Ontario’s 2012 budget attempts to adapt to a new economic reality.  This reality is defined by slower economic growth than experienced in the past as the labour force ages and traditionally strong industrial sectors, such as manufacturing and forestry, wrestle with globalization and the surge in the Canadian dollar. This new economic reality must also be viewed within a context of the interconnected energy and climate challenges that are becoming more severe as conventional oil reserves are depleted and greenhouse gas emissions are pumped into our atmosphere in ever greater quantities.  Dwindling global fossil fuel resources are one of several factors contributing to rising gasoline prices (note that Ontario motorists spent a record $17.6 billion buying gasoline in 2011) and intensifying climate change impacts from the use of fossil fuels are manifesting themselves in the form of hotter weather and more erratic and intense precipitation and wind patterns.

Maria Van Der Hoeven, executive director of the International Energy Agency, addressed the climate and energy challenge at a recent conference of the world’s energy ministers in London England: “the current state of affairs is unacceptable precisely because we have a responsibility and a golden opportunity to act. Energy-related CO₂ emissions are at historic highs, and under current policies, we estimate that energy use and CO₂ emissions would increase by a third by 2020, and almost double by 2050. This would be likely to send global temperatures at least 6C higher within this century.”  Unfortunately Ontario’s 2012 budget fails to address the long-term challenge of transitioning to a low carbon, climate-resilient economy.  The Drummond Report released earlier this year chastised the government for the lack of a long-term perspective in the budget-making process, but apparently no-one was listening when it came to the serious risks posed by climate change and fossil resource depletion.  It doesn’t have to be this way.  We only need to look east of the Ottawa River to see a provincial government that is leading in the transition towards a low-carbon future and reflecting this within its budget process.

Quebec, while admittedly blessed with extensive low-carbon hydroelectric resources that aid in this transition, faces fiscal challenges that are perhaps worse than Ontario.  Its debt-to-GDP ratio is around 50 per cent compared to Ontario’s 35 per cent, and its population is relatively older which means a smaller labour force and higher healthcare costs. But in spite of these fiscal challenges, Quebec’s 2012 budget doubled down on low-carbon investment.  This money is coming directly from carbon pricing revenues that will escalate to $425 million/year by 2015-2016 as the province’s cap-and-trade program is extended to cover transportation and residential fuels.  And, while the Ontario government falters in implementing its formerly ambitious Climate Change Action Plan, in February 2012 the Quebec government launched a formal public consultation on a new Climate Change Action Plan (only available in French) that will help it achieve its 2020 target of reducing emissions by 20 per cent over 1990 levels.  I hope that the Ontario government can follow the Quebec lead and overcome this current period of policy stagnation to demonstrate a long-term perspective on climate mitigation that sets us on a path towards resilience and prosperity in an uncertain future.

We would like to thank all of those who came to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario’s booth at the Green Living Show last weekend to learn about your rights under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR). Many of those who came to our booth had questions. Here are some of the typical queries and their answers.

1. What do you do? What is this all about?
2. Are you part of the Ministry of the Environment?
3. How many people are in your office?
4. Are these books on your rack free?
5. You say we can comment on proposed government decisions. How do you ensure the ministries consider our comments?
6. There is a litter problem in our neighbourhood park. My mom and I have to pick up garbage there every two weeks. How do I stop this littering problem?
7. I am a high school teacher. What are some great resources for my students?

1. What do you do? What is this all about?
Required by a law called the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR), the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO) is an independent officer appointed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. His role is comparable to the Auditor General, the Ombudsman, and the Information and Privacy Commissioner, in that he is non-partisan and is an arms-length officer of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The ECO oversees 13 Ontario ministries’decision making as those decisions relate to the environment.The ECO monitors and reports on the 13 ministries’ compliance with the EBR, the government’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and its actions towards achieving greater energy conservation at all three levels of government. The current Commissioner is Gord Miller, who is in his third 5-year term.The EBR allows residents of Ontario to participate in environmental decision making in three main ways:

• The Environmental Registry: The Registry is a website database where the government is required to post for public notice information about proposals, decisions and policy changes that affect the environment. You have the right to comment on these proposals and the ministries must explain the effect your comments had when making their final decision.
• Application for an Investigation: Any two residents of Ontario who believe that a prescribed Act, regulation or instrument has been contravened may apply to the Environmental Commissioner for an investigation of the alleged contravention by the appropriate ministry.
• Application for Review: Any two residents of Ontario who believe that an existing policy, Act, regulation or instrument of Ontario should be amended, repealed or revoked in order to protect the environment may apply to the Environmental Commissioner for a review of the policy, Act, regulation or instrument by the appropriate ministry. Any two residents of Ontario may also request a new policy, Act regulation or instrument in order to protect the environment.

