The U.S. Senate is finally releasing its version of a climate and energy Bill today, a major step towards getting a law done (since the U.S. House already passed its version).
So, for the Harper team now hiding squarely behind U.S. activity on this file, the message is: get moving!
We know Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice has been consulting behind closed doors with industry and with provincial premiers (despite our poll showing overwhelming public desire to have this out in the open).
But, you can guess at the content secretly on offer by the enthusiasm Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach has shown for the federal efforts.
So, Team Harper - time to put your cards on the table so we can see whether you've given special treatment to the tar sands industry to keep growing its pollution.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Chemical in Cosmetics Causes Concern
Right now, the federal government is reviewing the safety of a chemical found in many personal care products, including those used by children.
The chemical is called 1,4-dioxane. In the draft review of the chemical, released in early September, the government said it doesn't plan to list 1,4-dioxane as 'toxic' - meaning the government plans to do nothing to protect Canadians' health from this cancer-causing chemical. Exposures to 1,4-dioxane have been linked to tumors of the liver, gallbladder, nasal cavity, lung, skin, and breast.
1,4-dioxane isn't even an ingredient in personal care products. It's a byproduct of manufacturing, and can be removed before products go on store shelves. But that's the problem. Companies aren't removing 1,4-dioxane before they sell their shampoo, shaving cream, baby wash, lipstick, aftershave and all the other products.
The U.S.-based Campaign for Safe Cosmetics tested children's bath products for 1,4-dioxane, and found it in 32 of 48 products, including brand name baby shampoo. A quick search of Environmental Working Group's
Cosmetics Databaseshows 1,4-dioxane in 22% or more of the 25,000 products listed. In other words, it's virtually impossible for Canadians to avoid this chemical.
The federal government needs to hear from Canadians that we expect our leaders to protect our health from harmful chemicals, particularly when they're found in products that we use on our bodies every day.
There's no need for 1,4-dioxane to be polluting us and our children.
Jennifer Foulds
Interim Policy Director
The chemical is called 1,4-dioxane. In the draft review of the chemical, released in early September, the government said it doesn't plan to list 1,4-dioxane as 'toxic' - meaning the government plans to do nothing to protect Canadians' health from this cancer-causing chemical. Exposures to 1,4-dioxane have been linked to tumors of the liver, gallbladder, nasal cavity, lung, skin, and breast.
1,4-dioxane isn't even an ingredient in personal care products. It's a byproduct of manufacturing, and can be removed before products go on store shelves. But that's the problem. Companies aren't removing 1,4-dioxane before they sell their shampoo, shaving cream, baby wash, lipstick, aftershave and all the other products.
The U.S.-based Campaign for Safe Cosmetics tested children's bath products for 1,4-dioxane, and found it in 32 of 48 products, including brand name baby shampoo. A quick search of Environmental Working Group's
Cosmetics Databaseshows 1,4-dioxane in 22% or more of the 25,000 products listed. In other words, it's virtually impossible for Canadians to avoid this chemical.
The federal government needs to hear from Canadians that we expect our leaders to protect our health from harmful chemicals, particularly when they're found in products that we use on our bodies every day.
There's no need for 1,4-dioxane to be polluting us and our children.
Jennifer Foulds
Interim Policy Director
Charest Steps Up
Nice to see Quebec Premier Jean Charest taking on Harper over Ottawa's dismal climate change performance. We just put out a small report summarizing Harper's positioning, coupled with a new take on their "just visiting" attack ads.
But, it would be nice to see Charest more explicitly drawing the connection between proposed pollution growth in the tar sands and what this means for Quebec (and Ontario) manufacturers under a nation-wide absolute cap on emisisons that we know we must adopt.
In short, if one sector is growing emissions under a hard cap, others are getting squeezed out. So, if reports about Harper giving special treatment to the tar sands are true - and nothing he or his Environment Minister Jim Prentice has said has given actual proof it's not - then Premier Charest should be even more agressive in protecting his province's interests. Indeed, though, that goes for all the other premiers too.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
But, it would be nice to see Charest more explicitly drawing the connection between proposed pollution growth in the tar sands and what this means for Quebec (and Ontario) manufacturers under a nation-wide absolute cap on emisisons that we know we must adopt.
In short, if one sector is growing emissions under a hard cap, others are getting squeezed out. So, if reports about Harper giving special treatment to the tar sands are true - and nothing he or his Environment Minister Jim Prentice has said has given actual proof it's not - then Premier Charest should be even more agressive in protecting his province's interests. Indeed, though, that goes for all the other premiers too.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
