Pollution is an epidemic that is constantly in the mind of policy makers, especially since all United Nations member states agreed on the ‘2030 agenda for Sustainable Development Goals’ (UN, 2015) and pollution falls under goal 17 of climate action. According to (Berg, 2017) anything at a molecular level that has a less than positive impact on the environment classifies as pollution. There are many different types of pollutions, but it was agreed by (McDaniel et all, 2011) that there are 3 major forms of pollution which are ‘air pollution, water pollution and land pollution’. The goal of this paper is to speak specifically about air pollution in order to keep a narrow and specialized focus.
Due to globalization and its impacts on climate change, there has been considerable effort to make the air cleaner. However, these efforts are usually found in the indoor air environment and not outdoor air which is evident from the fact the air quality is over the limits set by the World Health Organization (Krzyzanowski, 2007).
“Air pollution is a mix of particles and gases that can reach harmful concentrations both outside and indoor” (Nunez, 2019). There are many ways in which air pollution can take but one of the more frequent causes is due to particles being released from burning fuels (Bradford,2018). Other reasons for air pollution are wide ranging from use of carbon fuels which is prevalent in most transportation vehicles with an engine, industrial production especially in industries like the oil and gas sector and finally, air does not stay in one place, but it travels. The latter statement showing that air pollution in the United States would also affect the air pollution in Canada (Government of Canada, 2019).
How exactly does it affect Canada is a question that goes far beyond the quantitative figure of 14,400 deaths per year according to the research done by (Health Canada, 2019) along with other wide-ranging health effects such as “asthma, improper brain development and shortened life expectancy” (Broom, 2019). By using intuitive rational we can safely conclude that such adverse health impacts lead to a “loss of productivity, poor growth of agricultural crops and damage to raw and unfinished goods” (Government of Canada, 2019).
One would assume that with the mounting evidence suggesting that air pollution is negatively correlated with economic growth and the numerous health impacts it has on an individual, Canada must have robust and successful policy measures to combat climate change and air pollution. However, according to (Lewis,2019) Canada is operating below potential to reduce such harmful chemicals in the air. There are many reasons attributed to this according to many scholars one of which is Canadian federalism. Conversely, there are scholars such as (Sturm, 2016) who argue that federalism can contribute to successful policy making and implementation through the diversity it creates.
However, through an analysis of research papers, this paper illustrates that federalism in Canada has a negative impact on air pollution policy setting due to the intergovernmental paralysis it creates due to autonomy of different provinces and is heavily dependent on what type of government is in the center.
Methodology
The first part of my research consists of understanding the phenomenon of pollution in general and more specifically air pollution. After that there is processioned to understand the health impacts of pollution and finally look to understand its correlation with economic growth.
Secondly, a detailed literature review was undertaken of the political and legal context of Canada on the specific issues mentioned above, which included a thorough analysis of academic papers, reports, articles to understand how the issues mentioned above have impacted Canada and its ability to combat climate change and air pollution.
Lastly, after synergizing the information, a practical policy recommendation to combat climate change and air pollution is made.
Case of Canada
Although, Canada is yet to fully implement its desire to set national caps on industrial emission of four air pollutants and giving companies access to a type of trading known as the ‘clean development mechanism’ under the Kyoto protocol to help curb global pollution. Regardless, of the fact that Canada did not have the opportunity to fully reach its potential yet in curbing air pollution, the projections made cite for an interesting debate to take place. For example, the health benefits are expected to be ‘1200 fewer Canadian who die each year because of health problems linked to air pollution’, ‘1,260 fewer hospital admissions and emergency room visits’ and the ‘benefits from the reduced risk of death and illness associated with air quality improvements are over $6 billion annually’. All of this contributed to economic benefits but is not limited to the potential for more investment in technology and innovation in Canada e.g. cleantech. Also, due to an improvement in air quality, workers are expected to have improved productivity, energy efficiency, and ‘more opportunity to sell Canadian environmental products and know-how abroad mean long-term economic benefits for Canada and more jobs for Canadians’. This example was chosen to show how making environmentally friendly policies can support economic growth.
Federalism and Success of Policy Action
There are views that an increased need for innovative policy measures is required due to the changing global dynamics and the increasingly complex challenges present for which limited resources are present (Edler, Jakob & Fagerberg, Jan, 2017). Ironically, according to (Sturm, 2016) federalism allows for such innovations as often times policy making is done through a collective process with regional governments participating in the decision-making process resulting in innovative policies.
Moreover, federalism allows for particular sensitives related to the region to be taken into account. For example, if the federal government wishes to a launch a new development project, the regional government privy of its local condition may advise against doing so due to the environmental impacts it may have at present and for the future.
Bearing in mind the environmental challenge present and the scare resources, Federalism can serve as an excellent means of policy making in support of the air pollution.
