Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
GET UPDATES FROM Maxwell Cameron
 

Harper's Third-World Environmental Policies for the First World

Posted: 04/18/2012 10:50 am

The French historian, Jules Michelet, when asked to give a brief lecture on English civilization, said, "Ladies and Gentlemen, England is an island." And with that, he walked off the podium.

In a similar spirit, the most important thing to know about the current federal government is that its roots are in energy-rich Alberta. That simple fact, above all others, explains the attitude of the Harper government toward environmental regulation (bah!), climate change (pff!), scientists in the civil service (boo!), trade with Asia (yay!), pipelines (love 'em) and oil (drill baby, drill).

The overhaul of environmental assessment rules -- and the imposition of a two-year time limit for the review of major projects -- will benefit extractive firms like Enbridge, which wants to build a pipeline to carry bitumen from Alberta to markets in Asia.

But the weakening of environmental protection could also backfire.

Environmental assessments are necessary not only to protect the environment, but also to protect industry and government from being blind-sided by opposition. They are part of the larger framework of regulatory rules that create trust in government and provide stability for investors.

Citizens need to know that governments have done their due diligence. This requires a professional civil service that is highly professional and free from political pressures. The bureaucracy must combine both in-house capacity and good linkages with external sources of expertise. The Harper government is muzzling its own scientists and disbanding the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy.

Extractive projects generate great wealth but they also impose what economists call negative externalities -- costly side-effects that are not counted on the balance sheets of private corporations. To ensure that policies are in the public interest, environmental externalities, like pollution or global warming, must be balanced against the jobs and growth that result from development. Yet we have no national-level policy regulating extractive industries to provide a framework for reaching decisions in the public interest. And no climate change policy either.

Instead, the government is now weakening the entire regulatory process by making the final decision on major projects -- like oil pipelines -- the prerogative of cabinet.

The flip side of politicizing the process is that it will undermine trust in government decisions. When the Nuxalk First Nation of Bella Coola pulled out of the hearing on the Enbridge pipeline, it expressed its lack of confidence in a process it sees as having a foregone conclusion. This sets the stage for a court challenge.

Canada will begin to experience the kind of conflicts around natural resources that have affected other resource-dependent nations.

At the recent Summit of the Americas held in Cartagena, Colombia, Prime Minister Harper extolled the virtues of resource development and warned that environmental reviews should not hold industry back. He should take a hard look at countries like Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Guatemala, where hundreds of conflicts have erupted over the environmental effects of extractive projects -- many of which are owned by Canadian companies. The less-developed world may show us the image of our own future.

 
FOLLOW CANADA
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:04 PM on 04/19/2012
Perfectly concise and incisively argued explanation of Canada's coming environmental disaster.

HOWEVER, did it need such a sensationalist (and, frankly, offensive) title? Using "third world" as derogative seems childish, at best.... especially on environmental issues.

Max, I know the Huffington Post insists on these attention-grabbers...but can you PLEASE ask them to do your post justice and change the title?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:45 AM on 04/19/2012
A very well written article on Harperesque environmentalism. I love the opening paragraph. It says it all regarding Harper's understanding and concern for environmental issues.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:36 PM on 04/18/2012
How is limiting reviews of major projects to two years a "weakening of environmental protection"?

It seems to me that if you can't do a competent review in two years then you can't do one at all. And certainly companies trying to carry on a business deserve an answer -- whether it be yes or no -- in a reasonable amount of time.
12:54 AM on 04/19/2012
Most environmental reviews can be completed in 2 years. However, project proposals and the environmental assessments which precede reviews and are carried out by industry for major projects such as Enbridge's Northern Gateway take many years to complete. This greatly extends the proposal/review/and decision process. In part, this is because we have very little reliable environmental information for large expanses of Canada, so industry is compelled to carry out new and expensive studies just to complete an application for review. In most cases, the studies lack sufficient rigour and are too short in time to be trusted. The Northern Gateway environmental assessment fits this profile exactly - superficial and fraught with so much uncertainty as to be completely unreliable. Consequently, any honest review would be compelled to deny a proposal.
02:59 AM on 04/19/2012
Dear Black Rabbit;

When you don't know what you are talking about please say nothing. I mean do you know square root about the environment. Didn't think you did. But scientists do.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:53 AM on 04/19/2012
Do you know anything about what I know? Didn't think you did.
07:22 PM on 04/18/2012
The word Harper has replaced all the obscene words I know. Now I say; "I'm Harpered if I know." or " sometimes I just say "Harper". People tell me I shouldn't use such language but it expresses my anger and disgust. "Harper that." is my response to anything relating to the Harperers plan to do. .