Tag Archives: featured

Rafe Mair on the perfect job opening for Christy Clark

December 23, 2015Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&Gas, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedRafe Mair

BC's gift to the world- Premier Christy Clark — Premier Christy Clark, hard at work building an LNG industry for BC (Flickr CC Licence / Govt of BC)

I am a daydreamer who has had far too much time to daydream over the last months. I find I have brilliant ideas which seem fairly ridiculous once I move onto a new set of dreams, but every once in a while I find an idea which had merit that should have been explored. I’m also a political junkie and some people pay me to write or speak on this subject although, I’ve noticed, not so much these days as before.

A political issue of considerable note and worldwide import has crossed my febrile brain fairly often for last couple of years and it’s bothered me that no answers seem to pop out. Well, my skull gave me another brainwave as I bashed the hell out of it a couple of weeks ago and have been looking at a hospital ceiling much of the time since. Brilliant! And, you note, that this comes at Christmas time and the spirit of generosity fills the air as well as the tummy. Put all this together and I have this proposed Christmas present from British Columbia to the sports world, all but wrapped up and on Santa’s sleigh.

A star is born

We have a superior asset which many think has already been overused to the point that British Columbians are seen as selfish, something for which they’re not noted.

We trained this asset in school and she became an attendee at three internationally-known universities, although, for reasons known only to herself and her examiners, she did not graduate from any of them. Knowing, however, that genius called, she entered politics and, while accomplishing nothing, she did have the one thing politicians must have – timing.

In 2001, just as the NDP were gasping their last, our heroine, the Honourable Christy Clark, sought a seat in the BC legislature under the Liberal banner so sordid had the NDP flag become, even the Liberals looked good.

She got off to a flying start becoming the worst Education Minister in BC history, a list that includes Bill Vander Zalm. I’ll not trouble you with how she went from there to premier but in politics anything can happen and almost always does and that’s where she found herself.

Nothing discernibly adequate

In the years since, Ms. Clark has done nothing discernibly adequate, much less brilliant – except to display to all that we have a world-class incompetent leader.

Clark on a trade mission to India, praying hard for LNG deals (Flickr CC Licence / Govt of BC)

I wouldn’t want it to to be thought that she doesn’t work at this because I have never seen anyone work harder at covering utter ignorance with smiles and photo-ops. Without knowing a single solitary thing about LNG – worse, everything she thinks she does know is wrong – she’s stamped herself as a world-class business class traveler to Asia and there’s scarcely a dishonest leader there that she hasn’t met and glowingly praised.

Ever mindful of the future, she has trained an ex-cop, likewise unsullied by brain or experience, to travel with her and demonstrate that he doesn’t know anymore than she does – not difficult to do.

The Peter Principle

Some complain that Christy and the gumshoe have no sense of humour but I think precisely the opposite is true. Just think of the hundred billion, or is it trillion, dollar Prosperity Fund she’s creating to finance our future fantasies! If that’s not high humour, what the devil is?

The famous Peter Principle states:

[quote]In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.[/quote]

Well, I think it is evident to all in British Columbia that premier Clark has rocketed right to the top of her “level of incompetence”, with scarcely a pause on the way.

The perfect job for Christy

Does this mean, alas, that there is nowhere for her to turn?

I didn’t think that there was, yet, while carefully regarding the hospital green on the ceiling the other day, it suddenly came to me! Eureka! After you get over your surprise, you’ll surely agree that I’ve discovered the ideal position for our premier in every imaginable way.

Sepp Blatter, through his own incompetence, has created the ideal job opening for Premier Christy Clark (Flickr CC Licence / PAN Photo)

It requires not a soupcon of intelligence or intellectual curiosity. There’s no need to be overly honest – in fact the contrary is the case. No ability to lead is necessary – once the position is attained, all those who would like your job are too busy fighting over the scraps you brush off the table. The money is excellent, (none, going back to 1904, has failed to make piles for their pocket), travel exquisite, and, while one might think that the job is pretty boring, you must remember that our candidate brings boring to a level never yet approximated even in Sports history.

The position, now open to the public, (no previous experience necessary, just appropriate moral standards), is General Secretary of The Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the governing body of association football (Soccer), futsal and beach football, known as FIFA.

Job qualifications

I realize dear readers that I have painted a fairly sketchy portrait of what our Christy would be required to do as the world’s soccer czar – perhaps this short summary of “retiring” Mr. Blatter’s term will be of assistance:

[quote]After holding FIFA’s general secretary post for 17 years, Blatter eventually succeeded…as FIFA president in 1998, winning a contentious election against Lennart Johansson, who was then the president of Europe’s confederation, the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA).

Blatter has long been a controversial figure in the global soccer scene. Under his watch, the World Cup has grown into a multi-billion dollar event and has been held, for the first time ever, in Asia (2002 in Japan and South Korea) and in Africa (2010 in South Africa). At the same time, he has often angered his constituents with his remarks, such as when, in 2004, he suggested that female players wear “tighter shorts” to attract more male fans.

Reports have also for years linked FIFA, under Blatter’s leadership, with corruption, bribery and vote-rigging in conjunction with various internal elections and the awarding of hosts for the World Cup, including the 2018 and 2022 tournaments, in Russia and Qatar, respectively…[/quote]

I realize that giving Christy up to international sport is an act of considerable sacrifice and generosity. But we can do it, fellow citizens. After all, virtue is its own reward.

My only concern in making this recommendation is that premier Christy Clark may be considerably overqualified for the job.

