The GM Oshawa Closure and Canada's Transition to a Zero-Emissions Vehicle Fleet

This post was originally published in Policy Options/ Options Politiques, on December 3rd, 2018.

The recent closure of the GM Oshawa plant has both nothing and everything to do with climate change. Nothing, in the sense that any claim that GM was motivated by altruistic desires to curtail emissions by focusing on electric vehicles is largely hogwash: The plant closure was fundamentally a financial decision made by a mega-corporation stuck making a bid to survive in a very quickly evolving global automobile market. Everything, because at a macro-scale we can in part attribute the closure to climate change, as climate change had a fundamental role in prompting that transformation of the global automobile market.

There are many questions coming out of this unfortunate event. But a couple of the important ones are, Where does this leave Canada in terms of its preparedness to participate in the 21st century automobile sector, which is largely centred on electric and autonomous vehicles? And, what role (if any) should governments, at all levels, play to improve Canada’s industrial positioning in that sector?


Canada has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and the international community has committed to keeping the world to 1.5°C of warming from preindustrial levels. The transport sector is responsible for a considerable part of both domestic emissions (about 28 percent of the total and growing) and global emissions (about 14 percent of the total), so the transition to a zero-emissions vehicle fleet could be a significant part of the broader climate change mitigation efforts.

There are a few considerations to keep in mind, as Canada navigates through this multifaceted transition. First, there is an important distinction between policies oriented toward shifting production and those focused on consumption. Governments have a role to play in both, but they would require very different types of actions.

On the consumption side, there are the incentives and regulations shaping consumer behaviour. The “carrots” include policies like the handsome rebates offered by some provincial governments toward the purchase of electric vehicles; the “sticks” include putting a price on carbon (making fuel-powered cars more expensive vis-à-vis electric alternatives), and jurisdictional “bans” on internal combustion engines, as we’ve seen in Paris, Madrid and Mexico City. Of course, these bans are rather intangible in terms of actual changes to law or policy, but they are nevertheless important in that they signal to consumers, commercial enterprises and vehicle manufacturers that this change is coming down the pipe, so they should start preparing for it now.

On the production side, we have to keep in mind that the 20th-century auto-sector model (in which a handful of global automakers commanded the market and much of the supply chain associated with it) is pretty much dead now. The new landscape includes a range of new players, with Tesla, BYD, Wheego, Coda, Bison, and even Apple, Google, Uber, Lyft and Zipcar vying for various aspects of the market. These companies are tackling specific challenges like automation sensors, artificial intelligence, larger batteries, onboard telecommunications, GPS, and cybersecurity integration, in the inclusion of automobiles within the sharing economy. A recent analysis by Frost and Sullivan found 1,700 start-ups around the world vying for various shares of these new auto market subsectors.

The GM closure is a wake-up call that the old model of relying on a few large players to benevolently pursue corporate social responsibility goals and drive consumer demand for more efficient vehicles is unlikely to work.

This in itself is an indication that the 21st-century auto sector is much more complex – we’re not just talking about competition between different brands of the same product (variations on the internal combustion engine). We are now talking about competition between different visions of human transportation: ride sharing vs. car-sharing vs. personal car ownership vs. new modes of public transit vs. telecommuting vs. human-driven vehicles vs. autonomous vehicles vs. plug-in hybrid vehicles vs. fully electric vehicles, and so on. The point is, policies centred on propping up the 20th-century model (such as the 2009 auto bailout) are bound to fail in this brave new world.

The good news is that if we think about the new automobile sector as one piece in a much broader multidimensional shift to a clean energy economy, things start to look a little more promising for Canada.

This clean energy shift includes the expansion and greening of the electricity sector; the development of smart grids and third-generation charging infrastructure; major improvements in autonomous vehicle technology; and the rolling out of new emissions-free equipment in the manufacturing and extractives sectors, among other changes. This is where Canada holds promise and opportunity. Whether it’s the mining of copper (electric vehicles use about four times as much copper as internal combustion engine vehicles) and other metals and minerals required for renewable energy and lithium batteries as well as for other hi-tech products, or research and innovation in new efficient or smart technologies, there are numerous opportunities for Canadian firms to participate in various aspects of the clean energy economy.

