Category Archives: Oil&Gas

photo by Mark Brooks

Shades of Green: The Keystone XL Protests and the Occupy Movement

Share

The protest against the 2,763 km Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands to America’s Gulf States’ oil refineries are driven by a deeper concern than risk to Nebraska’s Sand Hills region and its underlying Ogallala aquifer. The same applies to The worldwide Occupy movement, too, is motivated by a deeper concern than unregulated banking practices and the growing disparity between rich and poor.

This deeper concern could be interpreted as criticism of the industrial and financial institutions that comprise the economic engines of our modern age. But even this is not deep enough. Both protests, it seems, have their deepest common cause in a loss of confidence in the system itself, a foreboding created by repeated warnings of profound environmental transformations that could traumatize our present civilization.

Granted, not everyone articulates this foreboding. But decades of multiple environmental warnings have been eroding confidence in a system that seems more interested in its own success than the ecological havoc it is causing. The cumulative effect of these warnings is a growing sense of anxiety and pessimism. Some people respond by entrenching their faith in the system and doing what they have always done; others are challenging the system by demanding change.

One of the forces behind the Keystone XL pipeline protests, for example, is an organization called 350.org. It contends that the continual burning of oil – especially the “dirty” oil of the Alberta tar sands – is environmental folly. Developing the tar sands simply entrenches an indefinite commitment to oil and prevents the necessary shift toward clean, renewable energies. 350.org believes that our reliance on fossil fuels is untenable so it is “defusing the carbon bomb” – 44 percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from coal, 36 percent from oil and 20 percent from natural gas. Atmospheric carbon dioxide has now reached 393 parts per million from a historical level of 280 ppm, climate stability can only be assured at 350 ppm, and emissions are on a course for 450 ppm, a concentration that could reach the feared “tipping point” beyond which our planet’s ecology would shift into uncontrollable warming.

Science supports this prediction. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that by 2015, given our present global emission rates, we will have lost 90 percent of our safety margin for avoiding this tipping point. By 2017, without radical reductions in greenhouse gases, we will have reached this point. So, for 350.org, stopping the Keystone XL pipeline is literally a life-or-death issue. The next struggle will be to stop the Northern Gateway pipeline, a project by transnational corporations that intends to export Alberta’s tar sands oil from BC’s West Coast to Asia.

The Occupy movement is responding differently to the same foreboding. It implicates transnational corporations in a wide range of social, financial and environmental wrongs. While these corporations have generated considerable global wealth, they have done so by exploiting the disadvantaged at the expense of everyone else – the earnings of the world’s middle class have remained almost unchanged since the 1970s. Meanwhile, income of the wealthiest 1 percent has increased manyfold – the average 2009 income for each CEO of the 500 largest corporations was $8 million.

The Occupy movement also blames financial corporations for the Great Recession of 2008, the consequences of which are still echoing around the planet. The trillions of dollars borrowed by countries to shore up their banks and avert a financial collapse became an excessive burden on precarious economies already stressed by debt.

The other wrong that motivates the Occupy movement is the undue political and economic influence held by transnational corporations. Indeed, this influence is deemed so powerful that most nations equate economic health with corporate health. Meanwhile, these corporations show no allegiance to any particular nation – they invest where the constraints are lowest and the profits are highest. An analysis by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of the interlocking relationships of the world’s 43,000 transnational corporations revealed that a core of 1,318 controlled 80 percent of the world’s operating revenue. Within this core, 147 controlled 40 percent of all wealth (New Scientist, www.bit.ly/onkFR2). So these corporations own at least this share of the record 30.6 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases emitted in 2010.

Meanwhile, transnational corporate investments continue in oil, gas and coal, helped by global government subsidies in 2010 of $470 billion. To the many billions already invested in the Alberta tar sands, an estimated $253 billion will be spent over the next 25 years. The $7 billion to build the Keystone XL pipeline is an extension of this investment. So, too, is the $5.5 billion for the 1,172 km Northern Gateway proposal. Then add the multiple LNG plants proposed for coastal BC. The Sacred Headwaters of the Skeena, Nass and Stikine Rivers in central BC, described by the renowned ethnobiologist Wade Davis as a world wilderness treasure, will be trashed by the planned gas, oil and mining industrial development there. Corporate salmon farms operate with the same intrusive aggression. Indeed, few places on Earth can escape corporate capital and its hunger to exploit resources and feed its market.

