Applying a water market system to restore an ecosystem

My friend DM, shared this video with me. It's an inspiring story about how farmers, industry and citizens have an incentive to conserve the amount of water they use and return it to degraded ecosystems (e.g. streams and creeks) that have seen water levels drop over the years. For years, senior water rights in places like Montana have allowed right holders to use copious amounts of water. Why wouldn't they use lots of water? If they don't use the water, they risk losing their water right. Talk about incentive to conserve!

Rob Harmon is now working with farmers to measure water and divide it into one thousand increments, each increment gets a serial number and a certificate. The brewers in the area are worried about their "water footprints" and branding images. They use a lot of water and need some mechanism to return it back to the ecosystem. So they buy those certificates to restore water to the ecosystem.

The market-based system developed by Rob Harmon is based on the utilization of incentives and providing the right information to water users about how they can save money and restore ecosystem integrity.

Thomas Friedman: The US Senate and the Gulf oil spill

The US Senate has thus far been unremarkable with its response and immediate actions to the Gulf oil spill. Friedman tells us that diminishing America's addiciton to oil and providing insurance against climate change by reducing US carbon emissions have not been very popular topics in the US Senate. Now, the test will be whether the US Senate will provide federal funding to restore America's critical ecosytems.

"The Senate’s failure to act is a result of many factors, but one is that the climate-energy policy debate got disconnected from average people."

More from Thomas Friedman's NY Times article here.

Getting more serious on vehicle emissions...

The Canadian government is at last approaching the subject of vehicle emissions a little more seriously. In an article from the Globe and Mail, the Federal government has predicted that it will cost Canada’s auto makers, fuel suppliers and drivers almost $13-billion to meet greenhouse gas emission standards over the next six years.

We are also going to see renewable fuel regulations as of September 1, 2010 which are great, but they too will be costly. There is going to be a mandatory 5-per-cent ethanol content in gasoline which is going to cost roughly $3.2-billion.

Auto manufacturers will incur (well this is a first) $3.7-billion in added costs from the 2011-2016 standards out of a total price tag of $4.2-billion. At last, they will be carrying a bigger burden in terms of fuel standards and making their vehicles more efficient.

Vehicle emission standards are no doubt expensive. As we continue to manufacture vehicles, pass legislation and see a concomitant rise in gasoline prices, one would figure that driving (or to buy a car) can be costly. The Transportation sector is a huge emitter of carbon dioxide. 27 per cent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions are produced by cars, trucks, trains, ships and aircraft.

These new standards will definitely alleviate the emissions output of motor vehicles and perhaps provide a logical reason to explore other innovative transportation options i.e. High Speed Rail.

Environment Canada is confident that the "benefits of better fuel economy will exceed costs by three to one, including $9.7-billion in fuel savings which, officials said, will more than make up for higher vehicle prices. It calculated motorists will recover their added upfront costs in a year and a half"

For some links on vehicle emissions see below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_standard
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/auto-auto.nsf/eng/am01205.html
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/environment/financial/index_en.htm

The Percy Schmeiser Case...

In a presentation on genetically modified plants during one of our policy courses, it was mentioned that "we all know the Percy Schmeiser case." But it strikes me that not everyone is familiar with the story or its influence on a growing issue. So here is a summarized version:

In the mid-90s, the biochemical leviathan Monsanto developed a genetically modified canola seed that is resistant to its Roundup brand of herbicide, which became known as Roundup Ready Canola. Farmers are required to purchase a license in order to use the seed. After only two years in use, it quickly constituted one quarter of Canada's canola production.

Percy Schmeiser was a canola farmer in Saskatchewan with a 1,000 acre farm and a custom strain of canola. He did not use Roundup Ready Canola, but found in 1997 that a portion of his crops were resistant to Roundup herbicide, which he used to kill weeds even though his canola plants typically die. But this time, many of them survived. A farmhand later saved the seeds from the resistant plants and they were planted the following season and later sold for feed. When it was revealed that the seeds being used by Schmeiser were the Roundup Ready variety, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement.

Schmeiser, a former mayor and former member of the provincial legislature, fought the allegations, claiming that his actions were accidental and that the seeds came onto his property without his knowledge or consent. Although Monsanto admitted this was possible, the federal judge found that it was extremely unlikely and ruled in favour of Monsanto, citing Schmeiser's patent violations. It still remains unclear how the seeds got onto Schmeiser's farm.

