Environmental rights?

[SaggyBalls]

As there are pressing issues that affect us more politically and directly than the Environment?

Would you as a voter like to have the Environment not have to be a voting issue anymore?

Perhaps an Environmental Bill of Rights would bring us closer to having fewer big issues to direct our politicians with.

I'm tired of the Conservatives being held accountable for their shitty environmental plan. Perhaps if they didn't have to put any time on the environment as they'd like they could put on a better show.

Maybe then they could invest all of their compassionate energies into supporting Canada's Labour force. Happy taxpayers who have mandated environmental policies already?

I know I'd be happier if Agriculture and economic & energy Self Sufficiency were a bigger election issue than the environment.

I guess I think it shouldn't have to be an issue because we should be taking care of our environment.

[phishtaper]

like the charter of rights, an environmental bill of rights would remove some of the politics from environmental stewardship. but its difficult to 'separate' environmental stewardship from virtually all 'other' political issues/policies because so much of what we do affects our environment.

the green party is offering a plan that attempts to holistically bridge 'other' issues by essentially taking the environment into account when making all policy decisions. i think this is the way we have to go. so yes, i'd support an environmental bills of rights that would required this bridging. but look at how contentious it was getting the charter of rights thru parliament(s). this would be even more contentious, especially given the enormous power of dirty capital like oil and transportation. esso aint gonna support an environmental bill of rights and esso remains a big political player/supporter.

[SaggyBalls]

How come it's always a 'yes, but we're kinda screwed so i'm not holding out' when a lefty answers a question like that?

not a

'Given the enormous power of dirty capital like Oil and Transportation, it's something we will need to demand from our politicians. Given the difficulty to separate stewardship from virtually all other policies we must bridge these issues, an environmental bill of rights would demand accountability when making all policy decisions.'

[color:purple]Pink is such a soft colour

[bradm]

[A]n environmental bill of rights would demand accountability when making all policy decisions.

Define "accountability" (and "demand"). Define "policy decision."

Consider the recent decision to place a bridge between Ottawa and Gatineau on Kettle Island (or the proposal to run light rail along the Ottawa River Parkway). A lot of people don't want it there, but a lot of people do. If city council says, "Yes, we did a study, here are the results, we think it's OK, the decision stands", would that (along with the results of the study) meet the "accountability" demand? What would this demand of accountability give us that existing laws requiring environmental studies (as have been done for the new bridge, and the OC Transpo expansion plans) don't?

Aloha,

Brad

[SaggyBalls]

It would make more sense for a certain level of public outcry demand 3rd party investigation.

'we did a study'??

brad...

[bradm]

It would make more sense for a certain level of public outcry demand 3rd party investigation.

Who would choose the 3rd party? (And aren't most environmental impact studies done by 3rd parties [e.g., consulting firms hired by government] now?) How do you measure what the level of public outcry is? (And who would define what that "certain level" of outcry would be?) What would happen if there was the required level of publc outcry about a decision (that was based on a 3rd party's investigation), resulting in a 4th party's investigation, that reached exactly the same conclusion as the 3rd party? Could there be another chance for "public outcry" demanding (and getting) a 5th party doing an investigation?

'we did a study'??

brad...

I apologize. I should have phrased that as, "If city council says, in effect, 'Yes, we did a study, here are the results, we think it's OK, the decision stands', would that (along with the presentation of results of the study) meet the 'accountability' demand?"

Would it? In other words, how would a demand for accountability (in all policy decisions) limit the authority of, say, a city council to do its job? (And note that I'm not saying a demand of accountability would be a bad thing, it's more that I don't quite understand what it would do that existing laws, especially those that require environmental studies, don't do.)

Aloha,

Brad

[SaggyBalls]

If created properly, setting an environmental rights act could have the potential for the 'issue' of sustainable environmental practices be a cornerstone of major legislation and policy direction where important.

I'm tired of this being an election issue where we should, having had a couple of decades of environmental awareness backed by top scientists and healthcare advocates, not be treating our environment so poorly and be in the midst of cleaning up once pristine tracts of wilderness.