Governments at all levels do therefore have a role to play, which is to foster the clean energy transition that the players in this new auto sector will depend on to succeed. In this regard, the federal government and some provincial governments deserve at least some credit for large-scale investments they have made in programs like the Autonomous Vehicle Innovation Network, the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (which included the development of a Zero-Emissions Vehicles Strategy), the tax incentives for firms using clean energy and manufacturing equipment, and other measures. Many of the incentives in the Pan-Canadian Framework support the demand side of the equation, with heaps of funding for green infrastructure (including public transport projects across the country).

If Canada is going to decarbonize its economy at some point this century, then it will need to achieve a zero-emissions vehicle fleet at some point this century as well. The GM closure is a long overdue wake-up call that the old model of relying on a few large corporate players to benevolently pursue their corporate social responsibility goals and drive consumer demand for more efficient vehicles is unlikely to work, as either an economic or an environmental strategy. Governments at all levels have an important role to play in signalling future objectives for our society, incentivizing positive action on behalf of consumers and producers, and fostering an environment conducive to high-calibre research and world-class innovation; investing in green infrastructures that support the transition; adequately and fairly pricing carbon; and regulating the “bad apples.” It is indeed a sad time for Oshawa, but hope is not entirely lost; policy-makers just need to think forward as they address this challenge, rather than replicating past mistakes.

The Future of Sustainable Protein is… Complicated

Here is a piece variation of a piece I wrote for the Center for International Policy Studies blog, originally published in the University of Ottawa Gazette here. 

“The Paleoketoveganmacrofasting Diet: Stop the Madness!!!” This was the amusing title of a recent presentation by Dr. Shawn Arent, a kinesiology professor at Rutgers University. The talk was aimed at personal trainers. But for the rest of us, the title hints at the madness of all the emerging (conflicting) dietary practices (and increasingly, institutional policies) surrounding the provision of protein that appear to be gaining credence in North America. This highlights the various beliefs about what does or does not qualify as a “healthy,” “ethical,” or “sustainable” food.

If present trends are any measure, this madness is likely to continue. A wide range of forces are working in the background to profoundly reshape the global agri-food sector. The world’s population is growing at a tremendous pace, with more than 200,000 additional mouths to feed on the planet every day. Experts therefore expect a struggle in meeting the future demand for nutritious food. At the same time, hundreds of millions of people are being lifted out of extreme poverty. Along with these rising incomes globally, the demand for meat — one of the traditional foods through which humans acquire protein — has grown significantly, putting additional pressure on land and resources.

A related problem pertains to the trends of degradation and/or overuse of water, soil, and forests, as conventional agricultural practices — heavily relianton fossil fuels, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and other inputs — strain Earth’s natural areas and biodiversity. Heightened ethical awareness about the treatment of animals in conventional agriculture is also fueling dietary and culinary change. This gives rise to everything from “organic,” “grass-fed,” “free-range,” and/or “hormone and antibiotic-free” meat to “plant-based meat,” and everything in between.

Meanwhile, advances in technology — from genetic engineering to lab-grown cultures — are redefining possibilities in food production and simultaneously destabilizing agri-food markets. Increasing (and competing) concerns about the nutritional profile of carbohydrates and fats are also reshaping dietary advice about what protein sources should be avoided or included in a healthy diet. (Plant and animal sourced proteins typically feature different nutritional profiles in terms of what macronutrients come along with them.)  On top of all this, there’s the existential threat of climate change, which is wreaking havoc on food production.

Admittedly it’s a lot to take-in, even for those who study this for a living. Yet as complex as it all may be, there is a strong case for embracing this complexity when crafting policy for the agri-food sector or institutional dietary policies. Why? While it’s certainly important to have clear and cogent policies that are easy to follow, there’s a risk that oversimplifications in policy will be unable to account for the different life circumstances and experiences of citizens, consumers, and employees in different geographical contexts.

Here’s an example: There’s been a lot of talk lately about instituting bans on meat at various public institutions and private businesses. Policy proposals of this sort have been informed by meta-data studies that compare the environmental footprints of common protein sources, such as one recent high-profile study in Science. One of this study’s co-authors was recently asked about the key “take-away” of his research. His response was that “avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet.” While on the surface this seems logical considering global-scale data comparisons, it’s not hard to see that this universal advice paints a monolithic picture of the typical food consumer.