Tsawwassen becomes latest First Nation to reject LNG

December 17, 2015Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedDamien Gillis

Tsawwassen becomes latest First Nation to reject LNG — Tsawwassen First Nation (Photo: TFN)

Members of the Tsawwassen First Nation rejected plans for an LNG terminal on their lands near the ferry terminal 74-65 yesterday. “As a consequence of this result, TFN will not be moving forward with any additional discussion regarding this proposed LNG concept,” notes a media advisory issued by the band.

The plan in question was for an LNG plant, situated on an 80-acre waterfront plot designated for industrial use, that would have produced 3-5 million tonnes a year for export.

The vote saw just shy of a 50% turnout from TFN members, including some from off-reserve. Said Chief Bryce Williams on the result:

[quote]With today’s vote, TFN Members have made the decision that the proposed LNG concept on Tsawwassen Lands is not one they support, and therefore we will not be pursuing it any further.[/quote]

In his comments on CBC radio this morning, Chief Williams acknowledged that concerns over where the gas for LNG would come from and its impacts on northeast BC through the fracking process were a key factor in the community’s decision to turn down the plant.

The project would also have meant considerable noise and light pollution for the community, a flare stack several hundred meters high with the possibility of acid rain affecting local waters, shellfish, and agriculture, and the likely discharging of heated, chlorinated water into the surrounding marine environment. While electric power for the enormously energy-intensive cooling process had been floated by proponent FortisBC, the possibility of gas-fired generation to cut costs would have also meant significant air pollution for residents already surrounded by a coal port and shipping terminal, a ferry terminal, rail yards and trains.

The TFN join the Lax Kw’alaams First Nation, in northwest BC, who rejected an offer of $1.15 Billion in economic benefits in exchange for supporting an LNG terminal near Prince Rupert.

May calls Paris deal “a masterful balancing act” between ideal and practical

December 16, 2015Carbon Tax - Cap and Trade, Climate ChangefeaturedRay Grigg

Yann Toma's "Human Energy" art project at the Eiffel Tower during COP21 (Flickr CC licence / Yann Caradec) — Yann Toma’s “Human Energy” art project at the Eiffel Tower during COP21 (Flickr CC licence / Yann Caradec)

The environmental news of the year — if not the decade — is the United Nations COP21 Climate Agreement reached in Paris on December 12, 2015. The 195 nations of the world reached an understanding in principle to hold global warming “well below 2°C” and to strive to limit the rise to 1.5°C. Elizabeth May, leader of Canada’s Green Party and a long-time attendee at such climate talks, called it “a masterful balancing act” between the ideal and practical. It may not be perfect but it’s something that can be accomplished.

Key parts of the agreement include a contribution from developed nations of $100 billion per year, beginning in 2020, to help developing and undeveloped nations adapt to a low-carbon future. These billions will translate into trillions in private investments in clean and renewable energies. Further, all nations are expected to reach peak greenhouse gas emissions “as soon as possible”, so that by 2050 carbon emissions will not exceed those being captured by “sinks” — essentially creating a carbon neutral planet. And finally, 5-year reviews will examine the progress of all nations toward their committed objectives.

This COP21 agreement couples with a November 2014 unilateral deal between China and the United States to cut their emissions. And adding to the shift in consciousness was a June decision by the G7 nations, the world’s largest economies, to become carbon-free by 2100. Also in June came Laudato Si, the encyclical by Pope Francis which gave profound moral authority to humanity’s obligation to cut carbon emissions.

In Canada, a change in government from Stephen Harper’s Conservatives to Justin Trudeau’s Liberals has literally revolutionized this country’s response to environmental issues generally and to climate change particularly. Instead of being negative and even obstructionist in international COP meetings, Canada has taken a position that is positive and helpful — even being asked to assume a facilitating role in negotiations. Unlike past COP conferences when delegates criticized and ridiculed Canada’s contributions — even suggesting it would be better for everyone if we had not come — we are now being welcomed with smiles and applause.

All these changes will reverberate throughout Canada. The new Liberal government will henceforth include carbon emissions as a considered element in all environmental assessments, including such projects as coal facilities, oil pipelines and LNG plants, thereby reducing the likelihood that such fossil fuel enterprises will proceed. The use and export of these carbon-rich resources will be seriously constrained by ambitious emission targets, periodic monitoring by the United Nations, and international censure for unmet commitments.

The international pressure to reverse global climate change is now immense. This pressure will be passed from the COP21 agreement to individual nations who will, in turn, pass it to their lower echelons of government. In Canada, the initiative taken by provinces, cities and municipalities to reduce emissions will now be met with encouragement instead of indifference. A spirit of co-operation will help Vancouver reach its goal of becoming the world’s greenest city. Alberta’s carbon tax and the cap-and-trade regulations of other provinces will be sanctioned. A moratorium on oil tankers plying BC’s coast and doubts about the province’s LNG projects now fit within a larger and wiser logic.

The world changed on December 12, 2015.

Tsawwassen LNG plant would harm Treaty 8 First Nations, northeast

December 14, 2015Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

Tsawwassen LNG plant would harm Treaty 8 First Nations, northeast — Tsawwassen First Nation Chief Bryce Williams announcing LNG plans or his community

Will LNG proposals put coastal First Nations at odds with those fighting to protect land and water in Treaty 8 Territory?

By Kevin Washbrook

On an unusually chilly afternoon last month I had the opportunity to listen to Chief Liz Logan of the Fort Nelson First Nation and Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs at the Drums for the Peace Rally in front of BC Hydro headquarters in downtown Vancouver. The Rally was held to mark the start of Treaty 8 First Nations’ federal appeals court case, which argues that the BC government’s approval of Site C Dam infringes on their treaty rights.

