What all the uncertainty around domestic climate change means is that Canadian businesses (well, pretty much everyone) can’t make the proper investments in low-carbon technology, stranding millions (if not billions) of dollars in capital equipment that is not particularly practical in a world with a high price on GHG emissions. The longer people don’t know what price the government will put on GHG emissions  (or when they will put a price on emissions), the longer investment monies will be put into capital equipment that may actually end up being more expensive than originally thought when purchased… i.e. the cost of emissions is added to operating costs, decreasing the return on investment and in some cases effectively standing capital assets.

And that’s really just the immediate/practical concerns. Taking a step back, the Stern report (a very extensive climate change cost report) screams at policy makers that refusing to make the proper low-carbon investment today will mean paralyzing costs (magnitudes higher) for society in the future. Changes in weather, crops,… a little thing call livable land area, will all mean increased costs to society.

Investment and development of low/zero-emitting technology is the next big international ‘race’. Getting out ahead in the race for green technology will secure the financial well-being of the winning countries for decades if not longer. Any delay in setting this price will literally retard Canada’s ability to remain competitive…. we may not feel it in the next year or even the next five years, but 10-15-20 years from now we’ll be kicking our empty oil can down the streets of our economically crippled society.

Climate change law in Canada (a mythical creature, never seen… lives in places called the ‘near future’, ‘the coming year’, and ‘tomorrow’).

For everyone, it means things will be more expensive.

Consumers need to protect themselves from goods that emit carbon (either in the way they are use or in the way they were made). Gas, home heating oil, lamb from Australia, bananas from South America, cars from China … you’ll pay a lot more for these things and most other things you buy, very shortly. Take a look at what you bring into your home, what you spend your money on… make the changes you need to in order to avoid carbon costs. Eat local, burn less gas, use renewable energy like solar and geothermal… just some of the small steps that you’ll need to take to avoid carbon costs.

Industry and business will have to engage in better carbon management… identifying what elements of their supply chain and industrial processes depend on carbon and making investments today to help avoid future cost increases. They also need to be able to navigate the complicated legal and technical requirements associated with any new Canadian climate law. Lastly, they’ll need advice to construct corporate policies for effectively managing and avoiding risk from increasing carbon costs.

Governments need to be organized. What would things look like if every province had its own climate law, each different? Mayhem, that’s what it’d look like. Different carbon prices, industries moving to provinces with the easiest climate law for their sector, individual provinces entering into multi-national climate agreements without Canada… nuts. If the federal government doesn’t get itself together and come out with something that will provide some sort of consistency, some sort of cohesion that can be used to open us up to US and EU carbon markets, the divisive climate law impacts will put even further strain on our federalism. ADDED 19/10/09: Click here for an article on how oil sands companies want to ‘pass-on’ their share of reductions required under Canada’s climate change regulation.

And then there’s the government’s role in managing costs. Which is so extremely important when using a cap and trade system. With a carbon tax, everyone can see the tax applied, they can figure out what the tax applies to, they can get a good idea upfront of how much more they’ll be paying. With a cap and trade system, all that certainty goes out the window. For what reason you ask? So that industry doesn’t have to pay such a high price. What happens in a cap and trade system is this… lets assume that there are only 2 companies that make widgets, Company A pays $50,000 for carbon credits (i.e. A’s carbon costs) and Company B pays $75,000. How much added cost will A pass on to the consumer? If B has to pass on $75,000, company A will pass on something just less than $75,000. This way A maximizes profits and develops a slight competitive advantage over B. So consumers get gouged for roughly $25,000 because the always touted ‘costs savings’ brought about by a cap and trade system are NOT passed on the consumers. So… how do we correct this? The government needs to mandate corporate carbon cost reporting measures. Make industry report how much they pay in carbon costs and how much they’ve increased consumer costs as a result. Consumers need to be protected against any gouging that could occur from cap and trade… and the government is, in my mind, obligated to provide this protection given that they seem to have chosen a cap and trade system (indirect tax) as opposed the a carbon tax (direct tax).

We need to protect consumers… small businesses and families. More than anyone, they will be the group that feels the pinch from all this. They will be the ones that won’t know if they’re paying appropriate carbon costs, as intended by the government, or inflated carbon costs so that a Bay Street CEO can get a fancy bonus. They need the protection, and its time all governments began to recognize this and take steps to ensure mandatory carbon cost reporting measures are established.

