French President Francois Hollande is pressuring Stephen Harper ahead of Paris climate talks (Twitter/@pmharper)
The pressure is building to reduce global carbon emissions. At each meeting of the United Nations’ Conference of the Parties (COP), the urgency becomes more palpable.
The Lima meeting of COP 20 in December, 2014, failed to reach the preliminary commitments necessary for the binding international agreements expected at the COP 21 meeting in Paris in December, 2015. France is getting nervous because its reputation will be sullied if the Paris COP is a failure — French President Francois Holland made this very clear to Prime Minister Stephen Harper during an autumn 2014 visit to Ottawa.
With the Kyoto Protocol expired and without a binding replacement agreement from subsequent COP meetings in Cancun, Copenhagen and Durban, the default position has been for individual countries, provinces and communities to do the best they can to reduce emissions. This approach has been helpful but not sufficient. Almost all of Canada’s reduced emissions have come from provincial initiatives, not federal. Most other countries have been unable to meet their voluntary reduction targets.
Economy decoupling from fossil fuels…slowly
Meanwhile, international agencies have been carefully charting carbon emissions for hopeful signs. But these signs are rare. In 2012, for example, the increase in carbon emissions of 1.4% was less than the increase in GDP of 3.4%, indicating that the world economy is beginning to decouple from fossil fuels by becoming more efficient. In 2013, carbon emissions crept up by 2.3% while GDP rose by 3.3%.
In 2014, emissions rose by 2.5% while GDP increased by 3.3%. If climate change is going to be slowed and reversed, however, total global emissions must not just trail GDP but must be reduced by a yearly average of at least 2.5% until all emissions reach zero on or before 2100. Any delays now will mean steeper future reductions.
Efficiency not enough
Two lessons are to be learned from these statistics. First, efficiency alone in a world of expanding GDP is unlikely to bring about sufficient carbon emission reductions. And second, although the accomplishment of efficiency is mostly symbolic, it is nonetheless important. Every factory that uses less energy reduces emissions. The same is true for every new car that burns less fuel, and for every LED bulb that replaces an incandescent one. Statistics confirm that every individual choice, no matter how small, contributes to measurable environmental benefits.
Another development is promising. The prestigious journal, Nature Geoscience, recently reported that more than half of all known fossil fuel reserves on the planet will have to remain unburned if we are to avoid dire climate change. With this realization, hundreds of the world’s financial institutions, foundations and universities are beginning to transfer billions of dollars of investments from coal, oil and gas to renewable energies.
Time is short
But time is crucial and the numbers are daunting. Global yearly carbon dioxide emissions are now, as of the beginning of 2015, about 37 gigatonnes. To translate this number into slightly more approachable terms, this is 37,000 million tonnes. The wisps of smoke drifting up from a hunter-gatherer’s cooking fire or from a solitary country cottage makes our planet seem very large. But 37,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide is a declaration that our fires have grown sufficiently large to influence the planet we occupy. So we should not be surprised if our emissions are changing climate, acidifying oceans, melting ice caps, raising sea levels, driving species to extinction.
These consequences are being confirmed with sobering statistics:
Six months ago, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration measured the world’s average temperature at a new record of 16.2°C, 1.3°C higher than than the 20th century average. The 10 hottest years since 1880 occurred in the 15 years between 1998 and 2013; none occurred before 1880.
The pre-human extinction rate for species was 0.1 per million per annum; the present rate is somewhere between 100 and 1,000, a rate that is 1,000 to 10,000 times normal.
For centuries prior to 1800 sea level rise was essentially zero; from 1900 to 2000 it was 1.7 mm per year; from 1990 to 2013 it increased to 3 mm. The total sea level rise by 2100 is expected to be about 0.5 m. But many variables could increase this number. Earth’s average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are expected to reach 400 ppm sometime in 2015. The last time concentrations were this high, about 3 million years ago, sea levels stabilized at about 10 metres above present levels. This suggests sea level rise will be continuous for centuries, presenting colossal challenges for coastal cities, settlements and agriculture.
