Following regulations when something is first installed may no longer be adequate because a company grows, employing more people, or the regulations are tougher yet the business doesn’t keep up-to-date. The result can be a shockingly expensive work order – and an even more expensive fine.

– By Isaac Rudik at Compliance Solutions Canada

While the news media likes to portray companies who get fined for violating health and safety rules as cold-hearted, money grubbing, villains, the truth often is very different. In fact, each year many businesses believe they are doing everything correctly, working hard and spending money to protect workers and the environment, yet still get cited and fined.

The reason? What they thought was properly following regulatory procedures and requirements when something was first installed – say, an eyewash basin – or protective regimens are no longer adequate because the company grew and employs more people, or the regulations themselves became tougher and the business didn’t keep up-to-date.

In fact, there are plenty of occasions when thinking you’re doing the right thing simply is not enough – and it could end up costing even the most diligent business serious money. Read More at Compliance Solutions Canada

Debates about climate change policy can get heated. Advocates of a carbon tax clash with those who favour cap-and-trade. And there are those who prefer instead an emissions-intensity regime, which aims to reduce over time the ratio of greenhouse gases emitted to a unit of economic output.

All of which is very academic until one gets serious about curbing one’s emissions output. But now that various governments across Canada and the U.S. are finally committed to implementing an emissions regime, lawmakers are finding that reconciling strongly held opinions is no easy task. Caught in the middle is industry of course, forced to contend with a growing number of existing and proposed GHG emissions regimes that may or may not see the light of day.

California was one of the first to take legislative action by implementing a cap-and-trade program on carbon dioxide emissions – being developed in conjunction with the Western Climate Initiative, which regroups 11 American states and Canadian provinces. In 2007 Alberta became the first Canadian province to adopt legislation aimed at regulating GHG emissions, but chose to follow an emissions intensity approach instead. This year both Quebec and Ontario introduced their own plans which seek to create a provincial cap and trade system. Nationally, in spite of talk about a joint North American regime, the Canada and U.S. plans are separate works in progress. Add to that a mix of various regional initiatives — including the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), composed of a group of northeastern states, which targets power-producing companies — and the whole thing amounts to a dog’s breakfast.

The confusing patchwork of regimes makes it difficult for companies to understand the financial impact of their emissions. The success of an emissions trading system requires harmonization of rules across jurisdictions. Only then can a market for fungible GHG credits become viable. Then again taking a wait and see approach is fraght with risk too. Because regardless of which GHG regime will apply to a company’s activities, there is value in banking credits or offsets early as they will likely grow in value over time.

And the sooner the various levels of government can provide some guidance to its industrial sector, the earlier businesses can prepare for the new green economy.

So far Environment Canada has already indicated that it will explore ways to harmonize federal and provincial offset systems, to ensure efficient carbon trading. But the devil will be in the details.

Last week, Hillary Clinton and her canadian counterpart, Lawrence Cannon, announced that they would enter into negotiations for new agreements on the great lakes. CBC article. As outlined in the article and my recent post, the Great Lakes are in rough shape. Decades of industrial and government negligence have created a mess in the our backyard. These negotiations cannot start too soon.

One example of our failure to safeguard the lakes is the infestation by Asian Carp. The videos below vividly outline the impressive destruction of upstream rivers by asian carp – a highly invasive species brought over to clean silt in ponds in the southern US. Now, these fish are on the border of the great lakes, threatening the ecosystems of the lakes and their rivers.

Part I

Part II

Information about the Federal Government’s proposed Offset System for Greenhouse Gases can be found here. The draft rules and guidance documents were released this week for review by interested parties who have 60 days to give their comments. It’s expected that documents will be finalized in the fall, followed by the launch of the Offset System soon thereafter.

Though there have been concerns that the proposed federal system would supplant the one already in place in Alberta, it appears that those fears have been assuaged — for now. Of course Canada can’t get too far ahead of itself as it must ensure that its system is eventually aligned with the system to be put in place in the U.S.

A few words on Ontario’s Green Energy Act. Many have marveled at how quickly Ontario is moving ahead with new environmental legislation in recent months, not least of which is the recently adopted Green Energy Act which aims to drive investment to create a 21st century “smart” energy grid. The incentive behind this is the Ontario government’s commitment to eliminate dirty coal as a power source by the end of 2014.

The question remains though: does Ontario have enough time to meet its 2014 target? Well only if it can find a substitute.

Critics of the Green Energy Act – Greenpeace among them – have worried for some time that the Green Energy Act would unduly empower the government to direct the Ontario Power Authority to build new nuclear reactors without appropriate public consultation. They have their reasons to doubt.

There’s mounting evidence that the McGuinty government plans to build new reactors.

Not to mention that the province’s current plan is to cap the development of new renewable power by saving 50 per cent of the electricity grid for nuclear generation.

Much of the inspiration behind Ontario’s new legislation is Germany’s renewable energy policy which made the European country a global leader in the field (think photovoltaic and wind turbine installations) by setting the parameters of a predictable and transparent environment for green energy investments. And no doubt, the German experiment has indeed encouraged rapid growth of renewable energy industries.

Still, it’s worth noting that Germany’s renewable energy policy was first developed almost 20 years ago. As a result of its admirable efforts to phase out its reliance on nuclear power, it has significantly diversified its energy use, but it took time. And they continue to rely heavily on coal power. Usage has in fact increased to offset the phase-out of nuclear energy, which is why ten new coal-fired power plants are under construction in Germany.

To make up for its shortfall, Ontario could always turn to Quebec for cheap hydro-electricity but there’s no guarantee that it would be all that cheap.

In the end Ontario might have jumped on to the Energy Autobahn. But so far it looks like it’s taking a different exit.