Jenna Jessop
"I want the City to focus on making cleaner choices practical and accessible for residents instead of just setting targets.
Transportation is a big part of that. We need reliable, frequent public transit that people actually want to use, along with safe and connected walking and cycling networks that give people realistic alternatives to driving. The City should also continue transitioning its own vehicles and transit fleet toward cleaner and zero-emission options where they meet our operational needs.
I also support growing clean and renewable energy in Ottawa. That can include things like solar generation and energy storage on City buildings and other appropriate properties, as well as responsibly located renewable-energy projects.
For residents, we should continue supporting programs that make it easier to improve the energy efficiency of their homes and make cleaner choices. That includes things like insulation, heat pumps, solar panels, battery storage and EV charging. These improvements can reduce emissions while also helping households lower their energy use over time.
The City cannot reach net zero on its own. Many of the biggest decisions and funding programs are controlled by the provincial and federal governments. I would work with both levels of government to bring funding and programs to Ottawa that help residents, businesses and the City make this transition.
For me, meeting our climate commitments is about making sure the cleaner option is also a practical option. If we want people to make different choices, we need to give them the infrastructure, services and support to be able to do it."
David Purchase
"Ottawa has already made the commitment, so my approach would be to measure whether we're actually getting there and be honest with residents about the cost and the results.
The City already tracks greenhouse gas emissions every year. I want those numbers to drive our decisions. If we're spending taxpayers' money on a program to reduce emissions, we should be able to show what it accomplished, how much it cost and whether it's actually moving us toward the target.
I also think the City should concentrate on the things it can directly control. Making City buildings more energy efficient is a good example because it can reduce emissions and operating costs at the same time. The City reported this year that efficiency upgrades to its facilities are already saving about $300,000 annually while reducing emissions.
Where I would be cautious is putting increasingly expensive requirements on individual residents and pretending City Hall can accomplish this alone. Ottawa's own Energy Evolution strategy acknowledges that reaching the target requires action and investment well beyond municipal government.
I'm prepared to support practical measures that produce measurable results. But I also want residents to know what we're spending, what we're getting for that money and whether we're actually on track for 2050."
~~
Response in French Provided by the Candidate
"Ottawa a déjà pris cet engagement. Pour moi, il faut maintenant être capables de démontrer aux résidents si on avance réellement vers la cible et combien ça nous coûte.
La Ville mesure déjà ses émissions chaque année. Servons-nous de ces données pour prendre nos décisions. Quand on investit l'argent des contribuables dans un programme, je veux savoir ce qu'on a réellement obtenu en retour.
Il y a aussi des choses que la Ville contrôle directement. Par exemple, améliorer l'efficacité énergétique de nos propres bâtiments peut réduire les émissions tout en diminuant les coûts d'exploitation. C'est le genre de projet qui m'intéresse parce qu'on peut en mesurer les résultats.
Là où je serais plus prudent, c'est de continuellement transférer la responsabilité et les coûts aux résidents. La Ville ne peut pas atteindre une cible comme celle-là toute seule. Les gouvernements fédéral et provincial, les entreprises et d'autres secteurs ont aussi un rôle important à jouer.
Je vais regarder les résultats, les coûts et les progrès réels vers 2050. Si une mesure fonctionne et offre une bonne valeur aux contribuables, ça vaut la peine de continuer. Si ce n'est pas le cas, je ne veux pas qu'on continue simplement parce qu'on s'était donné une cible."