Numerous Cities Contemplating Drive-thru Ban
Various Canadian cities – including North Vancouver, BC, Edmonton, AB, King’s County, NS, and Toronto, Peterborough, London, Ajax, Mississauga, and Sarnia, ON – are currently looking at banning, more strictly regulating, or studying the impacts of drive-thru restaurants.
As reported by CTV.ca on January 22, “A North Vancouver councillor wants to ban restaurants from building drive-thrus in his city because he’s worried about the environmental damages caused by idling vehicles. Councillor Sam Schechter introduced a motion Monday night to ban drive-thrus at restaurants. The motion would also prevent the only current restaurant in the City of North Vancouver with a drive-thru, an A&W, from expanding…In the U.S., two cities in California and one in North Carolina have imposed moratoriums on drive-thrus as a result of similar initiatives. City council has ordered an investigation into Schechter’s motion and has asked for a report in a few months.”
The Kitchener-Record also reported on January 22 that, “Kitchener could soon join a growing list of cities looking to ban, or regulate more closely, new drive-thru operations. City council is expected to consider the issue in early March, following the lead of cities that include London, Hamilton, Mississauga and Winnipeg.
In 2006, an air-quality report from the (Kitchener Environmental Advisory) committee called for a ban on drive-thrus and for an anti-idling campaign…The report was accepted by city councillors, who launched an anti-idling campaign last year…but city councillors took no action on drive-thrus.”
On January 25, the Edmonton Sun reported that, “Some green-minded civic politicians want Edmonton to consider closing the window on new restaurant drive-thrus and their idling vehicles. The belief is that would send fewer greenhouse gases into the atmosphere…(Councillor Don) Iveson said a ban on new drive-thrus could be considered in the Alberta capital as the city in the coming months reviews the way neighbourhoods are designed. He wants to see more pedestrian-friendly planning…Councillor Dave Thiele said a ban on drive-thrus may ultimately be what the city needs. He said he’s stopped using the lanes altogether in an effort to reduce his carbon footprint and because he finds the service inside to be quicker.”
And the Erie Times-News reported on February 10, “Toronto and Vancouver have instituted bans on building new drive-thru coffee shops and created strict regulations on building drive-thrus in residential, mixed commercial-residential areas and some pedestrian areas. Other cities, including Hamilton and North Vancouver, are considering similar regulations. Officials who are proponents of the bans say that bans of drive-thrus would improve air quality by reducing the number of idling cars.”
Toronto’s CityTV reported on December 17, 2007 that, “Two years ago, a Toronto bylaw came into effect prohibiting new drive-thrus within 100 feet of any residential property. But some councillors think it’s time to toughen up that law. ‘Many, many American municipalities have gone in the direction of just absolutely banning drive-thrus, and it’s time for the city of Toronto to consider the same,’ maintains Councillor Joe Mihevc.”
Business opposition
In terms of opposition to the proposed bans on drive-thrus, the Kitchener-Record reported that, “City councillors recently deferred any decision about a ban on new drive-thrus because they want to hear details of a study by Mike Lepage of RWDI, a Guelph-based consulting firm. The study concludes that cars idling in a drive-thru are less harmful than having the engines shut off for a few minutes and then restarted. The study cited the burst of particulates that is released when a cooling engine restarts. The study was paid for by Tim Hortons and is being peer-reviewed by scientists at Carleton University in Ottawa, said Victor Labreche, a private-sector planner representing Tim Hortons, who appeared before councillors recently.
The peer review won’t be ready until late February or early March. City councillors want to see the review before making any decision about a ban.” The North Shore News reported on January 23 that, “The drive-through option offers safety and convenience to many people, such as parents with small children, the physically challenged and the elderly, and a ban would produce questionable environmental benefits, he said. Parking lot only locations produce about 60 per cent more green house gases and 20 per cent more smog pollutants than drive-through services, Mark von Schellwitz (spokesman for the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association) said.”
