Climate rhetoric does not justify bad policy

Owen Sound Sun Times

Dr. David Wojick & Tom Harris
Thursday, 28 June 2007

Like the spices that have been used since ancient times to hide the flavour of spoiled meat, a liberal reference to "stopping climate change" has become the perfect ingredient to hide bad public policy. Speech writers sprinkle the oratory of politicians with repeated allusion to "stabilizing climate" and other virtuous sounding, but impractical green rhetoric whenever they want to avoid serious debate. Assertions of future climate crises are impossible to disprove and make even the most hard-nosed and scientifically-illiterate politician look wise and caring.

So far it has been good political gamesmanship. Few people understand climate change but nearly everyone feels we must do something about it. Political strategists recognize that most people's instinctive cynicism for bluster turns off whenever fears of climate catastrophe are invoked.

But this may not be the case much longer. Citing concerns about global climate, Big Government is now coming right into our homes and small businesses, banning light bulbs and other well-established and convenient technologies such as used oil heating. As the impact of these bans is felt by ordinary people, the public are bound to start demanding solid evidence that their sacrifices - financial, convenience and health - are worthwhile.
Politicians will actually have to explain how they make their decisions and the public may not like what they see.

All too often environmental public policy decisions in Ontario are being made with little or no concern about what science, engineering or economics really say. It is frequently just about 'spin' - what looks good in tomorrow's headlines. Besides the fact that governments have no business banning or promoting specific technologies or products at all - they should simply set reasonable environmental and other standards and let the marketplace decide winners and losers - Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP) scientists feared that Ontario Minister of Environment Laurel Broten's decision to ban used oil heating may not have been based on a rational assessment of the environmental impact of the ban. So, on April 20 we asked the Minister to share with us how she came to decide to outlaw the technology. Nearly two months later, despite repeated reminders - even a registered courier letter for which her office signed - she has yet to respond at all.

Used oil heaters are a proven technology that has been employed for over 15 years in Ontario by hundreds of small businesses - at least 20 in Owen Sound alone - to dispose of waste oil. These furnaces are held to strict emission standards and, to the best of our knowledge, these rules are being followed conscientiously. Ontario government permits for the systems have been regularly issued until recently with users paying the highest approval fees in North America. If Broten's decision to suddenly ban used oil heating was backed up by appropriate consultation with specialist engineers and scientists, why would she hide this information from us? Surely, she would want an apolitical, science-focused non-profit group like NRSP to broadly publicize how she made her decision.

The answer seems to be one of two possibilities. If an environmental assessment was conducted, it must have shown that banning used oil heating would increase environmental damage.

This is certainly possible since the alternative Broten is promoting, namely the collection and re-refining of waste oil, is not without its own set of environmental problems. The fact that the government appears to be working closely on the file with North America's largest used oil re-refiner, making the ban announcement from their very premises, certainly suggests a degree of collusion that would explain why Broten might want to hide unfavourable study results.

It is also possible, perhaps more likely, that no comprehensive, unbiased environmental assessment was conducted at all. The ban decision would then have been a purely political one, designed to 'look green' to the uninformed public.

In either case, it appears that Ontarians are being cheated. Small businesses will suffer significant financial penalties and the environmental impact of disposing used oil may actually increase as a result. It is time the Minister opened the books on this issue and properly justified her decision. Otherwise, she must rescind the used oil heating ban. Climate change rhetoric is no substitute for honest, science-based process in public policy formulation.

Dr. David Wojick is an energy policy specialist and Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com) 'allied scientist' who lives in Sioux Lookout, Ontario, for much of the year. Tom Harris is an Ottawa-based mechanical engineer and NRSP Executive Director.

back to NRSP News