Schmeiser, who had received a lot of publicity and (financial) help from environmental & anti-genetic groups, appealed the decision, but it was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal. Schmeiser then tried the Supreme Court, which in a 5-4 decision, also ruled in favour of Monsanto. It did, however, also decide that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto the nearly $20,000 he had received from sale of the modified canola. More importantly, he also did not have to pay for Monsanto's legal fees, which were well over $500,000.

As a result of the judgements, Schmeiser had to destroy all trace of his custom-bred strain, which he had been using for several decades. He also had a legal bill of approximately $400,000 to deal with. He now travels the world as a speaker telling his story and raising awareness of genetically modified plants, as well as the tactics of major companies like Monsanto. Indeed, many predict that the judge's decision on the poor likelihood of Monsanto's seed spreading accidentally is a reflection of the lack of knowledge we have on genetically modified plants, which have since been shown to spread very rapidly.

Schmeiser did, however, sue Monsanto in 2007 for the clean up costs after more Roundup Ready Canola made its way onto his property. An out of court settlement was agreed upon in 2008. Although it was only for a few hundred dollars, it demonstrates that the danger of seeds spreading is very real.

What is particularly interesting about the case is that none of the three federal courts approached it as an issue over the spread of the seed -- as Schmeiser did in 2008 -- but rather the patent violation. It set a protective precedent for large companies like Monsanto in that it recognizes patent violations as priority over the accidental spread of product, a problem that is sure to increase over the coming years.        

What do we know about tap water? Lessons from the U.S.

City Brights blogger Peter Gleick, recently wrote a highly informative post about tap water in the U.S. Both in the U.S. and Canada we are very fortunate to access our drinking water from our taps, something many people in the developing world cannot do. With the possibility of contracting cholera, typhoid, dysentery, the risks are simply too high.

Interestingly, the U.S. has a federal act titled the "Safe Drinking Water Act", but it is outdated and in need for reform. The Safe Drinking Water Act regulates 91 chemicals. Yet there are tens of thousands of chemicals that can contaminate our waters and that haven't been assessed for their risks.

Gleick writes that "We have also known for a long time that research into the health effects of many contaminants has been underfunded, slow, and piecemeal. Such research is extremely hard to do because of the vast numbers of possible chemical contaminants and the difficulty of identifying health effects of exposures to low concentrations or complex mixes of different chemicals."

Last year, people in the U.S. purchased 33 billion litres of bottled water- an average of 110 litres per person. As enviroboys has explained before, people buy bottled water for all sorts of reasons; one of those reasons is fear of tap water because of the ostensible contaminants. There is always reason to fear this but we should know that our water is being treated with filtration, chlorination, and other modern water-treatment systems.

It is way too difficult for Environment Canada and the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate every single chemical in our water supply (because there are hundreds). Gleick calls for an upgrading in our municipal water systems with the latest, sophisticated technologies for treating water. Out of precautionary principle, we should be installing the sophisticated membrane and disinfection technologies capable of taking things out of our water.

A good way to pay for these system upgrades would be through water bills and imposing a fee on industries that release these chemicals. Water is fundamental to life and our existence, surely we can cut down on satellite tv or cable channels to pay for better treated water. The fee imposed on industry can as Gleick writes "support all the necessary research needed to evaluate the health risks they pose, to pay for remediating contaminated sites, and to help pay for sophisticated water-treatment systems to remove the contaminants they've released. In other words, the polluters must pay for their pollution as a cost of doing business".

Key message: Tap water is important and significantly cheaper than bottled water. Whether in the U.S. or Canada there should be strict legislation and funding in place to upgrade water systems to ensure a safe and adequate supply.

Recognizing water as a human right...

Happy New Year! I hope you are all recovering from your respective New Year's Eve parties.

Our most recent post focused on the growing issue of fresh water. Tim's key message throughout the piece was that "water is life". Indeed, we as human beings are intrinsically tied to water in a way that is unlike any other bond we share with other substances on Earth. We drink it to survive; it helps grow the food we need to eat; it gives us aesthetic and recreational pleasure; it helps powers much of our economy; it is worshipped by nearly every religious, spiritual and cultural group in the world; etcetera.

But despite this connection, not everyone in the world has access to sufficient levels of clean water. We've all seen or heard the pictures and stories of regions in the world where disease, thirst and death run rampant because of a lack of access to fresh water. Even such problems exist in our own backyards in the 'developed' world. So, as part of myriad strategies to combat this problem, the United Nations put together a resolution in 2008 to formally recognize water as a human right.