So what does economy wide mean? In the current US Bill (Waxman-Markey), in addition to major industry being responsible for emissions from their facilities, fuel producers and importers along with local natural gas distribution companies are also held responsible for all emissions that would occur from the combustion of the fuel or gas that they produce, import, or distribute, as the case may be. Regulating these companies will allow the government to capture all emissions from the end use of the fuel/gas, for example from transportation and home heating.

How will Canada achieve this? Its definately a mystery as to how the Canadian government plans on regulating climate change, particularly given the speed of changes going on in the US. Previous government policy only sought to regulate emissions that occurred at the facilities (i.e. emissions from an industrial activity or process). There has been commentary on the powers that the government would use to enact climate laws – that GHG regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 would be enacted under the federal government’s criminal law power. But would this allow the economy wide regulation that aligning with the US would require? My opinion… no.

Typically, holding one person (or company) liable for the actions of another runs afowl of the basic principles of criminal law. Trying to do this under CEPA, 1999 would no doubt ensure a healthy barrage of constitutional challenges.

But a couple of things still hang on my mind… Does the federal government HAVE to use criminal law power for regulations under CEPA, 1999? No, but the Hydro Quebec case gives the feds power to regulate substance on CEPA’s Schedule 1 (Toxic Substances) under the criminal law power. The court just doesn’t really limit the federal regulatory power to criminal law, leaving the door open to regulating environmental issues under the Peace, Order, and Good Government head of power. Regardless, the feds put greenhouse gases on the list of Toxic Substances back in 2005. Despite some arguably ‘non-criminal’ provisions of the 2008 regualtory framework (namely the Technology Investment Fund), the general feeling seems to be that regulations under the criminal law power are (or at least have been) the way forward.

One option is to use the POGG power to try and enact an new piece of legislation… one that would give the government proper authorities to properly establish and regulate a price on carbon through regulation. Given the perpetual minority government situation in Ottawa, this scenario seems a bit unlikely, though its likely the best solution.

We have to wait and see what comes of the federal government’s review of the economy wide approach. Its seems a big gamble… likely placing the country’s most important piece of environmental law in a very weak position, open to serious lawsuits and constitutional challenges by companies and others.

Plain english explanation: When domestic companies pay for their emissions and other international competitors don’t it creates an unequal playing field. To level the field, the US is proposing to give these companies money to cover most of the cost of buying carbon allowances at auction. This will reduce the overall cost burden on these sectors, helping them maintain their competitiveness. Canada seems to be poised to do the same. 

Indepth discussion: The Waxman Markey draft, while still changing, will likely always have some form of rebates for emission intensive (high emissions per tonne of product) and trade intensive (exposed to trade competitiveness issues) sectors. For eligible sectors, the US government would provide free allowances for roughly 85% of direct (from sector activity) AND indirect (from electricity) emissions. The rebates are limited to 15% of the overall industrial cap and would be carved out of that emissions cap. 

Assuming Canada looks to move lockstep with the US on climate policies in order to avoid trade issues, it would first need develop criteria for this emission intensive/trade exposed assistance. Emission intensity (as a function of production) would be easy but there would need to be some measure of trade exposure. In the US and other jurisdictions proposing simliar rebates/free allowances, trade exposure is typically a ratio of the value of imports/exports of a sector to some measure of domestic sector activity (production, shipments).

The problem here is once you’ve identified some eligible sectors, what does Canada give them. Under the government’s current  Turning the Corner (TTC) framework, all entities would receive about 82% free allocation. But because the targets are based on emission intensity, there is no cap and no limit to the amount of free allowances given out – as production rises, so does the amount of free allowances. So is that the answer? Will eligible Canadian sectors will just get the TTC treatment? What about indirect costs/emissions? What about an overall cap on emissions?

These questions will hopefully be answered in time. But I think its safe to say, that if you’re an emission intensive, trade exposed industry in Canada (likely Iron and Steel, Oil and Gas, etc…) your going to see a simliar free allocation as set out in the TTC. If you’re not… time will tell what the government will do (keep in mind those in the US will likely need to buy most allowances at auction).

Like all approaches to sustainability, first focus for students, teachers or administrators is getting a solid and well defined plan in place. The plan is the backbone of the initiatives that a school seeks to establish. From starting with a small initiative to a plan that addresses all areas of school life, schools need a clear vision and defined goals to ensure resources and benefits are maximized.

