Canadian smugness debunked

[Montgomery Burns]

Pollution Watch: US reduces air pollution emissions 25 times faster than Canada in 8 year period

Canada lags behind the United States when it comes to clamping down on air pollution, says an environmental watchdog.  Pollution Watch says the United States reduced air pollution emissions by 45 per cent between 1995 and 2003, while Canada reduced air pollution emissions by 1.8 per cent over the same period.

“There is evidence that U.S. facilities are outperforming Canadian facilities,” said Paul Muldoon, with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, a partner with Pollution Watch

Pollution Watch is an activist group, so let the spin begin.

[FTA Lawyer]

Pollution Watch:  US reduces air pollution emissions 25 times faster than Canada in 8 year period

Canada lags behind the United States when it comes to clamping down on air pollution, says an environmental watchdog.  Pollution Watch says the United States reduced air pollution emissions by 45 per cent between 1995 and 2003, while Canada reduced air pollution emissions by 1.8 per cent over the same period.

“There is evidence that U.S. facilities are outperforming Canadian facilities,” said Paul Muldoon, with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, a partner with Pollution Watch

Pollution Watch is an activist group, so let the spin begin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stats are useless unless we know the underlying information.

For example, if the U.S. was at levels of air pollution 2 times that of Canada to begin with, then a 45% reduction would still leave them way behind us.

Using numbers that are completely made up, if Canada was emitting 100 units of air pollution per capita, and the US emitting 200, then after the quoted percentage reductions, US would be at 110, and Canada at 98.2.

I'm not saying there is nothing to this story, but we need raw numbers, not inherently misleading percentages, if we want to really assess what is or is not going on.

FTA Lawyer

[Guest eureka]

Also, 50% of the pollution in Ontario comes from US coal fired plants. That is the current estimate so I am a little skeptical of the report.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear FTA Lawyer,

I'm not saying there is nothing to this story, but we need raw numbers, not inherently misleading percentages, if we want to really assess what is or is not going on.

In another thread about 'Strange Weather', cybercoma states that 'economic growth' during this time was larger for Canada than the US, whose production numbers in certain fields were near stagnant.

I was scanning through articles in the Windsor Star the otherday and evidently the United States has cut emissions by 45% whereas Canada has only reduced them by something like 1.5% (my numbers may be a bit wrong, but it's close to those). They're simply attributing it to productivity slowing down in the United States and increasing in Canada, particularly in the areas of energy and oil refining, etc.

If this is true, it is interesting the implications Kyoto will have when you consider our increased prodcutivity is being blamed for emissions staying roughly the same. If reducing productivity is the best way to reduce CO2 being put in the atmosphere, then it's no wonder the US refused to sign. This does imply, more or less, that when a country becomes more productive it'll be required to give money to less productive countries by way of buying credits.

link...

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...=90entry72826

So, Pollution Watch and Mr. Burns seem to be spinning this like a top....sometimes omissions can be as misleading as falsehoods...

[Montgomery Burns]

What's your point, Lionus?

The US economy sucks? Their unemployment rate is 4.9% (Canada 6.8%) and their GDP growth has been very stellar for over 2 years. Some were calling for Bush's head--in as much as a President can "control" the economy--when the unemployment rate rose to 6.4% after the effects of an inherited recession, a major stock scandal, and 9-11.

In the US, a 6.4% unemployment rate is poor. In Canada, a 6.8% unemployment rate is excellent.

Some people just seem to set higher standards for themselves...

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Montgomery Burns,

What's your point, Lionus?

My point is that those numbers are misleading, and therefore

Canada lags behind the United States when it comes to clamping down on air pollution, says an environmental watchdog.

is equally misleading. Neither country has 'clamped down'.

[Toro]

What's your point, Lionus?

The US economy sucks?  Their unemployment rate is 4.9% (Canada 6.8%) and their GDP growth has been very stellar for over 2 years.  Some were calling for Bush's head--in as much as a President can "control" the economy--when the unemployment rate rose to 6.4% after the effects of an inherited recession, a major stock scandal, and 9-11. 

In the US, a 6.4% unemployment rate is poor.  In Canada, a 6.8% unemployment rate is excellent. 

Some people just seem to set higher standards for themselves...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Global growth rates.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3710

[Black Dog]

Pollution Watch says the United States reduced air pollution emissions by 45 per cent between 1995 and 2003, while Canada reduced air pollution emissions by 1.8 per cent over the same period.

A few things to note:

1) The data in question refers only to on-site industrial emissions, not pollution in general, nor does teh report provide information on all pollutants, all sources of chemicals, data from facilities in Mexico (with the exception of criteria air contaminants), environmental damage, or health risks.