A growing number of critics now recognize this trend as pathological and dangerous – and others are beginning to recognize their complicity. This is the awareness that is motivating the Keystone XL protesters. The global Occupy movement is motivated by a similar awareness. Its action was inspired by a single question posed in Vancouver’s Adbusters magazine: “What is our one demand?” Both protest groups would probably agree that a complicated answer is coalescing into a few simple words: “Give us back our countries, our democracies and our planet.”

Share

BREAKING: Sun back-pedals on Gitxsan – First Nation Considers Firing Renegade Bureaucrat Who Made Illegitimate Deal with Enbridge!

Share

Read this follow-up correction story from The Vancouver Sun, setting the record straight after their erroneous Friday front-page story reporting that the Gitxsan First Nation had struck a deal with Enbridge regarding the company’s highly controversial proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline. As The Sun now reports, the only deal with Enbridgre was made by a lone rogue bureaucrat from the band’s treaty negotiation office and had no official support from the hereditary or elected leadership of the nation. The story reports leaders of the nation are considering firing the perpetrator of the illegitimate deal, one Elmer Derrick.

VANCOUVER — Two chiefs of the Gitxsan First Nation in northern B.C.
said they are “in shock and embarrassed” after Enbridge announced Friday
that the aboriginal community had become an equity partner in its
embattled Northern Gateway pipeline proposal.

Norman Stephens and
Marjorie McRae said they have the support of most of the other 63 chiefs
and the rest of the First Nation in denouncing Friday’s agreement
announced by Enbridge and Hereditary Chief Elmer Derrick. Friday’s deal
was projected to bring at least $7 million to the community.

“The
majority of the hereditary chiefs didn’t know that this nonsense was
coming — we didn’t even know he was negotiating with them,” said
Stephens, also a hereditary chief who goes by the traditional name
Guuhadawk. “The hereditary chiefs did not know about it and are opposed
to it.

“The claimed $7-million benefit shouldn’t even be a part of
it because it goes nowhere to compensate the Gitxsan for any damage to
our fishing stocks if there was a spill.”
(Dec. 4, 2011)

Share
Chief Art Sterritt of the Coastal First Nations sets the record straight at a recent press conference

Why First Nations are undeniably united against pipelines, tankers…and the Sun is full of crap

Share
Chief Art Sterritt of the Coastal First Nations sets the record straight at a recent press conference
Art Sterritt of the Coastal First Nations sets the record straight at a recent press conference

Editor’s Note: Since the publication of this editorial, The Vancouver Sun has published a form of a correction story on its front page Monday – though no mention of the mistakes it made with its Saturday headline story.

There is a reason – a big reason – chiefs of all First Nations in line to be adversely affected by oil pipelines and tanker traffic are so stubborn. You see, they understand that the consequences can be summed up by the words “certain catastrophe”. These little words sum up why Prime Minister Harper and Premier “photo-op” Clark are getting no traction with bribes in exchange for pipelines and tankers.

My colleague, Damien Gillis and I attended a press conference last Thursday called by First Nations who would be impacted by scheduled pipelines and tankers to outline their “Save the Fraser Declaration” – a document that leaves no doubt about their unified opposition to these proposals. In all, 131 nations have now signed on.

Moreover, this declaration almost certainly will be signed in the near future by the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation, who face the proposed expansion of KinderMorgan’s pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to the their traditional territory on the Burrard Inlet. The Tsleil-Waututh first came out against the company’s plans – which could see up to 300 supertankers loaded with Alberta bitumen plying the waters of Vancouver – in a press release last month.

On this point, the Tsleil-Waututh’s Community Development Director, Rueben George (grandson of Canadian hero Chief Dan George) strongly intimated that his group will soon endorse the Fraser Declaration, once they’ve completed due process within their community. I have no doubt that the federal approval of KinderMorgan’s ability to export more oil from the line, arrogantly coming along side Thursday’s press conference, will guarantee the expected response from First Nations in and around the Burrard Inlet.

