海角社区官网

Calls to speed up project approvals reflect real frustration with how slow, siloed and unco-ordinated current systems have become. But the answer isn鈥檛 to cut corners 鈥� it鈥檚 to plan smarter. If development rarely caused long-term harm, we might be able to afford to be more relaxed. But that鈥檚 not the reality.

Growing evidence of cumulative impacts, rising emissions, poorly remediated legacy sites, and an ever-expanding list of species at risk makes it clear that we can no longer afford fragmented decision making. Early strategic planning, such as the federal regional assessment planned for the area around the Ring of Fire, offers the best chance of reducing conflict, supporting Indigenous rights and self-governance, while delivering better outcomes for both people and ecosystems.

Rather than fast tracking a chaotic rush to extract resources, we should embrace to guide decisions in ecologically and culturally significant areas. Such assessments can set clear priorities, support Indigenous rights and self-governance and provide greater long-term certainty for all involved.

This is especially true for proposed developments like the Ring of Fire, which would deeply affect the way of life for numerous First Nations, require extensive road and infrastructure construction in a landscape defined as much by water as land, and disturb critical carbon-rich peatlands. Moving forward without a clear economic case 鈥� or a full understanding of the potential long-term environmental, social, and economic consequences 鈥� would be short-sighted at best. 听

Anticipating and addressing emerging threats has become essential in the face of accelerating environmental and economic pressures, especially given that we are already deep in a combined climate-biodiversity crisis. Proactively through carbon storage and biodiversity benefits 鈥� benefits we need to do a better job of recognizing as interest grows in draining and developing these landscapes for mineral and other resource extraction.

Fortunately, modern tools such as and can help us make this shift from reactive to proactive stewardship. These approaches, grounded in science and Indigenous knowledge, offer real promise for biodiversity and community well-being.

Leaders who promise to accelerate extraction while offering only minor mitigations are ignoring what decades of experience have shown us 鈥� that this model leads to ecological decline, from disappearing species to polluted waters and fragmented habitats. And that also spells decline for us.

We can no longer afford piecemeal policies that aim only to make harm slightly less severe. Ontario needs a clear and credible plan for meeting its global responsibilities, including reducing climate-damaging emissions and protecting carbon storage.

That means putting ecological integrity at the core of economic planning. It means partnering with Indigenous Peoples to shape development based on long-term value and community priorities. And it means protecting the ecosystems that define who we are and what we depend on, not simplistic rhetoric about 鈥渃utting red tape.鈥�

鈥� not only as a part of national identity, but as a foundation for health, economic resilience, and generational responsibility. This country holds 20 per cent of the world鈥檚 freshwater, one-quarter of its carbon-rich peatlands, vast boreal forests and the longest ocean coastline on Earth, including the rapidly changing Arctic. Ontario lies at the centre of this natural bounty, with globally important intact wild areas, large free flowing rivers and a fragile ocean coastline along James Bay.

Doubling down on status quo, ineffective approaches in response to a baffling American economic assault isn鈥檛 going to make Ontario stronger 鈥� it is going to make us weaker. The Ford government is promising 鈥渁 radically different approach to the way things have been done as (the government) moves forward with its ambitious plan to protect Ontario.鈥�

The question is, will this be a far-sighted approach that protects the province鈥檚 tremendous natural legacy, or will it be a fire sale of resources that leaves us all poorer in the long term?