Ottawa Declares Climate Emergency

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by phil235

I guess it depends how you measure efficiency. Governments are quite efficient in some respects, and very good at acting where the market does not (like on environmental matters). It's not a binary equation - money going from people to the government. For issues like this, government action is the only realistic way to address the problem.

That makes sense... and I do get that...

THEN, either:
1) Redirect the $$ to seed green technologies (problematic and discretionary... more wind farms anybody?) ..OR, preferably..
2) Cut taxes in another area to make it revenue neutral for the Government.

Anything else is a naked cash grab. And that is what is happening. Plain and Simple.

This is why I have a hard time taking the Governments word at face value for actions regarding "Climate Change".

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

That makes sense... and I do get that...

THEN, either:
1) Redirect the $$ to seed green technologies (problematic and discretionary... more wind farms anybody?) ..OR, preferably..
2) Cut taxes in another area to make it revenue neutral for the Government.

Anything else is a naked cash grab. And that is what is happening. Plain and Simple.

This is why I have a hard time taking the Governments word at face value for actions regarding "Climate Change".

Isn't the Climate Incentive basically your suggestion #2? That's exactly what is happening.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Isn't the Climate Incentive basically your suggestion #2? That's exactly what is happening.

Well.. sort of... but not all of it is refunded to people. A lot is, but the rest is allocated as follows: "The remainder of fuel charge proceeds will be used to provide support to the province’s schools, hospitals, small and medium-sized businesses, colleges and universities, municipalities, not-for-profit organizations and Indigenous communities, which will help save money and create good jobs"

Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment...k/ontario.html

Certainly looks like a tax increase by stealth to me. Kathleen W had no intention of doing anything but put into general revenues... and BC's famously revenue-neutral model appears to have fallen apart (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ticle36488526/).

The way it's structured (i.e. as a "tax refund"), it can certainly be manipulated going forward with the overall financial picture becoming ever muddier.

[Oyster Ditch]

Originally Posted by JayBuoy

That's absurd. The scientific community is overwhelmingly in agreement about climate change. There exists a similar level of agreement on climate change among scientists (97%) as there is about evolution. I can't link at the moment but all it takes is a simple google search to find peer-reviewed studies demonstrating this. I encourage you to find one and read it.

Agreement that climate is changing? Sure. But that’s not the contentious part. Don’t be daft

[Gat-Train]

The degree to which we are affecting the climate is irrelevant. What is blatantly obvious is that we as humans are collectively causing irreversible damage to the earth's ecosystems, and the effects are being felt already. There are several actions the city could take to making a greener city:
-more electric vehicles including buses
-solar panels on all government buildings
- stopping developers from building on floodplains.
-While we're at it, make bylaws or a land tax to reduce urban sprawl.
-Ban single use plastics.
-Provide more cycling infrastructure, particularly around rapid transit stations.

Just doing these alone would be a great start.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

The fundamental problem I have with all the Climate Change talk.. is the hyperbole is so overblown, it's hard to take leadership of the issue seriously. To use my previous example "Gatineau flood is caused by Climate Change" is such a nonsensical correlation to state definitively... but as long as we just keep upping taxes and all will be ok

It's not hyperbole.

Let's use the baseball steroids analogy. If a baseball player is taking steroids, you can't attribute a single homerun to his drug use. But if his batting average is substantially better than last year when he was clean, well you know why he's up.

This is now their second "once in a lifetime" flood in 3 years. This is batting above average. And we know what a warmer climate does to spring melts and such. So I don't see why anybody should say it's hyperbole to attribute this flooding to climate change.

I am curious. How many times and how severe does the flooding have to get before you won't consider such assertions to be hyperbole?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

Well.. sort of... but not all of it is refunded to people. A lot is, but the rest is allocated as follows: "The remainder of fuel charge proceeds will be used to provide support to the province’s schools, hospitals, small and medium-sized businesses, colleges and universities, municipalities, not-for-profit organizations and Indigenous communities, which will help save money and create good jobs"

At $1.45B over 5 years, this is an absolutely tiny amount relative to the amount being rebated, which is several billion annually. Next, these grants are there to specifically over come their higher energy costs which they are incurring. Helping them reduce their heating bill both cuts emissions and is effectively recycling the carbon tax collected from them.