It would change our unfair approach to governing our water resources throughout the world. Just as many countries have changed their laws when recognizing different human rights, so they would when recognizing water as one. It would make it harder for groups to privatize water resources and governments would have to put more effort into making clean water accessible for all their citizens.

The resolution was dismissed largely as a result of the Canadian federal government rejecting it. It argued that recognizing water as a human right would make it much easier for other countries to justify private bulk water exports out of Canada, especially under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

This is a very good point. Because Canada has so much of the world's remaining fresh water, it is in the unique position of potentially supplying the world of much its fresh water. If water becomes a universal human right, people all over the world would theoretically have access to Canada's water. This brings up all sorts of controversies with Canadian sovereignty. And while helping some of the world's more impoverished populations is noble, I wouldn't feel too happy if the folks in the Nevada desert keep watering their driveway (not that we're very sustainable users ourselves).

Of course, this is a global problem and recognizing water as a human right is not just about Canada. The benefits of recognizing access to water as a human right would be tremendous, but it is much more easily said than done. This is not to say that this issue should no longer be explored, but rather explored in greater depth. Noble causes are all well and good, but with something as integral and complex as water, nothing is simple.

  

Green Cities: Bundanoon-The Australian town that banned bottled water...

Well, it looks as though someone has finally conquered the industry and managed to ban the bottled stuff in a municipality.

Last week, the small Australian town of Bundanoon voted nearly unanimously to ban the sale of bottled water in its stores. This legislation is thought to be the first of its kind in the world. Up until now, the most notable bans of bottled water were within public buildings, including several Canadian cities.

Banning bottled water in public buildings appears to be quite a tough battle in Canada. At this point it's the most attainable jurisdiction for public bodies to enact such a ban. But banning within an entire municipality is a whole other ball game. Not only are government-owned buildings prohibited from selling it, more importantly, privately-owned businesses are prohibited from doing it as well.

For many businesses, in Canada at least, such an idea would hit a giant wall laced with barbed wire and laser cannons. After all, bottled water is one of the most popular and profitable products sellers can dish out. And since the health authorities haven't found anything that would pose significant danger to humans--other studies contradict that thinking--the businesses don't feel they'd have much reason to ban bottled water.

But the shopkeepers in Bundanoon felt quite differently. They voted unanimously for the ban, citing environmental concerns and the attempt by a bottling company to pump water from one of the town's groundwater reservoirs back to its bottling facility in Sydney. Undoubtedly, the bottled water would be sold back to the town's residents. It's not particularly surprising that something like that might bother people.

The lone voices of opposition during the vote came from (unsurprisingly) a representative from the bottled water industry and one resident who was concerned that tourists wouldn't have anything to drink. Instead, the town proposes to build additional water fountains and supply re-usable canisters labeled "Bundy on Tap".

It's true that this town might be in a unique position. It is very small (approximately 2,500 people live there), Australia is suffering from a very significant drought so any available water supplies probably shouldn't be touched by the bottled water industry, and it was subject to an 'invasion' by a bottling company. But this type of thing has to start somewhere.

Soon enough other municipalities will start to realize that they are not all that different from Bundanoon. Freshwater supplies are expected to dwindle in the coming decades, even in water-rich Canada, and bottled water companies will start to take from riskier sources of water. That is, sources that entire towns or cities rely on (some do this already).

The ban has already picked up some steam in Australia. The premier of New South Wales (the province Bundanoon is located in) is in full support of the ban and has banned bottled water in all public facilities. Hopefully, such a ban can be applied to a larger area.

This ban is a huge step. On its own, it won't do too much, but it will undoubtedly pick up momentum and start spreading to other areas. Perhaps it'll stay in Australia for awhile, but inevitably such a thing will migrate to the rest of the world. But don't be surprised to see the bottled water industry fire up its marketing arsenal for what will probably be the fight of its life.

Water Security... What lies in Store for Canada?

Enviroboys recognizes the importance of continuing an on-going discussion on Canada’s water. This blog has covered water issues extensively albeit mostly on water quantity issues and the need to explore urban water conservation policy (the focus of my thesis next year). What we need to start talking about is water security in Canada.