I was struck by the speakers’ determination to continue fighting Site C in court even as BC Hydro races to clear land for this destructive project. It saddens me that Christy Clark would willingly sacrifice the traditional territory of Treaty 8 Nations, not to mention some of the best farmland in BC in pursuit of her government’s obsession with exporting LNG, but that afternoon I was buoyed by the resilience of these front line land defenders. The fight against Site C clearly isn’t over.

Tsawwassen chief downplays LNG plant’s impacts

Premier Christy Clark and TFN Chief Bryce Williams get a tour of FortisBC's nearby Tillbury LNG facility upgrade (Instagram - FortisBC) — Premier Christy Clark and TFN Chief Bryce Williams get a tour of FortisBC’s nearby Tillbury LNG facility upgrade (Instagram – FortisBC)

Like many people, a few days later, I was surprised to hear Chief Bryce Williams of Tsawwassen First Nation announce a joint proposal with FortisBC and others for yet another LNG terminal, this one on Tsawwassen Nation treaty lands at Roberts Bank on the Fraser delta. Chief Williams explained that he was neutral on the proposal and that it would be put to a community vote, but he also took effort describe the project as relatively low impact, including pointing out that the LNG terminal would be powered by electricity, and not natural gas, if it went ahead.

Cooling and condensing natural gas into a compact liquid for export is a very energy intensive process, so powering up this new LNG terminal would take a lot of electricity. As I listened to Chief Williams I had to wonder, is this the LNG project that will make Site C dam inevitable? And if so, how will Chief Williams and the Tsawwassen people justify that to the Treaty 8 Nations in Northeast BC who are fighting to keep it from being built?

Lots more fracking needed to supply LNG plant

When Fortis, the BC government and the many LNG proponents now active in BC describe their LNG proposals as “low impact”, they are talking about the LNG facility itself. However, that LNG doesn’t come from nowhere. If the Tsawwassen LNG proposal goes ahead it will require an enormous amount of natural gas from the fields of Northeast BC — and that demand will trigger more well drilling and more fracking, and contaminate more fresh water in Treaty 8 territory.

Listening to Chief Williams I was reminded of Dene-Cree lawyer Caleb Behn — recently featured in the movie Fractured Land — who, along with many others, is working hard to reduce the impacts from all the seismic exploration, roadbuilding, well drilling and fracking generated by the natural gas boom in their traditional territories in the northeast.

LNG industry’s inconvenient upstream truths

These upstream impacts are an inconvenient truth that LNG proponents don’t like to talk about when they pitch their proposals. Thanks to a model developed by the Pembina Institue and Navius Research, we’re now able to produce a solid estimate of the upstream impacts of any given LNG proposal.

The Pembina model says that over a 30-year period, sourcing natural gas to supply the the Tsawwassen LNG project could require more than 2000 new wells in northeast BC, could use more than 30 billion litres of freshwater, and could produce more than 11 billion litres of waste water. The model also says that over that 30-year period the Tsawwassen project could generate more than 47 million tonnes of climate emissions during the drilling, processing and transport of gas to the LNG facility on the Fraser Delta.

On Wednesday December 16 Tsawwassen First Nations community members will vote on whether to move forward with their LNG proposal. I have no doubt that Fortis and the other project partners are actively promoting the benefits that would follow from approval. I sincerely hope that community members also have access to information on the upstream impacts that would be generated by that approval, so that they can make a fully informed decision on the project.

Kevin Washbrook is a director of Voters Taking Action on Climate Change.

Fed up with LNG, Kispiox residents band together to stop Petronas pipeline

December 9, 2015Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedDamien Gillis

Fed up with LNG, Kispiox residents band together to stop Petronas pipeline — Kispiox Valley residents at a recent gathering (photo: submitted)

A group of residents from the Kispiox Valley in northwest BC is vowing to stop a pipeline destined for Petronas’ contentious, proposed LNG plant on Lelu Island, near Prince Rupert. “We tried working with the BC Government and the pipeline companies but they have ignored our concerns. Now it’s time to act together – as First Nations and non-First Nations, united,” says retired community development consultant and valley resident Gail MacDonald.

The group – made up of doctors, farmers, loggers, farriers, nurses, business owners, and guide outfitters – was cemented at a December 3 gathering at the Kispiox Community Hall to discuss LNG projects, particularly that of Malaysian energy giant Petronas.

Work ramping up

Opposition in the valley to LNG projects has been galvanized by preparatory work for the pipeline that would feed the Petronas project, several hundred kilometres down the Skeena River, amid vital estuary habitat for wild salmon. The residents are dismayed by construction work in their own region, such as recent logging done for a work yard – especially since Petronas still lacks federal permits for its LNG project and no commitment has been made by the company to build it, with global LNG prices having plummeted to well below the profitability level.

“Residents were shocked to learn that while no LNG project has received a final approval or investment decision, the BC government has granted permits for pipeline work at several locations near their community and considerable work has already begun,” a press release from the group explains. “This has occurred without communication between the BC government and local residents.”

New statement follows unheeded declaration

This recent ramping up of the community’s resolve to stop LNG development follows a virtually unanimous declaration, signed by 150 of the valley’s residents last year.

“Our rural community is a proven model of economic and social resiliency, comprised of diversely skilled professionals, trades people, farmers, forest and resource workers, guides/outfitters, and creative and versatile entrepreneurs,” it noted.

