Our Greenhouse Gas Challenge
There are two pieces in the morning’s Sun that I am going to suggest you read.
The first deals with Canadian greenhouse gas figures. Per capita, we produce more than most countries
more than 20 tonnes for each and every Canadian. That is twice as much as Europeans produce, and five times more than the 4.2 tonnes per capita generated by South Asians.
That is because of the oil sands and the rest of Canada’s use of coal fired power stations. Yes we are a big cold country, but other cold places seem to have stepped up to the plate a lot more readily than we have – including countries like Norway which is also arctic and have lots of oil.
But while this is true of Canada as a whole, it does not apply to BC – which does not burn coal to produce electricity here, nor do we have oil sands. So the remedies needed in the rest of Canada will not help to get our ghg emissions down. We do have a lot of coal – much of which is exported for steel making in Asia – and its use for power or gasification is anticipated – and claimed to be “clean”. But in the Lower Mainland our biggest ghg emitter is transportation.
And this is where we turn to today’s lead editorial on transit fares. This very properly turns on Translink’s governance and the “the province’s predilection for meddling in TransLink’s affairs”. It also notes that our transit system has expanded by 30% since Translink took over. What it does not say is that this has made very little difference to market share. That was around 11% of all trips then and still is now. Not only has the population grown but those people make more and longer trips – and they still use their cars first and foremost. And they do that because the places that are growing fastest have still got very poor transit systems – as the Mayors of those areas pointed out when they rejected the South of the Fraser transit plan.
The province’s meddling means we have seen no action on building the Evergreen Line but $2 billion thrown at the Canada Line – which serves an area that already has pretty good transit service (Vancouver) and will help the airport get people too and from its new long term car parks. It will actually reduce transit service quality from South of the Fraser since the people who now get a one seat bus ride will be forced to transfer and stand. What every professional assessment of the region’s transit system has shown is that much more bus service is needed, and if rail is to be used it has to be much cheaper to build than SkyTrain. The Province has ignored that advice – as have many Mayors, let it be said.
But far worse has been the province insisting on fare and property tax increases as a condition of more gas tax. And the decision, made long before any studies were done or any public consultation started, to increase the traffic capacity of Highway #1. As with the Sea to Sky expansion, the environmental assessment was useless, and the pretext (the Olympics) even thinner. Both are driven by the real estate developers. And it must also be noted that Kevin Falcon was a realtor and that the BC Liberals depend on this part of the private sector to get their election war chest. We get the government we pay for – and the huge cut that realtors take from home sales for doing very little means they have plenty to give to political parties – and they get tax relief for doing so!
Since BC cannot reduce its greenhouse gas much by changing the way it generates electricity or produces petroleum products, it has to get serious about transportation. Since Metro Vancouver has little manufacturing and less abstraction of raw materials, transportation is proportionately even more significant as a source of ghg. Yet Gordon Campbell gets angry if anyone suggest he rethink his highway expansion plans, even though in theory the decision making process – consultation and EA for Highway #1 and the SFPR – is not completed yet.
It actually does not matter very much, south of the Fraser, that fares are going up. Because there is little transit – and what there is does not meet the needs of a “many to many” trip making pattern. And that is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. But what will change if the BC Liberals get their way is that there will be more road capacity. And as we have seen everywhere else, that will get taken up very quickly indeed, no matter the transit fare might be. Indeed, we know that what determines trip making in the long term is expectations. That is what drives location decisions, which determine trip patterns. And the current expectation is that fares will go on increasing, service will improve fitfully and not by very much, while highway capacity will continue to be added. And since nothing is being done about affordable housing the pressure to spread out onto “vacant” land on the edge of town will continue.
The province’s greenhouse gas policy is just words. Its actions, so far, point the other way. The government’s agenda is what it always has been. Cut government services, privatise first (think afterwards), reduce the debt and where possible throw the rich another tax cut. To the extent there is any economic strategy it is build mega projects wanted by some minor private sector interest group or other and continue to pursue projects like the convention centre which are not needed and have no chance of ever paying for themselves. Nothing is being done about the crisis in housing, or the shortage of skilled labour or our continued dependence on the faltering US economy. The greenhouse gas thing is simply greenwash – yes it has the public’s attention at the moment so make some announcements, but no fundamental change in direction from the standard right wing political play book in use all over the world.
