David Suzuki Foundation - Latest News

Suzuki Foundation and Pembina Institute available for comment on Western Climate Initiative recommendations and meeting

Wed, 23 Jul 08 07:00:00 UT

The David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute will be available to brief journalists on the upcoming Western Climate Initiative (WCI) meeting on July 29 in San Diego. The Western Climate Initiative is a regional effort to reduce emissions between several U.S. states and Canadian provinces, including B.C., Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. A background document on the upcoming meeting and the key questions still facing the WCI is available here.

The July 29 meeting in San Diego follows meetings in Portland and Salt Lake City, and will be an opportunity to present and discuss the next iteration of the WCI’s recommendations (which are expected to be released this week). With Ontario joining the WCI last week, the federal government’s current approach to climate change policy has been soundly rejected as insufficient. The WCI's proposed cap-and-trade system now represents one of the key policy planks for four provinces accounting for 79% of Canada’s population and 49% of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Once implemented, the regulations to cap and reduce industrial emissions will be a key part of provincial action on climate change. The cap-and-trade system will also be the first of its kind in North America for greenhouse gas emissions and could form the blueprint for broader action on global warming throughout North America.

For more information, contact:

Matt Horne
Acting director of B.C. energy solutions
Pembina Institute
Cell: 778-235-1476

Nick Heap
Climate change policy analyst
David Suzuki Foundation
Cell: 778-991-4392

Sarah Marchildon
Communications specialist
David Suzuki Foundation
604-732-4228, ext. 237

Un nouveau rapport démontre que les provinces accélèrent la cadence dans la lutte aux changements climatiques

Wed, 16 Jul 08 07:00:00 UT

QUÉBEC – Dans son nouveau rapport d’évaluation des plans des provinces pour lutter contre les changements climatiques, la Fondation David Suzuki constate que la plupart des provinces ont réagi à l’absence de leadership du gouvernement fédéral et qu’elles ont adopté des politiques concrètes pour réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES).

« Les provinces et les territoires ont décidé de combler le vide laissé par le gouvernement fédéral et d’agir par elles-mêmes » expliquait l’auteur du rapport, Dale Marshall, analyste de politiques en matière de changements climatiques à la Fondation David Suzuki. « La plupart des gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux réalisent maintenant l’urgence de la situation et ils mettent en place leurs propres mesures de réduction des GES ».

La Fondation a dévoilé ce rapport aujourd’hui dans le cadre de la réunion du Conseil de la fédération à Québec – une rencontre des premiers ministres des provinces et des territoires pour discuter des mesures à prendre pour contrer les changements climatiques.

Le rapport s’intitule Un virage énergique : Devant l’inaction du fédéral, les provinces s’attaquent aux changements climatiques. Il fait notamment état des réductions et des augmentations des émissions de gaz à effet de serre de chaque province et territoire dans différents secteurs. On y retrouve aussi une analyse et une évaluation des performances et des politiques des gouvernements provinciaux.

Le rapport révèle que la majorité des provinces ont adopté des cibles et des mesures de réduction des GES plus musclées que celles du gouvernement fédéral. Quatre provinces sont en tête du peloton grâce à leurs politiques progressistes et concrètes (Colombie-Britannique, Québec Manitoba, Ontario). Vient ensuite un groupe de provinces et territoires qui ont fait des pas dans la bonne direction, mais qui doivent renforcer encore leurs politiques (Nouveau-Brunswick, Nouvelle-Écosse, Île-du-Prince-Édouard, Nunavut). Les gouvernements qui se classent dans l’avant-dernier groupe ont adopté des plans peu contraignants ou trop vagues (Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador, Yukon, Territoires-du-Nord-Ouest, Saskatchewan). Finalement, la pire province, l’Alberta, a enregistré des hausses radicales de ses émissions, et elle n’a aucun plan pour les réduire d’ici 2020.

La Colombie-Britannique occupe le premier rang au classement. L’Alberta est dernière.