After a plan is developed and agreed to by a board of stakeholders (students, teachers, parents), initiatives can be rolled out as set out in the plan. Results should be monitored to give everyone involved a picture of how well an initiative is working (or not).  Its important to remember that the plan is a living document – if things are a miss, initiatives should be added, revamped,  or removed to respond  to recorded results and impacts. 

There a variety of measures that students, teachers, and officials can implement to green their school, and there are endless degrees of engagement that a school can take on. From establishing extra-curricular green courses or renewable energy projects to simple recycling and resource conservation, with the help of a well developed and well defined plan, schools can have a tailored and dynamic green strategy to help ensure a clean, healthy, and educational environment for our children’s second home.

The issue is that these new areas of municipal focus are inherently complex and require attention and detail that most nothern municipal leaders cannot practically provide. It takes a strong and dedicated understanding of legal, technical, and policy elements to effectively address municipal environmental issues. A starting point for any municipal leader is a plan. The Green Municipal Fund will provide communities with 50% of the costs of developing a plan. And the dividends it can provide in terms of establishing sustainable municipal development are endless. A proper framework and plan for municipal sustainability can effectively organize and maximize environmental initiatives and resources, creating secure green jobs and a clean environment for our northern cities and towns.

Our communities are in such a unique position to take advantage of Ontario’s emerging green economy. For most of the 20th century, our cities and towns relied on one or two natural resource based industries to sustain the local economy. Now, more than ever, we are realizing the need for a diversified economy and sustainable jobs. The new economy can help diversify our job base while helping us clean up and revolutionize the natural resource based industries that drive our region, our province, and our country.

This finding will push the climate change debate even futher in the US. Here in Canada, the listing of GHGs on Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (which occured back in September 2005) is settled (for now) and this gives the Canadian government authority to regulate GHGs under the CEPA. 

Check out the EPA news release here. The proposal will now move to public comment where it will no doubt spark a lot of debate.

NOHFC made the official announcement of the funding yesterday through a press release.  

It’s with funding like this that our northern communities can growth and prosper with new businesses and bring our young people back home.

Thanks to the NOHFC and the Ontario Government for this generous grant.

Why the interest in enviromental penalties? Well the case law around the penalties is what everyone is waiting for. Following the penalties that have been levied and what arguements are made if they’re taken to court will help guide how the court is going to respond to this type of absolute liability environmental law. 

If the report comes out, I’ll add a post and a link.

Any new facilities will have to compete for the same gov’t issued allowances as existing facilities – meaning that as new facilities come on line (more than closures of plants) there will be less and less credits for each facility. This hard cap is a far cry from the intensity world Canada has been in for the last few years… a program that would create more credits as new facilites come on line and as production expanded. Policies like this are likely not possible now with the hard cap world the US seems to be in. 

Past the hard cap vs. intensity debate, there is the discussion about who and what is covered under a cap and trade system. Coverage and phase-in of industrial sectors is a big part of the latest US propsed cap and trade program.  The proposal is to capture electricity, fuel producers, fluorinated gas producers (GHGs with fluorine), and carbon sequestration sites in 2012. In 2014, the rest of the typical industrial sectors will be covered and will include some sectors not contemplated in the Canadian government’s Turning the Corner regulatory framework (glass production and food processing). Lastly, in 2016, the program will begin to cover local distribution companies that provide natural gas to customers not covered by the program – something the Canadian system has not said it would be covering. 

More importantly, fuel producers are liable for all emissions from the USE of the fuel they produce (or import). This seems difficult to quantify given the numerous different uses and types of, for example, petroleum-based liquid fuel. How refined the fuel being used is and how its being used, will have an impact on how many emissions actually occur. 

All in all, a much broader coverage  than what was expected from the Canadian government’s framework. To think that a future Canadian system would seek to cover different sectors and sources than the US system would, is likely a bit unrealistic.

What does the bill mean to Canada? Well… it means that most of the major elements will be simliar if the Tories are going to achieve a North American cap and trade system (or avoid trade grievances). Coverage between both country’s systems will likely line up fairly closely. Required reductions will be close. Methods to calculate emissions will be comparable if not the same. And methods of complying (offsets, technology fund credits) and rough cost of compliance will also line up closely. Simliar costs of compliance means a simliar price on carbon. This will depend largely on the policy for distributiong allowances to industry – Canada’ s Turning the Corner plan essentially gave enough free allowances to cover historic annual emissions – the US seems poised to auction at least some of the allowances they create (if not all – Markey’s last bill had 100% auction of credits). So for the price of carbon to have a chance of being the same, look for the method of distribution to be fairly close in terms of the amount of allowances given away and the amount sold.

