Category Archives: Politics

Rafe: Fix is in on Enbridge as Clark and Redford put on show

October 17, 2013Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western CanadaRafe Mair

Clark & Redford: What their cozy relationship means for BC pipelines — BC and Alberta Premiers Christy Clark and Alison Redford (CP photo)

I assure you that this will not take long.

We’ve been screwed, blued and tattooed folks.

You may have read the story last week that First Nations have charged that the Enbridge pipeline has already started.

At the same time, the BC/Alberta Deputy Ministers Working Group is announced and the fix is in. No doubt about it.

There are two shared goals in the document touting this partnership:

Opening new markets and expanding export opportunities for oil, gas and other resources
Creating jobs and strengthening the economy of each province and Canada through the development of the oil and gas sector.

The document talks about oil spillage on land and sea, but never does it say that a project might not be allowed because of the “risk” of pipelines and tankers. It’s a given that there will be pipelines and tankers, PERIOD.

It mumbles platitudes like a “world class prevention and preparedness” regime.

First Nations’ Enbridge spill concerns being ignored

I’m sure First Nations will be delighted to know Clark and Redford will supply them with “accommodation”, which “can include mitigation measures or even economic compensation”. (emphasis added)

Mitigation is a weasel word for saying that although damage is coming, we will do our very best to minimize it – honest to goodness, cross our hearts and hope to die – we will give you prosthetic devices for the arms and legs we’re going to cut off.

[quote]Health permitting (I’m a little long in the tooth) I’ll place myself in front of the first dirt remover.[/quote]

And, dear friends, there may be wampum for you if you’re good little Indians and place your “Xs”on the dotted line. Somehow I don’t see First Nations being convinced by this document that they will be treated any better than the Carrier-Sekani or Haisla were at the time of Alcan’s Kemano hydroelectric project in the 50s. This government, like the Bourbons, “has learned nothing and forgotten nothing”.

Carving up the booty

The rest of this 10-page document deals with carving up the booty – partly in bribes for First Nations, but mostly between themselves.

One of the major players – are you ready for this? – is Fazil Mihlar, a former fellow of the Fraser Institute and editor of The Vancouver Sun. Mihlar recently left the paper to become the BC Liberal Government’s Assistant Deputy Minister of the new Oil and Strategic Initiatives Division.

Act as if pipelines are a done deal

There is little to say except we must now choose our weapons and we should stop beating about the bush. There is no point in pleading with these bastards for their mind is made up. We must treat the situation as if the pipelines were a done deal – because they are.

We’ve reported on the false facade of Clark’s supposed reservations about Enbridge over the past year, juxtaposed with the realties of trade deals and the province’s legal abdication of responsibility on the pipeline decision – this new information simply reinforces our concerns all along.

Peaceful civil disobedience is the only weapon left and we must prepare for that. As I have said for sometime, health permitting (I’m a little long in the tooth) I’ll place myself in front of the first dirt remover.

Writing letters is always a good idea but it does nothing. Your MLA and MP have no power to do anything.

The opposition to these pipelines and tankers must contain the solemn undertaking to physically stop them. Anything else will be taken by your government as bluff and bluster.

Rafe to Christy: Hold a referendum

For the first time in nearly 82 years on this planet I find myself ashamed – not just pissed off – but ashamed of my government. The people, indigenous or otherwise, have not been consulted and won’t be.

I leave with this challenge to Premier Clark: hold a referendum.

Or are you afraid that, as with the Charlottetown Accord in 1992, the public will be informed and let you know they want nothing to do with your disgraceful deals?

Yes, hold a referendum and let us decide the fate of our beautiful province with one of the last real wilderness areas in the world.

[signoff1]

Harper’s Keystone XL lobbying trip funded by $65,000 in tax dollars

October 16, 2013Energy and Resources, International, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsCommon Sense Canadian

by Carol Linnitt – Originally posted on DeSmog Canada

The hotel rental for Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s September visit to New York City cost Canadian taxpayers a total of $56,582.91, according to documents recently released by CTV News.

“Canada and the U.S. are making important progress on enhancing trade, travel and investment flows between our two countries, including securing our borders, speeding up trade and travel, modernizing infrastructure in integrated sectors of the North American economy, and harmonizing regulations,” Harper said at the event. “But there is much more that can be done, and must be done, to make our economic relationship more productive and seamless.”

The event, organized by the Canadian American Business Council, gave Harper the opportunity to tell an audience of American business executives that he wouldn’t “take no for an answer” on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, planned to carry tar sands crude from Alberta to oil refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.

Hotel bill mistakenly sent to CTV

The hotel bill for the luxurious New York Palace Hotel, which was mistakenly sent to CTV’s Washington bureau, suggests Harper’s speaking engagement was a staged promotional gathering for the Keystone XL, rather that a typical guest speaker event which are usually paid for by the host.

The hotel charges include coffee services for $6,650.00, room rental for $33,500.00 and audio visual services of $14,709.15. An overall service charge for the room and coffee came to $9,234.50.

According to CTV, the event was co-hosted with the Canadian American Business Council, which claimed to ‘share’ the costs for the event with the Harper Government.