Les provinces les plus progressistes :

•   La Colombie-Britannique mérite cette année le titre de chef de file au pays grâce à sa taxe sur le carbone, ses normes d’efficacité énergétiques obligatoires pour les véhicules et son engagement à imposer un plafond et des réductions d’émissions dans le secteur industriel.

•   Le Québec a un plan de réduction des GES solide et sa cible équivaut presque à celle du Protocole de Kyoto. Le gouvernement a aussi annoncé son intention d’implanter un système de plafonnement et d’échange de droits d’émissions pour le secteur industriel.

•   Le Manitoba a adopté par réglementation des cibles de réduction semblables à celles de Kyoto et il a élaboré un nouveau plan de lutte aux changements climatiques plus musclé. Le Manitoba est un leader au pays dans le domaine des thermopompes géothermiques, une technologie qui utilise l’énergie renouvelable du sol pour le chauffage et la climatisation.

•   L’Ontario a présenté des programmes intéressants dans le domaine des énergies renouvelables, de la conservation de l’énergie et de l’efficacité énergétique. Elle a aussi annoncé son intention d’implanter un système de plafonnement et d’échange de droits d’émissions pour le secteur industriel. Par contre, la stratégie énergétique de la province demeure fortement axée sur la rénovation des vieilles centrales nucléaires et sur la construction de nouveaux réacteurs, ce qui réduit les ressources disponibles pour le développement des énergies propres.

Ces provinces ont fait des pas dans la bonne direction, mais elles doivent renforcer encore leurs politiques :

•   Le Nouveau-Brunswick s’est engagé à ramener ses émissions à leur niveau de 1990 d’ici 2012. Il a aussi établi des cibles de production d’énergie renouvelable et renforcé le mandat de l’organisme provincial de promotion de l’efficacité énergétique. Par contre, les résultats de ces mesures seront anéantis si la province donne le feu vert à certains projets énergétiques non durables, comme la construction d’une autre grande raffinerie de pétrole ou l’aménagement d’un terminal méthanier.

•   La Nouvelle-Écosse a aussi des cibles obligatoires de réduction des GES et elle a adopté des politiques en matière d’énergies renouvelables et d’efficacité énergétique. La province doit cependant faire mieux pour réduire les émissions de ses centrales au charbon.

•   L’Île-du-Prince-Édouard avait pour objectif de produire 15 % de son électricité à partir de sources renouvelables d’ici 2010. Elle a atteint cet objectif dès 2007, soit trois ans plus tôt que prévu. Par contre, la province a été peu active dans le dossier des changements climatiques au cours des dernières années et elle n’a toujours pas de plan d’action global.

•   Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador a mis sur pied différents projets d’énergie renouvelable. Toutefois, elle n’a pas de politiques de réduction pour ses deux principaux secteurs d’émissions : la production d’électricité et l’exploitation du pétrole et du gaz en mer.

Ces provinces sont au bas de la liste parce qu’elles n’ont pas de plan ou de mesures dignes de ce nom pour réduire les émissions :

•   L’Alberta a présenté un nouveau plan – mais il est moins ambitieux et plus vague que celui de 2002. L’Alberta est le plus important émetteur de GES du pays. Son plan prévoit une augmentation des émissions au moins jusqu’en 2020. À cette date, les émissions de la province seront 45 % plus élevées qu’en 1990.

•   La Saskatchewan a présenté son premier plan en 2007 et il comprenait des cibles ambitieuses de réduction des émissions. Malheureusement, le nouveau gouvernement au pouvoir a éliminé une bonne partie des programmes de lutte aux changements climatiques.

« Les provinces qui ont des plans solides doivent poursuivre leur mise en oeuvre et investir les ressources nécessaires pour qu’ils se traduisent par des réductions concrètes des émissions », expliquait Ian Bruce, spécialiste des changements climatiques à la Fondation David Suzuki. « Quant à celles qui hésitent encore, elles doivent profiter de l’occasion et emboîter le pas des chefs de file. »

La Fondation David Suzuki demande au gouvernement fédéral d’assumer lui aussi ses responsabilités et d’établir des normes pancanadiennes sévères (notamment pour établir une équité entre les provinces). De telles normes sont aussi essentielles pour contrôler les augmentations radicales des émissions de l’Alberta.

