It’s gonna need a bigger tax base, too.
“Toronto must overhaul its aging infrastructure to adapt to dramatic new climate change projections — a process that could cost billions — say some councillors and environmentalists.” [Toronto Star]
It’s gonna need a bigger tax base, too.
“Toronto must overhaul its aging infrastructure to adapt to dramatic new climate change projections — a process that could cost billions — say some councillors and environmentalists.” [Toronto Star]
If the infrastructure changes reduce fuel use and expenses, and if they will amortize in a reasonable period without subsidies and other malarkey, then they make sense regardles of the “climate change” bogey.
If not, then they don’t make sense, regardless of the “climate change” bogey because it means they would damage the climate more than the current systems do.
Wouldn’t global warming decrease Toronto’s exposure to extreme weather by mitigating the coldest of the cold? Aside from an increase in rainfall and snow/glacier melt I cannot see anything that would actually harm the frozen wasteland that we call “Everything North of Kansas”
I don’t know. I don’t think I’d want to put billions into “dramatic new climate change projections.” Maybe “extreme new climate change projections” would do it.
No, “extreme” has been used too much. How ’bout “epic new climate change projections?”
Politicians are always looking to find ways to spend more of the public’s money and reward their supporters. Climate change with terrible consequences so far out that no one can really call you on the mistake sounds like a great gimmick.
“The extremes are about to change.”
And, this time, we mean it.