Leave the text-only version and return to the original page view.
In EAs, planning for climate change at the project level should consider both the means to adapt to climate change through the design of the project and the means to mitigate climate change through the choice of alternative selected for the project. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (section 16) requires that "every screening or comprehensive study of a project… shall include a consideration of… the environmental effects of the project… and any cumulative environmental effects…, the significance of the effects...". The Act (section 2) also defines "environmental effects" as "any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any effect of any such change on health and socio-economic conditions… and any change to the project that may be caused by the environment", and defines "environment" to include "land, water and air, including all layers of the atmosphere". Provincial environmental assessment statutes, such as the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, have similar requirements.
Environmental effects therefore can include the contribution of projects, individually or cumulatively, to climate change through the production of greenhouse gases, and the effects of climate change on the project itself. In addition, changes that the project may cause within the environment may be affected by climate change. Potential environmental effects related to climate change that, therefore, should be considered at the project EA level can be divided into three categories:
The degree to which specific impacts are addressed in the EA will be determined for each project through scoping.
To estimate how a project might affect climate change, understanding how the climate would be affected by the project's GHG emissions is necessary. Estimating this relationship is complex and uncertain, and beyond the scope of this project. It may also be beyond the capabilities of proponents. However, estimating the effects of a project on GHG emissions is possible.
A number of project types for which EAs are carried out directly contribute to increased GHG emissions and, therefore, to climate change. Examples of these types of project EAs include those for power plants and other facilities that employ some form of fossil fuel combustion process, and waste landfills that generate methane. Some project types also indirectly contribute to GHG emissions. Examples of these types of project EAs include any new highway construction that induces a corresponding increase in GHG-emitting vehicular traffic; and expansions to urban development that destroy trees and thereby reduce carbon sinks. The direct and indirect increased emissions resulting from such projects should be estimated in environmental assessments. However, determining the degree to which the indirect effects on GHG emissions should be considered poses a difficult scoping problem, and being able to determine the appropriate extent of the analysis of indirect effects remains an open question.
There are also project types that affect GHG emissions, but in the opposite direction to those noted above. These projects actually lessen the overall emissions of GHGs generally by reducing emissions from other processes. Examples of these types of project EAs include those for new rail and transit projects that reduce road and highway use, and hydroelectric and nuclear power plants that displace production from fossil fuel plants. Any estimated reductions in GHG emissions should be factored into the decision-making process during the EA. A complete life-cycle analysis would have to be conducted to determine the full impact of the project on GHG emissions.
In addition to the emission of GHGs, projects can impact local climate conditions. Several examples of these project types are the effects of a structure on the local microclimate by influencing the wind patterns; the effects of paving natural areas on local temperatures; and the effects of a new reservoir on local temperatures and humidity conditions. The consideration of these types of local effects has become a well-established component of EA practice and is therefore outside the scope of this research (except with respect to the effects of climate change on impact prediction briefly discussed in a later section).
Each specific project generally can make only a minor contribution to GHG emissions when compared with the total emissions on a regional, national or global scale. Since the link between a project and a change in climate is relatively small and highly uncertain, it is understandable that the project's proponent would feel that it can either ignore the effect of these emissions on climate change or claim that the resulting effects would be insignificant. While acknowledging that the emissions may contribute to climate change, proponents may argue that their projects are part of a larger issue that should be addressed through other means such as government policies, plans, and programs. Some stakeholders, however, may want each project's implications for climate change (including the effects of climate change) to be fully addressed in the project EA, noting that, when considered together, many such projects may have a significant cumulative effect on climate change, or on Canada's contribution toward meeting the reduction targets set in the Kyoto Protocol. An intermediate view would be for the proponent and stakeholders to try to work together to agree on the scope of the EA.
Changes in climate and regional weather patterns (including changes in the magnitude and patterns of temperature, precipitation, and wind) may affect many types of projects and must therefore be considered during the EA. For example, the design of a marina would be affected by changes in water levels and shoreline; the design of a northern pipeline, by a change in the permafrost; timber extraction on winter roads over frozen lakes, by reduced ice thickness; hydroelectric power production, by a change in streamflows; the design of a building's roof, by a change in snow loads; and the size of a community's stormwater collection system, by a change in extreme rainfall events.
Project designs are generally based on criteria and standards that have been established using historical data. For example, while building codes for roofs have been based on historic snow loads in the area and the size of stormwater collection pipes has been based on historic rainfall data, these standards may no longer be appropriate under changing climatic conditions. The relative importance of various decision criteria may also be affected. For example, the design of a hydroelectric plant may have been determined on the basis of both power production and flood control using historic streamflow data. With an increase in extreme streamflow events and the risk of flooding, greater importance may need to be placed on future flood control. Finally, the selection of the preferred project could also be affected by climate change. For example, if the risk of leakage from a northern oil pipeline increases due to changes in the permafrost, another means of transporting the oil (such as tankers) may become the preferred option. The major question for project EAs is to determine how a changing climate might affect the project and how to effectively incorporate the various climate change uncertainties into this decision process.
The impacts of a project, such as the effects of a quarry on groundwater levels, the effects of a housing project on a nearby wetland, or the effects of a dam on downstream fisheries, are based on a comparison of the conditions of these environmental components (groundwater, wetland, and fisheries), both with and without the project. This comparison is illustrated by the difference between the two solid lines, shown by the arrow on the left in figure 1, where the horizontal time axis allows for temporal changes. However, any changes in climatic conditions can also cause changes in the conditions of the surrounding environment. For example, climatic changes may cause a reduction in groundwater levels, wetland functions, and fisheries. The future environmental condition with climate change, but without the project, is represented by the lower dashed line in figure 1. The upper dashed line represents the environmental condition with the project proceeding and a certain level of climate change occurring. The difference between the two dashed lines, shown by the second arrow, represents the impact of the project at any particular time. The predicted impact of the project may therefore be significantly different if climate change is considered.
Expanding on the fishery example, the impacts of a dam on the downstream fishery would generally be based on an assumption that the future condition of the fishery without the project would be the same as its current (baseline) condition. If climate changes were not considered, the impacts of the dam might be significant and represented by the difference in the two solid lines in the figure. However, it is possible that climate change could materially lower the quality of the fishery (e.g., it could entirely disappear due to the affects of climate change on water flow and temperature) even without the dam, as represented by the lower dashed line. The impact of the dam in this case would be less (represented by the difference in the two dashed lines) than if climate changes were not considered.
The effects of climate change on a project and on a project's impacts may be affected by other current or future projects. For example, the future condition of the fishery discussed above could be affected by other projects in addition to climate change. While these cumulative effects from other projects should be considered in an EA, the focus of this study is solely on the effects of climate change with respect to an individual project.
When projects contribute to or are affected by climate change impacts, the EA process should be used to identify appropriate responses to mitigate GHG emissions, or to adapt to the effects or vulnerabilities from climate change. While various agencies and groups have been addressing such mitigation and adaptation responses at the strategic level, similar efforts are also needed at the project level. Mitigation and adaptation are made more complicated by the uncertainties about climate change, which are discussed in the next section.