The goal of a North American system is only met if those four things align – Coverage, Targets, Quantification Methods, Compliance (including carbon price).  

So the debate in the US has begun… in Canada we can look to those four key areas to likely be the same between the US and Canadian systems if the Conservative’s much hyped North American cap and trade system is ever going to happen.

Main elements of the draft bill include clean energy, energy efficiency, reducing global warming pollution, and transitioning to clean energy economy. 

The cap and trade elements are found in Title 3 – Reducing Global Warming Pollution. Key policies in the draft bill include:

- Regulations in force by 2012

- Emission-based threshold of 25 kt CO2e (uses 2007 IPCC AR4 GWP values which are typically higher than 2001 and 1996 values used in other jurisdictions)

- Emissions cap based on historical emissions from 2005

- Declining cap starting at 3% (from 2005) in 2012, 20% in 2020, 42% in 2030, and 83% in 2050 (yes… the bill sets out the cap for each year until 2050).

- Offsets allowed with no limit but must use 1.25 offsets for each ton of emissions being offset

- Allowances will be bankable (i.e. can ‘bank’ allowance for use in future years)

- Can borrow allowances from one year ahead to meet compliance obligations

- Borrowing of allowance from 1-5 years ahead allowed but interest will be applied at rate of 8%

- A set aside will be auctioned if market price of carbon rises unexpectedly high

A brief summary, but it should give some insight into where the US is at in terms of their policies – auctioning allowances, low thresold, historic declining cap, single year baseline, banking/borrowing of credits, and a price containment set aside.

Look to Canada to hopefully follow this if we’re going to successfully merge with the US in a North American cap and trade system.

In full, the ‘green’ elements of the budget include:

• Approximately $390 million to match Ontario’s share of the federal Green Infrastructure Fund to develop initiatives that assist in the implementation of the proposed Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009
• $250 million over five years for a new Emerging Technologies Fund, which will include investments in green-technology companies
• $50 million over five years to enable the research, capital and demonstration projects necessary for the development of a smart grid in Ontario
• Reducing energy costs and developing marketable expertise through a significant retrofitting program that focuses on government buildings, schools, social housing and commercial buildings
• Using Ontario’s buying power to support the province’s emerging innovative green technology companies. The government will dedicate $30 million annually to provide initial purchases of their products and demonstrate the effectiveness of the products to potential customers here and around the world
• $5 million for the Sustainable Prosperity Research and Policy Network at the University of Ottawa, which will help develop a new generation of market-based environmental policy approaches to promote green economic development
• $5 million over two years to develop a Green Job Skills Strategy that responds to labour demand in the emerging green energy sector, including electricity
• Building on Ontario’s world-leading commitment to phase out the use of coal-fired electricity generation by continuing to work towards the development of an emissions cap and trade system for North America by 2012
• Proposed amendments to the Assessment Act and regulations to ensure that the assessment of properties would not be affected by energy-efficiency enhancements.

It seems like a very contemporary budget – addressing key economic issues while still incenting ‘green’ energy and other elements of ‘green’ economy. Too bad the federal budget wasn’t more in line with this thinking.  Iguess its the old school attitude of environment OR jobs that runs deep in conservative circles… I wish they’d read up a bit on the fallacy of this attitude and how deterimental it could be in a time of renewal and reshaping. If you’d like to read more, I’d recommend The Trade-Off Myth. I grabbed a used copy a few years ago and it has help lend some rigour to my arguments that environmental regulation and green initiatives don’t chase jobs out of an area.

I would think that any endangerment finding would have to somehow narrow the finding to only large emitters or large emissions of GHGs (or find some other way to exclude coverage of offices, homes, and other small sources). 

Looking foward to seeing the actual finding (… or to see the legislation they’ll be able to push through if using the CAA is the other option).

The paper proposes a unique transboundary water management plan for the Great Lakes Basin. Something is required that allows both countries to retain sovereignty over the resource but allows for consistent and effective Basin-wide management of this global storage basin. 

Shouldn’t Canada and the United States have a new generation of transboundary water management – some progression from the now 100 year old Boundary Waters Treaty that established the International Joint Commission. 

Ontario’s next green challenge will be to facilitate the building of a new management plan for our most important resource – our fresh water.

On February 23, 2009 the Ontario Liberal government released a draft of Bill-150 the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009. 

