Sustainable Business Spotlight

Cinema Verde highlights sustainable businesses that have made the commitment to help forge a healthier future!

Sustainable Choices in The news

We're tracking the Sustainable Business Headlines that you don't want to miss

More green construction, less gravel mining: Ford walks back some environmental changes in Ontario housing bill

By Fatima Syed Facing backlash, the Ford government will let cities retain some limited oversight of sustainable building. It will no longer cut all citizen planning appeals or speed up aggregate production

By Fatima Syed On Thursday, the Doug Ford government told The Narwhal its sweeping legislation to get “More Homes Built Faster” would have unintentionally stripped away certain environmental powers from municipalities — a mistake the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing says it is now moving to correct.  During a legislative committee meeting on Nov. 22 to review Bill 23, or the More Homes Built Faster Act, the Ford government proposed a flurry of changes to the original bill. One of the most significant is to revoke a controversial provision that would have banned environmental groups, residents and others from appealing project approvals. Most changes impact municipal authority over development: also being struck out are new rules that would have sped up aggregate mining to produce sand, gravel and crushed stone for construction. Another amendment proposes to protect some city powers to regulate environmentally-friendly design elements in buildings. The original version of the legislation had proposed to fully remove cities’ ability to set what are known as “green standards” for construction, dictating how new buildings address energy efficiency, waste and stormwater management, emissions and access for pedestrians and bikes. We’re breaking news in Ontario The Narwhal’s Ontario bureau is telling environment stories you won’t find anywhere else. Keep up with the scoops by signing up for a weekly dose of our independent journalism. We’re breaking news in Ontario The Narwhal’s Ontario bureau is telling environment stories you won’t find anywhere else. Keep up with the latest scoops by signing up for a weekly dose of our independent journalism. Repealing this authority would have eviscerated policies like Toronto Green Standards — a set of requirements for all new commercial developments in the city, offering financial incentives to developers to create energy efficient, low emissions buildings — which Ford voted in favour of as a city councillor.  Buildings are the third largest source of emissions in Ontario, accounting for 24 per cent of the province’s total emissions. In 2020, the province’s auditor general found the government wasn’t doing enough to address these emissions, noting that various ministries “do not … effectively oversee, evaluate and improve the performance of programs to support and encourage reducing energy use in buildings.” Given that provincial gap, cities have tried to fill it themselves. Green standards are the key measure by which Toronto plans to achieve its 2040 net-zero goals. In an official response to Bill 23 submitted to the province earlier this week, City of Toronto staff wrote that cutting green standards “could result in the city’s inability to address climate change, biodiversity loss and the TransformTO Net ZeroStrategy targets.”  A dozen other cities have adopted these standards too, including Ottawa, Brampton, Ajax, Whitby, Pickering, Halton Hills, Markham and Richmond Hill, with others like Hamilton and Mississauga in the process of setting their own.  The proposed amendments don’t let cities keep all of their powers: they would only be allowed to regulate specific elements, particularly green roofs and climate-conscious landscaping. The province has extended the public consultation period for this new green standards clause by 15 days, until December 9.  In an email to The Narwhal, Victoria Podbielski, a spokesperson for Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Steve Clark, said: “The intent of Bill 23 was not to prevent municipalities from addressing these types of matters — but to prevent municipalities from using this tool to implement unnecessary visual design requirements, like mandating a certain type of brick exterior or colour. Often these requirements lead to increased costs and significant delays.” When asked, Podbielski didn’t offer any examples of municipalities that had used green standards to mandate brick colour or delay development.  The statement is a confirmation of what multiple municipal and provincial sources told The Narwhal this week, that repealing green standards was “a mistake” made by Clark, “an unintended consequence” of the omnibus bill that the Ford government says is designed to address Ontario’s housing crisis.  In a government committee meeting, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Steve Clark didn’t explain why he had cut Ontario cities’ ability to enforce green building standards, or offer details on introducing a province-wide replacement. Photo: Government of Ontario Bryan Purcell, vice president of the regional climate agency Toronto Atmospheric Fund, said that senior members of Clark’s office as well as housing ministry staff gave him the same rationale, saying that the clause in question was originally removed because “cities shouldn’t regulate the colour of bricks in a building.”  After the legislation was released, Purcell told The Narwhal, he learned some who drafted it were “completely unaware” the bill would repeal green standards. Senior housing ministry staff “were surprised to hear it would stop cities from enforcing green standards,” said Purcell, whose organization invests in low-carbon projects in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. “They said it wasn’t their intention to compromise the standards.”  