{"id":7453,"date":"2012-07-03T14:04:45","date_gmt":"2012-07-03T19:04:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/?p=7453"},"modified":"2012-07-03T14:04:45","modified_gmt":"2012-07-03T19:04:45","slug":"canada-under-the-influence-of-oil","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/2012\/07\/03\/canada-under-the-influence-of-oil\/","title":{"rendered":"Canada under the influence of oil"},"content":{"rendered":"

Grave consequences for ecology, democracy, and environmental protection<\/h1>\n
\"\"<\/a>

Mildred Lake mine site of Syncrude Canada Ltd. in the Athabasca oil sands.<\/p><\/div>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

This post contributed by Sean Hoban, a post-doc in conservation biology at the University of Ferrara, Italy<\/em><\/p>\n

The past year has seen some forward-thinking environmental policies in the US: pro-science budgets<\/a>, automobile fuel efficiency standards, coal power plant and fracking regulations, a recent (though rough) climate commitment<\/a>, and rejection (for now) of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. We might expect our neighbor Canada, often pictured as a realm of clean water and majestic forests, to at least keep pace. Instead we see the opposite, a worrisome erosion of environmental regulations, depreciation of science, and disregard for democratic process from a conservative and proudly pro-oil government. The following regressive changes matter to ecologists, and just about everyone, worldwide.<\/p>\n

Budget cuts<\/p>\n

The recently passed 2013 Canadian federal budget enacts steep cuts to environmental agencies<\/a> including Parks Canada and Environment Canada, which will reach beyond layoffs to changes in agency priorities<\/a> and abilities, especially to pollution monitoring and mitigation. Scientist Peter Ross writes an eloquent response here<\/a>. Another victim is the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, an independent, interdisciplinary panel that studied and offered recommendations on air, water, biodiversity, economic, and energy policy. Disturbingly, the government openly admits the reason for disbanding the panel<\/a> is only partially budgetary- its recommendations on carbon taxes were not in line with government and public opinion: \u201cIt should agree with Canadians. It should agree with the government,\u201d said Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird. Most problematic is that the budget bill extended far beyond apportionment of funds <\/a>to radically change dozens of environmental regulations. Even Conservatives<\/a> say that it was undemocratic to amalgamate so much in a budget bill, that each change deserved separate debate and voting.<\/p>\n

Fisheries Protection<\/p>\n

For example, the bill re-words the Fisheries Act, one of Canada\u2019s strongest environmental protection measures, which banned activities resulting in \u201charm\u201d to any fish habitat. New wording focuses only on \u201cserious harm\u201d (permanent alteration or destruction) to \u201ccommercial, recreational or aboriginal fisheries, or the fish they depend on.\u201d A letter written by the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution<\/a> states that this will remove protection of most endangered fish and other organisms in the food web, and devalues the inherent importance of habitats and biodiversity, though conservatives defend the measure<\/a> as re-focusing agency efforts. The change was enacted in spite of opposition from hundreds of scientists<\/a>, including fisheries organizations<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Environmental Assessment<\/p>\n

In addition to a 40 percent cut in funds for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the government has enacted several changes to environmental review<\/a> of energy development projects: a cap of one to two years of assessment before a decision is made, exempting small projects from review altogether, and allowing provincial rather than federal oversight<\/a>. Further, the Cabinet (appointed by the Prime Minister) will have final authority<\/a> to green-light particular projects, over-ruling the National Energy Board. A further change is a limitation on who can participate in assessment panels<\/a> from \u201cany person or body having an interest in the outcome of the environmental assessment\u201d to only those \u201cdirectly affected by the carrying out of the designated project\u201d or any person who \u201chas relevant information or expertise.\u201d Arguments that these changes are for greater effectiveness and efficiency<\/a> seem hollow, as proponents note that changes will pave an easier and cheaper road for an estimated $500 billion<\/a> in oil projects.<\/p>\n