Maryscott Greenwood, senior advisor for the Council said, “the costs were shared…we paid for pieces of it.”

The “Voice of Business”

On their website the Canadian American Business Council claims to be “the voice of business in the world’s most prosperous relationship. Established in 1987 in Washington, D.C., the Council is a non-profit, non-partisan, issues-oriented organization dedicated to elevating the private sector perspective on issues that affect our two nations, Canada and the United States.”

Membership to the Council requires a $5,500 annual fee, with conference sponsorships running up to $25,000 per event. Members of the Council include the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Embassy, the Government of Alberta and TransCanada among many other major oil and gas companies.

In 2012, the Council listed “Approval of the Keystone XL pipeline that would bring Canadian crude oil to the U.S. gulf refineries” in its top ten ‘list of issues.’

The Council’s Washington offices are located inside a major law and lobbing firm, McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP, that represents TransCanada’s Keystone XL project.

Andrew Shaw, who works for the Council, is also a registered lobbyist for the Keystone XL pipeline with KcKenna, Long & Aldridge. Shaw was hired by TransCanada to lobby on the topic of “permitting issues regarding the Keystone XL pipeline,” lobbying disclosure documents show.

According to further lobbyist documents, Shaw was also hired by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canada’s largest oil and gas lobby firm, to speak with members of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives about American environmental legislation or policies that might have implications on the development of Canada’s tar sands.

TransCanada spends millions on US lobbying

A recent white paper report released by DeSmog Canada shows TransCanada has spent $2.78 million on in-company lobbyists and $1.26 million on U.S. based lobby firms, including McKenna, Long & Aldridge, since 2010.

The white paper also shows that since 2010-2011 the Harper Government’s spending of taxpayer funds to promote the tar sands and Canada’s environmental performance has increased by 7000 percent with plans to further increase in the 2013-2014 year.

For more information on lobbying for the Keystone XL, see this backgrounder put together by Friends of the Earth or read about the pipeline on DeSmogblog.com.

Clark, Redford getting closer on Enbridge, energy export plans?

October 15, 2013Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western CanadaCanadian Press

Clark, Redford getting closer on Enbridge, energy export plans? — B.C. Premier Christy Clark and Alberta’s Alison Redford (photo: Dan Riedhuber/Reuters)

VICTORIA – British Columbia Premier Christy Clark and Alberta’s Alison Redford have appointed a team of senior bureaucrats to develop an energy export plan, barely a year after a high-profile disagreement over the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline strained the two leaders’ relationship.

Clark and Redford are scheduled to publicly discuss the progress of the joint energy plan on Nov. 5 in Vancouver following the Alberta premier’s address to the city’s Board of Trade. A final report is due on Dec. 31.

Enbridge clash

The premiers are attempting to move past their very public clash over the Northern Gateway pipeline, which was the subject of a meeting in Calgary last October that Clark later described as “frosty.”

Clark had insisted the project must meet a series of conditions, including strict environmental standards and assurances that B.C. would receive a “fair share” the economic benefits, to win her approval, which prompted Redford to suggest Clark was attempting to pick Alberta’s pockets with demands for extra royalties.

“Frosty” relationship warming?

But a joint statement issued Tuesday was the latest sign that relations between the two premiers are warming. This past June, Clark and Redford met in Kelowna, B.C., and while they didn’t mention the Northern Gateway project, they announced the creation of a working group to focus on skills training, immigration and economic growth.

“In creating the working group, B.C. and Alberta identified the shared goals: opening new markets and expanding export opportunities for oil, gas and other resources,” and, “creating jobs and strengthening the economy of each province and Canada through the development of the oil and gas sector,” said Tuesday’s joint statement.

Clark and Redford both declined interview requests on Tuesday.

Alberta-B.C. working group

The Alberta-B.C. working group, jointly chaired by deputy ministers from both provinces, has been given a mandate to share information, collaborate on policy and address federal gaps on energy issues.

The terms of reference include five policy areas that mirror Clark’s five conditions.

The group has been directed to consult with First Nations; explore other resource transportation options, including rail; look at how to promote resources; and study ways to reduce the potential impact of oil spills. It is also to examine how to make sure both provinces receive a fair share of resource revenues.

“It is not about royalty sharing, but rather about receiving a fair share of the economic and fiscal benefits of a proposed heavy oil project that reflects the levels, degree and nature of the risk borne by B.C., the environment and taxpayers,” said the premiers’ statement.

[quote]Given the risk to B.C. from land-based and coastal bitumen spills, B.C. does not believe an equitable distribution exists for fiscal benefits. This imbalance must be addressed.[/quote]

First Nations remain opposed to Enbridge

Coastal First Nations spokesman Art Sterritt said northern B.C.’s aboriginals are opposed to seeing a pipeline built along their traditional territories and believe the risk of an oil tanker spill is too great to even contemplate. The Coastal First Nations group, which represents most coastal aboriginal nations from Rivers Inlet in southern B.C. to the Alaska border in the northwest, has been a staunch opponent of the pipeline.

Sterritt said his group intends to hold Clark’s Liberals to the government’s previous statements that the Northern Gateway pipeline, as it is currently proposed, fails to adequately address the potential environmental risks.