Pour télécharger le rapport intégral Un virage énergique : Devant l’inaction du fédéral, les provinces s’attaquent aux changements climatiques, aller au http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/DSF_ProvincialPowerPlay_08_French_Web.pdf

Personnes-ressources à la Fondation David Suzuki:
Sarah Marchildon Communications 604-732-4228, poste 237	Dale Marshall Auteur du rapport 613-302-9913 (cellulaire)	Ian Bruce Spécialiste des changements climatiques 604-306-5095 (cellulaire)

New report shows provincial action on climate change heating up

Wed, 16 Jul 08 07:00:00 UT

QUEBEC CITY – Most provinces are stepping up with strong targets and policies to reduce greenhouse gases in the absence of federal leadership on climate change, says a new David Suzuki Foundation report.

“The leadership vacuum at the federal level is being filled with action from the provinces and territories,” said Dale Marshall, report author and a climate change policy analyst with the Suzuki Foundation. “Most provinces and territories realize the urgency of climate change and they are moving ahead on their own to put policies in place to reduce emissions.”

The Suzuki Foundation released its new report today at the Council of the Federation meeting in Quebec City, where provincial and territorial premiers are meeting to discuss what they can do on climate change.

The report, Provincial Power Play: Breaking Away from Federal Inaction on Climate Change, looks at provincial and territorial action on climate change, compares their greenhouse gas emissions, assesses their climate change plans and evaluates their records.

The report finds most provinces have stronger climate change targets and policies than the federal government. Some provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec) are leading the pack when it comes to putting real solutions in place. Other provinces and territories (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Nunavut) have started taking action but require more effort to move forward. Some (Newfoundland, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan) have weak or vague climate plans. The worst offender (Alberta) has skyrocketing emissions and no plans to decrease them anytime soon.

British Columbia was rated the best of all 13 provinces and territories. Alberta was rated the worst.

Provinces with progressive policies include:

•   British Columbia emerged as a national leader on climate change with its carbon tax, mandatory fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles and a commitment to cap and reduce emissions from industry.

•   Quebec has a strong plan that commits it to reducing greenhouse gas emissions loosely in line with the Kyoto Protocol. The province also plans to address industrial emissions through a cap-and-trade system.

•   Manitoba has adopted legislated, Kyoto-like targets and released a new, stronger climate change plan. It has shown national leadership on installing ground-source heat pumps, a renewable technology that delivers heating and cooling using the earth’s energy.

•   Ontario made advances in renewable energy, conservation and efficiency programs. It intends to implement a cap-and-trade system that mandates emission reductions from heavy industry. However, Ontario’s current energy plan remains heavily dependent on refurbishing its old nuclear plants and building new ones, diverting resources from clean-energy options.

Provinces that are moving forward but have some catching up to do include:

•   New Brunswick committed to reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2012. It set targets for renewable energy and strengthened the province’s energy-efficiency agency. However, these benefits will be negated if the province allows unsustainable energy projects like another large oil refinery and liquefied natural gas terminal to proceed.

•   Nova Scotia has also legislated targets for greenhouse gas emissions and is moving forward on renewable energy and energy efficiency. It still has to do more to reduce emissions from its coal-fired power plants.

•   Prince Edward Island reached its target of having 15 per cent of its electricity come from renewable energy three years ahead of its 2010 timeline. But PEI has been stagnant on climate change for a few years and lacks a climate change plan.

•   Newfoundland is pursuing some renewable energy projects, however, emissions from its two main sources of greenhouse gases – electricity and offshore oil and gas – remain unaddressed.

