If we want truly green cities in Canada, we have to overcome the problem of short-term costs trumping long-term benefits.
A growing body of evidence indicates that the smart use of environmental-improvement tools such as green roofs, permeable concrete and district energy systems can 鈥� over time 鈥� lower costs and improve environmental outcomes. If we do it right, we can have a healthier environment and save money on things like heating our homes and driving our cars.
But this is only possible if we shift our focus from the initial costs and challenges of implementing new environmental approaches to the long-term benefits. We have to curb our impatience and be willing to pay up-front for gains that take time to accrue.
Improving the environmental performance of our cities is like buying a new washing machine. The environmentalist in us wants to buy the energy-efficient model because it will use less energy. The prudent financial manager in us wants to buy the energy-efficient model because the higher price will be recouped over time in the form of lower electricity bills. The skeptic in us wonders if the promised savings will materialize or if they are just a sales gimmick. The hedonist in us wants to buy the cheaper model and spend the difference on a fun night out.
If we want 91原创s to support greener cities 鈥� the equivalent of buying an energy-efficient washing machine 鈥� the existing evidence in favour of green policies needs to be more effectively communicated.
At the same time, the on-the-ground results of green initiatives need to be determined and routinely reported at the local level. We cannot expect the public or elected officials to support the changes and costs associated with new urban environmental initiatives without compelling evidence that the they are worth it. Simply saying 鈥渋t鈥檚 good for the environment鈥� or 鈥渋t鈥檚 the right thing to do鈥� is both not effective and patronizing to those who have to pay for the changes or adopt the new behaviours. In the meantime, green roofs will remain novelties, traffic congestion will get worse and new buildings will be less efficient than they could be.
To prevent the preoccupation with short-term costs from trumping the pursuit of long-term benefits, and to assure residents and businesses that those long-term benefits are being realized, cities must invest in the evaluation of new environmental initiatives and clearly report the results to residents.
Telling people that cycling to work is good for the environment is not the same as demonstrating that bike lanes and other measures are achieving something other than annoying drivers and slowing traffic.
Having and sticking to a green strategy that identifies the benefits, frankly acknowledges winners and losers, and contains stringent measurement and reporting commitments is essential to enabling cities to make greater use of environmental-improvement tools. Such a strategy should articulate how the proposed changes will save money over the long-term and how they will result in quality-of-life improvements for residents.
Current green plans in place in 91原创 cities tend to rely on platitudes rather than evidence when explaining the benefits of the changes they propose and are often silent on how promised improvements will be measured and reported to the public.
Better data on economic returns and quality-of-life improvements will help address the natural resistance to creating truly green cities in Canada, but it will be up to 91原创s to forgo instant gratification in favour of benefits that take time to materialize.
听
Robert Roach is vice-president of research at Canada West Foundation, a think tank that focuses on policies that shape the quality of life in western Canada.
