Is Canada a foreign country? 

Technically, yes. But that's not how I saw it growing up a mile from the Detroit River that separates the U.S. and Canada.

Windsor, Ontario on the other side seemed like just another town.  My dad and his buddies fished on the Canadian side because the water was cleaner, then headed to a pub in Amherstburg to swap fishing lies. It was Amherstburg to me, not Canada. I watched Hockey Night in Canada and a major radio station for Detroiters was CKLW in Windsor. You get the picture. 

Maybe that's why a 2019 quote from Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel  jumped off the page when I read it. Michigan, Nessel said, "will not rely on a foreign corporation to protect and preserve our state's most precious resource, its Great Lakes," the Detroit News reported.  Nessel was referring to the Enbridge Line 5 oil pipeline that she wants to shut down and has taken legal action in an attempt to do so. 

Wanting to shut down Line 5 is one thing. A lot of people are on her side. But given that oil is the issue, interjecting "foreign corporation" into the discussion is another. Since Nessel didn't mention that Enbridge is a Canadian company, I assume she's implying that the foreign company could be from the Middle East.  Perhaps a convenient bogeyman?

I'll give Nessel a pass. Politicians make a lot of public statements and some inevitably will be misguided. And from what I've seen as I've followed Nessel, she's usually trying to do the right thing though she could benefit with a less bare-knuckle approach. 

But the faux pas brings up another issue beyond Line 5. The U.S. and Canada, Michigan and Canada are neighbors. And the Great Lakes, don't belong to Michigan as the state sometimes implies.  They're a shared responsibility with decades of history in protecting them, peacefully and with collaboration. There's no need to demonize Canada. 

Look at recent history. After the 9/11 attacks Canada received countless U.S. flights that suddenly had to divert to a safe airport. Closer to home, Canada is paying for the new multi-billion dollar Gordie Howe Bridge between Detroit and Windsor. And that "foreign country" company, Enbridge, is paying $500 million to construct a pipeline in a tunnel to replace the existing Line 5. 

That's a lot of capital spent by Canada and Michigan is the beneficiary. 

Closer to the Great Lakes, when former conservative-leaning Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder revived meetings between U.S. governors and Canadian premiers on Great Lakes issues, he made sure Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, a Liberal, had a prominent role.

Canadians including Premier Justin Trudeau are concerned about a shut down of Line 5, with justification. There are practical issues of supply and economic issues in play for Canada. Climate change and maybe pipelines are on the agenda for this week's meeting between Trudeau and President Joe Biden. I have no idea if they'll discuss Line 5. Both are climate hawks but they differ on pipelines. Trudeau has given the green light to new pipe construction and Biden is trying to shut them down.

One thing I suspect to be true at the meeting is that Canada will be treated more like a neighbor than a "foreign country."  Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and AG Nessel should take note. 





 

A long-simmering environmental justice issue in Chicago finally reached its boiling point.

Residents in the city's heavily-industrialized Southeast Side recently launched a hunger strike to protest the siting of a scrap metal processor in their neighborhood. 

The Southeast Side, predominately Hispanic,  has been dealing with poor air quality issues for years, including particulate matter from pet coke and manganese with little or no relief from the city of Chicago or the Illinois EPA.

But here's the kicker, the company coming to the Southeast Side is relocating from a Chicago area north of downtown. That area is the recipient of huge development investments and is gentrifying. In addition, the scrap metal processor isn't known for environmental best practices. 

There have been many interim steps in the siting process but the Illinois EPA approved the relocation saying it had to follow the law. Chicago gets to make the final decision and those reading the tea leaves suspect the move will be approved.

But we now have a new president, Democrat Joe Biden, who ran on a strong environmental justice agenda. And Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot just punted to the USEPA asking for guidance on the siting decision. 

Since the early 1990's presidents including George H.W.  Bush, Clinton and Obama have talked a better EJ game than they played.  

How Biden's EPA handles the ongoing Southeast Side EJ saga may go a long way in establishing his EJ credibility. If his EPA whiffs, his cred is damaged and he's off on the wrong foot. 

And he currently doesn't have an EPA administrator as his selection, Michael Regan, is awaiting senate confirmation. And there's this.

It was the EPA under Obama's administrator Gina McCarthy, who had oversight responsibility  for Flint during its water crisis.  The agency declined a citizen request for it to use its emergency authority to intervene as Michigan was failing, though it did later as the national spotlight increased.  

McCarthy and former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder were hauled before congress to explain what happened.  McCarthy took no responsibility and Snyder did for the state's failings, but not personal responsibility. There's a $600 million negligence suit working its way through the courts against EPA over Flint.  McCarthy now has a senior position in the Biden White House.

