[All] Deadline today at Noon re: Bill 172

[Louisette Lanteigne]

Hi folks
The standing committee on Bill 172, the climate change mitigation and low-carbon economy act will be meeting to hold public hearings in Toronto.  These will be on April 4 and 6.   Interested people who wish to make an oral presentation on bill 172 need to provide their contact name,  mailing address, phone#, and email address to the committee BY NOON OF WED MARCH 30.

Those who wish to comment without making an oral presentation may send a written submission to the Clerk of the committee by 6pm Wed April 6.

Electronic version of the bill is available in www.ontla.on.ca

The Clerk is Sylwia Przezdziecki  and she can be reached at 416 325 3515 collect calls accepted or at sprzezdziecki at ola.org

I'm a registered delegate and just got confirmation on my spot to present today.
Didn't know if GREN wanted to submit written comment or not.
Here are my concerns in a nutshell. 
1. Old MNR discharge permits are in the hands of industry not the Province. Where is the existing centralized data base regarding Ontario emissions permits? Does it even exist yet? 2. Air quality might not capture true discharges unless we factor in ambient impacts to water quality surrounding industry too. ie: Darlington is next to great lakes. How many particulates end up as runoff and how much discharge is bound to water particulates during times of dew, precipitation, fog etc.  Ambient air quality is not enough to reasonably monitor particulate discharges. 3. Will this policy apply to areas on reservations? What dialogue has taken place with First Nation's about this policy? 4. Even if all companies are in compliance, concentrated cumulative discharges can still pose risks if we don't stop new projects. Right now Sarnia has expansion projects in the works for more processing plants.  Many of the petroleum based sectors there have already been granted a 4 year exemptions from compliance to this bill. What carbon emissions will they generate during that 4 year period? Who's discretionary powers were used to grant them the exemption and on what grounds? 5. Emissions can still create tort harm to the public where industries are highly concentrated. Who's emissions are who's?  How will monitoring work in these areas? 6. What about discharges related to quarry pit operations or methane from landfills? Trends show landfills are getting hotter all across the US.  Will reduction in industrial use actually have a meaningful impact on overall C02 reduction? 7. Cap and Trade could lead to legal challenges under NAFTA once prices rise up. Industries will fight back if it hurts their bottom line. Are we prepared for liability risks and Nafta challenges.?8. Fee and Dividend affords protection across the board without discrimination based on time of purchase of fossil fuels. This is a greater behavioral change and motivation to improve design of products than simply controlling the emissions of a select group of polluting industries. Unlike Cap and Trade, it is across the board, with equity.  There is less chance of legal challenges if the system includes everyone. 9. With cap and trade we risk extensive environmental damage with projects like Site C, designed to provide hydro power to oil sectors in Alberta to make it greener. The question must be asked, what is the carbon price for destroying massive tracts of forests and alter hydrology of farmlands and aquifers in perpetuity? What is the risk of algae issues and will it increase greater climate risks in perpetuity? 10. Currently WCS is worth $15 a barrel and we are loosing $15-$25 per barrel.  OECD nations have a firm commitment to phase out coal and fossil fuel use. There is no economic scenerio where oil sands or coal makes sense at this point.  Cap and Trade is facilitating yet another subsidy to oil and gas to reduce their processing costs with green energy but the economic reality shows we are on the loosing side if we keep pumping oil out.
We have a duty to act with prudence and to reasonably disclose risks to the Canadian public. The Canadian government has no plausable deniability in knowing climate change is real, and that the oil must stay in the ground if we are to survive.  Fee and dividend will get us there faster. 
Louisette
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20160330/38868f16/attachment.html>