All posts by Common Sense Canadian

Where Was the Climate in US Presidential Election? Ben West in the Huffington Post

Share

Read this column from Ben West in the Huffington Post on the lack of attention focused on climate and environmental issues in the recent US Presidential election and what that means for concerned Canadians. (Nov. 5, 2012)

“It’s global warming, stupid!” Believe it or not, that is what it says on the cover of Business Week right now. This is of course a reference to Bill Clinton’s internal campaign slogan from 1992 — “It’s the economy, stupid” — which was made famous by the documentary film The War Room. The slogan is a play on the old adage, “Keep it simple, stupid,” sometimes known as the “KISS” principle.

As Canadians, we are well aware that we are sleeping next to an elephant, and that the choices made by the American president have broad implications not only for Canada but for rest of the world.

Much to the chagrin of many conscientious Canadians, the implications of a changing climate were off the radar in the American election before Hurricane Sandy swept in. The topic was not raised even once during the 2012 U.S. presidential debates. You would think it would be a no brainer to talk about this issue, given that the United Nations has called climate change “the single biggest threat facing humanity today.”

This “climate silence” has perhaps been a reflection of the power of the fossil fuel industries in U.S. politics. In one of the debates, Obama and Romney actually fought over who was more supportive of the coal, oil and gas industries. Romney attacked Obama for stopping the Keystone XL pipeline and Obama responded by bragging that he had built enough pipeline during his presidency to “… wrap around the earth once.”

The fact checkers at Politifact checked it out and it’s true. Over 29,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines were built in the U.S. in the last four years; the circumference of the globe at the equator is a little less than 25,000 miles.

Even with that, Obama looks like a tree hugger compared to Romney, who is heavily backed by barons of the oil industry — like the infamous Koch brothers who are behind much of the junk science that still to this day is trying to undermine the international consensus that human activity is causing climate change.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ben-west/us-elections-climate-bc-canada-oil-gas-global-warming_b_2077627.html

Share

Potential LNG Energy Demands Stall Hydro’s Long-term Planning

Share

Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on BC Hydro’s inability to accurately plan for future energy demands given the enormous potential requirements of proposed Liquefied Natural Gas projects on BC’s coast. (Nov. 19, 2012)

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.
However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2CgqEklP7

WASHINGTON – Paula Broadwell, whose extramarital affair with CIA chief David Petraeus led to his resignation, is telling friends she is devastated by the fallout.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Petraeus+biographer+Paula+Broadwell+devastated+regrets+damage/7570658/story.html#ixzz2Cgpo5BTa

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2CgpT24MB

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2CgpT24MB

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2CgpIzrSC

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2Cgp7Y2oH

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2Cgp7Y2oH

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2Cgp7Y2oH

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2Cgp7Y2oH

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2Cgp7Y2oH

Share
A water pit for fracking on Fort Nelson First Nation territory

Audio: Damien Gillis Discusses Obama, FIPA and Water Licenses for Fracking on SFU Radio

Share

Damien Gillis and SFU Radio’s Sylvia Richardson discuss a wide range of energy topics – from the impact of Barack Obama’s recent presidential victory on North American climate and energy issues to the potential effects of the Chinese FIPA trade deal on Canada’s environment. The two also cover Fort Nelson First Nation’s campaign against long-term water licenses for shale gas extraction that would see billions of litres of fresh water taken from their rivers and contaminated. Listen to the conversation in three parts. (From Nov. 10, 2012)

Audio: How Obama’s Victory Affects Climate and Energy Issues in North America and Globally

Audio: Fort Nelson First Nation’s Campaign Against Massive Long-term Water Licenses for Shale Gas

 

Canada-China FIPA’s Impact on Energy and Environmental Issues in Canada

Learn more from Fort Nelson First Nation leaders about these water licenses and how you can support their efforts at a public dialogue in Vancouver on Tuesday Nov. 13 – details here.

Share
Stephen Harper shakes hands with China’s President Hu Jintao in Beijing on Feb. 9, 2012 (photo: Chris Wattie, Reuters)

How You Can Help Stop Ratification of Canada-China FIPA

Share

The FIPA Environmental Assessment is an important, official avenue to request the delay of the FIPA Order in Council

The vast implications of the now highly controversial Canada-China trade deal known as FIPA (Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement) are mind-boggling and Canadians have not had the time to fully comprehend what we are being entered into by our federal government.

