Information pollution

For those wondering about yesterday's claim that the U.S. has done a far better job than Canada in reducing air pollution over the period 1995-2002, Canadian Cynic thoroughly eviscerates the claim.

A couple of other notes based on the report in question:

- The data is "as reported by facilities". Anybody want to speculate as to which country is more strict in ensuring that industry-provided data is accurate?

- Does it seem a bit suspicious that the data is limited to common pollutants which weren't subject to any changed policy over the period? From the sound of it, if Canada had banned a pollutant prior to the start of the period while the U.S. spewed it out in ever-increasing amounts, that wouldn't count against the U.S. at all. And if Canada did move to ban a substance or reduce its use, that would take the substance out of the study.

- Does the data take into account a probable move of particularly damaging plants from the U.S. to Mexico in the wake of NAFTA? Surely that can't be to the environmental credit of the U.S. government.

Note also from the CEC program's front page:

While this report can provide answers to many questions, readers may need to go to other sources for more information. The report does not provide information on all pollutants, all sources of chemicals, data from facilities in Mexico (with the exception of criteria air contaminants), environmental damage, or health risks.

It seems fairly clear that even the creators of the report don't give it as much credence as Pollution Watch did.

None of this is to give Chretien, Martin and company any credit for environmental management. As CC points out, the particularly sketchy claim is the one of reduced emissions in the U.S. - and there seems to be ample reason to doubt the accuracy of that report.

Update: CC's comments contain even more and better reasons to be skeptical about the numbers.

(Edit: typo.)