Water security is measured in terms of access to adequate quantities of water. Similarly to urban water conservation, water security explores how stakeholders are involved and how to best appropriate water through establishing an agreement. Water security is particularly challenging in Canada because we share the 5 Great Lakes with the U.S. Eight states and two Canadian provinces (40 million people) border these vast bodies of water and therefore many stakeholders are involved.

With water shortages and the ominous unknowns of climate change, water withdrawals from the lakes are going to have be a tad more sustainable. Both states and provinces have increased their water withdrawals for uses such as irrigation, export/diversion and industrial practices.

Having agreements such as NAFTA and the WTO pose challenges to Canada for water security. Generally, these kinds of agreements can erode Canada’s sovereignty over water and can compromise the ability of the Canadian government to manage water resources. Moreover, under NAFTA, if water enters commerce by becoming a good or product, such as an ingredient in a food, or as bottled water, it will then be covered by the Agreement which means the other party can demand the product as much as it wants.

NAFTA prevents any member country from forbidding exports, once a good is traded it cannot be withdrawn from commerce by a political decision unless that decision applies and receives consent from all parties. Worse yet, Article 11 under the WTO, states “the use of quantitative export controls, such as a ban or embargo, on any product ‘destined for the territory of any other contracting party’ is prohibited.”

Such agreements sound frightening and have several implications for water security. One sigh of relief however is the Boundary Waters Treaty. The Boundary Waters Treaty, signed in 1909, is a critical transboundary institutional arrangement that promotes water security for Canada and the U.S. It was recently amended in 2001 with major amendments including the prohibition of the bulk removal of water out of the Canadian portion of boundary water basins. Another major player involved with mediating water security for both countries is the International Joint Commission (IJC), which is a bi-national commission that prevents and resolves water disputes between Canada and U.S.

The Boundary Waters Treaty and the IJC will serve to help us in our endeavors to formulate adequate water security strategies but real disputes are imminent. The Great Lakes (about 90% of America`s water) are indispensable for both economies and important for the well-being of preserving streams, smaller lakes and wetlands that lie within the natural environment. The U.S. has seen many of its aquifers and rivers deplete over the past ten years because of the overuse and unrestrained demand and pressure that accompanied extraction.

It is time that Canada develop a Water Security agenda with a clear policy and strategy on bulk water exports. We are seriously lacking federal legislation and a plan on water security. Climate change, increasing population and agricultural development provide a great deal of conflict and uncertainty in an era where we already have too much of both. Before I provide some strategies and ideas on a water security agenda, what do you think our federal government should do?

Key message: Water security is worth talking about. Let’s start a discussion on how we can navigate some of our contemporary challenges through NAFTA, the WTO and the U.S. government.

E-Bikes on Peterborough trails...

It's like a bike, but better. Well, maybe. E-bikes are just as the name entails: electric bikes. Originally designed as regular mountain bikes with a small electric motor mounted on the frame, the designation of an e-bike has since been extended to larger, wider "bikes" that are nearly identical to the electric scooters you might see people driving around the streets.

In Peterborough, these types of vehicles had been left only to travel on city streets - where the drivers of the e-bikes feel less than safe with cars flying by - and the city's bike and walking trails. Just like regular bicycles, e-bikes can not be ridden on city sidewalks. But in light of the growing danger of the larger, heavier and faster e-bikes on the trails, a few weeks ago city council elected to prohibit them on the city's bike trails. The infamous Segway was also included in the prohibition.

But last week the city changed its mind. In a lengthy, four hour meeting, many members of the public and council members fought out the e-bike issue. Very good points were made on both sides.

Those in opposition of the ban argued the environmental benefits of e-bikes (they use them instead of a car), the advantage they have for people who are less able-bodied (less pedalling is required), the dangers faced by e-bike riders on city's streets (the fastest e-bikes can only go up to 32 km/h) and the onus of responsible trail riding falling on the operator rather than the bike itself.

However, those in support of the ban consistently cited the dangers e-bikes might pose to others on the trail. The brakes on e-bikes are argued to be less than effective when travelling at speeds above 30 km/h, which is particularly dangerous on the heavily-travelled Peterborough trails where (this comes from much personal experience) some people are less than aware of other people or bikes around them. This is especially worrying with the larger e-bikes, that weigh several hundred pounds and could do severe damage to anything it might hit. The definition of an e-bike is also controversial, as the electric scooter types are only considered e-bikes because two small and nearly unusable pedals are inserted on the sides in order to fit with the legislative definition.

