Canada's Environmental Corpus Callosum malfunction

Byoliveridley

One of my first impressions on moving to Victoria was the high environmental consciousness of the people here. The obvious markers of environmental consciousness such as recycling, composting, organic food consumption, local food consumption, small car driving, and most importantly, pride at being environmentally conscious are off the charts here  (and I am  most definitely  one of those people as well!).

My second impression was that a country with such a resource driven economy can’t possibly live up to what its citizens think it is doing. And I was right. The country as a whole performs abysmally. Canada vs. the OECD (a report produced by my very hometown University of Victoria) compares Canada’s performance vs. the OECD on a number of environmental parameters. It is shocking. The picture is painted of an inefficient economy whose consumption of major resources and pollution indicators are growing at a time they should be dropping. For example:

Canada is among the three worst countries on nine indicators (per capita greenhouse gas emissions, sulphur dioxide emissions, carbon monoxide emissions, volatile organic compound emissions, water consumption, energy consumption, energy efficiency, volume of timber logged and generation of nuclear waste);

Canada’s economy is inefficient, in that we use much more energy and generate much more pollution to produce a given amount of goods and services relative to our industrial competitors, including 33% more energy than the United States per unit of GDP; and

Canada’s performance on most environmental indicators continues to worsen

So, not only are things bad, they’re getting worse, but the people don’t seem to notice. Massive corpus callosum1 malfuction?

BTW, this is what happens to people when their corpus callosum is removed.

[youtube=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMLzP1VCANo’]

Once this theme crystallized in my head, I went searching for earlier work that would reinforce my conclusion and came upon this book Unnatural Law – Rethinking Canadian Environmental Law and Policy. From the First chapter:

Is Canada an environmental leader or an environmental laggard? Is Canada contributing to solving environmental challenges or are we exacerbating these problems?

Great, a book that reinforces my frame in the very first paragraph! I’ll let you know after I finish reading the book (helpfully available from my local library and written by a former ED for the SIerra Legal Defence Fund (now known as Ecojustice) and who lives on Pender Island, a few islands away from where I live! Promises to be an interesting and illuminating read.

1Corpus Callosum = Part of brain that connects the two hemispheres.

Similar Posts

  • |

    Duke Energy and Cliffside

    Byoliveridley

    NC Warn produces a good cheatsheet on Duke Energy‘s deceptions about the Cliffside coal fired power plant.

    For more than a year, Duke Energy has tried to sell the idea that building a large coal-fired power plant near Charlotte would somehow be “good for the environment.” Following the January 29th state approval for construction to begin, the deception increased. By masking the new unit’s pollution behind upgrades already required by state law at an existing Cliffside furnace – and the retirement of four very small units that sit idle most of the time – Duke has misled the public, media and elected leaders into thinking that building a new unit will reduce a range of harmful emissions.

    GreenscamAlert-AMythFactHandout

    To summarize, CO2 emissions are set to increase significantly (factor of 12) if this plant is approved. So, in my book, this is a loser project that does not deserve even consideration. The facts are simple. This country is less than two years away from putting a price on carbon through some kind of carbon cap-trade scheme. All three major candidates for president support some kind of scheme, though McCain does not seem to know if the legislation he supports has an emissions cap or not (typical of him, he does not have any policy expertise or attention to detail whatsoever). So, the ground rules on what constitutes a cost effective option and what represents a major money making boondoggle are going to change very soon. Our state officials, thanks to the miracle of the internets, have all the knowledge to make a decision based on a reality that is coming soon. So, their reluctance to consider CO2 is puzzlingly short sighted. Duke Energy has some vague promises to sequester the carbon. But the fact of the matter is that the technology does not exist, and there’s no guarantee that it will exist any time soon in any cost effective fashion.

    Even if you’re a big believer in the technology advances that will no doubt occur into the future, you have to admit that carbon emissions cannot be free any more. So, unless the federal government puts a price on the carbon, you cannot objectively support a project that will give these emissions away for free. Don’t tell me that Duke Energy will have to pay for the carbon it emits from Cliffside. It may have to, but it will pas all costs along to consumers and win anyway. So the tax payers of North Carolina are stuck with an expensive, dinosaur technology power generating option that is incredibly polluting for years to come. All because the state officials did not have the foresight to wait a year or two.