Yet, as reported by the Canadian Press on December 8, 2007, “Students at the University of Alberta monitored a popular Tim Hortons outlet in Edmonton last year for 54 hours and counted 3,756 vehicles idling for an average of more than five minutes each. The longest idle was more than 12 minutes.” Additionally, the Edmonton Sun reported that, “A 2006 University of Alberta study found that vehicles idling in fast-food drive-thrus across Edmonton contribute about 8,600 tonnes of emissions per year into the atmosphere.” A study conducted by the Ontario Medical Association in 2005 estimated that there are 5,829 premature deaths and 16,807 hospital admissions due to air pollution each year.
The London chapter
The London chapter of the Council of Canadians has launched a petition which states, “Drive-throughs are an incredible detriment to our environment and are a luxury item we can live without. Climate Change is real. A grave threat to all life on this planet. It is time to place our environment and the health and well being of our children ahead of business interests and profits. I demand that all levels of government impose an immediate moratorium on all new commercial drive-through operations and establish a timetable to phase out all existing drive-through operations through zoning or other by-laws.” To sign the petition go to, http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ban-drive–throughs-in-canada.
The Council of Canadians has argued that the five principles of a Canadian Energy Strategy should include security of supply, production, distribution, access, and the environment. Within security of the environment we argue that, “Canadians are concerned about climate change?In spite of this, we are also a wasteful nation in terms of water and energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions?We need to push the government to enact policies that meet the expectations of Canadians by encouraging environmentally sustainable production, distribution and use of energy?”
And as municipal politicians consider the idea of addressing drive-thru restaurants, federal politicians may want to look again at the issue of federal cabinet ministers and their idling limousines on Parliament Hill. As reported by the CanWest News Service on February 5, 2007, “Federal cabinet ministers must insist their chauffeurs stop idling their limousines for hours at a time during long winter meetings on Parliament Hill, according to MPs who add that every measure counts when it comes to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions…(MP Yves) Godin wants the House affairs committee to resurrect a 1990 edict ordering ministers’ chauffeurs to stop idling their engines. RCMP officers were asked to enforce the rule, said Godin.”
Related news links
Tags: air-quality, culture, drive-thru, pollution
Mar 03, 2008
[...] A number of Canadian cities are looking at banning, regulating, or studying the environmental impacts of drive-thru restaurants, EcoSpace reports. [...]
Mar 06, 2008
I have a couple questions on your article; could you give me a call? I can be reached at (202) 721-6056, or over e-mail at jeff.hamilton@changetowin.org.
Mar 06, 2008
I really need to look at this project a little more, however it seems to me that banning children from driving to school instead of riding a group bus would provide a much healthier and cleaner atmosphere with less deadly emissions. Perhaps both of these items need attention.
Gwen Holt
Rescue, Va.
Mar 07, 2008
I’m stumped by this. Yes, every little helps, but banning drive thrus seems to be such a tiny gesture that the results would be inconsquential if the primary concern is engines idling. Isn’t this like a guy with a shaggy hairstyle needing a hair cut and someone cuts one millionth of an inch off one hair?
Don’t get me wrong, I usually applaud every effort to make a difference, but I’ve visted America and seen engines idling all over the place – outside stores, friend’s houses, in the street while the driver chats with someone. The worst instance by far was at many of your wonderful national parks – people go there to marvel at their splendour, then sit in their car with the engine on to power the air con, because god forbid they should feel a little warm, or worse still, they get out and walk about, leave no one in the car, but still leave it idling so it’ll be nice and cool when they waddle back to it.
Banning drive thrus will do little as far as I can see, especially if the ‘cold start’ study mentioned above is correct. I agree with the reader above – ban parents driving their kids so school, let them get the bus like I did. No, the answer is a mindshift, not piddling little ‘gestures’ like this one. Idling is a problem everywhere, not least on our congested roads. This is a solution to a problem that really doesn’t seem to be much of a problem.
Steve N Lee
author of eco-blog http://www.LionsledbySheep.com
and eco-suspense thriller ‘What if…?’
Mar 09, 2008
I have to disagree with the writer of the previous comment that banning drive-throughs is such a tiny gesture. Surely, now is the time to make this fundamental change in our society.
My local Tim Horton’s has cars regularly backup on the street with only a few waiting inside. If people are really that lazy then for the sake of our environment and their physical health then society has to make them waddle from the car to the Restaurant . Have they not heard of global warning.