On Nov. 24, after the legislation amendments were announced, Purcell met with Clark’s Chief of Staff Ryan Amato and Assistant Deputy Minister of Planning and Growth Sean Fraser. Purcell said he was told that when Clark heard of the impact of Bill 23 on green standards, “he wanted to do something to preserve them.” The government has also made a new promise to develop a voluntary provincial-wide green building standard, but hasn’t provided details. Purcell said that in Thursday’s meeting he was told this new standard “would take some time to develop and pass” and the government couldn’t commit to a timeline. When he asked that Bill 23 be delayed until the regulation was written, senior staff told him “they are not prepared to do that, though they hope green standards will keep going until the new province-wide regulation is ready for use,” Purcell said. Podbielski said that the Ontario building code “already contains high standards for energy efficiency that apply across the province.” But municipal sources are concerned the code is not robust enough to meet climate targets, noting that the 2020 auditor general report chastised the government for poor enforcement of what requirements do exist. Cities like Mississauga were in the process of setting up their own environmental standards for new buildings, but those plans are now on hold. City planners say green standards also save residents money by making buildings energy efficient and resilient to storms. Photo: Carlos Osorio / The Narwhal Ontario cities say green standards are both good for the environment and save residents money  Municipal planning staff from four Ontario cities told The Narwhal they have not received answers from the Ford government to their questions about green standards, or much else in the huge bill. The Narwhal granted them confidentiality because none were authorized to speak publicly: many said they suspected the green standards repeal was intended to reduce construction costs. Green standards compel developers to carry the expense of setting up energy-efficient technology and sustainable garbage and composting systems, for example.  The standards are meant to be environmental protections, but also long-term cost-saving measures. Planners say that buildings designed to be sustainable and climate resilient for decades to come should ultimately save municipalities and residents money. Don Herweyer, Ottawa’s interim general manager of planning, spoke to his council about Bill 23 on Nov. 8, noting the city just implemented high-performance green standards this year, despite developer pushback and outrage. The motivation, he wrote, was that the costs of new low-carbon buildings is “substantially lower than retrofitting buildings after construction.”  Some municipal staff told The Narwhal they believe repealing standards will result in new houses that face rising energy and retrofit costs as climate change impacts — such as flooding and extreme heat — continue to worsen. Craig Rutton, policy director at the Toronto Region Board of Trade, told The Narwhal the repeal of green standards would hurt Ontario’s economy, as businesses see them as “really effective in encouraging more efficient construction that promotes innovation and saves costs in the long-term.” Rutton hopes the government recognizes green building standards are “a huge economic opportunity for the province that has given way to new businesses.”  These environmental worries are among a list of many spurred by the changes to the planning process in Ford and Clark’s housing legislation, including gutting conservation authorities and downloading responsibilities to manage watershed and flood protection to cities and towns.  In Mississauga, a Nov. 17 planning report states repeatedly that losing municipal authority over sustainable design “could impact the creation of units that are more efficient and affordable to heat and operate” and increase building emissions. “Elimination of this takes away the city’s ability to shape the public realm and would undermine the quality of places in our city,” the Mississauga staff report says. The Ford government walked back other elements of Ontario’s controversial housing bill, including rules that would have sped up the production of aggregate for construction. Photo: Christopher Luna Katsarov / The Narwhal On Thursday, a group of over 50 Ontario engineers also voiced concerns about the province’s changes to green standards, releasing a letter that asked the Professional Engineers of Ontario and the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers to publicly oppose Bill 23. The letter said the bill “threatens the ability of engineers to make the safety of the public their first priority.” It also noted that green standard requirements have already “been successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and stormwater runoff from new buildings, as well as reducing the urban heat island effect,” the term for how concrete and asphalt trap heat, which can be offset by natural features like trees, water and unpaved areas. On Thursday, in an email response to the letter, Sandro Perruzza, CEO of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, said he had “personally met” with Ontario’s associate minister of housing last week and “vocalized my opposition to the bill” on behalf of the organization. Before walking back the bill, Clark was asked about the repeal of green standards at a Nov. 9 government committee meeting. In response, Clark didn’t offer his rationale for cutting them, saying he he recognized the strength of Ontario’s building standards but that municipalities did not want “a one-size-fits-all approach” and “there are some inconsistencies out there, so we’ll continue to consult them.”  But municipal staff tell The Narwhal they have not been consulted, and feel there isn’t much time for dialogue with only two weeks left till the legislature takes its holiday break. Ford introduced the housing bill before newly-elected municipal governments were sworn in, and councils have had less than two weeks to read and absorb Bill 23 — which is one of the largest pieces of legislation the Ford government has released, impacting nine laws and every aspect of planning and development in Ontario.  New councils across southern Ontario plan are now scrambling to make sense of the bill even as the Ford government makes changes. “Cities are confused,” Purcell said. “On the one hand, they’re being told this wasn’t intended. On the other hand, their authority is still being undermined. It’s left a gaping hole in cities’ climate plans and the [Ford government] has made it difficult, actually impossible, to fill.” 