2. Are you part of the Ministry of the Environment?
No, the ECO is not a part of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. In fact, the Ministry of the Environment is one of 13 ministries, prescribed under the EBR, which the ECO oversees.

3. How many people are in your office?
There are 24 staff in our office including the Commissioner.

4. Are these books on your rack free?
Yes. The ECO releases three annual reports each year: the Annual Report, the Annual Greenhouse Gas Progress Report and the Annual Energy Conservation Progress report. The ECO also releases special reports as he sees fit. In 2012, the ECO released two special reports:  Biodiversity: A Nation’s Commitment, an Obligation for Ontario and Ready for Change? An assessment of Ontario’s climate change adaptation strategy.All of the ECO’s publications are available free of charge to the public. There are a limited number of paper reports and USBs (containing PDF versions of our reports) available. EPUB and PDF reports are always available for download on our website.

5. You say we can comment on proposed government decisions. How do you ensure the ministries consider our comments?
A minister who gives notice of a proposal on the Registry must consider the comments in reaching a decision. It is the ECO’s role to ensure ministries prescribed under the EBR comply with these rules by way of monitoring the Registry and reviewing all comments.

6. There is a litter problem in our neighbourhood park. My mom and I have to pick up garbage there every two weeks. How do I stop this littering problem?
Congratulations on helping to preserve the environment through your individual action. Litter and waste management are a municipal issue so you want to contact your local councillor and/or your local Public Works department to see what can be done.

7. I am a high school teacher. What are some great resources for my students?
You might start by looking through our Annual reports, Energy Conservation reports or Greenhouse Gas reports which are available on our website. There are many articles that relate to your curriculum. Sample articles from the 2010/11 Annual Report are:
Snapping Turtles: To Hunt or Protect?
What a Waste: Failing to Engage Waste Reduction Solutions
Less and Less: Budgets for MOE and MNR not Meeting Needs
Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracking
 Print This Post

A key message emerging from Ontario’s Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan (“Climate Ready”) is that Ontario’s public infrastructure is vulnerable to changing climate conditions and extreme weather events.   Infrastructure investment in sectors such as water, energy and transportation creates long-lived networks that enable economic prosperity for present and future generations. But the infrastructure we build can also hinder future generations if it is built to cope with climate and weather conditions that no longer exist. For example, an August 2005 rain storm in Toronto – rivaled only by Hurricane Hazel for the intensity of precipitation – overwhelmed stormwater infrastructure in a northern part of the city and wiped out a section of Finch Avenue. The costs of that storm exceeded $500 million, making it the most expensive disaster in Ontario’s history.  With Ontario’s climate beginning to show the effects of the build-up of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere such events will happen more frequently and could be just as costly unless we start planning now.  Many years of underinvestment have left significant portions of public infrastructure, for services such as water and electricity, near the end of their useful life.  This is fortunate, in a perverse way, because it provides the Ontario government with an opportunity to reinvest now to make critical systems more resilient to present and future conditions.  The Ontario government’s 10-year infrastructure plan recognizes the need to build adaptation into public infrastructure planning, which is a good first step.

As I note, however, in my recent preliminary assessment of the government’s climate change adaptation strategy (“Ready for Change?”) – key areas of public infrastructure – notably the provincial electricity grid – are not receiving adequate attention despite the fact that they are inherently vulnerable to a changing climate.