Provinces at the bottom of the list with weak or nonexistent plans to reduce emissions include:

•   Alberta has a new climate change plan, which is weaker and more vague than its 2002 plan. Alberta also has the highest greenhouse gas emissions in the country. The province plans to increase its emissions until at least 2020, by which time emissions will have risen 45 per cent above 1990 levels.

•   Saskatchewan introduced its first climate change plan in 2007 with an ambitious target for greenhouse gas reductions. However, the new provincial government has scrapped many of its climate change programs.

“The provinces that have good plans need to continue to implement them, and invest the resources required to make their emission goals a reality,” said Ian Bruce, a climate change specialist with the Suzuki Foundation. “Others that are on the cusp of action and leadership have an opportunity to move forward.”

As well, the Suzuki Foundation is calling on the federal government to follow the lead of the provinces and set strong, national standards across Canada (in order to create a level and fair playing field). This is especially important in order to rein in greenhouse gas increases in Alberta.

Download the full report, Provincial Power Play: Breaking Away From Federal Inaction on Climate Change, at:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/DSF_ProvincialPowerPlay_Web.pdf

For more information, contact the David Suzuki Foundation:
Sarah Marchildon Communications specialist 604-732-4228, ext. 237	Dale Marshall Report Author Cell: 613-302-9913	Ian Bruce Climate change specialist Cell: 604-306-5095

AVIS AUX MÉDIAS

Mon, 14 Jul 08 07:00:00 UT

La Fondation David Suzuki présentera à Québec les résultats de son tout nouveau rapport d’évaluation des plans des provinces pour lutter contre les changements climatiques. L’événement aura lieu le 16 juillet prochain dans le cadre de la réunion du Conseil de la fédération. Ce rapport fait notamment état des réductions et des augmentations des émissions de gaz à effet de serre de chaque province et territoire dans différents secteurs. On y retrouve aussi une analyse et une évaluation des performances et des politiques des gouvernements provinciaux. Les premiers ministres des provinces et territoires se réunissent cette semaine à Québec pour discuter des mesures à prendre pour contrer les changements climatiques.

Date Mercredi, 16 juillet 2008, 11 h

Lieu Hôtel Château Laurier, salle du Manège (tout près du hall d’entrée) 1220, Place George-V Ouest, Québec

Présentateurs
Dale Marshall, auteur du rapport et analyste en politiques sur les changements climatiques, Fondation David Suzuki
Ian Bruce, spécialiste des changements climatiques, Fondation David Suzuki

Personnes-ressources:
Sarah Marchildon Communications Fondation David Suzuki 604-732-4228, poste 237	Dale Marshall Analyste de politiques Fondation David Suzuki 613-302-9913 (cellulaire)	Ian Bruce Spécialiste des changements Fondation David Suzuki Cell: 604-306-5095

MEDIA ADVISORY

Mon, 14 Jul 08 07:00:00 UT

The David Suzuki Foundation will release the findings of a new report on provincial climate change action during the Council of the Federation meeting in Quebec City on July 16, 2008. The report looks at provincial and territorial action on climate change, compares their greenhouse gas emissions, assesses their climate change plans and evaluates their records. Provincial and territorial premiers will be meeting in Quebec City this week to discuss what they can do on climate change.

When: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 11 a.m.

Where: Hotel Chateau Laurier, Room Du Manège (just off the lobby) 1220 Place George-V Ouest, Quebec City

Who:
Dale Marshall, report author and a climate change policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation
Ian Bruce, climate change specialist with the Suzuki Foundation

For more information, contact:
Sarah Marchildon Communications specialist David Suzuki Foundation 604-732-4228, ext. 237	Dale Marshall Policy analyst David Suzuki Foundation Cell: 613-302-9913	Ian Bruce Climate change specialist David Suzuki Foundation Cell: 604-306-5095

Canada under fire for toxic fire retardants

Fri, 11 Jul 08 07:00:00 UT

OTTAWA –Environment Minister John Baird is under fire from environmental groups to address the most common form of a group of toxic chemicals known as Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs). New regulations published this week place a ban on the use of PBDEs that have already been phased out, but exempts the only commercial PBDE mixture still in use - DecaBDE.