The Act seeks to remove obstacles to renewable energy development in the province. Here are the key elements of the Act, most of which only provide the power to enact regulations – meaning the provisions don’t actually require anything, they just give the Minister power to enact regulations dealing with specific things:

• Energy efficiency and consumption reports for residential home sales
• Designated goods and services can be used despite any municipal by-law or other rule
• Designated renewable energy projects can be undertaken depsite any municipal by-law or other rule
• Public agencies required to establish energy management plan
• Minister may enter into agreements or contracts to promote energy conservation and efficiency

The Act also sets out principles for the aquisition, operation, and management of government facilities:

   1. Clear and transparent reporting of energy use andof the amount of greenhouse gas emissions associ-ated with government facilities.

   2. Planning and designing government facilities toensure the efficient use of energy.

   3. Making environmentally and financially responsi-ble investments in government facilities.

   4. Using renewable energy sources to provide energyfor government facilities.

A Renewable Energy Facilitation Office is created along with a Renewable Energy Facilitation Officer. All this aimed at ensuring a more streamlined project develoment process. 

The last provisions of the Act itself are related to enforcement and penalties. Now some of this looks a bit much… like the power of an inspector to enter an office or unoccupied home, sans search warrant, to get anything related to an offer to sell/lease. 

The last part of the Bill amends a number of different pieces of legislation … some of which I hope to get into in later blogs. 

All in all, certainly a progressive document. Something that I think anyone looking to diversify our Province’s economy should welcome and support. Hope this summary helps… lets see what survives the debates and revisions.

Under the Bush Administration, the EPA released an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Regulating GHGs in July of 2008. The gist of the notice was to point out all the complexities and issues around regulating GHGs under the EPA’s Clean Air Act (CAA) – a brief summary and background can be found here. After reading this back in July, it was hard to see this recent push by the new Administration to continue under the CAA. 

The new Administration is also pushing forward with an endangerment finding for greenhouse gases – opening the door to regulating CO2 under the CAA. This leaked EPA document shows plans to have it done by Earth Day. 

For Canada… the U.S. is quickly catching up. An endangerment finding is a similar regulatory trigger as a ‘toxic’ finding under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. So there’s likely 1-2 years before an agreement on a U.S. GHG regulation… probably 3-4 years before it becomes the law… in that time, Canadian businesses and citizens will need to have effective carbon management practices and policies in place to remain competitive – assuming Canada moves in step with the U.S. 

Things are moving quickly… but for how long? Either way, a price on carbon is a price on carbon… no matter if its a tax or a cap and trade system, things with carbon in them or that emit carbon when built/refined/transported will cost more… are you ready for it?

Its difficult to come up with things to ‘tweet’ about but it gives me a reason to read all the environmental news I can on a daily basis. I’ve tried to keep the messages focused on informing people who would be possible clients for the firm. The material focuses on (but is definately not limited to) news/events/cases from ontario and canada. I’ll throw up some general news or articles that I come across but I try to put at least 5 good ON/CDN messages up a week.  

I’ve seen a definate increase in hits on this blog and at www.envlaw.ca - twitter is the second highest referrer for the website and I’ve also seen some definate crossover to the blog and the facebook page.

Nest goal is to get on some more of the short lists…. I found that as I was looking for people to follow, I would look to profiles that had a small number of friends and large number of followers – I’d mine the ‘friends’ section for people I’d like to follow or I would like to follow me. What I’d like to do is get in touch with certain people to get on some cool short lists  and hopefully, in the end, generate some more traffic for the website.

I started developing the firm’s website first (see below). Once the site was up… I used Netfirms partially because they had a good ‘green’ server policy… I registered with Google – not sure if its required but it couldn’t have hurt. 

The next step in my social media marketing strategy was to get a network of friends/family, young professionals, and anyone involved in environmental issues in Canada.  Friends and family were first… I decided to hop on facebook  (I hadn’t been on facebook before this) to get around to as many friends as possible.  I’ve set up a profile in order to help reach friends and I developed and business page and a group.  

Its obviously help me tell people about the firm and you really see the impact on the website views – facebook has been my largest referer. So I think its definately worth the hassle to set these facebook pages up… plus you get to reconnect with people you’d otherwise never hear from – definately should be part of any social media strategy.

 Spoke with Culligan and they use water from the St. Lawerence. Its put through reverse osmosis and ozone but none of that will address any radioactive stuff in the water from those beautiful upstream nuclear plants… so I’d say its the same as the Ottawa water. 

