radiofree.asia

Category: Press Release

  • The charges against Imperial Oil are necessary but do not substitute for reform of the provincial energy regulator

    ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE CANADA, ALBERTA BEYOND FOSSIL FUELS, ALBERTA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION,  CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, CANADIAN PARKS AND WILDERNESS SOCIETY NORTHERN ALBERTA, CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK CANADA  – RÉSEAU ACTION CLIMAT,  COUNCIL OF CANADIANS- EDMONTON CHAPTER, INDIGENOUS CLIMATE ACTION, KEEPERS OF THE WATER

    Joint Statement by Indigenous and environmental groups on the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) laying nine charges against Imperial Oil for releasing toxic tailings waste at its Kearl mine in February 2023.

    Treaty 6 Territory | Edmonton – After two years of tireless work by Indigenous communities, environmental organizations, and the public demanding governments hold Imperial Oil accountable for its egregious behaviour, the AER has finally laid charges against the company. It is a victory that Imperial Oil will have to face the courts for releasing millions of litres of toxic waste into the environment.

    Yet, this enforcement does not change the need for urgent regulatory reform in Alberta. Imperial Oil was only charged when public pressure grew too big to ignore. It is not the job of impacted communities and their allies to police the regulator. Albertans need a regulator that lives up to its mandate: protecting the environment and public health rather than working for corporate interests. 

    The Imperial Oil disaster is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to toxic contamination from the oil sands. A recent report from the ecologist Dr. Timoney revealed that the AER does not investigate 97 per cent of cases where a company signals a tailings spill, contradicting its claim of conducting “routine inspections”. The report also found that contrary to the AER’s assertion that there has been no environmental impact from tailings spills between 2014 and 2023, 50 per cent of reported spills with images show visible environmental degradation. 

    In light of these findings as well as the charges laid on Imperial Oil, the federal and Alberta governments must launch immediate investigations into every tailing pond in the oil sands. While retroactive charges for past spills should be considered, the immediate priority is uncovering and prosecuting any ongoing leaks and spills.

    We are still awaiting the federal government to lay charges against Imperial Oil for the Kearl disaster under the Fisheries Act. We are also awaiting provincial charges for the leak that occurred at Kearl, which Imperial Oil hid from communities and the public for nine months. The Kearl leak and spill were one of the largest tailings incidents to date, and Imperial Oil must face commensurate consequences for every violation it committed.   

    Premier Smith must replace the AER with a body that is independent from the industry it regulates, and which shares authority with the Indigenous nations whose right it is to have a say about what happens on their territory. The era of unchecked environmental damage in the Alberta oil sands must come to an end.

    Background:

    • The Imperial Oil tailings disaster allowed 5.3 million litres of toxic wastewater to overflow into the environment and an additional unknown volume of tailings to leak off-site. The leak was kept a secret from local Indigenous communities and the federal government for nine months. 
    • In May 2023, the Federal government announced it had opened an investigation into the incident under the Fisheries Act. No public updates have been issued since.
    • The tar sands’ tailings “ponds” now contain over 1.4 trillion litres of waste, covering an area more than 2.6 times the size of Vancouver.
    • For more information about tar sands tailings “ponds” please see this fact sheet

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Alex Ross, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    Andy Kubrin, Alberta Beyond Fossil Fuels, kubrin.andy@gmail.com

    Phillip Meintzer, Alberta Wilderness Association pmeintzer@abwild.ca

    Dakota Norris, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment dakota@cape.ca

    Kaitlyn Philip, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Northern Alberta, kphilip@cpaws.org

    Jesse Cardinal, Keepers of the Water, ed@keepersofthewater.ca

    Veronica Fuentes, Indigenous Climate Action, veronica@indigenousclimateaction.com

    Vicky Koo, Climate Action Network Canada, vickycoo@climateactionnetwork.ca

    The post The charges against Imperial Oil are necessary but do not substitute for reform of the provincial energy regulator appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Statement: The Federal EV Incentive Program Pause was Preventable

    Statement from Nate Wallace, Clean Transportation Program Manager

    Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – Today, Environmental Defence issued a statement in response to the news from Transport Canada indicating that the federal electric vehicle incentive program will run out of funding before March 31st, 2025, and is set to pause.

    “The federal government has long known that due to rapidly growing electric vehicle sales, funding for the iZEV program was going to run out early in 2025. There was an opportunity in Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s recent Fall Economic Statement to include stopgap funding to top up the program and prevent this from occurring. Its omission indicates a significant lack of foresight, and it means Canadians are now paying the price. Effective climate policies like the iZEV program that tie emissions reductions with measures that reduce the cost of living should not fall victim to the chaos in Ottawa. As Canada approaches a likely early federal election, we hope that all political parties indicate their support for the return of a similar program that helps Canadians afford zero-emission vehicles.”

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Karishma Porwal, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Statement: The Federal EV Incentive Program Pause was Preventable appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Statement: Regulators Must Heed Experts Sounding Alarm on Toxic Chemicals Linked to Multiple Children’s Diseases

    Statement from Cassie Barker, Senior Program Manager for Toxics, Environmental Defence

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – We echo the researchers sounding the alarm this week on the urgent need to regulate toxics linked to increasing diseases in children. Federal regulators have the power to better protect our kids and future generations from preventable suffering and death. They must act now.

    Without stronger rules, the chemicals and plastics industry will continue to prioritize profits over children’s health. Governments must stand up for stronger toxics laws and champion industry-reforming regulations. For example, they can advance much-needed restrictions on PFAS “forever chemicals”, phthalates and bisphenols — known carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. It should go without saying that children’s health must be put first. There is no time to waste when it comes to protecting our youngest and most vulnerable from these known and emerging harms.

    Background: 

    • The research group, the Consortium for Children’s Environmental Health, published “Manufactured Chemicals and Children’s Health — The Need for New Law” in the New England Journal of Medicine on January 8, 2025. The article is available here (subscription required)
    • The research highlights that, in the past 50 years, exposure-related health harms for children have increased significantly, stating that “chemicals and plastics is a major planetary challenge that is worsening rapidly,” and that this “endangers the world’s children and threatens humanity’s capacity for reproduction. Inaction on chemicals is no longer an option.”
    • Researchers flagged that there are 350,000 chemicals, mixtures and plastics on the market and that this ever-increasing number of substances is increasingly being linked to harms such as:
      • Pediatric asthma, which has tripled in the past 50 years in the US
      • Childhood cancer, which has increased by 35%
      • Neurodevelopmental disorders, affecting one in six children, including one in 36 children who are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder
    • The research group has also launched a law and industry reform initiative focused on pre-market proof of safety for all synthetic chemicals, implementing rigorous post-market health monitoring, and using Global Treaties and National Legal Frameworks for protecting children’s health from the harm being caused by toxic chemicals.
    • Last year, Environmental Defence identified several harmful chemicals in children’s products, including highly toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” coatings on children’s winter gloves, and neurodevelopmental-harming phthalates on children’s toys, electronics, and shoe charms.
    • Polling shows that 4 out of 5 people living in Canada want action on plastics and PFAS, and are concerned about the health and environmental impacts of this toxic class of chemicals.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Lauren Thomas, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Statement: Regulators Must Heed Experts Sounding Alarm on Toxic Chemicals Linked to Multiple Children’s Diseases appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Federal Government’s Refusal to Designate Highway 413 for Impact Assessment is Disappointing and Reduces the Tools Available to Properly Protect Federal Environmental Values  

    Statement by Tim Gray, Executive Director

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – Ontarians are being let down by the federal government’s decision to not put back in place a federal impact assessment for Highway 413.

    By refusing to assess the many dangers Highway 413 would pose in areas of federal responsibility, Minister Guilbeault, Prime Minister Trudeau, and MPs in the government caucus are reducing the number of tools at their disposal to properly ensure the survival of federally protected endangered species, fish habitat and the cultural values of Indigenous Nations.

    The decision now leaves federal Ministers and MPs with only a few tools to prevent the environmental destruction that would be unleashed if Highway 413 is built. For example, the federal government’s own recovery strategy for the endangered redside dace fish identifies construction, paved surfaces and urban sprawl (which is induced by highways such as Highway 413) as the “most immediate threats to the species.” The government now must issue a protection order prohibiting those activities everywhere they’d impact the species’ habitat, which includes much of Highway 413’s route. That order is due on January 25th, 2025.

    In addition, the federal government will now have no legitimate basis for issuing the federal Species at Risk Act permits that would be required to build Highway 413. A federal impact assessment of Highway 413 would have given Canada’s Minister of Fisheries, Minister of the Environment and other federal decision-makers clarity on critical information when permits will be sought by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. By not designating Highway 413 under the Impact Assessment Act, it is now impossible for federal decision makers to understand how to best mitigate cumulative impacts on the environment, and to understand species at risk and conditions downstream.

    There are 29 federally listed species at risk located along the proposed Highway 413 route and species such as the western chorus frog, redside dace and silver shiner could be extirpated from Ontario or Canada if Highway 413 is allowed to go ahead. These concerns were recently highlighted in a letter signed by over 100 scientists and sent to Minister Guilbeault. A Minister’s Emergency orders under the federal Species at Risk Act may now be necessary to stop these species from disappearing forever. A sad commentary on both our provincial and federal governments.

    Background Information:

    • This decision to not designate Highway 413 for impact assessment cannot be explained by any concerns about the federal government overstepping its jurisdictional limits. While a Supreme Court advisory opinion temporarily undermined the Impact Assessment Designation process, those vulnerabilities were eliminated with the passage of an amended revised Impact Assessment Act in June 2024. The amended Act clearly restored legislative authority to redesignate Highway 413, and other highways that pose such clear dangers within areas of federal responsibility, for an impact assessment.
    • The Memorandum of Understanding between Canada and Ontario also carefully safeguards Canada’s freedom to designate Highway 413 for an impact assessment.
    • A federal impact assessment for Highway 413 would not have been duplicative of processes that fall within provincial jurisdiction, like local traffic volume and construction opportunity costs. The provincial government recently passed Bill 212 to exempt the provincial aspects of the Highway 413 proposal from Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act and Greenbelt Act, and the federal government wasn’t being asked to overturn that exemption.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact: Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Federal Government’s Refusal to Designate Highway 413 for Impact Assessment is Disappointing and Reduces the Tools Available to Properly Protect Federal Environmental Values   appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Federal Clean Electricity Regulations Come up Short

    Environmental Defence Urges the Government to Strengthen the Clean Electricity Regulations

    Statement by Keith Brooks, Programs Director, on the federal Clean Electricity Regulations

    Canada abandoning its pledge to a net-zero grid by 2035

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – We are disappointed that the federal government significantly watered down the Clean Electricity Regulations (CER), finalized today. The weakening of these regulations equate to an abandonment of the Prime Minister’s promise to Canadians of a net-zero electricity grid by 2035.

    A clean electricity grid is the backbone of the energy transition. As we electrify energy end use with heat pumps, electric cars, and electric arc furnaces, for example, it’s crucial that the electricity grid itself is also decarbonized.

