Ottawa's environment committee changed its name. What else did it accomplish this term?

The city's environment and climate protection committee the "climate protection" part is new this term held its last meeting before the summer break this week, and will meet just once more before this fall's municipal election.

So it's a good time to askwhat the committeeand,by extension, city councilaccomplished. The short answer? Not a ton.

Or, as Coun. Scott Moffattput it: "We received a lot of reports."

The committee oversees garbage and recycling, water and sewer services, and strategies for improving the environment in general. Here are some highlights or, in some instances,lowlights of the last four years.

No improvement on waste diversion

The committee reallydidn't even talkabout waste diversionuntil local activist group Waste Watch Ottawapointed out last fall that this city has some of worst diversion rates in the province.

Instead, city staff waited on new waste legislation from the province, which took years, and now faces an uncertain future underOntario's new government.

"There could have been things we did that were more productive," saidMoffattof the committee's work this term.

In particular, he would have liked to tackle the lack of organics recycling in multi-residentialbuildings, schools and restaurants.

There was some movement on the green bin earlier this year when the city quickly approved a new contract that could allow the use of plastic bags. But the new deal doesn't take effect until next year, and the use of plastic bags is controversial, with somejurisdictions thinking of banning them altogether.

Storm sewer debacle

Thecity overhauled the way itcharges for drinkingwater, takes awaysewage, anddealswith runoff from big storms needed reforms that went pretty smoothly.

Then came the controversy over charging rural residents forstorm water services.Rural homeowners who don't pay city water bills have been receiving receiving theservices, but haven't beenpaying for them under the old billing system.

Some weren't happy they had to startpaying$4.44 per month. But what really angered them wasa 10-year plan thatshowed annual planned increases of 10, 12, even 13 per cent. By 2027, a rural resident would have paid $14 a monthfor storm sewer service.

The environment committee stood firm. But council caved to political pressure,keeping the storm sewer rate to 5 per cent this year and borrowing $3.1 million to make up most of the shortfall. There is currently no plan for 2019 and beyond.

Thatfiscally dubious decisionpunts more difficult ones well past the October 2018 municipal election. This new borrowing will push the water and sewer department right up against the council-set debt ceiling and add $1.9 million to the city's interest payments over the next decade.

Protecting theclimate? No way to know

The city is supposed to be trying to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from its own buildings and vehicles. But it hasn'tbeen able to say what'shappened with emissions since its 2012 benchmark year.Ottawa can't even meet its laughable GHG emissions reporting scheduleof once every four years.By comparison, Toronto releasesan annual report on its own emissions.

When pressed, committee chair David Chernushenko said he believes emissions may have improved there's been an increase in cycling, energy-efficientimprovements tosome city buildings, the conversion of half of the city's street lights toLED but the councillor admitted he really had no way of knowing.

Still, despite not knowing where emissions are going, thecommittee voted this weekin favour of more aggressive reduction target of 20 per cent below 2012 levels by2024. Bringing in LRT will help reduce emissions, but it's unclear how much that will help.

"I think that pretending that these targets mean something is a waste of time," said Moffatt."I think if you want to go and do this, then bring forward things that actually achieve it."

Environment not a top priority

But that's easier said than done.

If the committee's progress this term has been a disappointment and most of its members agree it has, if privately there's plenty of blame to go around.

The councillors themselves should be more vocal in pushing the city's goals and they need to take responsibilitywhen things go awry. For example, a report released this week revealed the city's in-house garbage collection contractors have run $2.7 million in deficits in recent years. Committee members carried the report without a single question, as they did last year.

What's holding the committee back?

7 years ago

Duration 1:08

Committee chair Coun. David Chernushenko says it's hard to find support and resources to make major changes.

Then there's Mayor Jim Watson. His office, along with the city manager's office,sets the annual budget. Many environmental advocates, including some councillors, argued the city's environmental projects weren't properly funded in the 2018 budget.

For example, council approved a strategy called Energy Evolution, a collection of projects to increase energy efficiency.Most think the strategy is sound, but there aren't enough city staffers to oversee it. Senior staffer Stephen Willis said there is a position in his department expressly to deal withEnergy Evolution, but no money at this point to hire someone to fill it.

And forget about bigger ideas, like Toronto's program for low-interest loans to residents looking to make energy-saving home improvements.

Chernushenko says Watson does support environmental projects, just not enough.

"These issues do have the support of the mayor, but it has not been a top priority," the councillor told CBC. "And what we have seen in cities that have maderealheadway is that these issues have had top priorityfrom the top. On the whole, council had not made it a big enough priority."