Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Crystal Ball Gazing: How Sudbury Gets a New Kingsway Event Centre - Not on Merit, but on a Technicality

Here’s why we’ll have a new Event Centre on the Kingsway after tonight’s Council meeting.  For the most part, I believe that the decision will be decided not on the merits of either the Kingsway or the downtown proposals, or even Council’s perception of support.  Instead, the decision will be made based on a technicality – due to the way in which the motions will be brought forward.

Tonight’s agenda indicates that Council will be voting on a number of motions.  It’s the first, the determination of the site, which is problematic – rather than splitting the downtown and the Kingsway proposals into two separate motions (likely because that would create the possibility for Council to endorse both sites – something that I suspect no one actually wants), the resolution prepared has two options – #1 for the Downtown, and #2  for the Kingsway.

But it’s not an either/or proposition – and I’m sure that Councillor Vagnini, who has expressed a desire recently to not support either location, will request that the vote be split – unless it’s already staff’s intention to proceed voting for the options one at a time, almost as if they were separate motions.   Either way, it is doubtful that Council will be voting on the downtown OR the Kingsway in a single vote.

Given that Option #1 is the first (the downtown) on the agenda, likely it will go to a vote first of all.  If it is approved by a majority of Council members, the downtown is a done deal, and Council will not vote on the Kingsway.  If the downtown approval fails, Council will then vote on the Kingsway.
And if the downtown option fails, you can bet that the majority of Councillors – even those who voted in favour of the downtown – will vote in favour of the Kingsway.  The last thing this Council wants is to end up not approving any location.

So ultimately I believe that we may end up with a new events centre on the Kingsway not because a majority of Council members think it is a better location than the downtown, but because of the order in which the vote takes place.  I strongly suspect that if Option #2 (the Kingsway) were to be presented first and go down in defeat, a majority of Council members will rally behind a downtown location (although I suspect that Kirwan and Reynolds would vote with Vagnini in that circumstance to defeat a downtown option).

Of course, if the downtown really does have enough Council member support to carry the day, it will carry the day.  I'm just not sure it does.

Here’s how I think tonight's voting will play out on the site selection Agenda item.

In favour: 6

Opposed: 7

The next motion will be to approve an events centre on the Kingsway.  It will succeed by a wide margin.  Here is how I anticipate Council members will vote:

In favour:

Opposed :


(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

Friday, June 23, 2017

An Open Letter to My Ward Councillor, Fern Cormier, Regarding the Events Centre

I am writing to you today to express my thoughts on the matter of a new events centre for our community, which I understand Council will be discussing at its upcoming meeting on June 27, 2017.  I am writing to you today as a resident of Ward 10 (and in no other capacity).  I am copying your Council colleagues this email for their information.

I have been following this matter since the November 27, 2015 Large Projects Public Input and Information Session (see: “Big ideas and big projects get public airing,” sudbury.com, November 26, 2015), and I have been engaged in discussions taking place throughout the community – and especially on social media sites.  I highlighted some of the issues which I felt our local decision-makers should consider when looking at locations for a new events centre in a column that I wrote for the Sudbury Star, (“Sudbury centre would attract creative class,” the Sudbury Star, March 11, 2017), including the need for a community facility to act as a catalyst for supporting the individuals who will be taking up the jobs that our City needs to attract to prosper and thrive in the future.

While my preference for an events centre would be to repurpose the existing Sudbury Community Arena, I understand that option is not presently on the table, and I acknowledge that Council has expressed its intention to pursue the construction of a new events centre.  With that in mind, I’ll focus these comments on one of the decision’s that Council may be making on June 27th – on the location of a new events centre.  However, I feel the need to express my dismay that the decision facing Council next week will not be one informed by a public consultation a process – a very obvious and troubling omission for those who have wanted to engage in a discussion about the location of an events centre – or whether a new events centre should be pursued at all.

I have read both the report to Council of February 22, 2017, which included the February 21, 2017 “Proposed Sports and EntertainmentCentre Feasibility and Business Case Assessment” from PWC (PricewaterhouseCoopers), and the more recent report to Council dated June 15, 2017, which includes the “GreaterSudbury Event Centre Site Evaluation” report from PWC. I am also familiar with many of the City’s strategic documents, including the Official Plan (2006), the Downtown Master Plan (2012) and the City of Greater Sudbury Community Development Corporation’s community economic development strategic plan, “Fromthe Ground Up, 2015-2025” (2015) and the Downtown Community Improvement Plan.

All of these documents benefited from significant levels of public consultation, citizen engagement and city-led stakeholder discussions prior to their adoption by Council. All of these documents articulate a clear vision for the City’s downtown – a unique location in the community described as being “the vibrant hub of a dynamic city” (Official Plan, page 34) and which “plays a key role in defining the City’s image and quality of place, perceptions that are essential to the success of a number of City initiatives” fulfilling “its important function as a local and regional centre of government services, business, retail, sport and entertainment uses, arts and culture, and community and institutional uses” that “services a large catchment area that extends beyond Greater Sudbury.” (Downtown Community Improvement Plan, page 1).

