Today Fri Sat
It is forcast to be Fog at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2012
Fog
29°/18°
It is forcast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Chance of Rain
31°/18°
It is forcast to be Overcast at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Overcast
26°/15°

4 Comments

news

Where Is the Environment?


Franz Hartmann is the executive director of the Toronto Environmental Alliance. In a series of posts leading up to the municipal election this fall, he’ll be discussing environmental priorities for the city and assessing the leading candidates’ environmental policies.

With just over four months to go before election day, some Torontonians are just now beginning to turn their minds to the mayoral election campaign. What they’ll discover is that the front-running mayoral candidates have said little of significance about the environment.
Yes, there has been much discussion about public transit, which has a huge environmental impact. And yes, a few candidates have mentioned the environment in their speeches. Some have even posted short policy discussions about select green issues on their websites. Even so, an observer could rightly conclude that this topic has been largely neglected.
For a city that prides itself on being an environmental leader, this is—at best—a peculiar situation. Why is it that none of the front-running candidates has taken an environment stance and run with it?


The simple answer is that the environment is too closely associated with the current mayor. This election has become a race amongst the majority of candidates to see who can most effectively run against the so-called “Miller legacy.” And because that “legacy” includes strong environmental advocacy, it means everyone else has decided to downplay, if not entirely ignore, the environment.
While there is no doubt that Miller and the councillors elected in 2003 and 2006 have made some major inroads in improving Toronto’s environmental policies, there is also no doubt that these inroads are not just a product of the current administration. Surprisingly to some, most of the significant actions taken since 2003 can actually be traced back to policies adopted by the two councils led by former mayor Mel Lastman.
In April 2000, city council unanimously adopted the megacity’s first Environmental Plan, which laid the groundwork for action on energy conservation, sustainable energy, pollution reduction, and green economic development (to name but a few areas). Then later that year, just before the 2000 election, council agreed to push a very aggressive waste diversion strategy.
Unfortunately, this piece of environmental history has been forgotten by most of the current crop of mayoral candidates. Because of this amnesia, they’ve wrongly concluded that any serious discussion of the environment, especially any issues that Miller has worked on, is toxic.

20100721environment2.jpg
The Toronto Ride For Heart bike-a-thon on the DVP. Photo by mtlicq from the Torontoist Flickr pool.


A related reason most mayoral candidates have not run with the environmental issue has to do with messaging. A cardinal rule in campaigning is “stay on message.” To date, the message of three key candidates has been all about a dysfunctional City Hall: “City Hall isn’t working,” “stop the waste at City Hall,” “get City Hall open for business.”
Any serious discussion on environmental issues invariably leads to an acknowledgment that while City Hall hasn’t been perfect on the environment, much progress has been made. This doesn’t make for simple messaging. Imagine a candidate putting forward a plan to build on the city’s Sustainable Energy Plan, adopted by council in November 2009, and then in the next breath criticizing City Hall for not working. As they say in the biz: it’s not an easy message track.
Mayoral contenders have instead opted for a simple message track that results in ignoring the environment. By adopting this approach, they appear to assume that Torontonians aren’t sophisticated enough to handle an even slightly more nuanced position, one which holds that City Hall has done some good things environmentally, even while it may have done other things badly. Candidates need to acknowledge that Torontonians will understand a message that says: “Like everything in life, good things and bad things happen, even at City Hall. One of the good things has been the slow but steady progress in building sound environmental policies that will transform Toronto into a green city.”
It’s time candidates started talking about the environment in a serious way. Torontonians have been waiting for candidates to offer thoughtful ideas about what they will do to continue building on ten years of environmental success. They’re still waiting.
Candidates who present a serious green vision will see a real boost in their chances to become Toronto’s next mayor. For candidates who remain silent because of their messaging strategies, and because they perceive the environment is too heavily associated with Mayor Miller, the pay-off will likely be a footnote in the history of failed Toronto mayoral campaigns.

Comments

  • http://undefined James Schwartz

    I think you are completely right that many of the candidates are avoiding the topic of the environment to distance themselves from Miller’s viewpoint.
    However, I think there is more to it than that. I think our society is growing skeptical of “environmental” talk in general. With the corporate greenwashing that we see everywhere, new eco fees that people perceive as more profit for corporations, bag fees that generate revenue for grocery stores, etc.
    I think people are starting to distance themselves from the type of environmental rhetoric that people may view with disdain.
    In general, selling environmental awareness to the average person has failed miserably, so I think those of us who care and have a message to convey need to change our approach.
    For myself personally, instead of talking specifically about the “environment”, I talk about things that we can do that will help improve our environment (such as biking). Instead of encouraging friends, family and readers to bike to “save the environment”, I encourage them to bike to have fun, get to their destination fast, stay fit – and of course, reduce their footprints. But focusing on the footprint aspect is a no sell to the average person, which is why I try to focus on all the other benefits.
    So I think our society is headed in a direction where people are starting to care, but they are growing skeptical of those in power and “environmental” initiatives of the government.