I doubt you want a hospital or school or even city hall cutting services because they now have higher heating bills.

And on the personal side, in virtually every case families will be getting larger rebates than they they are expected to be spending, and the PBO expects carbon tax revenue to fall as the public adapts.

Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment...k/ontario.html

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

Certainly looks like a tax increase by stealth to me. Kathleen W had no intention of doing anything but put into general revenues...

A big part of why I wasn't a fan of her plan. The other part being that it was effectively a transfer from Ontario to California with a lot of California companies simply selling credits to Ontario companies. A carbon tax is what most conservative economists recommend as the solution.

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

The way it's structured (i.e. as a "tax refund"), it can certainly be manipulated going forward with the overall financial picture becoming ever muddier.

Sure. But the goal should not be to can it. But to formalize it and leave it out of general revenue.

Lastly, on a broader point, I find the complaints against the carbon tax strangely hysterical. It's 4.4 cents per litre on gas. If the government raised the excise tax by 4.4c per litre, I really doubt there would be this many complaints. But somehow make this about climate change and give people the money back and people are less happy about it? Bizarre.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not hyperbole.

Let's use the baseball steroids analogy. If a baseball player is taking steroids, you can't attribute a single homerun to his drug use. But if his batting average is substantially better than last year when he was clean, well you know why he's up.

This is now their second "once in a lifetime" flood in 3 years. This is batting above average. And we know what a warmer climate does to spring melts and such. So I don't see why anybody should say it's hyperbole to attribute this flooding to climate change.

I am curious. How many times and how severe does the flooding have to get before you won't consider such assertions to be hyperbole?

Article linked below is sampling of history... river has been flooding since the turn of the last century (probably much longer), and last back-to-back "once in a lifetime" flooding episode was 1974 and 1976... if this keeps up consistently a few more years I'll re-evaluate my position.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...bury-1.5107285

Would also be interesting to find out the population in the floodplain in the past vs today.

It's not just this... a couple years ago in Houston there was a stalled hurricane which resulted in large floods... all loudly attributed to "climate change". The fact that hurricanes have been hitting Houston since records began (1500's), and the fact that Houston is now fully paved over were barely mentioned as contributing factors.

California primarily an arid climate and has always burned. People are filling in all nooks and crannies of the state, with firefighting technology keeping the fires at bay more and more in the recent decades. So when a fire actually catches on in the tinder dry and overgrown forest... suddenly it's "climate change".

For the record folks.. I certainly do believe that climate change is mostly real, and I can personally attest it seems to have warmed up since I've been a child

My problem with going "all-in" remains that the raw hypocrisy of Climate Change advocates ( Canada sending 300+ people (!!!) to the Paris accord, a PM who preaches climate change is bad.. yet does nothing substantial, either personally or leadership-wise to address the issue other than raise taxes, celebs jetting in for protests, etc). I can't help but be suspicious that the "lets make money out of this" people have a little too much control.

[acottawa]

The most significant contributor to climate change under the purview of the city is sprawl. If the city put more effort into curtailing sprawl this declaration might be a less vacuous and meaningless gesture.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Oyster Ditch

There’s disagreement between climate scientists. Who’s right? You probably can’t answer without revealing your political leaning.

No, there really isn't a disagreement on the main issue. It's not just the IPCC, there are a whole host of scientific groups that agree that the climate is changing, the earth is getting hotter, and it's very bad news for humanity:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

These aren't political parties, they're fact-based research organizations.

When politics gets involved, it's almost always in an attempt to convince people that these facts aren't real, like you are. They usually try to spin a small disagreement or inaccuracy into a major issue, when it really isn't. But readers who don't do their own fact-checking might get tricked into believing it.

