• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Clean Air Act?

pb4ugo2bed

TRIBE Member
Rona ambrose looked as though she had a hard time believing her own words.


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...411&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Emissions goal decades away
Proposed law makes no mention of Kyoto Protocol
Oct. 19, 2006. 11:22 AM
DENNIS BUECKERT
CANADIAN PRESS


OTTAWA — The Conservatives released the centrepiece of their "made-in-Canada" environment agenda Thursday — a Clean Air Act that would cut greenhouse gas emissions in half, but not until 2050.

The bill, aimed at dispelling the notion that Tories are soft on the environment, sets no short-term targets for cutting greenhouse emissions. In the long term, it says the government will seek to cut emissions by 45 to 65 per cent by 2050.

In the interim, the government will set so-called "intensity targets" which would require industry to reduce the amount of energy used per unit of production, without placing a hard cap on emissions.

Regulations for large polluters would begin in 2010 and the government is giving itself until 2020 to set national emissions-cutting targets for the pollutants that cause smog.

The proposed law, which is certain to get a rough ride from opposition parties who say it's far too weak, makes no reference to the Kyoto Protocol even though Canada remains a party to the treaty.

In the coming year, the government will introduce regulations to reduce emissions from motorcycles, outboard engines, all-terrain vehicles and off-road diesel engines. Officials were unable to say what proportion of Canada's emissions come from those sources, or by how much they will be reduced.

The intention will be to synchronize Canadian regulations with those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. New rules for the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks will be established by 2010.

On the sensitive issue of targets for large industrial emitters, the government is moving cautiously, with a three-phase consultation process in coming years.

The previous government already held three years of consultations on regulation of large emitters, which account for about half of Canada's greenhouse pollution.

The Clean Air Act will transfer a number of substances that were previously defined as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to a new category labelled "air pollutants."

Critics say this shift is almost certain to result in a constitutional challenge. The wording used in the act had been tested before the Supreme Court, while the new wording has not been tested.
 
Alex D. from TRIBE on Utility Room

Lurker

TRIBE Member
2050?!?!?!?!?!?

Maybe some of the Kyoto targets were a little optimistic but come on....2050?!?!??

nice fucking plan, Harper.
 

TrIbAlNuT

TRIBE Member
Smoke and mirrors.

The intention will be to synchronize Canadian regulations with those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Great! So now we have adapted the U.S. foreign and environmental polices, yay for us!
 

PosTMOd

Well-Known TRIBEr
pb4ugo2bed said:
The Clean Air Act will transfer a number of substances that were previously defined as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to a new category labelled "air pollutants."

There is nothing new in this act that wasn't covered under the EPA... there is however, some nice little shifts in wording, making it easier to be a polluter...

"Oh, pffft... that's not toxic, it's just a little polluting..."
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

The Watcher

TRIBE Member
Sounds like a good plan for the conservative to pass the buck on any action... and leave it for someone else to do something.

So, cancel all environmental programs and replace it with a program that does nothing for the next few years.

Good plan there Stevey... YOU'RE A DOUCHEBAG.
 

Chris

Well-Known TRIBEr
Pollution Probe's Response
----------
Desperately Seeking Cleaner Air
New Clean Air plan offers some environmental gains, but groups
disappointed overall

OTTAWA, Oct. 19 /CNW/ - Three leading Canadian environmental groups today
said the new federal Clean Air announcement contained some positive elements,
but the groups expressed concern about much of the plan, especially the lack
of effective targets and timelines to regulate pollution.
Environmental Defence, Pollution Probe and the Clean Air Foundation are
pleased that the proposed Clean Air plan will develop new regulations to limit
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a list of priority indoor air
contaminants, a national radon strategy, and new energy efficiency standards
for appliances and other products. However, the much-anticipated quick action
to reduce air pollution is by and large absent from the plan.
"I am pleased that the Clean Air Act will permit, for the first time,
regulation of products such as wood burning appliances that have significant
impacts on both indoor and outdoor air quality," said Clean Air Foundation
Executive Director Ersilia Serafini.
"The move to establish national air pollution standards is a positive
step, but Canadians can't wait another five years for these standards to take
effect," said Aaron Freeman, Policy Director for Environmental Defence.
"I am very disappointed by the lack of a firm commitment to regulating
fuel efficiency levels to those of leading countries by 2010," said Ken
Ogilvie, Executive Director of Pollution Probe. "Canada needs to have a
clearly stated commitment to provide the public with cleaner, more fuel
efficient vehicles."
The groups support the government's commitment to regulate indoor air
quality. More detail is needed on this commitment, but it is an essential
element to protecting people from the damaging effects of poor indoor air
quality.
The plan proposes to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) by 45% to 65% by
2050, a positive signal, but fails to provide any interim targets for reaching
this far-off goal. GHGs from large industrial facilities would not be reduced
before at least the end of 2010. When these standards are finally developed,
they will be "intensity-based," meaning that pollution may continue to rise
with increased production, even if the standards are met.