I guess my real point is that I don't feel Environmental Stewardship isn't of great enough importance in the development of this country's economic, social, and community growth which is shaped and in great part controlled by some level of Government.

And after these years of ignorance the cost to change as required is prohibitive enough to inhibit the necessary steps to even begin working towards cleaning up past messes and preventing future ones.

Perhaps i'm beating a dead horse here but that doesn't change the fact that it died of cancer and benzene poisoning.

An Environmental Rights Act would demand a change in the way agencies and councils get their tasks accomplished. It would demand a lot from bureaucrats that some would see as a big waste of resources, but would be beneficial in the long run, as it would create very large numbers of Green Sector Jobs at desks, in boardrooms, and outside.

How many university Graduates do we all know that are working in jobs unrelated to their interests and field? It could be one of the best opportunities for this country to boost a failing economy through well paying civil service jobs. It could be a great way to beef up remote outposts in review of industrial development...far north ports and communities that are to become of strong security importance in the coming years with a melting polar icecap...

So people get jobs and start families or new careers and invest in property or the stock market, bonds etc...and pay taxes...trickle down and around these communities and give this country a great potential and necessity to develop infrastructure and inter-community trade.

It could be a stellar opportunity to greatly improve our country, and as I'm not a Political Scientist or expert on this subject...or an expert in the tasks various levels of government work through specifically to make projects move forward, I do realize it could be incredibly difficult.

So although I understand the drawbacks and the lack of appeal to most taxpayers for a longer term return than the next 2 terms...

...but...

...what positive spins on this idea do you (or anyone other than brad) pull from the notion of 'environmental rights'??

As I don't care to get into how I think it might be implemented or the workings of it specifically.

Because I intend for this to be an optimistic discussion rather than a debate; because we could spend hours just proving how right we are; or how wrong I am which I am open to...

Could my time be better spent directing the idea through realistic steps which would support hypothetical success, as the Environmental Rights Act's potential outcomes are both good and bad.

Or could it be better spent sleeping?

Anyone at all interested in any ideas surrounding this topic?

[bradm]

I guess my real point is that I don't feel Environmental Stewardship isn't of great enough importance in the development of this country's economic, social, and community growth which is shaped and in great part controlled by some level of Government.

I agree.

And after these years of ignorance the cost to change as required is prohibitive enough to inhibit the necessary steps to even begin working towards cleaning up past messes and preventing future ones.

On this, I don't agree.

An Environmental Rights Act would demand a change in the way agencies and councils get their tasks accomplished. It would demand a lot from bureaucrats that some would see as a big waste of resources, but would be beneficial in the long run, as it would create very large numbers of Green Sector Jobs at desks, in boardrooms, and outside.

How many university Graduates do we all know that are working in jobs unrelated to their interests and field? It could be one of the best opportunities for this country to boost a failing economy through well paying civil service jobs. It could be a great way to beef up remote outposts in review of industrial development...far north ports and communities that are to become of strong security importance in the coming years with a melting polar icecap...

So people get jobs and start families or new careers and invest in property or the stock market, bonds etc...and pay taxes...trickle down and around these communities and give this country a great potential and necessity to develop infrastructure and inter-community trade.

I'm not sure I agree with this, as you're only looking at the end result. The question is where the money to pay those people is going to come from. (I think there is an opportunity for "green" economy jobs to help the economy, especially through things like technology exports, as that brings money into the economy. What you describe above sounds more like a wealth-redistribution plan than an economic growth plan; if that's a mis-characterization, I apologize.)

...what positive spins on this idea do you (or anyone other than brad) pull from the notion of 'environmental rights'??

As I don't care to get into how I think it might be implemented or the workings of it specifically.

I can't pull anything except speculative spins from this idea because of what you say in the second paragraph. I also can't tell you whether I think an EBR is a good idea or a bad idea until the idea is fleshed out a bit more.

Because I intend for this to be an optimistic discussion rather than a debate; because we could spend hours just proving how right we are; or how wrong I am which I am open to...

