September 2018 – Live an Untethered Life

Climate Change Coming to a province near you. Pan-Canadian Redux

September 24, 2018 by live an untethered life, posted in Legal

air-carbon-chimney-39553

Ah, you don’t believe

we’re on the eve

of destruction

Barry McGuire

For climate change, now might be the time to believe in case you have any doubts. NASA recently recorded CO2 to be at 408 parts per million. The previous high came in at 300 ppm over 300,000 years ago. We have to look back 3 million years to see carbon levels comparable to today. But then, temperatures were about 2 degrees higher than pre-industrial time and sea levels were about 15-25 metres higher than today. If the climate acted like the stock market, then 300,000 years ago compares to 1929 stock market levels before the crash and the present compares to dot-com market valuation levels. The point being that the repercussions of those lofty levels lingered for years afterwards. Climate wise, we can anticipate several centuries before things start to normalize again.

We will likely zoom right past those ancient levels. If you have doubts, then the UN has some good peer reviewed studies indicating that things may be a bit worse than they seem. http://www.ipcc.ch/

I mentioned the increasing carbon levels to give a sense of scale of what appears to be occurring. Personkind always tends to push problems off into the future in order to avoid the present cost. This became the constant theme since the early eighties when countries could not reach a conclusion on how to deal with the increasing carbon in the atmosphere. Back then, there seemed to be a great deal of confidence that we would be able to innovate to create cost effective solutions to the problem in the distant future. Moreover, that distant future is suddenly here. A cost effective solution may have been true had we been working on the problem a bit more, but subsidies for new less carbon intensive technologies have waxed and waned. We pushed back even further the practical application of the innovations we should have started back in the 90s.

The climate change issue came onto the science scene several decades ago. The world finally managed to agree on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change back in 1992 after many attempts of trying to do something. This framework provided for the implementation through the Kyoto Protocol. Canada finally dropped out of the protocol seeing that we would not meet our stated obligations mainly due to dithering by the governments at the time. In any event, without China or the USA signing on, the protocol would not finally solve the problem of rising carbon emissions.

With the 2015 Paris Agreement, most of world again agreed on the need to do something. Albeit on a non-binding basis. Here the Canadian government agreed to decrease emissions 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. Canada stepped up with the pan-Canadian Framework and later the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. The framework uses carbon pricing, complimentary climate actions, adaptation and innovation to address the problem

Economists generally agree that adding a price to carbon can be the most effective and efficient way to reduce emissions as opposed to command and control regulation. This price signal assists in the modification of behaviours as businesses and individuals slide towards less carbon intensive behaviours. Some economists now wonder if carbon pricing may not be the panacea everyone hoped. So far, the end objective of stopping the increase in carbon emissions has not yet occurred as hoped.

The federal GHG Act provides a backstop approach in that the Act only applies if a province did not pass a similar piece of legislation that would allow the federal government to reach its objectives under the Paris Agreement. To avoid the federal backstop, any provincial system should then obtain the same level of reductions as would have been achieved under the federal system.

The GHG Act charges regulated emitters for excess carbon emissions at a rate of $20 per tonne in 2019 and this rate increases annually to $50 per tonne.

Ontario used to have about the best carbon pricing policy in Canada. Their cap and trade program integrated nicely with the Western Climate Initiative with California and Quebec.

Doug Ford promised to rid Ontario of this tax, which it never really had in the first place, but semantics aside, he intends to contest the federal government’s jurisdiction in applying a carbon tax. Again, the GHG Act uses ‘charge’, but even more semantics. Residents in Ontario shall live in interesting times for the next few years. Ontario joined Saskatchewan’s challenge to the carbon tax, and Ontario commenced its own challenge. Most legal scholars feel the challenge will not succeed and the other provinces declined to join in. However, since politicians do keep their promises, Ford will bring all available resources to this event, which may proceed at a receding glacial pace.

In the meantime, the Ontario government took a number of steps to dismantle the existing system starting with stating that emission allowances can no longer be traded. Although businesses purchased $2.8 billion in credits, Ontario does not anticipate reimbursing businesses anywhere near that amount. After all, businesses operated during this time. Any funds allocated to purchase unused emission reduction credits might add to incremental greenhouse gases (go up in smoke, so to speak). They have also canceled any future rebates on their clean technology programs and other innovation technology. They recently passed legislation allowing them to cap compensation for the cancellation of the White Pines windfarm program.

As of January 2019, the federal GHG Act will start to apply to apply to all provinces that do not have comparable legislation in order to reduce their emissions within the province. Ford opened the door to the carbon charge himself instead of the homegrown policy. This does allow him the luxury of pointing to how the federal government is now imposing this carbon charge and it is out of the hands of the province. The province can take all the benefits and none of the blame as the federal government then returns the carbon charge funds back to the various provinces. If Ontario simply returns the funds back to those incurring the cost, then the entire carbon-pricing concept can get lost.

Ontario will now face a higher carbon charge of $20 per tonne increasing to $50 tonne rather than the $18 tonne in 2016 dollars as suggested by Ontario’s policy analysts. The Ontario government would appear to be bringing in more revenue with less effort on their side. At least they fought the good fight and can sit back and allow the revenues to pour in. The federal government’s $420 million transfer to Ontario under the Low Carbon Economy Leadership fund may in jeopardy since the feds do not appreciate where Ontario is leading.

Carbon pricing maybe too little too late as climate change incidents start to accelerate. Ontario just recently announced that it will introduce a regulatory plan for reducing greenhouse gases in the province, but they will not commit to hitting the federal government’s targets. This lack of commitment allows the federal charge to start January 1^st. Perhaps Ontario’s $1 beer will alleviate the heat and take everyone’s minds off their ever-increasing climate related problems.