The provision of cultural amenities, including institutional uses, in the City’s downtown has been an on-going feature of planning efforts in our City for at least the past decade.   An events centre has been in the downtown is championed by many of these strategic documents.  The Downtown Master Plan contemplates the retention of the Sudbury Community Arena (in an up-graded form) due to its function as a catalyst for new business and economic development, along with other community amenities, including a four-star hotel and conference centre.   Our economic development strategy builds on the Downtown Master Plan, calling for a new multipurpose facility for arts, culture and sport in the form of a new community arena in the “Heart District” (downtown), and specifically in recommendation 7.1.1 , it calls for the development of a new “arena/sports complex” in the downtown core.

Clearly, the retention of a community facility (a community arena / events centre / multi-purpose facility) in our downtown forms a keystone of the strategies which have been endorsed by Council and citizens to promote economic development, well-being and livability in our City.
On Tuesday evening, our elected officials will be facing a choice – one it arguably should have never been put in a position to have to make.  You will be asked to choose between the vision that the City has been working on developing for over 10 years, or to reject that vision and adopt in its place an alternative vision that has never received the benefit of public input and consultation – one that is fraught with risk and uncertainty, centred on lands that have never been evaluated for the types of uses included in this vision.

In contrast to the option of putting a new community events centre in the downtown, the proposal coming forward from a local developer is very problematic. The vision is grandiose – quite different from what Council directed staff to prepare a report on.  Yes, the developer’s vision includes a new community events centre – but it is far more than that.  The developer’s intention is to use the events centre as a lynchpin for future development, including (that we know of ) a casino, hotels, a motorsports park and (possibly) a water park.   

Not one of these uses has ever gone through an evaluation of any sort for appropriateness on the developer’s lands, save for the recent site selection report from PWC which looked only at whether the lands might be able to support an events centre.  And the findings of that report raise doubts, as it indicates the lands are not currently zoned for the use proposed (unlike the downtown).

While it is often thought that rezoning lands is a fairly straight-forward regulatory matter, that won’t be the case with these lands.  The PWC report highlights a number of constraints, including the proximity of a municipal landfill site and its potential impacts on proposed sensitive uses; the costs of site preparation for the uses proposed; and the acquisition of Crown Lands – an issue which is out of control of either the City or the development proponent.

And there are other constraints.  The Greater Sudbury Source Protection Plan highlights issues with salt contamination in one of our City’s primary drinking water sources, Ramsey Lake.  Salt contamination occurs from the spreading of winter road salt on streets and in parking lots, where it merges with groundwater and eventually ends up in streams and lakes.  Lands owned by the Kingsway developer and proposed for an events centre are located in the Ramsey Lake watershed.  His development proposal requires the construction of a massive new surface parking facility of approximately 1,200 spots (and that’s just for the events centre – other proposed uses will have additional surface parking requirements).  In contrast, the downtown option is not anticipated to generate the need for any new parking spaces – and even if new surface parking were to be contemplated, our downtown is not located in the Ramsey Lake watershed.

We also know that the developer’s lands on the Kingsway may contain habitat of species at risk.  In a report to Planning Committee for the rezoning of these lands in 2014, the City identified species at risk as an outstanding red flag that required further evaluation.   It is not clear that any action has been taken to address this matter, even though it was flagged by the City in 2014.

The clustering of sports and entertainment uses at the Kingsway location may ultimately require Council to re-evaluate its priorities for road maintenance and upgrades, given the considerable vehicular traffic that is likely to be generated by these uses.  Unlike the downtown, where options exist for alternative transportation and transit, the Kingsway will be largely accessed by personal vehicles, along a single road.  Existing road priorities, such as widening MR 35, may need to be delayed or canceled in favour of needed work to make this area of the Kingsway accessible to traffic.  The good news, however, might be that dubious road projects like MR 35 widening may be reassessed by the City, given that there will be a shift in jobs and entertainment facilities from Azilda/Chelmsford to the Kingsway corridor, particularly if the casino were to co-locate on the Kingsway property.  At a time of population and economic stagnation, road projects like MR 35 are difficult to justify anyway.

There is also the matter of the appropriateness of lands set aside for industrial uses in the City’s Official Plan for the uses proposed – most of which, including a casino and a community events centre - do not appear to be in keeping with industrial area policies.  With specific regard to the community events centre, institutional uses and other community facilities do not appear to be contemplated in industrial areas.  To rezone these lands for a community events centre facility will be to ignore the policy direction of the Official Plan as it pertains to industrial uses – along with the other policy sections of the Plan that relate to the Downtown (Section 4.2.1 ) and Healthy Community (Section 16) policies, which promote the clustering of community facilities in walkable areas of the City.  In his desire to see a community events centre built on his Kingsway lands, the developer is asking Council to turn its back on our Official Plan – our guide for developing a strong future for all Greater Sudburians.  While PWC’s site assessment report indicates that the rezoning of this property may take as much as a year, given the significant and relevant policy issues and technical challenges that the uses proposed for this industrial property face, I suggest that zoning may take longer than a year to complete – and ultimately, changing the zoning on these lands to permit those uses may never come about.

