Scientists call for action on global warming

The world's leading panel of experts reports an increasing concensus of scientific opinion that global warming is caused at least in part by human activity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a draft report that includes some startling findings:

• recent increases in global temperature are unlikely to have been caused solely by natural effects;
• global temperatures will likely increase by 0.8 C to 4.6 C by 2100, changes that are more rapid than at any time in the last 10,000 years;
• floods and droughts will increase in frequency, affecting food production in the areas of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia;
• there will be major losses of forest and mountain species which cannot adapt fast enough to even the most optimistic of scenarios; and,
• sea levels will rise 0.1 to 0.8 metres, causing the loss of important coastal wetlands, beaches and coral reefs.

Scientific Certainty

Although scientists are divided on the magnitude and speed of the projected changes, over three quarters of scientists working in this area project large and negative impacts to the environment caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases.

Waiting for greater scientific certainty regarding global climate change is very reckless from both an environ-mental and an economic perspective.

First, climate change is caused by an accumulated pool of greenhouse gases -- not by the emissions in any one year. Second, it is not clear scientific certainty can ever be achieved in a system as dynamic and complex as the globe's atmosphere. Finally, because of a twenty or more year lag between when emissions occur and when the earth feels their effect, confirmation of climate change by way of increased temperature will happen at least twenty or more years later.

Stabilizing Emissions at 1990 Levels Not Enough

The 1990 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change called for developed nations to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Even though it is increasingly clear that this goal is not enough, it will likely not be met. The IPCC projects that reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide of over 60% are necessary to stop the pool of greenhouse gases from expanding.

Projected Increases

Unfortunately, current trends indicate a failure of governments to even stabilize emissions at 1990 levels. This summer the United States Energy Information Administration predicted that carbon emissions will increase from six to eight billion tonnes per annum from 1990 to 2010. British Columbia's Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources -- on the basis of some optimistic assumptions -- predicts a 21% increase in BC's carbon emissions by 2015.

Action Necessary Now

While the report paints a bleak picture, it stresses that many of the the actions that can be taken to reduce emissions are worth doing for other reasons unrelated to global warming. However, it urges policy makers to go beyond these policies. The IPCC report calls for a range of immediate policies including carbon taxes, and elimination of barriers to less carbon intensive technology caused by vested interests, existing investments in carbon intensive products, institutional inertia and lack of information. The motor vehicle industry provides one example of an industry where change is urgently required.

For more info, please call Linda Nowlan at our offices.

Cleaner cars may not be Cooler cars:
Backgrounder on cars and global warming

1. Carbon dioxide is a key greenhouse gas (this much is easy).
2. In BC, half of carbon dioxide emissions comes from the burning of gasoline, oil and other petroleum-based fuels in cars, ships and planes, and half of that comes from cars and light-duty trucks (cars are bad, just as we suspected).
3. Current initiatives to produce cleaner cars and fuels reduce toxic emissions -- and obviously that's desirable -- but they do not reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (here's where it gets complicated). The term 'low-emissions vehicles' (LEVs) is misleading, because these vehicles are low in toxic emissions, but normal in emissions of carbon dioxide emissions.
4. Only 'zero emissions vehicles' (ZEVs) significantly reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. Thus, from a global warming point of view, ZEVs are not just a more extreme version of LEVs, ZEVs are part of a solution, LEVs are not.
5. Fuel efficiency translates directly into reduced emissions of carbon dioxide. So, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted is determined by the product of average fuel effiency and 'vehicle miles travelled.'
6. Unfortunately, the average fuel efficiency of vehicles sold in Canada has not improved since the early 1980s. For light-duty trucks it has actually worsened since 1990. In the future, average fuel efficiency will improve by only 0.3% annually, according to the National Energy Board.
7. Moreover, the number of 'vehicle miles travelled' is likely to continue to climb. In Greater Vancouver it is expected to double by 2021 with the current rate of urban sprawl. Obviously, unless something is done about it, carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles will rise dramatically, despite the fact that Canada and other governments have committed themselves to halting increases in emissions of greenhouse gases.
8. What is being done about it? Not enough. In late September, the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME), the body responsible for coordinating federal and provincial efforts in this area, released a draft report to industry and environmental groups that proposed almost nothing to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from vehicles. The BC government promised to implement 'California-style' vehicle standards, and it is moving ahead with the plans to reduce toxic emissions from vehicles. Significantly, however, it has not yet taken action on the ZEV component of the California standards.
9. What could be done about it? Better fuel efficiency and fewer vehicle miles travelled are the two main ways to reduce greenhouse gases from vehicles. Better fuel efficiency requires alternatives to the traditional gasoline-powered internal combustion engine: electric vehicles, "hybrid electric vehicles" (which run on electricity produced by an on-board generator), and methanol or ethanol vehicles. Fewer vehicle miles requires improved public transit, fewer single-occupant-vehicle trips, and controls on urban sprawl.
10. How can government take action? Significant increases in fuel taxes are the most cost effective way to hold back increases in emissions of greenhouse gases from vehicles, according to studies done for the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy. And, the BC government could implement the ZEV component of the California standards.
    