Closing research stations<\/p>\n

As part of the budget cuts, several research stations are slated for closure, including the internationally renowned Experimental Lakes Area station<\/a> in Ontario, which has produced much understanding of acid rain and freshwater pollution over 44 years of monitoring. This is opposed by provinces<\/a>, thousands of Canadians<\/a>, and scientists around the world<\/a>, who hope that funding can still be found. Another closure is the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL)<\/a>, a high latitude ozone and climate monitoring station which has provided year-round data since 2005. Most other ozone monitoring stations<\/a> will also be reduced. A third victim is the Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS)<\/a>, a database of water quality from 3,000 freshwater sites around the world, which is managed by Canada, shared with 24 United Nations agencies, and used to evaluate and implement water policy. Canada is halting funding after 30 years of support.<\/p>\n

Climate and development<\/p>\n

Canada recently became the first Kyoto agreement signatory to pull out, while all other signatories recently agreed to extend the treaty. In withdrawing, Canada avoids paying 14 billion dollars<\/a> in fines it would have owed because it missed its targets. Along with the US, Canada earned a \u201cfossil award\u201d for weak stances at the Rio+20 summit on sustainable development and environmental economics.<\/p>\n

Silencing science<\/p>\n

A further brazen but unfortunately effective move is to muzzle scientists who wish to voice opposition to government policies or even perform science outreach or education. Parks Canada staff were recently warned<\/a> not to speak out, even in casual settings, against the government budget cuts. Scientists for Environment Canada have similarly been instructed not to talk to the media without governmental monitoring<\/a>, even about their own research. In recent hearings about a proposed oil pipeline<\/a>, scientific testimony regarding climate change, oil sands, or \u201cthe environmental effects of upstream hydrocarbon production projects\u201d was considered irrelevant to making a decision. A recent panel convened by the American Association for the Advancement of Science contrasted Canadian restrictions on science communication with a new US policy<\/a> encouraging and assisting scientists in communicating their findings to the media and the public.<\/p>\n

Environmental charities<\/p>\n

Not content with limiting its own agencies\u2019 environmental reach, the government is tackling private groups with environmental and public health agendas. Specifically, $8 million was recently budgeted to investigate non-profits<\/a> who use more than 10% of their budget for political pursuits- any organization found to be in violation of this can have their charitable status revoked. These same organization are under a barrage of rhetorical attacks<\/a>, including accusations of money laundering and other crinimal activity.<\/p>\n

A poor future for all<\/p>\n

Why such vast measures (more are listed here<\/a> and here<\/a>), and why now, in a country long regarded as environment-friendly? Both proponents and opponents of the measures agree that they will immensely benefit Canada\u2019s tar sands oil industry<\/a>; some journalists are calling Canada an \u201cincreasingly corrupt petro-state.\u201d It is clear that the environment and public health will suffer perhaps irreparable damage, and that scientific resources to monitor, understand, mitigate, and educate about these damages is dwindling fast. The near term outlook is bleak for our fellow scientists, and for Canada\u2019s future. In the US and around the world we should vocalize emphatically<\/a> and loudly<\/a> our support for scientific resources and expertise, democratic process, and sustaining functioning ecosystems that we rely upon now more than ever.<\/p>\n

Photo credit: TastyCakes<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Grave consequences for ecology, democracy, and environmental protection \u00a0 This post contributed by Sean Hoban, a post-doc in conservation biology at the University of Ferrara, Italy The past year has seen some forward-thinking environmental policies in the US: pro-science budgets, automobile fuel efficiency standards, coal power plant and fracking regulations, a recent (though rough) climate commitment, and rejection (for now)…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":41,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[1424,41,1218,1425,35,1209,1426,665,1427],"class_list":["post-7453","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ecology-in-policy","tag-budget-cuts","tag-canada","tag-energy-development","tag-experimental-lakes-area-station","tag-fisheries","tag-fracking","tag-global-environmental-monitoring-system","tag-oil","tag-tar-sands"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7453","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/41"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7453"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7453\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7453"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7453"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7453"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}