The importance of reducing carbon dioxide emissions continues to increase exponentially. This means that 2015 will be an even more crucial year for taking corrective action. The longer we procrastinate, the more radical and difficult must be our future reduction measures.
If our inclination to inaction continues, we may reach a time when the problem of climate change is unstoppable and unsolvable. Unfortunately, we don’t know when this time will occur. We may have already reached and passed it. But we can be virtually certain that continued delays will only make the challenges and the consequences increasingly difficult — for our climate, for our oceans, for innumerable species, and for civilization as we know it. Whether 2015 becomes a year for optimism remains uncertain.
A Toronto March in solidarity with Guatemalan Goldcorp protestors (Photo: Allan Lissner)
It sometimes seems people in the mining and fossil fuel industries — along with their government promoters — don’t believe in the future. What else could explain the mad rush to extract and use up the Earth’s resources as quickly and wastefully as possible?
Mining production doubles globally
Global mining production, including fossil fuels, has almost doubled since 1984, from just over nine-billion tonnes to almost 17-billion in 2012, with the greatest increases over the past 10 years.
It’s partly to meet rising demand from expanding human populations and supply the cycle of consumerism that fuels the global economy through planned obsolescence, marketing unnecessary products and wasteful technologies. And, as the British Geological Survey notes:
[quote]It may be uncomfortable to acknowledge, but wars have been the drivers for many of mankind’s technological developments. Such technologies depend on secure supplies of numerous mineral commodities for which demand inevitably escalates in times of war.[/quote]
Canada: Global mining titan
Mining is important to human well-being, but the current economic system means it’s often aimed at maximizing profit with little regard for people or the environment. It’s one area where Canadians can make a difference. Canada is a global leader in mining, especially in Latin America. According to the Mining Association of Canada, “Almost 60% of the world’s public mining companies are listed on the TSX and TSX-Venture Exchanges, and 70% of the equity capital raised globally for mining companies is raised on these exchanges.” The association adds, “Canadian-headquartered mining companies accounted for nearly 37% of budgeted worldwide exploration expenditures in 2012.”
Canadian mining companies haven’t always had a great record for environmental and social responsibility in communities where they operate — but public scrutiny and pressure may be helping to change that. In the face of criticism, industry leaders insist practices are improving. “The Canadian mining industry, and certainly what our members are doing now, is much, much different now than what it was 20, 25 years ago,” Canadian Mining Association president and CEO Pierre Gratton told Global News in response to a critical Council on Hemispheric Affairs article.
According to the June 2014 article:
[quote]Large-scale Canadian mining companies, and the Canadian government that oversees such commercial ventures, have failed to adhere to reliable standards of international law, which assert that home states are responsible for the actions of their citizens abroad.[/quote]
The article points to evidence that Canadian mining corporations have often operated with little regard for nature reserves and protected areas, and have depleted scarce water supplies, neglected indigenous rights and disrupted communities and created health problems through air, water and land pollution. “Each year, a number of protestors who raise concerns against mining activities are seriously injured, persecuted, or even killed.”
Goldcorp mines outrage in Guetemala
That appears to be the case at a gold- and silver-mining operation in Guatemala run by a subsidiary of Canada’s Goldcorp. According to the Guardian, it’s drawn numerous local complaints for “intimidation, threats, social division, violence, bribery and corruption of local authorities, destruction and contamination of water sources, livestock dying, houses shaking, cracked walls, the criminalization of protest, forest cleared, and appalling health impacts such as malnutrition and skin diseases.”
An indigenous man who spoke against the mine was beaten and burned alive by hooded men who first questioned him about anti-mining activities. Goldcorp has denied the allegations.
Lawsuits could lift “corporate veil”
In the past, Canadian companies haven’t been held responsible for actions of foreign subsidiaries — but that may change. A number of people from Eritrea and Guatemala are suing three Canadian mining companies in Canadian courts for alleged abuses at mines in those countries, which include forced labour, human rights violations and assault.