Take, for example, this rebuttal to the 97% consensus claim:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/arti...cientists-many

It sounds well-written, by a professor no less, but when you take note that it was first published in the Financial Post (a conservative-leaning newspaper) and then reposted by the Fraser Institute (a highly conservative lobby group), you have to suspect that it is simply a political attempt to muddy the [rising] waters.

I am not a climate scientist, but I know that the scientific process that results in these generally accepted facts is far more trustworthy than any politician ever will be.

[rocketphish]

This cartoon, which you've probably all seen before, depicts the global warming trend quite nicely.

When people say "The climate has changed before", these are the kinds of changes they're talking about.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

People who don't do their own research could interpret the statement "The climate has changed before" in a skeptical way, and without understanding the relatively small scale of those historic changes, assume that the current temperature rise is just a repetition of historic trends. Informed people know better.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

For the record folks.. I certainly do believe that climate change is mostly real

Firstly, there's no "believe" in climate change. This is like saying you believe in gravity. You either accept the science or you don't.

Next, it really does not seem that you accept or even understand the science when you start talking about how California has always had fires and Houston has always had floods. You quite simply don't seem to get the link between climate change and weather phenomena (notably severity and frequency). Insurance companies are directly attributing the events you mentioned to climate change. Yet, apparently somebody with no real money on the line knows better?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/califor...cause-of-risk/

https://www.latimes.com/science/scie...829-story.html

If anybody wants a great read on how some of this is playing out in real time, look at Florida and its real estate market and the havoc insurance is playing there:

https://www.insurancejournal.com/new.../20/448504.htm

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

My problem with going "all-in" remains that the raw hypocrisy of Climate Change advocates ( Canada sending 300+ people (!!!) to the Paris accord, a PM who preaches climate change is bad.. yet does nothing substantial, either personally or leadership-wise to address the issue other than raise taxes, celebs jetting in for protests, etc). I can't help but be suspicious that the "lets make money out of this" people have a little too much control.

Ah yes. The new tactic. "I'm not a denier. I'm just opposed to do anything about it because of << insert red herring here. >>"

Ironically, the federal Liberals have put out one of the most revenue neutral carbon pricing schemes in the world. This is about as close as it gets to what any conservative economist would suggest on tackling climate change. And yet here we are still dealing with complaints. The only alternative to the Liberal plan would literally be doing nothing. Which is what I suspect folks like you really want.

Originally Posted by acottawa

The most significant contributor to climate change under the purview of the city is sprawl. If the city put more effort into curtailing sprawl this declaration might be a less vacuous and meaningless gesture.

Absolutely. It's disgusting how much sprawl has been allowed. Not just in Ottawa. But in cities throughout this country. And it's particularly egregious when most of Ottawa inside the greenbelt is pretty damn suburban by any definition that does not come from an Ottawan living in Kanata or Orleans.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Thought I would start a thread here on this. What effects do you think this will have? Personally, I think it's a step in the right direction, and it's good that at least they have symbolically made a commitment to reducing pollution, but of course a lot more is required for there to be meaningful action.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...ency-1.5109378

"Council members who voted for the declaration, including the mayor, say it's no empty gesture. Wednesday's vote dedicates $250,000 from the city's annual Hydro Ottawa dividend to speed up studies aimed at moving the city to renewable energy and meeting greenhouse gas emission targets."

There is a lot to unpack in this thread but this quote is really peak Ottawa. It's not an empty gesture because we are doing a study.

Yes being Ottawa I am sure lots of us have worked on Climate Change to some extent including myself though I am by no means an expert.

I don't know how you can conclude anything but that the science is settled that humans are causing the climate to warm. There aren't really two sides to the debate. However, we do not know all the ramifications of that so we can not pinpoint flooding or other disasters directly to climate change.

We also don't know the economic and social impacts on Canada. It is easy to argue that in fact they would be a net positive. I have not seen a comprehensive Canadian study but a very large US study showed positive economic impact for almost all the border counties and states so extrapolating from that it could very well be positive.

