Hi Natalia,
I did most of my work for environmental assessment panels, etc., in the late
1980s and 1990s. The impact that large natural resource projects would have on
the environment was taken much more seriously at that time than it is now. It
would seem that the concern has shifted from what major projects are going to
do to our natural and social world to whether large projects will be able to
provide us with the resources that will enable us to maintain our lifestyles.
I wouldn't deny that this shift of concerns has some legitimacy. We may indeed
be facing debilitating resource scarcities. Nevertheless, the way we consider
resource problems and impacts is not as rational as it used to be. It would
seem to me that large resource companies have much more political and public
influence than they did a decade or two ago. The public now accepts as normal
things that would have been viewed as outrageous a couple of decades ago. An
example is a TV ad about how beautifully and harmlessly an oil sands company is
disposing of its wastes -- like, hey!, what we're doing with the tar sands is
actually good for the environment!
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: D and N
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Down a slippery slope?
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 News July 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
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
