Category Archives: Water and Hydrocarbons

Nova Scotia Joins Growing List of Regions with a Moratorium on Fracking

Share

Read this article from the Calgary Herald on the decision by the Nova Scotia Provincial Government to put a two year moratorium on natural gas hydraulic fracturing while it gathers more science on the controversial practice. (April 19, 2012)

CALGARY – Companies searching for oil and gas in the Maritimes received conflicting messages this week around the use of hydraulic fracturing to develop the resources.

New Brunswick granted a five-year licence to Calgary-based Windsor Energy to explore and drill for natural gas on Tuesday while Nova Scotia banned fracking until the summer of 2014 to have more time to review the contentious technology.

Energy Minister Charlie Parker said the provincial government wanted to study reviews being drafted by the U.S. Environment Protection Agency and Environment Canada on the effects of fracking.

Parker cited other jurisdictions have been reviewing how fracking could affect water re-sources and earthquakes.

“We think it’s important to get the best possible information that’s out there and make an informed decision after we’ve learned all that,” Parker said.

Critics of the NDP administration suggest the government is freezing discussion about hydraulic fracturing until after the next election.

Public concern has in-creased in the past year about the technology, which pumps massive amounts of waters and chemicals down well bores to crack open reservoirs of so-called tight oil and gas. Protests against frack-ing escalated in areas such as the Maritimes, where little onshore oil-and-gas development has occurred.

Monday’s announcement was a setback for companies such as Elmworth Energy, a subsidiary of Triangle Petroleum Corp., which holds a 10-year lease representing the province’s first shale-gas development project.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Nova+Scotia+issues+year+moratorium+fracking/6481080/story.html

Share
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has labelled opponents of Enbridge's proposed Norther Gateway Pipeline

Enbridge Pipeline: Radicals and Conservatives

Share

Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, a $5.5 billion project that is intended to move the crude from Alberta’s tar sands to BC’s West Coast for shipment by supertankers to Asia and other parts of the world, is providing illuminating insights into the gulf of differences separating proponents and opponents. Perhaps this is most clearly expressed by Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, whose recently released letter (January, 2012) accused “environmental and other radical groups” of attempting to “hijack our regulatory system” to achieve “their radical ideological agenda.”

His accusation may be true. But his terminology is reversed. The so-called “radicals” are really “conservatives” while those in government and industry favouring the pipeline are the “radicals”.

Those attempting to halt the pipeline and slow development of the tar sands are trying to restrain the ideological mania for resource extraction that is ripping across the provinces and country these days. Their objective is not only to protect the natural environment that is the fundamental source of our wealth, but to conserve our non-renewable oil and gas — not to mention the minerals, trees, water, fish and other resources that identify Canada’s natural riches — for a more cautious and careful future use. They are keen to remind Canada’s government that the country has no national energy policy and, therefore, no way of anticipating the effect of present extraction on future energy security, economic opportunity and social impacts. To the opponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline, today’s wholesale extraction and export of raw resources poses innumerable environmental threats but also robs tomorrow of possibilities. This is hardly the position of “radicals”.

With a perspective that is longer than the next election cycle, the 4,300 people who are registered as speakers during the proceedings of the “regulatory system” — most of them will be opposing it — are using the only avenue available to them to indicate their concern for a project that will inevitably cause an oil spill in pristine rivers and valleys, not to mention an ocean coast that is noted world-wide for its marine bounty and wild beauty. If this concern is a “radical ideological agenda”, then their critics must surely be possessed of a reckless irresponsibility that is truly menacing.

Unfolding events suggest that this may be the case. The same established thinking that wants to build the Northern Gateway pipeline has recently engineered the near-collapse of the world’s entire financial system. It is also busily dismantling the fundamental ecological structures that allow for a diversity of life on Earth. The traumatic effect of massive greenhouse gas emissions on climate and weather should give any thoughtful person nightmares. And the eventual consequences of ocean acidification has implications for the planet that are obscene and dire — a similarly acidic ocean once caused 95 percent of marine and terrestrial species to disappear from existence. Anyone who is aware of these prospects and is not taking immediate and drastic remedial measures must be deemed “radical”, if not irresponsible and ideologically dangerous.

Some informed economists question the wisdom of unrestrained resource extraction. Without long-term planning and the accompanying processing infrastructure that benefits a country’s entire economy and society, the end result of an export policy of raw resources will be, as one economist aptly phrased it, an impoverished country “with a lot of holes in the ground” — not exactly a promising prospect.

Such a prospect is worrying an increasing number of people these days. They perceive a hyper-active system of excessive production and consumption that is functioning beyond sustainability and headed for a crash. Some of these worried people are economists, politicians and philosophers. Others are bankers and industrialists. Even those who don’t have the sophistication to articulate their apprehension can sense trouble. And they are becoming increasingly cynical. The Occupy Movement wants financial reform and a re-evaluation of our entire economic system. And the environmental community, in all its many forms, wants the destruction of nature to stop while viable remnants of it still exist. They are “conservative” in the sense that they want to “preserve” the ecosystems that sustain us, hardly the “radicals” of Joe Oliver’s designation.

The real “radicals”, it might be argued, are those with an ideological compulsion to pillage the planet — to drill and mine, to frack and pump, to build and extract, to cut and burn, to take and level with an obsessive abandon that history will deem pathological. An ideology that holds nothing sacred but money and profit is doomed to fail. “The catch with a growth economy,” as the film The Great Squeeze points out, “is that there is no stopping point.” It continues to grow until it self-destructs.

