Search Climate Insights Directory

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) submitted comments on May 27, 2018, regarding the Alberta Energy Regulator's (AER) Draft Directive 060 and Directive 017. CAPE argues that Alberta's proposed methane regulations are generally less stringent and less enforceable than federal regulations, potentially leading to higher emissions and associated public health risks from co-pollutants.

ClientEarth argues that Canada's chemical and pesticide regulations are significantly less restrictive than those of the EU, citing the continued use of 46 active agents banned elsewhere and more lenient maximum residual limits for pesticides in food. The organization warns that the Regulatory Cooperation Forum (RCF) under CETA could allow Canadian business interests to pressure the EU to weaken its environmental protections, specifically regarding endocrine disruptors and the precautionary principle. ClientEarth contends that regulatory cooperation on environmental issues should occur in international environmental fora rather than trade agreements focused on trade facilitation.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) warns that TTIP's push for regulatory cooperation on chemicals may weaken environmental and health protections by favoring the U.S. risk-based approach over the EU's hazard-based REACH regulation. CIEL highlights that REACH drives innovation toward safer alternatives and that the externalized costs of chemical pollution far outweigh the costs of regulation. The statement also cautions against strengthening trade secret protections and calls for greater transparency and public participation in the TTIP negotiation process.

The document provides a comparative overview of emission control regulations and OBD requirements in the European Union, India, Japan, China, the United States, Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil, detailing the specific standards used for light and heavy vehicles.