[quote]We support common sense practices of conservative resource management, renewable energy production and use, agriculture as the basis of a strong local food system, and the long-standing wild salmon economy of our region…Therefore, we cannot stand by and allow any industrial presence, including oil and gas development, that would threaten or harm our values and responsibilities as outlined in this declaration.[/quote]

First Nations question unauthorized LNG deals

Chief Gwininitxw, Yvonne Lattie of the Gitxsan Nation questions the legitimacy of some of the deals being held up by industry and government as evidence of First Nations’ support for LNG projects:

[quote]Deals are being signed by a few Hereditary Chiefs but most of us don’t want this industry in our traditional territories. A Hereditary Chief does not have the sole authority to make decisions, as he or she has many house members who have a say on what happens in their traditional territories.[/quote]

Gilbert Johnson, a member of the local Kispiox Band, adds, “The BC Government is ignoring our concerns and has put oil and gas interests above the public interest. The corruption we’ve seen in their dealings with both First Nations and non-First Nations is staggering. We will not stand idly by and let this continue.”

Project faces multiple legal challenges

In addition to this newly formalized opposition from the Kispiox Valley, Petronas and its partners face challenges from a number of fronts, including court cases led by the Gitga’at First Nation, the Lax Kw’alaams Nation and the Gitxsan group known as Madii Lii. Members of both Madii Lii and Lax Kw’alaams are also maintaining resistance camps physically challenging pipeline and plant construction in their respective territories. Meanwhile, the Haida Nation has banned LNG tankers in their coastal waters.

Rafe: Premier Clark right for opposing Trudeau’s Senate plans – but she’s going about it the wrong way

December 7, 2015Canada, PoliticsfeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe- Premier Clark right for opposing Trudeau's Senate plans - but she's going about it the wrong way — Premier Christy Clark (left) meets with PM Justin Trudeau ahead of Paris climate summit (Photo: Flickr CC licence / Province of BC)

Premier Christy Clark is quite right to reject prime minister Trudeau’s silly games with the Senate. It’s just a pity that she must always add irrelevant political mumbo-jumbo to water down and detract from the impact of BC’s decision.

Our position has nothing to do with improving the economy or creating jobs but somehow it’s her political nature to throw in this sort of stuff. It’s harmful because it distracts attention from what is a very serious issue and forecloses the possibility of a rational discussion.

That the present Senate is a bad joke, especially to British Columbia – which has but two more seats than Prince Edward Island and four fewer than New Brunswick – goes without saying. The temptation to simply say to Hell with it is very strong indeed.

Senate has a use – just not in its current form

The easy way to deal with the Senate, obviously, is to simply abolish it. The NDP have taken that position for as long as I can remember but they never seem to reason out what the consequences would be – a country legally dominated politically by Ontario and Quebec. In my view, it’s critical to go back to basics and discuss whether or not we need a Senate, and if so, what form it should take, its powers, the representation issue, and how should it be filled.

I would argue that we will not keep this country together if we only have a House of Commons run by the two central Canadian provinces as far ahead as we dare look. There is no doubt that having provincial powers under section 92 of the Constitution does alleviate the Ottawa dictatorship but what we’re talking about surely is trying to create a national parliament, not a conglomeration of shopping centres.

Land of distinct regions

Canada is too large a country to be a unitary state. Not only is Canada a large, it has different histories from region to region. I invite people to read Jean Barman’s wonderful book, The West Beyond the West to see the separate development of this province from other Canadian regions. Clearly, Atlantic Canada has at least two histories and cultures; Ontario and Quebec we know about; and the Prairie Provinces developed differently and have different demographics and cultures. It is not, therefore, just geography we must unite, but people.

This challenge was seen by the Fathers of Confederation who botched the solution. A Senate must have several characteristics. It’s purpose is to provide representation to regions so as to overcome the dictatorship of strict representation by population. If we don’t want to do that then we must accept the complete domination of the central provinces over the rest of the country in all matters large and small that have national overtones.

I, for one, reject that notion. That being said, if we create a new upper house, how do we parcel out the representation?

What should a reformed Senate look like?

If we base it on population, we’ve accomplished nothing except duplicate the Commons. The US solution is two representatives from each state. This means that states with small populations have the same representation as the large ones but, fortunately, because the states are scattered the way they are, it works out fairly evenly from region to region. That, however, is more good luck than good management.

Germany, has an upper house for the Lander, or regions, where Lander with larger populations have more members than smaller ones, but not the number that their population would entitle them to.

If we decide we do need an Upper House because of the nature of our country, which I believe we do, it means we have to sit down and deal. If the motive is to make a big country stronger and guarantee its permanency, surely there are men and women capable of putting this together.

There is the question as to how the Senators are selected. To have, as we now have, senators appointed by the federal government to represent the regions is akin to having the fox in charge of the hen house – an obvious conflict of interest which only means that the House of Commons has a stranglehold on the Upper House, tempered only by the individuality that from time to time shows itself.

If the senators are to be appointed, then that must be done by the provinces. If they are to be elected, it creates the aura and the fact of democracy that I think is critical.

Abolishing the Senate isn’t the answer

I happen to have had a pretty long history involved in constitutional affairs, including some pretty heavy debates on the Senate. During the run-up to the patriation of the constitution in the 70s, in which I was officially involved, it was instructive to note that Senate reform was a very good idea to all provinces except Ontario and Quebec, which had a hell of a good deal the way it was.

Yes, we can save ourselves a lot of trouble by just abolishing the Senate, although the constitutional ability to do that is compromised by the need for unanimity amongst the provinces, which might not be forthcoming. Assuming that it is, then we must clearly understand what the consequences would be.

