our air quality has too many contributor’s to even base an argument that it is our vehicle’s. Point being, you’ve lost a big chunk of revenue from the lower mainland so Prince George is next on the list.
CASH COWING, end of!

The fact that in the past few years we have had a number of large industries close down is a significant factor in the reduction in pollution. Winton Global, Rustads, North Central Plywood, to name a few recent ones, and then of course we had another 5 or more in the last 10/15 years.

One of the biggest polluters are the City Transit buses, these diesel guzzlers run all day (mostly empty) and fill the air with pollutants. In addition we have school buses that run in the morning and afternoons spewing diesel.

If you ever want to take a drive around our local schools on a winters day (or summer) you will see hundreds and hundreds of cars parked willy nilly all around the schools waiting for kids to get out. All of them running their engines and polluting the hell out of the air.

Seems the AirCare people want to go after the everyday driver with an old car, because its the easy route to go.

The indication from the article is that there are a fair number of older cars in Prince George. This may be so, on the other hand, there may be no more than there is on a per capita basis anywhere in the Province. So lets get some facts, how many older cars in Prince George??? I doubt if Terry Robert could answer that question.

How much pollution are we now getting from using the Gas System at 2nd and George St., to run the Community Energy System. Do we have an increase in pollution because of the Lakeland Mills shutdown??

Dragon Master,

You are so right!

“Does the province forget exactly whose money Canfor used for these upgrades????”

I recall that it was a federal grant for emission reduction upgrades given to the Canadian pulp and paper industry to offset the phony diesel fuel/black liquor subsidy given by the US government to the US pulp and paper mills.

I am not sure if the province gave them money too. Of course, anything is possible but I don’t care where the money came from as long as it helps to make the air cleaner.

“Seems the AirCare people want to go after the everyday driver with an old car, because its the easy route to go.”

AirCare tests vehicles in order to make sure that they conform to the emission standards of the year of manufacture.

Older vehicles don’t have to meet the stricter standards of newer ones.

Owners of all vehicles including older vehicles have to make sure that they are well maintained and don’t spew excessive emissions into the air we breathe if proper maintenance can prevent that from happening.

It’s not unreasonable to ask vehicle owners to do their part since we expect industry to also conform to federal and provincial emission standards and regulations.

What’s the problem with that? We all breathe the same air!

The problem is that these cars when sold as new, supposedly meet the emmision standards of the day, then at a later date the rules are changed. The amount of pollution from older cars is neglible in comparison to other forms such as trucks, busses, dust, industry, natural gas, etc; etc;.

Re routing traffic from the Old Camerson St. bridge to the bypass for three years while the City went through their contortions to build the new bridge, resulted in millions of additonal litres of fuel being burnt, and created a huge pollution problem for the Carney and 5th Avenue area. This could have been avoided in part by the City allowing small vehicles to use the bridge, or if they had done the $750,000.00 repair job right away.

Seems self inflicted pollution by City decisions are acceptable.

“The problem is that these cars when sold as new, supposedly meet the emmision standards of the day, then at a later date the rules are changed.”

There is no problem. Engines run a lot cleaner now than they did let’s say a decade ago. Advances in engine design makes them more efficient, i.e. burning less fuel and burning it more cleanly all the time. There is still room for improvement and governments know it. Standards will be tightened even more.

Pick on the cars.
Not relevant to PG but ever notice the blue haze (VOC’s) spewing from the board plant in Smithers and the pellet plant near Dunkley lumber. Out of sight, out of mind for the MOE. When will these plants install a wet ESP and clean up their air pollution?

The railway in our fair city is exempt from any controls or suggestions we may have in encouraging them to address our concerns about Idling diesel locomotives.

They come under Federal legislation and we as a municipality or a province are completely ignored. The railway just do as they please. We dance in circles and beat on the drums to improve the air quality in the city and one of the major contributors to the bad air situation is untouchable. What a joke.

The CN yards need to move out of town. It is not all that expensive a proposition other than if they continue to build support infrastructure.

I understand from people close to CN that the yard is inadequate and there is not enough space to grow it in length.

Also, money has been provided in other communities in recent history to move yards to new locations.

THAT is waht needs to be worked on.

I understand Stolz has connection to the PMOC so he should be able to get this thing going.

While Canfor’s contibution to air improvement in PG is commendable, it is old news. This is another case of using poor, unreliable metrics (one site only Plaza 400)and outdated comparables (2005 PM emmission stats)to say air quality in PG has improved?

Before trying to sell the Air Care program for PG tell us what the immediate, short and long term potential air quality issues are from: CN’s increase in container traffic on 1st Ave and give us stats on potential air quality issues from cargo traffic planned for PG Airport Industrial Lands…and explain to us how air quality overall in PG will improve, and how this will be achieved and measured over time?

CN should not be exempt…they should be held accountable and contribute to improvemenst in air quality in PG. Isn’t that one of the main advocacy roles of PGAIR, don’t they have a CN rep at the table?