Mar 10, 2008
It’s definately a step in the right direction, but it would be better if they converted all existing drive-thrus into walk-thrus, bike-thrus, skat-thrus, etc. Let’s discourage driving while encouraging the solution. Its time for people to get off their ass, out of their car, and into the world. Get out of the metal box, and into your natural environment.
Mar 10, 2008
It’s a decent initiative and one that, if passed, could have a domino effect on other common idling situations. You have to start somewhere, and breaking the convenience mentality will be a long and difficult process.
However, it would be much faster if municipalities actually implemented idling laws. If they had cops sitting at drive- throughs (and parks and shopping centers), handing out expensive tickets to people, the way they do when they’re on an impaired driving or seatbelt check, you can bet that people would change their behaviour. (Of course, the local politicians will also get a lot of angry taxpayers yelling at them; so would they implement such a plan?)
Good luck with it!
Mar 10, 2008
As a resident of London and having lived through what I consider to be more than my fair share of severe smog days. I am in full support of the proposed moratorium.
There are over 150 of these establishments in the city already and there seems to be no end.
Some would infere that this is a token gesture given the other examples of harm inflicted on the environment due to vehicular use. I am not of this belief and consider any unnessesary running of an internal combustion engine to be a senseless waste of a finite resource and should not be permitted. This is an opportunity to change a mindset, people do not need to and therefor should not be permitted to foul the air we all breathe with exaust fumes while waiting for a coffee or other goods or services.
It is not presently, nor will it ever be explainable why this should be happening. The only real use for the concept of the drive-thru is for those who are truly mobility impaired, and they should all be able to pull into an establishment, shut the engine off, make an order, and someone should deliver it to their vehicle.
I encourage everyone to support this cause, lets have London on the leading edge of a major environmental initiative.
Sign the petition, tell your friends.
Help clear the air, and the collective consience at the same time.
Thanks for the chance to comment.
Mar 10, 2008
[...] Story here. [...]
Mar 11, 2008
All of the problems mentioned above are important. Some seem more serious than others yes. But at the end of the day, we, as a society must accept & embrace the fact that every action, as insignificant as it seems, has a consequence. That being negative or positive. We nourish the earth or destroy it with each & every action. Actions that we as individuals are free to make. Some easier than others. Drive-thru issue is absolutely about changing behaviour. Can we agree that it models a sense of entitlement & apathy to our children who learn from and model our behavior? I have a friend who has lost her leg to leukemia and even she does not use a drive-thru as she places her child’s future above her own ‘wants’. In her case a ‘want’ actually being a ‘need’. She still chooses not to use them. 60% of our children now have asthma – Where is our moral obligation as adults who should protect all of our children to use drive-thrus for our ‘convenience’ knowing so many of our children cannot breathe. Why would I (and I do) purchase green power – only to sit on my ass at a drive-thru window? Are we planting trees so people can continue sitting in drive-thru lanes? Drive-thrus should be the very easiest thing a society would be prepared to give up in the face of climate change & intimately our own species demise. In our country – a win like this – where environment and health takes precedence over ‘economy’ would literally change the tides in municipalities cross Canada. I know I’m speaking to the converted – but we must recognize that every action counts.
See below for how ‘just one thing’ morphs into unimaginable, devastating consequences.
Running the Numbers
An American Self-Portrait
This series looks at contemporary American culture through the austere lens of statistics. Each image portrays a specific quantity of something: fifteen million sheets of office paper (five minutes of paper use); 106,000 aluminum cans (thirty seconds of can consumption) and so on. My hope is that images representing these quantities might have a different effect than the raw numbers alone, such as we find daily in articles and books. Statistics can feel abstract and anesthetizing, making it difficult to connect with and make meaning of 3.6 million SUV sales in one year, for example, or 2.3 million Americans in prison, or 410,000 paper cups used every fifteen minutes. This project visually examines these vast and bizarre measures of our society, in large intricately detailed prints assembled from thousands of smaller photographs. The underlying desire is to emphasize the role of the individual in a society that is increasingly enormous, incomprehensible, and overwhelming.