    You can make the same argument for mercury. The current EPA “plan” for mercury is in tatters as it violates the clean air act. A change in administration (no McCain this time, only Clinton or Obama) is no doubt going to cause a tightening of mercury rules, a long overdue prospect. Why would the state approve a plan that would result in an increase in mercury emissions knowing fully well that federal regulation in this matter is unsettled? What ever happened to the conservative wait and watch approach?

    Blogged with Flock

    Tags: , ,

  • US Senate Bill on Global Warming

    Byoliveridley

    Sanders, Leahy re-introduce Jeffords global warming bill – Boston.com

    “The good news is that we know how to address the problem. The bad new is that, for many years now, government policy has been totally inadequate,” Sanders said. “The forward-thinking legislation will put the United States on track to lead the way toward a cleaner future for all and I look forward to strong support as we push to protect our planet.”

    The bill was originally introduced in July of 2006, when it (predictably) went nowhere. Here is Sanders’ summary of the bill.

    The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act calls for carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping emissions to be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

    80% is the reduction called for in the Stern Review as well. The point is to stabilize global concentration at 450 ppm.

    It is still early to say what the prognoses in the Congress and Senate are, but one thing is sure, the US emperor will veto it. The point is, however, to establish this bill as the starting point of any negotiation/bargaining that will surely occur.

  • New York Odor from the Marshes?

    Byoliveridley

    Turns out that the fugitive emission of nasty sulfur gases in New York that had Fox News suspecting terrorism for a while may have come from more mundane sources.

    Sniffing Out the Truth – New York Times

    But we haven’t, and we think we can support one of the theories of the odor’s source that has been suggested. Based on our familiarity with the local aquatic environment and regional meteorology, we believe that the odor was caused by gases released from saltwater marshes in the metropolitan area. Let us explain. The intertidal sediments in this region are home to micro-organisms that produce sulfur compounds. When these sediments interact with saltwater that contains low levels of oxygen, gases are released. These gases include hydrogen sulfide and a variety of thiols (like the gas additives thiophane and mercaptan) — all of which have an odor similar to rotten eggs.

    First, there was a low tide in the coastal marshes from roughly 4 a.m. to 6 a.m. Second, we experienced winds from the south and an atmospheric inversion, which created something like a low-lying bubble of air.

    The result of the two factors? The low tide exposed the marsh sediments and hastened the release of sulfur gases into the atmosphere. The inversion trapped the odor close to the groundand the southerly winds then carried it to Lower Manhattan, where it remained until atmospheric conditions changed.

    Damn, this is CSI NY (Atmospheric Chemistry and Modeling Division), good stuff!

    Our explanation highlights the consequences of excessive nutrient loading and the resulting low oxygen levels in local coastal waters. (By nutrient loading, we mean exposing water to sewage, fertilizer, chemicals or other pollutants.) Of course, these consequences go beyond odor — they kill marsh vegetation, degrade the wider marine habitat and make it unsafe to swim or fish.

    Indeed, so the cause, while natural is not really natural, it is from untreated sewage. New Yorkers, stop blaming New Jersey! Look at yourself!

  • Gulf States spending more on Clean Energy than Canada

    Byoliveridley

    Gasoline sells for 45 cents a gallon. There is little public transportation and no recycling. Residents drive between air-conditioned apartments and air-conditioned malls, which are lighted 24/7

    Still, the region’s leaders know energy and money, having built their wealth on oil. They understand that oil is a finite resource, vulnerable to competition from new energy sources.

    So even as President-elect Barack Obama talks about promoting green jobs as America’s route out of recession, gulf states, including the emirates, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are making a concerted push to become the Silicon Valley of alternative energy.

    They are aggressively pouring billions of dollars made in the oil fields into new green technologies. They are establishing billion-dollar clean-technology investment funds. And they are putting millions of dollars behind research projects at universities from California to Boston to London, and setting up green research parks at home.

    Meanwhile, we in Canada are pushing hard to completely ignore environmental concerns as we push to expand the incredibly dirty tar sands. I read an interesting New York Times article recently, summarizing the issues with this dirty oil. Of course, the CO2 emissions, and the incredibly nasty effects of mining, water pollution, etc. are well documented. One fact stuck in my head – The cost to replace one tire in one of the earth moving vehicles is $60,000. What a wasteful enterprise on such a grand scale, whose only purpose is to carry on business as usual when business as usual is going to result in catastrophic climate change in the not so distant future.