The idea that investment in infrastructure now yields greater payoffs than delayed action holds true on the climate change mitigation (i.e. GHG reduction) front as well.  The International Energy Agency (IEA) provides a stark reminder of this fact in its World Energy Outlook 2011.  Devoting an entire section to climate change, the IEA showed that unless we change the carbon footprint of our infrastructure going forward, a global average temperature increase somewhere between 3.5°C to 6°C by 2100 can be anticipated.  This is far beyond the range for which Ontario is planning, and would most certainly result in a severe reduction in living standards across the province.  This is because infrastructure built now will last for decades and thus “lock-in” emissions long into the future.

The IEA calculated the amount of GHG emissions that could be emitted over the next several decades while still having a likely chance of meeting the internationally agreed target of limiting global temperature rise to less than 2°C. This is the carbon budget that needs to be managed in order to avoid the most dire predictions, such as extreme sea level rise and mass extinctions. Shockingly, the IEA found that existing and planned capital stock (power generation, buildings, transportation and industry) will emit 80 per cent of that budget and that, without a clear economic signal to direct development towards a low-carbon path the entire carbon budget will be eaten up in just five years.  As we wait to embark on a low-carbon pathway for reasons of economic expediency, fossil-fuel infrastructure continues to be built and planned. Within Ontario, the Long-term Energy Plan calls for several new natural gas power plants over the next 20 years. It is precisely this type of fossil-fuel infrastructure that will need to be mothballed early (or undergo costly retrofits to capture the GHGs emitted) if we hope to keep the planet within its budget. Given the capital expense that goes into such infrastructure, it is unlikely that governments would be willing to make such politically unpalatable moves.

The IEA information illustrates the critical link between climate adaptation and mitigation.  As Ontario moves forward, we need to plan so that our children can live within the atmospheric budget using infrastructure networks that can cope with an uncertain future climate.  If we fail to accept this challenge we risk condemning our children to live in a less prosperous world.  Policy options exist to avoid this fate, including: aggressive energy efficiency; investment in renewable energy; a focus on climate resilience in the building code; and a move towards comprehensive carbon pricing to direct investment towards the low-carbon path. There is no time to wait.

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario will be speaking at the Munk School of Global Affairs tomorrow about Climate Change, Freshwater Management, and the Role of Science

This event will examine the impacts of climate change on Canada’s freshwater resources. The panelists will explore the importance of scientific research and monitoring in understanding the state of freshwater resources and in managing them sustainably, as well as the linkages between water use and the natural resource sectors in Canada.

Click here to register (Registration is required )

Other speakers:
Scott Vaughan, Federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development,
David McLaughlin, President and CEO of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy.

The event will be moderated by:
Jeffrey Simpson, National Affairs Columnist at the Globe and Mail, and co-author of Hot Air: Meeting Canada’s Climate Change Challenge

Date and Time: Tuesday, March 13, 2012.
Reception from 8:30am-9:30am.
Panel Discussion from 9:30am-11:30am.

Location: Vivian and David Campbell Conference Facility
Map: http://www.munkschool.utoronto.ca/location/

To register, visit: http://www.munk.utoronto.ca/EventDetails.aspx?eventid=11797 (Registration Required)

Webcast of the panel discussion will begin at 9:30 am (EST) at http://www.powi.ca

Ready for Change? An assessment of Ontario's climate change adaptation strategy

Toronto, March 7, 2012 – In his report Ready for Change? An assessment of Ontario’s climate change adaptation strategy released today at Queen’s Park, Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, said the Ontario government is off to an encouraging start in preparing the province for the impacts of climate change.  This is good news, says Miller, given the slow progress on other climate change issues. “The government is facing challenges in developing plans to further reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, but is doing a lot better with its strategy to adapt to climate change. We need actions to both reduce emissions and adapt to the changes – they are complementary.”

While endorsing the government’s plan, Climate Ready, Ontario’s Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan, 2011-2014, the Environmental Commissioner pointed out there are gaps in its strategy to limit the damage that will be caused by fiercer and more frequent ice storms, heavy rains, and heat waves.

The Commissioner’s report says the government must improve its strategic plan by prioritizing the actions that are needed, setting specific targets and timelines, identifying dedicated funding, and outlining the responsibilities of key government ministries.

“For example, despite the importance of our energy distribution and transmission system,” says Miller, “the Climate Ready Plan released in 2011 does not identify any actions to be taken by the Ministry of Energy. This concerns me because scientists are predicting an increase in devastating ice storms, like the one that toppled power lines and transmission towers and caused blackouts in 1998. And the long-term decline in Great Lakes water levels could reduce electricity generation capacity by more than 1,100 megawatts.”