When the Tsleil-Waututh do sign on to the Fraser Declaration, that will formally unite the battles against both proposed pipeline projects in BC, drawing together an unprecedented alliance of First Nations and non-indigenous supporters around the province.

A couple of weeks ago there was an article in the business section of The Globe and Mail, where Art Sterritt, Executive Director of the Coastal First Nations, was quoted in a manner that suggested that perhaps the First Nations might bend on the pipelines if the environmental studies warranted it: “’If we could have a fresh start and were able to build a good relationship, the Coastal First Nations might be willing to take another look at the project,’ Art Sterritt, the group’s executive director, said in an interview. ‘That wouldn’t mean we would necessarily come out and agree with it, but we would certainly take a closer look at it.’”

At Thursday’s press conference, Damien gave Mr. Sterritt an opportunity to address that article and the way his words and Coastal First Nations’ position were presented within. The chief responded that he had been quoted out if context and the nations he represents were unequivocally opposed to the pipelines. Without diminishing the comments of others, Chief Sterritt’s uncompromising words were among the strongest of the day and left no doubt that no pipelines or tanker traffic will pass through lands and waters claimed by First Nations. “Tanker traffic is banned from the Great Bear Rainforest, from the Great Bear Sea. It will never happen,” Sterritt declared to the assembled press gallery.

Chief Sterritt’s words should be paid careful attention; since you can have all the pipelines in the world but if the oil can’t be taken by tanker to its destination, or if permitted to do so, can’t ship it out, there’s no point building pipelines. It’s a football game with one goal post and end zone missing – there can be no “game”.

As a bit of a cynic I had wondered if what we were seeing were negotiations and Enbridge was considering a counter-offer that First Nations would accept. After this press conference, my cynicism left and I’m convinced that it’s not a matter of negotiation but a clear statement that the issue is not negotiable, no matter what the final bribe might be offered.

This point cannot be over-emphasized, given the poverty in many bands. Unlike what we see in other segments of Canadian society, many First Nations are putting culture and the future of their children ahead of bribes – no matter what the amount is.

There’s been concern expressed – by me as well as others – that at the end of the day the northern pipelines and tanker traffic might not happen because the KinderMorgan line, which already brings unrefined oil to Vancouver Harbour, will be expanded so as to allow it to take more Tar Sands bitumen, thus making the northern lines unnecessary. Rueben George of the Tsleil-Waututh, while he is still canvassing his members, stated firmly that there would be no Tar Sands gunk passing in or through First Nations land.

I have a couple of personal observations – just why the Campbell/Clark government would grant Taseko Mines the right to start construction on its Prosperity Mine before it had been approved by the federal authorities is utterly beyond me. Talk about throwing gasoline onto the fire! This displays – as if any further proof were necessary – the insensitivity and arrogance of a government that has badly lost its way. That insensitivity and arrogance came out in the aboriginal writ hearing for an injunction against Taseko drilling and road construction – which the First Nation thankfully won this past Friday.

Leaving aside First Nations, why on earth would any government want to inflict huge environmental catastrophes on British Columbia? Is the answer to that they simply don’t give a damn about it? Is it as the late mayor of Vancouver Gerry McGeer said, “It’s only 2500 miles from Vancouver to Ottawa but it’s 25,000 miles from Ottawa to Vancouver.”?

Finally, a warning to both senior governments and the corporations involved – unpleasantness unto violence can clearly be seen ahead if these propositions are not quickly buried. Given the insensitivity and arrogance that has marked this issue, rising hostility from First Nations can be expected. I simply don’t see any common ground – it’s a dispute incapable of any “middle” ground settlement. And probably it always was.

Don’t get me wrong – I haven’t heard anything, not a soupcon of suggestion, of violence from First Nations, I simply raise the question: Given this solidarity by First Nations every inch of the way from the Tar Sands to and down the coast of BC, what other outcome can anyone with a modicum of intelligence expect if the companies, blessed by our political leaders, try to push ahead?