Numerous campaigns have been launched to bring attention to the issue and prevent ratification of the agreement – most involving online petitions.

Yet there is an official avenue for public opposition that has been largely missed and presents a clear path to delaying FIPA or even preventing its ratification.

The Conservative government must pass an Order in Council in order to facilitate ratification. This is done at the cabinet table.

If you act now and submit your feedback outlining the grave concerns and serious shortcomings in the FIPA Environmental Assessment process, which is still active and open, we may be able to convince cabinet to delay the Order in Council until the pivotal Environmental Assessment is properly undertaken and completed.

You have until Remembrance Day, November 11, 2012, to file your letter with the FIPA EA and we encourage you to copy all Federal Cabinet members and BC Conservative MPs with your submission.

YOU MUST ACT NOW.

We have provided below a short form letter including some key FIPA concerns for your consideration.

We have also provided below a list of the Conservative members of Cabinet who will be deliberating the enabling Order in Council and their email contacts – as well all BC Conservative MPs and their contacts, for our readers in British Columbia.

Simply copy and paste them into your email to ensure they are copied on your submission, and email to EAconsultationsEE@international.gc.ca by Nov. 11.

——————————————————

Sample FIPA EA Submission

To Environmental Assessments of Trade Agreements,

I am copying Conservative MPs and Cabinet Members on this brief submission to the Final Environmental Assessment of the Canada-China FIPA.

I am submitting these comments to the Final EA before the November 11th deadline to request an extension for this important process, while urging cabinet to delay the FIPA-enabling Order in Council until the serious concerns outlined in this letter and by many other Canadians have been properly addressed.

It has been confirmed that no public input has been received over the 11-year FIPA EA process, including two separate month-long periods requesting feedback from stakeholders and the general public.

The conclusions of the Final EA and its public consultation and engagement practices reveal a great number of shortcomings – which draw into question the need for this agreement, while raising dire concerns of how it came about and grave reservations with respect to its recommendations.

It is stated in the Final EA analysis that FIPA will not result in any investment, nor will it impact the environment.

Given these conclusions, and the lopsided risk-benefit analysis provided by credible independent analysts, I am requesting that the FIPA EA process be extended to include a review of these contradictory analyses and conclusions.

I also believe the domestic consultations and engagement were not properly conducted, resulting in no feedback or input. The recent outpouring of public concern clearly suggests this lack of EA submissions does not accurately reflect the level of public concern about the issue. Therefore, I also request the opportunity to revisit and extend this vital component of the Environmental Assessment.

The Canada-China FIPA is of concern for a number of reasons, which have been raised through recent independent, expert analysis. These concerns include:

  • FIPA works to ‘lock in” the much diminished environmental regulatory regime recently ushered in by the Harper Omnibus Bill C-38, the full impacts of which have yet to be seen or understood
  • FIPA potentially negates the ability of government to legislate changes in environmental regulations, royalty rates, subsidies and any other laws that impact profitability
  • FIPA has serious constitutional implications which could have grave impacts on the environment, economy and Canadian sovereignty
  • The FINAL FIPA EA was to be included and available at the end of negotiations in February, yet no public comment has been included during the entire 11 years of negotiations
  • FIPA may have serious ramifications on the Treaty Process and on constitutional obligations to consult and accommodate First Nations where their traditional territories, resources and cultural practices are at risk from industrial development

I would like these issues addressed before Cabinet considers the FIPA OIC. Therefore, a delay in Cabinet deliberation of the OIC is imperative.