This explains why the Northern Gateway pipeline project has become so important. It is now iconic, a symbol to its opponents of a system out of control, of an ideology on a destructive rampage, blindly undeterred by fatal risks to a primal wilderness and a treasured coast of virgin rainforest. The system is not even deterred by a living planet besieged with life-destroying gases. If such an economy is not stopped here, where will it be stopped?

The language in Joe Oliver’s letter is ideological and challenging. But he has his terms reversed. The “radicals are the “conservatives” and the “conservatives” are the “radicals”.

Share

Sandra Steingraber’s Dear John Letter to Sierra Club Over Millions in Secret Donations from Fracking Industry

Share

Read this letter by celebrated environmentalist and author Sandra Steingraber – published on the Orion Blog – on the story that’s been sending shock waves through the American environmental community over the past month. Steingraber takes her once beloved Sierra Club to task for accepting $25 million in secret donations from major unconventional gas player Chesapeake Energy. (March 23, 2012)

Dear Sierra Club,

I’m through with you. 

For years we had a great relationship based on mutual admiration. You gave a glowing review of my first book, Living Downstream—a review that appeared in the pages of Sierra magazine and hailed me as “the new Rachel Carson.” Since 1999 that phrase has linked us together in all the press materials that my publicist sends out. Your name appears with mine on the flaps of my book jackets, in the biography that introduces me at the speaker’s podium, and in the press release that announced, last fall, that I was one of the lucky recipients of a $100,000 Heinz Award for my research and writing on the environment.

I was proud to be affiliated with you. I hoped to live up to the moniker you bestowed upon me.

But more than a month has past since your executive director, Michael Brune, admitted in Time magazine that the Sierra Club had, between 2007 and 2010, clandestinely accepted $25 million from the fracking industry, with most of the donations coming from Chesapeake Energy. Corporate Crime Reporter was hot on the trail of the story when it broke in Time.

From the start, Brune’s declaration seemed less an acknowledgement of wrongdoing than an attempt to minister to a looming public relations problem. Would someone truly interested in atonement seek credit for choosing not to take additional millions of gas industry dollars (“Why the Sierra Club Turned Down $26 Million in Contributions from Natural Gas Interests”)?

Here, on top of the Marcellus Shale, along the border between Pennsylvania and New York—where we are surrounded by land leased to the gas industry; where we live in fear that our water will be ruined, our mortgages called in, our teenage children killed in fiery wrecks with 18-wheelers hauling toxic fracking waste on our rural, icy back roads; where we cash out our vacation days to board predawn buses to rallies and public hearings; where we fundraise, donate, testify, phone bank, lobby, submit public comments, sign up for trainings in nonviolent civil disobedience; where our children ask if we will be arrested, if we will have to move, if we will die, and what will happen to the bats, the honeybees, the black bears, the grapevines, the apple orchards, the cows’ milk; where we have learned all about casing failures, blow-outs, gas flares, clear-cuts, legal exemptions, the benzene content of production fluid, the radioactive content of drill cuttings; where people suddenly start sobbing in church and no one needs to ask why—here in the crosshairs of Chesapeake Energy, Michael Brune’s announcement was met with a kind of stunned confusion.

Read full story: http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/newsfrom187/entry/6799/

 

Share
Independent MLA for Cariboo-North Bob Simpson recently toured natural gas fracking operations near Dawson Creek, BC

Audio: Sean Holman, Damien Gillis Talk Fracking, MLAs’ Trip to Peace Country

Share

Get MP3 (23 MB)

Listen to this interview by Sean Holman of documentary filmmaker Damien Gillis on his recent trip to Northeastern BC to learn about some of the effects of the unconventional gas industry on farming families around the Dawson Creek area. Gillis has been working for the past year on a feature documentary film involving the controversial fracking business and recently followed independent BC MLAs Bob Simpson and Vicki Huntington to the community of Farmington to engage with local landowners on the issue. The pair have worked hard to raise in the Legislature issues surrounding the regulation of the industry and its impacts on water, health, and the province’s economy. (March 24 – 20 min)

Share

The Economics of Salmon Farms, Oil Pipelines and Natural Gas

Share

Whether or not salmon farms continue operating in BC’s marine waters may depend more on economic than environmental factors. Despite withering criticism concerning the ecological safety of its open net-pen operations, the salmon farming industry has doggedly continued on its corporate course. However, two unforeseen factors may compromise its viability, thereby accomplishing what no amount of environmental censure has managed.

First, the US International Trade Commission has removed a two-decade 24 percent import duty levied on farmed salmon imported from Norway. This ruling may ultimately negate one of the major rationales Norwegian corporations used in 1991 to circumvent the duty by growing Atlantic salmon in BC waters. The removal of the duty now places a 24 percent disadvantage on farmed salmon exported from BC to the US, a trading handicap exacerbated by the rising value of the Canadian dollar.

And second, after the horrific 70 percent collapse of salmon farming in Chile due to the industry’s inadvertent importation of infectious salmon anemia, Chilean banks and governments are applying pressure for a re-start of operations. This will result in more farmed fish on the global market and will depress the price for salmon. Combined with the lower cost of growing salmon in Chile, the result may threaten operations in BC. The salmon farming industry in BC, critics note, is already precarious due to high operating costs. A flood of Chilean farmed fish on the world market and cheaper product from Norway may be lethal blows to the industry here. And, as everyone knows, the business of making money is not imbued with sentimentality – if salmon farming is not profitable here, the industry will politely express its ritual condolences and leave.

Oil raises more complicated and serious issues than salmon farming. And Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, that intends to move tar sands bitumen from Alberta to BC’s West Coast, may cause far more economic damage than a few salmon farms abandoning Canada. To assess this damage, we need to know something about oil pricing.