    Canada is in an enviable position when it comes to our electricity supply. Our grid is already 82 per cent decarbonized. We have abundant wind, water, and solar resources. An emissions-free electricity grid is achievable over the course of the next decade, but the Clean Electricity Regulations fail to require provinces to reach for that goal.

    It is shameful that provinces like Ontario and Alberta pushed so aggressively to weaken these rules. Alberta spent millions of dollars on a misleading advertising campaign, fear mongering about the risks of a decarbonized grid, while Ontario has been gunning for the regulations since day one, determined to build more gas plants. By siding with fossil fuel interests and prioritizing short-term private gains over long-term public benefits, these provincial governments are saddling Canadians with a dirtier electricity system and higher costs at a time when the rest of the world is accelerating its transition to renewables.

    A stronger CER would have meant a huge increase in investments in renewable projects that bring local jobs and revenue, on top of supplying Canadians with clean, affordable and reliable power. Instead, these regulations act as a feeble backstop that will simply prevent some, but not all, new gas plants from being added to the electricity system.

    Background Information:

    • The Prime Minister committed at COP26 and again in Canada’s climate plan to deliver a net-zero electricity grid by 2035, a cornerstone of the country’s net-zero economy-wide goal by 2050.
    • Modelling has shown that Canada can reach 100 percent zero-emissions electricity by 2035, even while building new generation to account for increased electricity demand.
    • Natural gas is not a cleaner “bridge fuel” that can act as an intermediary between coal and renewable energy. In addition to emissions from combustion, methane leaks throughout the supply chain significantly increase its climate impact. Current analysis finds that when accounting for these “fugitive emissions” and methane gas’ powerful impact on the climate in the short term, gas is no better, and perhaps even worse than coal when burned to generate electricity.
    • While global renewable energy installations surged by 50 per cent last year, and G7 leaders committed to net-zero electricity systems by 2035, Canada risks falling behind due to inadequate policies.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Carolyn Townend, Environmental Defence
    media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Federal Clean Electricity Regulations Come up Short appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Polling Shows GTA Voters Would Punish Federal Liberals if They Fail to Designate 413 for Impact Assessment and Protect Habitat and Waterways

    Federal Liberal incumbents would lose significant support if they fail to act to protect environmental values within federal jurisdiction

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – As January 2025 deadlines near for federal decisions to require impact assessment and protect a key endangered species along the 413 route, a large, fine-grained poll of GTA voters, commissioned by Environmental Defence, shows that they would punish Federal Liberals for deciding not to act.

    Across the GTA, Liberal support would fall from 20 per cent to 11 per cent if the government decides to let Highway 413 proceed without an independent federal impact assessment. The damage would be especially severe in the cluster of Liberal-held seats in southern Toronto, where the LPC would shed more than half its support, falling to third, behind the NDP and Conservatives. However, Liberal incumbents would also suffer along the 413 route – in those areas, Liberal support would drop by six points, to just 16 per cent.

    The consequences would be even more stark if the federal Liberals refuse to use federal jurisdiction to protect endangered species habitat and navigable waterways from the proposed Highway 413. More than half of GTA Liberal voters say they’d vote for another party, or withhold their vote altogether, if that happens. In southern Toronto’s Liberal-held ridings, LPC support would plummet to 11 per cent, less than one third the 36 per cent that would go to the NDP, their main competitors in that region. However, allowing Ontario to destroy endangered species habitat for 413 would also see Liberal incumbents relegated to third place in their seats near the highway’s proposed route.

    There are 29 federally listed species at risk of extinction along the 413 highway corridor, and at least 24 navigable waterways. It is clear from the federal government’s own Recovery Strategy and Action Plan for the Redside Dace that much of the most important remaining Redside Dace habitat would be either directly or indirectly destroyed if current plans for 413 are allowed to proceed.

    “Driving species to extinction, bulldozing through the Greenbelt and destroying rivers for an unnecessary and costly highway that will make gridlock worse is a bad idea. Ontarians expect the mega-highway to be thoroughly evaluated for alternatives and impact risks. This polling shows that the people of Ontario expect the federal government to do its job and protect the values under its jurisdiction,” says Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence.

    Background information: 

    • The Minister of Environment and Climate Change must decide whether the federal government will re-designate Highway 413 for a federal impact assessment by January 19, 2025 and the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard must issue a habitat protection order for Redside Dace by January 25, 2025.
    • For its part, the Ontario government has recently cancelled Environmental Assessment Act coverage of the Highway 413 project and previously gutted the provincial Endangered Species Act. Premier Ford has publicly dismissed the need for considering the environmental impacts of the Highway.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Carolyn Townend, Environmental Defence
    media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Polling Shows GTA Voters Would Punish Federal Liberals if They Fail to Designate 413 for Impact Assessment and Protect Habitat and Waterways appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • STATEMENT: Government’s New Climate Target Cements Canada’s Position as a Global Laggard

    Pollution

    Statement by Julia Levin, Associate Director, National Climate, Environmental Defence

    Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – The Government of Canada’s new greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2035 is deeply disappointing, and signals that the government is not committed to the clean energy future that Canadians are demanding. A target of 45 to 50 per cent reductions from 2005 levels by 2035 represents no meaningful increase in ambition from Canada’s current 2030 target.

    Targets matter. The 2035 target sets a marker to guide the next decade of climate action for all levels of government, industry, and Canadians.

    This new target represents a failure on the part of the Government of Canada to see that Canada does its global fair share. In recent advice to the government, the Net Zero Advisory Body made clear that even a 50 to 55 per cent reduction wouldn’t represent Canada doing its fair share in reducing greenhouse gas pollution.

    This disappointing target cements Canada’s position as a global climate laggard. Despite being one of the world’s top emitters, Canada has not achieved the same level of emissions reductions as other wealthy nations. While it’s true that current geopolitics brings much uncertainty, other countries are putting forth much more ambitious climate strategies. For example, the United Kingdom, the first major economy to have halved emissions from 1990, has recently committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 81 per cent from 1990 levels by 2035.

    Provincial governments share the blame. Instead of pushing the federal government to develop ambitious climate action strategies, many provincial governments have challenged every single environmental and climate policy the government has proposed. Many have stooped to spreading misinformation concerning the cost of climate action.

    Canadians are dealing with unnatural disasters and other climate change impacts – including risks to health, lost livelihoods, property damage, mounting home insurance costs and increasing food prices. These will only keep increasing unless Canada seriously commits to replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy.

    Canadians are calling for governments to do just that. New polling shows that a majority of Canadians want governments in Canada to phase out our dependence on fossil fuels and prioritize renewable energy. Yet this new emissions reduction target shows that the government is failing millions of Canadians calling for real change.

    A strong climate plan isn’t just about reducing pollution levels, it’s about building a country which can thrive in the 21st century. It’s also about protecting the lives of Canadians – today and future generations. We know this decade is crucial. There is no time to waste.

    Additional Information:

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

     

    The post STATEMENT: Government’s New Climate Target Cements Canada’s Position as a Global Laggard appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Environmental and Health Professionals Call for Investigation into Alberta Oil and Gas Company’s Failure to Report Air Emissions

    CALGARY/TERRITORIES OF THE BLACKFOOT AND PEOPLES OF TREATIES 6 AND 7, HOME TO MÉTIS NATION OF ALBERTA, REGION III — Environmental and health groups are calling on the federal government to investigate Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) in light of data showing many of its oil and gas facilities in Alberta are failing to report dangerous emissions, including benzene, volatile organic compounds and fine particulate matter, to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI).

    The NPRI is Canada’s source of information on the largest emitters of pollutants to air, land and water. Annual reporting is a legal requirement under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). A comparison of the production data in Alberta’s Petrinex system shows systemic underreporting throughout the industry.

    Ecojustice, on behalf of Alberta Wilderness Association, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) and Environmental Defence, filed an Application for Investigation saying that industry interests do not come before community health and the public’s legal right to know about pollutants in their neighborhoods.

    The groups allege that more than 500 — or more than 17 per cent — of certain types of oil and gas facilities owned by CNRL failed to report to the NPRI in 2022.

    Under CEPA, the government has the power to impose penalties as high as $250,000 for the first failure to meet reporting requirements offense and $500,000 for subsequent offenses. Fines under CEPA are credited to the Environmental Damages Fund, which are used for purposes related to protecting, conserving or restoring the environment.

    So far, the government has not fined CNRL for its failure to report emissions.

    The groups warn that there are likely thousands more facilities in the province failing to comply with the law given a recent study of the air quality around Alberta’s oilsands that found that emissions levels were 20-64 times higher than reported by industry.

    Representatives from the groups made the following statements:

    Susanne Calabrese, Ecojustice lawyer said: 

    “In the last three years alone, CNRL has raked in almost $9 billion in average annual profits each year. No company, including multi-billion-dollar ones, should be given a free pass when they break the law.

    “Minister Guilbeault has the power to send a strong message to industry: Failure to report emissions to the NPRI has financial consequences. It’s time for the federal government to use its legal tools to ensure companies uphold their reporting obligations and protect community safety and environmental health.”

    Phillip Meintzer, Alberta Wilderness Association Conservation Specialist, said: 
    “If more than 500 facilities from just a single company are failing to report pollution data, then the problem is likely much larger than we know. CNRL’s lack of reporting and the absence of penalties for doing so highlights a dereliction of duty by the Canadian government with the enforcement of CEPA and ensuring that companies meet their environmental obligations.”

    Dr. Joe Vipond, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment Past President and emergency physician said: “The failure of CNRL to report dangerous emissions is not just a regulatory oversight – it’s a direct threat to people’s health. The toxins released from CNRL facilities are linked to higher rates of cancers, reproductive harms, and more. The federal government must launch an immediate investigation into CNRL’s grievous legal noncompliance in order to protect our communities and uphold environmental justice. It must then take steps to address such systemic underreporting so as to prevent harmful exposures.”

    Emilia Belliveau, Environmental Defence Energy Transition Program Manager said:
    “CNRL is a bad neighbour. By failing to accurately report its harmful pollution, it has put the health of communities at risk. Since oil companies clearly cannot be trusted to accurately report their pollution, the government must investigate that failure and deliver penalties where necessary.”

    Background 

    • The NPRI was created to give Canadians access to accurate information about industry pollution in their communities.
    • The NPRI is a starting point for monitoring local air quality and its potential health-impacts, and for encouraging actions to reduce pollution.
    • The unreported emissions that the groups are concerned about include benzene, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), among others.
    • Benzene is a known carcinogen that can impact the reproductive system.
    • VOCs have been linked to premature births, lung disease and cancer.
    • Breathing in unhealthy levels of PM2.5 can increase the risk of health problems like heart disease, asthma, and low birth weight.

