OECD has Canada near last

[newbie]

Out of 30 countries, Canada fared 28th in terms of environmental performance. Turkey is number 1!. Read the report here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ienceandHealth/

[Argus]

Out of 30 countries, Canada fared 28th in terms of environmental performance. Turkey is number 1!. Read the report here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ienceandHealth/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, don't believe it. Whatever criteria were set must be a joke to put the likes of Turkey and Mexico ahead of Canada.

[newbie]

It was done by an independent team of researchers from Simon Fraser University, led by Dr. Thomas Gunton. I, unlike a lot of folks it seems on this forum, agree with science. I guess it's just easier to disagree when you don't like the results.

[Argus]

It was done by an independent team of researchers from Simon Fraser University, led by Dr. Thomas Gunton. I, unlike a lot of folks it seems on this forum, agree with science. I guess it's just easier to disagree when you don't like the results.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's called common sense. Most of us have it. We know very well that environmental controls in the likes of Mexico and Turkey are virtually unknown.

Without getting into the actual study, but just going by what's available on the story cited, it appears we take a major hit for overusing water. Right. that makes sense. We're bad because we use much more water than places like Mexico and Turkey. Not because we dirty it more, but because we use it more. Uhm, because we're heavily industrialised? Because water is plentiful here and thus cheap? We're penalized for this? Sorry. That doesn't cut it.

[tml12]

It was done by an independent team of researchers from Simon Fraser University, led by Dr. Thomas Gunton. I, unlike a lot of folks it seems on this forum, agree with science. I guess it's just easier to disagree when you don't like the results.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's called common sense. Most of us have it. We know very well that environmental controls in the likes of Mexico and Turkey are virtually unknown.

Without getting into the actual study, but just going by what's available on the story cited, it appears we take a major hit for overusing water. Right. that makes sense. We're bad because we use much more water than places like Mexico and Turkey. Not because we dirty it more, but because we use it more. Uhm, because we're heavily industrialised? Because water is plentiful here and thus cheap? We're penalized for this? Sorry. That doesn't cut it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Generally, I agree with that.

[err]

Out of 30 countries, Canada fared 28th in terms of environmental performance. Turkey is number 1!. 

I had seen something similar in the Toronto Star yesterday or the day before. While there are many who think that we cannot rate worse than Turkey or Mexico, they should read about the places where we fail.

Three provinces dump raw sewage into the ocean. Our handling of nuclear waste was rated poorly as well.

Instead of sticking our heads in the sand and denying it, we should send a message to our political candidates that we want something done.

PS. Dr. David Suzuki backed the report, so for me, it gives it considerable credibility...

[Argus]

Out of 30 countries, Canada fared 28th in terms of environmental performance. Turkey is number 1!. 

I had seen something similar in the Toronto Star yesterday or the day before. While there are many who think that we cannot rate worse than Turkey or Mexico, they should read about the places where we fail.

Three provinces dump raw sewage into the ocean. Our handling of nuclear waste was rated poorly as well.

Instead of sticking our heads in the sand and denying it, we should send a message to our political candidates that we want something done.

PS. Dr. David Suzuki backed the report, so for me, it gives it considerable credibility...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that we should be improving our handling of waste. I agree we should not be dumping raw sewage into the ocean, but does anyone seriously believe Turkey and Mexico don't dump raw sewage into every river and lake they have, not to mention their oceans? Come on. Please. US companies move south to Mexico so they can avoid, among other things, the environmental standards and rules in the US. Don't tell me Mexico should be held up to us as a great example.

As for Suzuki, he doesn't add credibility to this report, he loses it by backing idiotic pseudo science.

[newbie]

Out of 30 countries, Canada fared 28th in terms of environmental performance. Turkey is number 1!. 

I had seen something similar in the Toronto Star yesterday or the day before. While there are many who think that we cannot rate worse than Turkey or Mexico, they should read about the places where we fail.

Three provinces dump raw sewage into the ocean. Our handling of nuclear waste was rated poorly as well.

Instead of sticking our heads in the sand and denying it, we should send a message to our political candidates that we want something done.

PS. Dr. David Suzuki backed the report, so for me, it gives it considerable credibility...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that we should be improving our handling of waste. I agree we should not be dumping raw sewage into the ocean, but does anyone seriously believe Turkey and Mexico don't dump raw sewage into every river and lake they have, not to mention their oceans? Come on. Please. US companies move south to Mexico so they can avoid, among other things, the environmental standards and rules in the US. Don't tell me Mexico should be held up to us as a great example.

As for Suzuki, he doesn't add credibility to this report, he loses it by backing idiotic pseudo science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously, your credibility just died with your last statement. Dr. Suzuki is a world renowned scientist. What is your background?

[Riverwind]

Obviously, your credibility just died with your last statement. Dr. Suzuki is a world renowned scientist. What is your background?

Dr. Suzuki is to Scientist as Dr. Phil is to Psychiatrist.

[newbie]

Well folks, the facts speak for themselves. You can demean and deride Dr. Suzuki all you want, but "Canada hasn't improved its environmental performance since 1992, relative to other OECD countries". Not a record we should be proud of.

[Argus]

Out of 30 countries, Canada fared 28th in terms of environmental performance. Turkey is number 1!. 