If, on the other hand, we feel that there is good reason for an upper house in Canada, we will have to make up our minds to work our butts off to overcome the difficulties involved in creating such an institution that actually works and accomplishes our ambitions. If we are too lazy or indifferent to the nation’s long-term well-being, then we won’t go down this road.

A better way for Clark to go about it

This is the problem that arises out of Premier Clark’s rejection of Mr. Trudeau’s idiotic and – for British Columbia – insulting solution. Premier Clark recognized the insult and had she simply rejected the “solution” and gone on to say that BC will cooperate in the future as it always has in the past in creating an upper house that is fair to all, that would be statesmanship.

I hope and trust that the premier thinks about this, studies the history of British Columbia’s long and constructive contribution to this subject, and undertakes to continue that process starting immediately.

Let’s quit pretending dams like Site C are good for the climate

December 2, 2015Climate Change, Climate Science, Hydropower, WATERfeaturedDamien Gillis

Large hydro dams aren't green - they actually drive climate change — BC’s WAC Bennett Dam (Photo: Damien Gillis)

There are many good reasons not to build Site C Dam: destruction of farmland and wildlife habitat, the violation of First Nations’ rights, the likely $15 Billion tab for taxpayers, and the fact that we simply don’t need the power. But you can add one very important item to the list: CLIMATE.

Hydro full of hot air

I raise this now because we have climate on the brain with the Paris talks and because it’s the final fig leaf clung to by defenders of this bogus project. People like BC Hydro’s Siobhan Jackson – Environmental and Community Mitigation Manager for Site C – perpetuate the myth that hydro dams, while ecologically devastating, are somehow “clean”. In a recent op-ed in the Vancouver Sun, Jackson acknowledged, then quickly downplayed the GHGs that would be produced by the project.

“Site C, after an initial burst of expenditure, would lock in low rates for many decades, and would produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy than any source save nuclear,” she says. From a strictly GHG perspective dams may be better than coal. But there are two big problems with this argument.

Inflating demand to justify Site C

First, it’s a false dichotomy. Hydro’s own numbers, recently submitted to the BC Utilities Commission, show we won’t need the electricity from Site C until at least 2029 – unless we use it to power the cooling of gas into LNG, in which case the climate rationale just went right out the window, since even a few LNG plants would require a massive ramping up of fracked natural gas in northeast BC, which is a huge climate problem. Jackson contradicts her own people, repeating the old saw that we will simply need more power – 40% in 20 years – a figure pulled straight from between her butt cheeks.

The truth is Hydro has always and severely overestimated future power demands, as we have repeatedly demonstrated in these pages. The fact is we’re using essentially the same amount of electricity today in BC as we did at the turn of the millennium, despite population increases and new gadgetry (which is increasingly efficient).

So the choice between flooding another 80 km of the Peace Valley for a third hydro dam and relying on coal-fired energy is an absolutely false one. Here’s what is true: Site C is a lot worse for the environment than the very real alternative of continued conservation.

Ignoring the latest science

The other big problem with Jackson’s argument is it soft-pedals the serious climate impacts of Hydro dams. She claims the research and methodology relied on by Hydro to measure Site C’s GHG footprint is top-notch. I beg to differ. New research is showing that dams produce far more greenhouse gases than previously thought.

For instance, this peer-reviewed study in Science Daily notes:

[quote]Researchers have documented an underappreciated suite of players in global warming: dams, the water reservoirs behind them, and surges of greenhouse gases as water levels go up and down. In separate studies, researchers saw methane levels jump 20- and 36-fold during drawdowns.[/quote]

Methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2 – 86 times worse, in fact, over a 20-year period, according to Dr. Robert Howarth from Cornell University, a globally acknowledged expert on the subject. This is the same reason fracking is so bad for the climate – pure “natural gas” is methane and far more of it leaks into the atmosphere during the extraction, treatment and piping processes than we once thought. We call these “fugitive methane emissions”. The unnatural water bodies we call dam reservoirs accumulate dead biomass from all those trees cut down and hillsides unearthed, which in turn rots and emits the same methane into the atmosphere, producing serious GHGs over the entire life of a project.

This explains why a study in the journal Water, Air and Soil Pollution determined that “one Amazonian dam, Tucurui, was once calculated to have greater emissions than Sao Paulo, Brazil’s largest city and among the 10 most populous in the world,” as this 2013 story on Brazil’s exploding carbon footprint explains.

A whole lot of concrete

This is, of course, on top of the enormous emissions associated with construction, from all that concrete poured and heavy machinery operating for a decade. Ms. Jackson acknowledges this as an “initial burst of expenditure” (if you can call ten years of construction “initial”, that is). In a particularly insightful article on the subject in EcoWatch, author Gary Wocker notes:

[quote]For one medium-sized dam project proposed for the Cache la Poudre River in Colorado, it is estimated that the construction would emit 218,000 metric tons CO2-equivalents which equals the emissions from almost 46,000 automobiles on the road for one year. Larger dams, such as Hoover Dam which contains 4.36 million cubic yards of concrete, would have exponentially higher climate change impacts from construction. The largest hydro-electric dam on the planet—the Three Gorges Dam in China—contains 27.15 million cubic meters of cement.[/quote]

Lesser of two evils

So Jackson and co. breeze by the ten-year construction phase, instead landing on the argument that Site C will have a smaller reservoir than the existing Williston, therefore fewer GHGs from dead biomass by comparison. Okay – but that’s a lesser of two evils argument. The important question is not how many GHGs Site C will produce compared to larger reservoirs, but rather how it would fare compared with other renewable technologies; and, even more importantly, do we even need it at all? Since the answer to that is “no”, the whole conversation is moot.