Further, the ultimate costs of the developer’s vision have not been assessed.  While I understand that there are some numbers floating around with regards to how much the City might accrue through new taxation should all components of the developer’s vision come to fruition, I caution that those numbers appear to be dubious at best, and certainly nothing that I’ve seen takes into consideration the anticipated costs  of development in this location.  Basing a decision on anticipated benefits alone just isn’t sustainable – and anyone promoting even a back-of-the-envelope fiscal analysis that fails to consider both anticipated benefits and anticipated costs is doing our community an injustice.

I understand that the City is currently working on a report that will assess the costs of development in various parts of the municipality. Moving ahead with a massive new development proposal on the Kingsway at this time is incredibly premature, given this outstanding report which at least may provide some additional guidance regarding municipal cost expectations for development in this location.

And these are just the issues that are known. There are likely to be others which will only become apparent once necessary technical studies and evaluations of the site for the appropriateness of the proposed uses are made.  What is astounding is that no action to address any of the known issues by the developer appears to have occurred since his location was pitched to Council back in 2015.  There does not appear to have been any zoning by-law amendment application made.  Nor do the issues pertaining to traffic, species at risk and costs/benefits appear to have been addressed, at least based on information available to the public.  That these known issues have remained dormant and unaddressed by a developer who has insisted that he is sincere about his desire to develop is, frankly, difficult to understand.

For all of these reasons, Councillor Cormier, I ask that you consider that the best location for a community events centre is in our City’s downtown.   A downtown location is consistent with the city-building vision articulated for more than a decade in our strategic planning documents.  It’s a vision that has received significant public buy-in.  And it’s based on what subject matter experts have long insisted – that a strong, vibrant downtown core acts as the economic engine of our City.  Let’s keep that engine well-stoked, going forward.  At a time when our population is not expected to increase by very many people, the choices that are made now will resonate down through the decades.  Choices must be sustainable – fiscally, socially and environmentally. 

That’s why the downtown is the only viable option for an events centre.  The risks associated with selecting the other sites are just too great.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Motorsports in a Time of Climate Crisis: Sustainability Must Be Our Focus

It's 2017. Are we finally going to start taking the climate crisis seriously? Are we prepared to do more than just treat terms like “sustainability” and “low carbon economy” as meaningless buzz-words?  Are we finally going to acknowledge that we ought to be planning for the future that the market economy is already making a reality – a future based on clean, renewable energy - not fossil fuels?

I'm extremely troubled by a recent announcement here in my community.  At a time that we should be doing what we can to bury the internal combustion engine, a group of people here in my home town have decided to embrace recklessly emitting greenhouse gases for no other purpose than entertainment.  Yes, I'm talking about the recently announced Sudbury Motosports Park, which is intended to be built on my City's urban fringe as part of a massive, car-centred development initiative spear-headed by private developer, Dario Zulich (see: "Plan for True North motorsports park revealed," the Sudbury Star, June 5, 2017).

Look, I understand that vehicles powered by internal combustion engines remain a significant part of every day life for many in my community - and indeed, throughout the world.  After trying - and failing - to go car- free with my family this past winter, we were forced to acknowledge just how much we rely on our vehicle for getting around our City.  I get it. And I know that despite the switch that is on towards electric vehicles, it's going to take some time before the majority of vehicles on our roads are powered by anything other than greenhouse gas emitting petroleum and diesel fuels.

But I also know that the transportation sector is Ontario's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, representing 35% of total provincial emissions (see: "Ontario's 5 Year Climate Change Action Plan," Government of Ontario - page 6).  And emissions in this sector are growing, thanks to population growth mainly in the southern part of the province, coupled with a severe lack of alternatives for people to get around.

The good news is that things are starting to change – the province appears to be committed to building the infrastructure we need in place to make the switch to electric vehicles.  Of course, I've been critical of our provincial Liberal government and Minister of Environment and Climate Change Glen Murray in particular, over the general lack of ambition contained in their Climate Change Action Plan (see: "Sudbury column: Climate change plan lacks ambition," the Sudbury Star, July 2, 2016).  Yet, credit where it's due – the government recognizes the issues with greenhouse gas growth from the transport sector and is taking action.

A recently released study from Stanford University economist Tony Seba predicts the imminent demise of the internal combustion engine within the next 8 years (see: "Stanford study says fossil-fueled cars will vanish in 8 years as ‘big oil’ collapses," Inhabitat, May 17, 2017).  I think that's an incredibly ambitious timeframe, but without a doubt, market forces that are making renewable energy cheaper, coupled with carbon pricing that is finally addressing the externalities of climate changing pollution, make the demise of fossil fueled vehicles inevitable. The writing is on the wall for internal combustion engines, and some nations are already looking ahead and doing what they can to hasten its demise (see: "Germany votes to ban internal combustion engine cars by 2030," Extremetech, October 10, 2016).

