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.

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.

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.

There’s an interesting debate forming around NAFTA and environmental protection laws.

Dow AgroSciences LLC, a subsidiary of U.S. chemical giant Dow Chemical is suing Canada for more than CAD $2 million in damages under NAFTA. Why? In a move well received by environmental groups, Quebec has prohibited the sale of 2,4-D, a widely used herbicide, in the province. Dow claims the ban lacks scientific support and amounts to an “expropriation” of its business in the province (many Dow products contain 2,4-D). Dow is not the first to use NAFTA’s dispute-settlement provisions to attack public health measures. In his column today, François Cardinal provides a good rundown of the issues.

One of the problems is that, while Quebec has banned 2,4-D under Quebec’s Pesticide Management Code (PMC-QC), the product is considered safe by Health Canada.

Pesticides used, sold or imported into Canada are governed by the Pest Control Products Act (Canada) (PCPA) and the Pest Control Products Regulations (PCPR). Only pesticides that are registered for use under the PCPA can be used in Canada. Think of the registration process as an oversight mechanism for the federal government. If it considers that a particular pesticide poses an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment, it can ban them from use by not allowing for their registration.

Provinces and territories also bar the use of pesticides that aren’t federally registered, because they adopt the PCPA. That said, they also have their own laws on the purchase, use, disposal and shipment of pesticides, as well as their containers. Often these laws can be more demanding than federal rules, though than cannot be less strict.

Quebec recognizes that there is a difference between the two jurisdictions but rejects Dow’s argument that the product is not harmful to human health. Canada’s position in all this? The province is entitled to make laws in the public interest. And as Cardinal reports, the City of Montreal, part of a larger coalition, is joining in Quebec’s defense as well.

Ironically, Canadian NAFTA observers have been worried that the new Obama administration is intent on reopening the trade agreement, which they fear could adversely affect Canada-U.S. trade relations. What gets lost is that Obama has talked about strengthening environmental protections under NAFTA and going so far as ending the right of foreign companies to sue governments for taking regulatory actions that protect citizens but interfere with their corporate profits.

We’ve been hearing a lot lately about how one should never let a good crisis go to waste. Moving right along, Ontario appears to be following that advice seriously.

On Monday the Ontario government released its proposed Green Energy Act, a sweeping bill that would amend 15 existing provincial statutes. The new Act is incentive-based and would, among other things, encourage renewable energy projects, promote energy efficiency programs, and build a smart grid, which in turn would present opportunities to develop new technologies. Through the initiative, the McGuinty government hopes to create some 50,000 jobs.

Environmentalists, so far seem happy enough, though there are objections over the role of nuclear power. Most critics are zeroing in on the feasibility of the initiative in the middle of a cash crunch. And one of the more controversial features of the bill is the proposed $300 energy audit that would be required whenever homes are sold. Who would bear the cost of this is unclear, which is why some are calling it a disguised tax on homeowners.

The system can be modified to suit association needs, companies can leave comments and best practices to be shared across an association and we will offer a bulk reduced price to association members! With the new version of NIMONIK coming soon, we hope your association will take a free account for a test drive. 

If you are interested in getting NIMONIK for your association members or would like to recommend us to your association, contact us directly at jbrun @ nimonik dot ca