AMO Climate Change Position Paper

40 Pages·2010·0.33 MB·English

by  Alex Dumaresq

Demonstrating Climate Action

AMO Climate Change Position Paper

November 2010
CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary

2. Background & Rationale
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Predicted Effects of Climate Change
2.3. Policy Landscape

3. Municipal Spheres
3.1. Energy
3.2. Water
3.3. Waste Management
3.4. Planning
3.5. Transportation
3.6. Buildings
3.7. Public Health

4. Recommendation
4.1. Climate Change Demonstration Community Program

5. Conclusion
Climate Change Position Paper 2
1. Executive Summary

The Province has committed to a significant climate change action plan and municipalities will play
an important role in Ontario’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While there are
numerous initiatives underway among Ontario municipalities, there is currently a lack of
coordinated action. AMO recommends the Province establish a demonstration community
program. Under this proposal, grants would be awarded to interested municipalities who
developed the most innovative plans to integrate a series of measures aimed at greenhouse gas
reduction and climate change adaptation. The program would generate new approaches to
integrated climate change management and develop valuable expertise in the participating
municipalities across Ontario. These developments would increase capacity in the municipal sector
which would be drawn upon in subsequent years to help the Province reach its climate change
goals.

2. Background & Rationale

2.1. Introduction

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body established in 1989 by the United
Nations to assess information relevant to climate sciences and has released numerous comprehensive
reports on the state of climate sciences. The 2007 report of the IPCC was unequivocal: human activity is
emitting greater and greater amounts of heat trapping gases―carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide―into the atmosphere, and these greenhouse gases are causing rising global temperatures. The
most recent projections indicate that even with a moderate reduction of greenhouse gases, average
temperatures in Ontario will rise by at least 2.5°C by the year 2050 (Expert Panel, 2009). Given the
agreement in the scientific community that any temperature increase exceeding 2°C will result in grave
environmental, social, and economic disruption, climate change action will be necessary if municipalities
are to ensure the sustainability of their communities.

The most common understanding of sustainable development was set out by the UN’s Brundtland
Commission and is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present, without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987, ch. 2, pp.
Climate Change Position Paper 3
1). This approach focuses on the interdependence of economic development and environmental
protection. Since the influential Brundtland Report there have been numerous approaches to
incorporating this concept into governance and business practices. The Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been developing approaches to integrating sustainability in
the decision-making process. Under the OECD model, sustainability is understood as balancing
economic, environmental, and social effects of a development over time (OECD, 1997). This triple
bottom line approach means considering the short-term and long-term impacts and benefits of a choice.
At the core of this conception of sustainability are five types of capital. 1 Sustainable development
balances the investment in and use of the various types of capital within a society. Not only does
sustainable development avoid the over-use of any one type of capital, it also ensures short-term gains
in capital do not come at the expense of future generations’ capital (OECD, 1997). Because climate
change threatens to irrevocably change the environment around us, Ontario municipalities will be faced
with numerous challenging decisions as they adapt to these new circumstances. More frequent
extreme weather events will damage built capital including municipal infrastructure. Exposure to more
pronounced threats such as heat waves, will tax our public health units and can erode human capital.
On the other hand, the transition to a low-carbon economy presents the opportunity for Ontario to
develop economic opportunities as a green energy leader that will foster the growth of our financial and
social capital.

Regardless of the precise effects of greenhouse gas emissions, addressing climate change through
sustainable development will be a beneficial strategy for Ontario municipalities. The solutions that will
be employed to answer the climate change challenge are goals consistently pursued by municipalities:
creating well-designed neighbourhoods that foster active living and strong communities. Climate
change action will mean we are wasting fewer resources by maximizing previous investments in our
built environment, and saving tax dollars by achieving greater energy efficiency. Transitioning to a low-
carbon economy will also lighten our effect on the environment around us and on the natural capital we
will be leaving to generations ahead. In addition, preparing for the effects of climate change will mean
upgraded infrastructure sized for sustainable growth and designed to withstand environmental threats,

1
Economic resources financial capital such as savings and investments
built capital such as infrastructure and machinery
Social resources human capital such as knowledge and training
social capital such as relationships and institutions
Environmental resources natural capital such as natural resources and ecosystems

Climate Change Position Paper 4
and developing stronger public health services to promote healthy living and protect our communities
from health threats.