2) Canada (according to 1998 data) released only 23 per cent as much of the chemicals as the US, so we're starting off at a much lower level.

3)Airborne emissions are only one part of the report. For instance, it also reports releases into water. In this case, the release of this particular set of chemicals into surface water decreased in Canada by almost 50 per cent but increased in the US by 16 per cent.

So, while the data may be correct, it's limited and does not speak to the bigger picture.

[Yodeler]

Pollution Watch says the United States reduced air pollution emissions by 45 per cent between 1995 and 2003, while Canada reduced air pollution emissions by 1.8 per cent over the same period.

3)Airborne emissions are only one part of the report. For instance, it also reports releases into water. In this case, the release of this particular set of chemicals into surface water decreased in Canada by almost 50 per cent but increased in the US by 16 per cent.

So, while the data may be correct, it's limited and does not speak to the bigger picture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure Canadian fish will be glad to hear that.

[Pearson]

So, while the data may be correct, it's limited and does not speak to the bigger picture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Canada needs to clean up its act. The USA is decades ahead of Canada in the treatment of sewage.

Unlike the United States or European Union, Canada has no national standards for sewage treatment," said Sierra Legal staff scientist Dr. Elaine MacDonald. "As a result of our patchwork approach, Canada has fallen well behind. To begin catching up, Canada must create national standards for sewage treatment, and these standards should be consistently and equitably enforced throughout the country."

"More than a decade after our National Sewage Report Card first brought attention to the abysmal level of sewage treatment in many cities across Canada, billions of litres of raw sewage continue to flow into our lakes, rivers and waterways each day," said Sierra Legal staff lawyer Margot Venton. "As Canadians, we should be embarrassed that major cities like Victoria and Montreal continue to dump enormous amounts of sewage laden with toxic chemicals into local waterways without any treatment whatsoever."

http://www.sierralegal.org/m_archive/pr04_09_08.html

[PocketRocket]

Pollution Watch:  US reduces air pollution emissions 25 times faster than Canada in 8 year period

Canada lags behind the United States when it comes to clamping down on air pollution, says an environmental watchdog.  Pollution Watch says the United States reduced air pollution emissions by 45 per cent between 1995 and 2003, while Canada reduced air pollution emissions by 1.8 per cent over the same period.

“There is evidence that U.S. facilities are outperforming Canadian facilities,” said Paul Muldoon, with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, a partner with Pollution Watch

Pollution Watch is an activist group, so let the spin begin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if you're looking for spin, how about this.

I noticed that Pollution Watch took their Canadian measurements from Environment Canada.

I also noticed that in the article you cited, no mention was made of where they got their American statistics.

From the US government??? The EPA???

Well, either way we have to consider that the EPA's report last year was strongly, shall we say, "edited" before it was allowed to be released for public consumption.

The EPA, upon presenting their annual report, was told eaxcatly HOW the White House wanted them to re-word their report on air emmisions and possible contributions to global warming. (Can't find the link to that particular bit right now, but there's plenty of others)

This is not the first time the Bush Admin has "muzzled" the EPA.

Here are a few examples.....

The first details muzzling of EPA reports of possible danger from 9/11 fallout....

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/environment.html

The second ( http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pubs...ease_FINAL3.doc ) has a few statements, quoted below, which show more of the same......

:  “The Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have gotten shy about taking polluters to court lately.  A review of publicly available data shows that civil lawsuits for violation of anti-pollution laws have declined more than 75 percent, thanks to White House decisions to rewrite environmental rules and put the brakes on enforcement actions."

“While refineries and coal-fired power plants appear virtually immune from prosecution, the Justice Department did find time to take a dry cleaner to federal court for failure to pay an administrative penalty.”

What is behind the sharp drop in EPA enforcement?  The EIP report concludes that it is “the logical result of a series of policy decisions that have effectively muzzled EPA’s dedicated career staff.”

EPA staff was ordered to cease investigations of industrial scale “factory farms” that house tens of thousands of animals, and make the air in surrounding communities unfit to breathe. 

And more of the same.....

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200409/bush_record.asp

So, in a nutshell, you have cited an organization whose mandate is to reduce pollution, IN CANADA, as a source. Therefore, they would have an interest in showing Canada in an unfavorable light.

That organization used materials provided by Environment Canada, which has NOT been reported to have been "muzzled" by the Canadian government.

That same organization did NOT reveal its sources for the supposed improvements in the USA.

IF those sources were the US government, or even the EPA, then the source must be held as suspect because of the nature of the manipulation of the EPA's findings and reports in recent years.

Well, you did say you wanted spin

[tml12]

Pollution Watch:  US reduces air pollution emissions 25 times faster than Canada in 8 year period

Canada lags behind the United States when it comes to clamping down on air pollution, says an environmental watchdog.  Pollution Watch says the United States reduced air pollution emissions by 45 per cent between 1995 and 2003, while Canada reduced air pollution emissions by 1.8 per cent over the same period.