A local environmental group and a city councillor brought up the issue of this repeal of a bylaw as opening the door to other modes of transportation. Where does it stop? If a golf cart tacks a few pedals on, could it be allowed? What about a new Chevrolet Volt? It seems ridiculous, but laws have been exploited in worse ways before.

Furthermore, there are legitimate concerns that the e-bike speeds might be too fast for the trails. Proponents of the e-bikes argued that many road bike riders exceed 32 km/h, which is true, although the riders that travel at those kinds of speeds are often very experienced riders and tend to travel on the roads rather than the trails.

The province is supposed to come up with a provincial policy position on e-bikes and their appropriateness on city trails in the coming months, so many of those in favour of the ban argued that Peterborough's city council should wait to reverse the ban until that time. Makes sense. It is better to be safe than sorry.

Personally I don't think a ban on the traditional e-bikes is in order because of the wonderful benefits they could have and the fact that they seem just as safe as any other bike. However, banning the larger, heaving 'e-bikes' is completely appropriate. The dangers are too high with such things on the trails and the way in which the manufacturers have put dinky little pedals on them to get around legislation is very bothersome.

I love using the paths in Peterborough and there are many nice, happy and responsible people who use them. But there's also a lot of idiots. Putting those 'bikes' on the trails will only lead to people being hurt or worse. It's true that it's dangerous using the roads on one of those things, but I've been doing it for years on my bicycle, which many would consider more dangerous. But allowing them onto the main paths could be more dangerous.

The solution I could propose is to license those who want to go on the road so only those who are confident on the roads can use them and people who don't want to use a larger one can use a traditional e-bike. Some might not be happy. Tough.

The Navigable Waters Protection Act changes could mean big problems for Canada's waterways...

The Harper government never ceases to vex environmentalists. As part of its Budget Implementation Act 2009 (the act that must pass to put the year's budget into place), the government attached an amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). The trouble is, the amendment was essentially hidden deep within the bill, which is among the year's largest and most likely to pass through parliament. Very sneaky.

The NWPA is a key piece of environmental legislation dating back to 1882 that is designed to protect the public's right to navigate the country's waters. These waters--although no clear definition actually exists, which is a subject of much controversy--can range from the oceans and Great Lakes to small rivers, streams and creeks arguably, only four inches deep.

From an environmental point of view, the NWPA is an important tool in the fight to protect the country's waters and broader environment because it often includes formal environmental assessments. Whenever someone wants to build something like a bridge or a dock that might impact a body of navigable water, an application must be submitted to the government, where it often requires an environmental screening if not a more stringent environmental assessment.

But this amendment would change that. The government has argued that these environmental considerations are delaying development projects throughout the country and stifling the recovery of the economy as the stimulus money can't diffuse as easily. Under the changes, any projects deemed 'minor' or affecting 'minor waters' would be issued a pre-approval and would not require any review from the federal government. These reviews often lead to the environmental screenings or assessments. In addition, the changes would give unprecedented authority to the minister of Transport to exempt any project he/she sees fit, without a possibility for appeal.

The government argues that by amending the act, small projects like a private dock (which require review under the old act) would be streamlined through so the department's resources could be better spent on larger projects. Furthermore, they don't want to bother doing stringent reviews on projects that only effect negligible bodies of water.

Sure. That makes sense. But there are some major problems. First of all, how is the department going to know if a project is actually minor if they don't do a review? As one witness at a hearing described, an applicant could write they're adding on to their private dock, but the dock addition could actually cover 6,000 square feet and have huge environmental consequences. How could the government tell the difference?

Critics are also upset with the authority given to the minister, especially the clause that disallows appeals to the minister's decisions. The lack of an actual definition of 'navigable waters' is also worrying, as it would allow the government to arbitrarily decide what would and wouldn't be reviewed.

A big problem has been the process itself. Members of the government have been wanting to update the act for many years and last summer it really got going and some consultations were held. Unfortunately, the occurrence of an election, the winter prorogation and an economic crisis interrupted the consultation process and as the government argues, required the amendments to be rushed through.

Lots of people and groups were not consulted, including environmental groups, First Nations, hunters, fishers and paddlers: people who would have a direct interest in 'navigable waters'.

Luckily, the issue has gotten enough attention from different stakeholders that a series of Senate Hearings have been scheduled and are currently in session. Although the amendments have been passed in parliament, they still need to be approved by the Senate to become law, so these hearings could have a significant impact.