Even if we did need more power in 30 years, the technologies available will be exponentially better and cheaper, so what’s the rush to plunk down $15 billion of your scarce tax dollars now and destroy a whole valley in the process? Moreover, the climate crisis is such that adding a comparatively small degree of new emissions to existing ones is no longer an acceptable argument. We need to be going in the opposite direction – i.e. cutting emissions and total energy consumption. These are things that our new Prime Minister – as he jostles with provinces like ours over their climate plans and the loopholes they build into them – would do well to bear in mind as he’s petitioned to reconsider federal permits for the project issued by his predecessor. Site C has no place in Mr. Trudeau’s federal energy strategy.

Nothing “Clean” about Site C

Calling an 80 km-long dam that will flood or disturb 30,000 acres of some of the best farmland we have left in Canada, contaminate fish with absolutely toxic levels of mercury for decades to come, destroy some of the best remaining wildlife habitat in an already industrially-devastated region and produce massive greenhouse gas emissions hardly qualifies this as a “clean energy project.”

Make what arguments you will for Site C, Ms. Jackson, Premier Clark. Tell us it will produce construction jobs (many of which are already going to Albertans). Try to convince us that awarding mega-contracts to your construction pals and political backers will be good for the whole BC economy. But don’t try to dupe British Columbians into believing that Site C Dam is somehow a “climate solution”.

That’s just a whole lot of hot air.

When the honeymoon ends with PM Trudeau

December 2, 2015Canada, PoliticsfeaturedRafe Mair

Justin Trudeau following his election victory (Flickr CC licence - John Tavares) — Justin Trudeau following his election victory (Flickr CC licence – John Tavares)

Without exception, honeymoons – the real ones and the political ones – end. I don’t for a moment believe that the wheels will come off the Justin Trudeau administration but, as happened to his father shortly after his election in 1968, the wheels will start to wobble, the love affair will cool, and Justin will look human again.

Nothing should be taken from Trudeau’s victory – he earned it and the relief that came with the end of Harper has spilled over into the beginning of his reign. It’s important, however, in trying to gauge what will happen to his administration and when, to examine why Trudeau won.

Harper fatigue, Mulcair stumble

A baby boomer's plea- On Harper, Legacy and the Canadian election — Stephen Harper exited the political stage on Oct. 19 – to the relief of many Canadians (Flickr/Stephen Harper cc licence)

First, as mentioned, the public had become very tired of Stephen Harper – tired may not be quite strong enough. In any event, he lost the centre-right, which Conservatives must have and will only recapture with the right leader – along with skill, because the Liberals must have it too.

Speaking of wheels, they certainly did come off of the NDP wagon just at the very worst time – no time left to recover. Thomas Mulcair was victim of his own good character when he opposed the Niqab issue in Quebec, while Harper did well encouraging racism and Trudeau almost as well by standing back and watching. Good politics dictated that Mulcair waffle but he yielded to common decency and it cost him dearly, as virtue usually does in politics.

Media one of election’s big losers

Second, the Postmedia papers became unpopular with their support of the disliked Harper. The Globe and Mail seemed mad when they supported the Conservative Party but not Harper and Mulcair, having already crapped out, leaving Trudeau as beneficiary of media support that had the opposite effect than was intended.

A mysterious charisma

Thirdly, one can’t overlook the attraction of Trudeau as the election proceeded. He has that mysterious element charisma, a beautiful young family, and ran a campaign that went without error from the first debate on.

The honeymoon lives on because nothing has yet gone wrong. That will change – you can make book on it.

Road ahead will get bumpier

Trudeau at Turkey G20 Summit (Flickr CC - Prime Minister of Canada) — Trudeau at Turkey G20 Summit (Flickr CC – PM of Canada)

Trudeau has made the most out of his foreign forays where the girls have hugged him and heads of state have patted him on the head. It didn’t hurt that he got into the pleasant little exchanges with the queen. All of this makes for no bad headlines.

There are two things which will change, but the timing is open.

First, the losing parties have leadership problems. No one seems to be pressing Mulcair and politicians are unlikely to move unless pushed or a better deal comes along. The Conservatives are worse off because they not only need a leader but also must mend the party, and the two issues are closely intertwined.

Since Mr. Harper, with the happy treachery of Peter McKay, stole be Conservative Party for the Reform Party, it’s not been united except by the one thing that always closes ranks – power. With defeat, that glow has disappeared, recrimination has taken over, and Tories have a very sick party to try to make better.

It’s 1976 all over again – a party in tatters and no leadership candidate of consequence in sight. When you think that the finals of the Conservative leadership that spring were between the unknown (outside Quebec) Claude Wagner and the utterly unknown Joe (Joe who?) Clark, each of whom had the charm and charisma of a wet sock, the depths of party despair were obvious. After three years, a listless Joe Clark managed to eke out a victory against an increasingly unpopular Pierre Trudeau, only to give it right back a few months later. The possibility that this scenario unfolds in 2016, gives Trudeau II hope that his first term will be uncharacteristically easy.

At present, excepting the old guard left over from the Chrétien years, most of the Trudeau cabinet is untested. The new gender equal cabinet has yet to do very much. This will change. For the moment, the new defense minister, Harjit Sajjan, has rather caught the fancy of the media and probably most Canadians. Whether or not he falls on his face remains to be seen but you can be certain that some of the new cabinet ministers will attract unwanted if not unwarranted attention. Some will goof, some badly. Some will shine and most will be innocuous. In any event, there’ll now be cabinet ministers to pick on and blame, which will change things dramatically.