With all of this in mind, it is baffling to me why anyone would be proposing to establish a new  entertainment use that celebrates and glorifies the internal combustion engine – a sunset technology, and one responsible for so much of the harm caused to our atmosphere.  Yes, let's continue to use our personal vehicles wisely, as tools to get us from Point A to Point B until better alternatives become available. But the days of using fossil fuels for entertainment must come to an end, as U.K. environmental journalist George Monbiot suggested over 10 years ago (see: "How sport is killing the planet," the Guardian, October 29, 2006).  Real change has to come - and it starts with like-minded community members standing up for the planet and proclaiming that sustainability must be at the heart of our decisions.

And a motorsports park just isn't sustainable.  In 2017, it can't be justified.

Keep that in mind, because the group behind this carbon behemoth wants you to believe that their proposal will create jobs and lead to economic development.  And they may be right.  Of course, the tobacco industry also creates jobs.  As do those companies that build weapons of mass destruction.  Yes, I understand that comparing a motorsports park to the nuclear weapons industry and Big Tobacco is more than a little over-the-top.  But I'm being deliberately provocative to make a point: There are lots of ways of making money and creating jobs, but not all are moral. At this time of climate crisis, promoting jobs and economic development initiatives that will exacerbate the crisis is not a moral response.  Let me repeat that.  No moral economic development strategy can continue to rely on the use of fossil fuels for the exclusive purpose of entertainment.

Yes, I understand that the focus of this post here has been a new motosports park in my community, rather than railing against the Toronto Indy or Montreal Grand Prix – events which probably have far larger carbon footprints than will ever be achieved by motosports in Greater Sudbury.  Of course those other events have been around for a while – and yes, they ought to be phased out, unless racing organizations embrace the shift to electrical power vehicles ahead of the curve (and in fairness, there is some evidence that the industry is getting the message - see: "Wanted: Climate Scientists Who Can Save the Future of Racing," Jack Baruth, Road And Track, February 9, 2016).  The Indy and Grand Prix are problematic, that's for sure.  But their existence should not be an argument against standing up for establishing a new and needless greenhouse gas emitting entertainment venue in Greater Sudbury.

It's not even clear that a new motosports facility here would be a net fiscal boon for the City and us taxpayers.  When the City tried to justify the Maley Drive Extension, it did an admittedly poor cost benefit analysis that looked at the proposed benefit of saving greenhouse gas emissions, using an $88.5 per tonne price on carbon (see: "Some Initial Observations on the New Cost / Benefit Analysis for the Maley Drive Extension," SudburySteve.ca, November 3, 2015).  If a similar cost/benefit analysis were prepared based on projected greenhouse gas emissions from the motosports facility, how much will the public be on the hook for when it comes to the social costs of carbon pollution?  Keep in mind that carbon pollution represents a real cost to taxpayers through higher health-related costs, higher insurance premiums and climate change adaptation costs.  These costs aren't make-believe. Business and industry are already building these costs into their corporate investment strategies (see: "The true cost of carbon pollution," Environmental Defense Fund).

These motorsports folks have been trying to move their initiative forward for some time now.  I would have expected to be reading about the work that they've done to justify their new entertainment facility, and to reassure the public that greenhouse gas emissions will be minimized and paid for by the organization or facility users, and how those costs underpin their financial plan. That's the kind of analysis that the public expects nowadays – especially from a high-carbon enterprise.  And especially especially from one which is relying on the use of fossil fuels strictly for the purpose of entertainment. But there's nothing like this posted on their website.

Of course, the City of Greater Sudbury needs to undertake it's due diligence as well. How will this carbon-centred motorsports park fit in with the greenhouse gas reduction initiatives identified in City's own climate change plan (see: "The EarthCare Sudbury Local Action Plan" City of Greater Sudbury, 2003)? Will this help or hinder us in meeting our emissions reduction targets?  And here the City will need to look at more than just the greenhouse gases that are emitted from racing and the transport of vehicles and the public to and from the venue located on the fringe of our urban area (and the extension and expansion of infrastructure needed to support that initiative).  The City should be assessing the comprehensive carbon costs of creating a new entertainment complex on the urban periphery – and what that means in terms of contributing to the carbon costs of urban sprawl.

Yes, I understand that these sorts of studies may take some time, and generally speaking, even when they have been undertaken, they usually fall short (as in the case of the Maley Drive cost/benefit analysis).  Making announcements is easy - but undertaking the necessary hard work to inform decision makers and the public about a range of issues is necessary if we are going to take the concept of evidence-based decision making seriously - something which we must do, if we are to take the notion of sustainability seriously. Not studying an issue because it's too costly is simply unacceptable, and no PR campaign can change that.

