Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

The outlook for the world’s second largest country is grim. A massive
document released by the Canadian government this month outlines – in 27
chapters – the alarming deterioration of Canada’s forests, soil, air and
water.

Canada covers 13 million square kilometres of land and water and contains
a quarter of the planet’s wetlands and freshwater resources, but has a relatively
small population of 26 million. Yet the government scientists, academics,
industry and environmental groups who detailed the effects human activities
have had on Canada’s environment have found little to be optimistic about.

In just two centuries Canadians have ravaged some of the richest ecosystems
in the world. The report predicts that within 16 years, the old growth forests
of British Columbia will have disappeared. The deterioration of the country’s
freshwater supplies has become a major health concern.

More than 300 chemical contaminants have been detected in the Great
Lakes, which contain 20 per cent of the world’s surface freshwater. ‘Fish
with tumours and diseases caused by toxins in water, birds with crossed
bills and other deformities caused by eating contaminated fish, and reproductive
failures in mammals feeding on the top predators of the aquatic food web
all suggest that human health may be in jeopardy,’ the report says.

Intensive agriculture has also taken its toll of the soil. The Western
Prairies, Canada’s wheatbelt, have lost as much as 50 per cent of their
original organic matter and are now vulnerable to erosion. Soil loss costs
Canadian farmers between $500 million and $900 million in lost production
each year.

Too much emphasis on economic growth has resulted in the death of more
than 14 000 lakes ‘killed’ by acid rain, in increasing levels of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere and in the thinning of the ozone layer. The report’s
authors argue that it is time to rethink priorities. Rather than continuing
to pursue growth, it may be time to think about ‘quality of life’. ‘What
kind of world do we want to pass on to our grandchildren?’ they ask.

Environmental groups congratulated the government for releasing such
an honest assessment of the state of the environment. But ‘now what?’ they
ask.

Jean Charest, the environment minister, insists that the report was
never intended to be a policy document, but was designed to provide the
best and most up-to-date information to ‘help provide a better context for
»å±ð³¦¾±²õ¾±´Ç²Ô-³¾²¹°ì¾±²Ô²µâ€™.

Charest maintains that the government’s Green Plan addresses many of
the problems described in the report. The Green Plan is the federal government’s
C $6 billion ( £3 billion) programme of initiatives to tackle environmental
problems.

Not everyone sees the Green Plan as the answer to the ills documented
in the report. Jim MacNeill, who was secretary general of the Brundtland
Commission on the Environment, scoffs at the idea that the plan will stop
the destruction. It does not go to the root of the problem, he says.

The fault lies in policies Canada is pursuing now. He takes energy as
an example. The acid rain that has sterilised 14 000 lakes is caused mainly
by burning fossil fuels. ‘The government is spending around $4 billion in
subsidies to promote the use of fossil fuels – that is to say we are spending
billions to promote global warming and acid rain,’ says MacNeill. ‘At the
same time we are spending only about $40 million to promote energy efficiency
. . . It’s a loser’s game.’

Canada is one of the world’s biggest consumers of energy, and lies in
third place in the league of carbon dioxide producers. A common theme running
throughout the report is the massive damage global warming will do to Canada’s
environment and its economy. But like many other industrialised nations,
Canada has committed itself only to stabilising its emissions of carbon
dioxide at 1990 levels by the year 2000.

Another critic, Bill Rees of the University of British Columbia, says
there is no political will to take greater steps to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
‘In my ongoing debate with the department of energy I was finally told that
the government is committed to supporting the existing industrial infrastructure
of Canada, which I believe means the oil and gas industry and the automotive
²õ±ð³¦³Ù´Ç°ù²õ.’

Canadians cannot go on consuming resources at the present level and
must re-evaluate their priorities, says Rees. He is working on a study that
shows that Canadians are consuming more than the planet can afford. His
early calculations indicate that 3 hectares of productive ecosystem are
needed to maintain one Canadian. ‘If you multiply that by the population
of the world, you’d need 2 1/2 Earths to support the present world population.’