A Straight Goods special
Is Paul Martin's latest budget good for the environment?
The government is certainly hyping it that way. On Monday the finance minister announced it will spend an additional $700 million on environmental initiatives between 1999 to 2003, "to preserve and improve Canada's natural environment, harness new technology, and respond effectively to the challenges of climate change."
Among the biggest ticket items are a new $210 million contribution to the Climate Change Action Fund, to help Canada reduce its greenhouse gas emissions; $100 million for the development of sustainable technologies such as wind turbines, fuel cells and advanced materials; another $100 to transfer environmental technologies to the developing world; and a further $100 million for a Municipal Investment Fund to support urban projects such as rapid transit and waste diversion.
 |
|
Despite a preoccupation with greenhouse gasses, Canada still won't be able to meet its commitments to reduce emissions under the Kyoto agreement |
Analyst Gary Gallon, publisher of the Gallon Environmental Letter, is guarded in his assessment of the government's new environmental spending.
Gallon welcomes Martin's initiatives as "a step forward" which is "better for the environment" than the status quo. The environmentalist finds particular cause for joy in some of the lower-profile announcements, such as the government's commitment to fund new research into the economic benefits of environmental protection, so that future environmental policies can be based upon solid economic research.
"Without it," Gallon believes, "poor decisions are being made by federal departments and by the provincial governments based on inaccurate cost studies that try to prove that environment protection costs the economy, when it doesn't."
But Gallon also points out a number of shortcomings in the government's new environmental program. The analyst notes, for instance, that despite a preoccupation with greenhouse gasses, Martin's new spending will still not allow Canada to achieve its commitment to reduce its 1990 emission levels by 6 per cent before 2012, given the country's poor performance to date. In the meantime, adds Gallon, the focus on greenhouse gasses has distracted the government from a wide array of pressing issues, which will receive no new funding, such as:
- groundwater and water pollution control
- new technologies for air pollution control and pollution prevention
- implementation of the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act
- contaminated sites remediation and orphan toxic wastes clean up
- meeting unfunded environmental obligations within federal ministries
- supporting and expanding the federal responsibilities requiring companies to report their pollution
Gallon is also disappointed that the federal budget contained no recognition of the link between environmental protection and health costs.
"An improved environment will reduce hospital and medical costs," he states. "Increased cancers, asthma and other diseases flooding our hospitals can be reduced if pollutants, toxics and carcinogens are reduced. This includes the reduction of chemicals, pesticides and other harmful additives in our foods. Billions could be saved in health costs by the provinces and the federal government, if millions were spent ensuring that polluters cleaned up and pesticides and additives were taken out of our food."
Gallon also notes that the federal government's new spending on the environment highlights grave problems that exist at the provincial level. Without the provinces, which have significant jurisdiction over environmental issues, following the federal lead, many of Canada's pollution problems will remain intractable, he believes.
"Ontario and Quebec in particular continue to hamstring their environment budgets, both having cut more than 40 per cent of their funding to environmental protection and conservation," says Gallon.
"The provinces have "unfunded obligations" under their own laws which they can no longer monitor and enforce as a result of the severe provincial budget cuts. The provinces are not even in a position to enforce the Canada Wide Standards developed under the "Harmonization Agreement" with the Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment (CCME) when they are announced in May 2000."
Get More/Do More
The Gallon Environmental Letter, from which Gary Gallon's comments in this article were taken, has been published for the past three years and is available by subscription. For information, e-mail: cibe@web.net
You can get the budget speech from the Finance Ministry website: www.fin.gc.ca/budget00/toce/2000/bud2000e.htm
For information on the intersection of environmental and economic issues, go to the website of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy at www.nrtee-trnee.ca
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment website is www.mbnet.mb.ca/ccme
Environment Canada's climate change website is www.ec.gc.ca/climate
also see: climatechange.gc.ca/english/html/
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities - www.fcm.ca - will oversee the new municipal environmental funds.
The Canadian Foundation for Innovation will undertake some environmental projects: www.innovation.ca
For information on wildlife habitat and natural heritage conservation go to Environment Canada's Green Lane at: www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/es/endan_e.html
[ Front Page ]
