Daniel Tsang

Climate action starts close to home, and for the past eight of my thirteen years living at River Green, I've served on the strata council, where I helped introduce and expand our building's green waste program. This meant working with residents, building management, and waste haulers to set up proper organics collection and diversion — reducing the amount of waste our community sends to landfill and encouraging residents to compost food scraps and yard waste instead. It wasn't glamorous work: it involved resident education, adjusting collection logistics, and troubleshooting contamination issues so the program actually worked in practice, not just on paper.

Beyond the green waste initiative, my time on the strata council gave me a firsthand understanding of how sustainability policy actually gets implemented at the ground level — the logistics, the resident buy-in, and the persistence it takes to make lasting change stick in a multi-unit residential community. That experience taught me that climate action isn't just about big announcements; it's about consistent, practical follow-through at the neighbourhood level.

I bring that same mindset to how I think about Richmond's broader climate goals: real progress comes from programs that are easy for residents to participate in, clearly communicated, and consistently supported over time. If elected, I'd apply this same hands-on approach to advancing Richmond's climate initiatives — pairing ambitious goals with the practical, resident-focused execution needed to actually achieve them.

While I recognize Canada's need to diversify export markets beyond the US, I don't believe Tilbury's expansion delivers a meaningful contribution toward that goal — its export volume is small next to a facility like LNG Canada in Kitimat, which is already positioned to serve that diversification role at real scale. Given that, the risk-benefit balance here concerns me.

The Fraser River is one of the most sensitive and biodiverse ecosystems in the country, supporting salmon runs, sturgeon, and the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale population. Tripling marine traffic along the river, siting LNG storage directly across from a jet-fuel terminal, and operating in an area known for seismic and liquefaction risk all raise real concerns about the consequences of an accident or spill. On the balance of probability, I don't believe the modest economic upside justifies that level of risk to the Fraser's ecology and biodiversity — an ecosystem that, once damaged, may not be recoverable.

That said, I want to be transparent that my position is based on publicly available information. If new information were presented — on actual risk mitigation, spill response capacity, or a clearer case for the facility's role in market diversification — I would want to revisit my position with an open mind. Good governance means weighing evidence, not defending a fixed stance, and I'd want any decision on projects like this to be grounded in the best available science and community input.

Yes — active transportation is a priority for me, both as practical infrastructure and as something I personally value. Walking and cycling are genuine ways to decompress and stay connected to our neighbourhoods, and I want more Richmond residents to have safe, everyday access to that.

For walking, I'd prioritize well-maintained, accessible roadways and sidewalks, particularly for seniors — proper lighting, curb cuts, clear crossings, and shorter crossing distances at busy intersections. "Rolling" infrastructure — covering wheelchairs, mobility scooters, and other wheeled mobility aids — needs to be built into these same standards, not treated as an afterthought, so seniors and people with disabilities aren't excluded from getting around safely.

For cycling, safety means genuinely separated infrastructure — protected bike lanes, not just painted lines — kept apart from higher-speed commercial and business transport traffic, which currently creates real conflict points across the city. Cyclists and truck/delivery traffic shouldn't be forced to share the same lane space.

The bigger issue I'd focus on is coordination: too often, active transportation planning, road design, and commercial traffic routing happen separately, creating infrastructure that works against itself instead of together. I'd push for better cross-departmental planning so that walking, rolling, and cycling networks are designed to connect seamlessly — to transit hubs, schools, parks, and commercial areas — rather than as isolated segments.

I support Richmond continuing to lead on the Zero Carbon Step Code, but I think acceleration needs to be applied thoughtfully rather than uniformly across all housing types.

For single-detached and duplex homes, I share some of the concerns Council has already flagged — the cost of full electrification, the role of natural gas for space and water heating, and the impact on housing affordability for individual homeowners and small builders. I'd want to see a realistic, well-supported timeline here rather than an aggressive mandate that adds cost pressure without adequate transition support.

For condos and larger Part 3 buildings, though, I think it makes sense to move faster. These are typically built by larger developers with more capacity to adapt, and the long-term operating savings and health benefits of electrified systems scale well across multi-unit buildings. Getting condos to the highest Zero Carbon tier sooner is both achievable and smart policy — it delivers meaningful emissions reductions without placing an outsized burden on individual homeowners.

In short: accelerate where the industry can reasonably absorb it, and take a more measured approach where it directly affects affordability for individual families.

Yes, I strongly support expanding Richmond's district energy systems. The Alexandra District Energy Utility, Oval Village District Energy Utility, and City Centre District Energy Utility have already earned Richmond national and international recognition, including the International District Energy Association's System of the Year Award — proof that Richmond isn't just meeting climate targets, it's setting the standard other cities look to.

These systems work: ADEU alone reduces hundreds of tonnes of GHG emissions annually by using ground-source and sewer-heat recovery instead of conventional heating and cooling. That's a made-in-Richmond solution that lowers emissions while also providing more stable, often more affordable energy costs for residents connected to it.

The City, through Lulu Island Energy Company, has already identified the opportunity to grow these systems many times over — from roughly 3.6 million square feet currently served to a potential 50 million square feet city-wide over time. I'd support Council prioritizing that expansion, particularly into new higher-density developments where district energy is most cost-effective to install from the outset, rather than retrofitting later.

I'd also want to ensure expansion is financially sound for the City and fair for ratepayers, since Richmond regulates and sets rates for these utilities. Growth should be paired with transparent cost oversight so it remains a source of pride, not financial strain. Overall, this is exactly the kind of practical, proven climate infrastructure I want to keep building on.

I'd focus on turning Richmond into an innovation testbed, not just a training pipeline. Partnering with KPU only works if there are businesses ready to hire those graduates and put their ideas into practice — so I'd prioritize connecting KPU's research capacity directly with local green-tech businesses, helping them pilot and refine real products here in Richmond, with City support in marketing and promoting those products once they're ready.

One area I'd especially like to champion: affordable retrofit products designed for seniors living in single-detached and duplex homes. Many of these residents want lower electric bills but can't absorb the cost of full electrification or major renovations. If KPU and local businesses can develop simpler, lower-cost retrofit solutions — modular heat pump upgrades, insulation kits, smart thermostats — tailored to older housing stock and senior budgets, that's a product Richmond genuinely needs, and one many other communities across B.C. and Canada need too.

The City's role would be to help get these products out of the lab and into the market: connecting innovators with early adopters in Richmond, supporting pilot programs in existing neighbourhoods, and using City communications to promote homegrown solutions to residents.

If we get this right, Richmond isn't just training green workers — we're incubating green products, proving them at home, and then helping local businesses scale that success provincially and nationally. That's a stronger legacy than jobs alone: a Richmond-made industry that helps aging homeowners everywhere lower their bills.