Greetings I'm glad…

Greetings

I'm glad Greenpeace and others initiated a lawsuit to enforce the EBR, and have these EBR inputs occur. We need, or needed, similar for Bill 5, as cities are very much part of our climate problem and solution, and Toronto did lead the world once in fighting the climate change problem eg. the Toronto Target. I do NOT believe we are nearly as 'green' however, as made out to be, (and the ECO should be more critical of TO claims), and worry a lot that the curtailing of representation and the election-meddling in Toronto will worsen our responsiveness to the climate crisis, which was on the very tenuous side to begin with.

We don't count, for instance, the concrete emissions, which globally is around 5%, partially due to the inherent problem of making cement by burning limestone. We're so green in Toronto we don't use any of that stuff, right? And what is the # in Ontario? Why don't environmental assessments, done in both urban areas of Toronto and all parts of the province, include the total concrete use and its embodied carbon?

We're also failing to include air travel, and Pearson has around the same population as Canada use it every year. There is also a further climate effect from the height of emissions release. Honesty would mean some including of these emissions.

There's also a failure to include the imported carbon/emissions - which a previous ECO report did address somewhat, and if that were to be included eg. food miles/phone miles we'd definitely be world leaders, but in excess. This is taken from a C40 report:
CONSUMPTIONBASED GHG EMISSIONS OF C40 CITIES
MARCH 2018 • 8
03
Results
3.1 Comparison of consumption-based GHG
emissions with sector-based GHG emissions
Total consumption-based emissions of the 79 C40 cities
included in this study are 3.5 GtCO
2e (for the reference year 2011). This represents a 60% increase on the 2.2
GtCO2e emissions estimated for the same cities using
the GPC, and reflects the difference in GHG emissions
embodied in imported and exported goods and ser-
vices. It should be noted that different reference years
are used in this work (2011), and the GPC inventories (va-
rious between 2011 and 2015). Hence, the comparison of
the GHG emissions reported should be considered as an
indicative of the difference in emissions, rather than as
an exact number.
Most of the consumption-based GHG emissions of the 79
C40 cities are traded: two-thirds of consumption-based
GHG emissions (2.2 of 3.5 Gt CO2e) are imported from
regions outside the cities. This shows that consumption
activities by residents of C40 cities has a significant im-
pact on the generation of GHG emissions beyond their
boundaries.

The report is from March 2018; this be the source:
https://www.c40.org/researches/consumption-based-emissions

The important thing being nearly 60% above estimate, not citing cities, unfortunately, blending to an average, so for sure Toronto is worsening things, because we're high-livers, including TIFF and tourism. The claims of 'green' travel through electric cars and buses is also ignoring all of the embodied energy/pollution from the battery and the car-making; the ECO should know better, and speak/write more truthfully.

And perhaps of worry, though mentioned in the ECO report, the use of some GHGs in foams is Trouble, and is it including footwear? These foam issues are NOT new, circa 25 years ago some similar worries. While maybe some change has occurred, if it's like transit and bike lanes, same old ____ ie. lots of climate change, and not change away from a problem to survival.

The same denial of full carbon footprint is evident within the ECO's 2018 report, which claims the nuclear plants are 'clean' - NO, they are not, and cannot be, as we have given future generations another horrendous and costly burden in the long-term - like, THOUSANDS of years - handling of the radwaste. What is the carbon cost of that? And since we haven't done anything really on this, what can we learn about the costs, carbon and financial, of containing radwaste eg. Fukushima. Oops and oop$$$$ - into the billions I think, and still emitting, along with a no-go zone nearby. Yes, a little qualifier in some text somewhere about it being at point of production; and that being buried, a repetition about it being 'clean'.

With Bill 4, overall, it is feeling like an attempt to repeal the laws of physics, not merely something done of some utility, which, while cap and trade is not so great in some ways, it offered a way forward to price carbon. Pricing carbon - through a carbon tax or a cap and trade - is a needed thing, advocated by many conservatives and market types, How ironic that the Nobel prize in economics just given out had as a co-winner someone lauded for work on figgering out carbon taxes being effective at reducing GHGs.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/climate-change-economists-win-nobe…

I do wonder if Premier Ford has even heard of the Nobel Prizes, though he's likely heard of dynamite, given his wreckord.

