Why Does Canada Need To Improve The Environment

We once lived in a world lush and plentiful where we enjoyed all the natural resources peacefully. However at the beginning of the industrial revolution more people moved to the cities therefore increasing their dependency load. Fastforward to today and the world has seen a drastic change in the loss of natural resources as well as a number of health related illnesses like asthma. This is mainly due to the effects from carbon pollution, greenhouse gases and global warming. Canada as a country is thought of as environmentally aware and progressive. Actually has many issues regarding this topic and if it is not taken care of it will affect the future of the nation. I care about this topic because it has to

Canada’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol was a relatively short-lived deal met with plenty of controversy that saw opposition and support. The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty that extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits countries to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions based on the assumption that global warming exists and man-made CO2 emissions are the contributing factor (Kyoto Protocol 1997). When the Liberal party lost the 2006 elections to the Conservative party, Canada had already gone back on its promise of a country-wide movement, undoing any progress towards its Kyoto goals (Canada and

Ontario has its own creative and effective strategies to combat climate change. One of Ontario’s goal is a low-carbon future. To accomplish this the province started making carbon reductions in 1990 and are on track to reduce carbon emissions by 15% in 2020, 37 per cent in 2030 and 80 per cent in 2050 (Climate Change Action Plan, 2017). Ontario’s target of reducing emissions by 6% was met on schedule in 2014 (Climate Change Action Plan, 2017). One of the reasons this has been made possible is because of Ontario’s investment in carbon reduction. For example, in 2015 Ontario committed $325-million payment to Ontario’s Green Investment Fund to support programs that help households and businesses implement

Currently, the Canadian government is taking several initiatives to control climate change. In 2017, Canada signed the Paris Accord and agreed to cut 30% of carbon emissions by 2030.

Today corporate profitability outweighs any environmental consequences and certainly takes precedence over implications to future generations. Canadas situation can be accurately surmised in a quote from Alanis Obomsawin, an Abenaki from the Odanak reserve, located northeast of Montreal and is quoted as saying:

It states that Canada’s environment has been a prime resource of a successful and flourishing economy. The party believes that we are treating our environment more like a business in liquidation. Furthermore, they feel we are destroying our environment through excessive wastefulness of natural resources and a consistent lack of protection for the environment. Leaving a “legacy” that future generations will be left to clean up. The green party is a strong supporter of collectivism rather than individualism considering that they long to create a healthy future for all Canadians. The ideologies of capitalism, classical liberalism and individualism in this case would likely seek to prioritize the business side of the environment, further damaging it through continued wastefulness to continue company profits. The Green party believes that it’s the collective’s civic duty to keep our environment safe for all future generations rather than seeing it exploited for

Though the problem of environmental damage is a global one, there is nothing stopping Canadians from solving it in their own

It is also important to point out that, unlike the US movement, Canada’s environmental justice

Stewart Elgie, a University of Ottawa law and economics professor and chair of the green economy think-tank Sustainable Prosperity suggests that British Columbia’s per-capita fuel usage had fallen more than 4 per cent compared with the rest of Canada and its economy (Ebner, McCarthy, 2011) Evidently it is reducing the amount of green house gasses emitted by fossil fuel use. However this is not the concern many had with the introduction of the tax, but the concerns were focused upon the externalities caused by this and the effects it would have on the economy. Three years since the carbon tax introduction and the Provincial level of GDP has remained approximately the same, (Greenery in Canada: We have a winner) With the provincial level of GDP remaining around the same, this suggests that at the very worst the carbon tax has had no negative effects to the provincial economy. Furthermore the tax also promised to remain carbon neutral and promised to cut corporate and private income tax. British Columbia has become the province with the lowest income tax regime and the lowest corporate tax regime (Greenery in Canada: We have a winner). Although the carbon tax is being praised by many, it still faces concerns as many still argue the ineffectiveness of the tax and what that means for the province.

The reason this question has to be answered is simple, Canada sits at a very important junction in its evolution; does it continue to push forward to become an energy superpower or does it let the environmental conversation win, pushing forward instead with a clean energy agenda? This essay will hopefully drive this conversation forward.

For the last two decades, the increased use of fossil energy caused the environmental problems. The evidence of global warming, like drying rivers, extinction of species, melting of glaciers, became more often around the planet. The climate change became a threat to healthy environment and prosperity of humanity and wildlife, and the world community started searching for solution to combat climate change. In 2008 British Columbia introduced carbon tax on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to reduce global warming. Starting from $10 per tonne of CO2, the price was increasing annually till it reached $30 per tonne in 2012. During that period British Columbia was reducing harmful emissions and improving economy comparing to the rest of Canada. However, since the price rise on carbon stopped in 2012, no improving changes in cutting emissions, economy, and overall quality of life have been noticed. In this essay I will persuade that British Columbia should continue gradually increase price on carbon tax to the level where it will significantly cut the use of dirty energy, provide enough investments into the green projects, and support low-income families.

Nearly fourteen years ago, the Calgary-based oil enterprise "Enbridge" announced its most controversial project yet; to build a $6.5-billion oil-duct from Bruderheim, Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia (Canadian Press, 2013, para. 1). It was to be named the "Northern Gateway Pipeline”.Enbridge 's preliminary announcement on the sixth of March, 2002, not only divided the province of British Columbia on whether environmental or economic prosperity was more important, but the country of Canada as a whole. Although the name "Northern Gateway" is well-known in many Western-Canadian households, few truly know the details of what this project entails. Many environmentalists and economists (Mortillara, Nicole, Global News, 2014) debate the benefits and the negative-impacts that this pipeline will have on Canadians and Canadian society. Others, though, are trying to understand what steps are being taken to ensure environmental sustainability during construction, and for the many years after its projected completion.This multi-billion dollar project has many vocal opposers, and a seemingly equal amount of environmental risks that accompanies it, all adding up to the general consensus that this duct is not worth the economic benefits that it would produce.

Air pollution is huge globally. With the earth warming and looking at the future and all the problems were going to have if this isn't fixed soon. Most countries are trying hard while some and Canada aren't trying as hard. The reasons of air pollution are cars, factories, land filth, etc. There are about 10 million Canadians at risk from exposure to traffic pollution. You may not think that's a lot, but Canada has a population of about 35.16 million people. So there about ⅓ of at risk while the others are still exposed to traffic pollution. If eco-rights was in the charter of rights then there would be less air pollution. If they put a taxes on carbon then it's a win-win. Because then fewer people will be buying cars that take oil. They will buy more hydrogen vehicles and electric cars. Then there will be more companies that make those kinds of cars, and they will make more money because more people buying them. There will also be less oil being pumped out, which will cause less environmental issues. Over time, there will be less carbon in the air and the earth won’t be warming as fast. Also, Canadians would have the right to clean

Canada is one of the developed nations in the world and with that comes a certain type of lifestyle that its citizens are accustomed to and often expect. This lifestyle is definitely not conscious of the environment at most times, however is trying to improve or at least find some kind of alternative to environmental problems that we can’t actually fix because they’ve become an important part of our everyday life. For that, our lifestyle has been measured by way of an ecological footprint and the results obviously haven’t been something to be proud of. Although there are many reasons why the ecological footprint of Canada is so high, one of the reasons is because of our excessive fossil fuel emissions from our cars, trucks, busses and planes.

Access to information is the key for improvement. For example, our consumption of the world’s resources is arguably becoming unsustainable, and this can be proven plausible with a change in the climate. One may ask, exactly how is climate change related to consumption? This type of information is only one of the things a climate change broker can help with.