My only caveat about this series is that the prints must be seen in person to be experienced the way they are intended. As with any large artwork, their scale carries a vital part of their substance which is lost in these little web images. Hopefully the JPEGs displayed here might be enough to arouse your curiosity to attend an exhibition, or to arrange one if you are in a position to do so. The series is a work in progress, and new images will be posted as they are completed, so please stay tuned.
~chris jordan, Seattle, 2007
Plastic Cups, 2008
60×90″
Depicts one million plastic cups, the number used on airline flights in the US every six hours.
http://www.chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php?id=7 ? and many more unbelievable images can be found at this link ?
Apr 06, 2008
Well, all of teh ideas above are very good, but drive thrus are causing cars to idle…which is causing our enviroment pollution..which is eventually going to lead to Earth comming to an end. If we don’t take a stand now, memembers of our future familys will have to suffer, because of our generation’s actions. Don’t close the drive thrus that are already built…but STOP bulding them, its not healthy for our enviroment or us .
-Brittany(13 years old)
May 01, 2008
It makes complete sense to ban drive-thrus. And to stop the ones that are open now.
I work at a Tim Horton’s in the GTA area, and you would not believe how many cars pull in, and how long they will wait, when they could just park, and go inside.
Of course people are going to say, what about those who can not get out the car?
They’ll come with something for it. Like how they came up with ramps, and parking spaces.
But a few complications like that can be looked over so we can help our enviornment.
People go through these things for a single timbit, or donut. It get’s ridiculous how lazy our society is. Perhaps if people have to get out of their car, then there will be a sudden weight loss. We all know how determined people are to make people quit smoking, and lose weight.
May 29, 2008
i think you should shut down drivethrus
May 29, 2008
I totally agree with banning drive-thru restaurant because your polluting the environment. Do you evenb realize the effects in three years.
Jun 15, 2008
I’m all for helping the enviroment, but truthfully banning drive-thu’s is only a bandage for the bigger problems. These people that have built these restaurants,even though they may have built it a year ago, come on really.They have put hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money into them, most probably have significant loans, and now some people want to straight up get rid of all drive-thu’s ,. If that’s the case and everyone is so serious about this ban, than lets ban air conditioning in everyone’s home, flights less than one hour , driving to the grocery store, etc. What I’m trying to say is where does this end. Instead of banning them I say let individuals decide if they want to use drive-thru’s. If enough people stop using them than it will not be economical to keep them. A Win – Win situation I say.
Jun 17, 2008
Banning drive-thrus? To me this is not facing the root problem at all, it is hardly even addressing the symptoms of the root of our problems. A much larger step in addressing the problem of pollution would be to ban the entire drive-thru restaurant. Sound radical? It sounds much more practical if you really wish to address problems of air pollution – land and water pollution for that matter as well. Think about the process that it takes to make just a single burger and order of fries. Where do these materials come from…I’m sure they are not local. Much oil was used in the growth of these foods, including the running of the factory farms that grew the cow that was butchered for the burger. Those farms pollute incredible amounts of toxins into the air, land, and watersheds. How about those potatoes? Plenty of pesticides were used on this monocrop, it is harvested by vehicles that run on gasoline and then shipped by more vehicles to distributions, industries that further pollute, placing the fries in sealed plastic bags (also made from oil) and then sending the fries off in more vehicles (which probably idle on the highway in heavy traffic) to your favorite McyD’s. The wheat from your bun went through the same process. All of the food did, and it was all shipped from different parts of the U.S. (or further, Mexico…) , traveling hundreds or thousands of miles for you to have a fast meal. Further, the paper container was most likely harvested from forests in completely unsustainable ways, from forests in South America…what a long way to go to be coated with petroleum based plastics by a distribution factory, then sent to the drive-thru restaurant, to be served to a costumer who will quickly just throw it away without thinking twice about where it came from or where it will be going next – the landfill , one of the most concentrated polluted man-made areas on the planet, of which huge trucks drive to to unload our garbage.