Most politicians will downplay to lie about things to make it sound better, or have a wilfull blindness, and that's a pretty good book on the topic as it relates to climate change. Just as following orders wasn't accepted as an excuse for the crimes against humanity after WWII, so should the denialism inherent in 'Conservative' climate policies be no real excuse. Just because some deny laws of physics etc., and the people harmed/dying aren't necessarily going to be 'folks' in 905, doesn't mean the lives aren't worth something. Excess emissions will, at some point, be seen as crimes against some parts of humanity, especially with knowing about the problem, and doing nada but making it worse.

At this point in time in the greenhouse century, given it's nearly 30 years of more official/large knowing of climate change, to be ripping up everything - with the Ford/Con slagging of two different policy instruments into a 'cap and trade carbon tax' diss - only furthers our appalling record of excess. Canada, and Ontario within Canada, are sadly world leaders in a wrong way. (And TO is not that green either; but the money's in sustain-the-bull).

The Toronto Target went global in 1989, and I believe formed the basis of German climate policy, which is far more robust - and met! - than anything Canadian, though they too are on the blind side of travel. (but dannake, with lessens for living lighter)

Canada did lead at Paris recently, but we're backsliding towards excess, even before the great risks of forest fires and melting of the permafrost threaten to goose our massive emissions even further, and feedback loops are likely well underway, having more momentum than a Ford on the Council chamber floor, looking elsewhere, though I don't believe it was a deliberate knockdown.

And meanwhile, things are getting worse and evermore urgent:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must…

Things are definitely burning, and so to add fuel, including the Minister of the Endvironment Mr. Phillips has done in celebrating a lower gas price, is absolutely making it worse. Mr. Phillips may be unique in the world in being joyous about lower gas prices

If it were only a Con world, then they could burn it all up, and hopefully they'd go too. However, it's like a bus, and the Con driver is now going towards a cliff, faster, and he knows it's a cliff, and either doesn't care or is lying about how bad it is, and at this point cannot say he doesn't know there isn't a cliff.

And it's dishonest to say the election was a consultation process. There was a shortage of specifics in the Con platform, and this was highlighted with the Bill 5 election meddling too, which was not mentioned, and the feds should disallow this bad bill, as it is an attack on democracy to favour a Con job or two, including likely attacks on the transit, instead of stopping the squandering billions in suburban subways, and we're only now finishing off an Eglinton transit project when the previous Con leader Mr. Harris axed Eglinton to favour Sheppard and developers, and Sheppard only costs the system $10 a ride. Liberals can also be odious in perverting transit - the Spadina Extension past York U apparently costs us $25 a ride, and meanwhile, the TTC in the core is deteriorating and beyond brittle, another reason to have Bill 5 undergo EBR comment as well.

The election result is also wrongly interpreted by the Cons in power. Yes, they have power. It is regrettable they have so much, tho nature bats last, and will. See 4hiroshimas.com However, about 60% of those voting voted for a party with a climate policy, clearly spelled out, though all likely quite inadequate, so slow we are to both change and adapt.

Given that a stable climate is the basis of civilization, the problems of excess are clearly known, or should be known, (and did Mr. Ford vote to do some climate things at the City as a Councillor - I think so), and the shortfall of climate policy in the Con platform, to void an existing, established, effective-enough set of programs as is proposed, is making us into clear climate criminals.

To use an analogy that a Con might understand, it's like being in a movie theatre where there's a fire, and one adds fuel and calls off using an extinguisher in favour of a different fire response, which will be decided and announced 'later'.

On p. 84 of the current ECO's fresh report Climate Action in Ontario, there's a listing of climate change related lawsuits. This is the future, including here, and there's some relatively good news from Holland, going beyond the linking of excess emissions with a specific effect.

It is very clear to some of us that there is evermore climate liability to Ontario with the Cons worsening our response, which MUST be to reduce emissions and consumptions.