“They don’t have the technology,” Sterritt said from Terrace, B.C.

“The geography is not very friendly and there isn’t anybody in the north that wants the project. I don’t know how they are going to make it work.”

Sterritt said the possibility of transporting Alberta oil to the B.C. coast by rail, an option that will be considered by the working group, “boggles the mind.”

He warned that much of B.C.’s rain infrastructure runs over mountains and along rivers, meaning it wouldn’t change the potential risk of a spill.

Dix: Clark watering down “5 conditions”

The leader of B.C.’s Opposition New Democrats, Adrian Dix, said it appears the joint working group’s terms of reference are a watering down of Clark’s original five conditions.

Dix said the working group’s mandate appears more focused on ensuring energy projects like pipelines proceed as opposed to ensuring environmental safety and meaningful consultations with First Nations.

“It’s apparent on the B.C. side where their priorities are,” he said.

[signoff1]

BC Budget hides $100 Billion, forces citizens to shoulder debt burden

October 15, 2013Economics, Politics, Western CanadaErik Andersen

As the Liberal Government compiles the 2014 BC Budget, it is ignoring warnings of exploding capital borrowing, hiding $100 Billion in taxpayer liabilities, and forcing the province’s least fortunate citizens to shoulder the burden of the province’s appalling fiscal mismanagement – argues independent economist Erik Andersen.

It goes without saying that when governments set about budgeting, they should do so in the “Public’s Interest”. So what are the best ways to do this task? Usually, the conflicting individual objectives are so diverse it takes a general election to arrive at a consensus – much as just occurred in Nova Scotia. The trouble with waiting for a general election is that a great deal of fiscal and economic harm can be done in the interim.

Like many others, the Government of BC has been in denial of post-2009 realities. Even after 20 years of stagflation, Japan has yet to accept the reality of the rollback in corporate shares and property values by more than 70%.

[quote]The true increase in BC’s total liabilities is from $64 billion in 2005 to $170 billion in 2013. In per capita terms, that is a staggering increase in Provincial liabilities of 150% in one decade.[/quote]

BC ignores rating agency’s warnings on capital borrowing and spending

Two years ago the credit rating agency, S&P, publicly advised Canada’s provincial governments to try to control budgets for education and health care, to curtail building large capital projects if debt must be found first and to work on increasing revenues.

Our BC government has been aggressive in limiting the budgets for the first two items; irresponsibly reckless about borrowing and spending on infrastructure projects, and much too timid about increasing revenues in ways that are not regressive taxation strategies.

An examination of historical financial data is one way to get a sense of what might be in store from the 2014 BC budget unless a fundamental change of character emerges.

Revenues not keeping pace with GDP growth

Starting in 2004, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for BC was reported to have been $145.763 billion and Total Revenues $29.060 billion. By 2013 these values were $224.823 billion and $42.055 billion, respectively. In that decade, GDP increased by 54% but Total Revenues only by 45%. This shortfall in revenue growth easily explains why the government has had continuing operating deficits ever since 2008 and – if fictional revenue transfers identified by the Auditor General continue – operating deficits will be the order of the day into the foreseeable future.

[quote]BC has a government that prefers for the least financially able carry the burden of annual revenue shortfalls.[/quote]

Parts of the economy that play a large role in determining what is the “public’s interest” – health care and education – have not fully participated in the increase in GDP. In 2004, the per capita amount spent on health care was $2,770 and by 2013 the amount increased by only 35% to $3,750. Spending on education was even more troublesome. In 2004, the per capita amount was $2,040 but by 2013 it had only increased to $2,470 – or a 21% rise.

Electrical consumption remains flat, job growth slow

What about the rest of the BC economy? Electrical energy could be thought of as an indicator of social and business activity in the province, yet total sales to BC-only customers by BC Hydro remained stagnant at 50,000 GWhrs per year. Even the total of employed citizens came nowhere close to matching the increase in GDP, only a 15% increase over the decade.

BC’s citizens left out of GDP growth

So, why, might you ask, are BC’s citizens being left out of enjoying the benefits from this run-up in the Province’s economy?

There are two possible reasons. The first is that the Government has not been able to stop “leakage”, if indeed it even tried. The second has to do with one of the items mentioned by S&P – unaffordable borrowing and spending on infrastructure, particularly by BC Hydro.

Auditor General calls out fuzzy math in BC budgets

BC’s Government likes to “word-play” around the topic of debt and contractual obligations, a sort of Enron-Nortel approach to financial reporting. Each year the Comptroller General reports on the province’s financial condition and the Auditor General does a review. Without fail there has not been one year in the past decade that the Auditor General has issued an unqualified audit, short form of saying not right folks.

So back to debt or whatever some in Victoria like to call it. Formally, the Comptroller General reports annually the province’s “debt” and other liabilities. The political practice is to focus on the number in the “debt” column. In 2004 it was $37.735 billion and as of 2013 the “debt” was $55.816 billion. Not an altogether bad picture, right?

