Search

Since Confederation in 1867, official Canadian settler government policy on the environment has sought to simultaneously preserve “wilderness” and exploit natural resources for market gain. In the 1960s, the nascent North American modern environmental movement pushed for stronger regulation on pollution and toxics - and a more institutionalised state-led response to environmental problems emerged. Throughout the last five decades, three principal “eras” of federal government reaction have emerged in response to mounting scientific evidence and public pressure to act on environmental issues. The first, from the late-1960s to mid-1980s, saw the development and implementation of early environmental policy and programmes. The second era, from the mid-1980s to mid-2000s co-occurred alongside the rise of the sustainable development paradigm, and is marked by the Canadian government’s attempt at leadership on the global stage. The third era, from the mid-2000s to 2015, demonstrates a shift from environmental regime-building and multilateral collaboration toward rollbacks and obstructionism. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the government of Canada reversed decades of progress and cooperation on the environment and sustainable development through its muzzling of government scientists, superficial co-optation of climate policy, rollbacks of environmental legislation and disparagement of environmental activists. In total, by shifting the federal government from a position of ineffective benevolence on environmental issues to one of contention and antagonism, the Harper government’s approach represents a departure from Canadian environmental governance norms and sought to remake the identity of Canada as an energy superpower inextricably tied to its oil and gas industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The challenge of creating a global low-carbon society is examined from the perspectives of a slow-growing but highly developed economy (Canada) and a fast-growing developing economy (China). Both countries' responses are compared to a similar carbon price schedule (US$10/tCO2e in 2013 rising exponentially to $100 by 2050) using a hybrid technologically explicit and behaviourally realistic model with macroeconomic feedbacks (CIMS). Then additional measures are imposed based on the national circumstances of each country; for Canada we simulate a 50% reduction by 2050, and stabilization for China. The scale of the challenge in all cases requires that every available option be vigorously pursued, including energy efficiency, fuel switching, carbon capture and storage, and accelerated development of renewables; to compensate, there are significant co-reductions of local air pollutants such as SOx and NOx. Finally, the abatement cost schedules of China and Canada are compared, and implications considered for carbon permit flows if the cost schedule of the rest of the developed world is assumed to be similar to that of Canada. We found that the developed world and China could collectively reduce emissions by 50% in 2050 at a price of $175/ tCO2e, with permits flowing from the developed countries to China; while abatement costs are lower in China up to $75/t, at higher prices reductions are less costly in the developed world. Our results indicate that a global low-carbon society is feasible, on condition that policy makers are willing and able to impose long-term, credible policy packages with carbon pricing policy as the core element, coupled with supplementary regulations to address market failures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

India and Canada share a common heritage in natural resources management. Both have a colonial background, settlers and indigenous peoples; there is a history of management agencies with utilitarian attitudes, and a history of treating public lands as commodities for commerce rather than as resources for local livelihoods. This historical context guided the overall goal of this study, which was policy development for the sustainable use of mountain environments. Interviews, workshops and seminars were held with local people and resource management professionals in a comparative case study in two regions; the Kullu area in Himachal Pradesh, India and the Arrow Lakes area in BritishColumbia, Canada. The paper is organized around two main objectives of the work relating to the successes and failures of mountain environment resource management policies and the development of criteria for assessing and monitoring sustainability in mountain environments, in particular, criteria for examining relevant cross-cultural dimensions of sustainable development in these environments. By way of conclusion the paper considers further ways in which traditional resource policy development and implementation is being challenged by changing values and priorities; ecosystems management with people; and co-management and public participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]