Finally found a #1 plastic water bottle at Costco – trying to avoid the BPA leaching #7 plastic – and its from an underground source. Picked up a small counter-top water cooler at Canadian Tire. 

Happy with the choice… though not happy I had to make a choice. Rather have clean tap water.

A recent article points out the elevated levels of tritium (6 becquerels/L), a radioactive substance, in Ottawa’s municipal water supply.  The current Canadian limit on tritium in drinking water is 7000 Bq/L – the USA EPA has set a limit of 740 Bq/L. Ya… a whole magnitude less. 

The reason, people suspect, is the tritium production that goes on at the Chalk River nuclear facility. They release tritium directly to the river as an effluent and to the air as water vapour/mist.  

The article states that between December and the end of February, the plant released 28 trillion Bq of tritium. So I asked myself… how much water do you think that’s diluted in? One soure pegs the flow rate of the Ottawa River at 306,000 L/s – which is roughly 2.4 trillion litres between December and the end of February. 28/2.4=11.7. Which means that for every litre that water that passed by the plant, they released 11.7 Bq of tritium. 

What does it do?… Well its a radioactive substance which means as it breaks down (it takes 12 years for half of it to disappear) it releases radiation. When dissolved in water, tritium goes throughout the body in about 1-2 hours and goes directly into soft tissue and organs. I’ve seen that it can be eliminated (the yellow snow marker) from your body in about a month. Like any type of radiation, exposure increases the risk of cancer and cell mutation.  

Quoting a July 12, 2007 article in the Globe and Mail…

“An Ontario government panel recommended in 1994 that the province set a drinking water limit of 100 Bq/L and then lower it to 20 Bq/L over a five-year period. But the advice, which would likely have led to occasional shutdowns of drinking water treatment facilities after radioactive releases at power plants, wasn’t adopted. California recently set a goal of having drinking water contain 15 Bq/L or less, although this isn’t a binding regulatory standard.

Small amounts of tritium are produced naturally in the environment, and pristine water typically contains about 2 Bq/L. However, water in both Lake Huron and Lake Ontario, where Candu reactors are sited, have about 7 Bq/L. The study said two- thirds of the radioactivity in the two lakes is from nuclear plant discharges.”

I’m in Ottawa and I’ve tried to be a big proponent of tap water… but with a plan to have kids soon, I don’t like the risk. Thinkin’ about heading out to get a water dispenser tomorrow.  Hopefully using water from a clean source and bottles sans BPA – if I can find that, I’m in like Flynn.

One year ago the Ontairo Ministry of the Environment sent out the first environmnetal order under the new environmental penalties provisions in the Ontario Environmental Protection Act. 

There have been 4 others since (at least) but only one person has really challenged the penalty itself…nothing has made it to court yet though.  Still looking to see if there will be a court challenge to this absolute liability environmental law. Particularly because the Ministry can still lay a charge for a spill even if they levy an environmental penalty for the same spill.

Find out more from the Ministry website here.  

There’s a great blog post about this (and a good blog in general) here.

Also got into the domain name game… here’s few I got in on…

www.envconsult.ca, www.envlaw.ca, www.climatechangelaw.ca, http://www.waterfootprint.ca, http://www.ghgverification.ca

some I’ve set up to go to the site, others I”m just waiting on…

I think, other than the skill sets you’re selling, the website as close to a top priority for a new business as it gets.

Working for Environment Canada I help the policy development of the industrial greenhouse gas regulations… knowing both the legal and technical sides of climate change and ghg reductions is invaluable.  Its pretty easy to judge policy ideas when you can do both a technical and legal analysis. 

So… I was surprised that no one has really brought together multi-disciplinary teams to address environmental issues… I know they’re formed on an ad-hoc basis but I’ve never seen professional multi-disciplinary environmental services advertised together.

I kinda of borrowed this approach from what I saw in the Patents world. You need a specialized technical education and a law degree to be a patent lawyer because of the need for solid understanding of law and science. So…seeing that same need in the environmental world… a simple revese engineering exercise and you get to why I”m a environmental engineer/lawyer. They (professor, current lawyers, etc…)  say you don’t need a technical understanding to be an effective environmental lawyer and I guess that may be true… but you better make damn sure your clients have alot of money to spend on experts – I’ll bet my eyeballs you’re gonna need ‘em.  

So there you go… that’s how I got into law. I hope it pays off… I think it will.