Action by Canadian Governments, Nationally and Internationally

Once existing policies and programs have been reviewed, governments can begin to develop new programs that actually discourage damaging activities and encourage beneficial practices. The most popular way for governments to discourage damaging activities is through regulation, and in the past two decades a significant number of environmental regulations have been developed by all levels of government. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of these regulations has varied considerably because the level of enforcement has been low. Governments must be committed to enforcing these regulations if they are to work effectively. Unfortunately, with so many environmental regulations currently on the books in Canada, the cost of enforcement has skyrocketed. Logistically, there are too many potential pollution sources and not nearly enough enforcement officers. In addition, the cost of establishing a legal case against alleged polluters is prohibitive.

In response to this dilemma, governments in Canada are beginning to take a less adversarial approach to environmental control. Instead of setting standards and enforcing limits, governments are examining and considering economic disincentives that are designed to discourage environmentally unsound activities. One recently suggested example is the imposition of a carbon tax on fossil fuels. The amount of the tax would reflect the level of greenhouse gas emissions associated with that fuel. By increasing the cost of fossil fuels, consumption would likely fall in the same way that consumption fell during the oil crisis in the late 1970s. Revenue from the tax could then be used to provide incentives for using alternative forms of energy that do not emit greenhouse gases. Alternatively, tradable permits for pollution emissions or resource consumption have been suggested. According to permit advocates, the establishment of a market in these permits would ensure that a sustainable consumption or emission target would be achieved at the lowest possible economic cost.

An alternative to more taxes would be government subsidies to encourage reduced fuel or resource consumption. These subsidies could be given to manufacturers of fuel efficient vehicles, furnaces or appliances. Subsidies would make these products less expensive to manufacture and ultimately less expensive to purchase, thereby encouraging their popularity and use.

Another simple, but very effective way to reduce energy consumption is through an increase in fuel efficiency standards for new automobiles. Unlike emissions standards that require regular testing and surveillance, these efficiency standards can be easily enforced at the point of sale or import. Governments are notoriously slow to act on contentious or uncertain issues, and global change, despite the magnitude of the potential outcome, is still associated with a great deal of uncertainty. On the other hand, corporations have shown us time and again that when faced with an inescapable hurdle, they are able to adapt and adjust with incredible speed and efficiency. For this reason, raising fuel efficiency standards and leaving it up to the corporations to decide how to meet that standard is a very effective way to stimulate quick action.

Governments should also play a role in educating Canadians about global change issues and in explaining how individuals can contribute to solutions. For the most part, Canadians like to think of themselves as having a great deal of concern for the environment. Over the last half decade, the environment has consistently ranked among the top five concerns for Canadians in opinion polls, this despite the recent recession. Governments should tap into that concern and help to transform it into action. Programs should be developed to inform people of the causes of global change and the things that individuals can do to make a difference. Other programs should try to make it easier for individuals to change wasteful habits and lifestyles. The Government of Canada's Environmental Choice program is one such example. With all the marketing hype over environmentally friendly products, consumers are finding it difficult to separate sales pitch from substance. The Environmental Choice symbol indicates that the product has been tested and does truly represent a more environmentally sensitive option.

At the international level, Canada spends roughly 0.4% of its GNP on foreign aid. Although Canada has committed itself to raising its contribution to the internationally accepted standard of 0.7%, a deadline for meeting that commitment has not been set. Much of Canada's current contribution goes toward addressing the symptoms of global change such as hunger and disease, but some Canadian money also goes to funding large scale, resource extraction development projects that often serve to speed up rather than slow down global change. In response to environmental concerns, international development agencies such as the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the World Bank are now assessing their projects for potential environmental impacts prior to approval. This is a significant step in the right direction, but international agencies must start to take a more strategic approach to funding by targeting a portion of their funds directly at the causes of global change.

In addition to aid, Canada has already entered into negotiations with developing countries on the issue of debt repayment. At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Brazil, Canada offered to convert up to $145 million of debt in Latin America in return for promises on the part of developing countries to protect their environment and invest in sustainable development initiatives. Other countries have entered into similar `debt for nature' swaps.