The advice may indeed be accurate, but it also may be way off. It really depends on the specific context of various consumers does it not? For instance, if you’re a jet-setting frequent flyer; or if you hunt or produce most of your own food; or if you only infrequently indulge in meat and dairy (and support local sustainable producers while you’re at it); or if you derive most of your protein from intensively farmed soy; etc., etc., — then there may be more effective ways to reduce your environmental footprint. Further, there could be instances where completely banning meat and dairy would work against local sustainability objectives. Or against the dietary needs of people with chronic intestinal or nutritional issues.

The above example pertains to the environmental impact of different protein sources, but similarly sweeping claims and counterclaims have been made about the ethical and health merits of avoiding some foods over others. There’s lots of expert advice out there and it’s bound to grow both in volume and scope. But as we attempt to convert information into sustainable policy for protein provision, we ought to keep in mind the specific dynamics and local complexities that shape regional agri-food contexts. It’s just (complex) common sense!

What do we really need from the green economy?

Repost from my recent op-ed for The Hill Times, published here: https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/03/19/really-need-canadas-green-economy/137793

Since the 1970s there has emerged a vast literature exploring the relationship between economic growth and the environment. Fifty years of research has yielded anything but consensus: One major school in the debate claims that humanity long ago overshot Earth’s natural carrying capacity; it thus argues we need to dramatically scale back material consumption (particularly in the West). Another major school argues that growth can be made to be green, as long as environmental damage is accurately priced within the market. There is also a range of radical contributions to this debate, with calls for everything from eco-socialist revolution to venture-capital backed geoengineering schemes.

Enter the Trudeau Liberals, who placed themselves within this debate by repeatedly assuring Canadians that what’s good for the environment is good for the economy, and vice versa. The economy and the environment “go together like paddles and canoes,” Trudeau once said: “unless you have both you won’t get to where you are going.” This rather vague mantra – that protecting the environment and growing the economy go hand in hand – has not only served to juxtapose their environmental policy from the Harper Conservatives (who seemed to imply that environmental protection hampered economic growth), but it has also worked at justifying a wide range of government policies, from the recent overhaul of the environmental assessment rules; to its support for oil sands pipelines; to its investment of hundreds of millions of dollars into Canadian innovation; and its plan to put a price on carbon.

Don’t get me wrong – some of these policies are great ideas (particularly the latter two) – but allow me to ask a rather heretical question; what if what’s good for the economy isn’t necessarily good for the environment all the time? What if doing what’s truly good for the environment in a particular case would knowingly inflict pain on our economy? If we can assume that there are indeed instances where growth and environment are incompatible, then is not the Liberal mantra a dangerous tautology destined to make us believe we can have it all without changing our way of life?

To suppose that we Canadians (who, by one measure, produce more garbage per person than any other nationality on the planet) can consume our way into a green economy strikes many as a bit of a fairy tale. Canada’s economy is relatively strong. Meanwhile, the environment is ensnared in deep crisis – not just relating to climate, but also to biodiversity and the viability of precious resources. Policy is often a way of mediating tradeoffs between gains and concessions. A guiding policy which claims no compromise is necessary in achieving sustainable growth in perpetuity is deaf to the material realities of our biosphere.

To return to the growth and environment debate, it seems rather obvious that the lack of consensus about their relationship arises from the abstract nature and complexity of both growth and environmental sustainability. How could there possibly be such a clear-cut relationship between these two societal goals? Hiring someone to cut down a tree generates economic activity; but so does hiring someone to replant it! Some economic activities that generate growth in Canada’s domestic product will evidently yield some forms of environmental damage; and others may help us in tackling certain environmental indicators. So why the oversimplification from our political leadership?

A more honest path forward is one that specifies what we truly need from our economy and the environment. Canadians arguably need fulfilling and lasting employment, to provide us not only with income, but meaning; yet we also need access to uncontaminated natural resources and ecosystem services, which provide us with sustenance and good health. If those needs can be achieved while the economy grows, great; but the priority should be on the ends, not the means. The point, as we work towards a truly green economy, is to focus our objectives on the specific social and ecological outcomes we require for our national and global society to thrive.

Beware the glitz of neo-industrial agriculture

[NOTE: This post was originally published as part of Policy Options' "Canadian Agriculture at the Cutting Edge"]

Canada is betting big on intensifying industrial agriculture, but we ought to support agro-ecology as well.