The Financial Post said lawyers are getting around the “corporate veil” by “suing the Canadian parents for negligence and other traditional torts on the grounds that management hasn’t lived up to the standards outlined in their public pronouncements.” In other words, the companies are being held globally to the standards they publicly claim at home.
Mining is important but, as with much human activity in the face of rapidly growing populations, we must learn to develop and use resources in ways that aren’t wasteful, destructive and unsustainable. And mining companies must be held to high standards for environmental and human rights protection — at home and abroad.
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundations Senior Editor Ian Hanington.
P3 skytrain construction by SNC-Lavalin killed many businesses on Vancouver’s Cambie St. (Wikipedia)
The following is republished with permission from Policy Note – the blog of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ BC office.
By Keith Reynolds
The BC Finance Ministry has produced a report much more critical of Partnerships BC and its activities around public private partnerships (P3s) than might have been expected by a province so committed to the practice. It raises issues of conflict of interest, dubious practices and questionable assumptions in the multi- billion dollar program. The story has received no media coverage.
While it is likely the province will continue to push P3s with undiminished enthusiasm for large projects, the report and surrounding documents acknowledge many of the criticisms of P3s raised by other groups including both the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the BC Construction Association.
The results of the Partnerships BC study were announced in a December 16 press release in which the government promised to carry out the recommendations in the report as well as further recommendations contained in observations from the report’s steering committee. If the government carries out this commitment it will mean Partnerships BC will lose some of its autonomy in the way P3s are delivered.
The study arises from a commitment in the 2011 Throne Speech that the province was going to take a hard look at is Crown corporations “to ensure taxpayers and families are protected and the interests of all British Columbians are well served.” The studies are being conducted by the Ministry of Finance’s Internal Audit and Advisory Services branch (IAAS).
Among the biggest issues in the report is conflict of interest. The report states:
[quote]There is a concern that Partnerships BC is potentially biased towards certain procurement methodologies because it is mandated to be both a self-sustaining organization and an advisor to government. This creates the perception that Partnerships BC’s advice may be biased towards revenue generating opportunities for the organization.[/quote]
In a letter from the report’s Steering Committee to the Minister of Finance containing “additional observations” the Committee recommends taking some decision making power away from Partnerships BC. The Committee recommends:
[quote]To ensure the determination of work directed to Partnerships BC is unbiased, it is recommended that the initial screening of all new capital projects for P3 viability be conducted by the Ministry of Finance under the direction of the Deputy Minister.[/quote]
The report also identifies (although it dismisses) the potential conflict of interest of hiring of the former PBC Chief Executive Officer, Larry Blain, as its Board Chair and then contracting with him to provide other services. However, the report also says:
[quote]A sample of fourteen consultant and contractor files, representing 23% of total files, was also reviewed. More than half of the contract files reviewed did not contain adequate documentation.[/quote]
The report does not say whether or not Blain’s contracts were among these deficient files. Since the IAAS review began both Blain and the woman who replaced him as administrative head of the agency, Sarah Clark, have left Partnerships BC.
While the report specifically says it did not examine the methodology that justifies the use of P3s some of its findings touch on this methodology. For example, Partnerships BC says it bases its decision on whether or not to use a P3 by comparing the cost of a P3 with a public sector comparator. However, PBC frequently uses what it considers to be the most expensive possible method of public procurement (Design/Bid/Build), ignoring less expensive methods of public procurement such as Design/Build, which even the Canadian Council for Public Private Partnerships (C2P3) considers public procurement.
The report says:
[quote]In many instances, PBC has used DBB (Design Bid Build) procurement as the benchmark. However this is not always understood by the project owner to be the most likely alternative as the project owner might choose to do DB (Design Build) procurement if a P3 does not generate value for money. Consideration should be given to using the most likely alternative that the project owner would use, to ensure that value for money is correctly stated and is understood by all parties.[/quote]
The report states that there is an inherent uncertainty in the assumptions used by Partnerships BC to justify P3s and recommends that:
[quote]Given the inherent uncertainty of the assumptions made in the value for money calculations, at least one jurisdiction in Canada has set a minimum value for money threshold (5%) that is required to go forward as a P3, and the government could consider doing the same.[/quote]
The report examines “bundling,” a practice by which smaller projects are linked to provide a large enough contract for a P3. This has been a particular bugbear for the BC Construction Association which finds many of its members are too small to participate in such projects.