    About  

    Ecojustice uses the power of the law to defend nature, combat climate change and fight for a healthy environment. Its strategic, public interest lawsuits and advocacy lead to precedent-setting court decisions, law and policy that deliver lasting solutions to Canada’s most urgent environmental problems. As Canada’s largest environmental law charity, Ecojustice operates offices in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa and Halifax.

    Alberta Wilderness Association is the oldest Alberta-based environmental conservation group with more than 7,500 members and supporters in Alberta and around the world. AWA seeks the completion of a protected areas network and good stewardship of Alberta’s public lands, waters, and biodiversity to ensure future generations enjoy the abundant benefits they provide.

    The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) is a physician-directed non-profit organization working to secure human health by protecting the planet. Since its founding in 1994, CAPE’s work has achieved substantial policy victories in collaboration with many partners in the environmental and health movements. From coast to coast to coast, the organization operates throughout the country with regional committees active in most provinces and all territories.

    Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Tamara Latinovic, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Environmental and Health Professionals Call for Investigation into Alberta Oil and Gas Company’s Failure to Report Air Emissions appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • New Poll: More than Half of Canadians Support Government Action to Phase Out Fossil Fuels and Prioritize Renewable Energy

    Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – The majority of Canadians want to see governments in Canada tackle the climate crisis by prioritizing renewable energy and phasing out fossil fuels, according to a poll commissioned by Environmental Defence and conducted by Abacus Data.

    The survey found that more than half of Canadians – 53 per cent – want governments to phase out the use and production of fossil fuels, while only 36 per cent are opposed. Support is strongest in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. 75 per cent of Liberal voters, 72 per cent of NDP voters, 37 per cent of Conservative Party voters and 63 per cent of Green Party voters support this type of climate policy. 

    “The results are clear and governments at all levels should pay attention. Canadians recognize that fossil fuels are causing the climate crisis and want to see governments act to phase out the production and use of coal, oil and gas. Yet even as the damages from climate change increase, including wildfires, heatwaves and floods, the federal and provincial governments have largely failed to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Some provinces are even trying to stop federal efforts to reduce fossil fuel pollution. Urgent climate action is necessary – and Canadians are calling for it,” said Julia Levin, Associate Director, National Climate, Environmental Defence.

    Furthermore, a majority of Canadians – 54 per cent – prefer prioritizing renewable energy sources over fossil fuel production. Only 11 per cent of Canadians want to see fossil fuels prioritized over renewable energy. Even in Alberta, which has the lowest support for renewable energy, only 18 per cent of respondents want to see fossil fuels prioritized.

    “Despite the Alberta government’s best efforts to stall the development of affordable, clean renewable energy, most Albertans support its development,” said Stephen Legault, Senior Manager, Alberta Energy Transition, Environmental Defence. “The future of Alberta’s energy-based economy depends on advancing wind, solar and battery storage technologies. Albertans understand this. Our government needs to stop impeding clean energy development.”

    Lastly, the results show that only one third of Canadians – 35 per cent – place any degree of trust in oil and gas companies.

    “Oil and gas companies have spent decades lying to Canadians about their role in driving climate change and the unnatural disasters that we’re all experiencing. It’s no wonder so few Canadians put any trust in the industry,” added Levin.

    For full polling data, please see here.

    The survey was conducted by Abacus Data with 2,700 Canadians over the age of 18, from November 29 to December 4, 2024. The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 1.89%, 19 times out of 20. The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched Canada’s population according to age, gender, educational attainment, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post New Poll: More than Half of Canadians Support Government Action to Phase Out Fossil Fuels and Prioritize Renewable Energy appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Government’s refusal to assess giant coal mine for environmental effects means expansion will move ahead

    Statement by Julia Levin, Associate Director, National Climate

    Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – We are disappointed with Minister Guilbeault’s decision to not assess the impacts of a massive thermal coal mine expansion in Alberta. 

    Coalspur’s Vista thermal coal mine expansion has twice been designated for assessment by former Environment Minister Wilkinson. The mine owner, Coalspur, fought those decisions in court. Coalspur wants to turn Vista into one of the largest coal mines ever to exist in Canada – with zero federal oversight. Rather than ensure this massive project was properly assessed, Minister Guilbeault instead failed to take responsibility, and instead left the decision with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. 

     This means that the Vista thermal coal mine will move forward with a massive expansion of its operations – with no assessment of the impacts on the environment, local communities or species at risk.  An assessment would have given decision-makers and the public a chance to better understand how this project would impact the climate, environment, and Indigenous rights before the government had to make a final decision on whether or not it could go ahead.

    This move represents massive backtracking on Canada’s efforts to move beyond thermal coal – the dirtiest fossil fuel. Canada prides itself on having launched the global Powering Past Coal initiative, introduced rules to stop burning thermal coal and committed to banning the export of thermal coal by 2023. The decision to allow Vista – already the largest thermal coal mine in Canada – to potentially double its production is out of step with Canada’s actions to date to curb thermal coal use and take climate action. 

    Thermal coal is devastating to human health, the environment and the climate. It has no place in the 21st century. 

    For more information:

    • In July 2020, former Environment Minister Wilkinson designated the expansion project for federal impact assessment. However, that decision was challenged by the company, Coalspur, and Ermineskin Cree Nation. In September 2021, Minister Wilkinson re-designated the project. Coalspur once again challenged the decision.  On June 20, 2024, the amended Impact Assessment Act was passed, allowing for re-designation of the expansion project. Last week’s move reversed the 2021 redesignation decision.
    • Ecojustice’s background information on the project 

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Alex Ross, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Government’s refusal to assess giant coal mine for environmental effects means expansion will move ahead appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Ontario’s So-Called Affordable Energy Act Will Leave Ontarians in the Dark About Energy Decisions and Costs

    Statement by Alienor Rougeot, Senior Program Manager, Climate and Energy, on the passage of Bill 214, the Affordable Energy Act

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – We are troubled by the Ontario government’s passage of Bill 214, the so-called Affordable Energy Act. This law is a clear setback for open and accountable energy planning and will mean Ontarians are left in the dark about how critical decisions regarding our energy system are made.

    The Act hands over energy planning to the Minister, marginalizing energy experts at the Independent Energy System Operator (IESO) and Ontario Energy Board (OEB)—whose mandate is to ensure decisions are based on evidence, not politics. Bill 214 also does away with the need for a technical report that was previously required to justify Ontario’s energy plans. Now, the Minister can simply “consult” with whoever they feel is appropriate. By concentrating this much power in the hands of one office, the province’s energy planning will happen in backrooms, likely to the benefit of government insiders. We recall the Greenbelt scandal, where deals struck in private did not lead to outcomes that were in the public’s best interest.

    The government’s choice to enshrine in law a prioritization of nuclear power is also troubling. Not only does this contradict the Minister’s stated commitment to a “technology-agnostic” energy planning process, where the best and cheapest technology would win, but it also disregards the clear evidence that wind and solar are the most cost-effective sources of new electricity generation. Worse still, the law strips energy planning of its focus on addressing climate change and greenhouse gas reductions and sidelines the critical role of energy conservation.

    While we appreciate a move towards integrated energy planning (the last Long-term Energy Plan was done in 2017), without transparency, expert oversight, or a commitment to tackling the climate crisis, this plan risks serving narrow interests rather than the needs of Ontarians.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Tamara Latinovic, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Ontario’s So-Called Affordable Energy Act Will Leave Ontarians in the Dark About Energy Decisions and Costs appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Auditor General’s Report Shows that Sprawl MZOs Must be Revoked to Protect Public Safety, Environment and Public Confidence in the Integrity of Planning Decisions

    A photo of a forest being bulldozed

    Statement by Phil Pothen, Land Use and Land Development Program Manager, on Auditor General of Ontario’s report on Minister’s Zoning Orders

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – This morning’s Auditor General’s report means that Ontarians cannot have confidence in the safety, integrity or legal validity of the dozens of sprawl development approvals the provincial government has issued using Minister’s Zoning Orders since 2018. In most cases, the only sensible course of action will be to revoke those orders entirely and to require real estate investors to seek approval using the applicable municipal process.

    Leaving this government’s sprawl MZOs in place would put public safety, the environment and municipal budgets at risk. While the Auditor General’s report recommendations were largely restricted to the processing of future MZO requests, it found that for most of the MZOs already issued, there was no proper assessment of the risks to public safety, potential harm to the environment or to municipalities’ finances. Not only did the government fail to “engage with key experts to identify the [potential public health] hazards, like flooding”, it failed to look at key information about “natural hazards”. The information packages it used also omitted key information about “infrastructure capacity and servicing ….[impact on] the environment, and financial burdens to regions, municipalities and taxpayers.” Even worse, where experts did make recommendations to mitigate risks to public safety or harm to the public interest, the Ontario government rejected those recommendations when issuing the zoning order.

    As with the Greenbelt removals, this report discredits the Ontario government’s claims that its use of MZOs has been motivated by a desire to expedite housing construction. In most cases, MZOs for greenfield development were issued without assessment of whether the relevant sites could be connected to servicing in the near future, or at all. Moreover, there was no assessment of the “impact that the projects relating to MZO requests might have on other planned development in the affected communities.”  Environmental Defence has consistently warned that building low-density housing on greenfield sites often takes away scarce construction resources from more efficient infill housing that would house more people at lower cost.

    The dangers and integrity concerns raised by the report cannot, in our view, be properly remedied by reviewing existing Minister’s Zoning Orders on a case-by–case basis. That is because the auditor general found that there was “no protocol and no apparent rationale for prioritizing some MZO requests over others”. Because prioritizing one project can undermine the viability of development elsewhere, that cue-jumping is itself a source of unfairness and risk.

    Today’s report from the Auditor General of Ontario confirms that the now-revoked Greenbelt removals and the Highway 413 scheme are only the most visible parts of a much larger sprawl and real estate scandal. For any government that’s serious about ending Ontario’s housing shortage, job one will be cleaning up the counterproductive and impropriety-prone pro-sprawl policies and approvals that have been issued since 2018.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Carolyn Townend, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Auditor General’s Report Shows that Sprawl MZOs Must be Revoked to Protect Public Safety, Environment and Public Confidence in the Integrity of Planning Decisions appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • The Ontario government’s attack on the federal Clean Electricity Regulations is hurting Ontarians while slowing down Canada’s climate efforts

    Statement by Alienor Rougeot on Ontario’s claims regarding the federal Clean Electricity Regulations.

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – We are disappointed to see the Ontario government make unsupported claims about the proposed federal clean electricity regulations. By refusing to admit the economic, employment and environmental benefits of clean energy, the government is depriving Ontario ratepayers of more affordable bills and making our electricity dirtier than it has been in years.

    The federal government’s proposed regulations to reduce emissions in electricity generation are achievable without breaking the bank. In fact, studies show that clean energy is a more affordable option than continuing to rely on fossil fuels. Ontario can meet its growing electricity needs with renewable energy when combined with storage technologies that enable the energy to be used when needed. Battery storage is very cost-effective. In the most recent procurement (LT1), battery storage facilities came in at less than half the cost of natural gas-fired power.

