The science around greenhouse gases has been well understood for a century now. The reason the earth was tropical in the past was due to the high amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The composition of gases in the earth’s atmosphere has gone through many phases over the billions of years before the atmosphere in which humans evolved, and we are not appreciating the ramifications of re-releasing millions of years of trapped carbon back into the atmosphere faster than our ecosystems will be able to adapt. And because so much of our economy is powered by fossil fuels, and few politicians dare to offend their god the Almighty Economy, we have not seen the kind of action we need to curb disaster.
- Climate Change
- Emissions Counts
- Idling
- Electric Vehicles
- Banning Polluting Machines
- Providing Electric Sources
Climate Change
Whether the deniers accept it or not, climate change is here, and every year it more rapidly alters the livability of the planet, in particular our ability to grow food. We need to ensure EVERY EMISSION COUNTS, the city is not including enough emissions in its measures and is not doing enough to combat unnecessary emissions.
Climate change denial in Toronto and Ontario may be mostly due to the fact that its worst effects are elsewhere in faraway places, and so it is easy to believe it is not real when you do not personally witness it. Part of this may also be due to the fact much of the carbon being released doesn’t end up in the atmosphere, but rather is being absorbed by the oceans and acidifying them. But the signs are becoming more overt over time.
The effects of climate change can be seen all around the city. Whether it is increased temperatures, or increased water damage and flooding, or more extreme weather, or the accelerated deterioration of our roads due to more thaws and freezes, or poor air quality due to increased forest fires, the effects are undeniable and coming more rapidly. Our city is not designed for this kind of weather and we are not prepared for it to worsen.
If we are going to protect and preserve our way of life we need to focus our energies and resources on building resilience against the increased volatility of an uncertain future, not doubling down on the things that caused the problem in the first place.
Emissions Counts
The City of Toronto likes to pat itself on the back for its supposed reductions in carbon emissions, but unfortunately it is all a smoke screen, a pretense to make people complacent and inclined to ignore the fact that there are more emissions than there should be.
This illusion of reductions results from how Toronto counts its emissions, and more importantly, the many emissions it omits. They only focus on three sectors, transportation, buildings, and waste. When you dig into Toronto’s GHG inventory it reveals some startling information.
Development
The most damning is that almost ALL emissions from development are not counted. There is more detail on this in my housing platform, but the main takeaways are: construction site emissions are not counted at all, embodied carbon of materials for new builds are not counted, and a “net-zero” home does not actually have to be net-zero.
One estimate puts GHG from development at 23% globally, and considering Toronto has had more cranes in the air the last decade than many major North American cities combined, it is likely larger for Toronto. And yet emissions from waste at only 7% are included. Excluding development from GHG counts is the only way Toronto can claim the emissions reductions it does.
Transportation
To calculate transportation emissions they are using a model built from traffic counts, which automatically means it is full of assumptions and it is quite unlikely to reflect reality (it is doubtful that it accurately accounts for transportation emissions at night and it certainly does not capture illegal idling). Their model only accounts for vehicles on the road, and so vehicles on construction sites, especially ones that are not driven on the road (like various diggers and excavators and cranes) are not captured at all.
They even admit the limitation of their transportation emission counts, “Freight rail emissions are not accounted for in this inventory, as reliable data for these emissions sources is currently not available. Identifying emissions sources from all transportation modes continues to be a methodological challenge. Due to the number of different authorities and private businesses that may contribute to transportation emissions, as well as the varying levels of voluntary, sometimes proprietary versus regulated reporting, this section of the inventory presents the best data available at time of collection.”
The exceptions and omissions continue further into the report: “Marine emissions reporting is limited and captures only the fuel used by the City’s marine fleet (e.g., Toronto Island Ferry, Toronto Police and Fire vessels), totalling 0.02 per cent of all transportation emissions. Similarly, emissions from aviation include only aviation fuel used at Billy Bishop airport on Toronto Island, which accounts for 1.35 per cent of total transportation emissions. The GHG emissions associated with Toronto residents’ extensive air travel to and from Toronto Pearson International Airport are not captured in this inventory due to current constraints in acquiring data. Another gap resulting from data availability limitations is emissions from marine vessels associated with cargo transport and personal use. These emissions are currently not accounted for in the inventory.” While aviation is a smaller share of emissions, those emissions are growing, and it begs the question, if merely aviation fuel alone, at tiny Billy Bishop airport, accounts for 1.35%, how much higher would that be if it included Pearson?