Thirdly, there will be an opposition – something to report on. Absent an exciting opposition leader, the press won’t be able to make as much hay but it won’t be an all-Trudeau show. If the Tories choose somebody who does attract attention or Mr. Mulcair bounces back, the Liberals will be shown as a government opposed, not a government free of constraints.

Fourthly, there’s the question of the media. It is in considerable disarray and Postmedia has been exposed as an extension of the fossil fuel industry. The Globe and Mail badly soiled its copybook at election time but, however shaken, might be the only real player left in the game. In any event, Mr. Trudeau gains from the mainstream media’s ever diminishing credibility. Whether or not the non-mainstream media picks up the slack remains to be seen. Politics, as with all things, does abhor a vacuum.

Energy file will prove a challenge

Finally, and this will be the big challenge for Mr. Trudeau, there’s the energy crisis which very much includes global warming, an issue to which the public has become much attracted. While Trudeau has probably already committed more than he can deliver, he’ll be pushed to do more by the left, as little as possible by the right, and be seen to make progress by voters.

The serious money in politics today is from the fossil fuel industry, even more willing to bribe politicians with donations than ever because their very existence is challenged. They’ve already bought off Postmedia, the country’s largest newspaper chain, and now it must be the politicians or they’re in trouble.

This is Trudeau’s big challenge as, for the first time, the public have rallied behind the anti-fossil fuel movement. Alternative energy sources now make sense to more people, the hypocrisy of governments talking about weaning society off fossil fuels while pouring subsidies into the industry is wearing thin, and the environmental movement, so scorned by the Harper government, is stronger and more effective than ever for having been proved right on the main arguments.

Mr. Trudeau, in his first term, will have to deal with three, perhaps more, proposed pipelines, several very unpopular proposed LNG plants in British Columbia, and the fossil fuel industry in general, which must extract and export or die. It’s a rich industry, used to having its way with politicians, and a force to be reckoned with. On the other hand, Mr. Trudeau is no dummy and understands these issues very well.

The testing question is whether or not Mr. Trudeau will do what the people increasingly demand as industry throws in all its chips to prevent that happening.

Like him or hate him, Pierre Trudeau had guts – soon enough we’ll find out if his son inherited them

Rafe: How does oil-boosting Postmedia boss get into News Hall of Fame?

November 28, 2015Energy and Resources, LNG, Media, Oil&GasfeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe: How does Oil-boosting Postmedia boss get into news Hall of Fame? — Paul Godfrey (Photo: Samja Frkovic / Flickr – Victoria Rose)

In the news recently was an item about Paul V. Godfrey, C.M., the President of Postmedia, the largest newspaper chain in the country, owning some 15 papers in major centres plus a slew of community papers across the land. M. Godfrey has been admitted to the Canadian News Hall of Fame.

I have one or two questions for Mr. Godfrey, arising out of investigations I’ve been doing in recent months.

Mr. Godfrey, can we agree that Postmedia wholly owns the Vancouver Province, the Vancouver Sun, and the National Post, which circulate in Vancouver?

A question has occurred to me, Mr. Godfrey: Does Postmedia have some sort of deal with the Fraser Institute whereby you give that organization a great deal of coverage on almost every issue that deals with fossil fuels and the environment?

Now, a couple of years ago I would have been scared stiff to ask that question for fear of being sued for the inferences likely to be drawn from it. However, after the stranger deals of yours I have uncovered in the last few months, I realize that you are in no position to get too excited about questions along this line.

Nothing to worry about, says Fraser Institute

What piqued my interest recently was an article in the Vancouver Sun by the Fraser Institute assuring us that we had no need to worry about LNG tankers on our coast. The writer advised that the only major oil spill in the last 20 years was from a Ferry, not a Tanker so relax everybody.

I’ll not devote too much time to this absurd declaration but simply ask why the Fraser Institute doesn’t tell the whole truth and, secondly, avoids examining places where there’s a lot of tanker traffic, unlike BC where there is very little?

The fatal flaw in the Fraser Institute’s presentation comes in a few little words in one paragraph which talks about “The oil spills at sea”. This is similar language to what Woodfibre LNG uses, as does the self-declared expert – from the industry, I might add – Captain Stephen Brown.

The problem with this and similar pious declarations is obvious: Howe Sound, the Fraser River, Saanich Inlet, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Douglas Channel, Hecate Strait and so on are not at sea, or the high seas, in the words of WLNG’s Byng Giraud, and I would direct the learned gentleman to such places as the Bosphorous and the Dardanelles – to name but two places which more replicate what tanker traffic will face on the BC coast. Indeed, if the Fraser Institute would just subscribe to gCaptain (free) and read of regular tanker mishaps all over the worldn they might not spout such tendentious shit.

The question I ask Mr. Godfrey is:

[quote]Does Postmedia or any of its papers have a deal with the Fraser Institute similar to its one with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers? Or the formal partnership with Resource Works, the less than truthful advocate for Woodfibre LNG?[/quote]

Postmedia partnered with LNG lobby

My interest in this matter arose out of the partnership deal between the Vancouver Province and Resource Works. I admit my involvement – I, along with most citizens of the area, am vigorously opposed to WLNG.

