There’s good reason to look to British Columbia for guidance on climate change resiliency measures. Sadly, the province has taken the frontline hits of heat domes, wind, fires, rain and flooding. But when it comes to directing efforts towards change and adaptation, it’s ahead of the provincial pack.
According to Efficiency Canada’s 2021 Canadian Provincial Energy Efficiency Scorecard, British Columbia ranks first, both in terms of energy efficiency enabling programs and those specifically directed at improving the performance of buildings.
Recent events in B.C. have demonstrated to the rest of Canada that buildings must be more than just energy efficient. They need to be designed and built to withstand the climate calamities predicted in the decades ahead.
As Jon Penndorf, project manager and sustainability leader with the international architectural firm Perkins+Will, told Design Built Network, “It’s the next chapter in sustainability. It’s also about flexibility, adaptability, and the ability of a structure to weather a crisis event.”
At the same time, Penndorf believes climate-related impacts are specific to the unique vulnerabilities of each location.
For example, sea level rises are an issue for towns and cities located on Canada’s coasts, but not for central Canada. Preparations for damage resulting from a massive forest fire in Ontario might not be applicable in Saskatchewan. Penndorf therefore suggests the key to climate-resilient design is a thorough examination of the risks associated with each project.
At the federal level, Canada’s commitment to climate resiliency measures speaks in terms of the billions invested, “towards climate action and clean growth,” and reports undertaken, “with the ultimate goal of improving infrastructure planning and helping governments make informed decisions about long-term infrastructure projects.”
However, there’s scarce evidence of funding specifically directed to what the federal government terms the “careful planning” required for future infrastructure.
Meanwhile, the recent U.S. government budget outlined a commitment to invest $47 billion, “to help communities prepare for the new age of extreme fires, floods, storms and droughts that scientists say are worsened by human-caused climate change.”
It’s clear who is putting their money where their mouth is.
To this point, the federal government has passed funding responsibilities to build resilient infrastructure down to the provinces.
For its part, British Columbia has initiated and updated a number of reports and indicators since 2012, covering issues such as air quality, water, waste disposal and forestry. These reports address climate change issues, such as air temperature and sea levels among others.
British Columbia is also assisting builders and planners through B.C. Housing’s Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR), a “knowledge and capacity building project.”
MBAR helps building owners, “address and minimize the impacts of climate change on buildings and people living in them.”
In partnership with over 30 organizations at various levels, MBAR has produced easy-to-read resources that provide site, design and operational strategies dealing directly with floods, heat waves and severe storms.
Meanwhile, the Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia have assembled an index of resources gathered from universities, municipalities, and U.S. state government sources that can improve understanding of climate event resiliency.
In other words, there are numerous studies and research findings available to help municipalities, project owners, designers and builders, but little money. Many complain that, like the feds, provincial governments are also passing responsibility for action and funding down the chain.
Larger cities can afford to take important steps, as reported by the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. Unfortunately, smaller vulnerable communities do not have the tax sources to afford the recommended resiliency measures.
It all points to inconsistencies certain to cause problems going forward, leaving the construction industry responsible to assess the risks associated with each new project and location.
Going forward, there will be increased pressure on the federal and provincial governments to go beyond just identifying future infrastructure risks and to provide funding for the implementation of measures required to protect capital assets and infrastructure from the climate-related events being predicted.
John Bleasby is a Coldwater, Ont.-based freelance writer. Send comments and Climate and Construction column ideas to editor@dailycommercialnews.com.
Recent Comments
comments for this post are closed