A detailed proposal by Canada’s Arctic and Northern Affairs Department is urging Ottawa to devote $550 million of its $1.6 billion in fiscal years 2015-16 and 2016-17 for measures in the Arctic to address climate change, which it says is “the greatest single risk to the livelihoods and safety of Canadians in the Arctic region.”
The department is recommending a new environmental infrastructure program to build new infrastructure to combat the effects of climate change in the North, as well as develop more renewable energy resources.
It has also recommended more spending on forestry and marine sectors, although it has not addressed the matter of fishing quotas in the arctic, which has been a controversial part of Ottawa’s recent policy.
That is not surprising given the sensitivity around Canadian claims to the arctic and territories and other conflicting interests. And that potential conflict is intensifying with the new regime of U.S. President Donald Trump.
Nor has the department mentioned concerns about specific fisheries, Buy sarms even if the international coalition fishing for Arctic shrimp and herring is pressing Ottawa to do more to promote and protect their livelihoods, with some of those proposals including specific provisions about how to market and make available their catch to local markets.
While the proposal suggests setting up a special fisheries region for northern Canada, the wording does not explicitly mention a special regional harvest regulation, Sarms for sale which would appear to be an important item for fisheries ministers to discuss.
Environmental safeguards in particular have been a contentious topic for Canada in recent years, with decisions coming down to multiple votes. This is one of the reasons why the report says the government should set up an independent scientific committee that would provide “independent advice” to ministers about decisions that impact the environment in Canada’s arctic.
Last year, as Canada and other countries set up the rule-making process for the Paris Agreement on climate change, the federal government adopted an official policy stating that it would promote a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the global economy, such as by setting a carbon price.
Canada also promised to uphold the previous federal government’s decision to designate the arctic as a national conservation zone, but it also used a loophole to change the nature of that designation, effectively making it a fishing zone.
Two years earlier, the Canadian government removed a similar claim, setting up a precedent for the kind of changes that the document suggests are in store for fisheries, tourism, mining and other areas.
That issue is currently going through the domestic court system in Canada, which is ultimately expected to determine whether Canada is in breach of international law and should be required to create a specific regional regulation to protect the marine environment in the region, even though that did not happen when Canada made its original decision.
As part of the decision on that question, a judicial panel will have to decide if Canada has a legal obligation to protect marine wildlife in its Arctic waters.
The report notes that while many observers have expressed concerns about the U.S. taking advantage of the kind of loopholes that Canada has been known to create, “the reality is that Canada has done it many times in the past as well.”
There is also potential for the Trump administration’s stance on the environment to lead to conflicts with Canada, particularly as the U.S. takes a stronger stance on energy, energy security and the rights of Indigenous people.
But at this point, it remains unclear what the Trump administration’s ultimate policy on climate change, and particularly on global warming, will be.
The European Union has also adopted ambitious policies for the environment, but the document notes that despite that, it is still relying on U.S. commitments for its own policies.https://bodennews.net/different-things-more-about-hard-quiz-questions-with-answers/
