hposgate |
Toronto West CRAG Meeting
September 18, 2008
Minutes
Present: Peter, Tanya, Johann, Heather, Tim P, Krista, Danny, Anders
Regrets: Jane, Nancy, Marcia, Marylu, Tim V, Vivian, Suzanne
1. Review of last meeting and approval of minutes.
The one issue that arose was regarding the principle we would use to determine our carbon allowance for our first year. At our June meeting, we agreed that:
“Our carbon allowance will be based on the principle of setting a target 10% below the current Ontario average for the things we are counting. That gives us a target of 4.8 tonnes (5.3 tonnes minus 10 percent), given our current best estimate. There could be some revision to the target in light of a better estimate of the Ontario average.”
Heather noted that, based on the figures available from zerofootprint, our current target is actually based on the Toronto average, not the much higher Ontario average, and that Toronto is a better comparison for us. For example, given that Toronto has better public transit than many other places in Ontario, we should compare ourselves to others living here rather than in more car-dependent places. We briefly discussed this and agreed that we would change the principle to “a target 10% below the current Toronto average for the things we are counting.”
[Following the meeting, Anders and Heather discussed whether this actually was the right decision and whether we had adequately debated the implications of changing the principle in this way. One problem with using the Toronto average as the reference point for our target is that it implies that somebody living in a more car-dependent community deserves a higher carbon allowance. Is that really a message we want to send? Isn’t part of the point to show that it is going to be more difficult to live a low-carbon life in poorly-planned urban areas, and therefore we should stop building cities in that way and, where possible, stop adding to the demand for urban sprawl by choosing not to live there? Should our target be based on equal right to emit for everyone in a given area (e.g. equal targets for all Ontario) or on equal effort in reducing from whatever level of emissions people have now (e.g. Torontonians get a lower allowance since it’s easier to be low-carbon here)? Or should our reference point be wider—comparing ourselves to all of Canada (which would make us look like model environmental citizens) or the global average (which would make our emissions look outrageously high)? We had previously settled on the Ontario average as the relevant reference point because Ontario has a different electricity system from other provinces (with different levels of emissions) so it seemed sensible to compare ourselves to other Ontarians. Now that we’ve re-opened this issue, we need to think more thoroughly about it and re-visit it at the next meeting.]
2. Further thoughts/questions on the ground rules for our first year?
No additional issues were raised.
3. Discussion of our carbon footprints and sharing ideas on how to reduce them.
Heather produced graphs of the carbon footprints of each member of the group, broken down by source. Based on the graphs, we each discussed our own carbon footprints and some of the plans we had to reduce them and shared ideas on possible solutions. Among the ideas people proposed or had already started doing:
- choosing a more efficient/Hybrid vehicle when renting or using Autoshare – using an outdoor line and indoor drying rack instead of a clothes dryer – being more conscious of driving and trying to reduce the number of trips / doing more than one task during each trip – trying to fly less – living in a smaller living space – buying a new furnace – better insulation – air sealing (the book “Keeping the Heat In” from Natural Resources Canada was suggested as a useful guide: http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/keep_heat_in/) – having an eco audit done in order to get government grants for renovations as well as to help prioritize the most effective areas – putting solar water heaters on one’s home (the idea of purchasing the equipment as a group to get a better price was suggested)
One challenge people discussed was the conflict between family obligations—e.g. driving regularly or flying to see one’s parents—and the obligation to reduce one’s carbon emissions. Another was the difficulty of saying no to flying on holiday when one’s spouse/partner wants to go and you can afford it.
One question that emerged was whether people could bank credits from one year to the next, for example, coming in under the target in one year to be able to take a flight the next. This issue should be discussed at a future meeting.
Another question was the boundary between personal and business travel. For example, do we count as our own emissions those related to travel to work/academic conferences? Or for job interviews in other cities?
4. Brainstorming for action in the community.
We brainstormed for ideas for acting on the second component of the group’s mandate: community action in addition to reduction of our individual carbon footprints. Among the suggestions:
- ordering lawn signs for the federal election (on Oct 14) highlighting the need for action on climate change (see http://www.vtacc.org/) Note: After the meeting at least 10 signs were ordered directly by group members and information about VTACC was spread through group member’s networks and in the community