If you’re renting a house to a tenant who smokes, ensuring that you have
a working smoke alarm might seem like basic due diligence — especially
if the neighbours have told you repeatedly that they’ve seen flames and
smelled smoke coming from the unit. But you’re unlikely to stop there —
you’d probably demand some changes from the renter in order to prevent
your asset from going up in smoke.
The Government of Canada is now facing a similar situation following its announcement of plans to implement a comprehensive monitoring system to measure the environmental impacts of oilsands development.
Make no mistake: This is a positive news story. Over the past year,
independent scientists and multiple review panels have been scrutinizing
oilsands monitoring processes, and they have all come to a similar
conclusion: Current monitoring is insufficient, and, in the case of
water monitoring, is seriously flawed and unreliable. There is clearly a
need for a major overhaul of oilsands monitoring to inform regulatory
enforcement and responsible decision-making. The fact that the federal
government has finally stepped up to the plate suggests that it is
making some progress in recognizing its responsibilities in the oilsands.
However, let's be honest about what this plan is, and what it is not.
At this point, the Government of Canada has produced a plan that is
based on sound science, and that should (hopefully) increase
transparency regarding the environmental impacts of the oilsands. As
such, it appears to be a substantial improvement over the current
approach, in which industry leads monitoring in an ineffective,
patchwork manner. This plan does not mean, however, that the
environmental issues related to the oilsands have been solved — and it
is certainly not a "green plan." In and of itself, it does nothing to
address the environmental impacts of the oilsands; it just identifies
them.
Several questions remain: How will the new monitoring system be
implemented? Who is going to pay for the new system to ensure its
operation over the long term? (There appears to be a misunderstanding
between Environment Minister Peter Kent and the oilsands industry on
this question.) And, most importantly, how are the regulators going to
use this new information to better enforce environmental laws? While
collecting information is important, monitoring without adequate
regulation, sufficient enforcement, and informed decision-making is a
meaningless effort.
For more than 40 years, oilsands development has been rapidly expanding
with little attention paid to addressing the cumulative impacts of all
of these projects — despite the fact that independent scientific studies
have been showing clear evidence of environmental damage. Even though
rules have not yet been put in place to protect species at risk and
water quality, or to set real limits on greenhouse-gas pollution, the
governments of Canada and Alberta haven't hesitated to approve new
projects. Apparently, both are satisfied by the industry's claims that
there are no significant environmental impacts, using data from
monitoring processes now deemed seriously flawed. But there doesn't
appear to be any appetite to revisit past regulatory approvals, or to
adjust or suspend the review of proposed projects.
Credible monitoring is required to inform management and answer tough
questions like: How much oilsands development is acceptable, and what
environmental standards should governments set? It is certain that more
environmental impacts will be detected if the government starts
seriously looking for them, but it must also be ready and willing to
act.
To show it is serious about listening to science, the Canadian
government could start by pausing approvals for new projects until the
appropriate data has been collected and understood. Unfortunately, it
appears that some bureaucrats in the governments of Alberta and Canada
think a new monitoring system is little more than a public-relations
device that provides justification for continued oilsands expansion.
Furthermore, ministers in both governments have made a number of
unfortunate statements about how new monitoring measures will "prove"
the oilsands are responsibly managed. Such comments suggest that the
root of the problem remains: There is an unwillingness to accept
scientific data if it interferes with business-as-usual oilsands
development.
If governments are serious about achieving responsible oilsands
development, they will require much more than a long-overdue monitoring
system; the newly available information must be used to establish
science-based environmental limits. Going forward, responsible
development requires a strict commitment from the regulators to ensure
that all oilsands developments meet these rules.
While we commend the Government of Canada on finally committing to
install an oilsands "smoke alarm," Canadians need to know if the
government will heed the call to action when the alarm sounds. Canadians
can't be assured that the oilsands are being developed in an
environmentally responsible manner until monitoring systems lead our
government to address the impacts, including the ones we know about
today.
If this progress is to serve the interests of environmental
protection, and not just public relations, the government owes it to
Canadians to be transparent about how environmental monitoring will lead
to effective environmental management.