This issue is particularly important because it highlights the fight over economy and environmentalism. From the federal government's point of view, environmental protection is getting in the way of the economy. And this is not their only strategy. They are also trying to exempt thousands of projects receiving funding from the stimulus package from environmental assessments.

Yes, foregoing time-consuming, detailed environmental assessments can be good for short-term economic recovery. But ignoring environmental concerns could be devastating for the economy in the long-term. And hiding these important amendments in a budget bill (which is not going to be opposed by the parliament in these economic times) is not the best way to go about it.

A Big Opening for Pesticide Policy in Canada...

The saga of the controversial cosmetic pesticide ban in Quebec is storming on. Amidst all the legal chaos taking place between DowChemical and the governments of Canada and the province of Quebec, the Ontario government's own ban on cosmetic pesticides came into effect today. 

Ontario's ban prohibits approximately 250 different products from being used for cosmetic purposes and is now considered the world's toughest regulation on cosmetic pesticides. There is no indication from DowChemical--the huge chemical company that is currently in a snit over Quebec's ban of one of its chemicals--as to whether or not it'll pursue similar legal action against Ontario's ban.

If it were to pursue legal action, it would have to go through the federal government because it is filed under NAFTA. As it stands, the lawsuit against Quebec's ban technically lists the federal government as the defendant. If Dow were to pursue action against Ontario, it would be a nearly identical case so it would make most sense for it to add the Ontario ban to its list of woes. This would, of course, raise the size of the NAFTA claim significantly because of the huge market share in Ontario that could be lost.

But Dow might not do that. It might see how the Quebec case goes and if they win, then they'll start hunting down all the other jurisdictions that have banned its product. We can only hope they don't win because if they do, governments will have little motivation to regulate on environmental issues.

But here's an opportunity. Two of the largest provincial economies in Canada have banned cosmetic pesticides. Since the lawsuit is going directly through the federal government, it is technically targeted at a 'Canadian' regulation rather than a provincial one specifically. All of the other Canadian provinces and territories should take this opportunity to implement their own bans of cosmetic pesticides. 

It might be risky in that if Dow wins, all the provinces that regulate the pesticides might be subject to a large fine. But if all the main jurisdictions of Canada were to implement similar bans it would certainly strengthen the case for the federal government in the DowChemical case. Furthermore it would indicate to the federal government how important such an issue is.

Most importantly, any type of potential ban like this would strengthen the case for jurisdictions to be able to regulate on important environmental issues, regardless of Chapter 11 and the rest of NAFTA.

Happy Earth Day, kids.  

DowChemical vs. Quebec Continued...

It's on like donkey kong.

A few days ago, the DowChemical company filed an official lawsuit against Quebec. Technically, since it is an international trade issue, the defendant is the federal government, but we all know the action is really aimed at Quebec, which has officially banned several pesticides used for cosmetic purposes.

I blogged about this issue earlier and DowChemical was uncertain whether they'd go through with the lawsuit. But now they've made up their minds and they're going to take on them ol' Canadians.

Dow is citing "insufficient scientific evidence" as its reason for opposing the Quebec ban. Hopefully Quebec and the feds have a better argument.

I hope Dow loses this because their winning would open up an environmentally-destructive can of worms.

Fight on Canada and good luck, eh.

Canada may hop on the American bandwagon...

Stephen Harper's Conservative government has rarely been one to budge in the face of opposition, even as a minority government. When the Canadian public, international organizations and even the United States brought an issue to the table, Harper's government has usually been quick to quash it or simply ignore it.

Climate change policy has often fell victim to Harper's my-way-or-the-highway approach. But legislation being tabled in the United States could change that. The bill would impose border duties (tariffs) on products coming into the United States from countries whose climate change policies are deemed to be too lax. 

Canada, with its sneaky intensity-based measurements and laughable overall GHG reduction targets, would fall under the rules of the new legislation.

It strikes me that this type of legislation might have implications under NAFTA, or at least the WTO, two free trade agreements that Harper is usually quick to reference. But the initial reaction from the Harper camp has not been one of disagreement, but one of conciliation. Jim Prentice, the federal Minister of the Environment has conceded that Canada must now adopt climate change strategies "comparable" to those that will be passed in the United States.

This brings up an important point. As it stands, the United States has no large, formal strategies or policies for combating climate change, despite the heavy rhetoric of the Obama administration. Considering Obama's political power these days, it is expected that something will get passed relatively soon.