$100 Billion in hidden liabilities

Next, the Comptroller General shows “Liabilities”, which mostly don’t go away and are now $19.5 billion, up from $15.216 billion in 2004. What the Comptroller General does not show is a third category of liabilities known as “contingencies and contractual obligations”. The first reported year for this category was 2005 when the amount was $12.392 billion. Since then this addition to Provincial liabilities has exploded to over $100 billion (1).

All political parties running candidates in the recent election knew that the Auditor General reported the total in 2012 at $96.374 billion but none would talk about it.

Adding these three liabilities together, the increase in the provincial total is from $64.273 billion in 2005 to $170 billion in 2013. In per capita terms, that is a staggering increase in Provincial liabilities of 150% in one decade.

Citizens shoulder debt burden of BC budget

So what does the trend of the past decade suggest?

BC has a government that prefers for the least financially able carry the burden of annual revenue shortfalls.

We have a Government addicted to being big borrowers and spenders, “air-brushing” away exploding provincial liabilities. A borrow-your-way-to-financial-success model of management.

We have a government in total denial of the economic risks prevailing in the global economy of 2013 and beyond.

Not much “public’s interest” in the continuation of the government’s recent fiscal practices and little cause to think they will change.

(1) In the absence of a formal value for “contingencies and contractual obligations” the amount assumed is $100 billion for 2013.

[signoff1]

Merkel took BMW money before putting brakes on EU emissions cuts

October 15, 2013Carbon Tax - Cap and Trade, Climate Change, International, PoliticsCanadian Press

Merkel took BMW money before putting brakes on tougher emissions cuts — German Chancellor Angela Merkel gets a tour of new BWW designs at a recent auto show

BERLIN – Germany blocked the introduction of tougher European Union emissions rules for cars shortly after Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party received a large donation from three major BMW shareholders, according to newly released parliamentary records.

Opposition parties on Tuesday cited the donation as evidence of an uncomfortably close relationship between Merkel and German automakers.

Following weeks of German lobbying, the environment ministers of the EU’s 28 nations agreed Monday to seek further tweaks to the proposed emissions rules that come into force in 2020.

Just days earlier, Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union had received 690,000 euros ($935,900) from Susanne Klatten, her mother Johanna Quandt and brother Stefan Quandt. The Quandt family holds almost half of the shares in the Munich-based BMW, whose luxury cars on average emit well over the proposed limit of 95 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre.

Merkel’s party insisted there was no link between donation and the pressure that her government put on other European countries to hold off on the emissions deal.

“The Quandt family has supported the CDU with private donations for many years, independently of whether the CDU was part of the government or in opposition,” the party said in a statement.

The opposition Left Party noted that the decision to block the new emissions rules would directly benefit German automakers such as Daimler, Volkswagen and BMW.

“The suspicion that this corporation bought itself a favourable policy is hard to dismiss,” it said.

The auto industry and its suppliers employ some 740,000 people in Germany.

The Green Party, which is one of two parties holding talks with the CDU to form a coalition government following last month’s election, also criticized the donation, saying it harmed Germany’s image abroad.

In a compromise deal in June, national EU governments and the European Parliament agreed to force carmakers to further slash their average carbon dioxide emissions from a 2015 target of 135 grams.

Germany wants to delay the introduction of the new emissions limit until 2024.

Ontario Liberals gut environmental protections for Ring of Fire

October 10, 2013Canada, PoliticsCanadian Press

Ontario Liberals gut environmental protections for Ring of Fire — Ontario Legislature

TORONTO – Ontario’s governing Liberals have “snuck in” changes that are dismantling environmental protections and could have “disastrous results” for the province, environmental commissioner Gord Miller said Thursday.

“Major” changes in last year’s budget give the government the power to hand over Crown land — which makes up 87 per cent of the province — and natural resources to private companies, he said.

Said Miller after releasing his annual report:

[quote]Why would they change it to allow the cabinet of Ontario, by regulation, to hand that responsibility over to an independent third party? It could be anybody. It could be any kind of corporate entity…There’s a lot of wealth, a lot at stake here.[/quote]

It’s “galling” that those changes, which should be of particular concern to northern Ontario residents, were shielded from public scrutiny, he said. They were in the 2012 budget bill, which is exempt from a requirement for the government to post environmentally significant decisions.

It’s opening the door to turning Ontario’s far north into “the Wild West,” Miller said.

450,000 square km, no environmental monitoring

There’s no formal environmental monitoring in the region covering 450,000 square kilometres, he said, despite intensive mineral exploration and development around the Ring of Fire — believed to be one of the largest chromite deposits in the world.

“Why are they changing the laws quietly, without public consultation, to allow this wide open exploitation with no rules?” Miller said. “What’s going on?”

Natural Resources Minister David Orazietti disputed the commissioner’s findings, saying the changes were posted publicly.

“It certainly wasn’t snuck in,” he said.

[quote]There was consultation with respect to those lands and those are not lands that are being turned over to private landholders. They continue to require all the environmental protection of Crown lands.[/quote]

The changes apply to the minister’s ability to delegate management of crown land to a third party, Orazietti said.

“Without these powers to delegate, we have no ability to allow a third party to help us manage Crown land. Let me be clear, in no way does this allow the government to sell off Crown land.”

