Green City Clean Waters

When you hear “Philadelphia”, what comes to mind? Their hockey team, maybe? Or the historic cracked Liberty Bell? You might be surprised to learn that this venerable eastern U.S. city – founded in 1682; home to six million – is in the news as North America’s green model on managing storm water.

Since many older Ontario cities struggle with chronic stormwater pollution, we would be smart to look closely at the landmark agreement signed days ago between the City of Philadelphia and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Green infrastructure is at the heart of a $2 billion plan to manage the city’s stormwater runoff. With the EPA’s blessing and technical support, the city will address its aging infrastructure of pipes and concrete – not by perpetuating grey technology, but by shifting to green approaches such as porous pavements, rain gardens, grassy swales and green roofs. As this inspiring three-minute video shows, Philadelphia has embarked on a 25-year plan to capture at least the first inch of each storm through green solutions. One example of how the city is overturning conventional approaches: the city bills landowners for stormwater based on the amount of impervious surface area. Private landowners who reduce impervious surfaces can receive almost 100% rebates on their stormwater bill.

Green Infrastructure is a concept that is right for our times, and my latest Annual Report encouraged Ontario ministries to embrace it. It is a tool that can help us prepare for the twin challenges of a rapidly growing urban population and a less predictable future climate, marked by more extreme weather events and higher flooding risks. Green infrastructure can provide cost-effective approaches in many settings and at many scales.

The Ministry of Infrastructure (MOI) has a key role to play in making green infrastructure a mainstream approach in Ontario. In June 2011, the ministry released a Long-term Infrastructure Plan for Ontario called Building Together. I am pleased that this new plan does at least contain language encouraging municipalities to use green infrastructure. But MOI could also leverage the greening of many provincial projects: MOI was charged with oversight of close to $16 billion worth of infrastructure projects in 2010/2011 alone. There are compelling arguments for MOI to seize the huge potential embodied in green infrastructure, and to translate the encouraging green words of Building Together into pilot projects, measurable targets and goals.

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.

Memories from the destructive blow of Hurricane Hazel on Southern Ontario on October 15, 1954, still linger. Torrential rain devastated many communities. Bridges, roads and railway lines were washed out. Homes were flooded or collapsed from the force of raging water overflowing from swollen creeks and rivers. The biggest tragedy, however, was the loss of human life. More than 80 Ontarians lost their lives in this catastrophic event.

Hurricanes and severe storms are often described as rare and extreme events; somehow this suggests they are out of our hands and that it is okay to merely hope they won’t happen. Unfortunately, they do happen. I grew up in Timmins, and played in Town Creek. I recall the Timmins Storm of 1961 that ripped roads apart and drowned a family in their home. The Peterborough storm of 2004 overwhelmed the city’s storm sewer system and left most of the city under a meter of murky water. We are wiser to accept that these extreme weather events will happen and must be planned for.

Planning for severe storms will become even more important in the future under a changing climate, as the severity and frequency of such events are expected to increase. In my 2009/2010 Annual Report, I called on the Ministry of Environment (MOE) for swift, coordinated and decisive action on “Planning for Stormy Weather.”

MOE has recognized the need for a policy framework to support resilient municipal stormwater management systems. The ministry has also identified the need for updating existing stormwater management guidelines and for a concerted planning effort by a number of provincial ministries, municipalities and conservation authorities.

For this important planning work, we will be relying on the ongoing good work of conservation authorities. Conservation authorities manage flood control and prevention infrastructure and work closely with provincial, federal and municipal levels of government to prepare for and respond to extreme weather events. They deliver programs that prevent some $100 million in flood damages every year. To continue their important work on mitigating flooding risks, CAs will need adequate funding. For over a decade, provincial funding for these programs has remained steady at about $7.6 million per year, eight times less than the early 1990s. It is estimated that an additional $14 million per year is needed from the province.

More storms are coming our way; will we be prepared? Will we have the resilience to weather them?

The Bluesfest stage collapsed during an extreme weather event. Fortunately no one was killed. But the world of late has been plagued with other weather extremes such as droughts, floods, fires and tornados and regrettably many lives have been lost. The insurance companies have been taking a bath in property damage. According to Munich RE, aggregate losses from weather-related natural catastrophes now total US$1,600 billion since 1980, and insured losses have increased, on average, by 11% per year And where there are large losses, one can be sure litigators are lurking.

Who is to blame? Well, of course, the standard answer is that extreme weather events are individual, rare and random events that can’t be foreseen. No one is at fault. They are just part of the risks of life. Ah, but is that answer true in the age of human induced rapid climate change? One climatologist from Environment Canada has his doubts.

Everything we build, everything our province or municipalities approve is based on standards which, in turn, are based on assumptions of statistical risk of weather extremes. For example, we allow buildings to be constructed on known flood plains, but just on those portions that are not likely to flood in 100 years based on a statistical analysis of past weather patterns. Effectively our provincial and municipal governments are saying to the public that the infrastructure of our communities is prepared to handle all but the most unusual weather conditions.

But we know that historic weather patterns no longer apply. The climate is changing and with this change, is bringing in a new pattern and frequency of extreme weather events. And governments have not updated their standards or thoroughly reviewed our built infrastructure to establish if it is still appropriate and safe. Our municipalities, which often wield the most direct levers of control in this area, have not yet adapted to climate change largely because of the influence of climate change deniers, doubters and delayers. But the risk are real, just ask the insurance companies.