He favours a national Cap-and-trade system (something Canada would be smart to partner with), but getting this passed through Congress might be an uphill battle, even for him. This is because a cap-and-trade system would severely hinder the coal industry and particularly the Midwestern states reliant on that industry. To Obama's dismay, these states are largely Democrat, so upsetting them would not bode well politically. As a result, a hefty portion of Democrats are prepared to shoot down any proposed cap-and-trade system.

So you would think that with such an unlikely chance of the bill getting through that the usually staunch Harperites wouldn't take it seriously? Well, somehow or other they've opened their eyes and can see the writing on the wall. 

Obama is powerful and lots of people like him, including Canadians. The cap-and-trade system will eventually get passed in the U.S. (even if it's slightly watered down), probably before December during the post-Kyoto conference in Copenhagen. And NAFTA disputes tend to warrant in the favour of the United States. He and his policies are fairly dangerous to oppose, especially as the popularity of the Harper government slowly falls.

Clearly, conceding to the potential rules is a political move by the Tories, but environmentalists can applaud such a move. For once, having a government that seeks to mirror our older sibling to the South may actually be beneficial. 

There's walleye in the Otonabee?...

I just received a public notice from the utility company, Peterborough Utilities Inc. (exciting name, eh?), warning me not to be afraid of the team of flashlight-wielding intruders running up and along the banks of the Otonabee River during the next few nights.

It turns out these suspicious assailants are not robbers or even secret FBI agents searching for a downed alien spacecraft, but actually investigators from an environmental firm. They're checking out the spawning activities of the walleye that gather near the hydro generating station directly beside our neighbourhood.

Apparently it's all part of the "new Species at Risk legislation". That legislation is the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), which is six years old, which I suppose might be considered "new".

In any case, it's nice to know that they're looking out for the walleye. As a fisherman, I might be tempted to take advantage of these spawning areas. But there's little fun in that. And it's not like they interrupt me in the bedroom.

Thanks for the notice, PUI. It's a lot better than the military regiment located down the road. They seemed to overlook the fact that residents might be afraid of camouflaged warriors darting through the neighbourhood at night with assault rifles. It might have only been "exercises", but I had my spatula ready to combat any would-be assailants.

DowChemical vs. Quebec

When Barack Obama made the commitment to re-open the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during his presidential campaign, environmentalists' ears perked up. Under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, private companies have the ability to sue governments (even foreign ones) if they feel that the government is in any way hindering their products.

The logic is quite simple. By putting forth any regulation that may reduce the sales or presence of a corporation in any way, a government (federal, provincial or municipal) can be considered to be artificially expropriating (the mandatory removal of property) the corporation from the area. Operating in an area is essentially considered a right of the corporation and any harmful regulation requires adequate compensation.

Of course, if the regulation is put in place for an important reason, such as protecting people's health or protecting the environment, then the corporation doesn't have a case. The trouble begins when governments need to prove the product being regulated is harmful. This is what is going on in Quebec.

Roughly a decade ago, the town of Hudson, Quebec (pop. ~5000) banned the use of pesticides used for cosmetic purposes--such as fancying up your lawn or making your flowers look better than your neighbours'. After being challenged by a chemical company, the town's by-law was held up by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2001. Hudson's success launched a wave through Quebec, which finalized its ban on cosmetic pesticides in 2006, setting the standard for tough regulation on pesticides in North America.

Though wildly popular with the public, the chemical industry was less than enthusiastic. DowChemical, a multi-billion dollar chemical company is threatening to sue the Quebec government (though formally it has to go through the federal government) for $2M under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, citing that there is insignificant evidence proving the damage caused by the pesticides.

Both the federal government and Quebec are prepared to hold their ground. Good. Even though the Harper government is fairly weak when it comes to environmental policy, this is one worth fighting for. For one, letting Dow get through would set a dangerous precedent for companies to come in and claim more from the government, both in this case and future ones. Secondly, and probably most important from the Conservative government's perspective, is the firestorm that would be set off in Quebec if the feds stood on the sideline. Losing much of the Quebec vote was what kept Harper from grabbing the majority last October and the last thing he needs is another Quebec blunder.

Even though many of the claims brought on by companies against the Canadian governments under NAFTA are rejected, at least one has gotten through. In 1997 an American company, EthylCorp, challenged a Canadian regulation and was eventually awarded $13M (US) after a gasoline additive it provided was banned in Canada. This set a dangerous precedent. We don't need anymore.