When I read Resource Works’ mission statement and saw that the Province was a partner in their nefarious venture, I was horrified. This was so unethical and so contrary to the formal and informal principles that have always guided the newspaper industry that I couldn’t believe what I was reading. I must tell you, Mr. Godfrey, that when my findings were I printed here, the publisher Damien Gillis and I were concerned that it was some sort of strange mistake, even a hoax, and that we’d be sued. We took the chance – nobody else in the media was prepared to – and when no denial came from Postmedia or the Province, we had to assume we had struck paydirt.

Composite of Resource Works "Partnerships" page — Composite of Resource Works “Partnerships” page

In following through on this revelation, I discovered that the National Post, through its publisher, Douglas Kelly, had pledged its troth, in truly loving terms, to the fossil fuel industry!

Being a curious sort of bugger, I followed through and, lo and behold, came across the two agreements between Postmedia and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), certified by documents. The first came by way of a Powerpoint-style presentation pitching Postmedia’s offer to CAPP for a nationwide editorial and ad campaign. The presentation was leaked online, picked up by Greenpeace, then published by The Vancouver Observer last year. The other is a deal between the Financial Post and CAPP – freely available on parent Postmedia’s website.

I have repeatedly made these findings public – or as public as one can when no newspaper will print them – and in the absence of a denial from Postmedia concluded, hard as it was to believe, that these agreements were for real even though they demonstrate that Postmedia are little more than humble shills for the fossil fuel industry.

Bearing in mind that the Sun, Province and National Post, and a dozen other daily papers in Canada, belong to Postmedia and take their marching orders from you, Mr. Godfrey, it must surely be fair to ask: How can you defend managing your papers so as to burnish the image of the fossil fuel industry, of all groups?

This obviously includes avoiding stories which would be harmful to your partners in that filthy industry. When the fix is in, what the media does not report is even more important than what it does.

Special treatment for Fraser Institute

Perhaps there is no deal or nudge, nudge, wink, wink, understanding with the Fraser Institute. If that’s so, the question is obvious: Why do they get so much coverage in your newspapers and why don’t less right-wing think tanks get any, or at best very little? I guess you’d be pretty hypocritical to agree to brown-nose industry no matter how destructive they are and at the same time give equal time to those who care about sentimental things like the environment, the atmosphere and global warming.

Forgive a final question, Mr. Godfrey:

[quote]Considering your lovey dovey relationship with Resource Works and, even worse, with CAPP, and the journalist’s duty to report to the public free of any interest in conflict with that duty, aren’t you just a tad embarrassed at entering The Canadian News Hall of Fame?[/quote]

Much to be learned from girls’ soccer and fish farm sponsorship debacle

November 27, 2015Fisheries, OceansfeaturedRay Grigg

Fourteen-year-old Freyja Reed talks to reporters (Alexandra Morton/Facebook)

Freyja Reed’s October 29th dismissal from the U-15 Riptide girl’s soccer team in the Comox Valley was the culmination of complexities arising from the arrival of a new sponsor for the league, Marine Harvest Canada, BC’s largest operator of net-pen salmon farms. So began Freyja’s principled refusal to refrain from making critical comments about the ecological damage caused by salmon farming. The resulting controversy received repeated local and national media coverage, becoming a public relations disaster for Marine Harvest.

This was not what Marine Harvest intended. Ian Roberts, its spokesperson, said his corporation’s contributions to community groups “have not, and will not, and will never, direct a recipient’s right to voice their opinions or their ability to speak freely,” adding that “the disagreement with one member’s family is an internal matter between the club and the family.”

A social justice issue

Sean Arbour, the chair of the Riptide Steering Committee said that Freyja’s criticism had created a “bad spot” for the players and parents, that required her dismissal, noting:

[quote]At the end of the day, it’s all about the kids.[/quote]

If only the issue were so simple. The controversy is now about social justice, with other overtones that invite exploration — exactly what Marine Harvest was trying to avoid by sponsoring the eight Tier-2 teams of the league.

The decision to dismiss Freyja from the team was conveniently made by the Riptide Steering Committee, a move that seemed to absolve Marine Harvest of any direct responsibility. But the corporation is implicated, at least indirectly. Such corporate sponsorship is intended to seem altruistic and uncontroversial. But the real objective is to elevate the profile of the corporation as a respectable member of the community — with a subtle but implicit quid pro quo — we will support you, if you support us.

What is Marine Harvest buying?

Leveraging community support for the controversial practice of salmon farming explains why, as the CBC News noted, “the company sponsors more than 100 community organizations on Vancouver Island, including sports for young people.” For its part, Ian Roberts said he believes it’s legitimate for the soccer association to ask parents not to “speak ill” of the club and its policies. (The Reeds were criticizing the practices of the sponsor, not the club.) Furthermore, explained Roberts, Marine Harvest “provides youth an opportunity to not only participate in sports but participate at a reasonable cost” — a “cost” that would seem to be the suppression of critical thinking and the forfeiture of free expression.

The CBC News coverage placed this “cost” under the heading of “corporate opportunism”. And Dr. Margot Young, a University of BC law professor who specializes in gender discrimination in sports, concluded that, “[Freyja] is being muzzled. To say: ‘You give up soccer or you give up free speech’ is outrageous.” Although, as Dr. Young added, free expression under the Charter does not apply to sport teams or corporations.

Bad optics

But the optics for Marine Harvest are terrible when the ambitions of a talented 14-year-old girl are being thwarted because of a corporation already steeped in environmental controversy.

Sports are about fairness, ethics and principles, qualities that Freyja obviously had in abundance before she got entangled with Marine Harvest. Maybe her standards are too high for any of their teams.