THUNDER BAY – Thunder Bay’s city council has unanimously endorsed a net-zero emissions plan charting a course to carbon neutrality by 2050, but several councillors expressed deep skepticism the plan was realistic or achievable even as they cast votes in favour.
The Climate-Forward City: Thunder Bay Net-Zero Strategy sets out a path for the community to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 90 per cent by 2050, in line with Canada’s commitments under the Paris Agreement.
City administration recommended that council endorse the strategy in principle, saying the step would guide but not bind future decisions.
A motion passed by council on Monday does, however, direct administration to proceed with next steps in the strategy’s 2021-2025 implementation plan.
That includes actions like developing a “climate lens” policy for municipal decision-making, launching household compost collection, exploring green financing mechanisms like municipal bonds and local improvement charges, and creating a plan to electrify city buses by 2035.
In the longer term, the strategy sets out ambitious targets like retrofitting most local buildings by 2030, moving water and home heating off of fossil fuels and making all vehicle sales electric by 2040, increasing industrial efficiency by 50 per cent by 2050, and locating 90 per cent of new development inside targeted intensification areas.
“To say this is an ambitious document is an understatement, but that’s okay” said Coun. Mark Bentz. “It gives hope for a more sustainable future, and it attempts to at least chart a course. I’m sure there are going to be many, many changes, but at least we’re putting it on the radar.”
Bentz argued council should endorse the strategy as an aspirational document while accepting the city likely wouldn’t meet its targets.
“If you read [the 2021-2025 implementation plan], you will see many points in there that clearly will not occur in the next 8 years, but they may occur in the next 18 years,” he said.
Coun. Shelby Ch’ng said she was supporting the strategy with “great reservations,” largely due to uncertainty over how the tab for the strategy’s estimated $5.1 billion cost through 2050 would be divided.
“I don’t see how this is economically feasible whatsoever,” she said. “I’m not going to sit here and tell the citizens of Thunder Bay this is doable, because it simply is not.”
“I don’t want us to pat ourselves on the back thinking we’ve done something by passing this strategy, when the real work actually lies ahead – it’s all of those small resolutions that come forward where we have the opportunity to buy an electric bus versus a gas-powered bus.”
Acting sustainability coordinator Summer Stevenson said it was impossible to predict exactly how costs would be divided amongst various levels of government, industry, business, and households, given the strategy's multi-decade time frame.
She pointed to an encouraging growth in federal dollars targeted for climate action, noting Canada had also adopted a 2050 net-zero target, along with other municipal jurisdictions from Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie to Toronto and Edmonton.
Coun. Aldo Ruberto forcefully pushed back against those calling that goal unachievable, pointing out the strategy forecast its massive investments would pay off with even greater economic returns for the city.
An analysis in the strategy forecast a net positive return of about $1.7 billion dollars over the life of the plan, including the generation of thousands of jobs and significant public health benefits.
“To Coun. Ch’ng’s comments about costs, obviously a reality is that there’s a cost involved," Ruberto said. "However, the other side of that ledger is the benefits."
Climate action is too crucial to back down on over cost concerns, no matter how large, he continued.
“At the end of the day, if the environment’s gone, we’re gone – it doesn’t matter the cost, it doesn’t matter how much money you have.”
“This is probably the most important issue we’re going to be dealing with now and in the future, period. So each time [climate issues] come before council, we’re going to make that decision based on cost, yes, but the benefits [are] more important.”
Coun. Andrew Foulds agreed, adding the city’s own experience showed climate action could be a financial win.
“Just to remind council, since 2009 we’ve reduced greenhouse gases [from municipal government operations] by 26 per cent, and that’s resulted in millions of dollars in reduced costs,” he said. “So when people talk about this being too expensive, wait a second – we’re saving money every year because of the investments we’ve made.”
The city had also accessed many millions in government grants by taking leadership on climate, he said.
Like Ruberto, he argued the moral cost of inaction was unacceptable.
“Frankly, our children and our grandchildren are counting on us,” he said. “I really believe this is a solid policy, it's the way forward, and I’m asking all of you to have the courage to take a bit of a risk and vote for net-zero.”
Those sentiments were echoed in a pile of letters and deputations in support of the net-zero strategy, from St. Joseph’s Care Group, Confederation College, the city’s Anishinaabe Elders Council and EarthCare Advisory Committee, and activist groups Fridays for Future Thunder Bay and Citizens United for a Sustainable Planet (CUSP), and others.
Coun. Albert Aiello worried committing to the strategy would tie council’s hands in future decision-making, locking in costs the municipality wasn't prepared to shoulder.
“Going green is expensive,” he said. “As an elected official very much looking at the bottom line and ensuring we get the most bang for our buck, these are things we should be thinking about. It’s great in theory, but is it a little bit overachieving? Maybe.”
“I don’t want to feel pressure that every time something comes up, administration is going to look at what’s the greenest possible way, because that comes with enormous costs. Someone’s got to pay for that, and it’s going to be the taxpayers of Thunder Bay.”
Paul Berger, a CUSP organizer and professor of education at Lakehead University who sat on the net-zero strategy's advisory committee, told councillors they could debate each other, but not the reality of climate change.
“Of course it’s hard to change things as significantly as we need to, but you can’t bargain with physics, as annoying as that is," he said. "We either make the needed changes and avoid catastrophic risk, or we don’t. We must, and we can.”
“When the best available science gives us nine years to cut global GHG emissions sharply to reduce the risk of destabilization, we must act boldly, ambitiously, and immediately.”
Climate change is an already observable reality, the strategy points out. From 1948 to 2016, the annual mean temperature in Ontario increased by 1.3 C.
Additional warming of 1.5°C to 2.3°C is forecast by 2050.
That would result in catastrophic consequences within their lifetimes, pointed out secondary school students Keira Essex and Nemma Swatton during a deputation on behalf of Fridays for Future.
“We will be there to see the effects of past generations’ inactions,” Essex told councillors.
“We’re at a watershed time,” agreed Mayor Bill Mauro, saying the green shift could be the largest economic transformation society has undergone since the industrial revolution.
“We all know there is a cost to doing nothing,” he said.
However, he said it would also be important to develop a better understanding of the financial implications of the strategy for the municipal government, and to be straight with the community that its ambitious targets are non-binding.
“There is a cost – the community will want to know what that cost is,” he said. “The heavy lifting really is going to have to come from the provincial and federal governments. We can lead with an aspirational target… and there will be a variety of decisions we’re going to make.”
The motion endorsing the net-zero strategy was ultimately carried unanimously, with all councillors present.