“Climate change is one of the defining issues of our age,” insists the Environmental Commissioner, “and it’s already having an impact on our lives”:

• It threatens thousands of tourism and recreation jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the tourism industry. The ice-fishing season on Lake Simcoe has been getting shorter for the past two decades; the lake still hasn’t completely frozen over this year.  Skiing and snowmobile touring have also been harmed by warmer temperatures.
• First Nations communities in the north, such as Attawapiskat, are worried about the continued safety of winter ice roads that bring in needed supplies. Northern Ontario faces more rapid and extensive changes to its climate than the rest of the province.
• In July of 2009, Hamilton got 109 mm of rain in two hours, one of the biggest bursts of rain on record in Canada. Insurance losses were between $200 and $300 million. Following unprecedented rainfall in Peterborough in 2004, floods swept through the downtown, causing more than $112 million in damage.

Miller says the province must take the lead in helping local communities and municipalities adapt to climate change. “I was pleased that Ontario funded a Community Adaptation Initiative and, with the federal government, a Regional Adaptation Collaborative. Unfortunately money for both programs runs out this month.”

“I understand the Ontario government faces fiscal challenges right now,” says the Environmental Commissioner. “But the costs of adjusting to climate change in the future will only continue to increase if we don’t take action now. The government itself has indicated that the cost of extreme weather events could rise to $5.66 billion per year by mid-century.”

- 30 -

Download the report “Ready for Change? An assessment of Ontario’s climate change adaptation strategy”.

Read the Commissioner’s Opening Remarks to the Legislature

Visit http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/resources/STDPROD_081665.html to download the government’s report: Climate Ready: Ontario’s Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan, 2011 – 2014.

For more information and interviews, contact:
Maria Leung
Communications and Outreach Coordinator
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
416-325-3371
1-800-701-6454
maria.leung@eco.on.ca

For French language release and bilingual support, please contact Jean-Marc Filion, 705-476-9665.

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario is appointed by the Legislative Assembly to be the province’s independent environmental watchdog, and report publicly on the government’s environmental decision-making.

Aussi disponible en français.

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario is releasing a Special Report to review Climate Ready: Ontario’s Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan, 2011 – 2014. Climate Ready is a plan released by the Ontario government. It outlines measures that the government is taking to prepare the province for warmer temperatures, and more severe weather events, due to climate change. The Commissioner will be commenting on the adequacy of the government’s plan.

The report will be released at a media conference, and will also be available via webcast. To watch a live webcast of the media conference, please visit http://www.eco.on.ca/. Please note the Commissioner will not be taking questions via webcast, but will be available for individual interviews after the news conference.

Visit http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/resources/STDPROD_081665.html to download the government’s report: Climate Ready: Ontario’s Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan, 2011 – 2014.

WHEN: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.

WHERE: Room 149, Queen’s Park Media Studio, Legislative Assembly of Ontario
Legislative Building, Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario

•           Media not currently accredited by the Legislative Assembly (Queen’s Park) Media Gallery must register with the Press Gallery if they wish to participate in the conference. To register, contact Gerald Christopher, Press Gallery Coordinator – Room 387A or 416-325-7922 or gerald_christopher@ontla.ola.org.

•           The full report will be available in print and PDF formats at 10:00 a.m. on March 7, 2012. To download the report, visit http://www.eco.on.ca.

For more information or to schedule interviews, contact:

Maria Leung, Communications & Outreach Coordinator, 416-325-3371 or maria.leung@eco.on.ca.
For French language release and bilingual support, contact:

Jean-Marc Filion, 705-476-9665.

Aussi disponible en français.

-30-

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario is the province’s independent environmental watchdog. Appointed by the Legislative Assembly, the ECO monitors and reports on compliance with the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, the government’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and its actions towards achieving greater energy conservation in Ontario.