I had seen something similar in the Toronto Star yesterday or the day before. While there are many who think that we cannot rate worse than Turkey or Mexico, they should read about the places where we fail.

Three provinces dump raw sewage into the ocean. Our handling of nuclear waste was rated poorly as well.

Instead of sticking our heads in the sand and denying it, we should send a message to our political candidates that we want something done.

PS. Dr. David Suzuki backed the report, so for me, it gives it considerable credibility...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that we should be improving our handling of waste. I agree we should not be dumping raw sewage into the ocean, but does anyone seriously believe Turkey and Mexico don't dump raw sewage into every river and lake they have, not to mention their oceans? Come on. Please. US companies move south to Mexico so they can avoid, among other things, the environmental standards and rules in the US. Don't tell me Mexico should be held up to us as a great example.

As for Suzuki, he doesn't add credibility to this report, he loses it by backing idiotic pseudo science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously, your credibility just died with your last statement. Dr. Suzuki is a world renowned scientist. What is your background?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just because Suzuki had a CBC TV show (now cancelled) that does not make him "world renowned". Nor do his opinions come graven in stone.

[kimmy]

The Globe'n'Mail article says:

Among Canada's worst rankings were its approach to nuclear waste and carbon-monoxide emissions (it placed 30th in each category), 28th in energy consumption and 29th in water consumption.

It fared a bit better in terms of its recycling efforts (ninth) and use of pesticides (eighth) but did not come in first in any category.

It is likely that countries like Mexico and Turkey finished ahead of us simply by having no nuclear reactors, far fewer automobiles per capita, little need to heat their homes at any time of the year, and little heavy industry requiring large volumes of water. (as an aside, what's wrong with water consumption, anyway? After we consume it, does it not wind up right back in the natural water cycle? I don't see a problem.)

It is unavoidable that Canadians will use more energy than those in warm climates. Heating and transportation costs in our country will almost certainly be higher than for any other country on that list, and always will be, because of geography.

I am almost certain that it's not your "8 glasses a day" that is dragging down Canada's performance in the water conservation category. It is our economic activities. Manufacturing requires large volumes of water. Oil production requires large volumes of water. Pulp and paper requires large volumes of water. Many of our large-scale power-generating technologies involve steam-driven turbines, I believe. Our agricultural industries use large amounts of water. Our food processing industries use large amounts of water. Short of returning to a subsistence economy, I'm not sure what possible remedy there is to these activities.

It appears to me that this study is not so much a critique of environmental preservation, but of economic activities. That is not necessarily to say that Canada is golden in these categories, but I would at least like to see apples compared to apples. For instance, I'd be interested to see how Canada's pulp and paper industry compares to its counterparts in other countries. I'd be interested in hearing a study of how efficient Canada's home heating is compared to that in other countries.

If our pulp and paper industry is wasteful and polluting compared to its counterparts in other countries, then so be it, criticism is justified. If our home heating is inefficient compared to other countries, then criticism is justified. But if this report is ranking us lower because we have to heat our homes and because we produce pulp and paper (etc), compared to countries that do not have to heat their homes and do not produce pulp and paper (etc) then the producers of the report should be embarrassed.

-k

[tml12]

Obviously, your credibility just died with your last statement. Dr. Suzuki is a world renowned scientist. What is your background?

Dr. Suzuki is to Scientist as Dr. Phil is to Psychiatrist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dr. Suzuki IS a world-renowned scientist but in this case I am leaning toward siding with Sparhawk.

Suzuki often uses cris-crosses numbers to make a point (i.e. substituting parts per trillion with parts per million as he did a few years back)

Perhaps Environment Minister Stephane Dion summed it up best when he said "Canada vs. Mexico...whose water would you rather drink???"

[RB]

I think the LACK of strict environmental laws can turn countries into pollution free heaven.

What I mean firstly is that companies can move their businesses to these countries e.g. Mexico in order to profit and have cost benefits. So as expected there are trade gains for these lesser countries.

Also, what are we working with. Look, if pollution is not produced (meaning that factories and people are not affected) I guess not much is necessary as they don’t need provision for adherence. How simple can we get - just no pollution.

I did not look at the report so bear with me

I wanted to ask these questions of Turkey in relation to say Canada

1) What is the most polluting industry in Turkey and who is investing in it, and where are they exporting these products to

2) Next what is there a budget allocation for say factory inspection

3) Do that have hefty tolls for busy cities

4) Do they have drive clean program

5) Do they try to decrease emission (or they have programs with no justification)

6) Do they impose fines of contaminating factory, closures and machinery

7) Or their government declares they are unaware of environmental problems

Well, even if foreign countries are polluting the environment, here is what I believe that most of the companies polluting Turkey is absorbed into the domestic markets

And that the governments in Turkey are self adherent.

My question to ask is perhaps whether they have enough money to conform to environment laws and adherance in par with Canada or the US. Did I hear you say no.

I can certainly believe something more of this nature, that would produce such a favorable report of Turkey.

That Turkey must on par with environmental regulations but whether they implement, adhere and monitor these is questionable. I further have to think that most of their consumption is for domestic usage.

Who is Turkey trading with anyways?