Capitalism Fouls Things Up
The weird winter of 1997-98 is fast becoming little more than a bad memory for many North Americans. Early predictions that "El Nino" would make it a season to remember have proven true. Violent storms rocked the Pacific coast of Mexico. Southern California was hit with a series of devastating floods, parts of Florida were flattened by tornadoes, and in many parts of Canada our weather fluctuated wildly from what we have come to accept as "normal".
Winter temperatures on the Prairies were well above average, with very little precipitation. Eastern Ontario and southern Quebec were devastated by the worst ice storm in a century. Hydroelectric power lines across the region snapped like toothpicks under the accumulated weight of several inches of freezing rain. Electric power was cut-off to people in the region for a period ranging from a few days to as long as four weeks. Rural residents were hit the hardest with power outages hitting entire communities at once. Dairy farmers who rely on electric milking machines were particularly hurt by the storm.
The final bill for the ice storm is still being tabulated but initial estimates by the insurance industry put the total well over the $750 million mark. 1998 is destined to go down as another record year for payouts by insurance companies and illustrates why the global insurance industry is ringing its alarm bells over the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the spectre of global warming and climate change.
The question that many Canadians are asking today is whether there is any connection between the increasingly erratic weather patterns being experienced across the continent and global warming. The short answer is that as yet there is no definitive scientific proof that the two phenomena are directly connected, but there is a growing body of evidence that points in that direction. The critical concern is that the evidence of a direct connection is mounting and that if we decide to wait until there is proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that global warming is responsible for recent weather patterns, amongst other negative effects, we will likely have passed the point by which we need to implement concrete response measures.
In December, 1997 representatives of 160 countries met in Kyoto, Japan to negotiate an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2010. The major commitments agreed to are highlighted in the list below.
European Union, most Central/Eastern European nations and Switzerland: 8% reduction below 1990 levels by 2010
USA: 7% reduction below 1990 levels by 2010
Japan and Canada: 6% reduction below 1990 levels by 2010
New Zealand, Russia and Ukraine: Stabilize emissions at 1990 level by 2010
Norway: 1% increase above 1990 level by 2010
Australia: 8% increase above 1990 level by 2010
Iceland: 10% increase above 1990 level by 2010
Total for all developed countries: 5.2% reduction below 1990 level by 2010 (est.)
Source: The Gallon Environment Letter, Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment, Vol. 1, No. 23, December 23, 1997.
The above table is just about what you would expect, given recent inaction on this collection of largely empty promises that would required immediate action if they are to have any hope at all of being implemented. As we pointed out in our last column, Canada’s record in this area over the past five years is abysmal. Five years of diddling by the federal government has allowed our CO2 emissions to rise 13 percent above the 1990 level. Hardly an advantageous position from which to begin the catch-up.
Negotiations at the Kyoto conference were driven by the American refusal to agree to any binding emission reductions unless and until developing nations also agree to reduce their emissions, despite the fact that developing nation emissions account for only a small percent of global CO2 emissions and the U.S. is by far the world’s largest CO2 emitter. This cynical ploy by American negotiators is highlighted by the fact that despite signing the final agreement the Clinton administration announced that it would not send the treaty to the American Senate for ratification. The treaty would almost certainly be defeated in the Senate, which is dominated by Republicans opposed to any treaty that exempts developing nations from emission reductions.
While Canada has fallen far behind other countries in adjusting to future energy demands, many European nations have used the intervening years since the Rio conference to make major investments in new energy efficient technologies. Those nations now stand to benefit from significant energy and greenhouse gas emission savings. The Canadian government, on the other hand, has preferred to maintain its close alliance with the oil and gas industry. "Big Oil" and "Big Gas" companies continue to reap millions of dollars in annual subsidies from the Canadian public purse.
Despite the hoopla and backslapping that accompanied the "successful" conclusion of the Kyoto treaty, the sad reality is that even if the commitments agreed to are implemented, they are nowhere near adequate if we are to ensure that the world we leave our children and grandchildren will not be a much devastated caricature of what presently exists.
If we hope to avoid extensive damage to global ecosystems we need a crash program and we need it very soon. In order to stabilize the planetary climate system as soon as possible many scientists now believe that radical cuts of 60-80 percent of current CO2 emissions are necessary by the year 2020.1 The technology to achieve this level of cuts in emissions already exists in the form of solar power, solar-hydrogen fuels, bio-fuels, wind, tidal, zero energy buildings and 150-200 mile per gallon cars.