Most North Americans are likely unaware that the price of oil is determined in two ways. The Canadian and US price is set “at a confluence of pipelines at Cushing, Oklahoma, where prices are determined for a specified grade of crude termed West Texas Intermediate” (Island Tides, Mar. 8/12). WTI is presently priced at about $108 per barrel. But for the rest of the world, in regions such as Asia and Europe, their oil is priced by international markets at a higher “Brent” rate. The Brent price is presently about $126 per barrel. The price difference is important to the oil industry. And this explains the significance of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

Alberta crude from the tar sands would not pass through the pricing gate in Cushing, Oklahoma. Indeed, it would be destined for Asia where the Brent rather than the WTI price applies. Any corporation producing oil from the tar sands would benefit measurably from the premium value of Brent and would push for this pricing structure. At the very least, in free market conditions, the price difference between Brent and WTI would force up the cost of oil to consumers in Canada.

The same cost pressure would apply to natural gas. Its North American price is determined by the volume moving through “a confluence of thirteen pipelines at Erath, Louisiana”, the so-called “Henry Hub” (Ibid.). This price is linked to the WTI price of oil, and is presently selling at between $2 to $3 per million British thermal units (MMBtu). But natural gas in Asia and elsewhere is linked to the Brent oil price, where it commonly sells for two to four times the North American price. The huge volume of natural gas that would be diverted from BC and Alberta to several liquid natural gas (LNG) plants on the West Coast would bypass the Henry Hub on its way to Asia. Besides depleting a non-renewable resource with massive exports, the new market would force up the price of natural gas – if not for Canadians, then certainly for British Columbians.

Beyond the litany of environmental problems created by hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to retrieve natural gas from shale, and the inevitable spills associated with the pipeline and tanker movement of oil from the West Coast, British Columbians in particular – and Canadians in general – can expect to pay more for their petroleum based energy.

Globalization always has the effect of shifting prices toward a common denominator. In the case of wages, it pulls down high earnings to match lower Asian rates. In the case of energy such as oil and natural gas, it lifts prices toward matching the higher rates that apply beyond North America.

Even without considering the environmental costs and risks of producing and transporting oil and gas, opening our markets to Asia and elsewhere is an unwise strategy for British Columbians and Canadians. The oil and gas industry should be jubilant at the prospects of pipelines and tankers. But everyone else in this country should be worried. The social and economic costs of a few closed salmon farms in BC would pale beside the damage inflicted by higher energy prices.

Share

Review of B.C.’s Dysfunctional Carbon Tax Aims for Repairs in 2013 Pre-election Budget

Share

British Columbia’s controversial and widely misunderstood carbon tax will soon be subjected to a comprehensive review with the results likely to be revealed in next year’s budget, just in time for the tax to become another pre-election political football to be kicked around by voters and political parties in the run-up to the May 14, 2013 voting day.

B.C. Finance Minister Kevin Falcon announced the move in his 2012-13 budget speech, and a few more details were provided in budget documents, but there are still no details on who will do the review and only a few bits are known about how and when, namely that citizens will have the opportunity to make written submissions to the Minister of Finance and that “changes will be considered as part of the 2013 Budget process” (which usually begins in earnest in the Fall and leads to formal announcements in the February budget). Further details of the review were to be posted on the Ministry’s website: http://www.gov.bc.ca/ca/fin/.

Though that move is thus open to many partisan political manipulations, such as the B.C. Liberal Party potentially trying to use it to portray the B.C. New Democrats as anti-job if they oppose any changes, Falcon made it clear that there also are numerous practical considerations about the carbon tax that need to be reviewed, notably providing some early relief to the export-oriented agriculture and greenhouse industries but possibly including other areas related to air emissions and climate change such as the Pacific Carbon Trust, a Crown corporation seen by many as dysfunctional because it taxes hospitals and schools among other flaws.

The carbon tax is now applied to fossil fuels and other combustibles based on their equivalent carbon dioxide emissions and generates roughly $1 billion a year which is applied to a variety of tax expenditures to make it ostensibly revenue neutral to government. It began on July 1, 2008 at $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) – i.e. less than a year before the 2009 provincial election that also featured the HST fiasco – and grew by $5 annual increments but will now be capped when it reaches $30 per tonne on July 1, 2012 or about 6.7 cents per litre of gasoline.

“The review will cover all aspects of the carbon tax, including revenue neutrality,” said a discussion paper in the budget documents, which is a reference to the revenues being dedicated to pay for a 5% cut in personal income taxes ($218 million in 2011-12), the low-income climate action tax credit ($188 million), a corporate income tax cut ($381 million), a small business tax cut ($220 million) and several other boutique-type tax cuts and credits needing to be pulled in as the revenues rise (e.g. this year the new childrens’ arts and sports tax credits and the Seniors’ Home Renovation Tax Credit were added).

Curiously the carbon tax expenditures of $1.15 billion in 2011/12 exceeded the revenues of $960 million by $192 million but in years ahead the revenues are expected to grow and exceed the expenditures so new subsidies from the carbon tax are being targeted to science and film incentives to maintain an increasingly-farcical revenue-neutral balance, as Independent MLA Bob Simpson (Cariboo North) pointed out in an interview.

Falcon gave assurances that the government will still “continue moving forward with other components of our Climate Action Plan” such as the LiveSmart home retrofits program, tax incentives for buyers of “clean” or electric cars, and subsidies to help convert heavy-duty vehicle fleets to natural gas, all of which appear to be healthy on-going programs.

However that list of surviving initiatives strangely omitted mention of the government’s also-controversial Pacific Carbon Trust corporation which separately runs a carbon offsets program that public-sector entities are required to participate in and which is seen by Simpson and many other observers as a costly misuse and waste of taxpayer dollars (e.g. taxing school districts and hospitals that are already in financial distress).