As about 60% of the population that voted didn't vote to worsen climate change, the liabilities for all the deaths and harms and costs thereof should be borne by the MPPs of the Conservative illk and their ridings, and NOT by the general population of the broad Ontario. It is unfortunate that taxpayers both shield many decision-makers for their relevant roles in making things worse, and that taxpayers can pick up the tab for the broad costs of harms and costs from a few, even though it may be a dominant few like the Con MPPs.

It is quite unfair to the true majority in Ontario, let alone those impacted in the rest of the world, which includes Quebec (heat and changes to the Gulf), the Prairies (heat and at times extra cold extra early), to have them/us liable for damages/claims as well as the ruined world, and increasingly, climate deniers are the absolute minority.

Once upon a time, not too long ago - that is within my memory - Conservative politicians were actually more conserving and caring about business and the opportunities to create thriving conditions for business. There was of course, some disagreement, but there was nonetheless some relative appearance of standards, however oppressive to some.

As has been outlined in the ECO's reports, addressing the climate issues and reducing fossil fuel use is actually good for many businesses, and consumers. On p. 80 of the current ECO's 2018 report, the annual burn bill for Ontario's fossil fuel use is $11B, which is a lot of money. While obviously, there is energy in that burning and it enables things to be done, this is all money that is essentially burnt, and not available for other purposes. More locally produced energy would provide a boost, as one example of how wrong-headed the negation of the climate policies we have finally gotten is.

Also, by scrapping options to increase resiliencies and consumption, it's making all of us more vulnerable to the economic shocks of a big heat wave or cold snap. And productivity does lessen if humans are too cold, or too warm, and/or we blow our budgets on utility bills for our thermal slums, which is what most of our buildings are.

For the most part, conservation, (along with renewables) makes good ecological and economic sense. More Stern here:
https://newclimateeconomy.report/

And as an example of how traditional business 'gets' the economics of conserving fuel/carbon, the industrial segment of the GHGs has gone down a lot.

Another facet of traditional conservatism that is appallingly lost is in how the Ford regime is trying to set itself up above the law and the courts while breaking contracts along with shifting course. Shifting course only to a warmer world, odds are high.

The White Pines wind project is almost completed, and yet it was axed/nixed with this new government, along with many others, (detailed in the 2018 ECO report) and what's quite awry, is the effort used to cut the government of Ontario and the politicians out from ANY of the repercussions of nixing a project that had gotten well underway to near-completion. Within the Urgent Priorities Act was language to put the pols/staff retroactively immune for many ills, including breaches of "contract, restitution, tort, misfeasance, bad faith, trust, or fiduciary obleigation, or any remedy under any statute (Sehcd 2, s. 5(2) Sched 1, s. 6(20). So - zero redress to the courts written in to the legislation of cuts. While this very wrong step of setting the government above the courts was done with the Urgent Priorities Act, (which is not about climate change, which is the only real urgent priority we should have), it absolutely has a negative impact on all possible green money funds, as if this is the business climate - arbitrary ending of a project having undergone all sorts of due diligence and process to the point of near-completion AND then no compensation possible through legal means written in to legislation - it cannot be said that Ontraio is a good business environment. And this is/was noted, by Forbes magazine and doubtless many others, which also includes German investors in particular as German interests put in c. $100M apparently:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/08/13/ontarios-econo…

Ford and his Cons are smashing things up, more because they can vs. to replace something awry with something good. Or better, but their rhetoric about Ontario being open for business ain't doing well in some circles, and they have money.

While much of Bill 4 and the fuss is about energy, and reverting away from cap and trade, it doesn't mean that everything was fabulous, and I cite the the $104 million that was allocated, or went to, cycling initiatives. Absolutely, biking is far superior to the mobile furnaces, but carrupt politricks again interfered. Rather than providing real robust leadership to enable commuters to switch to bikes from cars or transit, the status quar prevailed, and that tended to dilute initiatives to feeble expenditures first, and maybe some good benefit later, maybe. That's because the previous Liberal government, like the federal level Liberals, have gone and accepted as qualified/competent/adequate, the choices of projects proffered for consideration, especially in Caronto.