Could my time be better spent directing the idea through realistic steps which would support hypothetical success, as the Environmental Rights Act's potential outcomes are both good and bad.

In my opinion, yes. (And if my responses have seemed dismissive and combative, I apologize, as that wasn't my intent.)

Aloha,

Brad

[SaggyBalls]

That question was entirely rhetorical.

It's a split between wealth redistribution and economic growth.

Hey...I'm just trying to get ya talking, Brad.

[Birdy]

What's the purpose of the environmental bill of rights Ontario has? I actually didn't even know of it until this thread and taking the initiative to google... anyone know?

Do you think it would be better if this were a provincial matter over a federal matter? The environmental impact of legislation differs greatly across the country and maybe what works well in Nova Scotia wouldn't really do the same for Alberta... If Canada were only smaller!!

fwiw, i really like the idea of an EBR, but i'm big on feasibility, and that talk is off limits.

[mattm]

As far as I'm concerned feasibility means nothing when people are dropping dead from air pollution. Our poor little ones who are the future will inherit a country (if not planet) that isn't quite so nice as it is (and was) because environmental issues aren't feasible. How long before smog advisaries become smog days that anyone with any sort of breathing problems have to stay inside (and hope they have some good air cleaning systems in their homes). I've always been of the opinion that life is more important than money but I know that in our reality it's not (even less so in the states where your life, should you become ill, is worth only what you can afford, which is hopefully enough)

smog days

How many smog advisories were issued in previous years?

The ministry monitors air pollution levels and issues smog advisories when there is strong likelihood that widespread elevated and persistent smog levels are expected.

Here is a summary of smog advisories issued for Ontario by the ministry since 1995:

Smog advisories issued for Ontario by the ministry since 1995

summary="A summary of smog advisories issued for Ontario by the ministry since 1995." >

Smog advisories issued for Ontario by the ministry since 1995

Year

Number of Advisories

Total Number of Days

1995

6

14

1996

3

5

1997

3

6

1998

3

8

1999

5

9

2000

3

4

2001

7

23

2002

10

27

2003

7

19

2004

8

20

2005

15

53

2006

6

17

2007

13

39

2008*

8

17

* As of September 29, 2008

Maintained by the Government of Ontario

torstar article

Aug 13, 2008 05:58 PM

Comments on this story (1)

Steve Rennie

THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA–The Canadian Medical Association is warning that the number of deaths related to air pollution is set to soar, with a cumulative death toll of 800,000 Canadians by 2031.

The vast majority of those deaths will be among people aged 65 years and older because they are more vulnerable to heart problems, the group said in a study released today.

Association president Brian Day says the number of people in that vulnerable zone will grow as the population ages.

"We have a very high percentage of baby boomers who will hit 65 in the next three or four years and then keep hitting 65," he said.

The association says 21,000 Canadians, mostly seniors, will die this year from a combination of short- and long-term exposure to air pollution. It predicts the annual death toll will rise 83 per cent to 39,000 deaths a year by 2031.

The majority will die from heart and lung conditions caused by years of breathing dirty air, the study says.

However, nearly 2,700 people will die from short-term exposure this year. The study predicts the number of deaths from short-term exposure will ramp up to 4,900 people a year by 2013.

Pollution is also expected to cost the economy and health-care system $8 billion this year in medical costs and lost productivity, the study says. By 2031, these costs will have accumulated to total more than $250 billion.

The Canadian Medical Association's estimates are conservative since the study assumed air pollution will not increase above current levels, Day said.

The American Medical Association said it does not keep figures on deaths caused by air pollution. Day explained that Canada is one of the first nations to track such deaths.

Asked how the doctors can be certain deaths from heart and lung disease are directly related to air pollution and not, say, smoking or a genetic condition, the association's technical adviser on health and environment said researchers have the tools to distinguish causes of death.

Ted Boadway added the study "still significantly underestimates the number of deaths because we don't actually take any other areas where air pollution does cause cancer in other areas of the body."

Prolonged exposure to air pollution damages the muscle cells in the arteries of the heart, causing them to harden, Boadway said.