“We remain committed to addressing climate change. However, four years in, the revenue-neutral B.C. Carbon Tax remains the only one of its kind in North America,” Falcon said in the Budget speech, noting that the rate increase on July 1 is the last one scheduled which makes now “a good time to pause and examine how the carbon tax is affecting our economic competitiveness.” The budget tax measures legislation includes an amendment to clarify that the carbon tax will continue beyond June 30, 2013 but will be capped at $30 per tonne.

In the budget lockup and subsequent media appearances Falcon reiterated his pride in the government’s leadership on the carbon tax and noted that putting a price on carbon is necessary if you want to address climate change but since no other provinces have followed and the Obama administration has backed off it has become necessary to review B.C.’s plans and probably make some changes, possibly including to the Pacific Carbon Trust.

“Keeping parts of the Pacific Carbon Trust would reinforce our role as leaders on the environment front and I don’t want to give that up,” Falcon said on Vaughn Palmer’s Voice of B.C. show on Shaw TV (viewable online), suggesting changes could be rolled out “in coming months” – but also hinting that Falcon looks upon the whole policy area as a battleground in partisan politics too.

That also hints that a structural change could emerge too in which the carbon tax revenues would be redirected towards Pacific Carbon Trust activities, perhaps replacing the monies now paid in by school districts, health authorities and local governments – even becoming a subsidy for urban transit as Metro Vancouver officials have been recently seeking.

Falcon seemed to avoid such ideas and instead repeatedly focused on the carbon tax impacts on agriculture in general and on greenhouses in particular, noting they will be hit hard when the Harmonized Sales Tax is removed and replaced by the Provincial Sales Tax on April 1 next year so removing the carbon tax would help them survive and remain competitive in export markets, a promise welcomed by Independent MLA Vicki Huntington of Delta South in recent remarks in the Legislature.

Meanwhile Agriculture Minister Don McRae said the government has been working closely with greenhouse operators to create an environment that supports growth and in the weeks ahead will work to that end to provide carbon tax relief.

That precedent of reforming what some have seen as an untouchable sacred cow could help start a number of other carbon and climate policy reforms, many of which will be welcomed by critics such as MLA Simpson and B.C. Conservative Party leader John Cummins and some of which will be regretted by environmental activists, with the B.C. New Democrats so far remaining more or less silent, probably because they suffered in the 2009 election from having a confused policy on the carbon tax.

Cummins stands out by stating that the carbon tax will be the first tax eliminated by a B.C. Conservative government, when he spoke to a post-budget lunch meeting of the Surrey Board of Trade, apparently believing that such a tax cut would create jobs, but his only suggestion so far for replacing the tax revenue has been spending cuts by government, which is nonsensical if one looks at the size of government as a proportion of GDP as was done recently on the Tyee website by pundit Will McMartin, revealing that the Campbell regime has already cut government to the bone.

Nonetheless there is a widespread view especially among fiscal and political conservatives that the carbon tax and its related programs such as the Pacific Carbon Trust have become a confusing mish-mash of contradictory and perverse concepts that kill commerce and services and fail to achieve their supposed goal of combatting global warming or climate change.

When you go online to research the B.C. government’s climate program you find a blinding montage of pretty photos and padded rosters and not many details or numbers until maybe the end of a document if at all. And as Simpson in particular complains, the Pacific Carbon Trust is not open to legislature or public purview even though it is a Crown corporation, the Legislature is exempt and some entities are taxed twice, such as health authorities paying both carbon tax and emissions charges.

That suggests part of the reasons for Falcon’s somewhat unexpected foray into carbon tax and climate policy is to do some political damage control, to make some changes that will mollify such criticisms before they become a political albatross for the Liberals in the 2013 election campaign.

In fact there are still quite a few good things happening in this policy area too, such as energy retrofits of public-sector buildings and private homes, and projects such as the Carbon Offset Aggregation Co-operative of Prince George which on Feb. 24 received $2 million from Environment Minister Terry Lake to help heavy equipment operators and trucking companies retrofit their vehicles’ engines to lower their carbon emissions (though social program advocates could argue that that money would have been better spent on something like addressing child poverty or on home care to help keep seniors out of more costly institutions).

But what you also find, as Simpson pointed out in an interview, is that beneficiaries of such energy-efficiency handouts have an amazingly high rate of also being donors to the B.C. Liberal Party, which ratio he estimated at 95%, and that some of the projects being subsidized might have been done anyway and so should not be considered as incremental for climate purposes.

Simpson interestingly has become such an expert in the whole area that he was singled out for praise by Falcon on the Shaw cable show but that didn’t stop Simpson from calling the Liberals’ various climate programs “bizarre” and “goofy” and “confusing” and “unfair” and even “totally bogus”.

That latter epithet was regarding the government’s initial decision and continuing policy to apply the carbon tax to consumers and public-sector entities but to exempt carbon-intensive industries such as cement plants and natural gas scrubbers, the latter venting methane into the atmosphere comprising about 20% of the province’s total emissions but none of which are subject to a climate tax, and about half of that is now coming from fracked shale gas. Another large source of emissions not being taxed is landfills (i.e. garbage dumps).

B.C. Green Party leader Jane Sterk also drew a connection between climate policy and party politics, surmising that if the government does choose to appoint an outside committee to review the carbon tax (as it has done in other policy areas such as tax reform) then most of the members will be donors to the B.C. Liberals and oriented towards business and industry.

Sterk also shares some skepticism about what the government wants out of the process and what will be done versus what should be done, whether it is to redesign a better carbon tax (which could be done without a review) or merely tweak the system to make it better understood and more acceptable.