Sincerely,

Concerned Citizen

——————————————————

Send your letter to this address: EAconsultationsEE@international.gc.ca

It is important that you also copy Cabinet – in addition, you may wish to include your MP or the full list from BC:

Cabinet (full list):

diane.ablonczy@parl.gc.ca,leona.aglukkaq@parl.gc.ca, rona.ambrose@parl.gc.ca, keith.ashfield@parl.gc.ca, john.baird@parl.gc.ca, maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca, steven.blaney@parl.gc.ca, ron.cannan@parl.gc.ca, michael.chong@parl.gc.ca, tony.clement@parl.gc.ca, john.duncan@parl.gc.ca, julian.fantino@parl.gc.ca, ed.fast@parl.gc.ca, diane.finley@parl.gc.ca, jim.flaherty@parl.gc.ca, steven.fletcher@parl.gc.ca, gary.goodyear@parl.gc.ca, Bal.Gosal@parl.gc.ca, stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca, laurie.hawn@parl.gc.ca, jason.kenney@parl.gc.ca, peter.kent@parl.gc.ca, mike.lake@parl.gc.ca, denis.lebel@parl.gc.ca, peter.mackay@parl.gc.ca, ted.menzies@parl.gc.ca, rob.merrifield@parl.gc.ca, james.moore@parl.gc.ca, rob.moore@parl.gc.ca, rob.nicholson@parl.gc.ca, gordon.oconnor@parl.gc.ca, Joe.Oliver@parl.gc.ca, christian.paradis@parl.gc.ca, Peter.Penashue@parl.gc.ca, lisa.raitt@parl.gc.ca, gerry.ritz@parl.gc.ca, andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca, gail.shea@parl.gc.ca, vic.toews@parl.gc.ca, tim.uppal@parl.gc.ca, Bernard.Valcourt@parl.gc.ca, peter.vanloan@parl.gc.ca, alice.wong@parl.gc.ca, lynne.yelich@parl.gc.ca

BC MPs:

Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca, ron.cannan@parl.gc.ca, john.duncan@parl.gc.ca, ed.fast@parl.gc.ca, Kerry-Lynne.Findlay@parl.gc.ca, nina.grewal@parl.gc.ca, richard.harris@parl.gc.ca, russ.hiebert@parl.gc.ca, randy.kamp@parl.gc.ca, james.lunney@parl.gc.ca, colin.mayes@parl.gc.ca, cathy.mcleod@parl.gc.ca, james.moore@parl.gc.ca, andrew.saxton@parl.gc.ca, Mark.Strahl@parl.gc.ca, mark.warawa@parl.gc.ca, john.weston@parl.gc.ca, David.Wilks@parl.gc.ca, alice.wong@parl.gc.ca, Wai.Young@parl.gc.ca, Bob.Zimmer@parl.gc.ca

By riding:

Share

Tsleil-Waututh First Nation Encourages Public to Take Part in Upcoming Kinder Morgan Open Houses

Share

Check out this media advisory from the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation of North Vancouver, urging the public to get involved in pipeline builder Kinder Morgan’s upcoming open houses to discuss their proposed new pipeline to Vancouver and dramatic increase in oil tanker traffic. (Nov. 1, 2012)

Nation warns that sessions may be the only official forum for public to voice concerns

NORTH VANCOUVER, BC, Nov. 1, 2012 /CNW/ – Tsleil-Waututh Nation is calling on Lower Mainland residents and all British Columbians to attend and respectfully voice their concerns at the upcoming Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline information sessions. These sessions may be the only formal opportunity for residents to let the company know what they think of its pipeline proposal.

As part of its Trans Mountain pipeline application process, Kinder Morgan will have to demonstrate public support through consultation and engagement with communities that may be impacted by their proposal.

“It is crucial that residents attend these open houses. Unless the public voices its concerns through this forum, their silence may be deemed as consent,” says Chief Justin George, Tsleil-Waututh Nation. “We call on all people to make their voices heard.”

Kinder Morgan is releasing dates for upcoming open houses, and has announced dates and locations for the following Lower Mainland communities:

 

According to Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain website, a Burnaby session should be held between November 19 and 25. Dates and details for other communities will likely also be announced through that site: http://talk.transmountain.com/key_date/index/1.

While these forums may be the only mechanism for the general public to officially voice their concerns, Tsleil-Waututh will not be attending. As a sovereign government, Tsleil-Waututh holds title and rights protected under the Canadian Constitution and will not participate bilaterally with Kinder Morgan in any process that may be legally styled at some point as “consultation” with respect to the pipeline project and its approval processes.