“Canada should follow the lead of Europe, the largest chemicals market in the world, as well as other jurisdictions, that have already banned all forms of PBDEs,” said scientist Dr. Elaine MacDonald from Ecojustice (formerly Sierra Legal Defence Fund). “The new regulations simply enshrine the status quo and ignore crucial scientific evidence that provides justification for a total ban on all PBDEs.”

The regulations also prohibit the manufacture of PBDEs, but these chemicals have never been manufactured in Canada.

Widely used as flame retardants in household products like electronics, carpets and furniture, PBDEs are rapidly accumulating in the environment and animals including humans. Canada declared PBDEs as ‘toxic’ in 2006 and various studies have linked them to serious health impacts including developmental, reproductive and neurological disorders and cancer.

The government initially published its proposal for PBDE regulations in 2006. At that time, Ecojustice filed a formal objection on behalf of the David Suzuki Foundation, Canadian Environmental Law Association and Environmental Defence, contending that the regulations should include a ban on all forms of PBDEs. The final regulations published this week fail to address the groups’ concerns, mirroring instead the approach endorsed by industry representatives.

“We are concerned that trade is trumping health," said Kathleen Cooper, senior researcher at the Canadian Environmental Law Association. "These regulations won't reduce our exposure to these chemicals. They ban the PBDEs industry no longer uses, don't address the ones they do, and we’re still waiting for action on the biggest source of PBDE exposure: the ongoing import of consumer products containing DecaBDE."

Environment Minister John Baird also has yet to respond to the formal Notice of Objection submitted by environmental groups more than a year ago. The groups wrote Baird again today reiterating earlier requests for a meeting to discuss the need to strengthen the regulatory approach for PBDEs, one of the first chemicals to pass through the federal Chemicals Management Plan process.

“If we can’t get it right on PBDEs, what is in store for the thousands of other substances now being assessed?” said Lisa Gue, environmental health policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation. “Canadians deserve effective and timely action to stop the accumulation of toxic chemicals in our environment.”

For a backgrounder on PBDEs, click here.
To view a letter to Environment Minister John Baird from concerned environmental groups, click here.

For more information, please contact:
Kathleen Cooper, Canadian Environmental Law Association (705) 341-2488
Elaine MacDonald, Ecojustice (416) 368-7533 ext. 27
Lisa Gue, David Suzuki Foundation (613) 796-7699

“There Oughta Be a Law, and This Ain’t It”

Wed, 09 Jul 08 07:00:00 UT

Vancouver – The provincial government's “underwhelming” response today to a groundbreaking report on the precarious state of wildlife and wilderness in BC recycles failed policies and underscores the urgent need for a species at risk law for the province says a coalition of leading environmental organizations.

“British Columbia is in desperate need of an endangered species law to recover our species at risk, and to prevent species from becoming at risk in the first place,” said Devon Page of Ecojustice. “We need a law that compels habitat protection. Unfortunately that’s not what was announced today.”

Coming on the heels of a 300-plus page groundbreaking report by Biodiversity BC (www.biodiversitybc.org) on the precarious state of BC wildlife, “Taking Nature's Pulse,” the BC Government's response, labeled the “Conservation Framework,” recycles the same patchwork of weak and discretionary regulations that have failed to halt species decline in the first place. BC has over 1,600 species at risk, and is one of only two provinces without an endangered species act.

“Our focus groups show that British Columbians are shocked when they learn that ‘The Best Place on Earth’ doesn’t have a law that protects its wildlife,” said Candace Batycki of ForestEthics. “The only other Canadian province that doesn’t have an endangered species act is Alberta.”

“The governments' response has been underwhelming to say the least,” said Dr. Faisal Moola, Director of Science with the David Suzuki Foundation. “With the fate of thousands of species hanging in the balance, and Global Warming threatening to tip the scales, we were really hoping for a law.”

