EDITORIAL — Not in my pristine backyard, thank you — Ghettoizing pollution

Environmentalists lobbying to have the Canadian government live up to commitments made at a conference on climate change held last year in Kyoto, Japan, might think twice about their efforts if they took a hard look at some of the industrial complexes operating in China, the former Soviet Union, and other parts of the developing world.

Not for the faint of heart are the scenes of environmental degradation surrounding aging, decrepit smelters operating without scrubbers and emission controls, or the sight of workers toiling in shoddily constructed, rusting steel plants without environmental safeguards, or the acrid smell from the blanket of yellow air spewed from inefficient coal plants that serve as many cities’ only source of power for the heating and lighting of homes. And downright chilling are some of the poorly maintained nuclear power plants and the grimy, dreary-looking chemical and weapons factories, which, in their glory days, had carte blanche to produce whatever strategic materials were demanded by megalomaniacal leaders, human and environmental costs be damned.

Instead of being relegated to the scrap-heap, many of these antiquated operations stand to gain a new lease on life if do-gooders in the West manage to convince their respective governments to press ahead with promises to curtail industrial development in order to reduce greenhouse gases and the perceived threat of global warning. Last year, without thinking about the consequences, the Canadian government undertook to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide) to 6% below 1990 levels by the year 2010, which would be about 25% of projected levels for that year.

This commitment was grandstanding or stupidity, or both. Firstly, more than 70% of Canada’s current energy needs are met by fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas). The last time we looked, there was no technically feasible non-hydrocarbon alternative other than nuclear or hydro power, and these also face environmental and political opposition. It’s a safe bet that in order to meet these draconian reductions, environmentalists and lobby groups will push the government to impose higher taxes on energy consumption or introduce energy rationing or regulation. These urban elitists want rural Canada to be an undeveloped wilderness where only the deer and the caribou roam.

Meanwhile, in the United States, officials from the Environmental Protection Agency are proposing to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Such foolishness threatens virtually all industrial activity and could bring a rapid halt to the prosperity the nation is now enjoying.

In anticipation of such a ruling, companies are forced to look into the somewhat farcical idea of buying “pollution credits” from less-developed nations so they can continue to operate and allow politicians to save face with the public. Small wonder that the prospects of Vice-President Al Gore (the man who described American society as “dysfunctional” because of its reliance on fossil fuels) becoming president strikes about as much terror in their hearts as the notion that government bureaucrats can “regulate” carbon dioxide and “manage” climate change.

Meanwhile, a compliant media accept sensationalistic global warming scenarios generated by flawed computer models as fact, rather than unproved hypotheses. They forget that there is no agreement among scientists about whether the phenomena of global warming is the result of man-made factors or natural climatic variations. And they forget that there is a link between economic growth and environmental quality; that economic growth not only provides citizens with a better standard of living, but also fosters advances in education, public health and environmental standards. Experts say that during the past few decades, air quality, water purity and other indicators of environmental health have improved in Canada, rather than deteriorated.

It is naive, and somewhat arrogant, to think that we can control global climate change. Nevertheless, we can do more to prevent and remediate pollution at its source, at home and abroad. We can continue to push for energy efficiency, less-polluting transportation systems, cleaner and safer plants and factories — but with a carrot, not a stick.

Curtailing industrial development in North America will only drive it elsewhere and make hypocrites and imperialists of us all. Researchers are already warning that, if the powerful anti-development lobby prevails, the so-called “dirty industries” will become ghettoized in developing countries with weak environmental legislation and even weaker leaders.

Do we really want more Bhopals? More Chernobyls? And do we really want to go back to the unheated cave?