The nature debate, part 1: Make it the law
Putting nature in the constitution helps the environment
David Suzuki is an award-winning scientist, not an economist, but he recently called on Canada to consider innovative environmental policy ideas adopted in Ecuador and Bolivia. Peter Foster’s response to Suzuki’s proposals for a more sustainable Canada displayed an ignorance of both economic and environmental reality.
At the heart of Foster’s essay are several economic theories that have been debunked by reams of empirical evidence.
First, Foster claims that rich countries are better environmental stewards than poor countries. The widely cited Environmental Performance Index published annually by Yale and Columbia universities in collaboration with the World Economic Forum show this claim to be false. Foster’s attack on Ecuador is undermined by the fact that Ecuador sits in 31st place, ahead of Canada (37th) and the United States (49th). Four other relatively poor Latin American nations outperform Canada, including Costa Rica, Brazil and Colombia. Indeed most of the nations ranked ahead of Canada are less wealthy in economic terms.
Even among wealthy nations, Canada fares poorly in protecting the environment. A new report from the Conference Board of Canada based on a wide range of environmental metrics ranks Canada a dismal 15th out of 17 countries.
Foster’s error is rooted in a discredited hypothesis known as the “environmental Kuznet’s curve,” which suggested that as per-capita income rises, environmental problems will be solved. This theory holds true for some issues, including drinking-water safety, but fails to account for many others, including energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and ecological footprints.
Second, Foster asserts that private property rights are a powerful defence against environmental harms. Property rights have long enjoyed primacy in our common law legal system. Yet such rights were powerless to stop the environmental disasters wrought by the industrial revolution. The foul air and polluted waters that led to the rise of the environmental movement in the 1960s and 1970s were damning proof of the failure of private property rights and the impetus for environmental legislation. Today, private property rights are next to useless in dealing with global environmental problems, including climate change and the loss of biological diversity.
Returning to the Conference Board of Canada’s environmental rankings, the top performing nations are France, Norway and Sweden, countries that combine both market-based and public-policy approaches. These nations have strong environmental regulations (backstopped in each case by the constitution), comprehensive social safety nets and high tax rates.
According to Peter Foster these countries ought to be economic basket cases, but in the Conference Board’s recent report, France, Norway and Sweden also outperform Canada in terms of economic competitiveness.
Government regulation of Norway’s oil and gas industry offers a compelling example of the potential for simultaneously achieving environmental and economic objectives. Unlike Canada, Norway extracts high resource rents, requires substantial state ownership, imposes carbon taxes and inflicts requirements for local labour and services. Norway’s oil and gas industry has financed a sovereign wealth fund that now exceeds $600-billion. The carbon tax has spurred innovation, including the world’s first successful carbon capture and storage project. Local employment requirements have generated thousands of good jobs.
Finally, Foster suggests that constitutional protection for the environment is merely idealistic verbiage. Ecuador and Bolivia were the first countries in the world to enshrine the rights of nature in a national constitution. As these provisions are of recent vintage, it’s too early to reach a conclusion about their effects. However, more than 150 nations now include the right to a healthy environment and/or government obligations to protect the environment in their constitutions. Evidence demonstrates that these provisions serve as a catalyst for improved environmental laws, stronger enforcement and enhanced public participation in environmental governance. More importantly, there is a strong positive correlation between superior environmental performance and constitutional provisions requiring environmental protection.
As David Suzuki wisely argues, given our relatively poor environmental and economic ranking, it is time for Canada to look for alternatives. There are lessons to be learned from both Scandinavia and Latin America about how Canadians might achieve a prosperous future without destroying the ecosystems upon which we depend. Peter Foster’s simple bromides about private property rights, capitalism and the purported evils of government regulation are demonstrably incorrect and actually offer a recipe for environmental and economic trouble.
David R. Boyd is an environmental lawyer, professor and author of “The Right to a Healthy Environment: Revitalizing Canada’s Constitution” (UBC Press, 2012).