“There is evidence that U.S. facilities are outperforming Canadian facilities,” said Paul Muldoon, with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, a partner with Pollution Watch

Pollution Watch is an activist group, so let the spin begin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if you're looking for spin, how about this.

I noticed that Pollution Watch took their Canadian measurements from Environment Canada.

I also noticed that in the article you cited, no mention was made of where they got their American statistics.

From the US government??? The EPA???

Well, either way we have to consider that the EPA's report last year was strongly, shall we say, "edited" before it was allowed to be released for public consumption.

The EPA, upon presenting their annual report, was told eaxcatly HOW the White House wanted them to re-word their report on air emmisions and possible contributions to global warming. (Can't find the link to that particular bit right now, but there's plenty of others)

This is not the first time the Bush Admin has "muzzled" the EPA.

Here are a few examples.....

The first details muzzling of EPA reports of possible danger from 9/11 fallout....

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/environment.html

The second ( http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pubs...ease_FINAL3.doc ) has a few statements, quoted below, which show more of the same......

:  “The Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have gotten shy about taking polluters to court lately.  A review of publicly available data shows that civil lawsuits for violation of anti-pollution laws have declined more than 75 percent, thanks to White House decisions to rewrite environmental rules and put the brakes on enforcement actions."

“While refineries and coal-fired power plants appear virtually immune from prosecution, the Justice Department did find time to take a dry cleaner to federal court for failure to pay an administrative penalty.”

What is behind the sharp drop in EPA enforcement?  The EIP report concludes that it is “the logical result of a series of policy decisions that have effectively muzzled EPA’s dedicated career staff.”

EPA staff was ordered to cease investigations of industrial scale “factory farms” that house tens of thousands of animals, and make the air in surrounding communities unfit to breathe. 

And more of the same.....

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200409/bush_record.asp

So, in a nutshell, you have cited an organization whose mandate is to reduce pollution, IN CANADA, as a source. Therefore, they would have an interest in showing Canada in an unfavorable light.

That organization used materials provided by Environment Canada, which has NOT been reported to have been "muzzled" by the Canadian government.

That same organization did NOT reveal its sources for the supposed improvements in the USA.

IF those sources were the US government, or even the EPA, then the source must be held as suspect because of the nature of the manipulation of the EPA's findings and reports in recent years.

Well, you did say you wanted spin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The excuse of the U.S. to not help the environment is that it will hurt their economy.

No compromise and certainly no thinking ahead.

Funny how, in his second term, Bush suddenly stops caring about the environment...

[Black Dog]

Funny how, in his second term, Bush suddenly stops caring about the environment...

Did he ever?

In his first term, he appointed industry flunkies to key environmental posts, pulled regulations on everything from mining on public lands to how private-sector developers preserve wetlands when developing commercial and residential projects. The administration has routinely ignored or distorted scientific findings to advance its industry-first agenda. And so on.

Canada is obviously not much better on many fronts. Many people of all stripes here seem to believe that Paul Martin's Liberals are somehow ahead of their American counterparts. That's not the case. The Liberals are just smaller versions of the Washington business elite, only with the veneer of progressive values, which makes their appalling performance on the enviornment and other issues almost harder to stomach.

[tml12]

Funny how, in his second term, Bush suddenly stops caring about the environment...

Did he ever?

In his first term, he appointed industry flunkies to key environmental posts, pulled regulations on everything from mining on public lands to how private-sector developers preserve wetlands when developing commercial and residential projects. The administration has routinely ignored or distorted scientific findings to advance its industry-first agenda. And so on.

Canada is obviously not much better on many fronts. Many people of all stripes here seem to believe that Paul Martin's Liberals are somehow ahead of their American counterparts. That's not the case. The Liberals are just smaller versions of the Washington business elite, only with the veneer of progressive values, which makes their appalling performance on the enviornment and other issues almost harder to stomach.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I meant to say stop caring about the economy.

But your points are certainly well received.

[Shady]

It's funny to watch the Bush-Haters heads explode when they try to rationalize the fact that Bush's American is better on the evironment then Canada.

[Black Dog]

It's funny to watch the Bush-Haters heads explode when they try to rationalize the fact that Bush's American is better on the evironment then Canada

It's not. Even the recent reports which put Canada near the bottom of the barrel still had Canada above teh U.S.A. We've got a lot of work to do on the environment, but to say "Bush's American is better on the evironment then Canada" is to lie.

[Yodeler]

Americans are better at fighting air pollution, but we are better at fighting water pollution.

Isn't that so?