“I expect the review will recommend scrapping the tax because other jurisdictions have not followed suit and to rely instead on joining the group of jurisdictions committed to cap and trade,” she said, or it could reduce the tax by half to reflect the reality of it being uncompetitive but still demonstrate some commitment to climate change.

She also predicted the carbon tax will be a key issue in the next election campaign, with the Liberals possibly promising to eliminate the tax if re-elected but also trying to trap the New Democrats similar to what happened in 2009 when the NDP wanted to “axe the tax” but have since swung around to supporting it. However the New Democrats have been silent on the issue of late and did not respond to requests for a comment for this article.

Sterk believes the carbon tax was poorly designed and has become regressive for low-income people and she says the Pacific Carbon Trust needs to be improved but she still wants to retain the carbon tax, hike it to $50 a tonne and keep raising it, and apply it to large emitters while directing some proceeds to transit, rail, biking and pedestrians.

“Our policy on the carbon tax needs to be seen in terms of our overall policy which is to move to regionally self-sufficient and resilient economies,” she said, linking climate change to food security, job creation, health and social and community well-being.

Sierra Club BC executive director George Heyman said the government’s announcement of the carbon tax review sends the wrong signal at a critical time when scientists say we need immediate action to slow global warming.

“Real climate leadership requires long-term commitment, not a one-time gesture,” said Heyman, surmising that the government is definitely looking for a way to get out of the carbon tax either fully or partially.
“This is a government that, at one point, showed leadership on pricing carbon. What they’re saying now is: `We expected everyone to follow us and they didn’t so we’re going to back out of it.’”

Heyman said there should be a systematic expansion of carbon tax coverage to all B.C. sources of carbon emissions but B.C.’s natural gas strategy alone will make it all but impossible to meet the province’s legislated carbon reduction targets, and that the Liberals are not prepared to be honest about the need to develop a low-carbon economy that can assure sustainable, jobs-intensive employment for future generations.

Simpson also believes the government should put a tax on industrial process emissions and with no cap-and-trade on the horizon that the proceeds should go first to Pacific Carbon Trust and then to general revenues, with changes made to PCT, which now gets most of its revenues from the public sector even though it produces less than one per cent of total emissions.

He said the government’s clawback of money given to public agencies such as school and hospital boards is a complete distortion of tax policy and a wrong thing to do when those agencies do not have taxing powers, and that is further distorted because those entities have to pay $25 a tonne for offsets when their market value is only about $4 a tonne.

He noted there are numerous unfair aspects in the system, such as the school districts getting rebates when others don’t, and the health authorities being double-taxed with the carbon tax on the fuels they use and a $25 per tonne charge on emissions.

“To me the issue is we have a finance minister who has never been enamored of the carbon tax … and now is saying enough is enough,” said Simpson, explaining that the Liberal caucus was caught unawares when former premier Gordon Campbell suddenly “got religion” on the need for a carbon tax to address climate change and though the original intent in 2008 was to change behaviours there has been little evidence of that and meanwhile many people in rural areas complain they are being taxed on things they have no choice about.

Simpson said the Liberal government now seems to be after three things, an end to the revenue-neutral nonsense and an easier way to find valid projects to invest in, an end to further increments in the tax, and some relief for sectors being damaged such as agriculture and possibly log truckers.

A roster of the public agencies and what they’re emitting and paying to invest in offsets shows a total of about 800,000 tonnes and offsets worth $18.2 million. It can be viewed in the appendix at:

In any case the carbon tax review could and probably should be seen as an opportunity to make some changes that are progressive and constructive, which is the gist of an op-ed article published Feb. 28 in the Vancouver Sun by Ian Bruce of the David Suzuki Foundation, Matt Horne of the Pembina Institute and Merran Smith of Tides Canada.

After citing international examples of how carbon taxes have stimulated green industries and prosperous economies, they conclude that B.C. also could have a win-win solution for the environment and the economy.

“Communities could see new investment and jobs, a balanced transportation system, reduced traffic congestion, cleaner air, more green spaces, energy savings, and, best of all, a better quality of life. But only if we demand it,” they wrote, urging people to participate in the review proces

The following two items are unedited news releases from the stated sources:

PRINCE GEORGE – Environment Minister Terry Lake announced $2 million in funding for the Prince George-based Carbon Offset Aggregation Cooperative (COAC).

This first-of-a-kind program helps heavy equipment operators and trucking companies to lower their carbon emissions.

COAC is a marketing cooperative that provides a framework for owners of heavy equipment and trucks to reduce operating costs and create, aggregate and sell carbon offsets that are produced through a reduction in diesel consumption.

The funding is essential seed money that will help COAC provide more members with low-interest loans to retrofit their heavy duty diesel trucks and equipment to increase fuel efficiency, save money and reduce carbon emissions. Currently, 33 units (trucks and equipment) have been retrofitted. Installation has been completed on the first truck fleet of six units and COAC expects to install another 24 in the near future.

This funding is expected to provide financing to retrofit 100 units per month, resulting in emission reductions of approximately 13,400 tonnes over the first three years. With every 1,000 litres of diesel saved, approximately three tonnes of carbon dioxide will be diverted from the atmosphere. One truck operating for 250 days a year can use up to 300 litres per day and will emit approximately 200 tonnes of carbon annually.

The cooperative provides financing to member businesses for modifications of existing vehicles and machinery that use fossil fuels (diesel). Operators will also receive driver-awareness training that will lead to even more energy efficiencies and GHG reductions that will save them money.