What is the major obstacle standing in our way? Once again, "Big Oil" and the coal industry. As long as we continue to subsidize the fossil fuel industry, and its close friend the automobile industry, there is no way out of this straight jacket. As the famous labour song "Which side are you on?" rings in our ears, it is time that we show we aren’t on the side of "Big Oil"!
The following short items are a compilation of stories from across the Canadian state and around the globe. They are intended to draw attention to some of the many environmental problems we face and to highlight campaigns and struggles to transform our world.
Residents of Northern Ontario have declared victory in their fight to prevent an underground nuclear waste storage site being established in their region. In March a federal review panel concluded "that the nuclear industry should not proceed with site selection for a nuclear waste dump in northern Ontario".2
The Panel recommended that an independent body be established for the long-term management of nuclear waste. The ten-year review process included 13 months of hearings, and identified numerous technical and social deficiencies with the AECL concept. Environmental, First Nations and community groups had expressed adamant opposition across the country to the AECL "concept" of burying nuclear waste in the Canadian Shield.
Within one week of signing a "Harmonization Agreement" with the federal government the Ontario Ministry of the Environment provided exemptions to two U.S. companies, allowing them to circumvent current Ontario environmental law. The companies are General Electric Plastics (Cobourg, Ontario) and GEON Canada Inc. (Niagara Falls, Ontario). The exemption allows GE Plastics to increase its discharges of oil and greases to Lake Ontario by 241 percent, and phenols by 38 percent. GEON Canada will be allowed to increase its discharges to the Niagara River of nitrogen, ammonia, phosphorus, suspended solids and oils by 113 percent. MOE spokesperson Yousry Hamdy, was quoted in The Globe and Mail newspaper as stating: "We have increased the conventional pollutants to respond to business opportunities… regulations must balance the economic requirements of industry with environmental protection."3
And, when one of Mike Harris’s spokespersons talks about "balancing industry versus the environment," we know towards which side the scale will tip!
Research reports released by the federal government indicate that smog-causing sulphur levels in Ontario’s gasoline are amongst the highest in the world.4 High-sulphur gasoline increases the amount of nitrogen oxides in the air, the chemicals that cause smog, and more sulphur dioxide which causes acid rain. It also results in the production of more sulphates, extremely small particles that are a major contributor to respiratory problems. As the table below illustrates, sulphur levels in gasoline sold across Canada fluctuates between a low of 228 ppm (parts per million) in Quebec to 533 ppm in Ontario. Governments in Canada, including federal, provincial and territories, are presently drafting new national standards for gasoline composition. The table also indicates that existing Canadian standards are far behind many of our neighbours in the developed world.
During discussions for a new standard, an interesting split has developed between car manufacturers and oil companies. Car manufactures claim that the high sulphur content in gasoline reduces the effectiveness of catalytic converters. Meanwhile, the oil companies are whining that it will cost them $1.8 billion to upgrade their refineries to meet the California standard. Once again we have a case of which side are we on: private sector oil interests or the health of working people.
Region Year Parts Per Million
| Region | Year | Parts Per Million |
| Canada | 1995 | 343 |
| Ontario | 1996 | 533 |
| Atlantic Canada | 1995 | 276 |
| Quebec | 1995 | 364 |
| Prairies | 1995 | 228 |
| B.C. | 1995 | 273 |
| U.S. | 1995 | 260 |
| Europe | 1996 | 300 |
| Japan | current maximum | 100 |
| Finland | current maximum | 100 |
| Swedent | current maximum | 100 |
| California | average | 30 |
Source: Environment Canada and The Globe and Mail, March 3, 1998
1. Retallack, Simon. "Kyoto: Our Last Chance", The Ecologist, Vol. 27 No. 6, Nov/Dec 1997, p. 234.
2. "Northern Ontario Safe From Nuclear Waste Dump", press release, Northwatch, March 13, 1998.
3. The Gallon Environment Letter, Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment, Vol. 2, No. 3, February 17, 1998.
4. Mittelstaedt, Martin. "Canadian gasoline found to fuel smog", The Globe and Mail, March 7, 1998.