The politics and environmental policies in the US and Canada

In 1970, Richard Nixon, the then president of the United States gave his assent to the National Environmental Policy Act (EPA), thus ushering in a new policy that introduced policy regulation of the environment. Defending his move, President Nixon said that concerted efforts by the government were not effective in ensuring sustainable environment management. Across the border in Canada, similar policy was to be enacted years two decades later (unep.

org, 1997) Sources of air and water pollution in both countries are classified as geogenic or biogenic.Although natural causes like volcanic eruptions account for much more pollution that human activities does, the human causes affect the environment more harshly due to their localized effects. In study carried out in Ontario in the 1990’s, 21 percent pollution was from motor vehicles, while 20 percent of the air pollution was from the use of general solvents. A further 13 percent was from residential areas, while an equal measure was from other combined sources (Morag-Levine, 2003).

Water and air pollution has been a subject of debate for the better part of the past century.In the two countries, environment conservation has taken center stage and even influences laws formed in the respective countries. The policies are both regulative and non regulative. An example of the non regulatory measures taken by the United States is the 1990 Clean Air Amendment Act.

The legislation called for the 9 million metric ton reduction of annual discharge through a program dubbed Acid Rain. The overall objective of the program was to reduce the Sulfur dioxide emissions (Morag-Levine, 2003).To do this, the program continuously monitored emissions of pollutants, with the view of tracking progress, ensuring compliance and providing credibility to the program. In a similar program formalized in 1985, Canada established three power plants, which could trade sulfur dioxide emissions. Under this arrangement, the program’s goal was to reduce emissions to an annual rate of 1. 8 metric tons in nine years.

Canadians surpassed their target and in fact reduced the levels to 1. 5 metric tons annually.By 1980, the entire SO2 emission country wide had gone down by 56 percent. The country hoped to use this approach to phase out Ozone depleting substances from the environment (unep. org, 1997).

Canada and the United States have waste reduction targets, which are responsible for the recycling programs witnessed in the two countries. While in Canada this is covered under the country’s laws, the United States does not have a national law to regulate the program. Thus, mandatory recycling program have been legislated through local governments and individual states.States like California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan and New York have programs that give deposits or monetary refunds to people who take cans and other recyclable containers to designated places. In Seattle and New York, state laws enforce fines to people who throw away material that can be recycled (Morag-Levine, 2003). Canada also introduced an environment initiative whereby gas captured from land fields is captured and traded to companies that turn it into electricity.

As a result, the country has less greenhouse gases.According to the government of Canada, the recycling initiative has also extended to the construction industry, whereby people are more receptive to the use of recycled plumbing fixtures, windows, doors, asphalt, wood and concrete for construction (Government of Canada, 1996). While the role of national environment management in Canada lays squarely on the government, the government insists that efforts in environment conservation can only succeed if the responsibility is shared by individuals, community groups, non governmental organizations and other agencies.On its part, the government engages the municipal, the provincial and federal governments (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2004). While as Canada has an expansive wilderness, wetlands, fresh water lakes, forests and a long coast line, the lifestyle of it people deserves more resolute efforts to ensure that the environment degradation does not take a toll on the natural environment.

Just like the United States, Canada has its fare share of people who love more environment polluting vehicles.Trend sin housing development has also led to more loss of forest cover and displacing the flora and fauna (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2004) The United States on its part has had two environment re-awakening experiences in the 1950’s that spurred the government to reconsider it standing on environment regulation. One incident occurred in Pennsylvania in 1948. This revealed high pollutant concentrations in the atmosphere. The other incident was the smog that hit southern California in the 1950’s. The incidences led to a nation wide debate, which eventually resulted to the Clean Air Act in 1963.

In 1967, the Air Control Act was put in place. In the 1967 act, the government acquired the right to implement air quality standards in identified state based on researched environment condition of the specific state. Whether a state was to fall culprit to this law was based on the concentration of air pollutants in the air (Morag-Levine, 2003) Smog occurs because of nitrogen oxide reaction with hydrocarbons. These emissions are mostly because of automobile use and are common in the congested cities of the western United States, which also happened to be more industrialized (Wang et al, 2004).When the rains come, the affected areas experience acid rain, which is contaminated with sulfur oxide. This pollutant ends up in the soil or water bodies hence causing additional pollution on the land (Wang et al, 2004).