Pixabay

+Source: pixabay.com

Pixabay

+Source: pixabay.com

Just in the NeoNic of time

September 10, 2018 by live an untethered life, posted in Legal, Uncategorized

bees-bloom-blur-144252 Put away the DDT
I don’t care about spots on my apples
Leave me the birds and the bees
Please! Joni Mitchell 1970.

Neurotoxins seem to be on my mind a lot recently. Fortunately, the mammalian blood-brain barrier ensures that this is a figurative as opposed to a literal concern. I refer to neonicotinoids, or neonics. Neonics include a class of neurotoxin pesticides in the nicotine family. Yes, this is the same chemical you used to see advertised in those cancer sticks.

Neonicotinoids interfere with neuron pathways and bind to nicotinic receptors, which then causes paralysis and death, but fortunately they are far more selective to insects. Recently, neonics became the focus regarding the collapse of bee colonies and other pollinators. Neonics provide a cute handle for this type of insecticide, almost like a small, programmable robotic toy you would get for your children — or perhaps your own inner child.

Neonicotinoids are the most common pesticides in use today. Most farmers do not seem to be given a choice these days since neonics coat almost all corn and canola seeds planted in North America. The upside and downside seems to be that these pesticides are highly water-soluble and systemic. This means that they can be taken up through the plant’s entire vascular system to combat pests. The downside includes going down into the groundwater. Neonics have begun to show up in places where they should not.

Neonics have a short life of approximately 39 days when exposed to the sun and are not considered toxic for mammals. They are highly toxic to insects and aquatic animals such as crustaceans and fish. If neonics seep into the groundwater and are not exposed to sunlight, they can exist for up to three years. This may be sufficient time for them to reach aquifers. This can also allow them to reach wetland and impact invertebrates. With a three year time lag, we may start to see some more cumulative effects.

Other pollinators such as bees can take neonic-infused pollen and carry it back to the hive. The impact of the low-level neonics creates much debate. Some groups point to the overall increase in the number of hives in Canada as illustrating that there are no problems. Others can point to the colony collapse disorder. If neonics do not cause this directly, could they then be creating the tipping point for other problems to overwhelm the hive? The grain of pollen that broke the colony’s back so to speak.

Considering the potential risks, pesticide approval falls to Health Canada under the Pest Control Products Act and its regulations with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. The act requires reasonable certainty that the pesticide poses no safety risks, including to the environment. The PMRA can request additional data from the registrant and this allows a pesticide to be conditionally approved while additional information is obtained. I suppose conditional can depend upon your situation. Conditional on financing could mean a couple of weeks. Back in high school, you could borrow the car on condition you get it back by 11 pm. The same day. If my folks said I could have the car on condition I get it back to them in a decade, albeit with the tank full, I would think that was pretty much permanent.

The question then becomes when does conditional seem like final? Back in 2016, Ecojustice commenced an application for judicial review of the PMRA’s conditional approval of the two previously mentioned neonics. This conditional approval has continued to be rolled over for more than a decade. Accordingly, Ecojustice commenced action against two registrant companies and Health Canada as saying the decisions were outside the parameters of the legislation. The respondents attempted to dismiss the action on the basis that the 79 decisions of the PMRA on these pesticides should be time barred. They also claim that the applicants had alternative routes to deal with the PMRA decisions. The respondents brought an application to dismiss and a further appeal. Ecojustice prevailed at both levels. This has taken two years and the matter has now been set down to be heard on the merits. Although the courts may not be the best place to go through reams of scientific data.

As the matter slowly winds through the PMRA and the courts, the concern arises as to whether we are better off with the neonics we know. If the application did prove successful or if the PMRA finally decided after several years that neonics were not safe, would the alternatives be worse?

Scott Pruitt, the previous head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, made many impactful decisions. One was to remove the ban on chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate neurotoxin that is even less selective than the neonics being discussed, notwithstanding that EPA scientists concluded the pesticide caused significant health consequences. If neonics appear to be the cute programmable robot neurotoxin toy you buy, organophosphates present more along the lines of the lawn darts that you have at the cottage.

Remember DDT? It was another neurotoxin that did not have any selectivity when it came to eradicating pests. DDT opens the sodium ion channels in neurons, causing them to fire spontaneously, which leads to spasms and death. By 1945, DDT was available for public sale in the US. DDT’s impact became apparent with Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 where she documented industry’s indiscriminate use of pesticides. After a public outcry and the near extinction of the bald eagle, it was finally banned in 1972.

In response to stress to pollinators, Ontario created the Pollinator Health Action Plan to safeguard against high mortality of wild and managed pollinators. Although some groups point to the fact that there are now more bee colonies than ever, the other side of this fact is that winter honeybee mortality reached 58 per cent in 2014. This is another case where you can always find a statistic to support your case.

This high mortality rate can be an extremely risky number considering that nearly $900 million in Ontario crops rely upon pollinators. Part of the action plan includes using neonics-treated seed only where there is a demonstrated need to deal with pests. This gets us back to avoiding the ‘indiscriminate use’ of pesticides.

Europe always appears to be the trendsetter. The European Union acted upon neonics and banned them several years ago. It determined that the impact on bee populations and pollinators in general justified the ban.

The EU relies upon the precautionary principle in some areas of the law. This principle states that, in the case that there is any doubt about the safety of a chemical or action, then policy-makers should use their discretion and use precautionary measures to safeguard human health and the environment. There are many international treaties that incorporate this principle as a necessary application.

The Federal Sustainable Development Act does include the precautionary principle in that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainly shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. This principle needs to be more strongly considered for neonicotinoids.