Meanwhile, short-term exposure to smog thickens blood, which is then more likely to clog arteries and produce heart attacks and strokes, he added.

The CMA study comes less than two weeks after a major Health Canada report warned of a jump in health problems across the country as the planet's climate changes.

The 500-page Health Canada report said air pollution, including higher levels of ground-level ozone and increased production of pollens and spores, will exacerbate asthma symptoms and allergies. It also said poor air quality will lead to more heart attacks, strokes and other cardiovascular diseases.

University of Western Ontario professor Gordon McBean, one of the authors of the Health Canada report, said the CMA report is consistent with the existing science.

"The numbers, to me, were not a surprise. They were consistent with others numbers I'd heard," he said.

Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton said the CMA study highlights the need for a more stringent federal plan to lower greenhouse-gas emissions and air pollutants.

"This is a call to urgent action on the reduction of air pollutants and we need a strategy across the country that reduces the emissions that are causing this critical – literally speaking – critical health problem," he said.

The Harper government has pledged to lower greenhouse-gas emissions 20 per cent from 2006 levels by 2020.

Part of the plan calls for a halving of industrial air pollutants by 2015.

However, the Conservatives' regulatory framework for air emissions was met with widespread discontent from industry and environmentalists when it was announced in April 2007.

A panel of environmental groups, industry lobbyists and federal and provincial officials has been quietly meeting this summer to re-tool the Tories' air-quality plan.

They have a mid-September deadline to prepare a report as the government prepares to publish regulations on air quality and greenhouse-gas emissions.

Speaking to reporters in Halifax, Environment Minister John Baird said the federal government would share the committee's report with the provinces in October.

"We've worked well with health and environmental groups and the provinces. We've had a good dialogue over the last 18 months, and we're looking forward to more aggressive action," he said.

Smog and poor air quality are also expected to strain Canada's medical system.

The study predicts that 18,000 people will be admitted to hospital suffering from the effects of air pollution in 2031, up from 11,000 this year, while emergency room visits will climb to 152,000 from 92,000 over the same period.

The study also says air pollution will send 940,000 people to doctors' offices in 2031, up from 620,000 visits this year.

"That is a huge hit and huge burden upon our health-care system," said Quentin Chiotti of the environmental think-tank Pollution Probe, who also collaborated on the Health Canada report.

"Is it taking doctors' attentions away from other issues that are otherwise being missed or ignored?"

[Birdy]

I understand what you're saying about feasibility and I agree. I guess i'm just thinking along the lines of actually making such a thing happen - getting all parties on board type of thing.

I'd have to agree with those environmentalists and industrialists who criticize the Tory plan. I suppose though i'm critical of every party's plan as our economy and livelihood is so heavily based on carbon. It's kinda scary. I wish there was a party who pledged money to industry to change now, saying that in (example) three years down the road, there's going to be regulation that could hurt you if you don't adapt. Changing the face of industry would be step one, and considering some aspects of industry are soo heavily hit at this point that they couldn't really afford to comply with such things like a carbon tax, i think it would be a good thing to help them out in this regard. I'd be ALL FOR using tax payer money to get our industry to go greener.

I'm also opposed to government intervening in the price of gas. While I admit that I wince everytime i go to fill up and it costs me $55/$60, i think soaring gas prices are key to changing consumer behaviour, and that's a huge step in itself to decreasing our dependency on oil.

I'd also want to see municipal governments create biking trails and walking paths and promote public transit, and educate citizens through mailings, ads on television, etc. about the positives of using these things in a time when it costs so much in terms of the environment and your actual pocket to operate cars. I want to see municipalities float money into green infrastructure and create things like roundabouts and car pool lanes. I would be absolutely cool if there were some kind of incentive and/or legislation which forced this upon municipalities... a study to how many citizens/how many cars are in a community - and then respond with a piece of legislation requiring this number of walking paths for this number of citizens or this number of roundabouts for his number of cars. That kind of thing. Municipalities, i think, have a lot of power when it comes to making green changes, and i wish they'd use it more.