That said it will almost be certainly disastrous for the world so morally Canada should do its part. The question is what is that. Keeping in mind any changes we make will have close to zero impact given our contribution to emissions and can only be seen as a role model or solidarity. Meanwhile China and India are allowed to continue to increase emissions and the US is not participating. An analogy we are Arnprior and are slightly impacted by sewage in the Ottawa river. The city of Ottawa refuses to do anything as does Hawkesbury and points further down river. How much should we spend to stop polluting the river?

The Canadian government is saying lets pay a very small amount that will have a small impact. I think the logic of you have to start somewhere is sound. Surveys show though most people are against even this small amount. Everyone agrees someone else should pay to mitigate the problem which is why BC and Quebec like to point the finger at Alberta when they live in huge houses in sprawling suburbs. Really we need $200 a ton and really at a world level in order to actually reduce emissions. There was an opinion survey and even among Americans who believe in climate change most were unwilling to pay $10 a month to solve the problem. This is the level of disconnect we have.

So the city declaring an "emergency" seems like empty hyperbole to me. But sure let's charge all cars a $20 congestion charge to enter the core and use the money to speed up LRT and buy electric buses. But I think we know there would be a voters revolt even among the moms who march for climate change and drive Subarus with save the planet bumper stickers.

[NOWINYOW]

Originally Posted by JayBuoy

The science is very clear on this issue, and has been since at least the 1970s.

In the 70's it was global cooling. Then in the 80's it became global warming. Then in the last decade it switched to Climate Change (convenience)

If it was so clear since the 70's why have the interpretations been changing?

I believe 100% the climate is changing. Climate has never, ever, stopped changing. We have flooded before, we'll flood again. We've had mild winters, freezing winters, no-snow winters, tonnes of snow winters. Alway have, always will.

I find it amusing people say we have to stop climate change. And yes, they do actually use those 3 words; stop climate change. Good luck with that.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

In the 70's it was global cooling. Then in the 80's it became global warming. Then in the last decade it switched to Climate Change (convenience)

If it was so clear since the 70's why have the interpretations been changing?

I believe 100% the climate is changing. Climate has never, ever, stopped changing. We have flooded before, we'll flood again. We've had mild winters, freezing winters, no-snow winters, tonnes of snow winters. Alway have, always will.

Did you read Rocketphish's post three above yours? It is a full rebuttal to this kind of generic argument.

[daud]

Originally Posted by phil235

Did you read Rocketphish's post three above yours? It is a full rebuttal to this kind of generic argument.

Its a good infographic depicting a climate change doom and gloom 4c rise in temperature.

Yet the earth was upwards of 14c warmer before any humans showed up.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolog...alaeotemps.svg (edit-link provides better view of graphic of climate history than the one I posted above)

Again, its great to address "climate change" but its not climate that is the impending doom. Its us and our impact on the planet and the ramifications to our biodiversity, deforestation, extinction of flora and fauna. That is the impending doom. The temperature and climate in themselves won't kill the planet, they'll just punish the billions of humans that now occupy the shorelines. Do any of us see the irony here??

I really hope people see the big picture. I think many on this thread understand. Calling the city to action on a climate emergency is fine, but its not the core problem and is at the same time, futile, short sighted, likely irrelevant and also necessary.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by daud

Its a good infographic depicting a climate change doom and gloom 4c rise in temperature.

Yet the earth was upwards of 14c warmer before any humans showed up.

Point taken, but the earth was also molten at one point in its history. Aren't we really concerned with the period when the earth was habitable by humans?

I expect that the periods of rapid change in your graph roughly coincide with significant extinctions.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I don't know how you can conclude anything but that the science is settled that humans are causing the climate to warm. There aren't really two sides to the debate. However, we do not know all the ramifications of that so we can not pinpoint flooding or other disasters directly to climate change.

When your frequency and severity of extreme weather events is increasing absent any other change by anthropogenic climate change, I think you safely conclude that these changes are because of climate change. Is it raining outside because of climate change? No. Are we getting once a lifetime flooding every 2-3 years because of climate change? Yes.