Of course, on this matter, the City may be out in front of the curve, with a study expected to be completed this summer that looks at the costs of urban sprawl throughout the City and impacts on the City's bottom line (see: "Decision on splitting, developing rural lands delayed," sudburydotcom, May 29, 2017). At a time when the experts are proclaiming that our population will remain stagnant or be reduced in the coming decades (see: "Population in Sudbury District to drop - updated, the Sudbury Star, May 13, 2017), it's even more important that we look at fiscal sustainability as the primary guiding principle for any new development initiative.

Can we develop a motorsports entertainment facility here in Greater Sudbury that is sustainable?  Yes, I believe we can, but the challenges will be significant, as the only moral way forward will be to rely on the use of renewable energy – and not fossil fuels.  That's just not in the cards for any motosports facility currently being contemplated anywhere.  And that's all the more reason that we have to start changing our thinking about entertainment, economic development and job creation.

College Boreal was identified as a potential partner for this motorsports complex.  I strongly suggest that publicly-funded institutions like our post-secondary education institutions should be doing their own due diligence with regards to the initiatives that they are backing and with whom they are partnering.  For those, like me, who are extremely concerned about motorsports and climate change, it should be obvious that College Boreal should be encouraged to give their backing a rethink at this time.

The same, of course, applies to our provincial government, for the land being eyed by the Sudbury motorsports group is currently in Crown ownership.  Release of Crown lands for the purpose of creating a high-carbon entertainment facility is, I suggest, not in the long-term interests of the province.  The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, Kathryn McGarry, should be reminded of this at every opportunity.  The Minister should also be reminded that there is a naturally occurring wetland on this site that may include the habitat of threatened and endangered species – an issue raised by the MNR with regards to lands located just to the south of this Crown parcel (and yes, I am referring here to the lands that Mr. Zulich wants to build his events centre on - see: "Request for Decision, Application for rezoning in order to permit the development of a complex with office, hotel, bulk retail, warehouse, and commercial recreation centre uses. Kingsway, Sudbury - 1777222 Ontario Ltd. & 1777223 Ontario Ltd.," City of Greater Sudbury, Agendas Online, September 12, 2014).

By the way, you can remind the Minister of her government's obligation to protect threatened whip-poor-will and blanding's turtles under the Endangered Species Act by writing to her at: kmcgarry.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

The potential presence of species at risk habitat on this parcel should have been something that the motorsports group already explored – if for no other reason than to shut people like me up for raising it as an issue. Likewise, I would have expected the motorsports group to have entered into consultation with area First Nations about this parcel. Perhaps they've been looking after species at risk and First Nations issues both, despite the absence of information they've made available to the public on their website or at the media scrum they held earlier this week.  Maybe I just don't know about it - which is more than possible, given that I've not been plugged into what this group has been doing.  Given the involvement of a publicly-funded institution, College Boreal, it may very well be that these issues have all been looked after.  Why else would College Boreal want to be a associated with a proposal that would see greenhouse gas spewing vehicles occupy a wetland that once was the habitat of threatened species? Why else would College Boreal want to associate themselves with a proposal from a group that hadn't reached out to area First Nations to determine their thoughts on exacerbating the climate crisis?  Maybe if I were the kind of person that really wanted to know about what went into College Boreal's decision-making process to involve themselves in this initiative, I'd email College Boreal President Daniel Giroux at daniel.giroux@borealc.on.ca and ask him.

It's 2017.  We can do better.  We must do better.  The future requires it of us – it requires us to finally start getting our act together and planning for the things that we need to be doing to aggressively wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.  It requires us to remind and prod our governments and public institutions that the status quo on fossil energy is no longer acceptable.  The future requires us to change our ways - and change our ways we must.

A motorsports park in my community?  No. It's time to draw the line.  We can't keep doing this. It is not moral, just, or sustainable. It fails our children and grandchildren out to the seventh generation.  It is not helping build the low-carbon future that we know we must build.  In fact, it will hinder its progress.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

Sunday, June 4, 2017

Trump, Trudeau and Notley: North America’s Carbon Triumvirate

Green economy is booming.    The price of renewable energy is falling.  While climate changing fossil fuels remain an essential component in our current energy mix, all signs point to a collapse in demand within the next few decades.  Investing in clean, green energy to power our future is proving to be good for the economy – and that’s good news for the planet.

Green job growth is outpacing job creation in the fossil fuel sector.  The International Renewable Energy Agency’s (IRENA) 2017 Annual Jobs Review report tells the story:  in 2016, the renewable energy sector employed 8.3 million people, with a growth rate of 2.8%.  By 2030, IRENA estimates there will be 24 million people employed in the renewable energy sector (see: “Global Green Energy Job Count Approaches the 10 Million Mark,” Green Tech Media, May 31, 2017).

The on-going good news about green job growth makes President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement that much more puzzling.  If Trump wants to throttle the clean energy sector in the U.S. out of some misguided belief that protecting vanishing fossil fueled jobs at the expense of green tech innovation is in America’s long-term economic interest, so be it. The rest of the world is sure to profit.