The report finds this is not a common practice, but despite this, the Steering Committee for the report recommended to the Minister of Finance that “government strongly restrict the use of bundling and provide clear guidance on what is considered acceptable bundling.”
The report recommends that the trigger threshold for using a P3 be raised from $50 million to $100 million saying, “Stakeholders believe that this threshold needs to be raised to ensure greater cost/benefit returns on these complex and costly projects.” This being said the report suggests loopholes be left open should the government want a P3 for a smaller project.
The Steering Committee makes another recommendation which may undermine PBC’s involvement saying:
[quote]For local government and associated entities within BC, allowing Partnerships BC to provide services only through direct invitation (on a government to government basis) provided there is a positive return to the Crown Corporation.[/quote]
If followed through on this may reduce pressure on local governments to use PBC for projects.
A significant portion of the report focuses on the possibility of PBC competing with the private sector which might be delivering these services instead of a government agency. Major consulting firms, and smaller ones as well, could have delivered many of the services provided by Partnerships BC.
In 2002 when Larry Blain, who had also served on Gordon Campbell’s transition team when he became Premier, was appointed as head of Partnerships BC, the agency seemed largely untouchable. This seems to be changing.
In a final irony, the report itself may be a conflict of interest. Partnerships BC is a private company owned by the Ministry of Finance, thus the Ministry of Finance is reviewing its own agency which raises its own conflict of interest issues.
Keith Reynolds is a National Research Representative for the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
Sukanto Tanoto (right), the man behind the proposed Woodfibre LNG project
Permit me to make some observations about the LNG situation in Squamish. What the people of Howe Sound do is their affair. I can only give them the benefit, if any, of my experience over the years.
We are not dealing here with honest people – it is not hyperbolic to call them crooks. The powers behind Woodfibre LNG have been convicted of large tax evasion and substantial environmental degradation. Sukanto Tanoto, his family and associates have been consorts of the worst sort of financial manipulators in Indonesia – right up to the former President Suharto.
…one of the world’s largest palm oil companies, owned by Sukanto Tanoto, was fined US$205m after being shown to have evaded taxes by using shell companies in the [British Virgin Islands] and elsewhere. The company has agreed to pay the fines.
Documents arising from the case show that Tanoto’s company, Asian Agri, systematically produced fake invoices and fake hedging contracts to evade more than $100m of taxes.
According to evidence contained in more than 8,000 papers, the company, which employs 25,000 people in 14 subsidiaries and owns 165,000 hectares of plantations, was engaged in “routine and systematic fraudulent accounting and book-keeping practices” using British jurisdictions.
I am by no means the only person to notice that the permit request by Fortis BC to upgrade its pipelines in order to feed the proposed Woodfibre plant precedes permission to build the plant. That’s because the “fix is in”.
From childhood we’re taught to respect the law and the “policemen” who enforce it. It rubs against the grain to think of breaking even a minor law.
What happens, however, if the laws are stacked in favour of the powerful and against ordinary citizens? What if the laws are so unfair as to be travesties of justice?
The place we, the public, look for protection is environmental assessment laws. So let’s look at The National Energy Board, in the news much recently, and see how they look after us.
Hearings called a “farce”
Some of the most damning evidence of the National Energy Board’s Kinder Morgan hearings came from a former BC Hydro CEO and deputy minister of energy for both Manitoba and Ontario, Mark Eliesen. He says this about the proceedings of the National Energy Board in the Kinder Morgan hearings, from which he resigned as an official intervenor:
[quote]
In effect, this so-called public hearing process has become a farce, and this Board a truly industry captured regulator.