To learn about the first company to participate in the COAC program, visit: http://www.bcjobsplan.ca/ourprogress/b-c-heavy-equipment-company-goes-green/

These reductions in fuel consumption and GHGs emitted will produce carbon offsets, which are then aggregated and sold, transferred or traded by COAC. The proceeds of the sales are returned to the member as a dividend. The offsets are sold as made-in-B.C. greenhouse gas offsets.

This is part of a suite of B.C. Clean Transportation programs and follows on the heels of the Clean Energy Vehicle Program and BC SCRAP-IT funding, which the Province announced in November 2011.

Quotes:

Terry Lake, Minister of Environment:

This co-op demonstrates that being environmentally responsible can save companies money. It also shows how our Climate Action Plan benefits rural communities by helping business owners save money, reduce emissions and participate in a program that benefits B.C. families and helps create jobs.

Shirley Bond, MLA Prince George-Valemount:

This made-in-the-North program will reduce emissions and help heavy-duty vehicle operators increase their fuel efficiency. Congratulations to everyone who worked so hard to create this unique program.

Pat Bell, MLA Prince George-Mackenzie:

COAC is showing some real innovation with this program, and it shows how British Columbia is a leader in developing innovative solutions to lower GHG emissions.

Mary Anne Arcand, COAC chair:

This kind of support from government sends a clear signal that it is serious about addressing climate change, and supportive of industry’s initiative to be innovative and engaged at the ground level.

COAC member representative Doug Pugh:

Having the funding to help smaller operators like me get on the program makes it possible for everybody to do their part in reducing fuel consumption and emissions.

Quick Facts:

  • COAC currently represents 25 member companies provincewide.
  • Collectively, the companies consume more than 58-million litres of diesel annually.
  • The program helps business owners overcome the technological and financial barriers to making carbon-reduction changes to their operations.
  • The purpose is to provide a fuel-efficiency and carbon-reduction program for owners of heavy equipment and long- and short-haul trucks to reduce operating costs, aggregate and transfer, trade or sell carbon offsets.
  • COAC expects the average savings from these measures to range from 10 to 15 per cent annually.

Learn More:

BC Newsroom – Ministry of Environment: http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/ministries/environment-1/

Carbon Offset Aggregation Cooperative (COAC): www.carbonoffsetcooperative.org

Contact:

Suntanu Dalal
Communications Officer
Ministry of Environment
250 387-9745

—-

Heyman sees budget as threat to water:

Eliminating regulations for B.C.’s expanding mining projects will jeopardize water and wildlife and lead to increased community concern and conflict, Sierra Club BC Executive Director George Heyman warned today following the B.C. budget.

“British Columbians are increasingly concerned about secure access to clean water, but this budget fast-tracks mining projects while cutting regulatory provisions that clearly exist to protect the public interest,” said Heyman. “There is no vision here for a sustainable economy that protects our environmental assets; instead we have more raw resource extraction with reduced public interest protection.”

Government’s public affairs bureau budget – at $26 million – is now three times as big as the budget for B.C.’s environmental assessment office, which has been frozen at $8.75 million despite a significant leap in proposed mining and energy projects.

“There appears to be plenty of money for the government to spin its message, but no increased funding for environmental assessment.  New mine proposals around the province, and the environmentally questionable practice of natural gas fracking, cry out for strong measures that guarantee public and community health,” said Heyman.

“The government will spend $24 million in reducing the turnaround time for mineral exploration permits, but not a penny more to ensure robust environmental assessment capacity,” Heyman said. “With the Fish Lake debacle, we saw B.C.’s environmental assessment process green-light a mine that was later scathingly rejected by the federal environment minister. And now the B.C. government wants to make it even easier for mining companies to engage in controversial road-building and drilling that will only lead to community conflict and economic uncertainty around the province.”

Share

Is Enbridge’s CEO Really Retiring to Build His Grandson a Hockey Rink?

Share

This is the simple story – from the Canadian Press:

CALGARY – The outgoing CEO of pipeline giant Enbridge Inc. said Monday he has no qualms about leaving the company while its controversial West Coast pipeline project remains in limbo.

The Calgary-based crude shipper (TSX:ENB) said Monday that Pat Daniel, 65, will leave his post by the end of the year and Al Monaco, the head of the company’s gas pipeline, green energy and international businesses, will take the reins.

To me there’s something fishy going on – rather like the story “when a husband sends his wife flowers for no reason, there’s a reason.”

Why is Mr. Daniel giving 10 months notice of his departure, elevating Mr. Monaco to the president, who it would seem, is taking over the company reins so Daniel can build an outdoor skating rink for his grandson?

Why was the matter announced with such nonchalance? Grandchildren wanting an outdoor rink in Atlanta, Georgia, of all places, doesn’t quite have the pizzazz one has come to expect from huge companies kissing off Mr. Daniel who has done so much to take Enbridge from a flat financial position to great heights.  

Frankly, this looks a hell of a lot like assisted suicide to me and leads me to several prognostications.
 
Note Mr. Monaco’s stated qualifications – he is the head of the company’s gas pipeline, green energy and international businesses.
 
Let’s deal with these in reverse order.
 
The Tar Sands – no goddamit, they are not oil sands! – is suddenly getting considerable interest and media in other lands. This week, for example, it’s a story in the Guardian Weekly. The Prime Minister, looking and sounding a lot like Vladimir Putin, has told the world, including China and the G-20, that the pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat is a go – subject to some pesky environmental hearings which will take 18-24 months to conclude and officially approve the project. Both the PM and his Minister of National Resources Joe Oliver (who sounds like Ottawa’s version of the the BC Liberal’s big mouth Kevin Kruger) have made it clear that hearings or no hearings, the Northern Gateway is a done deal.
 