But what about Canada?  Trump isn’t the only one betting against the low carbon economy.  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley made headlines this week when they called for a business as usual on approach to the Trans Mountain pipeline (see:“B.C. has no exclusive claim on its coast, Alberta premier warns pipeline foes,” CBC News, May 31, 2017).  That project came under fire after British Columbia NDP leader John Horgan announced he had reached a deal with B.C. Green leader Andrew Weaver to form a government-in-waiting, contingent upon the new B.C. government doing all that it can to stop the pipeline (see:“A historic moment for B.C. politics – and our environment,” Kathryn Harrison, the Globe and Mail, May 31, 2017).

Of course, ‘business as usual’ for Notley and Trudeau means a commitment to almost doubling tar sands emissions by 2030.  That’s the dirty little secret buried in Alberta’s much hyped Climate Plan: almost all of the emissions reduced by eliminating coal plants and pricing carbon will be offset by growing the tar sands.  A real reduction in emissions isn’t expected until sometime after 2030 (see: “Opinion: Alberta's climate plan stands in the way of Canada's,” Gordon Laxer, the Edmonton Journal, December 3, 2015). 

With national emissions continuing to rise, Canada finds itself on course to blow through our 2020 and 2030 targets.  And despite what the federal Liberals insist, there is no credible plan to get us on track (see:“The Case for Phasing Out Alberta’s Tar Sands,” Gordon Laxer, Resilience.org, May 23, 2017). Trudeau’s climate ignorance was on display earlier this year, when at a gathering of Big Oil big shots in Houston, he stated that “no country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and leave them there.” (see: "Trudeau: 'No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and leave them there'," CBC, March 10, 2017).  If Canada is serious about holding global warming to just 2 degrees Celsius, quite clearly we’re going to have to leave a lot of that oil in the ground – perhaps as much as 80% of it.
If the future outlook for the green economy seems so secure, why the pushback from the carbon triumvirate of Trump, Trudeau and Notley?  Trump at least is being honest with his intentions – meaning that he’s made it clear that he has no intention of helping the world limit warming – maybe because he believes climate change is a hoax. Here in Canada, the Trudeau and Notley’s spin machines are doing what they can to convince Canadians that ‘legitimate’ climate plans include building new pipelines and growing the tar sands (see:“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Kinder Morgan pipeline part of Canada's climate plan,” the Vancouver Sun, December 20, 2016)  – propositions soundly rejected by voters in the recent B.C. election. 

Trump, Trudeau and Notley can’t turn the tide of history and prevent the emergence of the green economy . But together, the three of them might just influence whether North America will be leader or a laggard in a low-carbon future.

One last thing about those renewable energy jobs reported by IRENA: almost half of them are in China.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

This post originally appeared in the Sudbury Star, as "Sudbury Column: North America's carbon 'triumvirate'" online and in print, June 3, 2017 - without hyperlinks.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Canada’s 200 Megatonne Challenge

13 years ago, Jean Chretien’s federal Liberal government rolled out the One-Tonne Challenge – a public education campaign that ultimately became Canada’s most recognizable climate change initiative.  Comedian Rick Mercer, best known in these parts as the voice of rubber boot-wearing  “Sheepy” from Science North’s “The Changing Climate Show,” (see: “The Changing Climate Show,” Exhibits, Science North) challenged Canadians to personally reduce our carbon footprints by taking public transit, composting, and using programmable thermostats.   Canadians could sign-up online, pledging to reduce personal greenhouse gas emissions by a single tonne.  Mercer appealed to our sense of patriotism by reminding us, “C’mon, we’re Canadian. We’re up for a challenge.” (see: “Canada’s One Tonne Challenge,” Liam O’Donnell, December 9, 2004)

Only we weren’t.  In 2005, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives replaced the Liberals, and the One Tonne Challenge was scrubbed from government websites.  For the next 10 years, greenhouse gas emissions remained relatively stable, dropping by just 11 megatonnes (Mt) annually between 2005 and 2014.  The government’s April, 2017 national inventory report shows that our 2015 emissions fell by just 0.7% from the previous year – down to 722 Mt. (see: “Canada 200M tonnes away from meeting emissions promise,” the Sudbury Star, May 2, 2017).

Canada signed on to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, promising the international community that we would reduce our emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012.  Had we taken our Kyoto commitments seriously, in 2012 emissions would have been down to around 555 Mt. (see“Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Environment and Climate Change Canada).

In 2009, Canada made another international commitment.  Under the Copenhagen Accord, we pledged to reduce emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 – a target that would see just 613 Mt emitted in 2020.  Despite repeatedly calling the Harper target inadequate while on the opposition benches, in Paris in 2015, the new Liberal government kept Harper’s 2030 emissions reduction target of 30% from 2005 levels.