Can our governments continue to shirk all responsibility and liability for losses incurred due to extreme weather events when we know that their frequency and severity is increasing? The litigators lurk in the shadows. If there are law suits they will be big ones. The courts may yet decide the fate of those that follow the deniers, doubters and delayers. Ontario has a climate change adaptation plan. It’s not perfect but it is a good start. Best if the province and municipalities get on with implementing aggressive adaptation measures.

Sometimes friends ask me for summer book suggestions.  If you’re up for some big picture thinking, I can recommend The Upside of Down by Thomas Homer-Dixon. I admit, with “Catastrophe” in the sub-title, it’s not exactly escapist froth for the beach.  But having read it a few years ago, I find my thoughts coming back to some of the core ideas.  Among other things, Homer-Dixon offers a great introduction to the concept of resilience, and what it takes for ecosystems and societies to maintain resilience.

As complexity increases in systems, resilience tends to decline. Predictability also is lost as complexity rises and feedback loops emerge. This was a theme I also focused on in my 2008/2009 Annual Report, “The one thing you can expect from complex systems is the unexpected.”  Once you’re attuned to the resilience concept, you begin to see the implications everywhere, from the cyclical burning and regrowth of fire-adapted northern forests to periodic financial bubbles and collapses, to this past spring’s social upheavals and democratic renewals in a string of Arab nations.

Building Resilience where I observed that I returned to the resilience theme this past spring in my annual Greenhouse Gas Report Meeting Responsibilities – Creating Opportunities, noting the risk of a climatic tipping point in the nearterm.Even in southern Ontario we are seeing cities like Peterborough battered by repeated extreme storms, supposedly rare, one-in-100-year events, as I described in my 2009/2010 Annual Report.

We face a great challenge: to de-carbonize our global economy in the next 40 years in order to avoid this tipping point. This is a challenge that will require humanity’s full scope of creativity and exuberant experimentation.  It will also require resilience at every level of social organization.

Summer can be a good time for quiet reflection – preferably by a cool lake, a hammock slung under some big old trees.  That may be the very best place for us to re-imagine ourselves in a resilient future.

View Blogs – Enviromental Commissioner of Ontario in a larger map

The climate change models have always predicted that one of the outcomes to expect from a warming climate is more extreme weather events.  And, looking at world events in recent years, there certainly seems to be an increase in storms, floods, droughts, extreme temperatures and large forest fires. But perhaps this is just a perception brought about by our much increased interconnectedness. Are we just better informed about events going on around the globe, so it seems like they are increasing?

The one institution in society that has to know exactly what is going on with respect to extreme weather events is the insurance industry. Their whole economic survival depends on guessing in advance the risk of large damaging weather events. If they get it wrong it can cost them billions. It’s no surprise then that they track and enumerate such occurrences.

The graph below was recently published by Munich Re, one of the world’s largest reinsurance companies. It clearly shows that natural catastrophes have increased substantially over the last 30 years with a trend line on the upswing. These data include all natural events not just those related to climate and/or weather. But look! Geophysical events such as earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions show no pattern of increase. All the increase is due to meteorological, hydrological and climatological events which have all more than doubled. From an insurance point of view it certainly looks like the climate is changing.

So why is it that when an extreme weather event occurs scientists declare that you can’t say that any particular weather event was the result of climate change? James Hansen, the preeminent climate scientist from NASA, recently blogged (.pdf) on that question this way:

Finally, a comment on frequently asked questions of the sort: Was global warming the cause of the 2010 heat wave in Moscow, the 2003 heat wave in Europe, the all-time record high temperatures reached in many Asian nations in 2010, the incredible Pakistan flood in 2010? The standard scientist answer is “you cannot blame a specific weather/climate event on global warming.” That answer, to the public, translates as “no”.

However, if the question were posed as “would these events have occurred if atmospheric carbon dioxide had remained at its pre-industrial level of 280 ppm?”, an appropriate answer in that case is “almost certainly not.” That answer, to the public, translates as “yes”, i.e., humans probably bear a responsibility for the extreme event.

In either case, the scientist usually goes on to say something about probabilities and how those are changing because of global warming. But the extended discussion, to much of the public, is chatter. The initial answer is all important.

So it is very important to be conscious of how you structure the message if you want to engage in the great climate change debate. But one thing seems apparent in these confusing times of sceptics, deniers, trolls and obfuscators. Gaia doesn’t care what we hairless apes think. She will just keep whacking us with weather until we start behaving.

Gord Miller
commissioner@eco.on.ca

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has come out with a compelling poster graphic of what’s in store for Canada in the next 40 to 60 years (click to download .pdf).

Here’s what we have to look forward to in Ontario:

• Moderate to high permafrost thaw sensitivity in Northern Ontario
• More frequent disruptions to water treatment/distribution and energy generation/transmission
• Increased water shortages in S. Ontario
• Increased summer temperatures and evaporation rates
• Increased health risks related to extreme weather, heat, smog and food-, water- and vector-borne diseases
• Remote communities affected by evacuations, transportation disruptions and stressed forest-based economies