To the Editor:

It is immensely encouraging to read about well-known, local spokespeople coming forward in response to the various crises looming in the future, whether they be seen as environmental or economic. Indeed there is an emerging consensus that the environment and the economy are inseparable.

Alex Steffen, author of a new study, “Changing World”, notes that just one year ago the environment was considered 'an issue'; now it is 'the issue' under which everything we do from now on must be ordered. Steffen goes on to describe how “Bright Green” can signal a prosperous future as well as one that creates a sustainable society and planet.

So it is heartening to know that Leo Deveau of Kings CED Agency is looking at the future of rail, (The Advertiser, July 24, 2007) and that the Eastern Kings Chamber of Commerce brought together key players like Dr. Kelvin Ogilvie and Environment and Labour Minister Mark Parent to talk about “Growing the green economy, N.S. Style” (The Register, July 26, 2007).

Transportation is a key component, and it’s difficult to imagine that rail won't figure large in the picture. Hopefully, Kings MLAs David Morse and Mark Parent will be given the support in Cabinet to ensure that a Transportation Task Force receives the resources it needs to move this important initiative forward.

If there's any hesitation, just keep in mind Dalhousie Professor Larry Hughes' study that shows a very bleak future for Nova Scotia if it does not vigorously embrace adoption of alternate energy paths, and quickly.

At the same time, the public needs to know enough about the choices offered to make wise decisions. The intense debate in the public domain about the future use of agricultural land in Greenwich is a good example The questionnaire now being widely circulated, which is put out under the authority of Kings County Planning Advisory Committee, discusses proposed changes to “land use policies and regulations”.

After reading it carefully, I fear that its basic request is for public approval of a rezoning of 400 acres of prime agricultural land, that could or would eventually end up being developed commercially, for huge profit.

This would not advance our proper goal of sustaining energy-efficient, local food production. Indeed, the food in the markets could come from anywhere if the land base is no longer there to supply them. By all means, let the markets grow and diversify and let the farmers be compensated properly for keeping their land in food production.

High grade agricultural soils are not just like 'any old piece of land', but demand our utmost protection from development for the long term. Let's not be dazzled by words like 'cluster housing' and 'commercial zones', which don't need to sit on Class 2 soils.

I think we need to figure out how to transfer good farmland, to make it available to young farmers who weren’t fortunate enough to inherit land back in the days when it was being given away. Europe has demonstrated very successful models for doing this.

Surely our goal is not only to grow current farm businesses, but to enlarge the pool of farmers able and willing to carry on farming in the future. I’ve learned that unprecedented numbers of young people are applying at our Agricultural Colleges and the face of farming is changing in that most of the 'start-ups' are organic or eco-agriculture.

As a matter of great urgency, we need to develop a vision of our common future – of a sustainable, prosperous, compassionate society. Once we have that, we'll figure out what to do and how to do it.

Sincerely

Peggy Hope-Simpson

Wolfville