The Paris treaty means that Canada will need to reduce emissions to just 523 Mt annually by 2030. That’s just slightly lower than the 555 Mt target we aimed for back in 1997 through Kytoto for the year 2012. Had we treated emissions reduction as something a little more than a public relations exercise, we might have actually reduced emissions, as other Kyoto signatories did.  Instead, to Canada’s great shame, we pulled out of the treaty – walking away from our international commitment.

A 2006 government analysis of the One Tonne Challenge gave pats on the back to the PR people, while suggesting that actually reducing emissions would require more than educating people on how to pick low hanging fruit, like idling cars less in the winter.  Recommendations included government regulation and the use of economic instruments, like carbon taxes (see:“Evaluation of the One-Tonne Challenge Program, Final Report,” Environment Canada, July 18, 2006).

The landscape in 2017 has changed somewhat.  Regulations and carbon taxes have moved out of the realm of theory.  Justin Trudeau has said that there will be a $50 per tonne price on carbon in place throughout the nation by 2022.  In Ontario, the provincial Liberals are using Cap and Trade to price carbon pollution.

But we’re hardly out of the woods yet.  In just 13 years, we need to figure out a way of reducing emissions by a staggering 200 million tonnes.  Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna believes we’re on track, but her government continues to approve pipeline projects that will help emissions from Alberta’s tar sands double by 2030 (see: “Oil sands share of GHG emissions to double by 2030,” the Ottawa Citizen, January 29, 2016).

NDP Premier Rachel Notley’s much-hyped climate change plan doesn’t contemplate actual emissions reductions until after 2030 (see: “Climate Leadership Report to Minister,” November 20, 2015 (Government of Alberta)*).  That raises the question, if not Alberta, which province is going to have to pick up the 200 Mt slack?  Will Northern Ontario communities dependent on energy intensive resource extraction end up doing more than their fair share to meet Canada’s 200 megatonne challenge?

Maybe it’s time for a Rick Mercer climate comeback. We’re going to need all the help we can get.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

This post originally appeared in the Sudbury Star, as "Sudbury Column: Is Canada up for 200 Mt. challenge?" online and in print, May 6, 2017 - without hyperlinks.

*See page 10: “…absent further action, Alberta’s emissions are currently on a trajectory to grow from 267 MT in 2013, to 297 MT in 2020, and to 320 MT in 2030. Implementation of our full policy framework will accelerate emissions reductions in some sectors in the short-term, while providing the basis for longer-term emissions reductions in those sectors that require more time and investment to accomplish this transition. Our policy architecture is expected to reduce emissions from current trends by approximately 20 Mt by 2020, and approximately 50 Mt by 2030. This would roughly stabilize emissions, by 2030, just above current levels at approximately 270 Mt.”

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Cap and Trade Paints Liberals into a Corner

The results are in – and it’s good news for Ontario’s Liberal government .  The Cap and Trade carbon auction out-performed the expectations of many who have been closely following Premier Kathleen Wynne’s marquee carbon pricing initiative.  Sales were brisk - $472 million was raised from the auction, and at $18 per tonne of carbon, allowance prices exceeded expectations (see:“Ontario sells $472 million of allowances in first cap and trade auction,” CBC News, April 3, 2017).

Perhaps burdened by the knowledge that next year will see auction money fleeing Ontario when our carbon market is linked with California’s, Glen Murray, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, tempered the giddiness by reminding us that the real success of Cap and Trade will be measured by the amount of emissions reduced.  The Minister is right, of course – and that’s a huge problem for the Ontario Liberals, because Ontario’s Cap and Trade scheme is ultimately doomed to fail.

The problem is that Cap and Trade paints the Liberals into a corner that they can’t get out of on their own.  The Cap part of the program is a great idea.  We know that we have to aggressively lower emissions if we are to keep our Paris climate commitment of holding global warming to just 2 degrees Celsius.  A hard cap will limit industrial greenhouse gas emissions, with the plan being to lower the limit every year.  If you do that, you reduce emissions, problem solved.

Unfortunately, aggressively lowering the cap creates several new problems.  It drives up the cost of purchasing allowances.   That $18 per tonne allowance is a real cost to businesses and industry – one they’ll  pass along to consumers in the form of higher prices.  And that makes a lot of voters angry.
Higher costs make domestic businesses less competitive than those based in jurisdictions that haven’t priced carbon pollution. This could lead to real job losses in trade-exposed industries. And that makes a lot of voters angry.

At $18 a tonne – the equivalent of adding about 4 cents a litre to the price of gasoline – Cap and Trade costs are not a significant burden to consumers.  But we know that Justin Trudeau’s federal government has been talking about having a $50 per tonne price in place by 2022.  That’s equivalent to a little over 11 cents on a litre of gasoline.  And that’s still not enough. The International Energy Agency estimates that by 2040, we’ll need to be taxing carbon at US$120 per to achieve our Paris commitments.  That’s almost 27 cents on top of the price of a litre of gas! (see: “Here’s how much carbon pricing will likely cost households,” MacLean’s, October 11, 2016).