That is just a tiny piece of the bigger symptom of the pollution problem. The root of our problem lies in our culture. The idea that we need or deserve drive-thrus is absurd. There convenience is causing more problems then a little bit of fumes that are let out by idling cars. One solution to this problem would be to return to a locally based sustainable food system if we are to have any impact the problem of pollution, be it air, water or land pollution. It is time to wake up to a much bigger picture. In this case, the banning of drive-thrus, working on the “little things” are not a good enough solution if we are serious about ending the further damaging our home, our Earth.
Jun 24, 2008
Seeing the Big Picture on Drive-Thrus and the Need to Start Somewhere
In the increasingly heated debate over whether or not the city of London should establish a moratorium on new drive-thrus, an advocate for the moratorium was recently told by a vocal opponent (a city counselor) that they had lost sight of the ‘bigger picture’ of jobs and economic growth. Advocates for the moratorium have also been criticized by some activists who suggest that prohibiting future drive-thrus is a marginal issue amidst so many other ‘bigger’ problems.
Conversely, the intensive public relations campaign led by Tim Horton’s has sought to narrow the discussion of the issue down to a claim – based on the report of a paid consultant – that drive-thrus are environmentally benign when compared with crowded parking lots. This spin is reminiscent of efforts by big oil companies to pay for scientific studies which, for more than a decade, helped to justify inaction on climate change.
And in classic ‘greenwashing’ style, this has been coupled with an appeal to people’s sense of entitlement. For instance, one radio ad evoked an image of a mother driving around with four children during a blizzard and therefore needs a drive-thru, with the implication that it is outrageous to suggest that people might be deprived of their right to fast food without leaving their cars. Another tactic of the drive-thru lobby has been to fear-monger that all drive-thrus could be closed, though this is not what is before Council. To this end Tim Horton’s packed the chambers for the June 17 Council discussion by paying employees for their attendance.
For many reasons then, some ‘big picture’ context for this debate is sorely needed.
We – and here I’m grouping Canadians along with the US, as the consumption levels are similar – represent less than 5 percent of humanity that consumes over one-quarter of the world’s oil, and contributes to more than one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, of which carbon is the most significant.
According to the most recent Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme, Canada’s per capita carbon footprint is more than twice that of the average European, roughly five times greater than the world average, and more than 20 times that of many developing countries.
And this average world carbon footprint is already vastly too high, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC last year described the “warming of the climate system” as scientifically being “unequivocal,” based on evidence “from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.” The report called for swift and dramatic emission reductions if the planet is to avert the most dangerous fallout.
If we place the average carbon footprint of Canadians in the context of the IPCC’s sustainable emissions targets, we need to make per capita emissions cuts on the order of 90 percent. A converse way of putting this is that if the rest of the world emitted at Canadian levels, we would need roughly nine more atmospheres!
Cars are a large part of this. In 2003, Canada had 561 passenger cars for every 1000 citizens, one of the highest levels in the world, along with very high levels of per capita mileage driven and oil consumed. In contrast, many low income developing countries have 20 passenger cars or less for every 1000 citizens.
The inequality of this picture does not end with uneven consumption. The IPCC has long drawn attention to the fact that there is a highly uneven vulnerability associated with climatic change, as many of the world’s poorest nations (and particularly the poorest people within them) will be most adversely affected by rising climatic variability, higher temperatures, and increasing risk of drought and water stress, with obvious impacts on food security and malnutrition. Sub-Saharan Africa faces some of the greatest risks, the immediacy of which cannot be overstated; the IPCC projects that “yields from rain-fed agriculture [which represents much of African agriculture] could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.”
It is urgent that Canadians face up to our grossly outsized and destructive carbon footprint. Obviously, placing a moratorium on new drive-thrus in London is not, in itself, going to do this. It is a small part of many large changes that are needed in how our economy functions and how our cities are planned. But these changes need to start somewhere.
London already has 160 drive-thrus. Whether in blissful ignorance or conscious disregard, to continue to act like we are simply entitled to more – and by implication more urban sprawl, more cars, more oil, and more greenhouse emissions – constitutes a planetary arrogance of frightening proportions.
And let us be clear that this has nothing to do with jobs. Corporate fast-food chains do not create any more jobs than do independent, community-centered cafes and restaurants closer to people’s home and workplaces. Rather, they represent an approach to urban planning that is centered on oil and the primacy of the automobile.