Government: Changes “minor”

Orazietti said there were “minor changes” to permits that related to dredging and removing small vegetation that have “minimal environmental impacts.”

The Liberals also defended their work on the Ring of Fire, saying the government is working with companies and First Nations to address environmental concerns, infrastructure development and resource revenue-sharing.

“Realizing the full potential of the Ring of Fire region is an extremely complex undertaking,” Northern Development and Mines Minister Michael Gravelle said in a statement.

“It’s one that our government takes very seriously, we need to get it right the first time.”

Budget cuts and regulatory changes

Miller’s annual report also slammed the cash-strapped Liberals for gutting the Ministry of Natural Resources through budget cuts and regulatory changes, which he says weakens important safeguards for provincial parks, at-risk species and hunting.

He warned that major industrial development could proceed almost unchecked, provincial parks are being turned into revenue streams and there’s no funding or plan to deal with invasive species like the emerald ash borer and Asian carp.

Cuts to regulations, staff and programs at the ministry are “short-sighted and regressive” and pose significant ecological risks, he said. It could have “disastrous results” for Ontario’s natural heritage and disrupt the way of life in the north.

“We’re talking about handing over this land to third parties over which we have no control,” Miller said. “So it’s profound change on the highest level.”

Ontario’s enforcement spending lower than other provinces

Ontario spends less of its total budget on natural resource management and environmental protection than five other provinces, including British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba, he noted.

“When we start to treat nature and species like a bunch of widgets in a factory, we’ve completely lost sight of what’s truly important for our communities and our very identity as Ontarians,” Miller said in a statement.

Private industry benefits from these changes, said Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner.

“Go to the Elections Ontario website and see who donates to political parties and you’ll see who benefits from these changes,” he added.

“Ridiculously low” extraction levies

The government should reverse cuts to the ministry by raising Ontario’s “ridiculously low” levy for extracting aggregate resources — which the industry supports, Schreiner said.

It’s 11.5 cents per tonne in Ontario, compared to 50 cents in Quebec and $2 in the United Kingdom, he said.

“The government’s failed to act and the opposition parties have failed to force them to act,” he said.

The Progressive Conservatives have promised to spur economic development by cutting red tape and repealing legislation that bans development in half of northern Ontario.

Tory critic Michael Harris said the government needs to “balance environmental protection with economic development.”

The New Democrats, who helped the minority Liberals pass the 2012 budget said it was “very sneaky” of the Liberals to put those changes in the bill.

“We were very concerned about the deregulation in that bill and we did as much as we could,” said NDP critic Jonah Schein. “We worked very hard and we still have massive concerns about what’s happening.”

Billionaire Tom Steyer blasts Harper’s agressive Keystone lobbying

October 6, 2013Energy and Resources, International, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsCanadian Press

Billionaire Tom Steyer blames Harper's agressive Keystone lobbying for US govt shutdown — Billionaire Keystone XL pipeline opponent Tom Steyer (photo: Getty Images)

OTTAWA – An anti-Keystone XL pipeline crusader has written to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, suggesting Canada’s aggressive lobbying for the project played a part in the ongoing government shutdown south of the border.

Tom Steyer, a San Francisco billionaire who’s also a major Democratic party fundraiser, chastises Harper for saying he would not “take ‘no’ for an answer” from U.S. President Barack Obama on TransCanada’s Keystone XL.

In a question-and-answer session with the Canadian American Business Council last week in New York, Harper took a hard line on how Canada would respond if the Keystone XL project is rejected by the White House.

“My view is you don’t take ‘no’ for an answer,” Harper said. “This won’t be final until it’s approved and we will keep pushing forward.”

Steyer took issue with those comments in his letter to the prime minister Friday, asking:

[quote]Have your government, your government’s lobbyist and/or agents representing TransCanada communicated with House Republicans about including Keystone in the original litany of demands put to President Obama?[/quote]

Steyer says in the dispatch that TransCanada is launching a new advertising campaign aimed at stakeholders in Washington, D.C.

“News of this advertising campaign comes in the context of House Republicans having closed down the U.S. government as well as threatening to oppose the extension of the country’s debt limit unless certain demands were met,” Steyer writes.

“Included in the original list of House Republican demands was that the Obama administration grant approval for the building of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The combination of the advertising campaign and Harper’s comments last week “raises the question of whether your office is working hand-in-hand with TransCanada to try to exploit the current situation in Washington, D.C., at the expense of the American people,” Steyer wrote.

The Prime Minister’s Office didn’t respond to queries about Steyer’s letter. Harper is currently in Southeast Asia for an economic summit with Pacific Rim countries.

Harper’s strong-arm tactics counter-productive?

The majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives, and some Democrats, have long been staunch supporters of Keystone XL and have tried in the past to insert pipeline provisions into bigger pieces of legislation.

Privately, however, some TransCanada officials have bemoaned the strong-arm tactics of some of their Republican cheerleaders.

Just this week, TransCanada’s director of the pipeline said a legislative effort by Republicans in 2012 to push Obama into approving Keystone XL unnecessarily delayed the project.

