|
Home > Issues > Letters to the Editors > Letter
A version of the following letter was published on the Toronto Star web site on November 2, 2006.
November 2, 2006
re: "Clearing the air on Clean Air Act", Wheels (Toronto Star), October 29, 2006
Gerry Malloy claims that CO2 is not a pollutant, which is incorrect by Canada's legal definition for pollution under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). This definition is critical, as under the Kyoto Protocol which Canada ratified, we have a duty to act under Section 166 of CEPA to deal with international greenhouse gas pollution.
Under section 3 of CEPA, "air pollution" is defined as a condition of the air, arising wholly or partly from the presence in the air of any substance, that directly or indirectly (a) endangers the health, safety or welfare of humans; (b) interferes with the normal enjoyment of life or property; (c) endangers the health of animal life; (d) causes damage to plant life or to property; or (e) degrades or alters, or forms part of a process of degradation or alteration of, an ecosystem to an extent that is detrimental to its use by humans, animals or plants.
There is more than ample evidence that greenhouse gases released from sources in Canada do some or all of the above. For the definition to take effect, it is only necessary for one of the five categories to be so affected, and not necessary for any of them to be faced or experienced in Canada.
If, as Malloy admits elsewhere, CO2 will seriously damage earth's climate, then why would he not define and categorize it as such? And why would he let the auto industry off so lightly for fighting tooth and nail against stronger Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (CAFE) with technical excuses, while he claims their compliance with weakened standards is such a blessing to society?
Peter Shepherd
Toronto, Ontario
----------
Second letter sent to the Toronto Star:
November 2, 2006
re: "Clearing the air on Clean Air Act", Wheels (Toronto Star), October 29, 2006
Gerry Malloy is right to point out that new cars generate far less smog-forming gases than old cars, but inaccurate and inconsistent in describing emissions and pollution. However the chief flaw in his rhetoric is a critical omission: the Canadian auto industry already has the technological expertise to build cars that cause much less carbon pollution, but it hasn’t voluntarily made these improvements in the past.
First, the inaccuracies: when Malloy lists the primary types of emissions from cars, he omits CO2, and subsequently refers to the CO2 "emissions" in quotes, as if they're somehow less real or significant than other forms of pollution. He then later mistakenly claims that CO2 is not a pollutant, when what he really means is that it is not directly “toxic”. To say that CO2 is not a pollutant is incorrect by Canada's legal definition for pollution under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
And why would Malloy let the auto industry off so lightly for fighting tooth and nail against stronger Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFÉ) standards with technical excuses, while he boasts their compliance with weakened CAFE standards such a blessing to society?
What Malloy neglected to point out was that the last voluntary agreement between Canada and automakers, signed in 1982, failed to improve the average fuel efficiency of Canada’s vehicle fleet. For example, Canada’s vehicles are much less efficient than those of the EU, Japan, Australia, and China.
If Malloy truly wants to set himself apart from the Conservatives' environmental double-speak, he would do better to admit that mandatory regulation by government is critical to fighting climate change, not just voluntary agreements without hard, short targets and caps on carbon emissions.
Peter Shepherd
Toronto, Ontario
|
