1. INTRODUCTION 2. CLIMATE…

1. INTRODUCTION
2. CLIMATE FACTS
3. A FEW CLIMATE DISASTERS TO DATE & COSTS
4. JOBS
5. WHAT I WANT TO SEE
6. CONCLUSION
============================================================================
========================================================================
1. INTRODUCTION
Please accept the following as my official comments on Bill 4, Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018, posted for consultation as ERO 013-3738.

When I first heard about the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018, I was thoroughly shaken. I could not understand and was at a loss to know how such a decision could be justified. Weeks later I am still stunned.

How can C&T be cancelled without:
• supplying STATS and facts that show the reasoning why it should be cancelled

• Showing how it can be beneficial to cancel near completed projects (ie wind project(s) which created jobs and would be supplying free energy

• Showing, improving upon or replacing Cap & Trade with another emission reduction plan being put forward.
I’m not saying that the Cap & Trade Program was perfect. I’m sure adjustments could be made and it could be improved upon. But, again I ask, how can it be outright cancelled before having made the necessary research? Does this strike you as the right approach?

Coming in with a ‘slash and burn’ and ‘destroy all’ attitude does not strike me as a sane, methodical, well thought out approach. It does not appear to have or has little to do with letting the public know what the issue of climate change really is and what it means if it is ignored further. In short, is the public being given a false hope that they are saving money.

I’m looking forward to be proven quite wrong.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CLIMATE FACTS

I would not have believed it to be necessary to offer reminders of what has been written, reported on and produced on climate change but, after this announcement to cancel Cap & Trade, I now believe it is necessary.

In 2011, there was a report done, by Senes Consulting, on Toronto’s Future Weather . Heat alerts are considered to be 33 degrees C. The report concluded that, by 2040 to 2050, heat alerts would increase to 66 days per year but reaching highs of 44 degrees C which is over 111 F. Extreme rainstorms will mean downpours of 166mm. The Lakeshore Flood (2013) was 123 mm and downpours, when heavy rainfall used to happen over a 24 hour period or more, it is and will increase and happen over an hour or two. The sewers cannot handle that amount of water in such a short time, hence flooding.

Are you aware of this report?

There was a report prepared for the Trump administration which says that the planet is doomed to warm by almost 4C by the year 2100, producing more extreme heat waves, acidifying the oceans and causing coastline to flood. Mr Trump is being exposed as a hypocrite for first saying that catastrophic climate change is a hoax to now accepting the assumption that it is inevitable, and so he won’t do anything about it. Is the Trump administration who the Provincial Government is trying to emulate?

The article also says it lays bare the insincerity of politicians who say they want to fight man-made climate change but fail to commit to adequate action. If this how you would like to be viewed?

NOBEL PRIZE for Economics was awarded to Yale economist Nordhaus and reported in the New York Times. Economist Nordhaus has long convinced most members of his own profession that to address climate change it is preferable to impose a tax on carbon emissions.

Is the aim of the Provincial government to spend precious time proving the Nobel Committee are wrong?

Am I to believe that you are truly not aware of these facts? Please can you help me understand?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. A FEW CLIMATE DISASTERS TO DATE AND COSTS

The disasters caused by climate change come at a very high costs. Here are recent disasters:

Floods:
• Lakeshore Flood (2013) $1 billion
• Toronto Island Flooding (2017): $8.45 million (includes lost ferry revenue)
• Toronto flooding (2018) still being assess but damage to 9 new TTC streetcar alone is $45 million
• Toronto Insured Damage (2018) $80 million

Ice Storm:
• Toronto Ice Storm (2013) $106 million

Wildfires:
• Northern Ontario (2018) costs being determined

Wildfires, Floods, Ice Storms in Canada
• (2016) $4.9 billion broke record for damage caused by natural disasters

Insurance costs for homes is being increased and certain coverage being eliminated altogether altogether.

Does anyone believe that what has happened in the rest of Canada (Fort McMurray (2016) $10 billion; BC (2017) $562 million ---Could not happen in Ontario?

With all these disaster ever increasing, what thought or plan has been given to how these will be paid for?
Has this even been considered?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. JOBS

The Clean Economy Alliance released a report in early 2018 showing the result Cap & Trade produced in it’s first year, which was 2017.

This report aim was to answer three questions:
• Is there any evidence that cap-and-trade has hurt Ontario’s economy or cost jobs?
• Is there any evidence that cap-and-trade and the Climate Change Action Plan have had an impact on carbon emissions?
• How are cap-and-trade and the Climate Change Action Plan progressing?

Here are some of the points in that report:
• 2017, the first year of cap-and-trade, was a very good year for job growth and economic growth in Ontario.

• Ontario ended 2017 with a very strong economy and analysts at RBC, TD Bank and the Conference Board of Canada predict this trend will continue

• four provinces that have implemented carbon pricing —Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and B.C. — and are the same four provinces who performed best in real GDP growth in 2017, and are expected to be the drivers of the Canadian economy in the year ahead: more evidence that pricing carbon doesn’t come at the expense of the economy.

• During the first year of cap-and-trade, manufacturing employment increased by 4.5 per cent while carbon emissions appear to have decreased – which could be a sign that Ontario’s firms are transitioning to a low carbon economy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. WHAT I WANT TO SEE

To help me understand that the Ontario Government is aware of what they are doing, I want, I must see, the following:

o a real climate change plan to reduce emissions while helping people save energy and create jobs in the $26 trillion clean economy
o to put a price on pollution, making polluters pay for their emissions and returning the revenues to the pockets of Ontarians so they can lower their carbon footprint
o legally binding emissions targets in line with our obligations to the Paris Climate Agreement
o Ontario to be 100% powered by renewable energy including water power from Quebec
o Ontario to end subsidies and handouts for fossil fuel companies and redirect this money to clean energy solutions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. CONCLUSION:

I spend a lot of time reflecting on the kind of world I am leaving my children. Than thought is devastation. As difficult as that is for me, the thought of thinking of what is being left for grandchildren---well it is just off the map. That thought I have no words for. Does the Provincial Government give any thought to this?

I choose to think we can do something. Please, do you have the courage to do the right thing? I think you do and I’m counting on you.