Governments have a legal obligation to consult with First Nations. Tsleil-Waututh expects informed, meaningful government-to-government consultation on the Trans Mountain pipeline proposal. The Nation is clear that the federal government cannot entirely delegate its legal obligation to consult and accommodate First Nations to third parties such as Kinder Morgan.

“Our constitutionally recognized rights and title empower our voice, and we will exercise these rights in favour of a healthy environment and sustainable economy,” continues Chief Justin George. “People from all backgrounds enjoy Vancouver’s great quality of life and we need to unite to protect this environment for all of our future generations. It will take all of us, each voicing our opposition through the channels available to us, to stop this pipeline. When we work together with one heart, one mind, and one spirit great things can happen.”

Tsleil-Waututh is adamantly opposed to Kinder Morgan’s proposed pipeline project. The Nation has experienced the results of crude oil handling and refining on Burrard Inlet for a number of decades. The risks associated with the pipeline expansion are just too great for its people to accept.

Read more: http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1063071/tsleil-waututh-calls-on-lower-mainland-residents-to-participate-in-upcoming-kinder-morgan-pipeline-info-sessions

Share

New York Mayor Bloomberg Endorses Obama Over Hurricane Sandy, Climate Change

Share

Read this story from the New York Times on New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s last-minute, surprise endorsement of Barack Obama for president – citing Hurricane Sandy and his sense that Barack Obama will more seriously address the growing challenge of climate change. (Nov. 1, 2012)

In a surprise announcement, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said Thursday that Hurricane Sandy had reshaped his thinking about the presidential campaign and that as a result, he was endorsing President Obama.

Mr. Bloomberg, a political independent in his third term leading New York City, has been sharply critical of Mr. Obama, a Democrat, and Mitt Romney, the president’s Republican rival, saying that both men had failed to candidly confront the problems afflicting the nation. But he said he had decided over the past several days that Mr. Obama was the better candidate to tackle the global climate change that he believes might have contributed to the violent storm, which took the lives of at least 38 New Yorkers and caused billions of dollars in damage.

“The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the Northeast — in lost lives, lost homes and lost business — brought the stakes of next Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief,” Mr. Bloomberg wrote in an editorial for Bloomberg View.

“Our climate is changing,” he wrote. “And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it may be — given the devastation it is wreaking — should be enough to compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.”

Mr. Bloomberg’s endorsement is another indication that Hurricane Sandy has influenced the presidential campaign. The storm and the destruction it left in its wake have dominated news coverage, transfixing the nation and prompting the candidates to halt their campaigning briefly.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/nyregion/bloomberg-endorses-obama-saying-hurricane-sandy-affected-decision.html?hp&_r=1&

Share

Kinder Morgan Debate: Risk vs. Reward Equation of Pipeline, Tanker Expansion Doesn’t Add Up

Share

Read this story from CKNW on the recent debate held in Vancouver over Kinder Morgan’s proposal to build a new pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to Burrard Inlet, resulting in a drastic increase in oil tanker traffic. (Oct. 30, 2012)

Risk is part of the equation for Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion project, but it can be managed.

That was the message from SMIT Marine Canada president Frans Tjallingii.

He argued in favour of the project at a debate Tuesday evening at UBC Robson Square.

“I think there’s always going to be a certain level of risk, but it’s about evaluating what that risk is and taking mitigating measures and then improving on those measures as we go along. Not waiting for accidents to happen, but also learning from things that are not yet an incident and improving on that basis.”

Those arguing against the pipeline said they didn’t doubt those in favour of the project would try to make it as safe as possible.

They just said they doubted protective measures would ultimately prevent an environmental catastrophe.

Documentary filmmaker Damien Gillis was on the panel opposing the pipeline expansion.

He says even from a financial perspective, the plan doesn’t make sense.

“I look at the risk versus reward. Still, I’m unpersuaded and I don’t think I will be at this point.”

Gillis says if there was an oil spill as a result of increased tanker traffic the cost could be up to $40-billion.

And as for the “Greenest City in the World” ambitions?

He says the project could lead to the city kissing that dream goodbye.