I remember when I lived in London going to school the city did a huge tree planting project in which every house in the city was given one tree. We all received notices in the mail that the municipality was going to come by and plant a tree on our property. I think that was super cool. You can specifiy where you wanted it to be planted, but it had to be done. Even if some people in turn ripped the tree out of the ground, I'd venture to say more stayed in. I wish there were more of this.

I'd also be all for any type of legislation that demanded any new businesses to be a green workspace and a low polluter, and to further that, legislation that ensured that to be green doesn't gouge your pocket. I think the biggest problem right now is the price of environmentally-minded products and systems that is a major deterent to businesses and consumers. This needs to be rectified.

I'd be all for an EBR, but i think we need to make certain steps now to innovate, change our consumers, ensure that we're not going to sink because of it, and then put it into place.

[mattm]

I'd have to agree with those environmentalists and industrialists who criticize the Tory plan. I suppose though i'm critical of every party's plan as our economy and livelihood is so heavily based on carbon. It's kinda scary. I wish there was a party who pledged money to industry to change now, saying that in (example) three years down the road, there's going to be regulation that could hurt you if you don't adapt. Changing the face of industry would be step one, and considering some aspects of industry are soo heavily hit at this point that they couldn't really afford to comply with such things like a carbon tax, i think it would be a good thing to help them out in this regard. I'd be ALL FOR using tax payer money to get our industry to go greener.

Yes. One thing that to me is obvious but doesn't seem to be is that you can't just keep fighting fire with fire. Industries need to clean up but they just can't afford it and I really don't like what the liberals want to do with the carbon tax because it doesn't help, it punishes.

I agree with what you said above. Punish, but do it down the road, right now offer up incentive (positive incentive) to change and then after a bit of non-compliance, punish. Not 30 years down the road either, just a couple because it's way too out of hand.

Anyone else remember the commercial in the 80's where the air was so bad you couldn't really breath outside and then you see some people, I think bums, get some clean air out of a vending machine type apparatus (I don't remember the details but that picture of them getting cool refreshing clean air has stuck with me ever since).

[SaggyBalls]

the price of eco-friendly problems??

cripes, look at the price of the harmful products! They are way too cheap.

I think that's one of the inherent problems with the approach to green thinking. that the current prices are the status quo. They're not. Undervalued labour is overcompensated by big business large scale buying power to creat terrible products at rock bottom prices.

[Birdy]

Yes, but if undervalued labour can be found elsewhere at the same under-valued price while still producing large scale buying power to create terrible products at rock bottom prices, don't you think shareholders would continue to find it in their interests as profiteers to continue down this road?

[Birdy]

I agree with what you said above. Punish, but do it down the road, right now offer up incentive (positive incentive) to change and then after a bit of non-compliance, punish. Not 30 years down the road either, just a couple because it's way too out of hand.

Yep. I'm a little afraid of the carbon tax. We're so dependent on oil in soo many respects... i'm afraid for not only industry, but the average joe shmoe. You know, the family that lives pay cheque to pay cheque, never really getting ahead. Wait until the cost of gas goes way up, and the costs of heating houses goes way up... things like these are necessities for people. Income tax cuts aren't going to help them out. If they get a return come tax time, most of these people already owe that money out in the first place - mortgage payments they are struggling with, utility bills they are behind with, etc., etc., etc. I'm sure for the most part, this money will be spent in the first month of receipt. How is that supposed to help them come June, July, August, September and so on down the calendar when they start seeing prices for basic things climb? We need to do something now for people and business alike to change green. I view it almost like a fighting chance.

[SaggyBalls]

It seems that some people change best under pressure and some people must be pressured to change.

Of course shareholders will continue to enjoy making money.

If we could ensure that the greed-based development and industrialization is the most highly fought and the more ethically and healthfully produced products and industries are made attractive to investors, this could change things around.

While it wouldn't be the issue in the heart of big money, it would still be a change in a healthy direction.