“As you recall, 2012 was an election year and politics began to weigh heavily into that process and some political manoeuvring occurred,” Les Cherwenuk said in Houston at an energy roundtable.

The president “couldn’t (approve the project) fundamentally, since the work had not been completed and he had no choice but to deny the permit.”

In early 2012, Republicans pushed a mandate through Congress demanding Obama approve the $5.3-billion pipeline within a strict deadline. But the State Department was still assessing the project amid concerns from the state of Nebraska that Keystone XL posed risks to a crucial drinking water aquifer.

The president invited TransCanada to submit another application, one that would reroute the pipeline around the aquifer.

The pipeline has become a flashpoint for U.S. environmentalists who hold it up as a symbol of America’s over-reliance on carbon-intensive fossil fuels. They argue that approving Keystone XL will encourage oilsands crude production, which emits more carbon into the atmosphere than conventional oil production.

Steyer, a former hedge fund manager who hosted Obama in his home for a Democratic fundraiser in the spring, left his firm to devote himself entirely to climate change issues. He’s emerged a major thorn in the side of pipeline proponents, and recently launched a series of TV commercials maligning Keystone XL.

[signoff1]

Judge blasts Alberta government for silencing oilsands critics

October 2, 2013Energy and Resources, Politics, Tar Sands, Western CanadaCanadian Press

tarsands industry-kris krüg — Oilsands infrastructure near Fort McMurray (photo: Kris Krüg)

EDMONTON – Alberta’s Environment Department has been rebuked by a judge for working behind the scenes to silence groups that question the effects of oilsands operations on the environment.

“This is a black mark for the government of Alberta,” Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute, an environmental think-tank at the heart of the dispute, said Wednesday.

[quote]Alberta needs to walk the talk and be judged on its actions both in terms of environmental performance of the industry and its actions in terms of the regulatory process.[/quote]

In a ruling filed Tuesday, Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Richard Marceau said a provincial director who in 2012 refused the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition standing into a review of a proposed oilsands project was adhering to a 2009 internal department policy memo.

The coalition includes a number of environmental groups, including the Pembina Institute and the Fort McMurray Environmental Association.

That memo, said Marceau, made it clear that the coalition was to be thwarted because its member groups refused to work with the government through such initiatives as the Cumulative Effects Management Association.

Marceau said the director then “breached the rules of fundamental justice” by beginning from a place of bias.

See no evil, hear no evil

Nowhere in the law, wrote Marceau, “is there a suggestion that promoting Alberta’s economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner permits the director to reject statements of concern from those persons or groups who voice negative statements about proposed oil sands development.”

The 2009 memo made it clear that the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition, or OSEC, should no longer be given standing at regulatory hearings into oilsands projects on the grounds it was not directly affected by the impact of the operations.

Up until that point OSEC had been routinely granted standing.

The memo, sent to the deputy minister, the top bureaucrat in the department, singled out the Pembina Institute, noting that the institute, “as reflected in (its) recent publications about the oilsands, are less inclined to work co-operatively.”

Marceau noted that the department’s director of the northern region, who is not named, then used that exact reasoning in June 2012 to reject the coalition’s application to be allowed to speak on a proposed Southern Pacific Resource Corp. (TSX:STP) in situ oilsands mining operation on the MacKay River in northeastern Alberta.

“The reasons provided (by the director) are so close to being identical (to the memo) they seem to have been cast from the same template,” wrote Marceau.

He noted OSEC was not made aware of the 2009 memo at the time and therefore could not respond to it.

Environmental coalition must be heard

In his decision, he quashed the decision to exclude the coalition from the hearings.

OSEC has argued it is directly affected by the project, given that it has a licence to occupy land for recreational purposes downstream. It argues there are larger environmental concerns, given that the project would require up to 1.7 million litres of fresh water every day. It says air quality could also be affected and says the project would be in the middle of the habitat for a threatened caribou herd.

Environment Minister Diana McQueen was not made available for comment Wednesday. She is in Europe meeting with leaders to try to head off a European Union directive that would label oilsands oil more environmentally harmful than conventional oil.

Government denies policy against environmental groups

Department spokeswoman Jessica Potter said no decision has been made on whether to appeal Marceau’s ruling. But she said there will be a review of the decisions on who gets to speak on the Southern Pacific proposal.

“As a result of the ruling we are preparing a new assessment for this project,” said Potter.

She declined to discuss the 2009 memo or whether McQueen was aware of it, but stressed, “We don’t have a policy towards the OSEC. There’s no specific policy against a specific group.”

“Banana Republic stuff”

NDP critic Rachel Notley said McQueen needs to cut short the European trip and return immediately to address the issue.

“This government has a law on one hand that they publish, and secret policies on the other hand that they implement behind closed doors,” said Notley.

“If that’s not bad enough, it turns out the secret policies that they’re implementing behind closed doors are designed to punish and to silence those who might disagree with their policies on the oilsands.

“This is banana republic stuff.”

Notley said if McQueen knew about the memo and didn’t act to stop it, “we need to talk about whether she should be in that position any longer.”

Notley also said Jim Ellis, the deputy environment minister at the time of the 2009 memo and now the CEO of Alberta’s new energy regulator, should resign.