If the province was serious about the environment it would be actively involved in providing housing for the workers we need. It would be concentrating on making BC Hydro more efficient – not less as a way to pump cash to the private sector. It would be calling a halt to port and highway expansion. And it would be buying lots of buses and light rail vehicles for use on existing tracks. It would be dealing with the New Westminster railway bridge – the biggest issue actually facing port destined traffic – not the Port Mann. And it would be looking for ways to make transit more attractive not less. I happen to think, based on long experience, that means service quality. But people do respond to price changes – and expectations of future price changes. So a widely useful transit and other small transactions smart card – that has an inbuilt price guarantee to help its introduction – would be a much more effective strategy. Especially if there was a realistic prospect that the wait for the bus would be shorter and more likely that you can actually get on board when it comes.
It absolutely boggles my mind how few people know how important that rickety old rail bridge is to this region, and how badly it needs to be replaced. I would argue that it is perhaps the single most important piece of infrastructure holding back our region at this point in time, far more than trucks on the Port Mann or human deaths from the Patullo. The Industrial Land Reserve is just as important for improving industry in the Metro, but I can imagine that just expanding that rail bridge would easily allow current industry to vastly expand their shipment quotas to and from the ports and trucking facilities. Even with an Industrial Land Reserve, it will be of not much use unless something is done about that bridge.
Paul Hillsdon
January 2, 2008 at 11:01 am
What are your views on alternative energy such as hydroden and the plans for the hydrogen highway in the Lower Mainland? Would it be possible to make hydrogen locally without a high amount of energy? Thanks, Maria
Maria Burdak
January 2, 2008 at 11:48 am
Is the rebuilding or replacement of the bridge included in the Gateway Program?
Corey
January 2, 2008 at 1:28 pm
At the risk of being accused of ranting, I would like to make a couple of points. First of all, the Govt of Canada has identified the Asia Pacific Gateway as critical to the international economic competitiveness of the entire nation, and to the economies of the other provinces. The notion that BC is going to just say “No” is really not on, since the other provinces will not stand for a situation in which a region perceived as privileged in terms of location and climate decides to act in a way that unduly restricts their trade opportunities. Any “no build” decision by the Govt of British Columbia, launched against the other provincial economies in the nation, would be interpreted as an attack by the Govt of British Columbia on the Canadian economy, requiring a full retaliatory response upon British Columbia under Section 91A of the Constitution.
There are environmental problems associated with the Roberts Bank port developments and the associated South Fraser Perimeter Road. These need to be addressed and go far beyond, but do include, the elements of the Tsawwassen Treaty which will convert farmland into a container yard. How a fully credible environmental assessment can be done with satisfies everyone, I don’t know. Perhaps someone would like to suggest a procedure?
An SFU grad student did a report a few years ago stating the the BC Environmental Assessment Office had never rejected any application from anyone. This claim has become part of the mythology, and it leads me to ask what is the remedy? Is it wholesale staff changes at the EAO, involving everyone from the clerks on up to the Deputies, or does it involve disbanding this agency in its entirety and farming its work out to environmental NGOs and to private consultants identified as trustworthy by those NGOs?
On the issue of funding Translink from the gas tax or the property tax, how do other Canadian cities, or for that matter European or American cities, fund their transit and road systems? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it’s true that the highly successful Toronto Transit Commission is funded by fares and property taxes, overlooking one time capital assistance from the Govt on Ontario for major projects, and has no gas tax income at all. If the gas tax is to be identified as a revenue source on the basis of “user-pay”, then shouldn’t that portion of Translink’s revenues be used for road improvements, which would include bus lanes and pullouts? Why shouldn’t property tax payers, who benefit financially from the increased land values that improved transportation brings about, be expected to bear some significant share of the costs on the basis of “beneficiary pays”?
Budd Campbell
January 2, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Maria
I have written about hydrogen here several times. It is not an alternative source of energy, it is merely a very expensive and troublesome way of converting energy into a storable medium for later use. If you plan on flying a rocket to the moon, using hydrogen as a fuel makes some sense. To get downtown in the rush hour it makes no sense at all. Hydrogen is being vented at present by industrial processes as a waste product but it is not clean enough to use in fuel cells. It might be useful as an additive to natural gas (”hythane”) for burning in internal combustion motors but has not so far been proven worthwhile. At the moment hybrids are probably the reasonable option – especially when used with renewable biofuels, preferably ones made with waste products. The fact that Ballard – the pioneer of fuel cells – has abandoned automobiles tells us a lot about the cost benefits of hydrogen.
Corey
You can read all about the Gateway proposals on their web page. You will not find any mention of the New Westminster Railway Swing Bridge although various reports have been commissioned inculding one about five years ago iirc by the provincial government.
Budd
The Government of Canada does not have a monopoly on wisdom. If Canada needs more west coast facilities (and I am far from convinced that it does) Prince Rupert is a much better location both from the point of view of shipping across the Pacific (a day’s sailing saved) and easier route across the Rockies – the Yellowhead Pass being much less of a haul than the Kicking Horse.
