Just made a quick overview (see below) of the Topics section of Nimonik, Higher Quality Video here. Today, we have 18 topics that cover canadian environmental obligations, these topics include:

1. Air Emissions
2. Approvals, Authorizations or Permits
3. Contaminated Sites
4. Emergency Situations
5. Environmental Impact Assessments
6. Fuel Transfers
7. General Waste Management and Stewardship
8. Halocarbons
9. Hazardous Material Management
10. Hazardous Waste Management
11. PCB Management
12. Pesticide Management
13. Petroleum Products Storage Tanks
14. Pollution Inventories
15. Transportation of Dangerous Goods
16. Transportation of Hazardous Wastes
17. Used Oil Management
18. Wastewater Discharges

Consult the federal topics, free of charge here.

I attended the CCCA’s spring conference in Montreal this week where the keynote speaker was Jeff Rubin, until recently the chief strategist and chief economist at CIBC World Markets, and who’s now coming out with a new book in May.

According to Rubin the current global economic downturn was caused by high oil prices, more so than defaulting mortgages, just like in four of the last five world recessions (the 1998 Asian meltdown being the exception). Why? Japan and much of Europe had already entered into recession before the financial crisis hit.

For Rubin, the real story of this recession lies in the energy patch, even now that low oil prices have disrupted much of the exploration that fueled Alberta’s economy only a short while ago. But as soon as the global economy recovers (when remains a mystery), you can bet oil prices will quickly follow, exacerbated by the fact that there’s been no increase in the world’s oil supply.

I raise this because, if Rubin’s right, we’re missing a golden, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to pass a carbon tax now, while oil is cheap. Indeed, we saw this week further indications that implementing a cap-and-trade system in the U.S. will be a tough sell. The Obama administration is already suggesting that it is open to the idea of auctioning only a portion of the emissions allowances issued, instead of the whole kit.

No doubt the back-and-forth debate about the merits of precise targets will have an impact on how Canada proceeds with its own plans to reduce carbon emissions.

But more importantly, it sheds light on the principle shortcoming of a cap-and-trade system. It’s a political nightmare to get it implemented.

A highly regulated cap-and-trade system lacks the simplicity and adaptability of a carbon tax that would shift the burden of taxation from income to carbon emissions.

What’s more, cap-and-schemes are rarely equitable. The trouble with giving away free permit allowances, generally allocated for purposes of political expediency, is that they can easily produce windfall profits for polluters at the expense of consumers, little of which will fill government coffers.

And here’s the real tragedy. Rising oil will hurt consumers — badly. It seems counter-intuitive, but by adopting a well calibrated gas tax, phased in over the next few years, consumers would respond in anticipation by purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles, thereby shielding themselves somewhat from exposure to higher oil prices and runaway inflation. Not to mention that governments would then have the means to build cleaner transit infrastructure and capacity.

If there ever was a time to put forth policies that would see our energy bills rise, it’s is when oil prices are low. Why let the opportunity pass?

Interesting post at Law 21 today discussing three types of collaboration in legal knowledge: lawyer-to-lawyer (L2L), lawyer-to-client (L2C) and the more disruptive (for lawyers anyway) client-to-client (C2C), a feature Nimonik is developing. Here’s how Jordan describes C2C:

In C2C collaboration, clients pool their own legal knowledge and resources to form a vast living database that has the potential to replace much of what lawyers sell. One of the disruptive legal technologies discussed by Richard Susskind in The End of Lawyers? — and emphasized by him during his TECHSHOW keynote address — is “closed client communities” that draw upon their members’ collective experience and wisdom in legal matters.

None of which spells the end of lawyers, according to Jordan. Still, the issue of the cost of legal services remains:

Will C2C collaboration make lawyers irrelevant? Of course not — there are extremely few areas of law where even the best-informed clients can wisely go it alone. But C2C collaboration will be one of the forces that will greatly narrow the range of profitable services lawyers can sell. It will hasten the arrival of the day where most of what lawyers do consists of high-value analysis, judgment and counsel, rather than knowledge and process. And quite frankly, it would also constitute a step towards greater access to justice for a lot of people.

To make an educated decision you need data, good data. Unfortunatly, much of the environmental data cited by NGO’s, governments, and the private sector has holes in it and is often out of date by the time it hits the newstand.

In this modern age of Google Maps, GPS, and broadband internet, there is no reason why we can’t have better data on our oceans, land, water and air. The New York Times recently lamented how UN data is out of date and its quality is even considered questionable by its own scientists, yet UN data is commonly cited in scientific journals. Though the problems are gravest in developing countries, Canada is not immune:

Canadian officials recently admitted their own struggles with environmental statistics. A system of decentralized data collection, with provinces leading the way, means the nation lacks good data on national water quality or accurate forest inventory, Statistics Canada said.

Canada has recently announced plans to map groundwater, as usual, we are playing catch-up to the United states. The chief geologist responsible for the study claims that our lack of data is holding up the development of new laws and regulations on water usage.

That [groundwater studies] led Michigan to pass a law requiring big water users to prove their use of groundwater won’t affect the rest of the water system.

No comparable laws exist in Ontario or Quebec. Rivera said he believes the lack of detailed information about Canada’s groundwater so far is what’s holding up the development of such laws and policies.

As an engineer, one of my main concerns with the global warming argument is the quality and quantity of the available data. When data is weak, it is much easier to bend and twist it into the shape you want. I distinctly recall sitting in a McGill course on climateology and hearing that the model they were using for global warming did not yet have ocean currents in it. Ocean currents! I know this has changed since then, but by its very nature, accuratly modeling heat and fluid flow in a body such as an ocean (never mind a pipeline) is near impossible.

Even once data is gathered, then there’s the question of sharing and using it. Too often the data is sequestered in proprietary databases that can’t talk to each other. Some people are trying to change this, Hans Rosling being one major example. His talk below was life changing for me, I highly encourage you to watch it and then visit his site (which has been bought by Google).

Under Federal law, companies must disclose the pollutants they release, but they don’t have to report the quantities of toxic chemicals used or develop a reduction plan.

But now Ontario has introduced Bill 167 – the Toxics Reduction Act. If adopted, it will be the first province to require that big companies meet new tracking and reporting requirements on their use and release of toxic substances, and plan for toxic use reduction.

The proposed Act would apply to facilities that (1) belong to certain sectors (i.e. manufacturing and mining), (2) have a prescribed number of employees at the facility, (3) use or produce a toxic substance in excess of amounts specified by regulation, and (4) meet any other criteria prescribed by regulations. Details here.

To avoid duplication in NPRI reporting, draft regulations would define toxic substances thresholds similar to federal ones.

If all goes according to plan, the list of toxic substances targeted by the proposed legislation would come into effect in two phases, again in a manner consistent with federal NPRI reporting requirements and timelines.

Intriguingly, nothing in the draft bill forces companies to act on those plans. But the incentive to act may lie elsewhere. Ontario manufacturers are increasingly keen to comply with expected European Union regulations, which will place restrictions on products imported into the EU that contain certain hazardous chemicals. The proposed legislation should help in this regard. So far, environmental and health groups are applauding Ontario’s initiative.

A draft list of some 45 hazardous substances will be made available for public consultation.