In addition to gutting the oral-cross examination feature of a public hearing process that supports proper questioning and an adequate level of due diligence, there are other Board decisions that have been made over the course of this hearing that reflect a pre-determined outcome.
The evidence on the record shows that decisions made by the Board at this hearing are dismissive of Intervenors. They reflect a lack of respect for hearing participants, a deep erosion of the standards and practices of natural justice that previous Boards have respected, and an undemocratic restriction of participation by citizens, communities, professionals and First Nations either by rejecting them outright or failing to provide adequate funding to facilitate meaningful participation. (Emphasis added)
[/quote]
He closed his letter resigning as an intervenor thusly:
[quote]The National Energy Board is not fulfilling its obligation to review the Trans Mountain Expansion Project objectively. Accordingly it is not only British Columbians, but all Canadians that cannot look to the Board’s conclusions as relevant as to whether or not this project deserves a social license. Continued involvement in the process endorses this sham and is not in the public interest. (Emphasis added)[/quote]
(Along with the presidency of BC Hydro, Eliesen sat on the board of Suncor Energy and was former CEO of the Manitoba Energy Authority and Ontario Hydro. In total, he has worked for seven governments and nine ministers of the crown.)
MP, MLAs avoid public meeting
What about expecting justice on the political front?
John Weston, the local Conservative MP, was not in attendance at Tuesday’s council meeting to discuss the controversial permit application from Fortis BC, which involves test drilling in a wildlife management area for its its planned pipeline expansion. He had no reason to be absent – the Commons is not in session and, besides, as with all government backbenchers, he doesn’t do anything anyway. Surely he should’ve at least troubled himself to be there to report back to the government on the feelings of the people present, his constituents.
I understand that neither of the Liberal MLAs were there either. Same criticism as Weston. They have nothing else to do of any use but to report back to the government what they see and hear.
Did I go to unpleasant meetings such as this when I was in cabinet?
You bet your life I did. If I hadn’t, Premier Bill Bennett would have quite rightly tossed me out on my ass. Perhaps standards were different then but I can tell you about meetings I was at that would curl your hair!
I could go on but suffice it to say that not only has the public not been consulted, there is no fair process by which it can be consulted unless it’s through local Councils. In every case in the Howe Sound area, the Councils have rejected the notion of an LNG plant in Squamish and concomitant tanker traffic. However, these Council decisions evidently don’t count with either the provincial or the federal governments.
Civil disobedience on the horizon
My own personal opinion is that nothing will be accomplished except by civil disobedience. I have held that opinion for a long time and it is certainly not because I am a violent person. My whole political life has been fighting elections not policemen.
The fact remains, however, that times come when the citizen has no other option. When all of the cards are stacked, when the hearings are fixed, when politicians are in bed with the powerful, when all the laws favour one side of a dispute, then what choice do people have?
I must be careful here – I am not physically able to do that which I preach. I’m sorry about that. I will, however, continue to say my piece and I presume that if I continue to press for civil disobedience I’ll be in contempt of something sufficient to be in trouble with the authorities.
Citizens line the Sea to Sky Highway to protest Woodfibre LNG (My Sea to Sky)
Former District of Squamish Councillor Meg Fellowes addresses current mayor and council over Fortis BC’s controversial application to conduct test drilling in a wildlife management area. The drilling is in connection to a planned pipeline expansion to feed gas to the proposed Woodfibre LNG plant near Squamish. At a Tuesday meeting, council deferred its decision on the drilling permit issue, to be revisited in 2 weeks.
Mayor and Council – District of Squamish (Dos):
Council is caught between a rock and a hard place. The rock is a possible Fortis legal suit if Council doesn’t approve drilling in the [wildlife management area]; and, the hard place is a possible legal suit by one or more taxpayer/resident if council does approve the drilling.
During the council meeting of January 6th, 2015, a disconnect was identified between the Official Community Plan (OCP) and the authorizing bylaw. Awareness of the disconnect provides grounds for a community legal challenge should Council approve the permit. The prudent solution, for a risk adverse council, is to officially amend the OCP to reflect the bylaw; or, amend the bylaw to reflect the OCP.
