Environmental activities
Most of the environmental movements claim that with government regulation and taxes, the meaningful impact can be made. However, such arguments may not be entirely accurate. For example, a country such as Canada has not succeeded in ending environmental pollution even though it has many regulations in place. Various factors could be contributing to this. First, Canada does not have a unified legislative body to pass laws on environmental issues. For an environmental regulation to be enacted, the federal government and the Canadian municipalities have to agree. However, these two bodies are often in conflict, and when one proposes, the other opposes making it hard for any development to take place.
A good example is when the federal government banned the draining of toxic materials into water bodies to prevent the harm it was causing the aquatic animals and the fishes. Such a law needed to be enforced for the court to take stun measures to companies violating it. However, the Canadian provincial government argued that such a law would interfere with industries such as pulp and paper that contributed significantly to the economy of the province. Therefore, it disagreed with the federal government and refused to sign the proposal.
This Pulp and Paper industry had by 1998 committed over 3000 environmental violations in Ontario and many in the Great Lakes. It shows that the Canadian provincial government is more concerned about the revenue it collects than it cares about the health of the people. In other words, like in all other countries, there will always be a conflict between environmental gain and economic benefit. However, countries like Canada will choose financial gain over environmental benefits. Therefore, governmental regulations and taxes will not help when it comes to protecting industries and companies that contribute more to the economy.
The different bodies in Canada charged with the responsibilities to ensure compliance with the regulations and laws that target environmental pollution are the same ones who break the rules. For example, the joint commission made a recommendation that the government creates a timetable to “sunset the use of chlorine and chlorine-containing compounds as an industrial feedstock.” These policies pleased environmentalist, but the industry opposed. Conservative governments from Canada and the United States retained the policies. Still, it kept bypassing the international Joint Commission, reducing the environmental budget, lowering public input, refusing to monitor the chemical discharge, and making it difficult to access information. It means that Canada may have some of the best environmental laws and policies. However, the people in authority implement laws that suit their interest and oppose those that do not.
The environmentalists in Canada do their best to sensitize the people on the need to conserve the environment and lead by example. For instance, most of them have become vegetarians to avoid the pollution brought about by the process of preparing animals for food. In most cases, fossil fuel is used, and bones, feathers, skin litter the environment. The government does not reciprocate all their effort because they lack its support, meaning that regulations and taxes are not sufficient in eliminating environmental pollution.
Environmental activities require financial assistance to accomplish. However, the government keeps withdrawing funds and, at times, refusing to provide. For example, in 1997, the funding given to pollution programs in Ontario was canceled by the government, claiming that the private sector should finance such programs. Reaching out to the people and maintaining environmental programs requires finances. Even with the government regulations and taxes, if there are no funds, then ending environmental pollution may not be possible.
I believe that more regulations and taxes will not help solve the pollution issue in Canada because the same government charged with the responsibility of ensuring compliance allows some firms to break them. What is more vivid in the Canadian pollution issue is that the efforts of the environmentalists are not appreciated and supported by the government.