Wildrose Party chimes in

Wildrose environmental critic Joe Anglin said the memo is further proof of a Progressive Conservative government that in its zeal to clamp down on dissent makes it even harder to prove to the world it is serious about reducing pollution in the oilsands.

“The worst thing we have ever done to our oilsands is we’ve gone out and created this story about how wonderful we are, but then we don’t practise it,” said Anglin.

“It does the industry a disservice and it does the public a disservice.”

[signoff1]

Harper government claims to be leader on climate change action

September 28, 2013Canada, Climate Change, Climate Science, PoliticsCanadian Press

OTTAWA – The Conservative government has responded to an international report on “unequivocal” global warming by slamming past Liberal inaction and renewing its warning of an alleged NDP carbon tax.

The latest report Friday from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms the planet is heating up and that it’s “extremely likely” human activities are the cause.

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia,” said the scientific report released in Stockholm.

[quote]The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.[/quote]

The report says the effects are especially apparent in the Northern Hemisphere, affecting everything from sea ice and snow fall to permafrost.

“Multiple lines of evidence support very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century,” says the document.

Haper government playing ‘leadership role’ on climate change?

While environmental groups and some governments around the world used the report as a clarion call for action, Conservative Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq issued a statement saying her government is already “playing a leadership role in addressing climate change.” Said Aglukkaq in the release:

[quote]Unlike the previous Liberal government, under whose watch greenhouse gas emissions rose by almost 30 per cent, or the NDP, who want a $21-billion carbon tax, our government is actually reducing greenhouse gases and standing up for Canadian jobs[/quote]

Canada, however, is on pace to achieve only half of its 2020 promise to reduce greenhouse gases by 17 per cent below 2005 levels, according to Environment Canada.

And of the reductions made, 75 per cent were attributed to provincial actions in a 2012 report by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy — a group the Conservative government has since closed down.

US on track to meet its targets

The State Department in Washington, meanwhile, reported Thursday that the United States is on track to meet its 2020 target.

John Kerry, the U.S. secretary of state, is nonetheless calling Friday’s IPCC report “another wake-up call.”

“Once again, the science grows clearer, the case grows more compelling, and the costs of inaction grow beyond anything that anyone with conscience or common sense should be willing to even contemplate,” Kerry said in a statement.

Harper won’t take ‘No’ for an answer on Keystone XL

The contrast in tone on the climate file between Ottawa and Washington was reinforced Thursday when Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a forum in New York that “you don’t take ‘No’ for an answer” on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

The TransCanada project to export Alberta bitumen to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, which still needs President Barack Obama’s approval, has become a potent symbol for American environmentalists.

Critics fuming over Conservative comments

Aglukkaq’s sharp-elbowed, partisan response to the IPCC report left environmental critics fuming.

“We have an opportunity to rise to the challenge of protecting our kids’ future, so let’s not blow it to score political points and prop up oil company profits,” said Keith Stewart of Greenpeace Canada.

New Democrats said the minister’s comments embarrass Canada.

“This report should be a call to action for one of the greatest environmental challenges of our generation,” said NDP environment critic Megan Leslie, “not the basis for Conservative attacks on non-existent NDP policies.”

John McKay, the Liberal environment critic, labelled Aglukkaq’s release “really stupid.”

“As long as you’re not serious about pricing carbon, you’re not serious about climate change,” said McKay, something he said a number of provincial governments have already recognized.

Canada will face disproportionate effects from climate change

The IPCC report, the fifth by the UN-sanctioned intergovernmental panel, is designed to provide governments with solid scientific evidence to support policy making.

The reports also make up the baseline for UN negotiations toward a new global climate deal, which is supposed to be completed in 2015.

To that end, the IPCC reported that each of the last three decades has been successively warmer than any since 1850.

“In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1,400 years,” said the report.

Canada can expect disproportionate climate effects because of its northern latitude.

“From a Canadian point of view it’s important to remember that the temperature change we experience in Canada is larger than the global average temperature change,” Greg Flato, a climate scientist with Environment Canada, said in an interview.

“That’s been the case in the historical observations and that’s been projected to continue in these climate model projections of the future.”

Fossil fuels driving climate change

Burning fossil fuels is the driving force, says the report.

Thomas Stocker, a co-chair of the IPCC working group, flatly asserted in an accompanying release that “substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions” are required.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers noted that global energy demand is expected to grow by 35 per cent by 2035.

“Most economists agree that most of this demand will be met by fossil fuels for the foreseeable future,” CAPP spokesman Alex Ferguson said in an email.

Ferguson said the oilsands account for just 0.14 per cent of global GHG emissions, and Alberta requires a carbon tax of $15 per tonne — something many other oil exporting countries don’t have.

That won’t dissuade environmental critics who have long argued the Harper government’s emphasis on pipeline building, energy exports and oilsands expansion simply can’t be reconciled with overall emissions reductions.

Amid the accusations and counter-claims, Ian Bruce of the David Suzuki Foundation said the IPCC report actually does offer a message of hope, if governments have the will to hear it.

“Our parents’ generation didn’t know about climate change, but we do,” Bruce said. “It’s really up to our generation to tackle this problem.”

