Kelowna City Councillor Graeme James believes reducing the city's carbon footprint is unrealistic and will cost taxpayers millions of dollars. During a debate on a proposed solar project for the firehall on Enterprise Way, James told his council colleagues the $12,000 cost will be a waste of taxpayers money. "The whole greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions thing has to be really looked at and how we are spending our money is more important because what we are doing right now has very little effect world wide," says James. "As far as the city goes we have made some commitments I really believe we can't meet. If we try and meet those, it's going to cost the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars."
The commitment James refers to is a series of pledges made by the city in 2008, including its pledge to reduce greenhouse gas by 20% by 2011 at all City facilities and 33% overall in the city by 2020. James says as the city continues to grow through migration the additional infrastructure will add to the greenhouse gas emissions, not reduce it. "So, it's very difficult, if not almost impossible, for a growing community to meet those emissions. I'm not a fan of carbon credits, I think it's a shell game and it's a very steep curve that will cost us fortunes." He says he also doesn't trust the provincial government to give the city its money back.
Councillor Angela Reid, who admitted her passion for the reduction of GHG, disagreed, saying growth does not have to mean an increase in the city's carbon footprint. "If we start to identify the technology and working with them and finding ways to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emission so that we are not having a net increase in GHG as our community grows," says Reid. "Growth is inevitable but how we grow is the most important thing. If we start looking now and demonstrating now ways in which we can grow with fewer greenhouse gases overall, I think it's a very prudent choice. Any cost we incur now is an investment in the future that will pay us back."
The debate Monday centered around a proposal to install a solar hot water demonstration system into the main firehall. The project would cost $12,000 with the possibility of a $4,000 reduction through provincial and federal government grants. According to staff estimates, providing hot water using solar technology will save the city $447 annually. At that rate it would take the city 18 years to get its money back. "We represent the taxpayer. It will take 18 years to get our money back and we don't even know if the technology will last for 10 years," says Councillor Andre Blanleil. "I would rather wait until it becomes reasonable to do properly. We have no history on this product to know if it will even last 18 years. I think technology will lead in this direction. I just don't think this technology is ready to go yet."
Meantime, Councillor Michele Rule reminded her colleagues that council had committed to going ahead with a solar project this year and says this one seems relatively inexpensive compared with other projects. Despite protests from James and Blanleil, council voted overwhelmingly in favour of moving ahead. "This is a relatively small investment to demonstrate leadership in an area where we are going to be asking our community to go," says Reid. "If we were to retro-fit the whole city with solar hot water systems, perhaps that would cost millions of dollars, but that's not what is being proposed."
The commitment James refers to is a series of pledges made by the city in 2008, including its pledge to reduce greenhouse gas by 20% by 2011 at all City facilities and 33% overall in the city by 2020. James says as the city continues to grow through migration the additional infrastructure will add to the greenhouse gas emissions, not reduce it. "So, it's very difficult, if not almost impossible, for a growing community to meet those emissions. I'm not a fan of carbon credits, I think it's a shell game and it's a very steep curve that will cost us fortunes." He says he also doesn't trust the provincial government to give the city its money back.
Councillor Angela Reid, who admitted her passion for the reduction of GHG, disagreed, saying growth does not have to mean an increase in the city's carbon footprint. "If we start to identify the technology and working with them and finding ways to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emission so that we are not having a net increase in GHG as our community grows," says Reid. "Growth is inevitable but how we grow is the most important thing. If we start looking now and demonstrating now ways in which we can grow with fewer greenhouse gases overall, I think it's a very prudent choice. Any cost we incur now is an investment in the future that will pay us back."
The debate Monday centered around a proposal to install a solar hot water demonstration system into the main firehall. The project would cost $12,000 with the possibility of a $4,000 reduction through provincial and federal government grants. According to staff estimates, providing hot water using solar technology will save the city $447 annually. At that rate it would take the city 18 years to get its money back. "We represent the taxpayer. It will take 18 years to get our money back and we don't even know if the technology will last for 10 years," says Councillor Andre Blanleil. "I would rather wait until it becomes reasonable to do properly. We have no history on this product to know if it will even last 18 years. I think technology will lead in this direction. I just don't think this technology is ready to go yet."
Meantime, Councillor Michele Rule reminded her colleagues that council had committed to going ahead with a solar project this year and says this one seems relatively inexpensive compared with other projects. Despite protests from James and Blanleil, council voted overwhelmingly in favour of moving ahead. "This is a relatively small investment to demonstrate leadership in an area where we are going to be asking our community to go," says Reid. "If we were to retro-fit the whole city with solar hot water systems, perhaps that would cost millions of dollars, but that's not what is being proposed."
No comments:
Post a Comment