Letter to the Editor: Tax dollars for climate change mitigation vs. more affordable housing — which is best?
On February 22, REM published a well-researched and well-argued article about the public outcry against ever-increasing property taxes.One small, innocuous phrase that says so much caught my attention: The Montreal mayor was quoted as stating we are facing “unprecedented challenges” around inflation, housing and climate change.While most of the problems around inflation and housing were actually caused by governments, I want to challenge the assertion that we’re facing an unprecedented challenge around climate change. Is climate mitigation investment worth taking money from more affordable housing? Spending our tax dollars on climate mitigation is very expensive and causes more tax increases, but this will have (and is already having) a more significant effect on our economies.Is the investment in climate mitigation worth the huge amounts of our tax dollars, especially given that there are no win-win solutions? There is no climate emergency: Making housing more affordable is a better use of our tax dollars It takes money away from somewhere else, and I believe somewhere else — making housing more affordable — is a better use of our tax dollars.I decided a year and a half ago that climate was important enough to study in-depth. I can’t go into detail in a letter of this length, but I can say that all my claims are easily verifiable. Climate is a very complex system and I can only scratch the surface.There is no argument against CO2 rising rapidly (currently about 400 ppm). But, there is no climate emergency, there is no scientific consensus and there are no climate “deniers.” Let’s start with CO2 CO2 has indeed risen quite rapidly in the last 150 years and industrialization is very likely contributing to it, but it is NOT the cause. The earth’s climate changes naturally over several cycles as long as 120,000 years due to variations in the planet’s orbit and spends many years in cooler periods (ice ages) and then shorter periods in warmer interglacials. We happen to be in a peak interglacial right now (yay).What happens during these peaks? CO2 and temperature rise rapidly, which have been much higher than now (about as high as 1,000 ppm) and likely will be again. One day, though, Canada will be under a mile of ice again and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Between new technologies and population decline, CO2 will come down The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), of the United Nations, came up with several scenarios to determine what will happen under various CO2 emission models. They recently dismissed their worst-case scenario (the one all the end-of-the-world predictions are based on) as highly unlikely, and I believe they’re considering removing the second worst-case scenario, too.It turns out Western nations’ carbon emissions have been declining for a couple of decades. Nations like China and India are major contributors, firing up new coal-powered plants every week. The IPCC’s worst-case scenario for sea level rise is 18 inches by 2100. Plus, the world’s population is predicted to peak within 50 years and then decline. Between new technologies and population decline, CO2 will come down. Consensus: Foreign to science It also turns out there is no scientific consensus. Consensus is not even a concept in the world of science.“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert EinsteinThe whole purpose of science is to question assertions, and consensus is foreign to the endeavour. The 97 per cent consensus position was first put forward by John Cook, from the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, who reviewed hundreds of papers, and it has been vigorously challenged. Another scientist reviewed the same papers and found something like a 5 per cent consensus. Yes, CO2 is increasing — but it’s about the level of concern Last year, the CLINTEL (Climate Intelligence) research foundation produced a climate declaration challenging the “consensus” and so far over 1,900 scientists and professionals have signed on, including a Nobel Prize winner.This brings us to the “deniers”, an embarrassing argument for any scientist to make. This is called arguing against the person and is widely recognized as no argument.No serious scientists deny increasing CO2, but many question the level of concern.Remember the argument that increasing CO2 will make the world more arid and threaten food production? CO2 is plant food and, drum roll please, an area one to two times the size of the U.S. has greened and food production has increased dramatically. Investing climate money in housing affordability will dramatically improve the lives of ordinary Canadians So, with all these factors to consider, is climate change a wise use of our property (or other) tax dollars? I say no, certainly not yet. Bjorn Lomborg eloquently laid out the details of climate and the consequences of mitigation. The more we spend on climate, the less we can spend on roads, bridges, schools, medicine and housing.Canada contributes 1.5 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Our efforts will have zero impact on climate but will result (and already are) in economic disaster. Investing that money in housing affordability instead will dramatically improve the lives of ordinary Canadians. On top of this, research finds that the better off people are economically, the more they are amenable to saving the planet.* *For example, a UN survey found poorer nations ranked climate their last priority, with things like better healthcare and better job opportunities coming higher. A 2030 version of this survey is currently underway. Enjoying this article?Get the latest REM articles in your inbox 3x week so you stay up to date on the latest in the Canadian real estate industry Success! Email Subscribe The post Letter to the Editor: Tax dollars for climate change mitigation vs. more affordable housing — which is best? first appeared on REM.The post Letter to the Editor: Tax dollars for climate change mitigation vs. more affordable housing — which is best? appeared first on REM.