    Yet, the Ontario government seems intent on dismissing this proven path in favour of costly and polluting gas plants, which would unnecessarily drive up costs for Ontarians. 

    The Ontario government is referencing a study from the IESO as the basis for its opposition to the CER, but has not released the study. We call on the Ontario government to release it and include the assumptions and analysis behind it. Wind and solar are the cheapest sources of new electricity generation, so the IESO must explain how it obtained such high cost estimates. Ontarians deserve an open and robust conversation about the choices the province can make in meeting future demand for electricity.

    Background information: 

    • The Clean Electricity Regulations have not been finalized, and the federal government has put significant flexibility on the table since the draft regulations were published. For an analysis of the CER and the flexibilities considered by the government, please review this backgrounder. 
    • Ontario is going the wrong way when it comes to clean electricity. In 2017, our grid was 96 percent non-emitting. Now, due to the provincial government’s increased use of gas plants, it is only 87 percent emissions-free.
    • The Atmospheric Fund has released analysis which indicates that Ontario is capable of ramping up renewable energy sources fast enough to meet its rising electricity demand and phase out gas-powered electricity by 2035. 
    • The federal government is also offering significant support, including $15 billion in Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credits by 2050, to help provinces cover the costs of transitioning to cleaner power.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Tamara Latinovic, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post The Ontario government’s attack on the federal Clean Electricity Regulations is hurting Ontarians while slowing down Canada’s climate efforts appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Regulator sells out community safety for pennies on the dollar, as Imperial Oil gets 95 per cent “discount” on oil sands spill fine

    ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, ALBERTA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION, ATHABASCA CHIPEWYAN FIRST NATION, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, COUNCIL OF CANADIANS EDMONTON CHAPTER, ECOJUSTICE, KEEPERS OF THE WATER

    CALGARY/TERRITORIES OF THE BLACKFOOT AND PEOPLES OF TREATY 7, HOME TO MÉTIS NATION OF ALBERTA, REGION III — Concerned Indigenous Nations, community, health, and environmental groups are urging the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to reconsider its decision to issue a meager $50,000 penalty to Imperial Oil for its 263-day-long toxic tailings spillage incident at its Kearl Mine.

    Yesterday, Ecojustice submitted a request for reconsideration on behalf of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Keepers of the Water, and the Council of Canadians Edmonton Chapter, the Alberta Wilderness Association, Environmental Defence Canada, and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, demanding the Regulator to impose a fine that reflects the severity of the incident and is in accordance with its own laws.

    While the Alberta Energy Regulator has the ability, and responsibility, to hold companies that break the law to account, it has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to enforce its own laws when it comes to industry rulebreakers — leaving Albertans to bear the costs and clean up the mess.

    The unreasonably low $50,000 penalty, which took the Regulator more than two years to issue, represents just 0.004 per cent of Imperial’s $1.13 billion Q2 profits from 2024. Furthermore, the AER’s claims of imposing a fine “representing the maximum base penalty table amount permissible under the regulation” in this case is downright false: the law gives them authority to issue Imperial Oil a much larger fine of at least $1.3 million in this case, but they opted not to. This discretionary decision calls into question the AER’s commitment to fulfilling its duty to protect the public and hold industry accountable.

    The Regulator’s weak response to such a significant spill does little to deter Imperial Oil, or other large corporations, from future violations that threaten both human and environmental health. The groups point to other federally regulated bodies, including examples in Manitoba and Alberta, that have imposed significantly higher fines for similar violations, demonstrating that more robust enforcement is possible. The Regulator’s leniency and readiness to overlook industry violations also undermines public trust and reflects a recurring pattern of failing to hold polluters accountable.

    By repeatedly disregarding its own responsibility, the AER is risking the health and safety of Albertans, while big polluters like Imperial Oil continue to operate, and profit, unscathed. Through its lax enforcement against oil sands operators and its pattern of prioritizing industry at the expense of human and environmental health, the AER shows a systemic failure to protect communities and ecosystems.

    Groups highlight that the Regulator has the sole discretion to reconsider the penalty, correct its $1.3M mistake, and hold Imperial Oil accountable for the spill’s damages.

    Representatives from the groups said the following:

    Jesse Cardinal, Executive Director at Keepers of the Water said: “There is a lot of contention in regard to the AER — they are continuously approving extractive industry projects at a rate that is not sustainable and offering little care to the oversight of environmental protection, which is also their job.  Companies need to be held to the highest standard, and when a massive spill into a watershed that flows into international waters occurs, they should be fined to the highest amount possible.”

    Zachary Biech, lawyer at Ecojustice said: “Albertans expect the AER to know better, and to do better. Instead, the Regulator has – once again – chosen to protect industry dollars over the health and safety of Albertan communities and ecosystems. This penalty is an invitation for other oil giants to come in and pollute Alberta, free of charge or consequence, and to get rich while they do it.”

    Phillip Meintzer, conservation specialist at Alberta Wilderness Association said: “The AER’s decision to give Imperial a discount on this penalty is yet another example of the Regulator putting the interests of oil sands executives first, at the expense of ecosystems, Indigenous Peoples, and all Albertans. It highlights how the regulator has become captured by the very industry it is responsible for regulating.”

    Aliénor Rougeot, senior program manager at Environmental Defence Canada said: “The AER must address its failure and immediately impose the full penalty Imperial Oil owes.  Anything less than that would signal to oil companies that breaking Alberta’s environmental laws comes with little consequence.”

    Dr. Joe Vipond, an emergency physician and Past President of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment said: “The Alberta Energy Regulator’s paltry $50,000 fine for Imperial Oil’s 263-day toxic tailings spill is not just a slap on the wrist, it’s a complete abdication of responsibility to protect health and safety. This decision sends a dangerous message that polluters can operate with impunity in this province, putting the health of Indigenous peoples, local communities and ecosystems at risk. As physicians, we call on the AER to reconsider this decision and impose a fine that truly reflects the severity of the incident, demonstrating that the health of Albertans and our environment is not for sale.”

    Peter Loney, Council of Canadians, Edmonton Chapter said: “The fine of $50,000, a mere pittance for a company as large as Imperial Oil, does nothing to encourage environmental responsibility nor does it deter unsafe conduct that puts local Indigenous communities at risk.”

    Background

    • On May 19, 2022, Imperial Oil reported a tailings pond spill from the Kearl Oil Sands Mine. The AER failed to inform First Nations communities of the spill until February 6, 2023 (after another spill occurred at Kearl Mine). The AER waited more than 2 years to issue a fine against Imperial for the initial spill, which continued for 263 straight days.
    • When a fine finally came on August 21, 2024, the AER issued a very modest $50,000 for the spill, while also misleadingly stating this was the maximum sum allowed.
    • Based on its own rules and authority, the AER could and should have imposed at least a $1.3M fine.

    About

    The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation are K’ai Tailé Dené, the “people of the land of the willow.” This name signifies ACFN’s deep connection to their traditional territories, which are centered on the Peace-Athabasca Delta in what is now known as northeast Alberta. ACFN signed Treaty 8 in Fort Chipewyan in 1899 and continues to exercise their Treaty rights and maintain their cultural identity.

    Alberta Wilderness Association is the oldest Alberta-based environmental conservation group with more than 7,500 members and supporters in Alberta and around the world. AWA seeks the completion of a protected areas network and good stewardship of Alberta’s public lands, waters, and biodiversity to ensure future generations enjoy the abundant benefits they provide.

    The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) is a physician-directed non-profit organization working to secure human health by protecting the planet. Since its founding in 1994, CAPE’s work has achieved substantial policy victories in collaboration with many partners in the environmental and health movements. From coast to coast to coast, the organization operates throughout the country with regional committees active in most provinces and all territories.

    Council of Canadians Edmonton Chapter brings people together through collective action and grassroots organizing to challenge corporate power and advocate for people, the planet and our democracy.

    Ecojustice uses the power of the law to defend nature, combat climate change and fight for a healthy environment. Its strategic, public interest lawsuits and advocacy lead to precedent-setting court decisions, law and policy that deliver lasting solutions to Canada’s most urgent environmental problems. As Canada’s largest environmental law charity, Ecojustice operates offices in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa and Halifax.

    Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    Keepers of the Water are First Nations, Métis, Inuit, environmental groups, concerned citizens, and communities working together for the protection of water, air, land, and all living things within the Arctic Ocean Drainage Basin. Keepers of the Water understand that clean, fresh water is invaluable to life and the environment for a sustainable, balanced, and just future for the survival of all of the life we share on this incredible planet.

    For media inquiries

    Cari Siebrits, Communications Strategist | Ecojustice
    (647) 620-1212, csiebrits@ecojustice.ca

    Phillip Meintzer, Conservation Specialist | Alberta Wilderness Association
    (403) 283-2025, pmeintzer@abwild.ca

    Alex Ross, Communications Manager | Environmental Defence Canada,
    media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Regulator sells out community safety for pennies on the dollar, as Imperial Oil gets 95 per cent “discount” on oil sands spill fine appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Reports of Industry Interference in Pesticide Decision Must Be Investigated

    Leading environmental groups call for independent review of controversial “neonic” decision

    Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – Following reports in the National Observer that Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency allegedly “colluded” with Bayer Crop Science to maintain registration of the controversial neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid, 12 environmental and health organizations are calling on Canada’s health minister to intervene.

    The groups, backed by several university scientists, sent a letter to Health Minister Mark Holland on Friday, asking him to put safeguards in place to ensure that impartial PMRA scientists can do their job in service of the public interest and prevent inappropriate industry influence in pesticide regulation.

    Imidacloprid is a neonicotinoid insecticide, a class of chemicals linked to global pollinator decline and loss of insect biodiversity. The insecticide has been banned in the European Union since 2018.

    Quotes:

    “It looks like Bayer pushed the federal regulator to ignore data inconvenient to its interests,” said Lisa Gue, national policy manager at the David Suzuki Foundation. “We need the health minister to send a clear signal that this is not acceptable, and order an independent review of the environmental harms from neonic insecticides.”

    “As a physician, it alarms me that a government regulator could be ignoring evidence. Health Canada must ensure its decision-making aligns with the protection of people and the planet, not those of corporations whose priorities stand in contrast with the public interest,” said Dr. Melissa Lem, a family physician and President of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. “We need robust decision-making that protects our health and environmental rights. An independent review of neonicotinoid decisions and a realignment within the PMRA moves us in the right direction.”

    “The confidence in the current assessment framework on pesticides has been severely weakened with the knowledge that the full scope of science is not fully considered in the decision making process.” states Theresa McClenaghan, Executive Director and Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association. “Evaluators and decision makers of pesticides should be required to justify in a very transparent manner why specific studies are rejected or not accepted for evaluation.”

    “Canada’s federal government needs to stand up for independent science and shield it from corporate meddling, especially when our food security and pollinators depend on it,” said Cassie Barker, Senior Program Manager, Toxics, Environmental Defence. “It’s a massive conflict of interest to have corporate actors, like Bayer, seemingly so embedded in the decision-making process. The feds need to tell pesticide manufacturers to buzz off before we all get stung.”

