Feb 142013
 
Putting climate change on the agenda.
Share
Print Friendly

Government must heed environment commissioner’s warnings.

by David Suzuki

When the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform exploded in 2010, killing 11 people and spewing massive amounts of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, it cost more than $40 billion to mop up the mess. In Canada, an oil company would only be liable for only $30 million, leaving taxpayers on the hook for the rest.

That’s just one of a litany of flaws Canada’s environment commissioner identified with the government’s approach to environmental protection. According to environment and sustainable development commissioner Scott Vaughan, who released a final series of audits before stepping down, the federal government’s failure to protect the environment is putting Canadians’ health and economy at risk.

The federal government does not even require the oil and gas industry to disclose chemicals it uses in fracking, which means there is no way to assess the risks.

Vaughan says the government has no real plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is not even on track to meet its own modest targets (already watered down from the widely accepted emission-levels baseline of 1990 to 2005). It is unprepared for tanker accidents and oil spills in coastal waters. It lacks regulations governing toxic chemicals used by the oil industry.

He noted the federal government does not even require the oil and gas industry to disclose chemicals it uses in fracking, which means there is no way to assess the risks. And despite the fact that Canada has committed to protecting 20 percent of its oceans by 2020, we have less than one percent protected now and are not likely to meet our goal within this century.

“We know that there is a boom in natural resources in this country and I think what we need now — given the gaps, given the problems we found — is a boom in environmental protection in this country as well,”  Vaughan told the Globe and Mail. He added that not dealing with the risks will cause economic losses as well as damage to human health and the environment because it will cost more to clean up problems than prevent them.

Remember, this is not coming from a tree-hugging environmentalist but from the government’s own independent office of the auditor general. It should concern all Canadians.

We have a beautiful country, blessed with a spectacular natural environment and a progressive, caring society. But we can’t take it for granted. Beijing was probably a nicer city when you could breathe the air without risking your life.

Often, the justification for failing to care for the environment is that it’s not economically feasible. It’s not a rational argument — after all, we can’t survive and be healthy ourselves if we degrade or destroy the air, water, soil and biodiversity that make it possible for us to live well.

But Vaughan shows the folly of this way of thinking on a more basic level. Beyond the high costs of cleaning up after environmental contamination or disasters, he notes the government doesn’t even have a handle on some of the financial implications of its policies.

“The government does not know the actual cost of its support to the fossil fuel sector.”

“The government does not know the actual cost of its support to the fossil fuel sector,” he reports, adding that it has no idea how much its sector-by-sector approach to greenhouse gas emissions will cost either, even though that was a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, which the government bailed on, arguing it was too expensive.

The government has also steadfastly refused to consider putting a price on carbon, through a carbon tax and/or cap-and-trade, even though economists point to the ever-growing mountain of evidence that those are effective ways to reduce carbon emissions.

With an expected doubling of fracking wells, from 200,000 to 400,000, and tripling of tanker traffic off the West Coast, we can’t afford such a lax approach. Our prime minister has responded mostly with slogans and platitudes, but others in government say the issues will be addressed.

For the sake of our country’s future, we must demand that they keep that promise and recognize the crucial role the environment commissioner has in analyzing Canada’s environmental practices and recommending improvements for environmental performance.

Given our government’s current record of ignoring scientific evidence and gutting environmental laws and programs, it will have to do a lot more to convince Canadians that it doesn’t see environmentalists and environmental regulation simply as impediments to fossil fuel development.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Manager Ian Hanington.

Reference

Scott Vaughan

Government failing to protect environment

Greenhouse gas targets

$8.3 billion clean-up costs

Carbon pricing

About David Suzuki


David T Suzuki, PhD, Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, is an award-winning scientist, environmentalist and broadcaster. David has received consistently high acclaim for his 30 years of award-winning work in broadcasting, explaining the complexities of science in a compelling, easily understood way. He is well known to millions as the host of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's popular science television series, The Nature of Things. An internationally respected geneticist, David was a full Professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver from 1969 until his retirement in 2001. He is professor emeritus with UBC's Sustainable Development Research Institute. From 1969 to 1972 he was the recipient of the prestigious EWR Steacie Memorial Fellowship Award for the "Outstanding Canadian Research Scientist Under the Age of 35". For more insights from David Suzuki, please read Everything Under the Sun (Greystone Books/David Suzuki Foundation), by David Suzuki and Ian Hanington, now available in bookstores and online. This article is reprinted with permission. Website

© Copyright 2013 David Suzuki, All rights Reserved. Written For: StraightGoods.ca
Share

  2 Responses to “Putting the environment on the agenda”

  1. "We have a beautiful country, blessed with a spectacular natural environment and a progressive, caring society. "
    I would counter that we USED to have a beautiful country, etc etc. Anybody been out in that beautiful country lately? With its clear cut forests, polluted lakes and rivers, air pollution, depleted and ennihilated fish and  animal populations, and on and on.
    I myself am at a loss on what to do anymore or even if it is worth doing anything anymore.
    When I see someone who I respect and someone who has been at the forefront of enviromental concerns since I was knee high to a.., unable to influence or unable to stem the tide of the rush toward the complete destruction of our planet, I must admit that  I do become despondent and very, very cynical.

  2. […] Putting the environment on the agenda » StraightGoods.ca WHO: Observations on Vaccine Production Technologies and Factors Potentially Influencing Pandemic Influenza Vaccine Choices in Developing Countries, 2009 United Nations Monitoring, Evaluation and Consulting Division: Inspection of the Use of Client Satisfaction Ratings and Web Metrics as Programme Performance Measures (MECD-2006-006), 13 Apr 2007 United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo: Allegations regarding cash withdrawals from an Air Traffic Control Services bank account at Prishtina airport (ID Case No. 0049-04), 17 Dec 2004 CRS: Seeking Withdrawal of Congressional Approval of the WTO Agreement: Background, Legislative Procedure, and Practical Consequences, June 9, 2005 <p style="text-align:right;color:#A8A8A8">Read more</p> […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.