Municipal climate crisis or climate … meh
Cities are in a position to make major changes if they have the guts
Well, the City recently declared a climate emergency and existential climate crisis, and some of us are probably heartened to know that finally, the people in charge are realizing that this is some serious crap that needs to be dealt with. And some of us might be worried that the words “crisis” and “emergency,” once ushered into the sluggish world of meetings, subcommittees and consultation, will be drained of their power, lose their urgency and become ... meh. And this at a time when we need urgency the most.
The City’s major task, then, is to actually behave like we’re in a crisis and make the decisions that larger governments won’t. And this makes sense: cities produce 70 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, so they’re in a prime position to effect change.
If we’re really going to treat our climate crisis like a crisis, there are concrete things our city can do – not “consider” or “study” or “discuss” but actually DO.
• All new builds should be net-zero; in residential construction, for example, net-zero is only $15,000 more than a traditional house build — money easily recouped through energy savings. Building permits should only be granted to plans including geothermal heating, lifetime metal roofs, and solar panels (the latter would decrease our dependence on nuclear power).
• Installing solar, geothermal and metal roofs should lower property taxes.
• The City should give generous breaks to environmentally responsible businesses, and insist that the savings be used to lower product and service costs. If vegan restaurants, bike shops, organic farms and thrift stores passed savings on to customers, this would encourage more people to shift toward sustainable practices.
• The City should assess which businesses within its boundaries are profiting from the dirtiest industries, and increase their property taxes and licensing fees. Fashion, electronics, gas cars, travel…these wreak environmental havoc and they need to increase in price to significantly reduce their consumption.
• There needs to be a mandatory program where all the major grocery stores in the area meet and address overpackaging. If, as a group, they tell a business that they must reduce or eliminate a product’s packaging or that product will be delisted, change will happen. We are simply too large a market for food brands and retailers to forego.
• Our transit system needs to be better, and cheaper. There need to be perks for electric vehicles, and more EV charging stations.
• Food businesses in the city must compost and recycle. No more food waste or coffee grounds in landfills.
• All disposable coffee cups must cost extra (50 cents sounds good to me) and be compostable, and no more black plastic lids. All beverage cans and bottles need to cost extra (75 cents), unless they are part of a reuse system like glass beer bottles. If people want to waste their money on drinks they don’t need then they might as well pay something closer to the actual cost of making and dealing with the container. If businesses don’t want to co-operate, let them be replaced by entrepreneurs who are ready to play ball. The point is not to push more recycling, because recycling pollutes; the point is to reshape our behaviour so that it’s sustainable.
• Plastic bags should cost a dollar each, not 5 cents.
• Water should cost more, especially for those living in the most expensive postal codes and property tax brackets.
• Major commuting arteries like the Linc, 401 and 403 should be tolled to encourage transit use and to push businesses to create more work-fromhome flexibility.
Extra taxes and fees on unsustainable products and practices would go to the City to fund green initiatives and public awareness campaigns to promote buy-in from residents.
Hamilton would, mark my words, be a news story around the world, and other municipalities would send representatives here to study our initiatives. Our economy would become a hotbed of new sustainable, innovative businesses. Burlington would join forces with us to cut down on cross-border shopping (and get in on the accolades). Toronto, embarrassed by its little Steeltown cousin’s incredible progress, would follow.
Many of you are reading this and thinking about all the reasons why none of this could happen: it’s too expensive; people won’t change; businesses will leave; etc. I have two responses to this kind of thinking.
First, remember that fast food workers in Denmark make US$20 per hour because they unionized and demanded it. This is more than double what fast food workers make in the United States, but companies like McDonald’s and Burger King are still operating in Denmark, because it’s still worth their while. Companies like Tim Hortons will figure out how to reduce their gigantic environmental footprint if we demand it, because it will still be profitable to operate here.
Second: CRISIS. EMERGENCY. These are the words. These are the reasons.