  • Judges Overturn Bush Bid to Ease Pollution Rules – New York Times

    Byoliveridley

    smokestacks.jpgThis is the NY Times headline, not mine!

    Judges Overturn Bush Bid to Ease Pollution Rules – New York Times

    But on Friday, the court said the agency went too far in 2003 when it issued a separate new rule that opponents said would exempt most equipment changes from environmental reviews — even changes that would result in higher emissions.

    With a wry footnote to Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass,” the court said that “only in a Humpty-Dumpty world” could the law be read otherwise.

    “We decline such a world view,” said their unanimous decision, written by Judge Judith W. Rogers, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. Judges David Tatel, another Clinton appointee, and Janice Rogers Brown, a recent Bush appointee, joined her.

    The winners this time —more than a dozen states, including New York and California and a large group of environmental organizations — hailed the decision as one of their most important gains in years of litigation, regulation and legal challenges under the Clean Air Act.

    The provision of the law at issue, the “new source review” section, governs the permits required at more than 1,300 coal-fueled power plants around the country and 17,000 factories, refineries and chemical plants that spew millions of tons of pollution into the air each year.

    The proposed rule would have allowed powerplants to avoid putting new controls in as long as the cost of equipment did not exceed 20% of the replacement cost of the plant. Fuzzy math, anyone! This would have let to major incentives to not build new plants using cleaner technology, but keep the “grandfathers” running. A lot of the old plants were exempted from some of the strict controls by being grandfathered into the act. Well, call me cruel, but grandfathers eventually die! I thought of this proposed rule as the “Bionic Grandpa” provision! Glad that the courts did not like it.

  • |

    Al Franken is good for health

    Byoliveridley

    You know what's in your food and many beauty products. Senator Al Franken wants to make it possible to see exactly what's in your household cleaning products as well.The Minnesota Democrat introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate requiring producers to fully disclose all ingredients on their product labels, including those suspected of causing long-term harm. Currently the warnings on cleansers are designed to prevent immediate harm due to swallowing, splashing in eyes or other unintended uses.

    via Kare 11

    It would seem common sense to have information on labels, especially on the harsh and powerful chemicals we use every day. You may not understand what they mean, or how to pronounce the chemical names, but you don’t have to! Organizations such as the Environmental Working Group have extensive information on common high volume chemicals so people can match what they see on the label with what they would like to avoid.

    But it is not the law of the land in the US, or Canada for that matter. Al Franken, comedian, talk show host and an intelligent man turned senator would like to change that in the US. Of course, we in Canada would benefit as well.

    Chemical manufacturers aren’t having any of this.

    There’s always a concern about turning labels into encyclopedias,” Brian Sansoni of the Soap and Detergent Association, in Washington, D.C., told KARE Tuesday.

    Pretty insulting, claiming that your consumer does not like encyclopedias, or is not capable of reading and googling.

    Information helps drive consumers to safer alternatives. If you see two cleaners, both of which claim to work equally well, a quick read of the ingredients will drive you to the safer (or simpler) choice. Clearly, sale by obfuscation is the preferred marketing strategy here.

    If I were American, I would call my senator/congressperson and ask them to support Al Franken.

2 Comments

  1. Again, keep the provincial perspective in mind. It’s a big country with diverse regions. If there’s a silver lining it’s that the people in BC show a willingness to adhere to green policies mandated by the government (e.g., recycling, composting in Vancouver) that would be political suicide outside of the province. Canada’s performance on per capita environmental measures could be skewed by miserable practices in other parts of the country, such as the Tar Sands in your earlier post.

  2. Oh sure, that’s why I love BC! The province has a lot of forward looking legislation. It has some issues too with forest management that I need to get more familiar with.

    There are a lot of provincial disparities and the gaps between Federal and Provincial law needs to be addressed. Alberta pollutes a lot, but the energy it produces is used by all of Canada and the foreign exchange it generates makes Canada as a whole richer. So the country as a whole needs to deal with it.

    The one big advantage Canada has is that there is near consensus agreement on the problems (unlike our crazy Southern neighbors who think climate change is a political issue). The challenge here is to find suitable policy that addresses the problems. Don’t see it yet, BC starts a carbon tax, but Alberta’s the one with the off the chart GHG emissions. We’ll see. But I’d rather be where Canada is at the moment that the US.

Comments are closed.