I don't get how people can say they accept the science but then reject the idea that extreme weather frequency and severity is being driven by climate change. Scientists are telling us this. Is this like religion for y'all where you pick and choose what parts of the faith you like?

Originally Posted by YOWetal

We also don't know the economic and social impacts on Canada. It is easy to argue that in fact they would be a net positive. I have not seen a comprehensive Canadian study but a very large US study showed positive economic impact for almost all the border counties and states so extrapolating from that it could very well be positive.

National impacts are less relevant to the city than local impacts. Ontario and Canada could be net beneficiaries and there could still be neighbourhoods in Ottawa that will be more and more prone to severe flooding.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

That said it will almost be certainly disastrous for the world so morally Canada should do its part. The question is what is that. Keeping in mind any changes we make will have close to zero impact given our contribution to emissions and can only be seen as a role model or solidarity. Meanwhile China and India are allowed to continue to increase emissions and the US is not participating. An analogy we are Arnprior and are slightly impacted by sewage in the Ottawa river. The city of Ottawa refuses to do anything as does Hawkesbury and points further down river. How much should we spend to stop polluting the river?

Your analogy is flawed. Effectively the developed world used up a massive part of the atmosphere's carbon absorption capacity to develop (cause we didn't know about anthropogenic climate change back then). What you (and all those who bring up the India, China, Africa red herring) are suggesting is that they should stay poor because we don't really want to cut emissions. Cutting our emissions allows them to keep developing. Notably, this also gives us a strong industrial incentive since we get to develop the technology to sell them. There's a reason Tesla started in the US and not in India or China.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The Canadian government is saying lets pay a very small amount that will have a small impact. I think the logic of you have to start somewhere is sound. Surveys show though most people are against even this small amount. Everyone agrees someone else should pay to mitigate the problem which is why BC and Quebec like to point the finger at Alberta when they live in huge houses in sprawling suburbs.

This is true to a degree. But a lot of this "opposition" is political wrangling. Let's be honest. If Harper had put on a $20/tonne climate tax, I doubt we'd see conservatives crying as much as they are now. Conversely, the Trudeau Liberals waited right until the the last year in office to implement this. Didn't really dedicate significant infrastructure funding to mitigation. And now insist that as climate champions they should be rewarded. The politicization of this issue is what is deplorable. Instead of discussing how we can cut emissions and what is the most equitable and fair way to distribute that burden, political parties are simply using the issue to score points.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Really we need $200 a ton and really at a world level in order to actually reduce emissions. There was an opinion survey and even among Americans who believe in climate change most were unwilling to pay $10 a month to solve the problem. This is the level of disconnect we have.

It's less about the absolute amount than the rate of change. If we added $5/tonne every year for 10 years, most people really wouldn't notice and would simply adjust gradually over time. You could even get $200 a tonne and your economy would be find because the ramp up over 10-20 years will have given your citizens and industry plenty of time to adjust and adapt.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

So the city declaring an "emergency" seems like empty hyperbole to me. But sure let's charge all cars a $20 congestion charge to enter the core and use the money to speed up LRT and buy electric buses. But I think we know there would be a voters revolt even among the moms who march for climate change and drive Subarus with save the planet bumper stickers.

There's less obvious ways to achieve the same thing. They should have limited LRT extensions to inside the Greenbelt. But that ship having sailed, they can:

• Limit sprawl.
• Mandate EV charging infrastructure for all new housing.
• Move forward on full electrification of city vehicles and servicing equipment.
• Tax parking spots in the core (especially at surface lots) which are massively land inefficient.
• Map out flood/fire prone areas and limit development there.

There's lots they can do.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

Did you read Rocketphish's post three above yours? It is a full rebuttal to this kind of generic argument.

There's a lot of people who really aren't interested in truth or reality. Especially if their livelihoods depend on it. See Alberta.