My guess is that Enbridge’s Board have concluded that there will be international opposition abroad and that someone with international experience is needed to deflect if not shout down overseas opposition.

The term “green energy”, in the topsy-turvy world of energy really means filthy dirty energy, so that a man with skills in selling nonsense to the gullible is just the master of bullshit needed for this exercise.
 
This opens up another area which was just a small item a few days ago, namely that Enbridge is teaming up with one or more First Nations to do some so-called “run-of-river” projects.
 
Enbridge, not content to spill tar sands gunk in our wilderness, threatening 1,000 rivers and streams, is ready to get more specific about killing rivers and their ecologies.
 
Natural gas issues are becoming all the rage and as we see now in business sections of the media, that business may not be all that it’s cracked up to be. There are “fracking” issues expanding into wildly fluctuating markets and I suspect that Mr. Monaco will need his knowledge in this area, not just to expand their existing and future natural gas pipelines, but to take great care not to get Enbridge into stormy waters where they lose money in a declining market.
 
Enbridge knows that natural gas, raw or in LNG, has brought the one thing large corporations hate – uncertain markets.
 
Considering the three areas Mr. Monaco has experience in, the decision to toss Mr. Daniel off the back of the sleigh is understandable. It could be that it’s not just Monaco the company needs so much as the absence of Daniel. Of course, if you are getting into a huge world wide crap shoot, Monaco seems like a good name to have. (Terrible pun but intended.)

Then again, Mr. Daniel could have seen the coming mess and parachuted safely to his grandson’s rink in Atlanta.
 
We must all remember that we’re in a long term shoot-out which puts a heavy onus on all of us not to shoot our bolt too quickly while continuing to fight like hell every inch of the way.
 
Let our overriding motto be: SUPERNATURAL BC IS NOT FOR SALE.

Rafe’s new book, The Home Stretch, can be downloaded onto your computer, iPad, Kobo, or Kindle from amazon.com or kobo.com for the obscenely low price of $9.99.

Share

Why Independent Media Needs Your Support – And How You Can Help TheCanadian.org

Share

This, dear friends, is a plea for help. Let me illustrate that with an anecdote.
 
The great American attorney, Clarence Darrow once had a client praise him asking, “How can I help?” to which he replied, “Madam, since the Phoenicians invented money there’s only been one answer to that question.”
 
The Common Sense Canadian needs your help, which is especially so when you see what we and other organizations are doing up against corporations and governments which have an endless amount of money. For example, in the struggle to keep our power in BC’s hands we are up against General Electric and both the federal and provincial governments. With fish farms we’re fighting both senior governments and an industry which is immense.
 
The same applies with pipelines and tanker traffic – the enemy is both governments and endless corporation lucre.
 
Our need is magnified many times over by the corporatization of the major media.
 
We at the Common Sense Canadian also back, wherever we can, those fighting to save agricultural land and prime wildlife preserves. There are many valiant people and organizations with which we ally ourselves and they with us.
 
The leadership provided by Alexandra Morton, for one example, has had an extraordinary impact; as has the leadership of Donna Passmore, Rex Weyler, Jennifer Lash and Independent MLA Vicki Huntington. In naming these names I must say that there are many more, like the tireless Joe Foy and Gwen Barlee of the Wildlife Committee and indeed valiant fighters all around this province.
 
Now let me make this clear – we are not overwhelmed by the forces of environmental evil. Indeed we relish the fight; we’d prefer not to have a fight but if that’s what the bastards want, that’s what they’ll get. Most of us have been up against these forces for years and we know there will be many scars to come.
 
We at the Common Sense Canadian see ourselves as an outlet for others which is why we make space available for people to express their views. I would urge you to look at the quantity and quality of regular contributors. I assure you that you’ll be impressed by those who regularly contribute – for free on a regular basis. We also encourage others to pitch a blog through our pages.
 
In the absence of a mainstream media we try to take their place.
 
The task we face is bigger than groups like us, and you who help us, have ever faced. The governments and large corporations are coming at us on a massive mission that will scar our wonderful province for all time.
 
Every time we blink another army appears – recently it’s been the “frackers” who, going deep in the ground, with a massive use of water which they pollute beyond repair in the process, to capture huge quantities of gas not available through traditional drilling methods. This hasn’t been presented to us the citizens who need to know the answers to many questions; where do you get the water? Is that water that could and should be going to farmers and hydro electric facilities? What happens to that water after its been blasted with great force during the “fracking” process? Does it get into the water table and become unsafe to drink?
 
These questions are wrapped up in the issue of Site “C”. Quite apart from the normal and serious environmental concerns, is this power going to be delivered to fracking operations, coal mines and the Tar Sands so that we use an environmental nightmare to assist the biggest polluters on the planet?
 
These and many other questions should be determined by our elected officials after thorough consultation with all citizens and after a thorough airing in the House of Commons and the BC Legislature.
 
The environmental processes in place are a terrible disgrace. I’ve said this before but I’d almost prefer a root canal without  anaesthetic than go to another. They are stacked. with all awkward questions being “out of order”, complete with a corporation-government cosiness that makes you want to vomit.
 
We can and do contribute to the common cause – just look at the great work my colleague Damien Gillis does with his camera and his insightful articles he does while I use my lungs and computer to try to get the message out. (To paraphrase the great Robert Benchley “it took me 15 years to learn that I couldn’t write but by that time I was too famous to quit.”)
 
As mentioned earlier, we the citizens face a force of environmental degradation, to the immense profit of outsiders who thus are unconcerned about environmental and, yes spiritual, matters with only the people as our soldiers. That won’t deter any of us but you can keep us in the fight with financial help.
 
