The cost of sustainable development

Sustainability is often framed as just another individual choice. You can buy regular appliances or energy-efficient versions, conventional produce or organic, a gas car or an electric vehicle. But often, the most sustainable choice is simply to buy less. The same is true when it comes to sustainable development. While it is a good thing to preserve green space, choose renewable materials and build more energy-efficient structures, the most sustainable choice may be not to build at all. Many so-called “sustainable” developments promise to remove fewer trees, use less toxic or wasteful materials, or construct buildings to be more energy-efficient. Not that these aren’t good things, but if it means paving over irreplaceable farmland, wetlands or other precious green spaces, can we really call it sustainable? Municipalities in the West Island and Off-Island are grappling with this question now, pinched by pressure to accommodate a growing population and the reality that our natural spaces are dwindling — and we are only beginning to appreciate how important they are. At a recent council meeting, Hudson Mayor Jamie Nicholls noted that while preserving biodiversity has been identified as a priority among the 82 communities that make up the Montreal Metropolitan Community, green space — and therefore the cost of its preservation — is not equally shared in the region. “We’re doing the work in our communities to conserve areas to make sure we’re providing ecosystem services to the entire region,” Nicholls declared. “If we’re going to save our floodplains, wetlands, and interesting forests so that they connect the landscape and are functioning in a way that will serve future generations, than the Montreal Metropolitan Community had better start looking at giving us some form of compensation for the services we are providing for them.” Governments have the power to create zoning regulations and laws to preserve natural spaces and set standards that can minimize waste or improve the longevity of new construction. While there are many benefits to these practices, they often cost more money in the short-term. It’s awfully tempting for municipalities to take the boost in tax revenue from development, even if the more responsible choice is to preserve that land or enforce stricter standards. The divisions between boroughs, towns, and even provinces, mean nothing to our waterways, flora and fauna. It’s good to see developers and municipalities are thinking more about sustainable development. But so long as the health of the region relies on the altruistic choices of communities to forgo badly needed tax revenue to preserve waterways, wetlands and forests, the system can only be called unsustainable.

We’re doing the work in our communities to conserve areas to make sure we’re providing ecosystem services to the entire region.