    “PMRA’s alleged “collusion” with Bayer Crop Science to reverse a draft decision to ban the longest-used neonic, imidacloprid, throws deep suspicion on a decade of reviews and re-evaluations of the three neonic pesticides imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin widely used in Canada,” said Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth Canada. “As a first step to earning any confidence from the public, PMRA should immediately authorize an independent review panel to assess the environmental and health aspects of all three neonics.”

    “The breach of scientific and regulatory principles by PMRA is both blatant and egregious” , said Mary Lou McDonald of SafeFoodMatters.org. “PMRA is supposed to judge the evidence, not help create it. We call for an end to this ongoing capture of PMRA.”

    ”By hiding worrying test results at Bayer’s request, Health Canada is going against its mandate to protect the health of Canadians. It’s disturbing to see scandal after scandal demonstrating the close links between agrochemical corporations and our institutions,” stated Thibault Rehn, coordinator of Vigilance OGM.

    “The Health Minister must act swiftly to rectify the regulation of imidacloprid to protect us from its significant health harms including neurotoxicity, reproductive anomalies, hepatic and renal damage, and breast cancer. We should be able to depend on our government to prioritize our right to a healthy environment instead of siding with the interests of multinational corporations,” said Milena Gioia, Coordinator of Education and Advocacy at Breast Cancer Action Quebec

    “Canadians need assurance that Heath Canada’s Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency is operating in the best interest of Canadians, sustainable agriculture, and the environment, not simply serving the best interest of the pesticide industry.  Moreover, PMRA scientists should be adequately supported to do their jobs without impacts from industry influence in pesticide regulation. The Minister’s appointment of an independent review panel to examine the decisions that led to the reversal of the ban on neonicotinoids would signal an expectation of transparency in this public institution,” said Carolyn Callaghan, senior conservation biologist at the Canadian Wildlife Federation

    Background:

    • Canada’s most recent re-evaluation of imidacloprid initially concluded that the chemical was present in water samples at levels harmful to aquatic insects. The PMRA proposed to end its use in agriculture to protect aquatic ecosystems but later backtracked on the proposed ban. The 2021 final evaluation decision concluded risks were “acceptable.”
    • A formal objection to the 2021 decision now claims that water sampling data showing higher concentrations of imidacloprid may have been selectively excluded in the final assessment — at the request of the registrant (Bayer Crop Science) — to favour continued registration of Bayer’s imidacloprid products.
    • Under federal pesticide law, the health minister may establish an independent panel to review decisions when there is scientific doubt about the validity of the risk assessment on which the decision was based.
    • Read the letter to Health Minister Mark Holland here.

    About ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (www.environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    -30-

    For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact:

    Stephanie Kohls, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Reports of Industry Interference in Pesticide Decision Must Be Investigated appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Alberta Premier too busy fighting with Ottawa to support jobs and the economy 

    Statement from Stephen Legault, Senior Manager, Alberta Energy Transition

    Canmore | Traditional territories of the Treaty 7 Nations – Premier Smith’s announcement that the Province of Alberta will challenge the federal pollution cap on the oil and gas industry using Alberta’s Sovereignty Act recklessly ignores the importance of battling climate change and the huge economic opportunity presented by renewable energy.

    The Premier and her government are so focused on picking fights with Ottawa that they are missing the fact that there are now more people employed in the development of renewable energy around the world than people working in oil and gas. According to the International Energy Association (IEA), in 2023 there was nearly twice as much investment in renewable energy as there was in fossil fuels globally. It’s time for Alberta to adjust to the new reality, remain competitive, and ensure that Alberta workers have jobs in the growth-oriented parts of the energy sector  – which is the clean energy sector.

    The federal government’s cap on pollution from the tar sands was introduced last month to manage the industry’s dangerous emissions. The oil and gas industry has to do its part. The emissions cap is also popular across the country including in Alberta, where a majority of Albertans (62 per cent Research Co.; 57 per cent Leger) want to see the oil and gas industry’s pollution capped.

    The Premier’s threat to block the federal government’s cap on pollution jeopardizes Canada’s ability to attract new business investment in the clean energy sector, and will ultimately have the opposite effect as she intends, signalling that Alberta and Canada are not working with the international community to fight climate change. 

    A robust pollution cap with ambitious targets is needed to protect Canadians from the toxic emissions from the tar sands and to signal to the world that we’re ready to welcome jobs and investment in the renewable energy sector. 

    Background Information 

    • The oil and gas industry is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country, accounting for nearly a third of Canada’s domestic pollution. This industry has continued to pump out more pollution each year and has wiped out emissions reductions made by other parts of the economy. 
    • Oil and gas pollution is fueling climate change, which is raising the cost of living for Canadians. Basic needs are becoming more expensive, with groceries, healthcare and insurance costs ballooning because of climate change. The oil and gas pollution cap transfers the responsibility of addressing pollution back on the industry that has profited at the expense of Canadians. 

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Alex Ross, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Alberta Premier too busy fighting with Ottawa to support jobs and the economy  appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Passage of Bill 212 Leaves Canada’s Federal Government with No Alternative but to Restore Federal Impact Assessment Act Oversight of Highway 413

    Statement from Phil Pothen, Counsel & Land Use and Land Development Program Manager, Environmental Defence

    By exempting Highway 413 project from Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act, Greenbelt Plan and circumventing Indigenous consultations, the new law removes any serious pretense of a provincial environmental process.

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – This afternoon’s passage of Bill 212, which exempts  the Highway 413 scheme from the provincial government’s Environmental Assessment Act, leaves Canada with no alternative but to designate the project for federal impact assessment under the federal Impact Assessment Act. Bill 212 will also carves the Ontario government’s preferred Highway route out of the provincial Greenbelt Plan and circumvent any meaningful provincial consultation with Indigenous nations on whether, or even where, the highway will be built. This means that Canada’s federal government will need to rely on its own laws and processes to discharge its free-standing Constitutional responsibility to ensure the protection of inland fish species (like the endangered Redside dace), fish and fish habitat and navigable waters, and to ensure meaningful consultations with Indigenous nations on any decisions affecting lands to which they are connected. 

    Even prior to the passage of Bill 212, the case for re-instating the federal government’s Impact Assessment of the Highway 413 project was overwhelming.  Technical problems with the Impact Assessment Act, which led to discontinuation of an earlier impact assessment designation, have since been remedied by the federal parliament through the passing of the Budget Implementation Bill in June 2024, and Canada’s Memorandum of Understanding with Ontario’s provincial government clearly reserves its right to re-designate the project. Just this past August, the federal government issued a Recovery Strategy and Action Plan for the Redside Dace (federally endangered in Canada) that designates much of the 413 route as within that species’ critical habitat, establishing an undeniable technical justification for a federal Impact Assessment.  

    However, Premier Ford had hoped to pressure the federal government to do nothing on the pretext of relying upon the province’s much weaker Environmental Assessment Act. With the outright cancellation of that assessment, that last remaining potential excuse for federal inaction has been removed. Minister Steven Guilbeault and his colleagues in the federal government caucus now have to act directly. That means a fresh, independent federal impact assessment and denial of any and all Species at Risk Act and navigable waters permits associated with the 413 proposal for the foreseeable future.

    While the provincial government’s Environmental Assessment Act process was already inadequate, Bill 212 would cancel it for 413 altogether. Instead, it allows only a series of limited studies focused on “local environmental conditions” and prescribes that anything revealed about “sensitive natural or cultural heritage matters” will be kept secret. It would render Indigenous consultation on the most significant questions about the 413 meaningless by allowing destructive so-called “early works” on the government’s favored route to happen before consultations occur. 

    Premier Ford and the Ontario government have made it clear that the provincial environmental impacts of Highway 413 don’t matter to them. But that doesn’t change the federal government’s obligation to use its own powers to prevent environmental harm that falls within federal jurisdiction.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Lauren Thomas, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Passage of Bill 212 Leaves Canada’s Federal Government with No Alternative but to Restore Federal Impact Assessment Act Oversight of Highway 413 appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • STATEMENT: Wealthy countries fail to deliver on climate finance at COP29 

    Statement from Julie Segal, Senior Manger Climate Finance, Environmental Defence Canada

    Baku, Azerbaijan — COP29 concluded with an inadequate offer on climate finance from wealthy countries: a stingy pledge which abdicates the obligations of major historical emitters. The decision was unfairly steamrolled through opposition from the most vulnerable countries. The result is that countries in the Global South have not been granted the necessary funds to adapt to climate disasters or to effectively reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions. 

    The most vulnerable countries were cheated by both the process and result of this deal. We all know that a dollar today does not go as far as it used to. When you account for inflation, the new target of $300 billion barely exceeds the previous global commitment that was set in 2009. By contrast, each year countries provide subsidies to oil and gas companies that exceed $1.3-trillion, and the companies collect trillions in profits. These funds could be redirected towards financing climate action globally.

    Countries committed to a principle of fairness when they signed the Paris Agreement in 2015, acknowledging that those who have profited for decades from oil, gas and coal had a responsibility to deliver funds to the countries least responsible, yet most impacted by climate change.

    Moving to COP30, countries like Canada must deliver finance that actually meets what is needed. The next round of national climate plans under the Paris Agreement are due in February. By providing insufficient financing under this commitment, developed countries have hampered the ability of the Global South to fully fund emissions reductions, and to compensate they must achieve even greater levels of climate progress themselves.  

    Background information:

    • Vulnerable regions say that a $1.3-trillion commitment is needed every year to cut emissions and adapt to climate damages, and have called for $600-billion annually in guaranteed public funding. 
    • In 2023 at COP28, countries agreed to “transition away from fossil fuels” and scale up renewable energy and energy efficiency. This was an important milestone recognizing that oil, gas, and coal are the biggest cause of climate change. 
    • At the UN climate negotiations COP29 this year, countries prioritized defining a new pledge on international climate finance. It took place in Baku, Azerbaijan, from November 11 to 22, in a context of mounting climate-disasters and a fossil fuel driven affordability crisis. Environmental Defence’s COP29 media backgrounder provides further analysis about COP29.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Alex Ross, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post STATEMENT: Wealthy countries fail to deliver on climate finance at COP29  appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • With COP29 nearing its end, wealthy countries must deliver on climate finance now

    Statement from Julie Segal, Senior Manger Climate Finance, Environmental Defence Canada

    Baku, Azerbaijan — Countries came to COP29 with a clear goal, to decide on a specific funding amount to support vulnerable nations. This climate finance commitment  would support these countries to decarbonize their economies and adapt to climate related damages. Reaching a climate finance agreement is crucial. 

    With one day left on the official program, wealthy countries like Canada have not yet put forward a credible number. Whether they will provide an amount commensurate to the need, and whether the finance will be grants-based, needs to be urgently addressed. 

