environment

Thursday December 10, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday December 10, 2020

Doug Ford takes an axe to greenbelt protections

First, Doug Ford big-footed environmental protections and local authority. Then he went home early, adjourning the legislature until February. Not a bad day’s work for Ford and friends.

November 13, 2020

Under the cover of COVID-19, the government is hacking and slashing the network of regulations and oversight that for years helped balance the preservation of Ontario’s environment with the interests of voracious development.

Think back to before Ford became leader of the not-progressive conservative party. He was recorded telling a roomful of his development industry friends that he would ensure Ontario’s cherished greenbelt would be opened to allow development.

In case you’ve forgotten, the outcry was immediate and very loud. So much so that Ford had to publicly retract his pledge, and reassure Ontarians that he would respect their will on the greenbelt.

But Ford never said he wouldn’t use a back door to accomplish the same objectives. This week, he demonstrated that he has done exactly that.

May 3, 2018

Schedule 6 may sound innocuous, but it is anything but. Passed this week as part of the government’s Bill 229 — a pandemic recovery bill for heaven’s sake — it neuters all of Ontario’s conservation authorities. Their mandate is now dramatically narrower, and a government minister will have the power to veto conservation authority decisions. 

Ontarians have been able to rely on conservation authorities for years to effectively manage and protect rivers, tributaries, wetlands, forests and local drinking water. CAs are not perfect, but they generally work, and they represent local and regional interests. No longer. 

In another alarming change, the Conservation Authorities Act has been amended to allow the provincial minister complete control over issuing permits, with or without input from CAs. And there is no appealing the decisions.

December 11, 2018

Not satisfied with hobbling conservation authorities, the government is also making increased use of Ministerial Zoning Orders. MZOs allow the provincial minister to override planning and zoning decisions, regardless of local government or public input. Again, the decisions cannot be appealed.

This destruction of local control has not gone unnoticed. Conservation authorities, mayors, the Association of Ontario Municipalities, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the World Wildlife Fund (Canada), Ontario Nature and Environmental Defence of Ontario have all spoken out strongly against the government’s centralization of control. Countless letters to the editor, columns and editorials have condemned the changes.

The government’s response was to double down and push the changes through, hidden deep in pandemic recovery omnibus legislation. 

All this is part of a disturbing big picture. Remember the Ontario Municipal Board, which provided a flawed method of appealing local planning decisions? The government replaced it with the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT) a developer-friendly organization that almost always rules on the side of unfettered development.

Then came MZOs, being used increasingly to authorize zoning and planning changes in the absence of local due process and input. Then came the gutting of conservation areas, with their crucial oversight, including of Ontario’s drinking water.

Does anyone else see a theme here? Ever since Doug Ford blew up Toronto city council to suit his personal whims, it has been clear he is not remotely interested in local decision-making authority. He wants Ontario open for business, regardless of environmental impact. And he’s getting his wish. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Friday November 13, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday November 13, 2020

Don’t give free rein to Ontario’s developers

Doug Ford is moving quickly but quietly to give Ontario’s developers the upper hand over Ontario’s environment.

November 22, 2019

For proof of this ominous change, check out how Premier Ford’s provincial government is stripping away the powers of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities when it comes to approving new development in many of the province’s most vital natural areas.

Since mid-20th century, conservation authorities have been responsible not only for controlling floods but for protecting and restoring the land, water and natural habitats in this province. They’ve done a superb job, too, even if many developers consider them nothing more than red tape that slows or stops a money-making venture.

But in defiance of this long-held mandate, the Progressive Conservatives last week unveiled legislation that would curtail the conservation authorities’ ability to act as environmental guardians. And as if it was hoping the public wouldn’t notice what it was doing, the government slipped its proposals into its fat, omnibus budget bill.

The public, however, should take notice. What we’re witnessing is a direct threat to responsible environmental and land-use planning.

The new legislation would end the conservation authorities’ role in offering an informed response to development applications and how those applications might impact sensitive natural environments. More power to decide the fate of a proposed development, however controversial, would be handed to the provincial Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

If, where it still had jurisdiction, a conservation authority refused to issue a permit or imposed conditions for a development, a disgruntled developer could appeal directly to the natural resources minister or the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Until now, someone appealing a permit denial would have to go directly to the local conservation authority’s executive.

December 11, 2018

What the Ford government is doing is politicizing environmental and land-use planning. At the very least, its proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act raise the possibility a developer with a friend in government could one day win approval for a project over well-founded, local opposition.

This shouldn’t happen but the government intends to go even further. The province doesn’t want watershed management and conservation to remain core conservation authority programs, for which municipalities would have to pay. Instead, they would become voluntary programs a municipality could choose to support — or not. 

The Ford government seems to have a grudge against conservation authorities. Last year, it slashed its funding for the authorities by 50 per cent while telling them flood control must become their core mandate. Those shrunken budgets have made it harder for conservation authorities to plant trees, restore forests, and prevent soil erosion and water pollution, all jobs that make for a healthier environment.

