South Surrey Costco project: Our cities are failing the climate test
Lower Mainland cities continue to approve projects that threaten wildlife, streams, and forests, despite their climate action promises
Community members against the South Surrey Costco development filed a petition, where concerns about the environment were among their reasons for opposing the project. (Jacob Blanck/Wikimedia Commons/file photo)
Environmental degradation is visible across the globe — and deforestation remains one of the biggest threats to both ecosystems and wildlife.
Agricultural expansion is one of the most significant — forests are removed for livestock, timber (including illegal logging), and mining. Urbanization and the construction of roads and highways further accelerate this loss.
What we often forget is the cost — deforestation has catastrophic effects on climate change. It increases carbon dioxide levels, intensifies the greenhouse effect, and raises global temperatures. This creates a dangerous feedback loop, more deforestation leads to more carbon emissions, which then accelerates global warming.
What is even more alarming is that we continue repeating the same mistakes. The Costco development project in South Surrey is a clear example. Surrey residents filed a petition against the new development project, highlighting the impact it could have on surrounding wildlife and the nearby Fergus Creek Watershed, and that the planned location is in an “ecologically sensitive area.”
Costco’s proposal calls for the removal of 1,107 trees and the preservation or replanting of 572, along with an estimated $517,000 gift to Surrey’s green city project. The company also sought to build closer to the nearby waterway than usually permitted, but will build a green buffer along the east and south sides of the property.
The design calls for several infrastructure improvements to alleviate traffic issues, such as extending a street and adding new traffic lights and a new roundabout.
East Vancouver is experiencing a similar problem, with needless demolitions having a major negative influence on the environment. The city’s objectives of producing affordable housing, boosting local business, cutting solid waste, and eventually reaching net-zero carbon emissions are compromised by these demolitions.
Over the next 10 years, moving and deconstructing homes rather than demolishing them would prevent at least 60,000 tonnes of waste from ending up in landfills, Business in Vancouver reported. Renewal Development and Light House recommend several steps, including mandatory pre-demolition assessments, applying these assessments to city-owned buildings, and refundable deposits to encourage relocation and deconstruction, among others.
The City of Vancouver should follow the example of Victoria. A bylaw there mandates demolition permission applicants to post a $19,500 deposit, which is refundable if the permit holder can demonstrate that at least 40 kilograms of wood were diverted in above-ground floor area.
The fact that cities already know what works irritates me the most. They have access to successful models from other cities, community input, and research. However, sustainability initiatives become little more than political branding in the absence of enforcement. Without strict assessment, developers’ promises of mitigation strategies, green buffers, and tree replacements rarely result in significant environmental protection.
Stricter rules foster predictability rather than creating barriers. They guarantee developers cannot profit privately while shifting environmental expenses onto the general public.
Accountability can be incorporated throughout the development process, as demonstrated by the City of Victoria’s deconstruction bylaw. Behavior shifts when monetary rewards are linked to actual environmental results.
Long-term urban resilience is built on environmental conservation, not the other way around. Development that is poorly managed damages watersheds, destroys habitats, raises carbon emissions, and exacerbates the consequences of urban heat islands. When environmental concerns are viewed as optional, communities can easily undermine their own climate goals, as demonstrated by the South Surrey Costco project and the demolitions in East Vancouver.
Development is essential, and infrastructure must change as cities change and populations increase. However, ecological integrity cannot be sacrificed for the sake of development. Municipalities must enforce their obligations with genuine responsibility, not just token gestures, if they are serious about addressing climate change.
Every time a city permits a project that accelerates carbon emissions or destroys natural habitat, it sends a clear message that growth is more important than sustainability.