Read original story: http://www.cknw.com/news/vancouver/story.aspx/story.aspx?ID=1800236

Share

Mike Smyth: NDP Have a Fracking Problem

Share

Read this column by the Province’s Mike Smyth on the NDP’s confusing position on fracking – the controversial natural gas extraction method. (Oct. 21, 2012)

There’s still some mystery around the science and practice of fracking, a system of drilling for natural gas that’s become more and more controversial in recent years.

But trying to figure out where Adrian Dix and the NDP stand on the issue? Well, that’s one of the biggest fracking mysteries in B.C. politics right now.

Let’s start with what fracking – short for “hydraulic fracturing”- is and how it works in B.C.

Fracking involves sinking a deep, narrow well into the earth and bedrock and pumping tonnes of fluids – about 99 per cent water – down the pipe at very high pressures.

The pressurized fluid cracks the rock at the bottom of pipe, releasing the natural gas trapped within it.

This technological breakthrough has opened up a large and rapidly growing natural-gas industry in northeastern B.C., which Premier Christy Clark and her governing Liberals want to expand.

But environmentalists such as David Suzuki are sounding the alarm, warning about toxic waste water, accidental spills, contaminated drinking water and even increased risk of earthquakes.

Some environmental groups have demanded an all-out ban or moratorium on fracking in B.C., which the Liberals say would cost thousands of jobs and billions in investment.

So where does the NDP stand on it? It all depends who you talk to.

John Horgan, the NDP energy critic, said the New Democrats support an expanded natural-gas industry. But he also said an NDP government would set up an independent scientific panel to study the risks.

Could that scientific review lead to a moratorium on fracking in B.C., like the one just imposed in Quebec?

“You can’t rule out anything,” Horgan told me.

“I wouldn’t rule it out if the evidence is we need to do that [a moratorium]. But I haven’t seen that evidence yet, and that’s why we need to have a scientific assessment.”

But while Horgan tells me a fracking moratorium is possible, NDP leader Adrian Dix tells the industry a moratorium won’t happen.

Dix told oil-and-gas executives at a private meeting last month that an NDP government would not introduce a moratorium on frack-ing, leaving them “pleasantly surprised,” government-relations consultant David Heyman reported in a recent newsletter.

When I sought clarification from the NDP, I was referred to environment critic Rob Fleming, who at first assured me there would be no moratorium.

“You’d have to wind the clock back – there’s activity already going on all over,” he said.

But when I inform him that Horgan told me a moratorium is possible, Fleming changed his mind.

“The review comes first, and if it identifies risk from fracking activity that’s not known now, then he [Horgan] is correct,” Fleming said.

For those of you scoring along at home: that’s the NDP leader saying one thing, the energy critic saying another, and the environment critic saying both.

Read more: http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=48ea4881-04b3-4516-8dd5-361f42fe19f6&p=1

Share
Port Metro Vancouver illustration of Deltaport and proposed Terminal 2

No Economic Need for Terminal 2 at Roberts Bank

Share

by Susan Jones

The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, commonly known as Port Metro Vancouver (PMV), is moving forward with plans to extensively dredge the environmentally-sensitive estuary of the Fraser River to build another man-made island for a new terminal with 3 container berths.  The island will be 115 hectares (284 acres) plus an intermodal yard and a widened causeway with road and rail expansions.  The Project will impact 210 hectares (519 acres) of internationally-significant fish and wildlife habitat at Roberts Bank.  There is no economic or environmental justification for Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) to proceed with these plans.

Port Metro Vancouver claims:

B.C. Container traffic is expected to double over the next 10 to 15 years (2.9 to 5.8 million TEUs)

– Throughput for PMV and Prince Rupert will almost triple (i.e. 9M TEUs) by 2030

However looking at the facts:

Port Metro Vancouver experienced zero net growth in TEUs from 2007 to 2011, with a 14% decrease in 2009.  PMV has been handling about 2.5 million TEUs annually since 2007 with 2.1 in 2009.  There has been little growth in demand for several years. The world economic situation for containers is uncertain.  PMV needs to justify the growth forecasts.

– Prince Rupert is an expanding container port which handled .4 million TEUs in 2011.