Postscript

Since penning the above, we get absolute proof of the bias of the Vancouver media, especially the Sun.

Friday’s paper contained a lone article, buried in the BC Business section, on the historic declaration by over 130 First Nations opposing the Enbridge pipelines from the Tar Sands to Kitimat down our perilous and beautiful coast destined for China. Saturday’s paper, by contrast, bore a full front-page story, with a whole series of related features, trumpeting, “Gitxsan Supports Enbridge Pipeline – First Nation to Generate $7 Million as Equity Partner.”

The Vancouver Sun gave its front page to ONE First Nation that had allegedly signed with Enbridge. But within hours of the story breaking on Friday, the hereditary and band chiefs of the Gitxsan had come out blasting the story and setting the record straight. Turns out it wasn’t the First Nation partnering with Enbridge, but rather a single man – one Elmer Derrick – who is not even a chief but a representative of the Nation’s treaty negotiation office! [Ed. correction: Mr. Derrick is one among some 60 hereditary chiefs of the Gitxsan, in addition to his role as a treaty negotiator]

Here’s some of what his own chiefs said about the situation in a press release on Friday:

“The Gitxsan people are outraged with the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Agreement”

Contrary
to the announcement of Elmer Derrick of today’s date, the representatives of the Plaintiffs to the British Columbia Supreme Court Action No. 15150, cited as Spookw v. Gitxsan Treaty Society, oppose the Agreement. The Gitxsan plaintiffs include Hereditary Chiefs and four Gitxsan bands with a population of over 6,000 Gitxsan people; the majority of whom are House members in the Gitxsan traditional system represented by Hereditary Chief, Spookw, in the court action.

The representatives do not support Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline agreement entered into by Elmer Derrick and state “Elmer Derrick and the Gitxsan Treaty Society/Gitxsan Economic Development Corp. does not speak for all Gitxsan. The Gitxsan people had no knowledge of the proposed Agreement nor were they consulted.”

Oh, and one other tiny little detail: The proposed pipeline doesn’t even run through Gitxsan territory!

So 131 First Nation chiefs sign an agreement to oppose the Enbridge pipeline and tanker traffic and no front page story – yet one renegade bureaucrat supports Enbridge and is the main headline and story on the front page.

Though it hardly needs proving, here The Vancouver Sun, in the clearest of evidence, demonstrates its bias with the subtlety of a logging truck coming down a logging road.

This is a gross breach of journalistic ethics which does have a clear message – if you want a fair newspaper account of anything that fights big business, look elsewhere. The Sun is a paper that manages, by shabby news reporting, tepid columnists, and establishment-friendly use of the op-ed page, to make it clear that no matter what the subject, if corporate predators are involved, they must be looked after.

We are seriously considering cancelling The Sun and the only thing that holds us back is that we would miss Rex Morgan MD in the comic strips.

Share

BC’s First Nations Form “Unbroken Wall of Opposition” to Enbridge

Share

Read this story from The Province on today’s watershed press conference held by First Nations from around the province to deliver a unified, unwavering message of opposition to the proposed Enbridge pipeline to Kitimat.

“B.C. First Nation communities have formed a united front against
pipeline expansion and oil tanker traffic, as Enbridge Inc. pushes ahead
with its plan to build a pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat. Several
new First Nations signed on to the Save the Fraser Declaration Thursday
in Vancouver, bringing the total number of bands supporting a ban on
pipeline and tanker expansion to 130. Collectively, the signatories represent an ‘unbroken wall of opposition’ from the U.S. border to the Arctic Ocean.” (Dec. 1, 2011)

Read article: http://www.theprovince.com/business/Enbridge+pipeline+faces+unbroken+wall+opposition+from+First+Nations/5797063/story.html

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
Photo by Mark Brooks

Obama’s Keystsone XL Reversal: Could the Tide Slowly be Turning Against Dirty Oil?

Share

Editor’s Note: We are pleased to welcome Ottawa-based environmental journalist and educator Mark Brooks to our team of Common Sense contributors. A former analyst for the Government of Canada and an author whose work has appeared in The Globe and Mail and Ottawa Citizen, Mark brings a national perspective to The Common Sense Canadian. 