The groups are especially critical of the government's continuing failure to adequately fund species at risk recovery efforts, estimating that the province currently spends approximately $10 million annually on species recovery - the equivalent cost of constructing one kilometer of a four lane highway.

“While it’s helpful to have a detailed description of the situation like the Biodiversity BC status report, without a law that actually compels action it's a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic – or pointing and saying, 'Look! Iceberg!'” said Gwen Barlee of the Wilderness Committee.

Contact: Dr. Faisal Moola, Director of Science, David Suzuki Foundation, (604) 512-5788
Devon Page, Executive Director, Ecojustice, (778) 828-5512
Gwen Barlee, Policy Director, Wilderness Committee, (604) 202-0322
For a detailed media backgrounder (46 KB PDF)

Foundation praises B.C. global warming plan

Wed, 02 Jul 08 07:00:00 UT

VANCOUVER – The B.C. government’s plan to address global warming, released June 26, demonstrates continued leadership on this crucial issue, according to the David Suzuki Foundation.

“This is one of the most comprehensive climate action plans in Canada,” said Ian Bruce, a climate change specialist with the David Suzuki Foundation. “It shows a strong commitment to reduce global warming and provides a model for the federal government and other provinces to follow.”

The plan uses economic modelling to gauge the potential of the measures to reduce harmful emissions but acknowledges that more action is required to meet B.C.’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a third by 2020.

The strengths of the plan include: It is the first significant carbon tax in North America to put a price on carbon emissions and increase the price over time; it follows California’s fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles; and it includes a commitment to cap and reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions within the Western Climate Initiative, a regional effort with several provinces and U.S. states.

“B.C.’s climate action plan is good, but it still contains inconsistencies that must be addressed,” said Mr. Bruce. Because some of the measures to reduce emissions are based on government commitments yet to be implemented, the David Suzuki Foundation recommends the following:

• Move forward with regulations to cap and reduce industrial greenhouse gas emission by early 2009 in accordance with the B.C. target of at least a 33 percent reduction below 2007 levels by 2020.

• Increase investment in public transit with more predictable and stable funding. This can be achieved by redirecting provincial spending from general-purpose highway lanes to vital transit infrastructure. Government studies show that B.C.’s Gateway plan will increase emissions, not reduce them.

• Phase out subsidies to the oil and gas industry. These subsidies reduce the incentive for this sector to reduce the environmental costs of polluting activities.

• Strengthen the B.C. energy-efficiency code for residential buildings to require EnerGuide 80 performance for new construction and renovations.

• Protect B.C.’s natural carbon storehouses, such as old-growth forests, peatlands, grasslands, and wetlands, which absorb and store billions of tonnes of carbon. Protecting B.C.’s natural areas would also increase ecological resiliency and opportunities for wildlife and ecosystems to adapt to global warming.

• Develop and implement other measures required to achieve or surpass B.C.’s emissions reduction goals.

-- END --

For more information, contact:
Ian Bruce, Climate Change Specialist, (604) 306-5095

Environmental “reality check” aims to clear the air on B.C. carbon tax

Thu, 26 Jun 08 07:00:00 UT

VANCOUVER – B.C.’s carbon tax, which takes effect July 1, has many British Columbians talking, but the debate has also stirred up a lot of confusion. To help clear the air, a coalition of environmental groups today released a “Reality Check” fact sheet on the top five misconceptions about the tax.

“We want all British Columbians to work together to solve the problem of global warming, and we believe a carbon tax can provide the signal for all of us to shift to cleaner energy and greener practices,” said Ian Bruce, a climate change specialist with the David Suzuki Foundation.

“It’s great that there’s so much debate about the carbon tax and its role in reducing global warming, but we want to make sure the debate is based on fact and not misinformation,” said Andrea Reimer, executive director of the Wilderness Committee.

