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.

Another sign that governments in Canada are beginning to tighten enforcement against environmental violations: The Manitoba government proclaimed this month several amendments to the province’s Environment Act. The changes bolster the inspection powers of environment officers and contain new reporting requirements for the release of pollutants.

Environment officers are now able to inspect wastewater systems in sensitive areas (namely the north Red River corridor) and may intervene preemptively to avoid adverse environmental effects.

Pollutants causing adverse effects to the environment must now be reported. Further, all proposed projects must now be evaluated with respect to potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions before approval is granted.

Manitoba also plans to will hire more environment officers as it expands the inspection programs to cover Killarney Lake, St. Clements and East St. Paul regions in 2010.

In my latest article for National magazine, I assess some of the challenges facing lawyers and businesses in addressing the growing patchwork of climate change legislation.

Julius Melnitzer explains why new green laws, more than ever before, are narrowing the gap between business and environmental law.

And indeed over the last couple of years, law firms have worked hard to show their expertise in this field. I have spoken to more than a few lawyers now that tell me that climate change is becoming a mainstream practice area, albeit one that draws upon a number of specialties. Lawyers are now giving advice on the ability to generate and trade carbon credits, ownership of those credits, and how offsets must be treated from a tax perspective. There’s also greater pressure from investors, shareholders and securities regulators about disclosure regarding reporting issuers’ environmental footprint and regulatory risk.

Not that any of this is a huge surprise, mind you. The fact that lawyers are responding to the convergence of business and environmental considerations really only mirrors the growing consensus that sustainable development is becoming integral part of business strategy.

One thing about the Conservative government in Ottawa: they’re comfortable with the notion of law enforcement.

You might have heard that under a new federal Environmental Enforcement Act introduced this week, corporate polluters would risk multi-million dollar fines — as high as $6 million. Even smaller companies would be exposed, albeit to lesser fines ($25,000 to $4 million).

If passed the new law would also subject them to a public shaming by creating a registry for Canadians who want to check their environmental records.

Its adoption would amend nine existing laws, principally the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), to harmonize environmental penalties.