————————————————————————

Strolling around Washington, D.C. last weekend, I came upon an impressive memorial to the famous wartime president Franklin Roosevelt. Upon the gray granite walls were inscribed many of FDR’s most memorable quotations. “Men and nature must work hand in hand,” he wrote in a 1935 message to Congress. “The throwing out of balance of the resources of nature throws out of balance also the lives of men.”

Having traveled to the U.S. capital to cover the latest protest of the Keystone XL project, I wondered what FDR might say about TransCanada’s controversial pipeline proposal. A pipeline that would transport tar sands crude from northern Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico, Keystone has been described as a 2700 km “fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet” in the words of author and activist Bill McKibben. Protest organizers had hoped to encircle the White House with at least 4000 people in what McKibben called both an “O-shaped hug” and “house arrest.” Instead, at least 10,000 protesters showed up, young and old, from all over North America, ringing President Obama’s residence three-deep.

This action was the latest in a growing campaign to try to choke off supply routes to the tar sands. The company behind the pipeline, TransCanada, responded in an entirely predictable manner, betraying an almost total lack of understanding of some very legitimate concerns. “What these millionaire actors and professional activists don’t seem to understand is that saying no to Keystone means saying yes to more conflict oil from the Middle East and Venezuela filling American gas tanks,” TransCanada spokesman James Millar said. “After the Washington protesters fly back home, they will forget about the millions of Americans who can’t find work.”

Only a few months ago, approval of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline was considered a fait accompli by many of the project’s supporters. Prime Minister Stephen Harper called the approval a “no brainer” and TransCanada was so sure it would get the go-ahead from U.S. regulators, they had already bought the pipe and was stockpiling it in North Dakota. The company claims to have already spent $1.9 billion to secure land and equipment for the project and it fully expected to begin construction early in 2012. This has all changed dramatically now that President Obama has ordered the U.S. State Department to conduct a thorough re-review of the project, effectively delaying approval of Keystone until after next year’s U.S. elections.

While another version of Keystone XL may yet be approved, the delay represents a substantial victory for those groups opposing the pipeline. It is also another significant setback for the beleaguered tar sands industry coming as it does on the heels of a European Commission move to classify oil from the tar sands as carbon intensive and highly polluting.

Truth be told, Keystone approval has been plagued by problems for some time now. The U.S. State Department came under heavy criticism this summer for releasing a hasty environmental assessment that found the project would pose no significant environmental risks. It was later revealed that the Department not only allowed TransCanada to select the contractor that conducted the review, the company chosen, Cardno Entrix, turned out to have business ties with TransCanada and would likely stand to benefit from the project’s approval. Environmental groups also released emails that showed a friendly relationship between officials at State and representatives of TransCanada.

The Nebraska legislature then began considering legislation that would have forced TransCanada to reroute the pipeline away from the Ogallala aquifer, a major source of drinking water for the region. Comments by President Barack Obama further fuelled speculation that the writing was on the wall when he took personal responsibility for approval of the pipeline and said that “folks in Nebraska, like all across the country, aren’t going to say to themselves, ‘we’ll take a few thousand jobs’ if it means that our kids are potentially drinking water that would damage their health or if … rich land that is so important to agriculture in Nebraska ends up being adversely affected.”

The decision to delay was nonetheless remarkable given the current dismal economic climate in the U.S. and the well-financed campaigns being waged by TransCanada and the governments of Canada and Alberta promising jobs and economic growth should Keystone be approved. In the end, a hodge-podge collection of environmental and labour groups, Nebraskan residents, a few politicians and a handful of U.S. celebrities have managed to, temporarily at least, derail the $7 billion project. As Naomi Klein tweeted after the decision was announced, when the campaign against Keystone XL began, “most Americans hadn’t heard of the tar sands, let alone Keystone. This is what 3 months of amazing campaigning can do.”

