OPINION: PROJECT NOT AS GREEN AS IT SEEMS,

No formal analysis of greenhouse-gas emissions has been done, write

Quebec’s largest public-transit project in 50 years, the Réseau électrique métropolitain, has been rushed through a superficial consultation process to the detriment of users, non-users and the environment. Though attractive alternatives exist, earnest participants are beginning to understand the outcome is pre-ordained.

It’s not hard to see why the proposal has enamoured so many. The $5.5-billion electric train network — spearheaded by the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec through its new subsidiary, CDPQ Infra — would link the West Island, Trudeau airport, the North Shore and South Shore to Central Station.

The promoter’s PR machine has done brilliant work selling the project’s environmental credentials to the public — Electric? What can be better! — but the fact remains no formal analysis was done of greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions stemming from the project’s full life cycle before, during or since public hearings held by the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement.

In the context of supposed carbon austerity, such a position is morally and environmentally untenable.

Three years ago, the Quebec Transport Department faced a similar decision with construction of the new Turcot Interchange. While hailing it as a “carbon neutral” project, it conveniently omitted the two most significant impacts on GHG emissions: the production of millions of cubic metres of cement, and the solo-driving suburban sprawl that it would continue to facilitate.

Environmental groups have struggled to publicly oppose the REM after having applauded its announcement so enthusiastically. Unfortunately, the difference between appearance (CDPQ Infra’s polished images and videos) and reality (massive parking lots and a slew of 1960s-style concrete viaducts snaking through the city) is not insignificant.

It’s hardly surprising for CDPQ Infra to gloss over emissions accounting. From its perspective, only one criteria is of ultimate concern: the bottom line. This project was conceived with return on investment in mind. Concerns regarding integration with existing networks, service to dense communities and low-income neighbourhoods, and attention to environmental consequences were subordinate.

What’s more, it appears to be the shape of things to come across Canada, since federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau has eyed the project’s financing structure favourably.

As one of the project’s most outspoken proponents, Mayor Denis Coderre presumably finds the lack of a comprehensive emissions assessment inconsequential. That’s not surprising, either, given that Montreal’s current administration refuses to measure the city’s collective emissions on a regular basis.

While leading cities measure annually, Montreal has no such engagement. And to quote the 2013 inventory made public last week, “the 2013 results should not be compared directly with those published previously” because of changes in methodology. Still, you can be sure the Coderre administration will claim full credit for reductions “achieved.”

It’s time to start measuring what matters. The clock is ticking. The 16 months leading to October 2016 set successive records for global average temperatures. By conservative estimates, in roughly 15 years, we will reach the 1.5°C warming threshold agreed to by COP 21 negotiators in Paris last December.

Many climate scientists are at a loss as to how they can better convey the gravity of the data they are observing. Projects like the REM have them in disbelief. In an era where greenhouse-gas reductions should be a primary decision criterion in every major investment — especially those involving public funds — such an analysis is nowhere to be found in this project.

Should the provincial government decide to fund the initiative — as it most certainly will — it must not use money its green fund — the Fonds Vert — unless the project is shown to reduce emissions competitively per dollar invested.

Public-transit solutions proposed by groups like Option transport durable and Pour un meilleur projet demonstrate that viable alternatives perform better by almost every measure to build a more livable, human-centric city.