  • http://undefined spacejack

    Well I certainly hope this series can shed some light on what’s actually being proposed.I downloaded the Clean, Green and Healthy: A Plan for an Environmentally Sustainable Toronto (the Environment Plan). It’s pretty hard to find a single concrete point or recommendation in this.
    There’s a whole lot of vague definitions, and those same definitions re-iterated. There are long overviews to describe problems to an audience which is assumed to be completely ignorant to environmental issues. And it’s chock full of statements like “we should set up a committe to…” and “studies should be done to…”
    However when I actually try to find any concrete recommendations on, say, reducing emissions or improving air quality, it’s looking pretty thin. For example:

    REDUCING EMISSIONS
    Stationary pollution sources within Toronto, including factories, heating
    plants and incinerators, contribute to poor air quality. The City should
    define a role for itself in reducing air emissions. This should include
    ensuring that emission inventories are adequate and that point source
    emitters are in compliance with their allowable emissions.
    22) Reduce Air Emissions
    Recommended that the City work to reduce air emissions. It should:
    a) assess the need to improve City, provincial and federal emission
    inventories;
    b) ask the Province to review Certificates of Approval for point
    sources in the City, to ensure compliance and up-to-date records
    for emission inventories;
    c) explore the feasibility of introducing a by-law to restrict point
    source emissions; and
    d) advocate for provincial, federal and U.S. government action to
    reduce air emissions.

    Check out this set of recommendations for air quality:

    20) Recognize the Right of Torontonians to Clean Air
    Recommended that the City recognize the right of Torontonians to
    clean air, and recognize its necessity for the health and well-being
    of vulnerable populations and current and future generations. The
    City should adopt the following goals:
    a) to work to make Toronto’s air clean and free of harmful levels of
    pollutants;
    b) to maintain and expand the City’s leadership role in air quality;
    c) to continue its commitments to address global warming and
    depletion of the ozone layer; and
    d) to consider air quality impacts as a major criterion in transportation
    and land use planning.

    Another set of recommendations for developing an air quality strategy:

    21) Develop a Comprehensive Air Quality Strategy
    Recommended that the City build on, integrate and coordinate
    its efforts to improve air quality through the development of a
    comprehensive Air Quality Strategy for the City of Toronto. The
    Strategy should:
    a) assess the progress of and integrate current air quality
    initiatives;
    b) set priorities for City action;
    c) set targets where they do not now exist;
    d) consider air emissions and their impacts;
    e) identify areas where the City can be involved (such as promoting
    the City’s own corporate smog reduction program within the
    Toronto business community, zero-emission City fleets and
    promoting employer trip reduction programs) and how it can best
    apply its resources to maximum effect; and
    f) facilitate monitoring and reporting to the public.

    And yet more on air quality monitoring:

    23) Monitor Ambient Air Quality and Standard-Setting
    Recommended that the City develop a role in air quality monitoring
    and standard-setting. It should:
    a) participate with the provincial and federal governments in the
    delivery of an effective monitoring and reporting system for ambient
    air quality;
    b) continue to participate in provincial and federal processes that set air quality objectives and standards; and
    c) advocate to the provincial and federal governments for effective monitoring, air quality objectives and standards, regulations and emission caps.

    Granted I haven’t had a chance to read the whole thing, but out of 135 heavily padded pages, I haven’t been able to find anything much on any single topic.
    So when you say “Unfortunately, this piece of environmental history has been forgotten by most of the current crop of mayoral candidates” I have to wonder, what exactly were they supposed to remember from this document? Ultimately it comes off as simply advocating more bureaucracy, vague regulations, and precious little else.

  • http://undefined spacejack

    Oh this is priceless!

    APPENDIX C
    INVOLVING YOUTH IN SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES

    Create a “cool” Environmental Youth magazine that showcases
    environmental issues in a pop culture way.

    I did not add the sarcasm quotes!

  • http://undefined rek

    Let’s hope they realize an Environmental Youth blog would be more on-target and on-message than a dead tree publication aimed at the Twitter generation.