First-generation pollution control laws are hardly ideal for fighting climate change, but they do offer worthy tools in the absence of GHG-specific legislation. The Obama administration has been signaling for some time that the Environmental Protection Agency will use its Clean Air Act authority to regulate GHGs (though incredibly, the U.S. Senate will soon vote on a measure that would block the EPA from enforcing the Clean Air Act to fight global warming).

Interestingly, the EPA is now considering using water law to fight ocean acidification — the other major climate change issue facing us. Following a law suit settlement reached with the plaintiff, the Center for Biological Diversity — that claimed the agency failed in recognizing the impacts of acidification on coastal waters — the EPA will consider how states can address ocean acidification under the Clean Water Act. Hopefully, the Clean Water Act’s water quality requirements could be applied in some sort of review of CO2 emissions sources to eventually find ways to reduce them.

We have just launched a new feature on the Nimonikapp site. When you hover your mouse over a Legislation Title in the legislation list, you will see a small description of the legislation name. Also, if you compile a register based on legislation, we will automatically pull these descriptions into the notes section of your register so your register offers you more than a simple list of tracked legislation. We are progressively adding descriptions in across jurisdictions, but you should see most of the Federal and Ontario acts have been described, Quebec, BC and regulations to follow.

Here is a screen-shot where we hovered over the Ontario Building Code. To try this out for yourself, visit the site, or sign-up for a free account today.

A New feature in Nimonik where you can see a brief description of a legislation.

Lately, I have been reading more and more about the future of farming. It is now clear that large-scale mono-culture agribusiness is not going to carry us into the future. One fascinating approach is called PermaCulture, it is the philosophy of holistic agriculture where plants and animals are mixed together to remove the need for fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides. The best way to understand this is to check out the videos below.

Permaculture in England:

On sustainable farm fishing:

In 1970 the Environmental Protection Agency was formed and to raise awareness it sent photographars around the United States to shoot pollution, people and places. Here are some of the photos and their stories.

Full photo collection (15 000) can be found here.

Here is a photo that hits him:

Original Caption: Miner Wayne Gipson, 39, with His Daughter Tabitha, 3. He Has Just Gotten Home From His Job as a Conveyor Belt Operator in a Non-Union Mine. as Soon as He Arrives He Takes a Shower and Changes Into Clothes to Do Livestock Chores with His Two Sons. Gipson Was Born and Raised in Palmer, Tennessee, But Now Lives with His Family near Gruetli, near Chattanooga. He Moved North to Work and Married There, But Returned Because He and His Wife Think It Is a Better Place to Live 12/1974

Is creating green jobs a sensible aspiration for governments? That’s the question being debated by Van Jones, author of “The Green-Collar Economy” and scholar Andrew Morriss. Though Jones recognizes that the private sector must be the main driver in creating green jobs, he argues that it will never happen “unless the government becomes a constructive partner in the effort.” He points to rural electrification, the building of the interstate highway system, and the telecom revolution as evidence that the government is capable of undertaken such massive projects.

On the other hand Andrew Morris argues that governments should let market forces lead the way. He worries that special lobbying interests will screw it all up, as they did with ethanol:

The ethanol problem is no accident. Such programmes draw special interests as picnics draw ants. Beneficiaries of federal largesse, such as Archers Daniels Midland, lobby to divert public money for their benefit while Iowa corn interests ensure that presidential candidates pledge fealty to ethanol before the Iowa caucuses. This support comes at a high price for ordinary Americans: a Cato Institute study found that every dollar of ADM’s ethanol profits costs taxpayers $30. Despite these problems, federal policy has promoted ethanol as a “green” technology for years. Many environmentalists now disclaim corn-based ethanol but, because it has been promoted as an example of the federal government’s ability to pick green technology, they bear the burden of showing why their current proposals will not yield the same results. Before we can be sure that a “green” jobs proposal is going to improve environmental quality, we need to know how those promoting it plan to avoid the problem of politics diverting public resources into corporate welfare.

Morris’ point is an interesting one and he is right to point out the ethanol disaster. However, by his logic, that would mean that government should simply refrain from promoting socially desirable goals, in spite of its long tradition of doing just that. Wouldn’t it be preferable to properly reform lobbying rules instead?