Canada quietly asks EPA to weaken anti-pollution measures

[CHIMO]

Source: Globe and Mail

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed tough new measures to reduce the health toll from air pollution around the Great Lakes by forcing lake freighters to stop burning dirty bunker fuel.

But the plan has an unusual opponent: The Canadian embassy in Washington has quietly asked the EPA to weaken the measures, arguing that they could harm trade. It wants ships to be allowed to continue using the high-polluting fuel and to instead install smokestack scrubbers that would clean up their emissions. The Canadian recommendation, if accepted, could delay the clean-air measure for years, because the technology for the scrubbers does not yet exist.

The embassy asked the EPA to make the changes in a letter last month, marking a rare instance in which Canada has lobbied the United States to weaken air-pollution controls designed to reduce health problems linked to breathing dirty air. Because winds carry contaminants back and forth across both sides of the Canada-U.S. border, the EPA proposal would also lead to air-quality improvements in Canada.

The Canadian position is supported by the Great Lakes shipping industry, which is warning that the costs of complying with the proposed environmental regulations are so high that they will force companies to scrap some of the iconic steamers that now ply the lakes carrying everything from salt to iron ore.



Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-quietly-asks-epa-to-weaken-anti-pollution-measures/article1327805/

[ccharles000]

1. k/r

[snagglepuss]

2. US neocons have set their sights north and have quietly decamped to Canada.

Alot is happening in Canada politically that I've never seen before, stuff I have only seen in the States. Quietly asking for lowered EPA is just the tip of an iceberg.

:grr:

[quakerboy]

9. Whatever happened to that no confidance vote and all that

as I recall, it got delayed last year, and was supposed to be revisited in February. Then I never heard another word about it.

[CHIMO]

10. Tories survive Liberal no-confidence motion

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s minority government has survived a Liberal no-confidence motion with help from the NDP, averting an election.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/01/confidence-motion-parliament-ndp305.html

Polls put Harper on the podium
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/polls-put-harper-on-the-podium/article1325485/

[quakerboy]

16. Wow. Go NPD

Whats going on up there? Canada was supposed to be my backup plan.

[valerief]

20. A melting iceberg, at that! nt

[Grassy Knoll]

3. Wait the fuck a minute....

I have to pay to smog my car every year , and you want to weaken the measure, FUCK CANADA !!!!!!!!

[Metta]

4. Typical lying bullshit about jobs and scrapping ships. Happy karma.

Totally self serving bullshit.

[Libertas1776]

5. I hope the EPA says

HELL NO, eh, to those hosers from the great white north.


Canada's still cool, though.

[CHIMO]

6. Has Been

Freezingly cool recently.

[malakai2]

23. I'm not holding my breath

EPA has been a mixed bag of late...some good common sense moves, some ugly WTF moves.

[Psephos]

7. No, don't allow them to use scrubbers, because...because...umm, well, because. n/t

[quakerboy]

8. because they dont exist

Its normally pretty damn hard to use something that doesnt exist, unless you are pretty high up in the financial industry.

[Psephos]

11. yet ...

They're under development FOR SHIP ENGINES. The technology itself is decades-old.

Meanwhile, the Law of Unintended Consequences looms:

Association president Bruce Bowie defended lake freighters, saying they are the “greenest” type of transportation because they are a highly fuel-efficient way of moving bulk cargo. He predicted the EPA's move could lead to more road congestion.

“If they go ahead as it is now, a lot of our ships will have to be taken out of business and somebody is going to have to build more roads to accommodate it,” he said.

So let's push the laker traffic onto the highways instead. Where energy used per ton is higher, infrastructure costs are higher, and existing port facilities are made obsolete.

Michigan and other Great Lakes economies are on their knees. We don't have much stomach for this kind of ideological middle-finger right now.

[CHIMO]

12. Well

Then use a cleaner fuel. It is really quite simple. I don't see why they shouldn't meet the requirements of automobiles. I don't see anyone advocating the reduction of automobile fuels to meet those of bunker C ship fuels?

[w4rma]

13. Reasonable, imho, only if the scrubbers *will* be equal to or more effective than the better fuel.nt

[tomm2thumbs]

14. see Canada has health care and their govt doesn't care if they get sick, but we do

the people of Canada probably didn't know about this and will be interested to find out no doubt.

[salguine]

15. See, the Canadians don't know how this works. You don't "ask", you make campaign contributions.

[whoneedstickets]

17. Canada's no enviromentalist haven..

A substantial portion of the Canadian economy depends on resource extraction: mining, logging, drilling. Far more than the US economy. The environment takes a back seat when these interests get active.

[excess_3]

18. I guess 15% unemployment is not high enough for some people .nt

[cstanleytech]

19. Actually I support canada asking for the use of scrubbers

however the US should only agree if all ships that do not have them installed will be docked and not put into operation until these scrubbers are finally developed and can installed.

[Lagomorph]

21. By then, everybody around the great lakes will have frozen to death in the winter and they won't be

necessary.

[No Elephants]

22. I hope to heaven someone has the courage to tell them to sit down and shut up.