“Reality Check” addresses the top five misconceptions about the B.C. carbon tax, including:
Myth 1 - The B.C. carbon tax won’t reduce emissions.
Myth 2 - Big industry is left off the hook.
Myth 3 - B.C.’s carbon tax is a “tax grab” or additional tax.
Myth 4 - B.C.’s carbon tax will hit consumers who are already reeling from high international oil prices.
Myth 5 - B.C. has introduced a “gas tax”.

While misconceptions have grabbed many of the headlines, important discussions about the solutions to global warming need to occur if B.C. is going to achieve a greener, brighter future.

“We urge all British Columbians to focus on solutions to the serious problem of global warming,” said Marc Lee, senior economist for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. “Let’s build an innovative, green economy in B.C. and tackle this problem head on.”

B.C. has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020. A carbon tax is a powerful economic tool that can help get us to this target. But it will need to increase over time and must be coupled with other strong measures.

“The carbon tax is one of many solutions required to fight global warming,” said Matt Horne, acting director of B.C. energy solutions, Pembina Institute. “A comprehensive climate change plan will include many other measures, including tough regulations for the energy efficiency of vehicles and homes, as well as a major scale-up of transit investments.”

To read the “Reality Check”, go to www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Carbon_Tax_Reality_Check.asp.

-- END --

For more information, contact:
Ian Bruce
Climate change specialist, David Suzuki Foundation
Cell: 604-306-5095

Matt Horne
Acting director of B.C. energy solutions, Pembina Institute
Cell: 778-235-1476

Susan Howatt
Director of campaigns, Sierra Club BC
Cell: 250-888-6267

Marc Lee
Senior Economist
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, BC Office
T: 604-801-5121 x228

Andrea Reimer
Executive director, Wilderness Committee
Cell: 604-719-3920

Cheryl Shuman
BC Sustainable Energy Association
Cell: 250-219-4546 (Dawson Creek)

On behalf of:
BC Sustainable Energy Association, Better Environmentally Sound Transportation, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, David Suzuki Foundation, Dogwood Initiative, Georgia Strait Alliance, Pembina Institute, Sierra Club BC, SmartGrowth BC, West Coast Environmental Law, Wilderness Committee, Wildsight.

Ontario adopts law to ban sale of lawn and garden pesticides

Wed, 18 Jun 08 07:00:00 UT

OTTAWA – Today’s passage of a law banning lawn and garden pesticide sales throughout Ontario puts the province on the path to better health and a cleaner environment.

“We are delighted that the sale of these toxic chemicals will be illegal in Ontario, once this new law takes effect next spring,” says Lisa Gue, environmental health policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation. “We all know that pulling these products from store shelves is the best way to ensure that they won’t be used.”

The Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Act prohibits the sale and use of pesticides on lawns and gardens throughout the province. The ‘cosmetic' use of pesticides to improve the appearance of lawns and gardens presents health and environmental risks.

Important details of Ontario’s new ban will be finalized in the coming months as the government develops regulations. The regulations will specify, for example, which pesticides will be prohibited and any exemptions to the ban. The David Suzuki Foundation calls on the province to match or exceed the protections offered by the strongest pesticide bylaws already in place in cities such as Toronto and Peterborough.

Unfortunately, because the government rejected some key amendments to the Cosmetic Pesticide Act, the legislation prevents cities and towns from enforcing restrictions on pesticide use that extend beyond the scope of the provincial ban.

“The strength of a province-wide ban largely rests on whether the government guards against potential loopholes and prohibits as many harmful pesticides as the province’s leading cities,” says Ms. Gue. “The Ontario government has the opportunity to set a new national standard for protecting the environment and human health against the toxic effects of unnecessary pesticides.”

Ontario becomes the second province to restrict the use and sale of cosmetic pesticides. Quebec banned many lawn pesticides in 2003.

For more information contact:
Lisa Gue
Environmental Health Policy Analyst
David Suzuki Foundation
Office: (613) 594-5428
Cell: (613) 796-7699