WCELA released a report May 21 on the parties' responses to questions on ten key environmental issues. "From global warming to groundwater, this is what the parties have to say about the environment," said WCELA's Bill Andrews. "The overall quality of the responses is a pretty mixed bag, from analysis to ignorance, from candour to cop-out."
"Our purpose is not to tell anyone how to vote, but to give voters enough information to consider the environment when they make their choices," said WCELA lawyer Chris Rolfe. "Just because the environment fell out of the leaders' debate, it doesn't mean it's not an important issue for the voters."
The report analyzes responses from the Green Party, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, the Progressive Democratic Alliance, and the Reform Party. The Social Credit Party did not respond.
1. Global warming. The
NDP government has done more than other provinces. Still, the
NDP's claims exceed its track record in terms of practical steps
while in power. The Liberals are new to the issue, but do acknowledge
that the province must meet the stabilize-by-2000 commitment even
though the commitment was made by the federal government.
2. Water Act. All the parties support regulating both the quantity and quality of groundwater. Action on this is long overdue. Action is also overdue on protection of instream flows (not giving licences for all the water without leaving some for the fish). All the parties expressly support instream protection, except for the Liberals, who talk a lot about rivers, but are vague about instream flows.
3. Biodiversity. All the parties are committed to not delete any current provincial parks (good to have on the record). The NDP has an excellent record of moving toward protecting 12% of the province as wilderness. The Liberals also express commitment to the 12% goal. Reform does not. The PDA notes correctly that the 12% figure should apply to unique ecosystems, not just to the province as a whole. The NDP promises to do more to protect endangered species and their habitat, while the Liberals are lukewarm on it.
4. Property tax. The Liberals support the proposed Trust for BC Lands and tax relief for land permanently preserved by private land owners. The tax incentive is also supported by the PDA, the Reform Party and the Green Party. The NDP is more cautious, saying it will "revisit" the issue. Good potential for some action soon.
5. Environmental Protection Act. The NDP did lots of public consultation on a new BC Environmental Protection Act, but never summoned the political will to actually pass it. Now, they say it will be "the major environmental protection act of the government."
The Liberals promise "new and progressive legislation on environmental issues," but the emphasis of their campaign has been on fewer environmental standards and cutbacks to environmental protection.
6. Digital maps. The Liberal Party, Green Party and Reform Party seem more amenable to allowing non-profit groups affordable access to digital maps than does the NDP. Still, the NDP says it is studying the issue and welcomes input.
7. Forest Renewal BC. The NDP would keep Forest Renewal BC as it is; the Liberals would dismantle it.
8. Forest Practices Code. Another dividing line between the NDP and the Liberals. The NDP would maintain the Code and extend it to private land. The Liberals would rewrite and weaken the Code.
9. Contaminated sites. The NDP promises to continue pushing forward draft regulations to clean up contaminated sites, using interminable public consultations to soak up extreme opposition from some municipalities and other quarters. The Liberals are vague: they would do it "as soon as it can be done effectively."
10. Pulp mills. Ending on a good note for the environment, both the Liberals and the NDP are committed to the long-standing BC requirement that pulp mills eliminate organochlorine pollution in their effluent by 2002.
Green Party
Not surprisingly, the Green Party's environmental policies are the strongest of any of the parties.
Liberal Party
The Liberals do have some good environmental proposals, such as expanding marine protected areas. And the Liberals have committed to not reverse some key environmental decisions, such as existing parks, the 12% quota, and the pulp mill pollution regulations. But, despite the Liberals' claim that it values protection of the environment, many of the key planks would be unavoidably bad for the environment.
The Liberals' proposed budget cuts, for example, would hit hard at environmental protection. The Liberals' proposed "reevaluation" of the Environmental Assessment Act and the Forest Practices Code is clearly code for lower environmental standards. And, who in government would do all this rewriting of environmental laws if the environment ministry is cut back even farther than it has been cut already?
NDP
The NDP has both the luxury and the handicap of being the party in power. Voters can see what it has done and hasn't done. The NDP had a strong mandate from the electorate to pursue environmental protection vigorously.
And, it has done so, becoming a world leader in creating parks and controlling pollution from pulp mills. The NDP passed an Environmental Assessment Act, the Forest Practices Code, and contaminated sites legislation. It promoted recycling, cut smog with the AirCare program, promoted energy efficiency, and much more. That being said, the NDP has also postponed or refused many measures that are urgently necessary. Serious environmental problems remain: global warming, degradation of fish habitat, urban smog, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and toxic contamination.
Progressive Democratic Alliance
The PDA's positions are very supportive of environmental protection. One notable exception: the PDA would not require pulp mills to abide by the 2002 deadline for eliminating organochlorine pollutants from their wastewater effluent.
Reform Party
The Reform Party has positive positions on some practical environmental issues. It supports Water Act reform, tax incentives for protection of private land, the adoption of an Environmental Protection Act, and no changes to existing parks, for example.