So the factories around the world making substandard product would find new developing economies to work with. Our model would have to change and it would take proper planning and deliberate understanding of the market forces and possibilities to ensure that Canada and its economy would not suffer.

If established properly it would work incredibly well.

Do you think that having a regionally and nationally sustainable economy and agricultural base would be positive? I do and while importing and exporting products is a huge part of our GNP, big dirty boats are of detriment to the world's air quality (and ocean health when the particulates fall to the sea) as is big tractor trailers.

So here are a couple of options...

...If a Canadian Big truck Manufacturer started making diesel-generator powered Electric trucks that were plug in hybrids (charging stations/rest stops...to help the trucks get going) then we would not only solve a need for green technology, but would give the Manufacturing sector a huge potential for high end jobs. We would increase the noise pollution and air pollution drastically in major urban centres and along arterial highways, and have a potential to sell a high end idea for a high end price.

The world changed with steam ships. To be a world leader in clean fuel carrier shipbuilding and retrofitting, we could help our ailing maritime economies be less dependant on oil production and fisheries for big money. We could also be a world leader in nuclear powered ships, as fuel can be recycled almost indefinitely. Canadian Nuclear technology is the best in the world. Touchy subject, but this could be a great move.

As well, giant industrial sails help alleviate the stress on a ship's engine and fuel reserves. Imagine a giant kite/parachute/sail on all (or more) large ships. If Canada would reward companies that used eco friendly techniques, or punish anyone but, we could have an opportunity to lower our connection to tangible unethical business practice.

That's right...nuclear power in an Environmental Thread.

[Birdy]

More to say later, but:

How do we get people to stop purchasing things like Windex, Pine-sol, Mr. Clean, Vim, Comet, BAM!, and all generic named products of the same sort? How do we get them on to vinegar and water as the cheap and environmentally friendly version of their daily cleaning supply? Do we put labels on the bottles like they do cigarettes of the carcinogenic effects of these products? Their detriments to the environment? Hmm... this could have some power... it's all about educating the public as to the negative side of these things. Do we adopt the same stop-smoking campaign when it comes to all of these substandard products?

What do we do with all the people who work at the local windex bottling plant, or whatever it is? Where do they go to work?

What about mandatory skill training for these people if faced with losing their jobs? I fear for the 50 year old man who is 25 years away from retirement and in his mind, already defeated when it comes to training for a new job. What about back to school plans being a part of buy-out packages? What about lobbying the provinces with money to rework their apprenticeships? According to my friend, electricians in Ontario have a 1:1 ratio of apprentice to electrician. In Alberta, it's 5:1. I could be a little off on that Alberta number, but I know it's more favourable to those looking for an apprenticeship.

Are your ideas for big truck manufacturers and shipbuilders to be considered a national program? A crown corporation? Or do we leave this in the private sector? I'd want to leave it in the private sector, so where does the start up capital come from?

[phishtaper]

How do we get people to stop purchasing things like Windex, Pine-sol, Mr. Clean, Vim, Comet, BAM!, and all generic named products of the same sort?

we ban them. just like we have banned all sorts of other nasty commonly sold chemicals over the years, and most recently, a host of cosmetic herbicides. should we stop people from using these chemicals is the bigger question.

[Birdy]

You mean ban the chemicals inside of them, right? Kinda like lead? I'm all for it.

But I want more... does this really do anything to decrease consumer dependency, gotta have that lemony fresh scent, on these products? I don't think so. Why can't people just use vinegar and water? lemon oil? It's way cheaper. And has the potential to change most people's thinking. And doesn't fill up our landfills with countless product bottles and plastic.

I want to see a return to glass milk bottles too... and pop bottles.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Guest

[bradm]

I want to see a return to glass milk bottles too... and pop bottles.

The problem is that glass bottles are a lot heavier, which'll mean that switching to them will increase the amount of energy required to move them around. (As well, glass pop bottles are more dangerous.)

I'd like to see us stick with plastic bottles (and maybe even move back to the plastic milk jugs I remember from my youth), but put a deposit on them (as plastic milk jugs had).