    A trillion dollars of climate finance is being called for every year, and anything that does not meet this call would be miserly. Being stingy on climate finance is self-damaging: climate change is a collective problem, and countries like Canada need to help ensure that all countries are equipped with the necessary funds for climate action. 

    Without sufficient climate finance for developing countries, the Paris Agreement’s goals of a safer planet will be out of reach. Wealthy, historical emitters have to pay what is due. At last year’s COP, world leaders collectively agreed to transition away from fossil fuels – an indication they are ready to stop fueling the fire. Climate finance is like the water needed to put out the fires of climate change – the countries who are facing climate impacts need this tap to start flowing now.

    Background information:

    • In 2009, 15-years ago, wealthy countries agreed to mobilize $100-billion a year for the countries most vulnerable to climate change for every year between 2020 and 2025. That was first successfully delivered only in 2022. At this COP29 in Baku Azerbaijan, countries under the United Nations process are scheduled to agree on a new pledged amount of climate finance for the years to come.
    • Environmental Defence’s COP29 media backgrounder provides further analysis about COP29.
    • Negotiations at COP29 are supposed to be completed by Friday November 22. An extension of negotiations through the weekend is possible.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Alex Ross, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post With COP29 nearing its end, wealthy countries must deliver on climate finance now appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Statement from Cassie Barker, Senior Program Manager for Toxics: Curbing Toxic Flame Retardants Is a Win for Safer Products

    Canada’s finalized amendments to product safety regulations will reduce or eliminate toxic flame retardants in tents, play tunnels and kids’ bed canopies—but more action is needed to stop harmful chemical exposures

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – We applaud Canada’s decision to get highly harmful flame retardants out of the one million tents, play tunnels and children’s bed canopies sold each year. Our outdated chemicals regulations need to be updated to stop unnecessary toxic exposures. This is an important step towards safer, healthier kids and communities—but we can’t stop here. There is a large and growing need for federal action on the thousands of hazardous chemicals hiding in other everyday products, particularly those marketed at children.

    Many of the textiles being addressed in today’s announcement are made from plastic. The more we learn about what’s in plastic products, the more we realize the urgent need to protect people from this toxic chemical soup. That’s why we’re urging the government to phase out toxic flame retardants and other harmful chemicals from plastics here in Canada and push for binding global rules on chemicals of concern at next week’s Global Plastics Treaty negotiations.

    Background: 

    • Canada’s new Tents Regulations SOR/2024-217 can be viewed here.
    • These regulations will result in these products having “a reduced need for flame retardant chemicals.”
    • There are approximately one million tent products sold annually in Canada, and this change will “reduce or eliminate the need for flame retardant chemicals in tent products,” including gazebos, canopies, play tents and tunnels, and bed tents.
    • The Global Plastics Treaty negotiations resume on November 22nd in Busan, South Korea.
    • The federal government must bring in stronger rules to get toxic chemicals out of plastic products.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Lauren Thomas, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Statement from Cassie Barker, Senior Program Manager for Toxics: Curbing Toxic Flame Retardants Is a Win for Safer Products appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Ontario Government Weakens Greenbelt Protections and Takes Land Again with Bill 212

    Statement by Tim Gray, Executive Director

    By peddling falsehoods about bike lanes, the Ontario government seeks to distract Ontarians from provisions in Bill 212 that will fast-track an unnecessary and expensive highway while undermining the Greenbelt.  

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – Embedded within Bill 212 are provisions that will undermine the Greenbelt by removing key environmental oversight and safeguards if Highway 413 moves forward. By trying to distract with attacks on bike lanes, the Ontario government is hiding the fact that they are taking another run at the Greenbelt.

    If passed, Bill 212 would completely exempt Highway 413 from the Greenbelt Plan, along with other Provincial Plans, and even the Ontario government’s own Provincial Planning Statement. This would, among other things, permit the Ontario government to intentionally choose a route through the Greenbelt and a highway design that it knows would cause significantly more damage to natural heritage, hydrological features and to the Greenbelt system as a whole compared to other alternatives.

    The legislation would also exempt the planned highway from the Environmental Assessment Act entirely, offering only a series of limited studies focused on “local environmental conditions” and whose findings on “sensitive natural or cultural heritage matters would be kept secret”. It would render Indigenous consultation on the most significant questions about the 413 meaningless by allowing destructive so-called “early works” on the government’s favored route to happen before consultations occur.

    These moves further underscore the Premier’s often stated contempt for the environmental values that will be destroyed by the highway and emphasizes the need for the federal government to protect areas of its responsibility such as species at risk, fisheries and Indigenous rights by designating the Highway 413 for a federal Impact Assessment.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Carolyn Townend, Environmental Defence
    media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Ontario Government Weakens Greenbelt Protections and Takes Land Again with Bill 212 appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Media Advisory: Global Plastics Treaty Negotiations to Resume in South Korea, Canadian Plastic Pollution Expert on the Ground and Available to Comment

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – Between November 25 and December 2, 2024, Environmental Defence’s Senior Program Manager for Plastics, Karen Wirsig, will join country delegations, experts and activists from around the world for the fifth negotiating session (INC-5) toward a global plastics treaty.

    This round of negotiations will take place in Busan, South Korea, and follows the fourth round that took place in Ottawa (INC-4) in April of this year. Environmental Defence has been at the forefront of the fight against plastic pollution for years and is a strong voice in Canada advocating for an effective global plastics treaty—one that builds on and reinforces strong domestic action to rein in the production, use and disposal of plastics.

    Wirsig will be able to provide insights into how the negotiations are proceeding behind closed doors, including whether Canada and other “high-ambition” countries are doing what is needed to achieve an effective treaty.

    When: Monday November 25, 2024, to Monday, December 2, 2024

    Who: Karen Wirsig, Senior Program Manager, Plastics

    Where: Busan, South Korea. Interviews available by phone or video call.

    What: Final round of negotiations for a global treaty to address plastic pollution

    Background:

    • INC-5 is the final scheduled meeting of the Parties, who are negotiating on the basis of a 2022 United Nations Environment Assembly mandate to end plastic pollution.
    • Negotiations have been characterized to date by resistance from fossil-producing countries and the petrochemical industry but “high ambition” countries, including Canada, are still working to finalize a deal in Busan.
    • Environmental Defence is advocating for a legally binding agreement with measures that eliminate pollution generated at every phase of plastics, from extraction of raw materials to refining, manufacturing, use, and waste.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Lauren Thomas, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Media Advisory: Global Plastics Treaty Negotiations to Resume in South Korea, Canadian Plastic Pollution Expert on the Ground and Available to Comment appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Media Advisory: Press Conference on Government’s Failure to Reduce Emissions, Following CESD Report

    Pollution

    Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People –Representatives from the Green Party of Canada, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and Environmental Defence will participate in a press conference to address the findings of the recent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD) report, highlighting the government’s ongoing failure to meet emissions reduction targets.

    WHEN: Wednesday, November 20, 2024, at 1:00 PM EDT

    WHERE: Room 135-B, West Block, Parliament Hill

    WHO:

    • Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada
    • Mike Morrice, Green Party MP for Kitchener Centre
    • Alexandre Boulerice, NDP MP
    • Monique Pauzé, Bloc Québécois MP
    • Aly Hyder Ali, Oil & Gas Program Manager, Environmental Defence

    The panelists will discuss the CESD report’s findings and offer solutions for effective climate action.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    Fabrice Lachance Nové, Press Secretary, media@greenparty.ca

    The post Media Advisory: Press Conference on Government’s Failure to Reduce Emissions, Following CESD Report appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Statement from Tim Gray, Executive Director: Proposed Bill Could Keep Billions of Ontario’s Beverage Containers Out of Landfills, Incinerators and the Environment

    MPP Mary-Margaret McMahon’s Private Member’s Bill announced this morning seeks to mandate deposit return for non-alcoholic drink containers 

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – Today, we’re celebrating the introduction of a private member’s bill to expand deposit return to non-alcoholic drink containers. This is a common-sense policy solution to bottles and cans littered in parks, along roadways and in our lakes and rivers. It’s also a solution the vast majority of Ontarians support. Shamefully, Ontario is one of only two provinces in Canada without deposit return for non-alcoholic beverages, and as a result has the lowest drink container recycling rate in the country at only 43 per cent.

    We encourage MPPs to support this bill’s quick passage through the Legislature so that work can get underway to keep billions of beverage containers out of Ontario’s landfills, incinerators and environment.

    Background: 

    • Policy research by Environmental Defence estimates that upwards of 1.7 billion plastic drink containers end up landfilled, littered or burned each year in Ontario due to the lack of a deposit-return system for non-alcoholic beverages.
    • In 2023, the Ontario government established a stakeholder working group to explore expanding deposit return to include non-alcoholic beverage containers. This past summer, following vocal opposition from retailers, the government cancelled the working group and abandoned the policy.
    • The Canadian Beverage Association, which represents big brands like Coca-Cola and Pepsi has come out in support of Ontario implementing an expanded deposit return.
    • Polling commissioned by Environmental Defence from Abacus Data earlier this year found that 81 per cent of Ontarians support deposit return for non-alcoholic beverages, and more than half want to be able to return their empties to grocery and retail stores.
    • Ontario and Manitoba are the only two provinces in Canada without deposit return for non-alcoholic beverage containers
    • The provincial government has set regulated targets for beverage producers to collect and recycle or refill containers: 75 per cent by 2026 and 80 per cent by 2030. The only proven way to achieve these targets is deposit return with accessible return locations, including at stores where non-alcoholic beverages are sold.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Lauren Thomas, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Statement from Tim Gray, Executive Director: Proposed Bill Could Keep Billions of Ontario’s Beverage Containers Out of Landfills, Incinerators and the Environment appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • New Video: Environmental Defence Spoofs Pathways Alliance Ads with the Truth

    Montréal/Tiohtià:ke | Traditional, unceded lands of the Kanien’kehá:ka/Mohawk Nation, a gathering place for many First Nations, including the Anishinaabeg – While the Pathways Alliance and other major oil and gas companies in Canada have gone quiet in response to the federal government’s new anti-greenwashing rules, Environmental Defence is using this time to set the record straight.

    Today, we released a new video that corrects misinformation presented in one of the Pathways Alliance’s original greenwashing video ads. The Pathways Alliance’s multi-million dollar “Let’s Clear the Air” ad campaign, which began in 2022, is currently being investigated by the Competition Bureau for greenwashing. Our video, Clean Pathway to Future, acknowledges the Canadian public’s concerns about climate change and affordability, highlights how the fossil fuel industry is making climate change worse, and debunks carbon capture and storage for the trojan horse of continued oil and gas production that it is.

    The video is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1yWLIkDqCw

    “The Pathways Alliance represents some of Canada’s worst climate villains – the companies most responsible for climate pollution in Canada and the people most responsible for delaying climate action,” says Emilia Belliveau, Energy Transition Program Manager at Environmental Defence. “Pathways has already paid to spread its misleading message to millions of people, but it’s important we try to reach the same audience with the truth. These fossil fuel companies continue to fuel destructive climate change, and their rebranding campaign does not change that fact.”