The City of London has the opportunity to take a very important first step in overcoming this outmoded approach, and beginning to envision the future of our cities in a way that is denser, less resource intensive, and ultimately more in step with our responsibilities as global citizens.
In this, we could be very proud to see our elected councilors give London a leadership role on a Canadian scale.
Thank you to author of article: Tony Weis: Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario. Tony is also author of: The Global Economy: The Battle for the Future of Farming
Jun 24, 2008
Wow, Cory that is quite the essay you wrote. First off I would just like to know when I’m going to get paid for attending that council meeting, because I’m an employee of Tim Hortons and no one told me I would get paid for being there. First off get your facts straight, secondly where do you ge off saying that RWDI Consulting was paid off, do you have proof of this? Who are you kidding ,RWDI has been doing these studies for the last 36 years and your telling us they would just lie about their results. Finally you state all of these stats and facts about the enviroment, but do you have any documentaton to back up these claims or are you just pulling them out of thin air?
Jun 25, 2008
[...] have recently moved to ban the drive-through coffee shop or stand-alone fast food restaurant (Numerous cities contemplating drive-thru ban | EcoSpace.cc). “Bans haven’t gotten as far in the U.S., although I know San Luis Obispo, Calif., has one,” he [...]
Jun 25, 2008
2 Points… If I have an ant infestation problem in my house I do NOT step on a few on my sidewalk by my mailbox in order to correct that problem. 2nd point: What if….. My perceived ant infestation problem is just a manifestated idea running around in my head which really doesn’t exist at all??? Answer: The solution is irrelevant as the proposer of the problem.
I insist that the ideas of the global warming alarmist crowd create an atmosphere wherby certain individuals like to create ridiculous solutions to problems which aren’t even occuring in order to get their 15 minutes of fame. Much to many a person’s chagrin – the science is still out on the subject of global warming so creating solutions to potentially non-existant problems should raise red flags for everyone!! Unless, you’re a non-thinking, card-carrying kool-aid drinker.
Jun 25, 2008
In regards to Rick’s comments I would like to say whether or not global warming is happening, we should still be examining our life styles in the Western world. The “resources” that the Earth holds are limited. Who are we to take as much of anything we want, whenever we want? Our way of life have ruined a majority of self-sustaining indigenous peoples lives, without apology or second thought. The ways in which we extract the resources that are being used, like how we extract oil and industrial forestry, have turned ancient cultures around the globe into present day history. If the thought of global warming is unrealistic to you, how about the undeniable truth in the destruction of indigenous ways? Would ruining peoples lives by behaving the way that you do, make you rethink the way that you live? Some people are beginning to feel that they are hurting their home, the Earth, by the way that they live, and there are scientific findings that back them up. To say that these people are looking for 15 minutes of fame because they wish to change there ways and are sharing with others how they are changing there ways is an overly aggressive, non-understanding, irrational thing to say. I don’t particularly agree with the tactics that this specific article is about, but I understand the tactics and would not call these people or myself “non-thinkers” like you did. They are not only thinkers, they are people who care about humanity and the Earth. I believe it is your attack that raises red flags.
Jun 25, 2008
Forget Carbon Dioxide levels !!! Trees and PLants need it to live. Reduce Carbon Dioxide and see what happens to your lovely rain forest and the big old redwoods !
The Oceans absorb and release carbon dioxide and act as a regulator. CO2 is a small, small percentage of the atmosphere.
Go worry about your taxes. That’s a real problem.
Jun 25, 2008
Angela and Cory
Both of you sound like a recording from Green Peace or some other such group. Where do you get your “facts” from. Why don’t you do some research instead of spouting out the same diatribe and phrases like “carbon footprint”. You sound like that lying fat Al Gore.
You better worry about freezing your asses off. Check the lack of sunspots and what that means.
Why is “global warming” bad? Says who? Greenland was warm enough to farm once and with an increased World population, that might be good.
Jun 25, 2008
Angela,
The problem with this type of group-think is exactly what you stated: “Some people are beginning to feel that they are hurting their home, the Earth, by the way that they live”. You’re right. What they are doing is “feeling” and not thinking. When you “feel” many people make irrational and illogical choices which in the long term usually prove to be either fruitless or useless.