Chapter 11 was one of the worst things to happen to environmental policy making in Canada. It severely limits the powers governments have over their own territory, which is dangerous for human health, the environment and Canadian sovereignty. This case better get dropped. Otherwise, any future Canadian environmental policy might simply be put on the "we're too scared to enact this" shelf. That would be scary.

Oh, and B-Rock, once you're done fixing the world's economy, repairing the American education and health care systems and figuring out that whole terrorism thing, please make good on your promise and fix this stupid agreement.

Becoming more stringent on pollution standards...

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a lot of work to do on air pollution standards. The US court of appeals is coming down on the EPA calling for more stringent standards because of health related problems that can be attributed to air pollution. Asthma, lung disease and heart cancer to name a few. Check out the article here.

Looking into environmental law...

Environmental law is a growing field of law that is becoming increasingly important. More and more law schools have begun including environmental law courses and programs, and some have developed specializations in environmental law. I have been interested in law and environmental law for the past few years and have subsequently spent many hours researching the different law school opportunities in Canada, specifically with respect to environmental law.

It is important to consider the implications of studying at a particular law school. For instance, most law (particularly environmental law) is taught provincially, meaning that the law you learn in BC might be quite different from that in Ontario. As a result, many people who study law in a given province end up staying in the province they studied in. This is not to say you can not work in other provinces, but it may be more difficult to learn the different laws and to re-establish yourself, as many people make their most important connections in law school.

Because Canada has such a wide variety of climates and landscapes, each province and even each law school may have a different type of environmental issue that its environmental law courses focus on. For example, in BC much of the law may focus on forestry, fresh water and coastal wildlife. Alberta schools have a tendency to focus on the more industrial side of environmental law, such as oil and natural gas law, while the schools in the Maritimes focus primarily on marine environmental issues.

It is also important to note that going into environmental law does not necessarily require that you take numerous environmental law courses or that you go to a school that specializes in environmental law. This may be the case for people like myself, who are more interested in policy and government approaches to the environment and the law, in which case you may not necessarily have to take courses focused on environmental law, but rather bring an environmental perspective to other areas of law. Chances are, if have an undergraduate degree in something like environmental studies or science, you probably know more about the environment that most of the others in your law class.

This list largely focuses on Canadian schools, but there are hundreds of law schools in the United States, many of which focus on environmental law. But many of them are private (approx. US$40,000 tuition) and you can't practice law in Canada with a degree from the U.S. 

That being said, here is a quick summary of the schools I feel are noteworthy from an environmental law standpoint:

University of Victoria, Victoria, BC

• Small school (approx. 80 students in the first year class) right on the Pacific Ocean 
• Has an Environmental Law Centre and offers several env. law courses
• Relatively inexpensive tuition (approx. $7500)
• Incredible climate and progressive university (similar to Trent)
• Victoria is among the most expensive cities in Canada (pricier than Toronto) and usually has about a 1.5% vacancy rate. You'll be hard-pressed to find cheap housing
• BC has the highest average cost of living among Canada's provinces 

University of Calgary, Calgary, AB

• Focuses on natural resources law (oil, gas etc)
• Has a combined Law/Masters degree in Environmental Studies
• One of the easier law schools to get into
• Calgary is uber-expensive
• Maybe not the right school for those who want to save whales and whatnot

York University, Toronto, ON

• One of the most respected law schools in Canada
• Massive first year enrollment (approx. 300 students)
• Many environmental law courses offered and a combined Law/Masters Degree in Env. Studies
• Located in Toronto, so much of the law teaching is Toronto focused
• Difficult to get into
• One of the pricier schools in Canada (tuition is approx. $15,000) 

University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON

• Very large law school, offering a specialization in environmental law
• Many courses focus on policy and government (it is Ottawa after all)
• Has an Environmental Law Centre
• Ontario is very large and affordable, so the opportunities to live and work in Ontario comfortably are very promising
• Middle of the road admissions standards
• Ottawa, I feel, is a great city 

Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS

• Often considered the best environmental law school in Canada
• Focuses largely on marine law, but other aspects are included
• Offers the most environmental law courses in Canada
• Halifax is very affordable and an enjoyable city right on the Atlantic Ocean
• The Atlantic provinces are not as wealthy, so salaries as a lawyer may be slightly lower than those in other provinces

These are only my interpretations of the schools and I encourage anyone whose interested to look seriously into the schools on their own. Happy hunting...