Federalism and Problems of Policy Action
“Federalism is a legal construct, offering one way to sustain the diversity of geographically based communities” (Simmons, 2016). Both provincial and the federal government have autonomy in their decision making but there are certain things that fall under the federal jurisdiction such as the signing of treaties e.g. the Kyoto Protocol. In my opinion this is where the first problem starts because we know that according to (Miljan, 2018) there is a ‘political business cycle’, which implies that the relatively short political cycle forces politicians to focus on short term gains through policy measures such as reducing taxes, boosting the economic growth in order to get reelected. Furthermore, the treaties entered into and the policy measures taken at a federal level are heavily influenced by what type of politicians is in power. For example, under the conservative leadership of Stephen Harper – a time known as the ‘harper doctrine’, Canada has taken a backward step towards advancing climate change (Barlow et all, 2015). Additionally, we have seen this practically demonstrated from the fact that Canada has failed.
Under the banner of federalism – as meetings take place between the ‘executives’ of the provincial and federal government on policy matters such as pollution. Assuming the federal government has a majority government, it can swiftly pass legislations/policy decision through utilization of party discipline which can be either good or bad. Conversely, if a government does not hold majority seats in the assembly, it is directly competing against the rival political party in maximizing political capitals. According to (Dryzek, 2013) actors are selfish and only looking to maximize their self-interest – ironically or rationally enough (depending on differing personal views) this has more to do with economic gains, rather than environmental. Moreover, competing with different political ideologies can unnecessarily slow down the decision-making process, policies are not being made. Therefore, keeping the complications mentioned above, it is fair to say that such ‘intergovernmental paralysis’ and cutthroat competition to maximize only economic gains will lead to what (Harrison, 2016) claims to be a ‘race to the bottom’ for which the fundamental/root cause is the institutional fragmentation that occurs due to federalism.
Lastly, such intergovernmental paralysis and selfish motivations prevent new policies in support of air pollution to be passed and only makes matters worse.
Recommendation
In order to make recommendations, it is imperative to understand what worked, what didn’t work and what the key lessons were. It can be inferred that it is always easier to look at past policies and improve on its success.
Firstly, there needs to be a mass educational campaign which makes the general public aware of the problem. At present, there is large data collection by the federal government but is dispersed to the public in ‘bits and pieces’ and it is left to the public of what to do with that information. Additionally, it leads to misunderstanding amongst the masses of what exactly needs to be done to combat climate change and air pollution (McKitrick, 2006). This is evident from the fact that certain segments of society are protesting, while the others think it is not a major issue. Rather than have such ad-hoc method of information disbursement, the federal government in conjunction with the provincial government should allow for a more streamlined approach of data disbursement and some call for action for the general public to take.
Secondly, there should be a decentralized approach as different individuals from different communities have different priorities. McKitrick (2003) argued that rather than “licensing motor vehicles by year, we should have licensing by kilometers driven, where the cost per kilometer is adjusted by the emission characteristics of the car”. McKitrick essentially believes that this will allow communities to take ownership of the air pollution in their city and through a public vote will be able to determine the price per quality. From a personal standpoint, this idea seems rather innovative and able to overcome the challenges of federalism. However, some are under the belief that actors are motivated by self-interest and will purposely try to keep the price per kilometer low to maximize their economic gains. This is precisely where federalism can be useful, as it can set broad guidelines on the minimum price to keep as well as establish pricing strategies for different types of vehicles e.g. trucks and cars. The provincial government would then have complete autonomy on how to conduct the polls and what to do with the revenue earned.
Lastly, the federal government should agree with a decentralization mechanism for environmental policy regulation but provide higher incentives to provinces that are more successful in reducing pollution. The incentives can take place in the form of finances that provinces receive by the federal government. Also, the federal government can pass laws for strict punishment for the offense of corruption. The rationale behind was logically deduced by analyzing previous case studies where a decentralization approach took place. According to (Yang et all, 2018), who analyzed the case of China found that local governments are willing to sacrifice natural resources as well as the environment for the sake of economic gains. Additionally, Guo and Zheng (2012) found through their own research paper that such a decentralized approach gives rise to corruption as bribery, kickbacks and other instruments are present since there may be a conflict of interest between the local government and the business enterprises.
Finally, there were also mixed results between decentralization and the environmental impact it had. In her study of the fiscal decentralization of India, she found the environmental impact to be positive in certain states and negative in certain states (Lovo, 2018).
The fact that decentralization showed an improvement in environmental regulations, suggests there is policy for improvement and gives a glimpse of hope and optimism considering the challenges federalism possesses. Therefore, by readdressing the incentives and having a strict punishment for corruption will help mitigate the challenges that come with a decentralized approach.
Conclusion
This paper hopes to illustrate the problem federalism has on policy making and implementation and subsequently introduce recommendations to solve such problems. However, more research is needed on how federalism has been successful for policy making in countries like India and the key lessons and investigating whether those lessons are applicable in Canada or not. Moreover, there is a need to look at the quantitative analysis of both unitary states and federal states and its ability to deal with policy making. By analyzing the difference between the 2 and if the result is statistically significant, it may be worth looking into recommending a new governance model.
References
Que, W., Zhang, Y., Liu, S., & Yang, C. (2018). The spatial effect of fiscal decentralization and factor market segmentation on environmental pollution. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184(Complete), 402-413. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.285.
Local government, polluting enterprise and environmental pollution: based on MATLAB software. J. Softw., v.7, p.2182, 2012, Guo Z. et al.
Edler, Jakob & Fagerberg, Jan. (2017). Innovation policy: What, why, and how. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 33. 2-23. 10.1093/oxrep/grx001.