Materials and products
Not to mention the variety of other emissions not included, “Currently, lifecycle emissions from the products and services consumed by residents, businesses and institutions in Toronto are not included in this inventory. Work to define and calculate these emissions is planned for 2022.” By their own admission, their counts are not remotely reflective of reality, especially considering we are one of the largest producers of waste per capita.
Past levels and net-zero
We must also understand the sneaky language the city uses when making claims about our progress and our goals around carbon reduction. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to past levels is a bit of subterfuge, because they leave out that it is not reducing total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to previous levels, it is building new stuff and retrofitting old stuff so FUTURE emissions are reduced to past levels of emissions, all the while we are adding more and more emissions to the atmosphere to supposedly get there.
“Net zero” is the same smoke screen; it is the illusion of reducing emissions to allow development to continue full speed ahead. In reality, aiming for net zero is only about future emissions, it completely leaves out all the emissions required to get to net zero. “Net zero” will not mean much if we accelerated climate change by adding millions of tonnes of new emissions to achieve it.
If Toronto is going to transition into an actual sustainable future and truly strive to mitigate our contribution to climate change, it needs to start getting honest with people about emissions, especially surrounding development.
Idling
Illegal idling is RAMPANT in this city. When one really pays attention to it one realizes just how pervasive the problem is. Take a walk down Queen St. or Danforth Ave. during business hours and you will see, in every stretch with storefront retail, there are at least 2-3 vehicles illegally idling per block. And, in almost every instance, the drivers are staring at their phones before driving away. That goes for across the city, on every street with retail and street parking, and worst, in every parking lot and drive-thru. When you add it all up it is not a drop in the bucket, that bucket is overflowing.
Attitude of the public
For the last decade, calling out hundreds of drivers for illegal idling, from car drivers, to TTC bus drivers, to delivery vehicles, to tow truck drivers, to workers on construction sites, has caused many to be annoyed rather than willing to comply. Even when appealing to their common sense, as related to the waste of their gas, very few are agreeable to turning off their vehicles. Most get indignant and refuse and do not acknowledge climate change. In a worst case scenario, a report can be made to the city but there is no follow-up.
The illegal idlers pretty much fall into two categories: those who deny that climate change is real and see no reason they should turn off their cars, it is their gas to burn as they see fit, and those who do not recognize that their individual actions collectively contribute to a larger problem, seeming oblivious to how their actions have consequences. This is why idling needs actual enforcement, because people simply are not getting it.
Enforcement
Currently, like most bylaws, the city only enforces idling laws on a complaints basis. We used to have an idling hotline, but the city took it down. The problem with the complaint system is that it requires a bylaw officer to then come out and witness the idling firsthand, which means the perpetrator is usually long gone, with the exception of construction sites, where some vehicles idle all day whether they are being used or not.
For a city claiming we are in a “climate crisis” and that acknowledges carbon emissions are the primary cause of the supposed crisis, it is baffling that there is no tackling of the easiest emissions to reduce: the unnecessary illegal ones. The solution is staring us right in the face: empower TPA officers to ticket for idling.
A parked car never hurt anyone and does not emit, and yet the TPA focuses solely on ticketing them when they are perfectly positioned to ticket idlers at the same time. When you grasp the scope of the idling problem the irony is that there are actually FAR more illegal idlers than illegally parked cars, the TPA could be bringing in more revenue while actually taking true action to mitigate climate change.
Both bylaw and the TPA have been asked what stands in the way of this but no response. Tackling illegal emissions is a priority as it can actually lead to lasting behavioural change. If people do not want to get a ticket for idling, they will stop doing it. It does not matter why they stop adding emissions, all that matters is taking EVERY action to reduce emissions as much as possible. Gas cars are not going anywhere anytime soon, so we must rein in their emissions at every opportunity.
Drive-thrus
Another measure that would immediately reduce emissions is banning drive-thrus. They are a hot bed of unnecessary emissions, sometimes with cars 12 deep all lined up waiting in their idling vehicles. This is an easy fix as businesses can easily adapt by making the drive-thru into a walk-up window. This is more fair to all because, unless you own a car, you are not allowed to order food late at night. It’s not hard to convert a drive-thru window to a secure walk-up.
Parking lots
Parking lots are the other hotbed of emissions, the larger the parking lot the more illegal idlers. Shoppers World at Vic Park and Danforth is a prime example, excluding the Burger King drive-thru, at any given time there are about a dozen idling vehicles scattered there.
Construction sites
Construction sites need much more monitoring, especially as many of the vehicles are very large and diesel-burning. There seems to be an attitude that many vehicles should just never be turned off while the work day is going. However, there is one understandable reason for idling, to cool off or warm up in inclement weather.