    Background Information 

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Midhat Moini, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post New Video: Environmental Defence Spoofs Pathways Alliance Ads with the Truth appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Fossil fuel lobbyists are once again swarming Canada’s COP29 delegation  

    Statement from Julia Levin, Associate Director, National Climate

    Fossil fuel lobbyists are once again swarming the international climate negotiations, including within Canada’s official delegation. According to Environmental Defence’s analysis of the UN’s Provisional List of Registered Participants at COP29, 28 people with ties to the fossil fuel sector were given Party badges by Canada.

    This is somewhat less than the 35 lobbyists who granted access to COP28 last year through an official Canadian badge. However, when considering that Bakuu’s COP29 has half the participants compared to the negotiations last year, this isn’t a significant decrease. It’s also much higher than the eight people with ties to the fossil fuel industry included in Canada’s list of badge holders at COP27. This is not the full list of oil and gas lobbyists from Canada who are present at COP29, as most will have observer badges rather than official party badges. 

    Last year, following Environmental Defence’s initial reporting of these numbers, the Government of Canada had clarified that the fossil fuel lobbyists were included in Alberta’s list of delegates, which the federal government has no control over. We have yet to receive a similar clarification this year.

    Fossil fuel lobbyists have no place at climate talks. They are attending in bad faith, to spread misinformation, promote dangerous distractions and defend private interests which are unaligned with the goals of the climate negotiations. 

    Last year at COP 28, countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels. So it is not surprising that fossil fuel executives are swarming COP29, in an effort to sabotage progress and peddle their dangerous distractions, like carbon capture and hydrogen. This is the desperate last gasp of an industry that knows that their time is up. As the head of the International Energy Agency has put it, we are approaching the end of the fossil fuel era.

    Background Info

    Canadian delegation badges were issued to:

    • 19 employees of oil and gas companies, fossil gas utilities and industry associations. This includes representatives from Cenovus Energy, Enbridge, Imperial Oil, Suncor the Pathways Alliance, a coalition of the largest tar sands companies in Canada and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. 
    • 9 people from groups affiliated with the oil and gas industry, such as Energy for a Secure Future, which runs massive advertising campaigns in Ottawa promoting fossil exports, as well as Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada.  

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact: Alex Ross, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Fossil fuel lobbyists are once again swarming Canada’s COP29 delegation   appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • New Report Exposes Canadian Retailers Are Still Lagging Behind U.S. Retailers on Chemical Safety

    Couche-Tard and Sobeys receive failing grades; Loblaws, Metro, Canadian Tire, and Tim Hortons’ parent company get ‘D’s

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – A new report released today of U.S. and Canadian retailers, written by Toxic-Free Future in collaboration with Environmental Defence, finds Canadian-based retailers are failing to protect consumers from toxic chemicals and plastics. With low to failing grades, Canadian retailers are not rising to the challenge of addressing the toxics on their shelves. While a few U.S.-based retailers achieve ‘A’ scores, Canadian-based retailers don’t appear in the Top 20, and their scores are generally below the average of a D+.

    The 2024 Retailer Report Card, now in its sixth edition, is the most comprehensive assessment of corporate policies on toxic chemicals and plastics in North America. The report evaluates and grades the chemical policies and practices of 50 retail chains covering more than 200,000 stores in the U.S. and Canada. U.S. retailers’ average score is 24%, while Canadian retailers score 11%.

    “We might assume that the products on our shelves in Canada are safer than in the U.S., but it turns out they’re not,” said Cassie Barker, report contributor and Senior Program Manager for Toxics at Environmental Defence. “U.S. retailers are failing, and Canadian ones fare even worse. Some American retailers appear committed to making products and food safer for their customers, including voluntarily phasing out dangerous “forever chemicals” like PFAS. But in Canada, a voluntary approach to safer products is not working. To protect human and environmental health, we need the Canadian federal government to take the lead with stronger rules and regulatory action.”

    Canadian-based retailer scores:

    Canadian Tire: D+

    • Includes Helly Hansen, Mark’s, Party City, and SportChek

    Loblaw: D

    • Includes Shoppers Drug Mart, Fortinos, Independent, Maxi, No Frills, Provigo, Real Canadian Superstore, T&T, Valu-Mart, and Zehrs

    Metro: D-

    • Includes Brunet, Food Basics, Jean Coutu, Marché Richelieu, Première Moisson, Super C

    Restaurant Brands International (RBI): D-

    • Includes Burger King, Firehouse Subs, Popeyes, Tim Hortons

    Sobeys: F

    • Includes Foodland, FreshCo, IGA, IGA Extra, Lawtons Drugs, Les Marches Tradition, Marche Bonichoix, Needs, Rachelle Bery, Safeway, Thrifty Foods

    Alimentation Couche-Tard: F

    • Includes Couche Tard, Circle K, Ingo

    The 160 retailers evaluated generate over $4 trillion in annual revenue and hold significant influence over the use of toxic chemicals in their supply chains.

    “Retailers are making record profits,” added Barker. “They should have the capacity to monitor what products are on their shelves and ensure that they are safe. The top scorers demonstrate this is possible.”

    “With PFAS in our drinking water and toxics found in black plastic spatulas, it is shocking how little retailers are doing to help solve this health crisis linked to hazardous chemicals and plastics in consumer products,” said Cheri Peele, co-author of the 2024 Retailer Report Card and senior policy manager for Toxic-Free Future. “Retailers must require ingredient transparency, ban the most hazardous chemicals and plastics in products and packaging, and invest in safer solutions.”

    “Simply banning toxic chemicals isn’t enough. Governments and retailers must go further to ensure that replacements are truly safer for consumers, communities, and workers,” said Mike Schade, co-author of the 2024 Retailer Report Card and director of Toxic-Free Future’s Mind the Store program.

    Read the full report at RetailerReportCard.com

    Background: 

    • Retailers were evaluated based on publicly available information. All were given the opportunity to review and respond to their scores before publication.
    • Canadian Tire has a corporate chemicals policy for managing toxic substances and has restricted some chemicals and plastics including polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in outdoor equipment, but they do not disclose toxic chemicals and plastics that they sell to customers, or invest in safer solutions for their products.
    • Loblaw’s has eliminated bisphenols in their receipts, but their chemicals policy does not commit to avoiding chemicals of high concern, nor does it require its suppliers to disclose chemical ingredients or plastics to the retailer or consumers, or require testing to ensure products are free of hazardous chemicals or plastics.
    • Metro has also shifted to bisphenol-free receipt paper, but they have failed to commit to reducing toxic chemicals and plastics or supporting safer solutions, nor do they require suppliers to disclose chemical ingredients or plastics to the retailer or consumers.
    • RBI has eliminated polystyrene and made progress on eliminating PFAS from over 90% of guest packaging, but does not have a publicly available corporate chemicals policy, or require supplier transparency or product testing.
    • Sobeys has eliminated some polystyrene, but has failed to commit to reducing toxic chemicals and plastics or supporting safer solutions, and it does not require its suppliers to disclose chemical ingredients or plastics to the retailer or consumers.
    • Alimentation Couche-Tard has failed to take any steps toward safer products or packaging, either through a corporate chemicals policy, requiring information on chemical ingredients, restricting toxic chemicals and plastics beyond regulatory compliance, or supporting the development or sale of safer products. Alimentation Couche-Tard did not respond to our requests for additional information or comments on its draft score.
    • Some US retailers are banning dangerous chemicals and harmful plastics, with 68% percent of retailers having made progress reducing certain toxic chemicals and plastics such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) “forever chemicals” and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic.
    • Published as part of Toxic-Free Future’s Mind the Store program, the 2024 Retailer Report Card analyzes 50 major U.S. and Canadian retailers, including their subsidiaries, representing 160 businesses that generate over $4 trillion in annual revenue and hold significant influence over the use of toxic chemicals in their supply chains. Toxic-Free Future’s Retailer Report Card assigns grades based on the company’s efforts to eliminate hazardous chemicals and plastics from their supply chains and ensure safer solutions.
    • Mind the Store, Toxic-Free Future’s market transformation program, challenges the nation’s largest retailers to adopt robust policies to eliminate the most toxic chemicals and plastics in products, packaging, and global supply chains. These efforts make items on store shelves safer and drive change on a global scale.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    ABOUT TOXIC-FREE FUTURE: Toxic-Free Future is a national leader in environmental health research and advocacy. Through the power of science, education, and activism, Toxic-Free Future drives strong laws and corporate responsibility that protects the health of all people and the planet.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Lauren Thomas, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post New Report Exposes Canadian Retailers Are Still Lagging Behind U.S. Retailers on Chemical Safety appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • New Study: Rise of SUVs, Trucks has Cancelled Out 80% of Fuel Economy Improvements in Canada

    ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, ÉQUITERRE, DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION

    Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – A new study commissioned by Environmental Defence, Équiterre and the David Suzuki Foundation has found that the shift in new vehicle sales towards more polluting SUVs and trucks has cancelled out more than 80 per cent of the reduction in average fuel consumption that has been achieved by more fuel-efficient engines over the period of 2010-2022 in Canada.

    Canada adopts its vehicle fuel efficiency regulations from the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and these rules currently allow automakers to get away with selling more polluting vehicles if they are larger in size or weigh more. These loopholes have encouraged automakers to make bigger and heavier vehicles while shifting car sales to SUVs to ‘game’ the system.

    This joint Canada-US regulatory policy highlights how the outcome of the US Presidential election will affect Canadian climate policy, road safety and cost of living. This is because SUVs and trucks consume, on average, 30 per cent more fuel than gasoline cars, larger and heavier vehicles are more dangerous on the road, and larger, gas-guzzling vehicles growing to dominate the vehicle market makes life more expensive for Canadian families.

    The study uses economic modelling to examine various methods of addressing these regulatory loopholes in President Biden’s final vehicle emissions standards rule, announced in March 2024, and how effective they might be in the context of new vehicle emissions rules applied in Canada, including the Electric Vehicle Availability Standard, which targets 100 per cent zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales by 2035. President Trump has promised to scrap Biden’s vehicle emissions standard rules, as he rolled back President Obama’s rules during his last administration.