– Existing BC port facilities are operating at about 60% of utilization – PMV is operating at about 57% utilization.  Approximately 70% of laden containers coming to the Lower Mainland are destined for elsewhere in Canada.  Approximately 10% are destined to the United States and 20% are B.C. bound.

– If there is growth, PMV and Prince Rupert have plenty of capacity without building a second terminal at Roberts Bank.  With improved efficiencies and planned expansions in the inner harbour and Prince Rupert, the ports will be equipped to handle 9 million TEUs by 2020 and at least 11 million by 2030.    This level of capacity can meet PMV’s most aggressive forecasts for 2030 container traffic.  This is all without Terminal 2 at Roberts Bank.

– A double increase would require a Compound Annual Growth (CAGR) of 7% which is not happening. The current CAGR is less than 2%

– A study commissioned by Port Metro Vancouver shows the PMV is looking at the highest case scenario of growth which is unrealistic:Preliminary Container Traffic Projections for Port Metro Vancouver: 2011 to 2030 – May 27, 2011 by Worley Parsons Canada.

– The current PMV statement is based on the “high case” forecast.  To date, PMV has not even realized the “low case” forecasts.

– The “low case” projection for 2011 was 3.02 million TEUs for PMV and Prince Rupert.  The actual business for 2011 was 2.9 million TEUs (2.5 for PMV and .4 for Prince Rupert).

– The lowest case projections for the Deltaport Third Berth in 2006 have not been realized.  PMV forecast 2.8 to 3.5 million TEUs by 2010.  This has still not been achieved.

Deltaport Third Berth Project Comprehensive Study Report, July 2006, page 37:  The following forecasts, in TEUs, for the Vancouver Port Area, are set out in Table 6:  

Note: These figures do not include Prince Rupert.  In 2010 and 2011 PMV handled 2.5 million TEUs, well below the lowest cast forecast of 2.8 million TEUs.  In fact, PMV handled 2.5 million TEUs annually from 2007 until 2011 (with a drop to 2.1 in 2009).  It appears that there will be some increase in 2012 but still the compound annual growth will only be 2%.

– The Worley Parsons Study of 2008 made forecasts of 5.53 million TEUs to 7.87 million TEUs by 2030 for Port Metro Vancouver terminals (does not include Prince Rupert).  There is already capacity to handle 5 million TEUs in BC.  With planned upgrades at Centerm and efficiency improvements, the capacity can easily reach 7.8 million TEUs by 2030.  The Port of Prince Rupert has capacity for 750,000 TEUs with plans for 2 expansions which will increase capacity to 2 million TEUs and up to 5 million TEUs respectively.

Prince Rupert and Port Metro Vancouver can build to a capacity of 11 to 12 million TEUS by 2030, without ever building Terminal 2.  With a current need for 2.5 to 3 million TEUs, there are plenty of options for gradual growth, if it occurs.

– The Worley Parsons Study of 2008 did not:

  • study in any depth the impact that Prince Rupert port will have on demand in Vancouver
  • consider a scenario of continued lower growth due to the global economic situation
  • explore options for enhancing supply of terminal capacity at the existing Vancouver terminals
  • compare the economic and environmental costs of various options for capacity expansion in the region

– The results of the May 2011 Worley Parsons container traffic study have been over-stated to try and justify the need for Terminal 2.

– The market study by Worley Parsons is inadequate to justify a $2 billion project

– Alternatives can be undertaken at dramatically lower economic and environmental costs

– Economically it is cheaper, and environmentally sensible, to carry out earlier plans for expansions at Centerm and perhaps Vanterm in the deep sea Vancouver harbour before dredging internationally significant habitat at Roberts Bank in the Fraser River estuary.

– Terminal 2 at Roberts Bank is estimated to cost $2 to $2.5 billion.  Port Metro Vancouver requested bids in 2008 and selected a joint venture between APM Terminals North America and SNC-Lavalin (APM Terminals/SNC-Lavalin), as the preferred proponent for the Terminal 2.  None of the bidders was willing to fully fund the project and Port Metro Vancouver may have to find at least $1 billion to fund the project.

– Funding Terminal 2 initial works without operator commitment opens huge new risks for PMV, including unlimited cost exposure, unfair competition claims and unaccountable use of public assets.

