An article from Fatima Syed at actual news site The Narwhal, “‘We’re incredibly responsible’: Enbridge Gas president dismisses Canada’s emissions cap,” reads like an article from satirical news site The Beaverton.
The Gas President’s complaints include that government incentives being paid out to their for-profit, ecosystem-destroying industry are insufficient (“tepid, fragmented”).
The threat is to move business to the US unless Canada does a better job at capitulation. “The goal should be clear, well-designed regulatory frameworks that offer certainty to investors,” she says, referencing the only “stakeholders” whose interests matter, I guess.
“‘More nuclear and more oil, more renewables, more carbon capture, more efficiency, more innovation and more natural gas,’ she says.” More consumption, more!
And it’s not even satire.
In environmental law in law school, I formed the opinion that the Earth can’t win.
Maybe, improbably, someone has the time and money to prove to rigorous legal and scientific standards that So and So Corp did the polluting that directly caused a quantifiable harm. There are a surprising number of legal hurdles to defending the planet, but let’s assume a case gets to the remedy stage.
Here are the types of remedies I observed:
(a) a fine that’s a minor percentage of profit (also known as: the cost of doing business),
(b) a fine that’s large enough to trigger corporate shapeshifting that ensures the polluter doesn’t have to pay, and
(c) a fine the size of which is irrelevant because the government retroactively indemnifies So and So Corp.
That is an actual thing in environmental law, the Doug Ford government’s decision to overrule the Ontario Energy Board to protect corporate profits reminded me.
After law school, working in regulations, I formed the impression that present day Canadian environmental law for corporations boils down to basically: “do what you want, as long as you keep records.”
That sounds cynical, but it’s consistent with the critique that Liberal governments’ primary concern is generating paperwork, not helping citizens. See also, the proposed federal oil and gas emissions cap to which the Gas President objects:
Senior government officials said their modeling showed the industry’s production levels would grow 16 per cent between 2019 and 2032 with their proposed emissions cap rules in place, versus 17 per cent projected growth without a cap.
Over a hundred pages in the Gazette for a one-percent difference in industry greenhouse gas emissions eight years from now.
No wonder more overtly capitalist governments don’t want to wait for environmental assessments to finish before starting construction projects, if it’s pointless paperwork and a foregone conclusion. I’d be annoyed too.
My preference would be for governments that prioritize a planet with breathable air and drinkable water over corporate profit, but that doesn’t seem to be on offer.
Environmental law: not even satire
An article from Fatima Syed at actual news site The Narwhal, “‘We’re incredibly responsible’: Enbridge Gas president dismisses Canada’s emissions cap,” reads like an article from satirical news site The Beaverton.
The Gas President’s complaints include that government incentives being paid out to their for-profit, ecosystem-destroying industry are insufficient (“tepid, fragmented”).
The threat is to move business to the US unless Canada does a better job at capitulation. “The goal should be clear, well-designed regulatory frameworks that offer certainty to investors,” she says, referencing the only “stakeholders” whose interests matter, I guess.
“‘More nuclear and more oil, more renewables, more carbon capture, more efficiency, more innovation and more natural gas,’ she says.” More consumption, more!
And it’s not even satire.
In environmental law in law school, I formed the opinion that the Earth can’t win.
Maybe, improbably, someone has the time and money to prove to rigorous legal and scientific standards that So and So Corp did the polluting that directly caused a quantifiable harm. There are a surprising number of legal hurdles to defending the planet, but let’s assume a case gets to the remedy stage.
Here are the types of remedies I observed:
That is an actual thing in environmental law, the Doug Ford government’s decision to overrule the Ontario Energy Board to protect corporate profits reminded me.
After law school, working in regulations, I formed the impression that present day Canadian environmental law for corporations boils down to basically: “do what you want, as long as you keep records.”
That sounds cynical, but it’s consistent with the critique that Liberal governments’ primary concern is generating paperwork, not helping citizens. See also, the proposed federal oil and gas emissions cap to which the Gas President objects:
Over a hundred pages in the Gazette for a one-percent difference in industry greenhouse gas emissions eight years from now.
No wonder more overtly capitalist governments don’t want to wait for environmental assessments to finish before starting construction projects, if it’s pointless paperwork and a foregone conclusion. I’d be annoyed too.
My preference would be for governments that prioritize a planet with breathable air and drinkable water over corporate profit, but that doesn’t seem to be on offer.