Sustainability Democrats propose narrow permitting reform effort on electric grid, community involvement

A group of House Democrats that are part of a sustainability coalition on Monday put forward a narrow proposal on permitting reform amid broader talks on how to reshape the country’s energy approval process.  The new policy brief released by leaders of the House Sustainable Energy & Environment Coalition (SEEC) narrowly focuses on bolstering the...

A group of House Democrats that are part of a sustainability coalition on Monday put forward a narrow proposal on permitting reform amid broader talks on how to reshape the country’s energy approval process.  The new policy brief released by leaders of the House Sustainable Energy & Environment Coalition (SEEC) narrowly focuses on bolstering the country’s electricity infrastructure and community involvement in energy project assessments.  “This policy brief breaks down some of the key legislative solutions that Congress should take up when considering reforming our laws to build a clean energy future,” the brief’s introduction reads.  The permitting reform negotiations are complex as large swaths of Democrats and Republicans would have to be on board on a set of issues where the two parties remain far apart.  Some of SEEC’s leaders, including co-chair Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) and vice chairs Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), and Donald McEachin (D-Va.) were part of a large coalition of Democrats who expressed opposition to Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) permitting reform push.  The new pitch from the sustainability coalition promotes legislation that the lawmakers say would give the federal government more power to approve some electric transmission lines, bolster grid resiliency and promote the development of community solar and offshore wind. It also called for increases to community involvement by requiring the preparation of reports on whether projects will harm community health and establishing environmental justice liaisons for such projects.  Manchin has been fighting to speed up the approval process for both fossil and renewable energy projects. Backed by Democratic leadership, he recently attempted to pass legislation that included shorter timelines for environmental impact studies and the approval of a pipeline in his home state.  Manchin’s push was met with pushback from both sides. Democrats, led by Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), have raised concerns that Manchin’s push could hamper the environmental review process and benefit polluting fossil fuels.  Separately, in a new letter to House leadership on Monday, Grijalva reiterated his request to exclude the package from upcoming must-pass funding legislation for both general government spending and military spending.  Meanwhile, Republicans have argued that Manchin's proposal didn’t go far enough. They have particularly pushed for tighter restrictions on how long agencies can take to study a project’s potential environmental impacts.  Some have also expressed opposition to working with the senator after his support for the Democrats’ climate, tax and healthcare bill. 

It's time to add climate change and net-zero emissions to the RBA's top 3 economic goals

Australia’s most important public financial institution, the Reserve Bank, runs on rules from the 1950s. For a 21st century economy, managing climate change needs to be added to its 3 key objectives.

