Vancouver needs a less green agenda

Gre gor Robertson’s Vision party earlier this week touted its “Greenest City agenda,” one that is admirable but too narrowly focused for a city in great need of an economic boost. If people are to live in Vancouver, with its high residential ownership and rental costs, they need jobs — well- paying ones that ad dress the affordability crisis in the city.

No doubt, its environmental attributes are part of what enhances Vancouver’s appeal and draws talented people to our shores. But a record of low carbon emissions and lots of bike lanes are but one piece of the attraction puzzle.

Which is why Robertson’s mes sage this week — that “Greenest City progress ( is) at risk with Kinder Morgan” and its pipeline expansion pro ject — is of concern.

Kinder Morgan’s $ 5.4- billion project is expected to deliver, during its 2016- 17 construction phase, up to 4,500 jobs.

Over its 20- year operating span, it would gen er ate 50,000 to 65,000 person- years of work, providing a $ 2.8- billion eco nom ic boost to B. C.

The project would also contribute $ 1.03 billion in taxes to the provincial gov ern ment, and more than $ 2 billion in fed er al taxes.

Yet, a Vision Vancouver news release de clares “Vision’s en viron mental platform … puts leader ship against Kinder Morgan as a top pri or ity.”

The pro ject would great ly in crease oil tank er traf fic out of Port Metro Vancouver. But ideal ly it would be the city’s task, in co- operation with other Metro Vancouver municipalities, the province and the fed er al gov ernment, to en sure ne ces sary pre cautions and safe guards are in place, rath er than to re ject the pro ject out right.

There is a rea son why Cal gary, ben e fit ing from its oil and gas in dus try, reports median fam ily in comes of $ 93,000 com pared with $ 71,000 in Vancouver.

Vi sion is rightly boasting that this city, under Robertson’s leader ship, has been named the most walkable in Canada, with the lowest green house gas emis sions per cap ita of any city in North America.

But before patting itself on the back too en thusi as tically, Vi sion should remember that most au thor ity over the en viron ment rests with the provinces and Ottawa.

And it is great to have the con tin ent’s lowest carbon emis sions — not with stand ing that the city gets so much of its pow er from a hy dro- fed en ergy grid. But it should be noted the same Siemens Global sur vey that iden tified Vancouver’s carbon- emissions prow ess among 27 North American cities categorizes Vancouver as “a lowin come city.”

San Francisco is pegged as the greenest city over all, while Vancouver has the best re cord on car bon emissions.

Ac cord ing to the Siemens re search, “Vancouver fares even better … when com pared to other low- in come cities.”

After all, it may not be fair to put San Francisco in the same comparison bas ket when GDP per cap ita in that city is more than $ 60,000, while in Vancouver, it’s just $ 37,500.

Such per capita GDP fig ures should be a wake- up call to Vision. This city must be come more eco nom ic al ly vi brant and pro duct ive. It has made enor mous strides on its en viron ment al record. This clear ly is not where it needs to up its game.

A cam paign platform that comes out swing ing against a pro ject prom is ing to ad dress Vancouver’s lagging econom y needs great er bal ance.