<<
To make the Clean Air plan more effective, the groups urged the
government to establish:
- mandatory fuel efficiency standards at stringent levels that are
currently being adopted in several other jurisdictions;
- mandatory, tough and immediate timelines for reducing priority air
contaminants, especially GHGs and smog-causing substances; and,
- a national mercury elimination strategy.
>>

About the Clean Air Foundation
The Clean Air Foundation is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to
developing, implementing and managing public engagement programs and strategic
approaches that lead to measurable emissions reductions, to improve air
quality and protect the climate. The Foundation manages six public engagement
programs - Car Heaven, Mow Down Pollution, Keep Cool, Chill Out, Switch Out
and Cool Shops. www.cleanairfoundation.org

About Environmental Defence
Environmental Defence protects the environment and human health. We
research. We educate. We go to court when we have to. All in order to ensure
clean air, safe food and thriving ecosystems. Nationwide.
www.environmentaldefence.ca

About Pollution Probe
Pollution Probe is a leading not-for-profit environmental organization
actively engaged in initiatives to address air quality and climate change,
including conducting research, engaging partners, implementing projects,
holding events and contributing to the development of new policies to honour
Canada's clean air and greenhouse gas reduction commitments.
www.pollutionprobe.org



For further information: or to arrange interviews, please contact:
Jennifer Foulds, Environmental Defence, (416) 323-9521 ext.232, (647) 280-9521
(cell); Ersilia Serafini, Clean Air Foundation, (416) 922-9038 ext.242; Ken
Ogilvie, Pollution Probe, (416) 926-1907 ext.231
 

Genesius

TRIBE Member
Does anyone know how this plan compares to the Kyoto?

Does anyone know if the targets suggested in Kyoto were viable.

It seemed to me at the time there was a lot of inaction on the part of the Liberals with regards to implementing Kyoto. It seemed more lip-service than anything. When the election comes I want to be sure that I'm voting for the party who is going to do something, not just pay lip-service... granted between now and 2050 there will be a helluvalotta jaw movement around this issue.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Okay okay this crappy I agree.

Why is europe still allowed to use cars that wouldn't pass our clean air requirements even when they are brand new. China currently has 16 of the 20 most poluted cities yet they don't get a single restriction.

If europe were to inact the same pollution laws on cars that we have had since the early 80's they would meet there polltuion targets under kyoto. Yes simply for doing what we already did 2 decades ago. Should we pat them on the back or should we kick them in the ass for waiting 20 years to do the obvious.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Lurker

TRIBE Member
^^^ Good point, and a valid one, but ultimately two wrongs don't make a right.

What's even worse is that we get 3 years of consultations where NOTHING happens, and the chances of an election happenning within that same period are pretty decent. I would hope that the chances of Harper winning said election are about the square root of fuckall.

I wonder if provinces are going to start implementing their own rules? I know Alberta and Ontario will be the last to jump on that bandwagon, but it might be a start. Kind of like what Arnie is doing in California and the emissions rules there...
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Genesius said:
Does anyone know how this plan compares to the Kyoto?

Does anyone know if the targets suggested in Kyoto were viable.


Nowhere even close!!


The EU on paper might make it but this is simply because they expanded into countries that weren't previously indexed and thus there overall has gone down while they have actually increased in pollution. Russia didn't have to make any significant changes nore China, both have increased levels of pollution since signing. Austrailia refused to ratify even though according to the agreement they were allowed to increase there pollution up to %8 from current levels.

The Netherlands will make it but only through purchasing Icelands extra credits and the only reason Iceland even got these credits is because they used to be one of the worst polluting nations on earth and subsequently changed to importing large amounts of power from elsewhere moving the negative impact outside of there border.

