The Case for the Environment: Canada and The Kingdom of
Denmark Stand Trial
, INTRODUCTION
Our environment, for the first time in a long time, is becoming a matter of priority on a global
scale. Everywhere, countries are experiencing the negative effects of severe human interference
on our planet’s natural resources and processes— some may say that we’ve bitten off more of the
Earth than we should’ve, and now its dear Mother Nature bites back harder. Raging bushfires in
Los Angeles, rising global temperatures and sinking Pacific Islands are daily headlines, and now
more than ever, governments, international organizations and advocacy groups are springing up
and into action; doing the best they can to mitigate the effects of centuries of mass
industrialization, unchecked urbanization, and aggressive mining of the planet’s natural
resources. Or are they? Are country governments specifically, really doing the best they can?
Are some doing better than others? How do we determine any of this?
This essay seeks to answer these questions, and use two first world countries, Canada and
Denmark, as case studies to ultimately answer these questions. For both countries, this essay will
analyze their environmental legal frameworks, conservation programs and strategies, species
protection strategies, and the challenges to environmental sustainability and conservation that
both countries face. As the author, I’ll decide— not for you, readers,— which country is making
the better efforts, and you can, after reading, decide this for yourselves too.
LEGAL FRAMEWORKS
Both Canada and Denmark are global leaders with regards to legal action for environmental
protection and climate action, however, they differ in legislative structures and sectoral focus.
Additionally, both countries’ legal frameworks for the environment are dependent on their
national priorities for environmental action, which differ between them both.
In Canada, the core environmental legislation is the Canada Environmental Protection Act
(CEPA). CEPA is the cornerstone for federal environmental law in Canada, focusing on pollution
prevention, toxic waste management, and air/water quality regulations. The act passed in 1999
empowers federal authorities to set industry specific standards for pulp/ paper mills, petroleum
refineries, metal-mining plants, and air pollution (specifically prohibiting ozone-depleting
substances and regulates vinyl chloride emissions). In terms of execution and enforcement of
CEPA, the responsibility is split between federal and provincial governments, with federal
governments overseeing fisheries, interprovincial trade, and environmental crime; while
provincial governments have jurisdiction over local mining and forestry industries.
Under CEPA, there are several policies for enforcement, and specific aspects of environmental
protection such as greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. Part 10 of CEPA addresses
enforcement, stating that any person in breach of the provisions outlined in the Act can face
Denmark Stand Trial
, INTRODUCTION
Our environment, for the first time in a long time, is becoming a matter of priority on a global
scale. Everywhere, countries are experiencing the negative effects of severe human interference
on our planet’s natural resources and processes— some may say that we’ve bitten off more of the
Earth than we should’ve, and now its dear Mother Nature bites back harder. Raging bushfires in
Los Angeles, rising global temperatures and sinking Pacific Islands are daily headlines, and now
more than ever, governments, international organizations and advocacy groups are springing up
and into action; doing the best they can to mitigate the effects of centuries of mass
industrialization, unchecked urbanization, and aggressive mining of the planet’s natural
resources. Or are they? Are country governments specifically, really doing the best they can?
Are some doing better than others? How do we determine any of this?
This essay seeks to answer these questions, and use two first world countries, Canada and
Denmark, as case studies to ultimately answer these questions. For both countries, this essay will
analyze their environmental legal frameworks, conservation programs and strategies, species
protection strategies, and the challenges to environmental sustainability and conservation that
both countries face. As the author, I’ll decide— not for you, readers,— which country is making
the better efforts, and you can, after reading, decide this for yourselves too.
LEGAL FRAMEWORKS
Both Canada and Denmark are global leaders with regards to legal action for environmental
protection and climate action, however, they differ in legislative structures and sectoral focus.
Additionally, both countries’ legal frameworks for the environment are dependent on their
national priorities for environmental action, which differ between them both.
In Canada, the core environmental legislation is the Canada Environmental Protection Act
(CEPA). CEPA is the cornerstone for federal environmental law in Canada, focusing on pollution
prevention, toxic waste management, and air/water quality regulations. The act passed in 1999
empowers federal authorities to set industry specific standards for pulp/ paper mills, petroleum
refineries, metal-mining plants, and air pollution (specifically prohibiting ozone-depleting
substances and regulates vinyl chloride emissions). In terms of execution and enforcement of
CEPA, the responsibility is split between federal and provincial governments, with federal
governments overseeing fisheries, interprovincial trade, and environmental crime; while
provincial governments have jurisdiction over local mining and forestry industries.
Under CEPA, there are several policies for enforcement, and specific aspects of environmental
protection such as greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. Part 10 of CEPA addresses
enforcement, stating that any person in breach of the provisions outlined in the Act can face