A recent study published in Nature Climate Change by University of Victoria climate scientists Andrew Weaver and Neil Swart is being seized upon by fossil fuel advocates as proof that the oil sands (or more technically the bituminous sands) are not as bad for the environment as previously thought.  The study calculates the carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions that would occur if the world’s entire reserves of oil, gas, and coal were consumed.  Its unsurprising finding that burning all proven reserves of coal or gas would release more CO₂ than burning all the proven oil reserves in the bituminous sands of Alberta is touted as proof that the industry has been unfairly targeted by activists and regulators in the U.S. and E.U.

The more nuanced analysis found in the paper (but ignored in mainstream press) starts by looking at how much the climate can warm before we can expect to start experiencing catastrophic impacts such as sea level rise, agricultural failure and ecosystem collapse.  Climate scientists have pegged this number at 2°C above pre-industrial times, or about 1.2°C above today’s temperature, a figure which has been accepted by the international community as a target in ongoing negotiations.  In order to have a shot of limiting temperature rise to 2°C and thus potentially stabilizing the climate, total cumulative global CO₂ emissions over the next several centuries must remain below 2.2 trillion tonnes. This is the ‘atmospheric budget’ that, because CO₂ stays in the atmosphere for a long time, must be shared amongst present and future generations.  If this amount is apportioned equally across the world’s population today (ignoring for a moment that pesky moral imperative of leaving space for future generations), allowable per capita emissions of CO₂ are on the order of 312 T over an individual’s lifetime.

The average Ontarian emits somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 T/yr which means that his/her entire budget is used up within 20 years.  So, just as we run deficits on the fiscal front, compromising the ability of future Ontarians to access quality health care and education, we are running massive deficits on the carbon front that threaten to destroy the very ecosystems upon which we depend for existence. This is the critical message that is missing from debate.

In order to have a shot of avoiding a catastrophic ‘carbon downgrade’ in living standards, the global community needs to immediately begin the transition towards renewable energy sources and aggressive energy conservation, ultimately reaching near zero emissions sometime this century. Within this context it is clear that massive investments in long-lived fossil energy infrastructure (be it upstream in coal-fired power plants and pipelines or downstream in the form of new highways or airports) are not consistent with the goal of avoiding dangerous interference with the climate system. The Ontario government has embarked on the path towards a lower carbon economy with its phase-out of coal-fuelled power plants from the provincial electricity grid which largely removes the dirtiest fossil fuel from the energy mix.  But Ontario is still heavily dependent on oil and natural gas.  While there is a policy framework for natural gas conservation, programs lack adequate funding and so easy opportunities for demand reduction have not been seized. With respect to oil consumption, the province lacks any policy framework for efficiency or conservation despite the fact that oil represents 40% of final energy demand. The ECO has recommended in the past that the government develop a comprehensive energy conservation strategy that encompasses all major energy sources used in Ontario.  Such a strategy will need to address the risks posed by climate change.

For years, discussions on climate change have focused primarily on carbon dioxide. As the most prevalent greenhouse gas, it lingers in the atmosphere for centuries, trapping heat. Recently, however, scientists have been highlighting the significant role played by other, shorter-lived pollutants such as methane and black carbon (or soot). While these gases don’t remain in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide, they nevertheless have a high global warming potential (GWP). In my most recent Annual Greenhouse Gas Progress Report, I discussed this as the “tyranny of the near term”; the concept that what we do – or don’t do – about a warming planet over the next few decades will ultimately determine our fate. The near-term challenge arises because the global warming potential of carbon dioxide is one (1), regardless of whether the time horizon is 20, 100 or 500 years. In comparison, the GWP of methane is 72 over a 20-year period, and the GWP of black carbon soot is a whopping 1,600 over the same time frame. In addition, soot is a particular problem in the northern hemisphere because when it lands on ice or snow it increases the absorption of sunlight and thus hastens the warming (and melting) process. While the residency time in the atmosphere for each of these pollutants is much shorter than for carbon dioxide (12 years for methane and only days or weeks for black carbon), the near-term release of these gases poses a much more significant threat than the equivalent release of carbon dioxide