Making the right decisions to build sustainable communities, while entirely desirable, is no simple feat.
With the uncertainty involved in making long range climate predictions and the sheer number of
partners needed to address this global issue, the ideal course of action is hardly evident. Despite the
uncertainty, it is clear that two broad types of action are necessary: actions to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions (mitigation) and actions to manage those effects of climate change that we cannot eliminate
(adaptation). Taking decisive action to meet and surpass current greenhouse gas emissions reduction
goals is necessary if we are to slow global warming and the associated negative impacts. Despite
greater international attention to the climate change issue resulting in multinational agreements and
carbon reduction policies, global emissions have grown by 25% since the turn of the century, exceeding
the worst case scenario predictions of the international Panel on Climate Change (Field et al., 2007). As a
result, scientists, governments and communities have been forced to consider how we are to adapt to
the unavoidable effects of climate change. Adaptive capacity is the term used to describe the ability of a
community or organization to adapt to climate change (Smit et al, 2001). The most common indicators
of adaptive capacity include a community’s economic resources, access to technology, skills, and
information, and the preparedness of institutions and infrastructure. Municipalities must actively
engage increasing adaptive capacity so that our businesses, neighbourhoods, and infrastructure are less
vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

There is no question that Canada needs to do more to tackle climate change. Despite signing and
ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and pledging to reduce emissions to 6% below 1990 levels, Canada has not
lived up to its international obligation. Canada’s now annually emits 747Mt of greenhouse gases, which
is 32% higher than were previously pledged to emit by 2012 (Au et al., 2009). Our performance is even
worse when emissions are calculated on a per capita basis: Canadians emit 22.6 tonnes per year, which
is the second highest per capita rate of all OECD countries (Au et al., 2009; Conference Board of Canada,
2010). Ontarians expect their governments to take meaningful steps to address climate change.
Despite the recent economic downturn polls have confirmed that the majority of Canadians (64%)
believe “environmental initiatives should remain as high a priority as the economy even as the economy
weakens” (Harris Decima, 2009).

Climate Change Position Paper 5
Climate Change mitigation has begun in Ontario. In 2007 the Province set aggressive targets for
greenhouse gas reduction, mandating a drop of approximately 30 megatonnes by 2014, and 50
megatonnes by 2020 (Province of Ontario, 2008). The elimination of coal burning electricity plants and
working towards a cap and trade system for regulating greenhouse gas emissions figure prominently in
the Ontario plan, however, municipalities have
a significant role to play if the Province is to be
successful in reaching these goals.
Municipalities exert direct or indirect control
over approximately 44% of greenhouse gas
emissions (FCM, 2009). As a result, any
meaningful provincial climate change plans
must be done in collaboration with
municipalities if they are to achieve meaningful
results.

Ontario has also begun to address climate change adaptation with the creation of the Expert Panel on
Climate Change Adaptation in 2007. The Panel issued a report in November 2009, making 59
recommendations on how to increase climate resiliency in Ontario. The Expert Panel highlights the
important role municipalities will play in climate change adaptation, noting that developing the
“adaptive capacity of communities is indispensable.” (Expert Panel, 2009, p. 58). Many of the Panel’s
recommendations, from developing storm water management master plans to enhancing emergency
management, will be implemented by municipalities (for further information see AMO’s response to
Adapting to Climate Change in Ontario: towards the design and Implementation of a Strategy and Action
Plan).

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has also identified municipalities as partners in the
provinces climate change strategy. The Environmental Commissioner is charged with evaluating the
Province’s progress towards meeting Ontario’s climate change targets and in his annual progress reports
he has noted that the Province will not achieve the short- or medium-term targets based on the current
efforts. A key criticism of the Commissioner is the lack of transparency and delineation of roles and
responsibilities. Following the Commissioner’s report AMO committed to produce a policy paper
providing an analysis of municipalities’ role in helping the Province to achieve climate change mitigation
Climate Change Position Paper 6
and adaptation goals. Accordingly, the focus of this paper will be to develop an approach that will
harness the unique attributes and creativity of municipalities to address climate change in Ontario.
2.2. Predicted Effects of Climate Change
A changing climate is expected to change both average and extreme weather conditions in Ontario.
Even with significant progress towards a low-carbon society, we can expect to see changes in annual
temperature and precipitation averages. In addition, there will be an increase in the frequency and
intensity of extreme weather events. Changing averages and extremes present challenges to municipal
planning and infrastructure, and as we begin to experience more significant climate change effects, our
communities will become increasingly vulnerable. These changes represent a significant threat to
Ontario municipalities’ natural and built capital, which will have repercussions on our economic,
environmental and social sustainability. As indicated in the Expert Panel’s report to the provincial
government, downscaled climate modelling at a greater resolution than currently available will be
required to allow communities to develop region-specific adaptation plans, however, there is now
information available indicating the broad types of climate effects that will affect us in the coming
decades (Expert Panel, 2009). A review of some of the most significant consequences expected for the
province of Ontario follows.

