Archive for October, 2009
Too often, small or ugly animals receive less attention than their large or furry cousins. This phenomenon leads to the extinction of ugly ducklings and the over protection of baby seals. The EcoJustice lawyers have scored a major victory by proving the government was contravening its own laws by refusing to recognize the habitat of an endangered species, the Nooksack dace minnow. Article here. Larger animals rely on smaller ones for food, so it is important to protect all levels of the food chain, not just the large furry creatures. From the article linked to above:
“This string of successful lawsuits means that the Government of Canada can no longer turn a blind eye to disappearing species by claiming it can’t identify critical habitat,” said Gwen Barlee of the Wilderness Committee. “This is a whale of a judgement: a ruling about a homely minnow will actually protect BC’s endangered humpback and killer whales.”
The Ontario government is seeking comments on a draft Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reporting regulation that would phase in requirements and support the implementation of a cap and trade program that can link to other GHG systems. This proposal has been posted for a 30 day public review and comment period starting October 07, 2009 until November 06, 2009.
The regulation proposes the following requirements:
Also, the regulation includes the following:
Smaller emitters: Facilities emitting between 10,000 and 25,000 tonnes are not required to report under the current proposed regulation, but the MOE will develop an outreach program to encourage voluntary reporting.
Fuel suppliers: Ontario’s proposed regulation and guideline does not cover fuel suppliers. However, Ontario will consider their incorporation into the regulation, taking into account a review of the Western Climate Initiative methods (when finalized) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) future requirements.
Harmonization of requirements: Ontario might harmonize its requirements with those of the federal government, the other provinces and the U.S. EPA, if possible.
For more details, click here.
Friends of the Earth, a non-profit environmental advocacy group, just release an environmental report card for the various cruise lines. I once took a cruise vacation, and it is not something I would repeat. Cruise ships ram passengers and crew in like sardines, the vast majority of the staff are underpaid workers picked up in third world countries, and trash is offloaded in ports willing to “treat” it at the lowest possible cost. Of all the cruise ships, the northern european ones ranked highest and Mickey Mouse a.k.a. Disney pulled into port last.
Travelling by boat changes your perspective. On a ship, you realize the imensity of the ocean and your precarious position bobbing along on it. Also, your impact on the environment becomes terribly apparent. On land, your impact is hard to observe as your impact is diffused across houses, offices, and transportation. On a boat, all the trash from all the passengers passes through one pipe, allowing you to see your real impact. When you travel by boat, you really see the quanitity of garbage you produce, water you consume and gasoline you use.
Wall-E, a movie by Pixar, now Disney (how ironic), mocks the cruise ship industry of the future where robots serve humans to the uptmost degree, relieving them of the painful excercise of working, thinking, and even walking.
Doing something small for the environment, like turning off lights in unused rooms, also results in big savings for organisations. By Isaac Rudik at Compliance Solutions Canada – A Nimonik affiliate
A colleague recently replaced all of the incandescent bulbs throughout his small-to-midsized company with compact fluorescent lights, and removed one-quarter of the fluorescent tubes from ceiling fixtures in areas where worker safety and productivity wasn’t affected.
Urged to action by his pre-teen children, Jack’s intent was to do something positive – however small – for the environment. But he was delightfully surprised by his next Hydro bill: Not only did power usage drop noticeably, so did what the company owed. Jack’s one small step resulted in a $108 savings over the average sum he paid every billing cycle for electricity.
Because some employees grumbled initially at the change, my friend decided to let them see how their reluctant acceptance of the new lighting policy paid off: He treated everyone to a pizza-and-soda lunch. While it ate up more than what he saved in Hydro expenses that first month, he noticed employees became more conscientious about turning off their computers at night, switching off wash room lights when they left the room and taking similar energy-saving steps around the company.
Jack knew that within another few months, he’d not only recoup the price of the lunch, he see new habits in his employees that would save the company real money on an on-going basis. Continue reading here.
You might recall a recent Federal Court ruling (currently under appeal) that refused to force the government to enforce Canada’s Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.
Interestingly, a U.S. court ( the Second Circuit of Appeals) ruled last month in Connecticut v. American Electric, that victims of climate change can sue coal-fired electric utilities in common law nuisance.
Of course Canadian courts are only required to follow Canadian case law. But jurisprudence from other common law jurisdictions (including the U.S. , the U.K. and Australia) does have persuasive value. As this Lawyers Weekly article points out, “the essential arguments and responses are equally applicable in Canada.”
It’s a reminder that whether laws are enforced or not large polluters can find themselves on the hook for damages down the line.