Both the United States and Canada are affected by the same type of air pollutants although in varying levels. The Pollutants are classified as either gaseous pollutants or particulate pollutants. Particulates can be either in liquid or solid form, which makes air pollutants, encompasses the three basic types of matter. Gaseous pollutants are either in nitrogen or sulfur forms.

Although most of the sulfuric gaseous pollutants are colorless, one can observe some bluish smoke in other sulfuric pollutants whenever combustion is taking place (Wang, et al, 2004). The United States also established another Clean Air Amendment Act in 1970, which put in place primary and ambient air standards. The former was intended for the general health benefits, while the latter is meant to protect health and the wellbeing of animals, plants and other things in the environment (Wang, et al, 2004) In the period between 1995 and 1997, Canada recorded an impressive reduction in its discharge to soft water bodies.On this front, Canada beats the United States, which recorded only 13. 7 on water affluent discharge during the same period.

Canada’s performance was attributed to the federal regulations implemented in the country in the 1990’s. However, whereas Canada may be doing better than the United States in the water affluent front, the United States fairs better on air pollution (Sutcliffe, 2000).This happened despite Canada’s efforts to control industrial pollution through voluntary campaigns, new technology and legislation. Still pollution in industrial locations rose by 1.2 percent between 1995 and 1997. Accordingly, this was equivalent to 128 million Kilos of suspected cancer causing pollutants (Sutcliffe, 2000).

Environment conservation requires the involvement of various people to make it a reality. On this realization, both countries have engaged in strategic partnerships with government agencies, private sectors, communities and individual citizens. While the administration is responsible in ensuring that regulations are observed to the latter, engaging communities, individuals and non government agencies ensures that the non regulatory measures are observed.Both Canada and the United States have taken up voluntary conservation programs in conservation.

For them to succeed however, publicizing the need for environment conservation is among the initiatives that local or central governments have to take up in order to ensure that information reaches the masses. In the United States, the environment protection Act runs several cooperative programs that target constituencies. Such include the Common-sense initiative, the star program and the green-lights program. The main objective of such programs is the creation of environment protection partnerships.In Canada, the government takes a different approach, which focuses on giving the masses civic education regarding building a greener society. As such, Environment Canada focuses on education and information provision, partnership formations and the creation of covenants between industry players and the government.

Programs in Canada include the Green Lane program, which is a web based program. The program engages Canadian citizens to become better environment managers (unep. org, 2004) Non regulatory approaches in Canada have so far achieved impressive results.A good example of such is the In9itiativve that seeks to reduce or eliminate toxic waste production (ARET). ARET’s main objective is reducing the negative effects of toxic waste on basic human health by reducing the production of the toxic waste. 10 years since its inception in 1994, the program had convinced 300 industrial facilities to adopt the cause.

Adopting the cause required the organizations to signs commitment forms, which requires them to reduce toxic waste production by 24,000 tons by 2000. By 1994, this reduction was equivalent 72 percent of the total toxic waste in Canada.In the United States, a similar program to the one in Canada was pioneered. The Toxic Release Inventory Program (TRI) seeks to monitor the toxic waste production by industries. The EPA requires industries to submit annual toxic productions figures, which is rated in a score card and available to the general populace of the country. For the reason that most companies are afraid of what impression the score card will create and the effect it will have on the overall business, most of this industries are at pressure to reduce toxic waste production.

EPA notes that although there is still to be done in this sector, the results in 199 were quite encouraging. The organization notes that of the 23,321 companies that gives their annual toxic waste production rates to the organization, 35 percent of the companies indicated a reduction of toxic waste production (unep. org, 2004) An additional program by APA engages companies to reduce the release of seventeen high-priority noxious chemicals. The program includes information and ratings of the extent of each company. The companies are also rated on the effect of their pollution deterrence practices, and the results documented.In Canada, pollution of water bodies is addressed in the Canada Water Act, the Arctic waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Oceans act and the Fisheries act.

The transportation of Dangerous goods ac and the Canada Shipping act also falls in this category as they enforce environment responsible behavior among sea users. In the United States water pollution is government by three pieces of legislation namely, the Clean Water Act, the federal water-pollution control act and the refuse act. The former act was the first legislation to be put in place in 1899 to limit pollutants released to specific water bodies.In 1948, the Federal water-pollution act came into place and its main objective was to reduce the amount of pollutants released to water bodies.