Canada isn't even remotely close, if anything we'd need to reduce pollution by somewhere around %30 within the next 2 years. However with our current level of oil production this is simply impossible. We would litterally have to shut down all east coast oil and close to half of Albertas production to come even close. And thats assuming that Ontario really does mothball its coal hydro plants.


Kyoto was a joke that no actual government ever took seriously and everyone signed assuming it would be dead in the water and never ratified.
 

man_slut

TRIBE Member
^^^^ good point... Europe is huge... I think some parts of Europe may have lax laws on emissions and others not...
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
PosTMOd said:
I'd like a source for that.


I'll look, but for instance ...

wiki said:
Emissions regulations vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as do what engines are regulated. In North America any spark ignition engine of over 19 kW (25 hp) power output built later than January 1, 2004 probably has a three-way catalytic converter installed. In Japan a similar set of regulations will come into effect January 1, 2007, while the European Union has not yet enacted analogous regulations. Most automobile spark ignition engines in North America have been fitted with catalytic converters since the mid-1970s and the technology used in non-automotive applications is generally based on automotive technology.

Diesel engine regulations are similarly varied, with some jurisdictions focusing on NOx (Nitric Oxide and Nitrogen Dioxide) emissions and others focusing on particulate (soot) emissions. This can cause problems for the engine manufacturers as it may not be economical to design an engine to meet two sets of regulations.

Note that no jurisdiction has specific legislation mandating the use of catalytic converters, however with spark ignition engines a catalytic converter is usually the only practical way to meet regulatory requirements.


This is why the euro version of the same car will have 30 more hp
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Lurker

TRIBE Member
The majors in Europe are all working on cleaner diesel engines and have been for a few years. Their advantage over us is that their diesel fuel is actually cleaner too. This is why only Mercedes will be allowed to sell diesels in Canada for the next while because only they have a motor that meets our emissions and can run on our fuel.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
PosTMOd said:
^^ That's not exactly right...

Check out this presentation about Emissions Standards Around the Globe

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/global/downloads/NZConf/03.pdf

EU has had 3-stage catalytics since 1991. Their biggest problem is the use of diesel engines, since they have a problem with fine particulate matter emissions.


yes but the standard for Kyoto is 1990. And still they have far less stringent requirements for pollution. The US has consistantly lead the way when it comes to actual laws that limit and require testing of vehicle exhausts.

The US has also lead the way in regards to fuel requirements such as dumping lead.
 

TrIbAlNuT

TRIBE Member
But its way easier to limit car emissions than to regulate greenhouse gases that are emitted by the industrial sector. While the US may be the “leader” in car emission restrictions, it doesn’t even want to admit that greenhouse gases are a contributing factor to global warming.

Limiting car emissions is just side-stepping the issue. The refineries that produce gasoline from crude unload a massive amount of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Why not impose limits on them first?
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
TrIbAlNuT said:
But its way easier to limit car emissions than to regulate greenhouse gases that are emitted by the industrial sector. While the US may be the “leader” in car emission restrictions, it doesn’t even want to admit that greenhouse gases are a contributing factor to global warming.

Limiting car emissions is just side-stepping the issue. The refineries that produce gasoline from crude unload a massive amount of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Why not impose limits on them first?


Haven't you seen the industry news? Hard times for Oil companies these days - and you want to strangle their tiny profits even further?

[cough]
 

KickIT

TRIBE Member
TrIbAlNuT said:
But its way easier to limit car emissions than to regulate greenhouse gases that are emitted by the industrial sector. While the US may be the “leader” in car emission restrictions, it doesn’t even want to admit that greenhouse gases are a contributing factor to global warming.

Limiting car emissions is just side-stepping the issue. The refineries that produce gasoline from crude unload a massive amount of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Why not impose limits on them first?

You also gotta remember that US standards are more state specific. California leads the way in this department mind you California also probably has the most cars per capita in the US.

The US are also championing coal burning plants as their main source of energy production. Coal's abundant and cheap and also the leading producer of CO2 emmissions. Their aim to reducing CO2 emissions is to trap CO2 and inject it deep into the earth or into the ocean, though no one knows for sure what kind of impacts this will have.

*c*
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top