Please join us, if you can, at my roast on Thursday at the Wise Hall 1882 Adanac Street where for $35 ($40 at the door) you can expect some very well known people give me the mickey as I enter my 9th decade.

Also, watch this coming Monday for the start of our Common Sense Canadian membership drive for – as we unveil our hip new t-shirt that promises to the must-have fashion item of 2012!

Share

Breaking: Workers Building Pacific Trails Gas Pipeline to Kitimat Evicted from Construction Site by First Nations

Share

The following is a press release from hereditary leaders of the Wet’suwet’en and Unist’hot’en Nations of Northwest BC:

November 15, 2011 – Setting up a road blockade with signs “Road
Closed to Pacific Trails Pipeline Drillers”, an alliance of the
Unist’ot’en and the Likhts’amisyu of the Wet’suwet’en Nation have
evicted and escorted out Pacific Trails Pipeline drillers and their
equipment.

According to Wet’suwet’en hereditary chief Toghestiy, “We evicted
Pacific Trails Pipeline drillers from our territory this weekend. The
drillers in one vehicle actually cheered for our blockade and one
driller told us ‘Nobody wants to see any pipelines in the North –
especially one that operates as dirty as this one. Have a good day guys
and good luck.’”

“Pacific Trails Pipeline had moved in equipment to do directional
drilling around Gosnell River where our salmon spawn. Their exploratory
drilling and whole pipeline proposal will spell certain disaster in the
Peace River area. We have to protect our sensitive aquifers from the
destruction of pipelines – from the Alberta Tar Sands to our side of the
Rocky Mountains. You cannot make compromises with the life-sustaining
force of water” continues Toghestiy.

Kloum Khun, a Likhts’amisyu hereditary Chief who also participated in
the blockade, said: “We had a sign that said ‘No Pipelines’ and pointed
it out to the drillers. We told them to take out all their equipment
from our territory.”

The Pacific Trails Pipeline, official known as the Kitimat Summit
Lake (KSL) gas pipeline, is a proposed natural gas pipeline that will
move upto 1 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from Summit Lake
near Prince George to Kitimat using an underground 36 inch diameter
pipeline with an 18-metre right of way on each side. Much of this
natural gas is acquired through the environmentally destructive process
of hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking. After processing, the
natural gas would be shipped in supertankers from ports in Kitamat to
the international market. In February 2011, Pacific Northern Gas sold
its stake in the project to the Apache Corporation and EOG Resources
(formerly Enron).

The Pacific Trails Pipeline has a similar proposed right-of-way as
Enbridge Pipeline in Wet’suwet’en territory. According to Toghestiy:
“Enbridge is using the fact that Pacific Trails is proposing the same
right of way as Enbridge to mitigate their own ecological footprint on
our territory.” During a May 2011 interview with Fox News, Enbridge CEO
Pat Daniel discussed Enbridge’s move into the natural gas market and the
possibility of “synergies” between the Enbridge’s Gateway Project and
the Pacific Trails Pipeline.

The $5.5-billion proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline would
carry 700,000 barrels of crude oil a day from Alberta to Kitimat. In
August 2010, representatives of Enbridge in Smithers, Michelle Perret
and Kevin Brown, received formal notice from Wet’suweten hereditary
chiefs Hagwilakw and Toghestiy that Enbridge did not have permission to
build a pipeline on their lands and was trespassing on unceded
Wet’suwet’en lands.

Freda Huson, a spokesperson for the Unist’ot’en Clan of the
Wet’suwet’en, says her community was not consulted about these proposed
pipelines: “The corporations never informed us or consulted us about
their plans. Pacific Trail Pipeline’s proposed route is through two main
salmon spawning channels which provide our staple food supply. We have
made the message clear to Enbridge and Pacific Trails and all of
industry: We cannot and will not permit any pipelines through our
territory.”

The Unist’ot’en Clan of the Wet’suwet’en participated in the First
and Second Indigenous Assembly Against Mining and Pipelines in BC. Says
Mel Bazil: “The plans of Christy Clark and the BC government to push
mining and pipeline developments into our territories will fail. We
reject the short-term interests of profit that motivates those mining
and pipeline developments that are trespassing on our unceded Indigenous
lands.

– 30 –

MEDIA CONTACTS:
Freda Huson: spokesperson for Unist’hot’en: (778)210-1100 or (250) 847-8897
Toghestiy: (250) 847- 8897
Kloum Khun’s: (250) 847-9673
Mel Bazil: 250-877-2805

Share

Hunting and Fracking Battle for State Lands in Pennsylvania

Share

Read this report from the New York Times on the invasion of prime hunting lands in Pennsylvania by the natural gas fracking industry.

“Some of this state’s most prized game lands lie atop the Marcellus Shale, a vast reserve of natural gas.
And now more and more drills are piercing the hunting grounds. Nine
wells have cropped up on this one game land of roughly 7,000 wooded
acres in Potter County, and permits have been issued for 19 more.

An old dirt road that meanders up a ridge here has been widened and
fortified. Acres of aspen, maple and cherry trees have been cut. In
their place is an industrial encampment of rigs, pipes and water-storage
ponds, all to support the extraction of natural gas through hydraulic
fracturing, a process known as fracking.

‘Who wants to go into their deer stand in the predawn darkness and
listen to a compressor station?’ lamented Bob Volkmar, 63, an
environmental scientist who went grouse hunting the other day through
these noisy autumnal woods. ‘It kind of ruins the experience.’”(Nov. 12, 2011)

Read full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/us/pennsylvania-hunting-and-fracking-vie-for-state-lands.html?_r=2

Share