In 1972, the Clean Water act was enforced and set standards that all pollutant dischargers had to adhere to. Such includes attaining permits from the EPA. Violation of this act could lead to civil penalties, criminal charges or being stripped off the discharge permit. This law came into place for the purposes of protecting surface water, ground water and other water sources where people got water for consumption purposes.Under the US environment regulation policies, major facilities such as chemical plants, steel plants and copper smelters must obtain permits of operation. The permits must be authorized by federal, state or local authorities.

The permits indicate the maximum amount of pollutants that each permit applicant should release per hour. In a way, pollution in the US is legalized by the Clean Air act, which has been amended three times. The first time was in 1970, followed by the 1977 amendment and the 1990 amendment.To ensure that pollution matches set criteria, EPA has the overall authority of deciding how the laws will be implemented. The regulations a re however subject to public hearing, approval/disapproval and litigation (Pcharpentier, 2007) In Canada, Pollution both water and air control regulation lies with the federal government, which passes some of the powers to the provincial jurisdiction.

Municipalities also have the capacity to enforce laws that would address specific pollution issues affecting their areas (Pcharpentier, 2007).Where there is contrast between federal law and more localized policies, the localized policies take effect because they are o the ground and therefore understand the problems facing their respective areas better than the federal government would. Unlike the united states where permits are acquired for the purposes of regulating pollutant emissions only, Canada requires that permits be acquired by any individual or enterprise that wishes to construct, alter or replace an equipments that controls air pollution(pcharpentier, 2007).A permit is also needed before any one can take to operating equipment that might discharge pollutants. A person who intends to change any process that may alter the manner, or rate of contaminants released into the atmosphere also needs to get a permit. In addition, any person or business entity that engages in activities that may result in contaminant discharge also needs to get a permit (pcharpentier, 2007).

If enforced to the latter, Canada’s approach to giving permits stands more chances of sealing off the loopholes that may result in increased air pollution.However, whether this works better than the US approach of permit awarding depends on the levels of pollutants that individual permit applicants are authorized to release into the atmosphere. The number of applicants could also affect the viability of this approach in pollutant emission reduction. In both countries, air and water pollution policies are made based on four variables as follows: Set emission standards, set air/water quality standards, emission taxes/penalties and the cost undergone both directly and indirectly. ( pcharpentier, 2007).In the standards set to regulate emissions, both countries believe that emission cans be controlled by specifying the amount of pollutants that each polluter can release to either water/air.

The standard on water or air is based on the conviction that it is possible to regulate water quality and ambient air by setting levels of allowed contaminants. As such, the levels are set at zero (which is hard to achieve in ambient air control). The air aspect is addressed in the United States Clean Air act, which sets the maximum air quality at 6 pollutants.In Canada, the Ontario environment protection act places the permissible air quality concentration at 87 pollutants at the point of the emission.

Clearly, the Canadian laws are more accommodating than those in the United States and could lead to more air pollution in the country (pcharpentier, 2007). Taxing companies according to their levels of emissions is also an approach that has been adopted by both Canada and America. However, while the United States focuses more on discouraging people from engaging in activities that result in Green house gases emissions, Canada hopes to encourage people to embrace the economic incentives that come with installing equipment that controls pollution. As such, the Canadian authorities have to calculate the tax levels in such a way that purchasing the pollution regulating equipment makes economical sense to the concerned parties (pcharpentier, 2007).

The US on the other hand is encouraging its citizens to adopt more environment friendly approaches. Such includes using alternative energy. However, there has been counter effects that erode the impact of emission taxes.Such include the subsidization of fossil fuels by the government.

The same government however enforced the gas-guzzler and gasoline taxes, whose aim was to encourage more people to embrace alternative energy. To encourage water conservation from hydro electricity generation, the United States established tax incentives for investors who construct energy efficient houses (pewclimate. org, 2008). The cost benefit approach is based on the assumption that pollution is part of modern living and therefore cannot be avoided.Getting rid of pollution is a dream that will never become a reality. This approach however agrees that pollution can be controlled by quantifying the underlying costs of pollution on the long term effect that air and water contaminants will have on the environment and climate.

This approach is however not certain on the damage that pollution can have on crops, animals and human healthy. Quantifying the cost of pollution therefore becomes impossible (pcharpentier, 2007).