With this preamble for context, I note with some optimism today’s announcement by Hillary Clinton, the United States Secretary of State, that the U.S., along with Canada and four other countries, has launched a program through the United Nations Environment Programme to reduce the release of methane and black carbon, as well as hydrofluorocarbons, worldwide. It has been estimated that these gases have an outsized impact on climate change; accounting for 30 to 40 per cent of global warming. While many of the initiatives will focus on activities that should be undertaken in the developing world, such as replacing traditional cooking stoves with more efficient models, there are several measures that can be taken here at home. As I pointed out in my report, increased attention could be given to reducing emissions from diesel engines, equipment and locomotives – the main sources of black carbon in the province. As well, one of the main sources of methane in the province is due to the decomposition of organic materials in landfills. While steps have been taken to capture these emissions, I raised several questions in my report about the efficacy of such measures and would reiterate that the best control method is to divert organic waste from landfills altogether. Given that the lens is now focused on these gases internationally, I would suggest it is time for the province to similarly sharpen its sights.

The Australian Senate passed its carbon tax legislation this past Tuesday as a key component of its Clean Energy Legislation Package. It’s the first stage in the country’s plan to reduce carbon emissions to five per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050. It will fix a tax of A$23 ($24 CDN) per tonne on the country’s top 500 emitters starting in July 2012 with a plan to transition to a cap-and-trade system from July 2015 onward. Industries including mining, airlines, steel and power generation are covered. After July 2015, companies in these industries will need a permit for each tonne of carbon dioxide they emit.

As the title of the legislative package suggests, the Australian government has linked the emergence of a clean energy economy with the establishment of a price on carbon. I’ve taken a similar position in my most recent Greenhouse Gas Progress Report as well as in a recent blog. For one thing, pricing pollution is one surefire way to ensure a more level playing field so that renewable energy can compete in the marketplace.

South Africa is also considering legislation to place a tax on carbon emissions. Meanwhile, the Ontario government has indicated it won’t move on pricing carbon until at least 2013. While Ontario continues to delay, other jurisdictions are taking a leadership role while kick-starting their green economies. If Ontario wants to accelerate the growth in green energy and a low-carbon economy, putting a price on carbon will need to happen sooner rather than later.

There are times – hopefully many – when threats of ecological degradation and weather destabilization, and the simple, hopeful notion of leaving a better world for future generations, are enough to inspire action. At other times, however, we require an appeal to the all-powerful bottom line. Money talks, to put it bluntly, and a new report released by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) recognizes this important truth, and attempts to frame climate change in terms that will get policy-makers to sit up and listen: dollars and cents, costs and benefits. The report, entitled Paying the Price: The Economic Impacts of Climate Change for Canada is the first in-depth exploration of what climate change will cost Canadians, and some of the numbers are pretty daunting.

The report, for instance, examines the effects of climate change on the forest industry, and finds that, in a scenario of high climate change and rapid economic and population growth, Canada could see a reduction in its GDP of $17.4 billion, or 0.33%, as a result of reductions in timber quantity due to climate change. Ontario, with its rich stocks of northern boreal forest, is hit hard, suffering a loss of $7.4 billion. Cumulative costs of climate change on the Ontario forest industry could hit $75 billion by 2080 if we do nothing to adapt.

In our cities, climate change will increase summer temperatures and worsen air quality, leading to increased mortality and illness. An unhealthy city is an expensive city. In Toronto, the cumulative costs of premature mortality risk due to heat and air quality impacts from 2010-2100 could hit $96 billion by 2080, and increased hospital visits due to reduced air quality could cost Toronto’s health care system $285 million over the same time period.

The NRTEE report closes each chapter with strategies for adaptation, and finds, with few exceptions, that the costs of implementing the strategies are significantly offset by the economic benefits of lessening the impacts of climate change. Proactive adaptation makes fiscal sense, which is to say nothing of the many non-economic co-benefits. These benefit-to-cost ratios reinforce the position I’ve taken in recent blogs and reports on why we need to put a price on carbon; it will help to decarbonize Ontario’s economy while hastening the transition to a clean-energy future.

There is only so far that the quantification of environmental impact can take us. We reach a point where the worth of our natural world simply cannot be expressed through market transactions. As the report explains, culture, well-being, sense of place, and health are treasured entities that largely exist outside of economic valuation. That said, in terms of getting our attention and inspiring action, this report is very meaningful. By 2075, climate change could cost this country $221 billion per year. Those are stakes that anyone can appreciate, and represent a compelling call to action.