A legal challenge coming from the community happened in 2000 when [anti-woodchip transfer facility group] CHIPS took on DoS in the wood-chip transfer facility debacle where Squamish council was taken to court by concerned citizens. Despite the assurance of municipal lawyers, the District of Squamish lost the court case, the proposed wood-chip transfer facility wasn’t built, and one of the enterprising citizens was subsequently elected mayor of Squamish.
Seeming procedural technicalities cost taxpayers money, developers time, and communities their reputation when local governments try to take short-cuts on contentious issues.
On Monday, as Canadians got back to work following the holidays, the price for crude oil dipped below $50/barrel for the first time since 2009, offering a glimpse of the profound changes in store for the country in 2015. With some $60 Billion in oil/tar sands projects now in peril – harkening back to “dark days” of decades past – this federal election year promises to put the fossil fuel-dominant economic vision of Canada’s political leaders to the test.
Good news, bad news
Burnaby Mountain protests (Dan Pierce)
If 2014 was the year of the pipeline protest, 2015 may advance the cause of environmentalists and First Nations even further, without a single placard being waved or arrest made. In a country where the economy increasingly drives political policy and media commentary, something as simple as the halving of oil prices will likely do more to reshape the future than years of ardent protests. Cynical but true.
Yet these changes are complex and fraught with contradictions. Lower oil prices stall new oil/tar sands projects and pipelines while chilling investment in LNG projects. Yet they also drive consumer demand through lower prices at the pump.
And although this setback for Canada’s fossil fuel sector should be a wake-up call as to the need to diversify our economy and energy options, in some ways it hampers renewable energy development, by eroding recent gains in cost competitiveness for clean technologies. When oil costs over $100/barrel and natural gas is $8/unit, increasingly cost-effective wind and solar look pretty good these days. Cut those fossil fuel prices in half, and not so much.
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynn tours an Airbus plant (CNW)
Another important contradiction to note is the benefit to Canada’s economy from a weakened fossil fuel sector. As a new study from RBC reminds us, lower fuel costs to consumers free up cash that can flow into our economy through other avenues. More importantly, lower oil prices mean a lower Canadian dollar and lower energy costs to manufacturers, both greatly benefitting Canadian exports.
In other words, the jobs we lose in Fort McMurray may be replaced – and then some – by a strengthened manufacturing sector in places like Ontario.
What this moment – and potentially extended period – of depressed fossil fuel prices offers Canadians is the opportunity, in a pivotal election year, to rethink our economic future. And this applies at both the federal and provincial level – from BC’s proposed LNG industry, to the Yukon’s debate over fracking, to Alberta’s oil/tar sands, to several pipelines planned to carry dilbit eastward.
To get the conversation started, here are a few big ideas we should be considering in 2015:
Estimates of government subsidies for the oil and gas industry range from a billion and a half dollars a year to as much as 6 billion, depending on how you calculate them and whom you listen to. So to those “free marketeers” who would balk at subsidizing clean tech innovation, just be sure to apply the same standards to the fossil fuel sector, which, we’re frequently threatened, would up and walk away if we didn’t maintain the lowest royalty and tax regimes in the world.
As our contributor Will Dubitsky has documented over the past year, Canada is the exception when it comes to major industrial nations investing in clean tech. While Stephen Harper cut our only federal clean tech innovation funding in 2013-14 (which stood at a paltry $82 million), China invested $68 Billion in clean tech in 2012, with the US not far behind. Both countries, along with Germany, Denmark, Spain, Brazil, and many others, have reaped the rewards with millions of new green jobs. Canada’s tax incentives and subsidies for clean tech lag far behind these other nations.