The basis for this perhaps-extreme-to-some view is how abject actual real progress is on even a single, long, smooth, continuous bikeway in an urban core setting. Under the late Mayor Rob Ford's time, the Advisory committees were axed, so citizens were cut out from much process of informing and guiding resource allocations for priorities. So while in merely 1992, Bloor/Danforth was studied amongst other roads for an east-west bikeway, and emerged as #1, with all of those millions, a mere $25,000 wasn't to be found to do a small bit of the 2001 Bike Plan, and a missing link, and something that could provide a real role in easing the transit overload too. There's a small bit of Bloor St. E. between Sherbourne and Church that could form a logical continuation of the Viaduct lanes, and for merely paint, but that is still undone, although the subway desperately needs relief.

The City has only been committing to ward-by-ward bike safety, including in Scarborough, maybe. And off-road is preferred to an on-road, though it costs more. So the City, province and feds are all comfortable with excess spending on off-road, or separated stuff for the darlings because that's the only thing that is safe absent of enforcement, which is pretty absent, yes, but we still do not have simpler continuity in a near-straight line, and that is partially to protect the money flows of transit, already stressed due to how carrupt and carservative most of the spending/politicians actually are, and yes, the Fords embody this auto-cratic world, and I hope the new Council opts to put back in place a Vehicle Registration Tax, to have the notwithstanding sledgehammer used to show our (their) carruption, and false conservatisms. Allegedly conservative advocates don't apply the non-subsidy arguments to roads; hence carservatism. And hypocarisy.

And no, I doubt that materials of any facilities were actually forecasted and measured, and if they were, what a wonderful example to use for subways in to sprawl vs. surface adaption of the Don Valley Parkway to transitways, including a jarvis-style reversible transitway.

At this point in the greenhouse century, it is abhorrent to be simply smashing up a market-based approach, well underway, and with good result ie. in California, GDP is up and emissions are down, like Ontario (see ECO 2018 report), and there is only a bit of lip service being paid to the promises of a platform, or policy response. A policy response beyond spending up to $30,000,000 to fight a carbon tax back-up of the federal level finally responding to our climate crisis. And nothing else.

Mere promises of a policy to be announced is completely inadequate at this point in time. We don't need more hot air.

The Cons are not to be believed, nor trusted. They aren't good with money either, unless they want to bankrupt the transit.

About a decade ago, the TTC was fine (more or less) with a rebuild of the SRT for about a half-billion, still a Huge Sum. Under the Fords, the planning for a network of LRTs was up-ended to have a subway extension, with the cost being evermore closer to $3.3 billion, with an editorial suggesting if it drew a new rider, it'd be at a cost of $1,500,000 - which might be a lifetime of taxis, and still have a lot left over. The Premier is now suggesting this one-stop subway is somehow becoming a three-stop subway, and yet only LRTs really make sense, and the subways are overdue in the core, and not necessarily the small part of Relief South, which will be a stubway in a decade, and not good value unless it gets to Eglinton, somehow.

Heck, that $30M to fight the federal level would be far far better spent to hire UITP/APTA to give us sensible transit planning, and send the Cabinet to Curitiba,Brazil. But it's not about value, or effectiveness, it's about a set of other things, which are not so clear, and examples are with virtually every bill introduced as the title is opposite the effect.

It's not at all clear if there are any real penalties for trampling over the Environmental Bill of Rights, as there seems to be ZERO in the Charter of Rights that protected Torontonians from the arbitrary election-meddling from the Ford auto-cracy, which was NOT about the money, scrap the SSE and go for the billions, if they know the difference between a billion and a million.

The only real way to be effective may be to begin to stoop to the Con level - and I hope to copy this up to the federal level and urge the withholding of all sorts of federal sums for most projects, though this is unlikely as we may see a surge in buy-election spending given the federal date is about a year away.

And lawsuits - maybe California and Quebec might sue us? There's an idea...

The flipping of the thermohaline current/balance is also an issue for Europe.

Climate liability is ever-greater with this Bill 4, but it clearly MUST be directed to Con MPPs and ridings with Con members vs. the rest of the population.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/dutch-appeals-court…