May 3, 2018

If the new legislation passes, Ontario’s river valleys, flood plains, wetlands, Great Lakes shorelines — indeed, its water supplies — would be vulnerable to degradation in even more ways. It is also worth noting that the same government is increasingly resorting to ministerial zoning orders which allow it to permit development while bypassing the municipal planning process, environmental assessments and meaningful public consultation.

If Ford truly believes the current process for approving development is too cumbersome, he could streamline the rules, perhaps even imposing tighter deadlines for municipal governments and conservation authorities to respond to a project proposal.

But the interests of the economy, development and money have to be balanced with the interests of our environment. And where they can’t, the interests of the environment should prevail. Ontario should, as the song says, be “a place to grow.” But it should be place to grow for healthy environments, not just developers’ bank accounts. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

Friday October 16, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday October 16, 2020

Make Canada’s electric vehicle bet pay off

The federal and Ontario governments have just rolled the dice — using taxpayers’ money — in hopes of hitting it big in the electric vehicle industry.

November 22, 2019

After anteing up $295 million apiece, they recently convinced Ford Motor Co. of Canada to commit about $1.4 billion of its own money to start manufacturing these zero-emission machines and the batteries that power them at its Oakville plant by 2025. 

It’s a smart, and admirably non-partisan, gamble on the part of these governments that could preserve thousands of Canadian auto-sector jobs and grow the economy while doing something just as important — fighting climate change.

But if they want this steep, $590-million bet to pay off, they have to do more than just put up money. It’s not as easy as saying if you build it they’ll buy it. 

While there are plenty of hybrid and fully electric vehicles on the market, only about 0.5 per cent of the 23 million passenger vehicles on Canadian roads are electric. There are strong reasons more Canadians haven’t leapt behind the wheel of an EV, reasons Ottawa and Queen’s Park need to address.

October 3, 2020

For starters, electric vehicles are generally more expensive to buy than the ones driven by the internal combustion engines that are doing so much to heat up this planet. When it comes to range, most EVs can’t travel nearly as far on a full-charge as their gasoline-driven rivals on a full tank, though the gap is decreasing. And the number of electric recharging stations is pitifully small — just a fraction of the number of gas stations out there.

These negatives shouldn’t make anyone a naysayer about the future of Canada’s electric car and battery industry. It is, in fact, visionary for our nation to embrace what will surely be the technology of the future. Unfortunately there are no givens in the global auto sector and too often good intentions on the parts of governments and even industrial gurus don’t pan out. 

February 27, 2020

Canada badly lags behind other countries, such the United States, Germany, Japan and especially China in making EVs. When the current federal Liberal government asked every single EV manufacturer in the world to move to Canada, the answer was consistently no.

But there’s an upside to the fact that Ford Motor’s first zero-emission vehicles won’t roll of the line in Oakville for another five years. That gives the federal and Ontario governments a half decade to ensure their — your — investment ultimately pays off.

Canada needs recharge stations, lots of them. Establishing and paying for more of this essential infrastructure should be part of the federal Liberals’ plan for rebuilding post-pandemic Canada. 

Perhaps they could partner with existing gas stations. If their owners give the matter some thought they’ll realize they, too, have a stake in transitioning away from petroleum-based fuels.

Programs could be established or beefed up across the country to help homeowners as well as condo and apartment complexes, to install their own recharging facilities. In addition, the federal government should review its current rebate program for people buying electric vehicles to determine if it’s working and even if it should be enhanced.

Finally, attention must also be paid to the Canadian mining companies that produce the minerals, such as cobalt, nickel and lithium, that will go into the electric vehicle batteries. Do they require help in meeting what could be a significant new demand?

When it comes to electric vehicles, Ottawa and Queen’s Park may feel that, as Ford Motor once proclaimed, they have “a better idea.” They need to back it up. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Wednesday April 29, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday April 29, 2020

The future of our watershed is far from assured

Look, it’s another non-COVID-19 editorial! That’s right, we wanted to give you a break from nonstop pandemic news and commentary. We know that can get heavy.

November 26, 2019

So instead, let’s talk about the state of Cootes Paradise, Chedoke Creek and Hamilton’s watershed in general. That’s bound to lighten your mood. Not.

A new report from the City of Hamilton says no special cleanup or monitoring of the Cootes Paradise marsh is called for as a result of the now infamous 24-billion-litre sewage leak known as Sewergate.

Before you utter a collective sigh of relief, let’s be clear: That doesn’t mean the protected marsh area is fine. It’s not. And common sense suggests the extra billions of litres of sewage leaked over more than four years into Chedoke Creek, which drains into the marsh, did not help matters. 

December 7, 2019

According to a report from The Spectator’s Matthew Van Dongen, the report by SLR Consulting concludes there was no lasting damage to the marsh from the sewage spill, but it also observes that it’s hard to know where any specific piece of pollution is coming from, because there are so many sources. Well, that’s a relief.