[rocketphish]

Doug Ford links floods to climate change as he visits affected areas of Ottawa

Mia Rabson, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA
Published April 26, 2019
Updated 21 minutes ago

Ontario Premier Doug Ford says he believes climate change is among the reasons eastern Ontario homeowners are trying to save their homes from flooding for the second time in three years.

Ford was in the rural west end of Ottawa Friday morning, touring flooded areas along the Ottawa River, where officials are warning a new rain storm will make water levels rise rapidly over the next few days, likely exceeding the levels seen during a 2017 flood.

Ford said that when you see the affected people face-to-face, it “just rips your heart out.”

“These folks can’t go through this every single year,” he said.

He said local officials desperately need volunteers to help fill and distribute sandbags.

The Ottawa River is just one of several rivers and lakes overflowing this week, forcing thousands of Canadians from their homes in Ontario, Quebec, southern Manitoba and New Brunswick, where the Saint John River is experiencing a major flood for the second year in a row.

In Quebec, officials said Friday morning 3,148 homes are already underwater and another 2,305 are surrounded by it, with 1,111 people out of their residences. In New Brunswick, 84 roads are closed because of flooding, including a portion of the TransCanada Highway.

Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson declared a state of emergency because of flooding Thursday, with another 20 mm to 50 mm of rain forecast to fall Friday and Saturday. A forecast by the interprovincial committee that regulates water levels in the Ottawa River says all that rain could increase its level near Parliament Hill by nearly a metre within a few days. Paths behind Parliament are already underwater.

Residents in several small communities on the eastern and western edges of Ottawa are sandbagging to keep their homes dry. About 400 soldiers have been deployed to the Ottawa area to help sandbag and assist with other flood operations.

Military members were deployed to Gatineau, Que., and in New Brunswick earlier this week.

Gatineau mayor Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin said Friday morning that he expects river levels in his region to peak by Monday or Tuesday. But because snow melt from the north has not yet reached the area, he said water levels could remain at their peak for two weeks.

Pedneaud-Jobin said that, unlike Ottawa’s mayor, he has the power to invoke emergency measures on his own without formally declaring a state of emergency.

So far, he said, he has ordered up to $1-million in supplies and equipment to help residents affected by the flooding.

There are also flood warnings in several other areas of Ontario, including cottage country near Bracebridge, Ont., where lakes are going over their banks. Bracebridge Mayor Graydon Smith asked cottage owners not to come to their properties to check for damage this weekend, because there are a lot of roads closed. He is worried people will put themselves in harm’s way trying to get to properties.

“Don’t try and be a hero,” he said.

The rising Red River in southern Manitoba has forced some road closures and a small number of evacuations near the community of St. Jean Baptiste. Earlier predictions for major flooding between the U.S. border and Winnipeg haven’t come to pass because of less snowfall than expected in April and a slower than expected spring melt.

While touring flooded areas of Gatineau earlier this week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said communities across Canada have to be prepared for the impact of climate change, needing to adapt and mitigate knowing floods like this are happening more often.

Ford said Friday he does not disagree.

“They say it’s 100-year storms – well it’s a few years later and we’re back in the same boat,” Ford said. “Something is going on and we have to be conscious of it.”

Quebec Premier Francois Legault and New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs are both talking about relocating homeowners permanently away from flood-prone areas. Ford said he is willing to sit down with the communities to talk about what is needed to protect their homes or offer compensation to move to higher ground, but didn’t say what Ontario might be looking at doing yet.

The Ontario government asked for federal help Thursday and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said that will come.

Officials in Quebec are also keeping a close eye on a hydroelectric dam, on a tributary of the Ottawa River west of Montreal, that’s at risk of failing.

The Chute-Bell dam has reached “millennial” water levels, meaning a flood that happens once every 1,000 years, but Hydro-Quebec says it’s confident the structure is solid.

Simon Racicot, the utility’s director of production and maintenance, told reporters Thursday that “we are entering into an unknown zone right now – completely unknown.”

With files from Terry Pedwell and Kristy Kirkup

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ffected-areas/