Ontario government discussion paper ‘explores effectively’ impact of climate change: Insurance Bureau

The Insurance Bureau of Canada announced Thursday it “welcomes” an Ontario government discussion paper – also published Thursday – which asks for input on several issues related to climate change, including how a carbon tax should be designed and how building codes should be changed to encourage more renewable energy use.

Climate change is already taking place, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change noted in its climate change discussion paper.

“Here in Ontario, we have already felt some of these effects in the form of ice storms, severe flooding and millions of dollars in damage to our infrastructure,” the government stated in the discussion paper. “These losses are not sustainable and demonstrate that the cost of doing nothing is high. Payouts from extreme weather events have more than doubled every five to 10 years since the 1980s, and in 2013, losses were a historic $3.2 billion as a result of floods in Alberta and Toronto.”

The ministry was quoting from the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

“IBC welcomes the Ontario government’s Climate Change Discussion Paper,” stated Don Forgeron, IBC’s president and chief executive officer, in a press release. “We have seen first-hand in recent years that severe weather events are taking their toll on Canadians, governments and industries. This discussion paper explores effectively the impact of our ever-changing climate. We congratulate the government for its demonstrated commitment to help build resilient and sustainable communities across the province.”

The discussion paper is posted for 45 days on the Environmental Registry portion of the government website.

One of the questions pertains to reducing the carbon footprint of buildings.

“In Ontario, what changes are needed to building codes and planning processes to ensure greater uptake with regard to geothermal, solar, wind, natural light, combined heat and power, community energy and other emerging technologies?” the paper asks.

Urban growth in Ontario needs to be accommodated “in a way that stabilizes greenhouse gas emissions in the near term, supports substantial reductions over the medium term and prepares our communities for the worsening impacts of climate change,” the environment and climate change department stated. “There are many examples emerging all over the world of climate-friendly communities and well-built sustainable urban design that help to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions.”

The paper also asks for input as to what carbon pricing market mechanisms would be most beneficial, and what design considerations should be taken into account when devising a carbon tax.

“A well-designed carbon pricing system is the most cost-effective approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” the provincial government said in the paper. “Carbon pricing reduces greenhouse gas emissions as businesses and households incorporate the cost of emitting carbon into their decisions, encouraging companies and consumers to move away from fossil fuels and towards cleaner and more efficient ways of going about their business.”

The government also noted northern Ontario’s forest and peat lands act as a carbon sink.

“We need to ensure that we protect these natural heritage areas, not only for their beauty and biodiversity, but also because these vital sinks could become sources of emissions of carbon if they are disturbed or removed.”

The paper also explains the benefits of communities with a “smaller urban footprint” by allowing people to live, work and shop in the same area.

“They allow for more walking and cycling,” according to the paper. “They include energy efficient building designs, integrated local renewable energy, and take advantage of urban density to ‘borrow, balance and steal’ among energy, water and waste systems. Reusing water also reduces the energy required to treat and distribute water by municipalities. For example, municipal water and wastewater services typically are one-third to one-half of a municipality’s total electrical use – double that of street lighting.”