– Currently there are about 600,000 containers (TEUs) going through BC ports that are US bound. If the same US/Canada mix applies going forward this could increase to as much as 1.6 mill TEUs. The US has already expressed concerns about BC ports handling US traffic. It could be argued that T2 is being justified solely on the US bound traffic.

– Port Metro Vancouver is moving forward with the Terminal 2 Project without a proper cost/benefit analysis and without credibly considering alternatives.

– Worldwide there is a new focus on shorter logistics chains to reduce the environmental footprint.  The newly dredged and enlarged Panama Canal is scheduled to open in 2015 which will dramatically affect the container trade business on the west coast of North America.

– The new Panama Canal will be the epicenter of a strategic supply chain shift. According to Jones Lang Lasalle, 25% of imports currently coming through the West Coast could shift to East Coast ports as a direct result of the Canal expansion. In fact, the firm cites the Panama Canal as one of the five most compelling change agents in the supply chain going forward. Port Metro Vancouver could therefore lose as much as 600,000 TEUs annually.

– Canadian West Coast container business is important and should be executed with overall planning of best options.  Instead, Port Metro Vancouver competes with Prince Rupert and favours Roberts Bank over the other lower mainland ports, namely Vanterm, Centerm and Surrey Fraser Docks.  PMV also fails to form partnerships with inland terminals which provide ample industrial land.  Ashcroft Terminals is a viable option which is a crossover area for CP and CN railways and it has plenty of industrial land with appropriate infrastructure.

– Port Metro Vancouver is ignoring recommendations from a 2008 study commissioned by David Emerson, federal Minister of Trade, Asia Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative: Strategic Advisor Report:

  • “We recommend that the development of a system of inland terminals as on overall strategy to serve the following purposes:” The document provides 7 purposes including the fact that this would reduce truck traffic and port congestion. (p. 21)
  • “We recommend that policy makers develop container capacity in Prince Rupert before making investments in Vancouver, beyond what have been announced to date. We believe that capacity can be expanded in Prince Rupert relatively quickly and such a strategy will allow time for Vancouver to develop solutions to its congestion.” (p. 12)
  • “We recommend that the ability of ports to finance expansion be reviewed…there must be an appropriate ability to finance this development, for it includes a significant element of risk.  The current structure and rules regarding the financing of ports are completely inadequate.” (p.12)

Port Metro Vancouver is ignoring warnings from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that:  “there was no possible amount of mitigation projects they could envisage that would compensate for the environmental damage that T2 would cause.” (source:2007 pre-bid meeting for T2)

Terminal 2 at Roberts Bank makes no economic sense and public assets will be exploited to fund an environmental disaster with the wilful destruction of orca, salmon and migratory bird habitat.

Susan Jones is a longtime Tsawwassen resident and researcher on issues related to port and highway expansion in Metro Vancouver.

Share

Global Video: Thousands Rally in Victoria for ‘Defend Our Coast’

Share

Check out this video from Global TV on yesterday’s “Defend Our Coast” rally at the Legislature in Victoria, which drew thousands to voice their opposition to oil pipelines and tankers in BC’s waters. (Oct. 22, 2012)

A giant black banner, measuring 235 metres, encircles the grounds of the B.C. Legislature in Victoria Monday afternoon. It symbolizes the size of a Aframax super tanker off B.C.’s coast, and took hundreds of people to carry it around the lawn.

An estimated crowd of 2500 is in Victoria on Monday at the ‘Defend Our Coast’ rally and sit-in against the proposed Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipelines.

“Thank you regular people of British Columbia for standing with us because it is through your efforts that we are winning this fight,” says Chief Jackie Thomas with the Saik’uz First Nation.

People from all over the province and from all walks of life are lending their support to the cause.

An 11 year old Saltspring Island resident at the rally says, “A lot of animals will die and [it] will destroy all the nature,”

The crowd was revived by songs and chants such as “No Enbridge, No Kinder Morgan.”

“Looking at this diverse and beautiful crowd I’m just filled with inspiration,” says Clayton Thomas-Muller of the Mathias Colomb Cree Nation.

“We know they’re never going to build these pipelines and they’re never going to bring these tankers in.”

Share