A recent study by experts at the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Highways urges government to start counting the hidden environmental costs of cars and highway building before it builds more roads.
The report, called Monetization of Environmental Impacts of Roads, was obtained by West Coast Environmental Law under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It uses research from around the globe to attach monetary values to the environmental and health costs of the automobile and roads. In addition to estimating the dollar value, the report also urges government to recognize that there are some environmental damages which dollar figures simply cannot convey.
The report is an initial attempt to quantify a huge range of environmental impacts of the car, including:
The report criticizes past failures to include these costs in highway planning processes. It calls for the immediate use of these damage cost estimates in decision making as well as consideration of environmental costs to which no dollar figure can be attached.
Traditional cost benefit analysis heavily "discounts" the current cost of future environmental damage. In contrast, the report rejects major discounting of environmental impacts simply because they will occur far in the future. The report also calls for embodiment of the precautionary principle into highways planning. Where there is a risk of irreversible ecological changes, damage estimates should be based on reasonable "high end" damage costs.
For instance, the report suggests that estimates of damages from greenhouse gases should not be based on relatively mild forecasts of climate change, but on relatively "high impact" estimates of what increased greenhouse gas concentrations will mean. The result is that the report estimates damage from greenhouse gases at $1,000 per tonne, a much higher figure than the $15 to $25 per tonne cost estimates typically used by the governments.
The report concludes that incorporating these environmental costs in decision making will tend to justify more investments in demand management - and will allow investments to address a wider variety of social goals including environmental protection, community enhancement and equity. "Growth in population, travel demand and general consumption levels should not be accepted uncritically as a basis of transportation decisions. Rather, integrated strategies should be sought at all levels of government in order to limit growth of these factors until we are better able to understand their socio-ecological impacts."
WCEL has published a new book about conservation covenants, a new legal tool that allows the voluntary preservation of privately owned land in British Columbia. A conservation covenant may be granted by a landowner to a non-governmental conservation organization.
Leaving a Living Legacy: Using Conservation Covenants in BC provides information and encouragement to landowners and conservation organizations that may be interested in placing conservation covenants on privately owned land to preserve ecological and other important values of that land.
This guide also provides information for other parties who may be interested in the voluntary protection of private land - local government, lawyers and real estate professionals. Leaving a Living Legacy was written by Bill Andrews and David Loukidelis.
West Coast Environmental Law gratefully acknowledges sponsorship of the project by the Islands Trust Fund Board and funding by the Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia, the Vancouver Foundation, and the Federal Environmental Partners Fund.
The book is available in print and on-line, at http://vcn.bc.ca/wcel/wcelpub/10362/10362.html. There are a limited number of copies available for free distribution. When they're gone, the guide will be sold for $15 to cover printing costs. To order a copy of the book, contact WCEL at 684-7378. For more information on conservation covenants, contact Bill Andrews at WCEL.
California's decision to delay requirements for Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) until 2003 is a setback to environmentalists, but it does not mean the end of ZEVs and other vehicle technologies that have lower greenhouse gas emissions. In January, after months of rumours, the California Air Resources Board dropped its requirement that, beginning in 1998, 2% (increasing to 5% in 2001) of all new vehicles sold in California be ZEVs.
Many environmental groups have championed the ZEV mandate. Electric ZEVs and hybrid vehicles that use a combination of natural gas and electricity have dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions than internal combustion engine vehicles.
California faced immense political pressure to scrap the ZEV mandate. A recent study by a California research group estimated that oil companies and auto makers spent over $24 million US in the last two years to kill the ZEV mandate, 500 times the amount spent by pro-ZEV groups to keep the mandate on the books.
It is not clear whether other states in the United States will be able to maintain their ZEV mandates in the face of California's backtracking. Rules under the US Clean Air Act forbid states from imposing "third car" vehicle emission regulations different from both California and US federal regulations.