The governments of Canada and Alberta both expressed disappointment with the decision but remain optimistic that the project will eventually be given the green light. But rather than addressing the very legitimate concerns of the many disparate groups who have come together to oppose Keystone XL, Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said recently that “if they don’t want our oil…it is obvious we are going to export it elsewhere.” TransCanada immediately warned that the delay could kill the pipeline but vowed to work with the State Department to find a new route. The company’s Chief Executive Russ Girling has suggested a legal battle could ensue if the pipeline is delayed.

What backers of the pipeline have not yet been able to fully grasp is that, for the growing movement opposing the project, this campaign goes far beyond Keystone. At its core, this is a struggle over the kind of energy future we want to build for ourselves. When I spoke with Naomi Klein in Washington, she put it this way. “This is not just about Keystone, it’s about all the pipelines. Whether it’s in Nebraska or British Columbia, whether we’re talking about Northern Gateway or Kinder Morgan, people have made it clear they’re willing to take actions in line with the urgency of this crisis. Even if they approve this pipeline or any other, they have to know there will be people in front of every bulldozer.” Sure enough, in the hours following the State Department decision, the Twitter-verse was buzzing with individuals committing to take non-violent action should the Keystone project ever be approved.

Also speaking in D.C., NASA scientist James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climatologists, captured what many in the crowd and a growing number around the world are coming to realize, that we are at a critical juncture. “There is a limit to how much carbon we can pour into the atmosphere. Tar sands are the turning point in our fossil fuel addiction. Either we begin on the road to breaking our addiction or we turn to even dirtier fossil fuels.” If Keystone XL or the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline to the west coast of B.C. is built, it will ensure increased tar sands production and a commensurate rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

For climate justice activists, labour groups and citizens assembled in Washington, this scenario is no longer acceptable. The decision to delay Keystone XL is no doubt reason for optimism, but it likely represents only the beginning for a movement that now appears to be at last finding its stride. What these folks are demanding is not simply that the tar sands pipelines be re-routed to safer terrain or that adequate measures are put in place to prevent oil spills, they want a long-term plan to gradually wean ourselves off fossil fuels and towards a clean energy future that could create millions of green jobs, something the governments of Canada and the U.S. have thus far refused to consider. Until they do, it will mean that “the arteries that are carrying this dirty oil all over the world” must be blocked, Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians told me. “If we can stop Keystone, we can stop Enbridge going west. It’s the beginning of a real movement with Americans and people around the world to say this is the wrong model.”

Mark Brooks’ Video of Naomi Klein speaking in Washington, D.C. on November 5

Share

Sun Op-ed: Plans for 3 LNG Plants on BC Coast Undercut Province’s Climate Goals

Share

Read this op-ed in the Vancouver Sun by SFU assistant professor John Axsen on the carbon emissions implications of the Clark Government’s support for three new major LNG plants.

“Premier Clark plans to construct three massive liquefied natural gas
(LNG) plants in Northern B.C. This won’t only create jobs. Extracting
shale gas and operating these plants will release enough global warming
gases to undo B.C.’s other efforts to cut emissions. Clark claims these
plants are in the best interest of B.C.’s families.

However, the
effects of climate change will deliver hardship to B.C. families in
coming decades. The National Round Table on the Environment and the
Economy concludes that climate change will inflict billions of dollars
in economic losses on B.C. residents each year.” (

Read article: http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/government+plan+construct+three+plants+counters+reduction+efforts/5704881/story.html

Share

Obama Sends Keystone XL Pipeline Back to the Drawing Board for New Route

Share

Read this story form the Globe and Mail on the Obama Administration’s surprising decision to send Trans-Canada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline back to the drawing board for a new route. The move is expected to set the project back at least a year and a half and is being hailed as a victory by the project’s opponents.

“The U.S. State Department’s move to withhold a permit on
TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline until after the 2012 election is
officially meant to give the Obama administration more time to find an
alternative route for the conduit through Nebraska. But the
additional review announced Thursday has all the markings of a delaying
tactic aimed at sparing the President the dicey task of making a
politically tough call that could alienate a critical constituency
and/or hand ammunition to his opponents.” (Nov. 10, 2011)

Read full article

Share