Ed,
It must indeed be frustrating to learn of such stupidity after working
towards sane solutions all those years.
What is also sad is the fact that this agency has been mostly
ineffectual, and what few powers it can exercise will be further reduced.
I noticed this posting yesterday in the Victoria Times Colonist, albeit
it was slashed considerably from its original size, not to insult
Harper. It was placed on a page just before a letter from a member of
the Calgary Assn. of Petroleum Producers touting natural gas as a
critical part of the solution to climate change, complementary to wind
and solar.
When it comes to some of the most serious concerns we face today, like
nuclear disasters and oil and gas extraction and spills, the EAA seem to
be brought in upon request of the corporations as a P.R. protocol,
rather than by legal requirement. The 1999 Environmental Protection Act
appears to cover these areas, yet as you read on and on, you learn that
there are exemptions and waivers which will hold precedent and may
pertain to previously passed legislation, like provincial laws whose
intent is to encourage economic development. Alberta lifted all kinds of
laws to re-establish investment in natural gas ops, and BC ran a
royalties credit program of $50,000 per well drilled between 2005-2008.
They also gave additional royalties and subsidy incentives.
I wrote something to the paper about these topics, the gist of it being
that if our environmental protection laws had any meat to them, the US
drilling ops would not be up here, doing what they're doing to the
states. Their 2005 Energy Policy Act, drafted by Cheney/Bush, completely
exempted oil and gas from all categories of protection, declaring that
they were not considered hazardous substances. Waterways, soil and air,
the public, agricultural and environmental health is entirely at the
mercy of corporate America. And now we have Harper rewriting P.R.
legislation, but by my guess--only because they won't trump existing
"Halliburton loopholes."
Natalia
On 7/21/2011 6:35 AM, Ed Weick wrote:
I personally see this as a very sad thing. When I was a consultant, I
worked on a number of projects for CEAA and environmental review
panels. I see the kind of work that I and others did as vital to
understanding the environmental and social impacts of large projects.
Whether CEAA or the panels took the work of people like
myself seriously was up to them, but at least a point of view
independent of government or the proponents was out there for
consideration. IMHO, the continuity of such work is now more vital
than ever given the growing pressures that large natural resource
projects are putting on the natural environment and communities.
Ed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A black day for green jobs
Tories to cut environmental agency's funding
By Amy Minsky, Postmedia NewsJuly 21, 2011
Read
more:http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/black+green+jobs/5134934/story.html#ixzz1SkFXuH3K
The federal government will slash funding to the environmental agency
that evaluates potentially harmful policies and projects before they
get the green light.
And if the trend in declining funds and employees continues, Canada
could experience a series of environmental disasters, as government
loses access to valuable information about proposed resource projects
- whether it's shale gas extraction, offshore drilling or big
hydroelectric projects, critics say.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is looking at a
43.1-per-cent cut in spending, dropping from $30 million in 2011-12 to
$17.1 million in 2012-13, according to the agency's planning documents.
This cut follows a 6.9 per cent, or $2.2-million drop in the funds
government allocated to the agency in 2010-11.
Along with the budget cuts, the 17-year-old agency is facing a
onethird reduction in the number of full-time staff, despite the
government's commitment to improving the environmental assessment
process laid out its June speech from the throne.
With an increasing number of large-scale mining projects coming down
the pipe - including Stornoway Diamond Corp.'s foray into Quebec's
first diamond mine, Taseko Mines Ltd.'s gold-copper mine in British
Columbia, and the Enbridge oil pipeline - now is not the time to start
taking risks, said Stephen Hazell, an environmental lawyer based in
Ottawa.
"There are just all kinds of big projects lined up across the country.
The level of non-renewable resource development activities in this
country is just going insane," he said. "The agency has got more
responsibility than ever in terms of managing the environmental
assessments for all these big projects."
With that in mind, the agency should at least be maintaining levels of
employees and funding because "sometimes, the engineers don't get it
all sorted out," Hazell said.
As an example, he pointed to problems that led to the 2010 BP oil
spill that saw nearly five million barrels of oil gush into the Gulf
of Mexico over a three-month span - one of several environmental
disasters that potentially, could have been avoided with complete
independent environmental assessments, he said.
"BP didn't get it sorted out, and the engineers at Fukushima didn't
get it figured out. Sometimes it happens. Bad things happen," he said,
referring to Japan's nuclear disaster following the March 11
9.0-magnitude earthquake and resultant tsunami.
A major chunk of the funding and jobs being taken away is explained
through the government's plan to end funding to two programs that
received a combined $11 million in the 2007 budget, a spokeswoman for
the agency said.
One of those programs compels government to consult with potentially
affected aboriginal groups before making decisions on proposed
projects. The other aims to improve the regulatory framework for major
projects, said Celine Legault.
Legault couldn't say whether the overall cuts would compromise the
environment minister's ability to be adequately advised before
approving proposed projects. She said any comment would be "speculative."
She also couldn't say whether responsibilities for environmental
assessments eventually would shift to other agencies or departments.
Last year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government amended the
legislation that governs the assessment agency, the 1992 Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act, to give the organization more
responsibility in conducting studies of major projects.
Some critics say the irony of increased responsibility followed by
budget and job cuts isn't lost on them.
"It's both ironic and unfortunate that after giving the agency this
important new responsibility, the Harper government is now
implementing cuts," said Richard Lindgren, counsel with the Canadian
Environmental Law Association.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Read
more:http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/black+green+jobs/5134934/story.html#ixzz1SkFEHIdA
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