Aloha,

Brad

[Birdy]

Really?

According to www.ecologycenter.org:

Adverse Health Effects of Plastics

In addition to creating safety problems during production, many chemical additives that give plastic products desirable performance properties also have negative environmental and human health effects. These effects include

Direct toxicity, as in the cases of lead, cadmium, and mercury

Carcinogens, as in the case of diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP)

Endocrine disruption, which can lead to cancers, birth defects, immune system supression and developmental problems in children.

People are exposed to these chemicals not only during manufacturing, but also by using plastic packages, because some chemicals migrate from the plastic packaging to the foods they contain. Examples of plastics contaminating food have been reported with most plastic types, including Styrene from polystyrene, plasticizers from PVC, antioxidants from polyethylene, and Acetaldehyde from PET.

Among the factors controlling migration are the chemical structure of the migrants and the nature of the packaged food. In studies cited in Food Additives and Contaminants, LDPE, HDPE, and polypropylene bottles released measurable levels of BHT, Chimassorb 81, Irganox PS 800, Irganix 1076, and Irganox 1010 into their contents of vegetable oil and ethanol. Evidence was also found that acetaldehyde migrated out of PET and into water.

[slavetothegroove]

Carbon tax according to the national post:

Here's a chart (or two):

Chart 1

Chart 2

An article from the national post:

The Liberal carbon tax: by the numbers

Posted: June 19, 2008, 7:06 PM by Ronald Nurwisah

Canada, Environment, Graphic

The National Post has boiled down some of the numbers laid out in Stephane Dion's "Green Shift Plan." The chart on the top right looks at how your wallet might be affected positively and negatively by the new carbon tax. The diagram below outlines how the plan should theoretically work. Click on either image for a full-size version:

• Carbon tax will be assessed at $10 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions in the first year, rising to $40 by the fourth year. Will apply to all fossil fuels including coal, oil, propane, natural gas and diesel.

• Tax will apply at the wholesale level, i.e. mainly to firms using the raw material to produce and sell energy.

• Higher energy costs will be passed on to industry, manufacturers, and ultimately to consumers. Ottawa will offset those costs through tax cuts.

• Estimated additional tax revenue in fourth year: $15.3 billion.

• Estimated income tax cuts by fourth year: $6.7 billion

• Additional benefits to low-income groups: $3.7 billion

• Business tax cuts: $3.8 billion.

• Lowest income tax rate will be cut to 13.5% from 15%. Next two bands will be cut to 21% from 22%, and to 25% from 26%.

• Additional tax changes will include new child tax benefit; employment tax credit for lowest earners, help for the disabled and support for rural and northern residents.

• No tax increase on gasoline, though producers may pass on higher costs. Diesel and jet fuel exempted in first year.

• Highest increases apply to coal and fuel oil; lowest increases to natural gas and propane.

• Estimated additional annual cost to heat homes in fourth year: $203 (home heating oil); $228-266 (natural gas).

• Increased annual truckers’ cost for diesel: $1,700

[SaggyBalls]

If the proper steps are made to making logistics more efficient the difference in the weight of the bottles won't matter.

Plastic is not good for flavour, taste, or long term recyclability.

Glass is glass is glass.

Plastic degenrates.

[SaggyBalls]

Large Scale Private Sector in Canada is rarely groundbreaking or entorely foreward-thinking, so private sector is not a good idea.

Unfortunately, national initiatives and crown corporations aren't run as fiscally prudent...

...As one of the 8 richest/most powerful nations in the world, money really shouldn't as much of an object as we're led to believe.

With Canada's influence, I'm sure we could court private sector...perhaps Bombardier could be persuaded to get onboard. They make the fastest trains in the world...why not get into road logistics and intermodal shipping?

Didn't Canada used to have some of the best shipyards in the world?

Don't some Commonwealth countries boast the same?

There must be a way to get this going. I wish I knew how so I didn't have to pose the suggestion on an internet messageboard to get people talking about it.

(note to politicians and business people...if I'm/we're turning any gears for you, please remember I/we love to eat)