That’s the corner that the Liberals find themselves in. Meaningfully lowering emissions can only be accomplished through Cap and Trade by driving up prices, causing consumers to rebel and businesses and industries to flee the province.  Who really expects decision makers that have to face voters once every four years to pull off that kind of stunt?

The only way to make carbon pricing work is to make sure consumers are insulated from rising prices, and businesses are protected from foreign competition. The provincial Liberals could address the first point by making their carbon price truly revenue neutral by giving all collected fees back to individuals in the form of dividend cheques.  Their federal cousins could address the second point by ensuring that imported goods produced with carbon prices are subject to border tax adjustments, leveling the playing field for domestic goods (see: “What Glen Might Be Saying if He Understood,” Dr. David Robinson, Economics for Northern Ontario, December 3, 2016).

Neither Liberal government appears to understand how to achieve Minister Murray’s measurement of success for carbon pricing: a real reduction in emissions that will help Canada meet our Paris climate commitment.  The Ontario Liberal’s Cap and Trade scheme simply can’t get us there.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

This post originally appeared in the Sudbury Star, as "Sudbury Column: Cap and trade doomed to fail," published online, April 8, 2017, and in print, April 10, 2017 - without hyperlinks.

Friday, March 17, 2017

Sudbury Events Centre Should Drive Creative Class Economy

A 2.2% property taxes increase to support a facility that’s forecast to lose between $600,000 and $850,000 a year - that’s what Greater Sudburians might be asked to shell out to replace our ailing Sudbury Community Arena.  The experts seem to be in agreement: after 66 years, it’s time for ‘The Barn’ to close its doors.  A new events centre will be expensive to build and an on-going drain for the City’s operating budget. How can we possibly afford to pay for it?

The way I see it, we can’t afford not to.

Richard Florida, author of ‘Cities and the Creative Class’, has long made the case that successful 21st century cities are those that attract and retain creative professional workers (see:“Richard Florida,” Wikipedia).  Successful strategies to charm the creative class involve a focus on providing lifestyle amenities like transit, bike lanes and vibrant socio-cultural assets, rather than reducing road congestion. In contrast to large cities, mid-sized centres like Sudbury are strategically positioned to offer a balance of positive lifestyle experiences accompanied by a lower cost of living.

The Greater Sudbury Community Development Corporation’s 2015 economic development plan, “From the Ground Up”, recognizes the numerous opportunities our city has to attract creative class jobs (see: “From the Ground Up, 2015 to 2025,” Greater Sudbury Community Economic Development Corporation, 2015).  Although ‘Canada’s Resourceful City’ is known throughout the world for mining and supply services, Greater Sudbury has evolved into a leading centre for health and education.  This week’s announcement by Cambrian College and Laurentian University to grow research and innovation in our community will surely enhance Greater Sudbury’s reputation as a ‘City of Science’ – an epithet underscored by SNOLAB Director Art McDonald’s 2015 Nobel Prize in physics.

Investing in community infrastructure must be strategic, and over the long term, sustainable - economically, socially and environmentally. Costs alone can’t drive decision making.  Sustainable decisions are those that look at a complete range of both costs and benefits, and consider future trends, like climate change and higher fossil fuel prices.   When it comes to the long-term health of a community, minimizing impacts on our natural areas and species at risk habitat are just as important as an affordable tax rate.

A community events centre isn’t about turning a profit, as a recent report from PricewaterhouseCoopers made clear (see:“Proposed Sports and Entertainment Centre, Feasibility and Business Case Assessment, City of Greater Sudbury,” pwc (PricewaterhouseCooper), February 21, 2017). Very few similar facilities across Canada are operating in the black.  Most, like Sudbury’s Community Arena, annually lose money.  But so do transit systems.  And while Sudburians love to complain about our roads, I’ve yet to hear anyone suggest that the City get out of the roads business because roads aren’t turning a profit.

City’s aren’t businesses.  City’s deliver essential services, or services that enhance our quality of life.  If cities can make a buck out of service delivery, that’s fine.  If operating a transit system or providing police services aren’t profitable enterprises – that’s fine too.  Cities have other ways to pay.

Since our City is not likely to grow very much in the next few decades, a sustainable location for a new events centre will be one that supports the wise use of existing infrastructure and services.  Other mid-sized slow-growth cities have used new events centres to help stimulate redevelopment in priority areas of their communities.  Decision-makers in Greater Sudbury would be wise to learn from those experiences, and seek to maximize benefits for citizens and established local businesses.

A new events centre could be a catalyst to drive the kind of creative class economic development that Greater Sudbury is already pursuing.  Sustainability, rather than pie-in-the-sky optimism about future growth, must lead the conversation about the best location for a new facility.   Otherwise, we risk closing the door on an opportunity to help build up the parts of our community we are counting on for our long-term economic success.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

This post originally appeared in the Sudbury Star, as "Column: Sudbury centre would attract creative class," online and in print, March 11, 2017.