The BC Government deliberately gutted its own EA process – and has been very sharply criticised by the Environment Canada since the review must meet CEAA requirements. That is a legal standard that the proponents have now failed to meet on the port expansion, the SFPR and the Highway #1 projects. For the EA process to function it has to stand up to peer review – and it simply doesn’t.
If you think the TTC is “highly successful” then you have not been keeping up with your reading lately. It is a virtual basket case and was seriously considering wide service cuts to make its books balance – including closing its newest subway line. Toronto’s transit system is nearly as badly challenged as Chicago’s. Either we have user pay – which means road user charges too – or we try to level the playing field. The use of property tax to pay for transportation does not meet either situation. It is ridiculous to argue that only people who own property near transit improvements should be expected to pay for them – and many property owners would contend that the unwanted impacts of noise and, in the case of roads, air pollution should result in property tax reductions to compensate for the nuisance. We all benefit from well designed and executed transportation projects. At present we do not have any – because the decisions do not stand up to any kind of rational analysis. They are driven by a property developers perspective, not an objective assessment in terms of the region’s goals and objectives.
Stephen Rees
January 2, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Stephen:
I think we find ourselves in complete agreement in so far as your statement, “The Government of Canada does not have a monopoly on wisdom” is concerned. I have to wonder if you’re engaging in a bit of understatement humour here. And additionally I do fully agree that making full us of Prince Rupert and the northern CN line is highly indicated in terms of land prices, regional development opportunities, and improved utilization of existing rail routes.
My point was that the Federal Govt, however wisely or ineptly, has identified the Pacific Gateway, however defined, as a national transportation priority. It’s important to realize that the federal statements on the issue have clearly tied it to federal jurisdictions enumerated in Section 91A, specifically international trade and competitiveness, and marine and harbours, rather than leaving it as just a routine provincial roads issue.
I am curious about your statement that the BC Govt deliberately gutted its own EA process, and I wonder if you might elaborate on that. I did find a good legal brief a couple of months ago on the web by a law office on this issue {http://www.fospfriends.com/documents/FINAL_OPINION_November_20_2006.pdf}which makes it clear that the BC process is less legalistic than the federal process, but that the conduct of a joint review does not relieve either level of government of its statutory obligations. This particular law firm was of the opinion that the provincial process is broader in scope, and that the two processes in combination provide more opportunities for citizen input and impact that either process standing alone.
If federal wildlife officials have determined that SFPR or Deltaport expansion will destroy bird habitat, they are required to say so. Then it will be up to the federal Environment Minister to make a decision on whether or not this means the projects must be either amended or prohibited altogether. Similarly, if the provincial EAO officers have found that drainage will be altered, they would be required to report that, and then it’s up to the provincial minister of Sustainable Development to decide if the project can go ahead or is to be barred.
In the case of a public project like a highway there is clearly a problem where the provincial government is required to approve/reject its own proposal in the final analysis. However, I really don’t hear anyone proposing a solution to this problem. What kind of process would get the government off the hook of being both judge and applicant? Who will take over the role of judge from the Crown? One answer might be to abandon the British and Canadian model of bureaucratic regulation and Ministerial discretion in favour of the American model of juridically enforceable statutes. The law sets a standard and groups unhappy with developments or ongoing operations sue in front of a court. Would this be a better procedure?
Budd Campbell
January 3, 2008 at 10:35 am
Budd
This is covered by the article on Dissent against the Eagleridge Bluffs project.
Kevin Falcon was then the minister responsible for deregulation. At the same time, the provincial environment ministry saw its budget halved, which severely limits its ability to do anything very significant. If the process is open and objective and the proper measurements and studies are done, then the EA continues to work, since facts and figures tend to speak for themselves. It is only when the input process is so late than nothing can be done, and the quality of the assessment is so lacking but the government proceeds anyway that faith is lost in the system. Judicial review is not out of the question but will be very expensive.
Stephen Rees
January 3, 2008 at 10:54 am
Stephen:
I agree that judicial review is expensive, and no doubt that is one reason why it has been resisted by Canadian governments. But governments come and go and so do their priorities, and if one wants to “bullet proof” the environmental assessment process perhaps the American model needs to be looked at.
Budd Campbell
January 3, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I wasn’t thinking of the governments’ view – rather that of the citizens disgusted at the current sham using good old fashioned common law to force the BC government to act responsibly for a change. There are writs that can be used to force governments to do the job properly.
Note also that our government stopped a power plant in the Fraser valley that would have impacted our air quality but was actually located in Sumas, Washington. Could Washington achieve the same thing if the location was north of the border and they had to rely on our EA process?
Stephen Rees
January 3, 2008 at 1:45 pm