Hamilton Coun. Maureen Wilson rightfully referred to the situation as a “damning indictment” of how the city has treated Cootes through history, allowing it to become dirty nearly beyond redemption prior to efforts in the last two decades to reclaim the marsh.

Progress has certainly been made, but the reality is that Cootes remains painfully polluted, not only by sewage but also by leachate from old landfill sites and toxic-run-off from highways, parking lots and other sources.

November 27, 2019

Back to the report for a bit. The consultant’s view is not necessarily and final word. The Royal Botanical Gardens, which owns the marsh, is studying the report, and while there is no final determination, there are hints the RBG may not agree with the report’s findings. The RBG’s Nick Kondrat told Van Dongen: “ … our initial assessment is that we strongly believe that additional analysis is required to evaluate the severity of the damage” from the spill.

The provincial Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks has also yet to pass judgment, and it may differ from the consultant when it comes. It will also determine whether any aspect of the spill broke the law. If it did, charges against the city could follow.

The Hamilton Spectator

But suppose the provincial ministry report doesn’t amount to much. And suppose the RBG’s findings and recommendations aren’t conclusive. Where does that leave us? 

As much as we like to use the Sewergate label — The Spec did coin the phrase and break the story, after all — the spill and its fallout are not the most important issue at hand. What matters more is where we go from here. 

Are we satisfied with the status quo, with ongoing cleanup efforts that have delivered laudable but not conclusive results?

Cootes is still receiving pollution from so many sources pollutants can’t be traced to any one source. Chedoke Creek’s bed is layered with contaminated sludge. Major weather events, of which we are having more and more, still result in sewage holding tank overflow that leaks into the marsh, harbour and lake. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial)



 

Wednesday April 22, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday April 22, 2020

Single-use plastic is having a resurgence during the pandemic

For those seeking silver linings in the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the notable drop-off in air pollution has been a recurring bright spot. But while theskies might be clearing up (at least temporarily) while millions of people shelter in place, humans are poisoning the planet in other ways. Increased demand for medical supplies, households stocking up on tons of goods, and fears over COVID-19 spreading across different surfaces has single-use plastics on the rise — and as Wired reports, we’re running out of places to put it.

March 12, 2019

As more plastic waste pours in, the already overwhelmed recycling system is at risk of getting completely buried. Prior to coronavirus, many recycling companies were already struggling to deal with the more than 300 million tons of plastic discarded every year — nearly 50 percent of which is single-use. According to the Earth Institute at Columbia University, only about 10 percent of all discarded plastic products in the United States actually get recycled — a fact the plastic industry knew for years while touting recycling programs that would never be viable. Nearly 75 percent ends up in landfills, where it can sit and erode for hundreds of years, releasing carbon dioxide as it degrades and often making its way into waterways and oceans. It’s likely that as the country produces more plastic waste in this time of crisis, even more will be heading to landfills, as the already inundated recycling firms slow their operations. “Many recyclers, because of health and safety concerns, are also stopping the service,” Tom Szaky, CEO of recycling company TerraCycle, told Wired. “Recycling — that’s been in sort of a crash — is now getting even worse.”

April 24, 2018

Those slowdowns are happening in tandem with a resurgence in single-use plastics. This is happening for a number of reasons, both out of necessity and potentially unfounded fears. Plastic bags have made a comeback during thecoronavirus crisis due to concerns that reusable bags may carry the virus. A number of states and cities have reversed plastic bag bans and some have even instituted restrictions on reusable totes. While it is known that coronavirus can survive longer on certain surfaces, there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that the virus is more viable on a cloth tote than a plastic bag, particularly if the bag is washed after use — though the plastic bag is likely to be discarded after one use, limiting additional exposure. With people worried that the virus can be transmitted through a number of surfaces, the demand for packaged goods is on the rise as well. According to FoodNavigator, demand for packaged goods has skyrocketed in Europe by as much as 111 percent for some items as compared to the previous year.

There is also the fact that the price of oil has dropped dramatically, which makes producing plastic goods cheaper than usual — and they aren’t all that expensive to begin with. Plastics are made from oil, and when the price of oil drops far enough, it can result in it actually being cheaper to produce new plastic products than recycle old ones. And when the demand for recycled goods disappears, more plastic ends up in landfills, slowly eroding and polluting the planet.

Plastic waste doesn’t have the same effect as something like air pollution — we don’t immediately see the damage as it occurs. But the change in our consumption habits will be immediately felt at the landfills that are already being overrun. It will be felt by oceans that are already at risk of having more pieces of plastic than fish by 2050. Even the short burst of uptick in plastic waste could cause significant disruption to the waste and recycling ecosystems. According to Waste Dive, dozens of cities and counties across the country have suspended recycling programs entirely. Rachel Meidl, a fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute, told Wired, “materials that would normally find its way to recyclers are being channeled to landfills and incinerators.” So before touting that “we are the virus” meme and spouting off to your friends about how the Earth is healing while we’re all trapped indoors, remember that there are a lot of ways we can hurt the planet without ever leaving our couches. (Mic)