Canada’s New Government’s Clean Air Act
October 24th, 2006 | by MadHacktress |It’s new policy week in Canada. Our self-styled, capital-N-capital-G, New Government has defined it’s Kyoto alternative. A home-grown environment policy that fits Canada’s outlook on the future (read: it’s what we can pull off ’cause they screwed around for too long on the Kyoto agreement). The cleverly titled Clean Air Act has been the subject of many water-cooler conversations of late (okay, so it’s just me and my BRITA).
I gave up an hour-ish of my life the other day to actually pour through the document that is to be Canada’s stance on the future of the Earth itself. What a load of crap.
The so-called intensity-based guidelines will allow for more greenhouse gases and pollutants to be pumped in to the air so long as the per-unit emissions are reduced. Given that industry is not cutting down on its production and isn’t likely to do so in the near future - this bodes ill.
Of particular interest to me was the fact that a bunch of formerly “toxic” substances have been down-graded to air pollutants. Within the current framework of law substances labeled as toxic are more strictly regulated that those termed pollutants. Mercury is the one that I am really looking forward to seeing back in the atmosphere. It has been too long since rivers of quicksilver flowed down the sidewalks.
The plan calls for there to, eventually (2050), be a 65 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions - based on 2003 levels. Virtually every other nation in the world uses 1990 levels for its greenhouse gas targets. Using the 2003 levels gives Canadian industries a huge “advantage” in the global pollution market.
When it comes to things like this I have figured out the best way to tell whether or not we’re doing enough: look at who’s bitching.
When it comes to the environment, the greenies and the tree-huggers will always be bitching. Nothing is going to be enough until emissions are at levels lower than the Bronze Age and every tree that has ever been touched by human hands has been lovingly replanted - so they don’t count. But big business and their interests do count; but they ain’t bitchin’.
So what does that tell you?
When the mega-polluters of the nation look at new environment legislation and say, “yep, sounds good,” then you know you have a problem. If these guys aren’t wailing about the bottom line and threatening that this new law will force their business out of the country, then we haven’t gone far enough.
It irks me, too, that the government is spending so much time and effort in consultation with these businesses. The planet’s future cannot be decided by the bottom line. They need to be out of the room when these discussions are being held. It should be Harper, his boys and the scientists who’re having this wee chat. Then, once they realize that Mother Earth is well on her way to being screwed for humanity for a very long time, they came come out of the room and bring forward their policy.
Then we’ll watch the right people bitch and know that we’re on the right track.
Entry Filed under: General, In The News
I am not a fan of the new clean air act. I think it is to slow. I do realize changes cannot be made over night there is just not enough money and technology available to do it. This is the saddest part I believe Canadians do not want enough either. Small changes like recycling everything at the household level using better efficient heating and cooling would be better as well. If the average Canadian did their most to recycle business would fall in to place as well. I think government is just reflecting at what its people want right now. Plus Kyoto is flawed if we look at say Germany which has already cut the amount of pollutants it puts into the air I think we should say great but why? The levels that Germany was subject to is just after reunification with a lot of old smelters that have been shut down in the former East Germany. These were shut down do to business choices not environmental. When we look at Canada we must also remember we live in a colder climate yes turning down the thermostat does help but there is a point where you have to admit we use more because we need more we can be more efficient at what we do be more greener but it has to do with education and wanting too. Get rid of sprawling cities we have the land but build up instead of out plant trees to help with heating pines to the north fruit trees to the south of our homes and the biggest change try not to base our economies on wants we do not need three flat screen TVs. I think we do need a Canadian solution we do not need it take forever for it to happen and I think with in a term of government it would and should be in place not 25+ years.
Do you really think that if Canadians did their most that business would fall in to place? Do you think that savings from reduced strain on power generation would be passed on to the consumer?
I don’t.
I think it has to start from the top down, rather than the bottom up. The Government is in a place to make these changes. They’re in a place to demand that industries produce more efficient furnaces for our homes. They’re in a place to make recycling mandatory (which I firmly believe in).
Yes, Kyoto is flawed. The example about Germany relates only to the short-term goals of Kyoto, however. In the long term, even nations like Germany and Russia - who have it easy now - will be forced to bring their emission and pollution rates to a world-benefiting level. The based-on-1990-levels target definitely works well for some of the largest polluters (Canada, U.S., Australia) in the immediate term.
The thing about Kyoto that I like so much is the it’s a global solution to a global problem. This isn’t a problem that each nation should be going off and doing on their own. That doesn’t work in a situation like global warming. We need a Whole Earth solution to the problem, every nation from Russia to the Holy See needs to be a part of the solution. Every nation in the world needs to abide by the same rules and have the same conscience about the environment.
Otherwise it’s just not going to work.
It is not working right now with Kyoto. I think as Canadians we need to examine internally to see what we want. Nothing works better with business the vote of the dollar. If you stop buying something because it is less environmentally friendly business will change. Case in point CD cases made from plastic there recycle cardboard cases out there do we use them no. Our roads cutting up old tires and adding them into the road helps with pot holes and getting rid of waste do we use it no. Our garbage we only recycle stuff that can be turn a profit not everything that can be recycled. Will we move to more environmentally friendly electricity? That does include nuclear as Cando reactors are some of the safest in the world? I do not see it happening. In Quebec the government basically paid for everyone to switch to electrical heat in the 60-70 I am told since they have so much hydro electric power this to me seems to be greener. The 1990 levels I do not think will work well for many countries Canada’s economy has boomed since then. An interesting article I was reading still says that some of the most efficient cars made across the board were from 89 before Kyoto. My understanding of Kyoto is that it has no teeth to it so there is no reason for a country to follow it. Any government cares first about the people if someone is out of work government will look to put them into work first once they are happy environment is an after thought. So that is why I believe it has to be a grass roots movement to change like using led lights. I think any change is good for the environment but more has to happen then what Kyoto has done because from my view point nothing has changed and when I have traveled outside of Canada to Europe nothing seems to have changed there either but I will say in Europe they seem have more of a environmentally friendly lifestyle.