However, ZEVs may start to permeate the North American market without the ZEV mandate. Under the threat of the ZEV mandate, auto manufacturers have invested heavily in improving electric vehicle technology. The result has been a number of technological breakthroughs which will help electric vehicles secure a spot in the marketplace without the aid of a ZEV mandate.
Also, California is maintaining its requirement that 10% of new vehicle sales be ZEVs starting in 2003. Practically, this will require earlier introduction of ZEVs.
California and several northeastern states will continue to encourage ZEV sales through their stringent "fleet average" requirements (which require manufacturers to sell a mix of new vehicles, that, on average, have emissions below a set level). Although it is possible that manufacturers could successfully meet these requirements without selling any vehicles that have lower greenhouse gas emissions, the fleet average requirements provide a strong incentive to sell ZEVs and hybrids.
In Canada, the federal government and British Columbia have regulations which encourage alternative fueled vehicles, including electric vehicles. Starting in 1997, the federal Alternative Fuels Act requires that 50% (increasing to 75% by 1999) of federal government and crown corporation vehicle purchases be alternative fueled, if it is "operationally feasible and cost effective."
The BC Motor Vehicle Emission Reduction Regulation establishes targets for the BC market share of "cleaner technology vehicles" and sets up a committee to work towards these targets. Ministry of Environment officials have promised a clean technology procurement policy and say government will revisit more stringent measures if sales targets are not met.
The BC sales targets and the federal procurement requirements are aimed at vehicles which have lower emissions of local pollutants. Neither the BC regulation nor the federal government has specific targets for ZEVs or hybrids only. Most of the federal and provincial sales targets will likely be satisfied by natural gas and propane vehicles with only marginally lower emissions of greenhouse gases.
The federal government and provinces could take additional steps to reduce vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by:
Two recent cases illustrate the complexity of the law related
to wetlands protection in BC, and the deficiencies with our current
legal structure. One case involves the victory of a private citizen
concerned that his municipality had not paid adequate attention
to protection of a wetland in Port Moody. He successfully represented
himself in a judicial review application in the BC Supreme Court
to have the bylaw that purported to regulate the wetland quashed.
The other case involves the ongoing efforts of the East Kootenay
Environmental Society to protect a wetland located at Lake Windermere.
Unfortunately, in this case, the most recent development at the
Environmental Appeal Board is a harsh lesson for anyone who chooses
to become involved in the fight to save wetlands in our province.
The latter case also illustrates the serious need for law reform
in BC on wetlands.
Norman vs. The City of Port Moody
On application by a private citizen, the BCSC set aside a bylaw of the City of Port Moody on the grounds that the City had not disclosed all relevant information to the public prior to adopting the bylaw. David Norman argued this case in BC Supreme Court himself. He was provided with counsel through WCEL's Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund for consultation and assistance preparing the documents.
David Norman and his group sought protection of two areas of wetlands of 6.7 and 1.6 acres respectively. After a public hearing, the City adopted a bylaw in effect protecting only the larger parcel. Mr. Norman applied to the court to quash the bylaw, arguing that the City had failed to disclose all documents which were background to the City's decision to adopt the bylaw. In particular, an environmental assessment which recommended protection of both areas, at least pending further studies, had been obtained by the City but not released.
In striking down the bylaw, Mr. Justice Leggatt relied on the common law doctrine of natural justice which requires that a hearing be both fair and full, and said that it is settled law in BC that there is a disclosure requirement for public hearings. He went on to rule that:
Public hearings that involve a reflection on environmental issues involve special procedural considerations...(I)t is incumbent upon the elected Council to attempt to disclose as much information as possible to allow citizens to voice their opinions. It is a first step to commission an environmental assessment. Council must also ensure that the vital information in the assessment is properly disseminated at the public meeting. [Emphasis added]
The judge also noted that the City was well aware that this bylaw was contentious: "This situation should have provoked the City...to fully disclose all information at the public hearing." He also made some encouraging comments obiter dicta (that is, not strictly necessary for his decision):
Arguments that are based on environmental concerns should not...be relegated to the dustbin of 'social policy,' i.e. issues that are better decided by the legislature than by the courts. It is specious to contend that while courts should concern themselves with private property rights, they must not ignore citizens' legitimate concerns about property that is collectively owned by a community.
