The Long and the Short of It - The Changing Arctic Environment: The Arctic Messenger - page 345

It is a mistake to believe that commercial lobby groups are always against environ-
mental regulation. For example, I was strongly supported by the Canadian Chemical Man-
ufacturers Association (CCMA) when trying to set a progressive Canadian negotiating po-
sition for the CLRTAP POPs protocol in the 1990s. Their rationale was that international
controls on hazardous substances would give them a competitive, level playing field for
marketing their newer and safer products. At that time, some of the federal Canadian eco-
nomic departments opposed several key actions being proposed on the grounds that they
would severely injure Canada's chemical industry. I told them that the proposed meas-
ures were supported by the CCMA. This brought an edifying outburst from my opponents:
“David, the CCMA is not responsible for deciding what is good for the Canadian chemical
industry!”
Some lobby groups are motivated by libertarian ideals rather than by being linked to a
particular industry.Theyarejustutterly opposedtoanygovernment intervention inthefab-
ric of society. They can also be very intimidating. In those early CLRTAP days, I was lucky
to have an early desk telephone model that identified the number of the incoming call. I
received so many calls from lobbyists based in the United States that I eventually stopped
picking up the receiver unless I recognized the number. Unfortunately, lobby groups are a
generic feature of the Arctic Messenger's story, so we will come back to them again when
we close in on climate. Although their power is greatest in the United States, their suc-
cess in influencing U.S. policy affects us all. The U.S. market still dominates the world.
The only ways in which their impact has been reduced took place when public opinion was
overwhelming. This is a very important point to remember.