Blueprint for climate-aligned housing released — 5.8 million affordable homes by 2030: TFHC
Last week, the Task Force for Housing and Climate released its comprehensive recommendations aimed at rapidly expanding Canada’s housing stock while aligning with climate objectives. Co-chaired by former federal cabinet minister Lisa Raitt and former Edmonton mayor Don Iveson, the Blueprint for More and Better Housing commenced last September and outlines 140 specific actions for governments, to add 5.8 million affordable, low-carbon and climate-resilient homes by 2030. Comprising 15 housing experts, including former mayors, chief planners, builders, finance experts and Indigenous leaders, the Task Force aims to tackle the pressing issues of housing affordability and climate resilience. The calls to action The recommendations focus on four key transformative moves: legalizing density, implementing enhanced building codes, investing in factory-built housing and regulating housing growth in high-risk climate areas. Among 40 actions, municipalities are urged to eliminate parking minimums and unit maximums, create ambitious density rules near transit hubs and streamline approval processes. Provinces are given 50 actions, including supporting density-friendly municipal reforms, investing in factory-built housing and adopting stringent building codes for energy efficiency (the highest tiers of Canada’s National Model Building Code). The federal government is advised to tie funding for housing, infrastructure and transit to the adoption of these reforms and codes, and collaborate with provinces to map climate hazards and disincentivize housing growth in high-risk areas. “Fixing the housing crisis, like the climate crisis, requires every order of government to do its part” “Fixing the housing crisis, like the climate crisis, requires every order of government to do its part,” says co-chair the Honourable Lisa Raitt. “Our Blueprint will help every government take smart steps towards building more and better housing.” Co-chair Don Iveson adds, “We need a lot more housing, and our Blueprint shows that climate-aligned housing can be faster to build and more affordable as a result of lower utility and insurance bills, lower infrastructure costs and less regulation-blocking density.”
How natural hazard and its catastrophic loss impact housing affordability, supply and demand
Catastrophic loss events have been increasing in frequency, severity and time-adjusted cost. When large-scale catastrophic loss events result in housing unit loss, there’s an increase in demand for housing from displaced families within local and adjacent marketplaces.The allocation of resources to build back, repair or replace lost housing units draws market capacity away from building new units. Consequently, measurable impacts on housing supply result from catastrophic housing losses. Defining natural hazard A natural hazard is an extreme event that occurs naturally and causes harm to humans. It can include infrastructure, amenities and housing. In Canada, flooding has been the source of the most expensive housing losses recorded, although impacts from other natural hazards such as wildfires, wind, heat waves, drought and hail are on the rise.In the future, sea level rise and storm surge, melting permafrost and seismic hazard are expected to increasingly impact catastrophic housing loss in Canada. Catastrophic losses are typically measured in insurable losses resulting from natural hazards. Societal costs such as emergency management and response and knock-on health impacts to people and society are not typically measured in these reported figures. Impact on people Individual homeowners who are impacted by catastrophic loss events have the most to lose. In Canada, people have much of their personal wealth contained within their homes.According to the CMHC, “High levels of debt do most damage when a significantly negative external economic event happens … It becomes difficult, if not impossible, for many mortgage holders to service their debt.”In addition to property value impacts, the Red Cross estimates the cost of displacement for a typical family is $60,000 for the uninsured cost* in the form of savings or debt for disaster recovery and cost of living while displaced. According to Treading Water**, a pan-Canadian study on the effects of flooding on property values, property is devalued from catastrophic flood events. This results in affected homeowners losing equity and market growth, which reduces the portability of that wealth to lower-risk locations.The relative buying power of people affected by natural