Also, all resources are not “limited” as you mentioned. There are many renewable ones such as trees and forests, or you have recyclable energy as well such as nuclear power. Alternative fuels and forms of energy should be utilized to the degree that they can, but right now they are impractical forms of energy to keep our nation and indeed our world economically sound and secure. Oil drives the world’s economic engines and will for a long time. That is an inescapable fact and to deny that is like the ostrich with the head in the sand. If other developing nations such as China and India are using incredible amounts of oil to develop themselves why is it that the United States needs to commit national suicide by dis-allowing our own production of oil? Especially when the current PPS of oil is $135-$140 / barrel….
To be honest I’m not even sure (because you didn’t specifically mention) what indiginous peoples you are refering to as far as WHOM we’ve purportedly “destroyed”. Suffice it to say that I think everyone agrees that exploitation of people is not in anyone’s interest or goal.
If you don’t think that people are getting their 15 minutes of fame in all this “green” hype then I ask you what Mr. Gore is doing with his profits from his private equity firm GIM? http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/03/al-gore-getting-rich-spreading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help
His net worth has escalated to $100 million bucks from promoting his hype and socialist agenda. That means higher taxes for you and for me (in other words, money flushed down the gov’t toilet along with the loss of many liberties such as being allowed to drive to a drive-through window to pick up fast food if you so choose!).
Finally, you certainly won’t shut me up by claiming I’m making some kind of attack in my posting here. I’ve been relentlessly attacked day in and day out by the likes of you who loftily and arrogantly believe that you know so much more than the rest of us and what is better off for our well being. I’m sorry, but your type of Sierra Club mentality is not the final purveyor of truth in this world.
Jun 29, 2008
[...] A former newspaper reporter in Atlanta now working as a researcher at the UW-Madison’s Center on Wisconsin Strategy, Sundquist notes that several cities in Canada have recently moved to ban the drive-through coffee shop or stand-alone fast food restaurant (www.ecospace.cc/culture/drive-thru-ban.htm). [...]
Jul 02, 2008
[...] be developed in an already heavily-congested area of town. Several cities in Canada have recently moved to ban drive-thrus for coffee shops and stand alone fast food restaurants, and other cities in California like San [...]
Jul 21, 2008
There are a couple of blog posts here about the drive-thru debate in London, Ontario -
This post is a response to pro- drive-thru propaganda -
http://tobanblack.net/blog/?p=251
And this post is about a forum event that took place last Tuesday -
http://tobanblack.net/blog/?p=250
Nov 12, 2008
Wow…now I remember why I left Canada!!!! Talk about over reaction and heightened stupidity.
What next? We ban restaurants because it is far more efficient to eat at home? No sense wasting that gas, and exposing carbon to the atmosphere just for a bucket of chicken!!!
Anyone thought of the effect of circling around in the parking lot looking for a space?
Boy you people are going to be frantic once this global warming fraud falls flat as scientist are now predicting due to solar activity going into a quiet period for the next 200 years.
OK – time to hit the drive through for a coffee, and do my banking!
Dec 26, 2008
Banning Drive thu Restaurants while well intentioned, may have some uninitended consequences such as: increasing parking space requirements, which increases urban sprawl and the additional fossil fuels required to travel longer distances. It has been estimated that parking requirements all %30 to the area of most cities.
With the newer hybrid electric cars, which idle in electric mode, there is much less pollution caused by stopped idling cars. In a few years when most cars are either electric or hybrid electric, if more stores moved to the the dive thru model there would be less need to privide parking spaces thereby reducing urban sprawl.
For myself I prefer to walk or cycle rather than take a car, and so I do not see the attraction of being confined in a car in a drivethru; which I view as a form of wheelchair which people now seem to need to get around.
Dec 26, 2008
The banning of Drive Thu restaurants will have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of parking spaces. Parking spaces add about %30 to the area of a City, increasing drive time and air pollution and fossil fuel consumption. In a few years hybrid electric cars will emit few emmissions while idling, so Drive thru businesses will actually reduce pollution.
For those who really love to drive their the Drive Thu house, where the car doubles as a an additional bedroom might have some appeal.