Steam rising from the Nesjavellir Geothermal Power Station in Iceland (Photo: Gretar Ívarsson / Wikipedia)
Even in Canada, despite a wildly unfair balance of public investment in fossil fuels compared with renewables, the employment balance is shifting. Trying to assess the real job benefits of the oil and gas industry is a tricky business, because so many different numbers and definitions are thrown around (“direct”, “indirect”, “related”, Canada, Alberta, etc.). The Alberta Ministry of Energy, for instance, pegs “oil sands related direct employment in Alberta” at 146,000; whereas a 2011 study by the the Petroleum Resources Council of Canada acknowledged just 20,000 jobs in the Alberta oil sands sector, with 130,000 total oil and gas jobs across Canada.
Renewable energy proponent Clean Energy Canada subscribes to the latter measurements and made headlines with a report last year suggesting we now have more jobs in clean tech than we do in the oil/tar sands. The comments on this Globe and Mail story discussing the report range from skeptical to apoplectic at the audacity of these dimwitted eco-pinkos. But the key take-away is that clean tech jobs are growing in Canada – and rapidly – with very little help; whereas the future of oil sands construction jobs is suddenly looking pretty bleak.
If you believe the derision of oil sands boosters, these green jobs pose no real threat to their sector, so what are we waiting for? What are we not seeing that China, America and Germany are? If jobs are the name of the game, then it’s high time we got behind these sustainable alternatives.
And that doesn’t just mean wind and solar. As we’ve learned from a number of recent reports, Canada – particularly these western provinces doubling down on fossil fuels and big, antiquated dams – are sitting on top of huge geothermal potential. This is a clean, renewable energy source which, unlike wind and solar, is as predictable and consistent as coal or natural gas – without the wild market fluctuations.
While lower oil and gas prices may inhibit investment in clean tech and consumption of renewables, as noted above, that’s precisely what government intervention is for. This is where a government with long-term vision can step in an catalyze private sector investment and job growth for the future, laying the groundwork for an economy that is not strapped to the roller coaster of fossil fuel prices.
2. Take advantage of lower oil prices
As I noted earlier, lower fossil fuel prices can be a very good thing for Canada’s economy. There is strong evidence – from the likes of Industry Canada, no less – that higher oil and related currency prices have cost our nation more jobs than they’ve created.
[quote]…from 2000-2011, the oil and gas sector created about 16,500 jobs, while, at the same time, Canada lost 520,000 manufacturing jobs. Much of the manufacturing losses are tied to the rise of the petro-dollar which tends to rise and fall with the price of petroleum…Even Industry Canada acknowledges the problem. Their report notes that between 2002 -2007, from 33-39 per cent of Canadian manufacturing job losses were due to “resource-driven currency appreciation.”[/quote]
Sure, many Canadians will feel the pinch in their stock portfolios as our overly energy-bound TSX falters, but the opportunity for benefits to Canada’s economy from lower oil prices is significant – reinforced by a recent report from RBC, which notes:
[quote]Our current Canadian forecast assumes that both consumers and exporters will respond to these incentives that will slightly more than offset the expected weakening in oil-sector investment.[/quote]
What this all boils down to is a choice: Either export raw, unrefined bitumen and syncrude – generating few local jobs – or export finished goods, manufactured in Canada. Since the latter brings more jobs and value-add to Canadian resources, shouldn’t that be a no brainer?
3. Pull the plug on pipelines
Keystone has strained Canada-US relations (Adrian Wyld/CP)
Keystone XL, for both political and economic reasons, appears less and less likely by the day. Even an expected bill from a dual-majority Republican congress can and likely will be vetoed by Barack Obama. Clinging to this vision will only further strain diplomatic relations with our southern neighbour. It’s time for Stephen Harper to throw in the towel on Keystone.
As for Enbridge and Kinder Morgan, on top of all the law suits, the widespread public opposition – culminating in highly effective civil disobedience at the end of 2014 – and the well-justified environmental concerns, these plummeting oil prices mean the demand for increased export capacity is simply not there. Many oil/tar sands projects can’t make a buck at $50 oil (which is substantially lower when you factor in the Western Canadian Select discount on bitumen) – evidenced by the cancellation of numerous expansion projects in recent months.
