My understanding is that the declaration was intended to make climate change part of the City's everyday decision-making rather than treating it as a distant or separate environmental issue. It called for accelerating existing climate actions, considering new ones, incorporating a climate lens into City policies and decisions, and working toward a 45% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions below 2011 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050.
For me, the important part is follow-through. Declaring an emergency only matters if it changes how we approach transportation, housing, infrastructure, buildings and budgets, and if Council regularly measures whether those decisions are actually moving us toward the targets.
I would focus on three areas where municipal decisions can have a large impact while also improving everyday life.
First, I would support more compact development and housing intensification so more people can live near existing infrastructure, jobs, services and transit rather than continually expanding outward.
Second, I would continue investing in reliable transit, connected walking and cycling infrastructure, and safer streets so driving is not the only practical option for routine trips.
Third, I would put more emphasis on buildings: continuing to decarbonize City facilities and vehicles, implementing stronger green-development standards, and moving programs that help residents retrofit older homes from planning into delivery while pursuing federal and provincial funding to make them affordable.
Twenty years from now, I would like Peterborough to be a more compact, connected and resilient city. More people should be able to live close to work, shops and services, and walking, cycling and transit should be practical choices for far more everyday trips.
I would expect City facilities and much of the municipal fleet to be very low-emission, older buildings to be significantly more energy-efficient, and new development to require much less energy to operate. I would also want a healthier tree canopy, stronger flood protection and stormwater systems, and neighbourhoods that are better prepared for extreme heat and severe weather.
The result should not only be lower emissions. It should also mean lower energy costs, healthier neighbourhoods, more transportation choices and less public and private money being spent repairing preventable climate damage.
For Peterborough, I think the most immediate risks are heavier rainfall and flooding, extreme heat, severe storms, and the damage those events can cause to roads, sewers, buildings, trees, utilities and private property. The City is already seeing more frequent high-intensity rainfall and maintains more than 100 potential flood-reduction projects in response.
The costs extend well beyond the municipal budget. They include flooded basements, insurance costs, business disruption, power outages, heat-related health risks and damage to natural areas. Those impacts are also uneven: seniors, people with disabilities, renters and lower-income households often have fewer resources to protect themselves or recover afterward.
Climate adaptation should become part of normal infrastructure and asset planning. I would prioritize flood-reduction and stormwater projects based on risk, continue reducing unnecessary inflow into the sewer system, use low-impact development and natural infrastructure where appropriate, and make sure new and reconstructed infrastructure is designed for the climate conditions we expect over its full lifespan. Peterborough's existing resilience strategy already calls for integrating climate risk into the way the City plans, builds, restores and maintains infrastructure.
Trees are infrastructure too. I support protecting and expanding the urban canopy because it provides shade, reduces urban heat, manages stormwater and improves neighbourhoods; the Official Plan currently targets 35% overall tree-canopy coverage by 2051.
We should also have practical plans for heat waves, major storms and prolonged outages, including accessible cooling spaces, reliable emergency communication and particular attention to residents who may need assistance.
I support a temporary pause on new hyperscale and AI data centres while Peterborough develops clear rules for how facilities of that scale should be evaluated. Council has now directed staff to undertake a study of major digital infrastructure, including its energy, water, emissions, land-use and other impacts, and has established a process to consider an interim-control by-law if a 50 MW-or-larger application arrives before that work is complete.
I am not necessarily advocating for a permanent ban. Data centres are important infrastructure for our sovereignty (I don't want Canada to have to depend on the US or other countries for access to AI) , and a project that pays for the infrastructure it requires, minimizes its environmental impact and provides substantial long-term benefit to Peterborough should be considered on its merits.
But hyperscale facilities can consume enormous amounts of electricity, water and employment land. Before approving one, I want clear answers about its energy and water demand, greenhouse-gas impact, infrastructure requirements and who will pay for them, permanent employment and municipal revenue, and whether those scarce resources could provide greater community value through another use.
I do not think climate policy should exist in a silo. Some of the most effective climate decisions are also good housing, transportation, infrastructure and financial decisions.
Compact development makes better use of infrastructure we have already paid for. Reliable transit and safe walking and cycling give households less expensive transportation options. Energy-efficiency improvements can reduce operating costs. Trees provide shade and manage stormwater. Flood-prevention work can cost far less than repeatedly repairing damage afterward.
I would therefore want Peterborough to report not only on tonnes of greenhouse gases reduced, but also on practical outcomes residents can see: energy saved, homes retrofitted, transit use, tree canopy, flood risk reduced and outside funding leveraged. Climate action will be much easier to sustain when people can see what it is accomplishing in their own neighbourhoods.