hazards is substantially reduced, which in turn reduces their capacity to financially recover and relocate. Understandably, the experience of managing catastrophic loss results in increased stress, emotional loss and, in many cases, PTSD. While these costs to people are substantial, they are not reported in the valuation of insurable losses from catastrophic events. Managing supply with drag from catastrophic losses There are three stages of catastrophic loss of housing that impact supply: point of incident, housing displaced people and return.Canadian events: Point of incident, displaced, return Glace Bay, N.S.300 homes damaged, 100 permanently relocated, said to result in a long-term housing shortageFort McMurray, Alta.2,400 buildings destroyed, 500 damaged. As of May 2018 (2 years post-fire), 20% of homes destroyed have been rebuiltMerritt, B.C.400 homes destroyed, 52 homes permanently lost, 600 residents unable to return to community Point of incident The point of incident marks the time when a home becomes uninhabitable, requiring repair or reconstruction. The loss of this unit will remain until the point of return, which can be two years and, in some cases, longer. The impact on supply is -1 unit. As is frequently the case, not all units are rebuilt.In the case of Merritt, British Columbia, for example, 13 per cent of houses were not rebuilt for a variety of reasons, including the destruction of the lot from river flows. Similarly, in Fort McMurray, Alberta, some houses were not rebuilt due to land toxicity. On Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, some coastal lots were retired to conservation lands, as the emerging sea level and storm surge risk are deemed too high to warrant reinvestment. Housing displaced people Housing displaced people is an important part of catastrophic loss response. When people flee catastrophic loss, they add to market housing demand. Individuals will seek housing within their network, including family and friends, and some will find temporary housing until they get a more stable interim solution.This +1 demand unit will put pressure on housing in adjacent and broad markets until the resident returns. And, it’s very likely to create pricing pressure as supply is strained against surging demand. Return The return period is measured from the time of displacement to the time of return. In terms of housing supply, the return period offers a -1 unit drag on new build capacity as both materials and labour are allocated to building back damaged housing.The build-back resource allocation will typically draw resources from the new build marketplace to prioritize rebuilding. This loss of market housing construction resources represents a permanent time-value loss to new housing creation. The larger the catastrophic losses in any marketplace, the greater the drag on creating new housing units. Lower-cost investment in resiliency to save housing from catastrophic loss: Key to market stability and housing supply There’s an amplifying impact on the supply and demand gap from catastrophic losses which exacerbate pricing and availability pressures in local marketplaces. This impact lasts from the point of displacement to the point of return, which can be a two-year timeframe and sometimes longer. The supply and demand drag created by catastrophic loss units in the Canadian housing supply will continue to impact people, governments and housing market stability. Direct site-level property devaluation after catastrophic loss can stigmatize communities and have lasting local real estate market impacts which affect the housing supply chain, from lenders to homeowners.With ambitious goals to create new housing, the lower-cost investment in resiliency to preserve housing from catastrophic loss is an important perspective for the achievement of Canada’s market stability and housing supply. Disruption to new build supply capacity and amplification of housing insecurity for Canadians who experience catastrophic loss exemplify the importance of residential resiliency investment. * Red Cross 2015-2022 examination of flood response over seven years: CatIQ 2023** Bakos K., Feltmate B., Chopik C., Evans C., 2022 Enjoying this article?Get the latest REM articles in your inbox 3x week so you stay up to date on the latest in the Canadian real estate industry Success! Email Subscribe The post How natural hazard and its catastrophic loss impact housing affordability, supply and demand first appeared on REM.The post How natural hazard and its catastrophic loss impact housing affordability, supply and demand appeared first on REM.
Categories
Recent Posts