It is doubtful that all BC judges would agree with this liberal view of the role of the courts. However, this case should be useful where citizens are aware of or suspect the existence of documents which have not been made public as part of a municipality's public hearing process.
[Editor's note: The city has appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the decision would unduly restrict the powers of municipalities to properly plan. This section was written by WCEL Board member Murray Lott.]
The Ongoing Struggle - East Kootenay Environmental Society and Lake Windermere Resorts Ltd.
The second case involves the ongoing struggle by the East Kootenay Environmental Society to halt filling of a wetland in Lake Windermere (see WCEL News 18:06).
Unfortunately, after a long history of efforts by EKES to protect the wetland, including several appeals to bureaucrats and the Environmental Appeal Board, as well as several judicial review applications, the most recent decision in this saga is very disappointing. This decision came about as a result of the hearing before the Deputy Comptroller of Water Rights on whether the developer, Lake Windermere Resorts Ltd., should be allowed to fill the wetland in question.
One of the first issues at the hearing was whether the East Kootenay Environmental Society had "standing," or the legal right, to bring an appeal of the permit. The Comptroller found that EKES did not have standing, based on a strict reading of the Water Act. The relevant provisions of the Water Act differ from other environmental laws in granting only certain narrow classes of people the right to appeal Orders. In the case of the Water Act only riparian owners, licensees and applicants for a licence are allowed to object to applications for licenses. Section 38, which addresses rights of appeal does not specify who may appeal but refers only to a "person." (This is in contrast to the provisions, for example, of the Pesticide Control Act which allow "any interested person" to appeal an Order.)
The Deputy Comptroller rejected arguments made on behalf of EKES that the Act must be read to allow EKES standing, and that the current common law favours public interest intervention. The decision to refuse standing means that the developer is now free to continue filling the wetland.
EKES has appealed the decision to the Environmental Appeal Board. The hearing date is set for March 26, 1996. If the decision is allowed to stand, it is imperative that the Water Act, sorely in need of revision (see WCEL News 18:05) be revised immediately to allow the public to participate in water decisions.
Thanks to the Law Foundation for continuing funding for the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund which was able to help both these applicants to pursue their cases.
New Wetlands Publications
We are also involved in contributing to new reports on wetlands law. One report, which is being spearheaded by the Canadian Wildlife Service, is tentatively titled "Wetland Keepers" and is modeled along the lines of the popular "Streamkeepers" publication.
The other publication that we are working on is the "Wetlands
Tool Kit for BC." This is being done with the BC Wetnet,
a coalition of wetlands protection groups across the province.
The Tool Kit will contain information on the current law surrounding
wetlands, a bibliography of wetlands publications, a scientific
description of wetlands, and a contact list of groups working
on this area.
WCELRF, 1001 207 West Hastings, Vancouver, BC, V6B 1H7, Canada.
Phone (604) 684-7378; fax (604) 684-1312; email: admin@wcel.org
home page: http://vcn.bc.ca//wcel/
Printed on 100% recycled paper (not secondarily bleached or de-inked).
NEWS from West Coast Environmental Law (ISSN #1204-4326), copyright 1996,
is published by the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation
(WCELRF) and represents the work of the West Coast Environmental
Law Groups. 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 West Coast Environmental Law. Donations to WCELRF
and WCEDRFS are tax creditable. This issue was produced by Bill
Andrews, Morgan Ashbridge, Chris Heald, Ann Hillyer, Patricia
Houlihan, Catherine Ludgate, Alexandra Melnyk, Linda Nowlan, and
Chris Rolfe.