Construction workers cannot be expected to do such a laborious job outdoors with no relief from extreme temperatures, and we cannot expect local businesses to let workers take up space loitering just to protect themselves. There must be a requirement for electric-powered warming/cooling stations for workers, or the use of batteries and power inverters to allow them to run such things in their vehicles without idling.
Commercial vehicles
Commercial vehicles are another problem, in particular delivery vehicles. Many drivers of commercial vehicles do not care about idling as it is not their gas and therefore not their money. Most delivery drivers leave their vehicle idling at every stop they make, and that adds up over a day. One solution is to require all delivery vehicles to be electric, which completely solves the problem. Much of this behaviour occurs on side streets, out of the eyes of any potential enforcement, but on major avenues there is still much that can be tackled.
Whether it’s more bylaw officers or empowering TPA to ticket for idling, we need far more enforcement of this grossly overlooked source of carbon emissions.
Electric Vehicles
Electric vehicles are being touted as some kind of solution to climate change and carbon emissions, but it is yet another smoke screen (pun intended). If we had shifted to electric cars in the 90s when they were first invented it would be a different story, but Big Oil in league with car manufacturers killed the electric car to keep their profits flowing, and spent the next two decades creating millions of new gas-powered cars and trucks, many even more fuel inefficient and unnecessarily large.
EVs will only add to emissions
The problem with EVs is they are too late, we are too deep into climate change to spend many tonnes more emissions building new EVs. The notion that we can replace the millions of gas-powered cars on the road with EVs completely ignores the emissions and environmental impacts of building all those EVs.
The building of EVs and their batteries are not emissions-free, and while over the lifetime of an EV it has less emissions, that doesn’t change that we’re still adding many tonnes more emissions intending to build millions of them to replace gas-powered cars and trucks.
More concerning is the rush to open new mines to extract the materials of EV batteries. Opening 300 new mines globally to extract more resources is a huge new addition to both emissions and the devastating environmental impacts of mining.
Delivery vehicles
The focus should first be on vehicles that start and stop and idle frequently, and that is commercial vehicles, in particular delivery vehicles. Replacing such fleets should be first on the schedule because they will always be necessary, delivery of goods will never be using mass transportation, it requires a vehicle, and that’s why resources should go first to replacing vehicles that will always necessary. Personal transportation always has other options, from cycling, to transit, to ride share, to taxis. Delivery people do not have these options.
Supply of electricity and lack of infrastructure
The other big problem, and one that California is struggling with recently, is how to charge all those electric cars on an overloaded power grid. Toronto is already strained in this department, with the shift away from natural gas in homes and the push for EVs, how are we ever going to meet that electricity demand?
We also lack infrastructure to support EVs. Considering Toronto is supposedly on board with banning gas vehicles by 2050, it is bizarre how little we’re doing to support EV uptake. Every main street retail strip should have at least one dedicated EV parking spot with a charging station, so should every parking lot of malls and large plazas. It’s not clear by what criteria the city is determining the location of our few current charging stations, but it doesn’t seem like they’ve first asked who owns EVs in a given area, and aren’t considering the potential use in and around retail.
The debate of the future of transportation is not gas vs electric, it’s personal vehicles vs mass transportation. Pushing for EVs to replace all gas-powered personal vehicles is just doubling down on car culture, never mind all the impending environmental impacts.
Banning Polluting Machines
While improvements in engines and fuels have greatly reduced pollutants from vehicle exhaust, we still allow some smaller gas-powered machines to disproportionately add pollutants to our air. This is primarily things like leaf blowers, lawn mowers, and the like, which many might be startled to learn actually emit more pollutants than a car engine. One estimate claims a leaf blower can emit as many pollutants as 100 cars on the road.
The convenience of such machines simply cannot trump our health or environment, especially as fully electric alternatives are easily available. Toronto needs to ban the use of such machines entirely. Not only will it make our air cleaner, it will be less noisy too.
Providing Electric Power
We cannot cut down on carbon emissions and expect economic activity to continue undisrupted unless we provide alternatives to using gas-powered machines. Batteries and electric vehicles are all well and good, but there need to be immediate sources of electricity for use, especially for more energy-intensive activities.
The city needs to provide ways for large machines to be able to plug in to the electrical grid for their work. For example when there is any kind of work that requires a cherry picker, or other large machines, every block should have some kind of electrical hookup that can handle the power load to run such a machine. Ways need to be found to power street work and other jobs that require large machinery other than always using fossil fuels, because this work will always be necessary and batteries will never suffice to run such large machines.