In the world of sustainability, every decision comes at a cost — economically, environmentally, socially. Those committed to true sustainability must weigh those costs against each other when deciding on any course of action.
From an environmental standpoint, it’s terrific that Whistler council has decided (with dissenting votes cast by councillors Forsyth and Milner) to spend almost $50,000 a year for each of the next two years on the purchase of carbon credits so that the community can trumpet to the world that it is “carbon neutral” two years ahead of the deadline it agreed to as a signatory to the B.C. Climate Action Charter. Whistler has long sought to be a leader in environmental sustainability, and now in addition to its adoption of a “comprehensive sustainability plan,” its creation of a “centre for sustainability” and its adoption, as a guiding set of principles, to something called The Natural Step, it has another sustainability feather to place in its cap, to be showcased during the 2010 Winter Olympics and beyond. Bravo.
Problem is, the decision to spend almost $100,000 comes during a recession, when families, businesses and governments are cutting back and when municipal taxpayers are facing a cumulative tax increase of some 20 per cent over three years. Sure, $100,000 is a pittance when you’re operating on a budget of between $40 and $50 million. But we’re glad councillors Forsyth and Milner chose to raise their dissenting voices, because we believe many taxpayers will share their point of view.
Yes, as a relatively low-elevation ski resort with a lot to lose if global climate change continues unabated, Whistler should be taking a lead role in the fight. And yes, being a leader always comes at a price. But what — aside from the aforementioned feather in the community’s collective cap — are Whistler taxpayers really getting for their $100,000?
The same could be said for the $68,000 the RMOW spent on a lobbyist in 2007 and 2008 to make its case with B.C. government officials for a fleet of natural-gas-powered transit buses? Admittedly, that money was spent before the economic downturn, so questioning it at this point is hindsight. But since all Whistler received in return was an agreement from B.C. Transit to ensure that the new transit hub is capable of fuelling buses with natural gas, and a vague promise to take another look at bringing natural-gas-powered buses here after the Olympics, the value of the $68,000 expenditure is very much an open question.
Our colleagues at the online website The Tyee, who broke the story about the growing trend among municipal and regional governments toward hiring paid lobbyists to make their case with senior levels of government, are to be commended for having brought the story to the public’s attention. “The trend… has some observers worried that provincial decisions may favour communities that spend tax dollars hiring insiders who know their way through Victoria’s political channels, instead of those who most need the help,” wrote The Tyee’s Andrew MacLeod.
We agree with Mayor Ken Melamed that it’s probably sometimes necessary for local governments to hire lawyers or others to do their bidding on the minutia of some covenant or bylaw. While the mayor also said he feels the $68,000 expense was justified at the time, there’s good reason to wonder whether something’s wrong when junior levels of government feel it necessary to hire paid lobbyists to bend the ears of ministers and senior bureaucrats. Shouldn’t those officials be equally accessible to all?
Yes, from an environmental standpoint, being carbon neutral is a great PR tool, as is an effort to showcase eco-awareness through the use of natural-gas-powered buses. But what dollar value should one attach to those sorts of initiatives, and are those costs that taxpayers are willing to pay?