Till the land. Seed annual crop. Fertilize and irrigate. Spray for weeds and pests. Harvest. Repeat. This simple process, give or take a few steps, describes a considerable (and growing) portion of contemporary agriculture in Canada. More than half of the nation’s farmland is now dedicated to the production of crops that are produced on large tracts of land with highly advanced industrial equipment (like computerized tractors with proprietary software). Because of shifting global economic forces in the last decade, including increasing grain prices and rising demand in Asia, this type of agriculture has driven considerable growth in Canada’s GDP, significantly increased export volumes, and generated profits for large farms and agri-food corporations. Industrial livestock, fattened up by these crops, have contributed to Canada’s growing agri-food and seafood export revenues.

Industrial agriculture’s strong growth is exactly why policy-makers want to intensify it in the coming years, increasing agri-food exports, unrolling new technologies and automation in the sector, and doing a better job of capturing value from domestic processing. By embarking on this “new industrial revolution” in agriculture, proponents argue, Canada could become a “trusted global leader in safe, nutritious and sustainable food for the 21st century.” This sunny narrative depicts Canada playing a key role in feeding the world’s growing population, while growing its economy and protecting its environment.

Despite affording evident benefits to Canada’s status, the agri-food sector’s neo-industrialization is not all glamorous. Specifically, there is good reason to reflect critically on claims about the system’s long-term sustainability. There are social, economic and environmental challenges to the neo-industrialization of agriculture, and I argue that Canada ought not to put all its eggs in the neo-industrial basket, so to speak. Rather, there is much to be gained from also betting on small-scale “agro-ecological” farms, if the goal is to make Canada’s agri-food sector more sustainable.

First, let us consider some social and economic features of neo-industrialization (these are, after all, two key pillars of sustainability, along with environmental concerns). To start off, it is important here to make a distinction between large industrial farms, which cater to global markets, and small and mid-sized farms, which primarily aim to contribute to domestic food supply. Arguably, it is the former group that is truly benefiting from the neo-industrialization trend, while the rest are struggling to get by, if not disappearing altogether. In Canada, there are less than 10,000 farms with gross revenues over $1,000,000, while there are more than 200,000 farms with annual revenues under that benchmark.

Not surprisingly, the top5-percent-earning farms produce over half the nation’s agricultural revenue. While the total number of farms in Canada has declined since 1941 (by a quarter between 1990 and 2011), the number of “million-dollar farms” has actually grown in recent years. The average size of a Canadian farm has grown too (this trend is far more pronounced in the prairies), fuelled not only by urbanization (and sprawling development), but also by the corporatization of agriculture. The percentage of incorporated farms grew from about 4 percent in 1981 to nearly 20 percent in 2011 (and yes, the largest, highest-earning farms are more likely to be incorporated).

Since the early 1990s, the average farm operator is seven years older; is more likely to be renting the land they work with; and is working fewer hours on the farm (which suggests a greater need for supplemental off-farm income, yet the proportion of farm operators finding work off the farm has also declined since 1990). As well, the number of agricultural workers has steadily declined in across the country (a trend that started over a century ago). Finally, while the nation’s outstanding farm debts in 1990 stood at around $23.6 billion, the figure has climbed precipitously to $91.7 billion in 2015 – perhaps not surprising when one considers that a new combine can easily cost over half a million dollars.

We must ask ourselves whether these social and economic trends, partly driven by the steady industrialization of the agricultural sector, are sustainable? Will the predicted prosperity in Canadian agriculture be shared by all producers or just the richest few? How long can effects such as the hollowing out of rural areas, the decline in agricultural work hours and the aging of the agricultural population be sustained? As the National Farmers Union (NFU) recently concluded, “farmer autonomy and local control of land and production, which are the foundations of food sovereignty, are threatened by excessive farm debt loads, input financing, the conversion of farmland to non-farm uses. . .and by land grabbing,” among other threats. It’s not clear this situation is sustainable for the majority of Canada’s farmers and agricultural communities.

Industrialization has reduced the amount of inputs (feed, fertilizers, water) and the harmful outputs (greenhouse gases, waste and pollutants) per unit of product, but industrial landscapes require high levels of inputs and generate unwanted outputs.

We must also think critically about the third pillar of sustainability – the environment. Proponents of neo-industrialization argue that technological innovation and economies of scale will yield more efficient equipment and practices that will have less impact on the environment. This argument, which is centred on the benefits of “intensity” (the idea that the industrial model’s larger scale of production allows it to yield more product per unit of environmental damage), starts to unravel when we look at the environment holistically. Put differently, while industrialization has demonstrably reduced the amount of inputs required (feed, fertilizers, water) and the harmful outputs (greenhouse gases, waste and pollutants) per unit of product, the fact remains that industrial landscapes require high levels of inputs and generate unwanted outputs.