However, environmental protection is not a high priority for the Reform Party. Reform has yet to acknowledge that global warming is a problem, and it doesn't have a position on key environmental issues such as Forest Renewal BC, contaminated sites, and pollution from pulp mills.
Social Credit Party
The Social Credit Party's decision not to respond to our questions appears to sum up its approach to protection of the environment!
|
The full report is on the Internet at http://vcn.bc.ca/wcel/wcelpub/10897.html. To obtain a text (.txt) version, please send an e-mail to admin@wcel.org. For a hard copy, please call 684-7378. |
This is the fourth in a series of articles on implementation of BC's Greenhouse Gas Action Plan. Previous subjects include Energy Codes for Buildings and Houses, the BC Motor Vehicle Emission Reduction Regulation and Integrated Resource Planning for utilities.
Both the Liberals and NDP state that British Columbia must stabilize its greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Yet, neither party has committed itself to the concrete measures necessary to achieve this requirement. True, there are certain steps that the federal government has to take that are out of the province's hands. Nevertheless, there are lots of things the province should do, but so far it hasn't.
For example, fuel from biomass: biomass sources such as woodwaste, grain or pulpmill waste can be converted into ethanol or "biodiesel" which can be blended with gasoline and diesel. This technology is within reach: Mohawk already sells gasoline blended with ethanol. Why aren't the other gasoline producers selling it too?
Fuel from biomass is estimated to be potentially the single most effective item in the province's so-called Greenhouse Gas Action Plan. The plan suggests a legal requirement that gasoline and diesel fuel be blended with 10% fuel from biomass. The Progressive Democratic Alliance and the Green Party both support this initiative. The NDP and Liberals should too.
The parties' responses
The NDP responded to WCELA's election questionnaire by saying it would not implement a biomass-based fuel requirement "at this time." This contradicts the NDP's promise to implement or evaluate all the action points in the Action Plan. This unwillingness to consider the implementation of such an important item in the Action Plan strikes at the credibility of the entire plan.
The Liberal Party's response on global warming was no better, and, indeed shows a poor understanding of the issue. The Liberals say that they would download responsibility for fuel standards to regional governments.
This makes little sense, either economically or environmentally. Gasoline and diesel are produced at a few refineries and distributed throughout the province. For a provincially distributed product, it is not efficient to have standards which vary from region to region.
Blending fuels
Blending gas and diesel with fuel from biomass will not in and of itself solve the global warming problem. But it would be one practical step that the provincial government could take. BC's emissions of carbon dioxide grew 9% from 1990 to 1994 - one of the highest rates in the world for a developed economy. This comes at a time when we are supposed to be stabilizing our greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels. It's time for BC's leading political parties to commit to meaningful action.
must cease... |
Least credible: "The Liberal Party will introduce new and progressive legislation on environmental issues." Yet, the Party assures the mining and forest industries that it will rewrite the Environmental Assessment Act and the Forest Practices Code.
Most overdue: "The British Columbia Environmental Protection Act is part of the NDP Environmental Action Plan. It will be the major environmental protection act of the government."
Most cautious: The NDP is "studying" the recommendation of the Commissioner of Information that digital maps used for land use planning be sold to non-profit groups at a reduced price. Even the Liberals went farther, by saying they support the Commissioner's decision on digital maps.
Least surprising: The Liberal Party would dismantle Forest Renewal BC, but it wouldn't let the forest companies keep the money.
Most thoughtful: The Green Party proposes to "return all restoration responsibilities to the government, funded by substantially higher stumpage fee revenues, (as soon as) all forest companies are able to compete on an equal footing competitively for forest cutting rights."
Most predictable: The Social Credit Party did not respond to the questions at all.
Most words with least answer: The Liberal Party talks a lot about its Living Rivers Plan but does not commit to amending the Water Act to protect instream flows (making sure that when water licences are granted there is enough water left in the stream for fish and other life.)
Most unanimous: The NDP, Liberals, Greens and PDA all commit to regulating both the quantity and quality of groundwater. The Reform Party isn't specific.
Most ominous: The Liberal Party says it will protect endangered species when it is "warranted and viable." Isn't protecting an endangered species always warranted?
Most familiar: The NDP commits itself to strengthening the Wildlife Act and listing more species endangered. Sound like the last election?
Most astute: Regarding the 12% quota for protected areas, the PDA notes that "rather than using the current arbitrary 12% of each administrative region ... we should be striving to protect 12% of each unique ecosystem in BC."
Least partisan: The Liberal Party has picked up on the idea of a Trust for BC Lands, first developed under NDP environment minister John Cashore.
Most auspicious: The idea of a property tax incentive for private landowners who grant permanent legal protection for environmental features of some or all of their land was supported by the Greens, the Liberals, the PDA and Reform. And, the NDP (Most cautious again) said they would consider it.
Most silly: The Reform Party: "We have not received any conclusive evidence that human emissions of greenhouse gasses are causing global climate change."
|
|
