Whistling Past The Environment And Chemical Cleanups Too Slow, Report Says
Click
Here to Add Comment Subject:
Whistling Past The Environment And Chemical Cleanups Too Slow, Report Says
Date:
Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:08:47 -0400
From:
Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State of California, Department of Pesticide
Regulation
cc: Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov
Thursday, October 24, 2002 - Print Edition, Page A24
The Globe and Mail
Whistling past the environment
The Canadian government lacks conviction on the environment. It spends a fair bit of money and works reasonably hard, but it is missing the essentials of leadership and attention to detail. The resulting bill in damage caused by invasive species and toxic waste sites could run into the billions and affect generations to come.
That is the disturbing message of this week's report from Johanne Gélinas, the federal Commissioner on the Environment and Sustainable Development. It should not surprise anyone who has watched Ottawa let three bills on endangered species die since 1996. Or flounder on the Kyoto Protocol; Ottawa supports the pact to address global warming, but seems unable to craft an intelligent plan to meet this country's commitments.
Ms. Gélinas's report underscores the need for accountability and transparency in Ottawa -- a need accepted belatedly by the government, which introduced a new ethics package yesterday featuring an independent ethics commissioner reporting annually to Parliament.
Having a public reporting mechanism is no guarantee that the government's missing conviction (on the environment, or ethics, or spending more carefully) will suddenly materialize. If it were, the Auditor-General would not be so busy each year. The commissioners' first task, though, is to give Canadians a clear view of their government's performance. And the view is not terribly pleasant.
"The federal government," Ms. Gélinas writes, "is not investing enough -- enough of its human and financial resources; its legislative, regulatory and economic powers; or its political leadership -- to fulfill its sustainable development commitments. The result is a growing environmental, health and financial burden that our children will have to bear."
To some extent, this may reflect Canadians' ambivalence toward the environment. They place a high value on protecting and nurturing the lakes and rivers, natural habitats and wildlife; yet economic issues and the deficit often feel the most pressing. That may explain why federal spending on the environment dropped 6 per cent in the past decade, while the government's overall spending grew 17 per cent. Or why the federal budgetary deficit was wiped out in the 1990s while the environmental deficit, as Ms. Gélinas puts it, has grown.
There are bright spots. Canada has been a leader in protecting the ozone layer. It has achieved steady reductions over the past decades in some of the pollutants that combine to form smog, such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. But levels of ground-level ozone and particulate matter (microscopic particles that include aerosols, smoke and pollen) still pose a health risk in some cities.
There are "many disappointments," Ms. Gélinas writes. The Sydney tar ponds in Nova Scotia, for instance. The federal government has spent $66-million over 20 years on studies and cleanups of the heavy metals and other contaminants, with little to show for it. And though it began 13 years ago to look at contaminated federal sites, Ottawa does not yet have a full picture of the health and environmental risks; nor does it have stable, long-term funding or a plan to deal with high-risk sites in a timely way.
On invasive species -- those alien fish, plants, bacteria and other organisms that can crowd out native species and destroy habitats -- Canada faces a severe threat. Dutch elm disease killed 600,000 elm trees in Quebec; the potato wart on Prince Edward Island potatoes prompted a U.S. import ban that cost PEI $30-million in lost sales. Ottawa has not identified the invasive species, their paths of entry or the risks; it has not created a national plan of action.
Canadians want and need more rigour on the environment than they are getting. As Ms. Gélinas says, the government seems to have adopted a wait-and-see approach. It needs a tough-minded, precautionary one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2002 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
=============================================
Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - Print Edition, Page A10
The Globe and Mail
Anderson offers defence of antipollution efforts
Chemical cleanups too slow, report says
By STEVEN CHASE AND KEVIN COX
OTTAWA and HALIFAX -- Federal Environment Minister David Anderson pleaded poverty yesterday after a damning report from a federal-government watchdog was released saying that Canada is dragging its feet on protecting Canadians from toxic chemicals.
Environment Commissioner Johanne Gelinas criticized Ottawa for tardiness in screening and monitoring about 23,000 industrial chemicals and 6,000 pesticides used across Canada. She said this is crucial to public safety.
"The worst of these toxic substances have been linked to lung disease, reproductive problems and birth defects, cancers, developmental disorders, allergic reactions, lowered resistance to diseases and other illnesses."
She said that Canada is also slow to clean up more than 3,600 polluted sites and 30 abandoned mines across the country.
Mr. Anderson said his department is strapped for cash and doing the best it can with limited resources to protect Canadians.
"There is no question that the Department of the Environment is not well funded," he said outside the House. "We're trying hard to make sure we do the very best job we can with limited funds."
Environment Canada's budget has shrunk 6 per cent over the past decade, although the government's overall budget has grown by 17 per cent, Ms. Gelinas says in her report.
Mr. Anderson said Ottawa plans to step up its efforts to clean up contaminated sites. "We have not done everything that we need to do in this area. That is why the [recent] Speech from the Throne said we intend to do more."
New Democratic Party Leader Alexa McDonough said Ottawa's failure to clean up polluted sites and monitor chemicals for public safety in a timely manner is putting the health of Canadians at risk.
Yesterday's report also criticized Ottawa for spending $66-million over two decades on studies and unsuccessful cleanups of contamination at the infamous tar ponds in Sydney, N.S.
The ponds contain large amounts of lead, arsenic, benzene, toluene and hydrocarbons from decades of steelmaking at the now defunct Sydney Steel Co.
The commissioner's report says the federal government still has made no decision regarding the tar-ponds site.
"After 20 years and $66-million spent on environmental studies and cleanup attempts, the federal government needs to finalize its game plan for the Sydney tar-ponds site," the report says.
Residents living near the ponds have complained that pollution has led to elevated levels of some types of cancer and respiratory ailments, but a controversial study done for the government last year said there are no elevated health risks in living near the waste dump. Some work has been done on the site over the past year to remove steelmaking structures and on a plan to clean up the site. The plan is supposed to be made final in the spring of 2003. The work is expected to cost as much as $800-million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2002 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, please email us at list@safe2use.com.