Regardless of how efficient the practice may be at producing food, industrial monocropping — invented after the Second World War and facilitated by the exponential growth in petroleum production — is in many ways an unmitigated environmental disaster. In terms of biodiversity alone, large croplands have a devastating impact, obliterating large areas of wildlife habitat and migration corridors, drastically narrowing the genetic pool of food crops, and depending on harmful herbicides and pesticides that impact soil biota, flora and fauna. In such settings it becomes necessary to apply chemical pesticides to protect crops from wild herbivores, birds and insects, and as the UN notes, global pesticide use has had “catastrophic impacts on the environment, human health and society as a whole.” In terms of agricultural soils, severe harm has been brought about by industrial farming practices, which rely on synthetic fertilizers and other chemical inputs, and which often leave soils bare, leading to problems like soil erosion, the loss of soil organic carbon (SOC), nitrogen depletion, and salinization.

Perhaps one saving grace for Canada’s mega-crop producers is the growing acceptance of no-till and other low-disturbance practices since the 1980s, which has significantly reduced the risk of soil erosion, loss of SOC, and salinization. However, while no-till practices are helping to minimize the ecological footprint of industrial agriculture (and should be a requirement), a study by the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration in Saskatchewan highlights a range of structural challenges that constrain industrial farmers from fully adopting these practices, and these constraints themselves are exacerbated by climate change.

Taking a step back, there is an inherent contradiction between the processes and structures embedded in industrial agriculture and the types of social, economic, and environmental remediation it claims to carry out. Despite its apparent macro-benefits, there is a case to be made that the neo-industrial model is structured upon a fundamentally unsustainable cycle that benefits only a small portion of farmers; locks many others into endless debt; degrades agricultural soils in the long-term; leads to biodiversity loss; contaminates water bodies; exacerbates climate change; erodes domestic food security; and catalyzes the decline of family farms, traditional agricultural knowledge and rural communities.

If sustainability in the agri-food system is what is sought, perhaps Canada should consider a two-tiered policy — one that privileges agro-ecological farming as well as mainstream agriculture. In its approach, agro-ecology is completely different from mainstream agriculture. It is founded on ecological principles such as the regeneration of landscapes, habitats and natural cycles; the reduction of external and synthetic inputs (which reduces the production footprint and gives farmers more autonomy); and a commitment to improving communities through access to healthy, diverse, local food. While it comes in many shapes and forms (from restorative permaculture to urban farming), agro-ecological practices are catching on in Canada and abroad, and are supported by a range of organizations and institutions (like the NFU, USC Canada, Food Secure Canada, even the UN Human Rights Council) as an essential response to the social, economic and ecological challenges brought about by decades of industrialization.

While neo-industrialization is indeed likely to dominate the future of Canadian farming, we must ensure that other, more sustainable approaches to Canadian agriculture continue to thrive alongside it. The agro-ecology movement is admittedly just a drop in the agricultural sector’s bucket. Nevertheless, its careful thought about treating agricultural landscapes as natural ecosystems, production of food for local communities and protecting farmer livelihoods are things we cannot let flounder in this age of social, economic and environmental uncertainty.

Changes South of the Border Offer both Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Agriculture in Canada

This post was originally published in The Hill Times, on February 20th, 2017.

By Ryan M. Katz-Rosene, Marie-Josée Massicotte, and Christopher Kelly-Bisson

A number of obstacles presently stand in the way of efforts to make Canada’s agricultural system more sustainable. A heavy reliance on chemical inputs, industrial processing, and long distances between farm and plate have contributed to high rates of greenhouse gas emissions, degradation of water and soil quality, and threats to biodiversity. These ecological challenges have mirrored social and economic challenges in the pursuit of sustainable agriculture, including a steady decline in the number of farms, concurrent with growth in the average size of farming operations, and the presence of a sink-or-swim environment where only the largest, most-mechanized and capital-intensive farms can compete.

Many expert analyses indicate the need to shift away from this model if Canada wants to be a true agricultural leader. When UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food Olivier De Schutter visited Canada in 2012, he noted in a follow-up report how a defining force in shaping this country’s agricultural sector has been its steady orientation towards trade liberalization. The sector’s narrow focus on developing export markets has come at the expense of a lack of attention to the difficulties faced by a growing number of Canadians in meeting their basic food needs, and simultaneously contributed to ecological problems associated with the industrialized agri-food system.