    Key takeaways from the study, conducted by the Sustainable Transportation Action Research Team (START) at Simon Fraser University include:

    • Canada’s Electric Vehicle Availability Standard, which aims to increase zero-emission vehicle sales to 100 per cent of the new vehicle market by 2035, is the most effective regulatory policy to reduce vehicle carbon emissions. If Canada did not have this regulation, and only relied on President Biden’s EPA pollution standards for cars and trucks, carbon emissions would be cumulatively 84 million tonnes higher by 2035, equivalent to adding more than 21 coal-fired power plants to the grid or the emissions of 25 million cars in a year. Canada’s Electric Vehicle Availability Standard is even more important in a world where President Trump rolls back the Biden rules and makes them even weaker.
    • Design details of vehicle fuel efficiency regulations can have a significant effect on the market share of cars (sedans) versus light trucks (SUVs and pickup trucks) in Canada. The modelling indicates that regulatory policy changes such as re-classifying SUVs as cars rather than light trucks for emissions standards purposes would result in an 8 percentage point swing in the overall car vs. truck market share of new vehicles (the market share of cars sold increasing by 4% and the share of light trucks sold declining by 4%).
    • The study modeled the introduction of an energy efficiency requirement for electric vehicles to encourage downsizing and to increase the supply of smaller, affordable electric vehicle models. It found that this would result in a 18 per cent swing in market share, with the market share of electric passenger cars increasing by 9 per cent and the market share of electric light trucks decreasing by 9 per cent.

    Quotes:

    Thomas Green, Senior Policy Advisor at the David Suzuki Foundation said:

    “This study highlights how important the Electric Vehicle Availability Standard is for Canada’s ability to reach its emissions reduction targets. Keeping Canada’s own standard needs to be a political consensus across all Canadian political parties to ensure we reduce stubbornly high transportation emissions despite the American loopholes that have undermined our progress so far. The standard is protection against likely fuel efficiency policy rollbacks on the horizon from a Trump administration.”

    Nate Wallace, Clean Transportation Program Manager at Environmental Defence said:

    “This study proves that US-Canada vehicle emissions standards have loopholes so big you can drive a gigantic truck through it. When automakers can get out of emissions standards by gaming the system with bigger and heavier vehicles, families end up paying the price by filling the gas tank more often, breathing more air pollution, and living with more dangerous streets for pedestrians, cyclists and young children. When Canada moves to adopt the EPA’s vehicle pollution standards, the federal Government should look closely at the policy options available to close these loopholes and explore applying efficiency standards to electric vehicles to enhance their cost of living benefits for Canadian families.”

    Blandine Sebileau, Sustainable Mobility Analyst at Équiterre said:

    “The evidence is overwhelming: steadily improving fuel economy relative to prior year models has long been used as an industry talking point to defend the shift towards larger and heavier vehicles. As long as policymakers fail to tackle the shift in our overall vehicle fleet towards SUVs and trucks, technological efforts to improve internal combustion engines will continue to fail to actually reduce carbon emissions. The good news is that it’s possible to remedy the situation, while bringing down the cost of electric vehicles by 28% by 2035, without any impact on automakers’ profits.”

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    ABOUT DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION (davidsuzuki.org): The David Suzuki Foundation is a national, non-profit organization that uses evidence-based research, education and policy analysis to conserve and protect the natural environment, and help create a sustainable Canada.

    ABOUT ÉQUITERRE (equiterre.org): Équiterre seeks to make the necessary collective transitions toward an equitable and environmentally sound future more tangible, accessible, and inspiring. Since 1993, Équiterre has been helping to find solutions, transform social norms, and encourage ambitious public policies through research, support, education, mobilization, and awareness-building initiatives. This progress is helping to establish new principles for how we feed ourselves, how we get around, and how we produce and consume, that are designed for our communities, respectful of our ecosystems, in line with social justice, and of course, low in carbon.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Karishma Porwal, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    Mathilde Condrain-Morel, Équiterre, mcondrainmorel@equiterre.org 

    The post New Study: Rise of SUVs, Trucks has Cancelled Out 80% of Fuel Economy Improvements in Canada appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • New Expert Report: Ending Restrictions on Mid-Rise Apartment Buildings Necessary to end Housing Shortage

    To deliver 1.5 million homes by 2031, governments need to eliminate minimum parking requirements, reform building codes and legalize six-storey apartments on the avenues and major streets in existing neighbourhoods throughout Ontario.

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – The failure to reform land use planning laws, the building code, tax rules, and service charges for existing neighborhoods is obstructing the development of mid-rise apartment buildings which could be the fastest, most cost-efficient and labour-efficient way to deliver both market and non-market homes. That is the takeaway from a new expert housing report, released today.

    Commissioned by Environmental Defence and Robert Eisenberg and written by two leading Toronto-based architecture and planning firms, the Mid-Rise Manual spells out the steps that provincial, federal and municipal governments should take immediately to clear those obstacles and deliver the 1.5 million new homes the province will need by 2031.

    While lawmakers of all political stripes have for years said they support mid-rise housing, zoning enacted under the Planning Act still prohibits buildings of five storeys or higher on almost all of Ontario’s existing residential lots. Even where there is no outright ban, these buildings face a tangle of regulatory hurdles, height restrictions, tax and development charges and building code technicalities. These challenges nullify the natural efficiency and cost advantages of mid-rise building formats. In all but a few circumstances, that has made building mid-rise projects too costly to be financially feasible for market builders, and too costly to be politically feasible for governments and non-profits.

    Legalizing mid-rise housing entails much more than simply allowing six-storey heights. It means making it legal to build high-quality, mid-rise apartments for every household type in every community in Ontario at a cost low enough to actually be built. This cost must be low enough to allow “market” rents and sale prices that people will pay, and also low enough for it to be politically viable for governments to invest in the huge number of non-market, “deeply affordable” homes that Ontarians need.

    It means eliminating parking minimums and incentivizing smart solutions like light-frame wood construction and safe single-egress stairs. It means allowing mid-rise to be built on major streets in residential neighbourhoods, not just on expensive land in downtowns, around trains stations or in existing clusters of apartment buildings.

    Making this possible also means both provincial and municipal governments will need to expedite planning approvals processes that will allow for simplified permissions and reduced development charge schemes. Current processes are time consuming, complicated and expensive. Looking at government fees and taxes per housing unit, it’s more expensive to get approval for the labour-efficient mid-rise housing on our existing major residential streets than it is for single family homes, which are an inefficient use of our labour and land resources by comparison. The Mid-Rise Manual lays out, step by step, what must be done to accomplish that.

    “The buck stops at Queen’s Park. Municipal governments must do all they can on their own initiative, and the federal government should be using its spending power to ensure both provinces and municipalities are empowered to do the right thing. Almost all of the changes we’ve identified as necessary are within the provincial government’s power to deliver,” said Phil Pothen, counsel and land use program manager at Environmental Defence. “There’s no hope of ending Ontario’s housing shortage, or even delivering on the current Premier’s own housing supply promises, without unlocking mid-rise development.”

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Carolyn Townend, Environmental Defence
    media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post New Expert Report: Ending Restrictions on Mid-Rise Apartment Buildings Necessary to end Housing Shortage appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Groups question Canada’s climate leadership at COP29, after new data shows skyrocketing fossil fuel export emissions   

    OTTAWA/TRADITIONAL, UNCEDED TERRITORY OF THE ALGONQUIN ANISHNAABEG PEOPLE — Ecojustice and Environmental Defence have uncovered that greenhouse gas emissions from Canada’s exported oil, gas, and coal ballooned to record levels in 2023. This information was discovered following a petition to Environment and Climate Change Canada for data on the country’s downstream emissions. This data, which was not previously publicly available, shows that despite Canada’s commitments to reducing emissions at home, exported emissions have risen a shocking 58 per cent from 2012 to 2023.  

    The data show a stark contrast between Canada’s rhetoric as a climate leader and its record. In 2023 for the first time, CO2 emissions produced from Canada’s fossil fuel exports surpassed a billion tonnes, at 1,030 million tonnes, significantly eclipsing the country’s domestic emissions estimate of 702 million tonnes for the same year. These numbers continue to rise as Canada is exporting record-breaking volumes of oil and millions of tonnes of thermal coal through its ports to be burned abroad each year — with concerns that they will continue to rise as governments in Canada approve new fossil fuel projects at home (including new LNG projects in British Columbia).  

    The new downstream emissions data comes to light almost exactly a year after Canada stood on the world stage at COP28, the largest international gathering on climate issues, and proclaimed its commitment to capping emissions and transitioning away from fossil fuels. Now, one year later, as Canada again joins the rest of the world at COP29, these new numbers demonstrate a dangerous continued trend of fossil fuel growth.  

    Since 2012, Canada’s annual exported emissions have increased a whopping 378 million tonnes. This boom in exported emissions counteracts recent hard-won progress at home, where domestic emissions in 2023 were only 42 million tonnes lower than in 2012.  

    The federal government’s long-awaited draft regulations to cap pollution from oil and gas companies are a welcome step, given that the oil and gas industry is the largest source of domestic greenhouse gas emissions, and those emissions continue to rise year after year. However, this new data demonstrates the need for all levels of government to do their part to tackle emissions caused by Canada’s production and export of fossil fuels.  

    According to the International Energy Agency, achieving global net zero emissions by 2050 requires a rapid shift away from fossil fuels and no investments in new fossil fuel supply projects. 

    While Canada is not required to report exported emissions under the Paris Agreement, there are increasing calls on the federal government to account for them — emphasizing that, when Canada ships emissions abroad, they don’t stay away. Rather, the effects of these emissions return to Canada in the form of rising temperatures and extreme weather events, including deadly heatwaves, flooding, and more frequent and severe wildfires.  

    If Canada is truly committed to climate leadership — and to meeting its climate goals — it must account for exported emissions in its climate policies, rapidly phase out fossil fuels, invest in renewable energy alternatives, and collaborate with other nations to transition away from fossil fuels and address the climate crisis globally. 

    Representatives from the groups shared the following: 

    Reid Gomme, Staff Lawyer at Ecojustice said:
    “Canada’s emissions are not confined within our borders – nor are their impacts. They come back to haunt us in the form of climate catastrophes, extreme weather events, rising costs of living, and dangerous health consequences. The rise in exported emissions diminishes Canada’s credibility as a climate leader and ignores our responsibility to align our actions with a climate-safe future. To be a true leader on the world stage, we must own and address our entire emissions profile — both domestic and exported.” 

    Julia Levin, Associate Director, National Climate at Environmental Defence said:
    “Fossil fuels are causing unnatural climate disasters that are impacting communities across Canada and around the planet. Last year at COP28, countries, including Canada, finally agreed to transition to renewable energy systems. Yet Canada’s oil and gas production and exports continue to grow. The result is skyrocketing pollution levels that will fuel further disasters. Words need to turn into action, and governments in Canada must get serious about moving off of fossil fuels.” 

    About 

    Ecojustice uses the power of the law to defend nature, combat climate change and fight for a healthy environment. Its strategic, public interest lawsuits and advocacy lead to precedent-setting court decisions, law and policy that deliver lasting solutions to Canada’s most urgent environmental problems. As Canada’s largest environmental law charity, Ecojustice operates offices in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa and Halifax. 

    Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities. 

    -30-

    For media inquiries:

    Cari Siebrits, Communications Strategist | Ecojustice csiebrits@ecojustice.ca
     

    Alex Ross, Communications Manager | Environmental Defence Canada media@environmentaldefence.ca  

    The post Groups question Canada’s climate leadership at COP29, after new data shows skyrocketing fossil fuel export emissions    appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.