    

The federal government recently released a legislative proposal for the Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act, disappointing many members of the public who were expecting strong action on this issue. The legislative proposal is flawed by two serious weaknesses:

• the Act would apply only to federal lands and marine areas where wildlife management is the responsibility of the federal government; and,
• it contains virtually no protection for the habitat on which species depend.

The federal government views this proposal as only one component of a national program for protection and conservation of endangered species. Because 8 out of 12 provincial and territorial jurisdictions lack an endangered species law, the legal protection that species at risk in Canada will receive as a result of this proposal is very weak. BC is one of the provinces that does not have a separate Endangered Species Act and the current BC Wildlife Act has serious deficiencies. (See WCEL News 19:02)

If Minister Copps and her Cabinet colleagues are serious about the proposed goal of the Act, "to prevent wild Canadian species from becoming extinct as a consequence of human activities and to recover species where possible and economically feasible", the two critical deficiencies must be corrected. The Act should apply to all endangered species, not just to those in the 4% of Canada classified as federal land. In addition, there must be a mandatory duty to designate critical habitat for any species listed as threatened or endangered, instead of the current proposal which merely provides that regulations may be made to designate critical habitat which could include the regulation of activities affecting that habitat.

Other conspicuous problems mar the government's proposal. The proposed Act would allow for regulation (and presumably prohibition) of willful taking, killing, harming, wounding, capturing, collecting, molesting or disturbing of federally listed species, but certain activities would be exempted from these regulations or prohibitions. Exemptions include lawful activities that incidentally harm a federally listed species and activities undertaken as part of the implementation of other federal legislation. These exemptions would drastically limit the already weak protection that the Act proposes to give to endangered species.

The US Supreme Court recently affirmed the importance of protecting the habitat of endangered species, recognizing that endangered species can't be saved unless those places where they live are protected. Despite the usual jurisdictional wrangles between the federal and provincial governments in Canada over responsibility for environmental protection, we should expect our government to do better. A large majority of Canadians believe that endangered species should be protected to the full extent of the law. It's time to ask our governments to give voice to the wishes of the public.

-- Linda Nowlan

Journey to the Stikine

Patricia Houlihan, EDRF Liaison Lawyer, recently returned from travelling in the Stikine River region. The trip was organized by the Lower Stikine Management Advisory Committee (LSMAC) in order to acquaint committee members with issues on the river, to determine development areas for commercial fishermen, and to complete zoning and guideline mapping. LSMAC meets regularly to deal with issues arising on the Stikine and within the Stikine River system. Patricia participated in the river tour on behalf of Friends of the Stikine (FOS), a group which works to protect the Stikine River system.

FOS recently received EDRF funding for an expert review of the effects of hovercraft operation on fish and fish habitat on the Iskut (a tributary of the Stikine). The expert report will assist FOS to participate in a Department of Fisheries and Oceans review of the issue of hovercraft operations in the Stikine area.

The river tour included people from the provincial departments of mines, lands, environment, forests, the Tahltan band, the Sierra Club, and the local community. On the final day of the tour, the group was joined by representatives of the Coast Guard and Public Works Canada. The group toured the river and the various facilities on its banks, and discussed competing river uses. Now that the tour is over, LSMAC will continue to work on zoning issues. The trip was a valuable opportunity to learn more about permitted activities on the Stikine river system and protecting the Stikine environment.

BC's Information Commissioner rejected an attempt by the government to quash his inquiry into the failure of the government to provide digital maps to the Western Canada Wilderness Committee. On Sept. 14, Commissioner David Flaherty issued Order 51-95, rejecting a jurisdictional challenge by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. The Ministry claimed that by sending a letter to WCWC saying that the digital maps were available for purchase (at $600 per file) it had taken the matter outside the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, so the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hold an inquiry. WCWC had asked for free copies of the maps because it cannot afford the commercial price charged to forest and mining companies and other government departments.

While the Act does allow a department to refuse access to information that is available for sale, WCELA's Bill Andrews, acting for WCWC, argued that the exemption is implicitly condi-tional on the price being reasonable. The Commissioner agreed that he does have "jurisdiction to inquire into the reasonableness of the availability of the requested information for purchase in the particular case."

The BC Civil Liberties Association and the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association had filed interventions on WCWC's behalf. The full inquiry has now been scheduled for Nov 23. Order 51-95 is available on the Internet at http://espresso.cafe.net/gvc/foi/orders/Order51.html.

WCELRF Newsletter (ISSN #0715-4275), copyright 1995, is published by the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation and represents the work of the West Coast Environmental Law Groups. West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation (WCELRF) does research and education and maintains an environmental law library. West Coast Environmental Law Association (WCELA) provides legal representation and promotes law reform. The West Coast Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund Society (WCEDRFS) provides assistance and funding to citizens to help solve environmental problems in their communities. The mission of the West Coast Environmental Law groups is to provide legal services to protect the environment and to foster public participation in environmental decision-making. We are grateful to the Law Foundation of British Columbia for core funding of the West Coast Environmental Law groups. Donations to West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation and West Coast Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund Society are tax creditable. This issue was produced by Bill Andrews, Morgan Ashbridge, Chris Heald, Ann Hillyer, Patricia Houlihan, Catherine Ludgate, Alexandra Melnyk, and Linda Nowlan.