ShutterstockIncreasingly, climate change is at the centre of government decision-making. This year’s federal budget devoted pages to an examination of the fiscal impact of climate change; Treasury has established a climate change modelling unit; and it’ll be front and centre of next year’s intergenerational report. Yet it is still nowhere near the centre of the deliberations of Australia’s Reserve Bank – one of the nation’s most important economic decision-making institutions. The Reserve Bank’s enabling legislation is the Reserve Bank Act 1959. That 63-year old legislation requires the bank to make decisions that are directed to the “greatest advantage of the people of Australia” in three specific areas: the stability of the currency of Australia the maintenance of full employment in Australia the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia The first objective is interpreted in an agreement signed by the treasurer as aiming to get “inflation between 2% and 3%, on average over time”. The second and third aren’t clearly defined in the agreement, leaving most of the focus on the first. Climate given second-order status While it is beyond doubt that the third objective – “economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia” – includes a liveable climate and a sustainable environment, not spelling this out relegates climate and sustainability to second-order status as the bank makes decisions. In a submission to the independent review of the bank, set up by the treasurer and due to report in March, I put forward an argument for adding a fourth objective along with my colleagues from the Centre for Policy Development: an orderly transition to, and maintenance of, net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, and management of climate-related risks and opportunities Should that be seen as too much of a change, we suggest a fallback: adding the word “sustainability” to the existing third objective, making it refer to the economic prosperity, sustainability and welfare of the people of Australia In addition, our submission asks the government to include in its written directions to the bank a statement setting out the government’s view of the ways in which the bank’s objectives relate to climate change. What’s the climate got to do with the bank? Centre for Policy Development Climate change is a first-order financial stability issue and will be the dominant economic theme of this century, due to both the scale of likely damage and the opportunities in the transition to net-zero. The bank needs to build out a more sophisticated toolkit for dealing with the impacts of this transition. The bank’s primary tool – the interest rate – is particularly good at sending signals to the “demand” side of the economy, but climate risks are more likely to present supply-side inflationary shocks. This means an obsessive focus on short-term inflation without considering the transition could be self-defeating, as it might encourage the continued use of fossil fuels even as they play an increasingly less stable and more inflationary role in the economy. One way this could play out would be a decision by the bank to push up interest rates in response to inflation caused by high fossil fuel prices. In turn, this could make it more expensive to invest in renewable energy – the very thing that would decouple prices from fossil fuels. Beyond setting interest rates, a less public part of the Reserve Bank’s role is maintaining liquidity in the financial system by lending to private banks against collateral, some of which includes corporate bonds. The bank can insist on climate risk reporting The international task force on climate-related financial disclosures – which reports to the Bank for International Settlements, of which Australia’s Reserve Bank is a member – is pushing for the standardised reporting of corporate climate risks. If Australia’s Reserve Bank insisted on this from firms whose corporate bonds it held as collateral (as the European Central Bank is planning to), it would help spread awareness of accounting for the importance of accounting for climate risks throughout the financial system. The bank could go further and consider the impact of climate-related risks on expected default rates when assessing the creditworthiness of assets used as collateral, preferencing corporate debt from companies with credible transition plans. The effects of this repricing would ripple through the financial system. Read more: Why it's not anti-environmental to be in favour of economic growth It could even decide to preference government debt from “green sovereigns” (foreign states or Australian states whose activities involve little climate risk) over those of less-green sovereigns by offering differentiated interest rates. In 2019 the Centre for Policy Development hosted a landmark address in which then Reserve Bank Deputy Governor Guy Debelle emphasised the importance of an orderly climate transition to financial stability, saying: decisions that are taken now can have significant effects on future climate trends and can limit or eliminate the ability to mitigate the effect of those trends The Reserve Bank, Australia’s oldest and arguably most important public financial regulator, has the ability to help smooth the transition. An early step would be to update the bank’s 1950s rules, and put beyond doubt that climate change is one of its 21st century responsibilities. Toby Phillips is a Program Director at the Centre for Policy Development, an independent non-partisan think tank.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!


sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.