Temperature & Precipitation
The average temperature and precipitation amounts are expected to increase in the coming decades,
with higher average temperatures predominantly occurring during the winter months (Chiotti &
Lavender, 2008). Heat extremes during the summer are expected to occur more frequently; the number
of days reaching over 30°C will more than double by the year 2050 (Hengeveld & Whitehood, 2005).
Modelling for precipitation indicates that moisture levels will vary by season. In general, winter and
spring precipitation is projected to increase by as much as 20% in northern Ontario by 2050, while a
slight decrease in summer and fall precipitation of up to 10% is expected in southern Ontario (Chiotti &
Lavender, 2008). There is also expected to be greater variation in regional precipitation due to the Lake
Effect. Lake Effect precipitation is created by moisture evaporating from the Great Lakes and falling as
rain or snow on southern and eastern Ontario. Lake Effect snow is expected to increase over the first
half of the century, but will gradually be replaced by heavy rainfall events in the latter half of the century
(Chiotti & Lavender, 2008). These general temperature and precipitation trends will have significant
ramifications on the natural and human environment.

Climate Change Position Paper 7
Increased Frequency & Severity of Storms
Windstorms, tornadoes, floods, hailstorms, and ice storms all have a significant impact on communities,
destroying crops, causing property damage, overloading stormwater and other municipal systems, and
in the most tragic situations, costing human lives. Severe weather events have been increasing in their
frequency in recent decades: from an average of two to four events per year to an average of twelve per
year in the last decade (McBean, 2006). In addition, we are experiencing unprecedented weather events
such as the 1998 ice storm, which was one of the 30 largest loss events of any type ever recorded by the
insurance industry worldwide (ICLR, 2010). The storm, which struck Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick,
and Nova Scotia caused over $5.4 billion of damage and took the lives of 28 people (Lemmen, Warren, &
Lacroix, 2008). Because climate change will increase the risk of weather related emergencies, it is likely
these severe events will cause problems that are unanticipated in current municipal emergency
management plans (Expert Panel, 2009). For example, the June 6th, 2010 tornado caused serious
property and crop damage in Leamington and indicated a gap in the severe weather warning system
(Globe and mail, June 6, 2010). Extreme precipitation poses serious risks to municipalities’ built capital,
most significantly overloading sanitary and stormwater systems which can cause flooding and road
washouts and damage to homes. More intense periods of precipitation represents a significant concern
for the municipalities, property owners, and the insurance industry in the face of mounting claims
resulting from flooding and water damage to homes and properties (ICLR, 2009). Extreme rainfall can
also have serious economic and environmental effects outside of the urban environment, for example,
high levels of precipitation in short periods can cause tailing ponds capped with water to overflow,
releasing contaminants into the surrounding areas (Chiotti & Lavender, 2008).

Water Levels
Changes to the water level in the Great Lakes are expected to be one of the most significant climate
change impacts for the Province of Ontario (Chiotti & Lavender, 2008). This has serious implications for
Ontarians given that 98% of the population lives in the Great Lakes basin (Expert Panel, 2009). While
greater amounts of precipitation are predicted, higher temperatures and reduced ice covering are
expected to combine to cause increased evaporation leading to lower water levels (Mortsch, 1998). The
lower lake levels can have myriad effects. For example, the lower levels will reduce the depth of
navigation channels and could force container ships to carry less cargo; as lake levels drop, docks and
harbours will also become inaccessible (City of Toronto, 2008). This may also increase pressure for
dredging of navigational channels (Expert Panel, 2009). Lower water levels have the potential to reduce
hydro-electric capacity by an estimated 1,160 Megawatts (Expert Panel, 2009). This has already
Climate Change Position Paper 8
occurred in British Columbia, where in 2002 the province was forced to purchase electricity as a result of
hydro-electric generation capacity lost due to low water levels (Wheaton et al., 2005). In addition,
higher water temperatures and lower water levels will combine to cause water quality and supply issues
including water contamination, loss of capacity to provide water, and algal blooms (Expert Panel, 2009).
For example, in 2001-2002 the severe drought that affected a number of Canadian Provinces including
Ontario had a twofold effect on municipal water supplies: surface water and reservoirs were lowered by
the lack of precipitation, while demand for water increased as a result of irrigation needs for agricultural
crops (Wheaton et al., 2005). These threats and demands can spark resident demands for increased
treatment and the development of new water supply systems.