Harper getting desperate to move Alberta oil as pipelines stall

September 23, 2013Energy and Resources, International, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsDamien Gillis

Harper getting desperate to move Alberta oil — Stephen Harper has been trying to win over Obama on the stalled Keystone XL pipeline (Adrian Wyld/CP)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper looks increasingly desperate to find ways for expanding the Tar Sands. While his government wants to ramp up bitumen production dramatically in Alberta, it faces export challenges at every turn.

This has led to some erratic and questionable moves by Team Harper in recent months – from a sudden u-turn for its aboriginal relations on the pipeline file, to aggressive US lobbying over the controversial Keystone XL project, to today’s news that it has been mulling an unprecedented plan to move massive quantities of bitumen to BC’s coast by rail.

Half a million barrels a day…by rail?

On that last point, we learned today from internal memos pried loose by Greenpeace that the Harper Government and Chinese-owned Nexen sought out CN to explore moving a similar quantity of oil to the embattled Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline proposal.

Oil is moved by rail today, but in relatively small volumes – though that trend is changing, particularly in the US with the Bakken shale in North Dakota. This has had dangerous consequences, as we saw with the catastrophic derailment in Lac-Mégantic of a train carrying highly combustible shale oil. Even with oil-by-rail shipments on the rise around North America, this Prince Rupert plan is unprecedented in its scale and risks.

While the now-defunct operator behind the Lac-Mégantic disaster – the Montreal, Main and Atlantic Railway – moved half a million barrels of Bakken oil a month, CN would be doing that on a daily basis. The company would send seven trains a day, with over a hundred cars each, carrying bitumen to the Port of Prince Rupert.

The trains would travel along Canada’s second largest salmon river, the Skeena – a derailment would be a catastrophe waiting to happen. Pipeline proponents – especially since Lac-Mégantic – have long held up rail as a straw man to persuade the public of the relative safety of pipelines, making this alternative proposal all the more baffling. Unless, of course, it’s intended to frighten British Columbians back into embracing Enbridge.

Memo blacked out

Who can say what Harper and co. are really thinking here, especially since the section of the rail memo discussing the Department of Natural Resources’ views on the matter was entirely blacked out.

The undated memo was allegedly written prior to Lac-Mégantic, so it’s difficult to say to what degree it’s being taken seriously today. Any way you slice it, this is a crazy plan, coming from a government that looks like it’s flailing around for a lifeline, amid the increasingly troubled waters for Tar Sands expansion.

Keystone antics

This desperation has played out in Harper’s erratic attempts to win over President Obama on the controversial, proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to refineries on the US Gulf Coast. With Obama’s apparent conversion on the climate file, Harper looks lost.

When trouble first began brewing for Keystone, he sent his pitbull, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, to Washington, DC for some pipeline diplomacy. The only thing missing was the diplomacy, as Oliver’s brutish antics only served to insult his hosts and provoke ridicule from more enlightened political and media observers around the world.

[signoff1]

Harper’s draconian gutting of environmental regulation and muzzling of scientist s to protect his oil agenda is drawing widespread condemnation – visible everywhere from prestigious international journals to a recent New York Times editorial.

Following Obama’s bold climate speech this summer, Harper radically changed his tack, offering to commit to US carbon emissions targets in exchange for giving Keystone a pass. The jury’s out on how effective this tactic will prove, but it can hardly look like anything other than disingenuous, johnny-come-lately political maneuvering to Obama.

Mixed signals to First Nations

Finally, there’s Harper’s dramatic swings in his approach to First Nations on pipelines. Over the past year, he and Oliver have gone from alternately ignoring First Nations’ concerns to vilifying them as “radical” opponents of Canada’s national interest.

Then, out of the blue, we learned recently that Harper and a caravan of federal ministers would be venturing out to our hinterland west of the Rockies to get First Nations onside with the proposed Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipelines.

If this apparent reversal wasn’t baffling enough for aboriginal leaders like Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, the ministers’ attitude at the table took it to another level. Describing separate meetings with Oliver and Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Velcourt to the Vancouver Observer, Phillip says the ministers made little effort to win him over:

[quote]There was just a lot of rhetoric about not dwelling on the past, looking towards the future, and realizing the benefits of the vast natural resource wealth that this country has been blessed with. Pretty much a Canadian Apple Pie lecture…There wasn’t any engagement or dialogue in terms of Minister Oliver saying ‘what will it take? What are your recommendations?…He just sat there and repeated his talking points.[/quote]

Phillip suspects this sudden action from Harper is about papering over consultation with First Nations that has been sorely lacking, paving the way for the pipelines through the argument of “national interest”.

Pipelines’ uncertain future

Whatever thinking is motivating Harper’s about-face with First Nations, if he continues down this path, his government’s actions will do little to mollify his agenda’s most powerful opponents.

It remains to be seen where Obama goes on Keystone and whether Harper gets any traction on Enbridge, Kinder Morgan – or new plans to pump bitumen East through Enbridge and TransCanada pipelines – but the more he fumbles for “radical” solutions to his pipeline predicament, the more unsure, vulnerable and desperate he shows himself to be.