Michigan settled a $600 million civil lawsuit. Snyder was recently charged with two willful neglect misdemeanors and could face prison.

 Illinois politically is a deep blue state with Democrats holding the governor's office, the legislature,
the two senate seats and mayor of Chicago so, they own the outcome. 

Meanwhile, the hunger strike continues and participation is growing.  
                                                                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~

It’s hard to imagine what these early-term days are like for President Joe Biden, everyone must seem to want something, now.

Fix the faults in the pandemic response, full speed ahead on combating climate change, mend fences with alienated allies and of course, show us the money. 

Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus plan grabs the headlines but that’s just the start, and conservation advocates are in line asking for money for big regional restoration projects.  

Great Lakes not-for-profits have been circulating their Biden wish lists and near the top is a continuation of funding for Great Lakes restoration, the G.W. Bush and Barack Obama plan to restore the lakes. It’s currently authorized at $2 billion over five years. 

​But in D.C. parlance, an “authorization” doesn’t guarantee the money. Congress has to approve it in the budget every year and a president solidly behind the program helps secure its continuance. 

Since 2010, Great Lakes restoration has received approximately $3.5 billion. It was originally projected to be a $20 billion project when conceived during the G.W. Bush administration. Advocates constantly tout the success of the program and there has been some like cleaning up legacy toxic spots, even though it’s more like mitigating the harm v. cleaning them up. 

But even that work is a decade or more  from the finish. And there’s a case to be made that the $100 million plus spent on Lake Erie’s algae problems have yielded few results. 

Advocates for the Everglades in Florida want $2.9 billion over four years. This is the 20th anniversary of Everglades restoration which was estimated to cost $7.8 billion. The new cost estimate is $16 billion, none of the original 68 projects have been completed and scientists have given the work mixed reviews according to WUSF Public Media. 

Worth noting is Florida’s current proposed budget includes $473 million for the Everglades. 

Great Lakes states don’t directly contribute to restoration funding though they may participate via cost share on specific projects. If a country, the region would have a $6 trillion economy making it the third largest in the world, also worth noting when someone comes asking for money.  

One of these days the bill for the country’s burgeoning debt will come due, no matter which party is in power. The budget will be cut and projects will be trimmed if not chopped. It happened two years into Great Lakes restoration when funding was slashed by the Obama administration from $475 million to $300 million a year. It remained there until recently. 

Perhaps now is the time for environmental advocates to take a look at how former California Gov. Jerry Brown governed.

Brown, a progressive Democrat, yet a fiscal conservative once said while vetoing a bill that “not every human problem deserves a law.” 

I’d apply Brown’s logic to restoring the Great Lakes. Not every environmental harm can be fixed with money. Brown’s legacy is that of being one of the country’s most strident advocates for the environment.  
                                                                                       ~~~~~
Twitter at @garyglx5. 

​

A headline from the British newspaper The Guardian popped up today on my morning scan of a half-dozen papers. "No penalties issued under useless English farm pollution laws."

The Guardian report says that since 2018 when laws went into effect there have been 243 violations of farming rules for water but no prosecutions or fines. And conservation groups say the number of violations is much higher than 243. 

If that had been a U.S. headline, I would have yawned and moved on as I'm used to seeing stories about little or no regulation and oversight of farming activity that negatively impacts our waterways.  Think the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico for starters. In the Great Lakes region Lake Erie is the ag pollution poster-child. Unchecked nutrient runoff from farms fueled the toxic algae blooms that led to the 2014 Toledo water crisis.  

But this is Great Britain, I thought more civilized and as a European country, more accepting of environmental protection and regulations, right? 

So I dug deeper and found a 2018 Yale Environment Review article on how Brit farmers see their environmental responsibility. The Yale report said researchers divided farmers into two camps; "productivist" and "stewardship."  The farmers who focused on production were singularly driven to produce the food the world needs, period. The stewards took into account the need to consider future generations in their practices. The Yale article is a quick read and is illuminating. It's here. 

In fairness to farmers, they're a business that produces to demand. If we want hamburgers  available on every corner and in every strip mall, ag will meet the demand and the environment will likely suffer. So, we play a part. 

I bring up ag pollution now as we've got a new Democratic president in Washington and Democrats control congress, at least for a couple of years. In theory, they should be more disposed to protect our waterways from ag pollution. But that means standing up to the powerful ag lobby which leans heavily toward the productivist v. the stewardship model of farming so, an unlikely scenario.

I doubt the Biden executive branch or the Democratic led congress  will take a hard we have to reign in farm pollution to our waterways  stance, it's a tough sell for politicians.  Our waterways will likely continue to suffer.