Eco Systems
Water level reductions are expected to threaten shoreline habitat and wildlife in the Great Lakes basin,
which is home to over 3500 plant species and 250 types of fish (Field et al., 2007; Expert Panel, 2009).
Changes in biodiversity attributed to our changing climate such as the reductions or extinction of cold
water fish like the mottled sculpin in the Upper Grand River Watershed have already been noted (Expert
Panel, 2009). Researchers believe climate change effects are responsible for the sharp decline of snake
populations in a number of different countries (Reading et al., 2010). This loss of natural capital is also a
threat to human capital: the decline may lead to booming rodent populations and an increase in vector-
borne diseases due to the predatory relationship of snakes and rodents (Reading et al., 2010). While
research has been conducted examining the effect of temperature and precipitation changes on
Ontario’s forests, the complex mix of factors that make up a forest’s climate envelope make predicting
the fate of a forest type extremely difficult. However, some scenarios project impacts as wide ranging
as a decrease in the growth rate of commercially harvested species, the northward retreat of the boreal
forest, or the loss of vulnerable and rare species in the deciduous forest of south-western Ontario
(Expert Panel, 2009). Despite the uncertainty regarding how the different effects will interact, there is
agreement that regardless of the scenario, species that have high migratory rates and earlier
reproductive maturity will dominate the forests at the expense of the current biodiversity in Ontario’s
natural environment (Browne & Hunt, 2007). These changes could spell significant changes in the types
and patterns of predators, diseases, and invasive species.

Air Pollution
Greenhouse gases and other emissions from electricity generation and the transportation sector are two
of the biggest sources of pollutants that cause air quality issues in Ontario. Concentrations of nitrogen
Climate Change Position Paper 9
dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide, and fine particulate matter cause irritation to the eyes and respiratory
system (Chiotti & Lavender, 2008). Air pollutants can worsen pre-existing cardiopulmonary conditions,
and chronic exposure can lead to premature death (Air Quality Ontario, 2008). Despite gains in air
quality expected from eliminating coal-fired electricity generation, Ontario can expect air quality
problems to continue because a significant amount of pollutants enter Ontario from the United States.
Anthropogenic temperature increases as a result of climate change will also compound the adverse
health effects of air pollutants because hot and humid conditions exacerbate the ill effects of both
ozone and fine particulate matter (Air Quality Ontario, 2008). These health effects will erode human
capital and carry a financial cost in the form of increase acute and long-term health care expenses.
Additional erosion of financial capital is possible from the agricultural sector because air quality issues
can affect plant growth, causing reduced agricultural yields and crop losses (Chiotti & Lavender, 2008).
As a result, agricultural and forestry profits, as well as urban greening initiatives may be affected.

Public Health
The combination of the various predicted effects on our natural surroundings will translate into stresses
on public health. As noted above air pollutants effect on human health is well documented, and is
exacerbated by hotter and more humid days. The Ontario Medical Association estimated that air
pollutants contribute to 5800 deaths and 16,000 hospital admissions in a single year. In a review of
existing research in the field, scientists note that increased allergic disorders such as asthma, and
increased incident of cardiopulmonary disease, as a result of climate change (McMichael, Woodruff, &
Hales, 2006). Higher temperatures and heavy precipitation also combine to increase the spread of
water-borne diseases (Thomas et al., 2006). The potential for insect-borne diseases is increased given
longer warm periods allowing for greater population growth and migration in these vectors (City of
Toronto, 2008). Heat extremes can also have a serious impact on health resources in Ontario.
Researchers have documented an increased mortality rate and a 10% increase in ambulance calls during
heat extremes in Toronto over only a four-year period (Dolney & Sheridan, 2006). Heat extremes
present a significant challenge to public health agencies in southern Ontario given that Environment
Canada predicts there will be double the number of days where temperatures exceed 30°C in the GTA
by 2050 (Expert Panel, 2009). The IPCC also notes that certain strains of the West Nile Virus require
higher temperatures, and are therefore more likely to spread in Canada as a result of climate change
(Field et al., 2007). The IPCC have predicted an increased vulnerability to extended drought across all of
North America which can create food security concerns (Field et al., 2007). For example, the drought of
2001-2002 caused a drop of $3.6 billion worth of agricultural production in Canada (Wheaton et al.,
Climate Change Position Paper 10