Recent political shifts south of the border will therefore have serious implications in determining the available opportunities and limitations to the development of sustainable agriculture in Canada. The Trump administration’s protectionist rhetoric poses overt challenges to Canada’s export-oriented agriculture sector. Canada is the fifth-largest exporter of agricultural products in the world, with 58% of its agricultural product destined for export. Just over half of these exports go to the US, while much of the rest finds its way to Mexico, Europe, Japan, and China. Undoubtedly, some Canadians will use these developments to call for further liberalization in the agricultural sector. They may call for renewed bilateral trade talks with Asian nations, or for appeasing the Trump administration by agreeing to remove some of the safeguards Canada has implemented on imports of dairy products, poultry, and grains. Yet rather than return to old habits of liberalization, we should recognize the opportunities herein for making Canadian agriculture more sustainable through a renewed focus on domestic agri-food policy.

One opportunity lies in the need to simultaneously protect and reform supply-managed sectors to ensure the viability of rural communities and facilitate the transition of farm ownership to the next generation of farmers. This means standing firm against any concessions on tariff-rate quota, acting swiftly to close loopholes and effectively regulate infractions, but also exploring options to make access to quota easier for new farmers. Reforms could take the form – as suggested by Quebec’s Union Paysanne – of capping quota prices and limiting the quantity that can be owned by a single farm. This could offer a cost effective means of reducing farm sizes and making diversified agro-ecological production viable for a growing number of new farmers.

Another opportunity lies in the need to scope out a truly comprehensive national food policy to build a just and sustainable food system in the interests of producers and consumers alike. In drafting Growing Forward 3, the next five-year policy plan for the agricultural and agri-food sector, the federal government must actively support an agro-ecological transition, rather than continuing to privilege large-scale industrial production. In short, the challenge to business-as-usual practices within the agricultural sector offers the opportunity to reconsider the interconnections between policies on trade liberalization, the industrialization of Canadian farms, the financialization of agricultural production and handover of decision-making power to profit-motivated investment managers, and the manifestation of range of serious environmental problems.

While changes south of the border may be interpreted by some as a reason to further liberalize agricultural trade, either by sweetening the terms of NAFTA or seeking new export markets, we remind policy-makers about the present opportunities to be found in the current shake-up, and the possibility of reworking a national food policy to tackle head-on some of the domestic sustainability challenges in Canada’s agricultural sector.


Ryan M. Katz-Rosene (SSHRC Post-doctoral Researcher), Marie-Josée Massicotte (Associate Professor), and Christopher Kelly-Bisson (Doctoral Candidate) are all based at the University of Ottawa’s School of Political Studies and members of the Laboratory for the Interdisciplinary Study of Food.

It takes more than talk...

It takes more than merely talk and legislation to maintain Canada's ecological biodiversity in good health. It also takes action, and action requires both human and financial resources. This might explain why - yet again - Canada's commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development committee has found problem's with the federal government's environmental record. As this recent CBC News report points out, interim commissioner Neil Maxwell has published a study highlighting a number of areas where Canadian environmental policies amount to empty promises because of insufficient resources:

From the International Convention on Biological Diversity, to the state of Canada’s National Parks, to plans to save Canada’s 518 species at risk, Maxwell noted a “pattern of unfulfilled commitments and responsibilities” that appear to be the result of departments with too many demands and too few resources.

The example highlights the relationship between austerity and ecological degradation. A successful approach to environmental management requires a complementary regulatory and political economic structure.

The full report is available here: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201311_e_38658.html

A Problem with Methodology

A recent report in Corporate Knights Magazine ranking the 'most-sustainable' corporations listed numerous oil sands companies amongst the top 100 finishers. If this strikes you as somewhat bizarre or even absurd, it's because it is: The method used by CKM doesn't compare companies along by the net level of pollution or degradation. Rather, they use what's called an 'intensity-based' comparison - an analysis of how much profit is being generated per unit of pollution. As this report in the Vancouver Sun notes: "[The study author] acknowledged the methodology used can result in big polluters appearing sustainable if they make a lot of money in proportion to their impact." Because of the problems with the study's methodology, a company like Suncor can end up ranked as the 48th 'most sustainable' corporation in the world, when in fact its damaging of the watershed and emissions of carbon dioxide are so severe that it "would be bottom-quartile for the sector.”