[quote]Canadian oil and gas projects worth a total of $59-billion may be deferred during the next three years as the ‘collapse’ in capital investment in the global oil industry echoes the dark days of 2009 and 1999.[/quote]
The same thing is happening with risky, expensive shale oil from the Bakken in North Dakota, with production and train shipments plummeting in recent months. These unconventional fossil fuels are the first to lose their lustre in low-price periods. Upstart American shale oil producers are a victim of their own success – flooding the market with too much supply. Now, with OPEC unwilling to back off with its cheaper, light crude supply, it is forcing these more costly new sources out of the market.
Meanwhile, controversy is heating up over Enbridge and TransCanada’s eastbound pipeline proposals, which are also subject to the same economic challenges as the BC projects. A slew of mounting headaches for TransCanada’s Energy East project – from endangered belugas to the Quebec government’s long list of tough conditions – prompted Alberta Premier Jim Prentice to travel east in December for a round of palm pressing and damage control.
Added environmental hurdles and calls for increased provincial benefits and reassurances, piled on top of a weakening business case, spell trouble for these projects – once considered a cake walk compared to getting through BC.
Times change, new facts emerge. Canada needs to evolve its thinking accordingly. If Stephen Harper wants to hang onto his majority – even stay in power with a minority government – he should rethink his dogmatic devotion to pipelines unpopular with many voters and for which the economic justification is simply no longer there. The oil/tar sands isn’t the only avenue to create jobs and be strong on the economy.
4. For God sakes, abandon LNG
Christy Clark pitching LNG in 2014 (Damien Gillis)
Christy Clark’s LNG vision is the biggest loser of them all.
With most Asian LNG contracts tied to oil prices, the current climate has scared away even the most intrepid LNG proponents. That includes Malaysia’s Petronas, which cited this reason for further waylaying its final investment decision (again) last year. (Let’s remember too that even if it did go ahead with its pipeline and plant, Petronas has indicated that it would import Malaysian workers to build them – while the BC government signs deals with India and China to supply foreign temporary workers for the LNG industry…so there goes the whole “jobs” argument!)
Petronas’ stalling comes on the heels of many other big players getting cold feet, including Encana, EOG, Apache, and BG Group.
And with good reason. Even after Clark gave away the farm to these companies – slashing down to nothing the export tax at the root of the Liberals’ grand “$100 Billion Prosperity Fund” promises in the last election – this dog still won’t hunt.
Here’s why: With all the added costs to produce and ship LNG to Asian customers, the break-even point is between $10-13/unit of gas. When Asian prices momentarily spiked to $16-18 a few years ago, it seemed like BC exporters could make some real money exporting LNG. But as we and other pundits correctly predicted, this price bubble wouldn’t last. Now, with spot prices hovering at or below $10 – and expected to continue falling throughout 2015 – that Asian price premium is gone, taking BC’s LNG pipe dream with it.
Sure, oil prices may pick up and with them LNG prices, but the lesson here remains: LNG is expensive and volatile – not characteristics that make big energy companies likely to fork out the tens of billions of dollars and half decade in pipeline and plant construction required to get this industry up and running. Which is why the sooner we abandon this delusion and start focusing on real, sustainable economic alternatives for the province, the better off we’ll all be.
“It’s the economy, stupid.” That’s the refrain environmentally-minded folks are browbeaten with, their pipeline and climate change protests patronizingly brushed aside by wise economic pragmatists.
But in 2015, with $50 oil, we should all be on the same page for once.
Ben West addressing a Vancouver crowd about Kinder Morgan in 2012 (Damien Gillis)
There’s big news on the environmental front!
Ben West, the eminent young environmentalist until now with Forest Ethics and, before that, the Wilderness Committee, has joined Rex Weyler fighting tanker traffic on the BC coast through Tanker Free BC. This makes a very potent combination indeed. (Full disclosure: My colleague, Common Sense Canadian publisher Damien Gillis, is a founding board member of TFBC along with Mr. Weyler).
For those who may not know, Rex Weyler was a founder of Greenpeace International and its biographer. He has been active in environmental matters for many years and in 2009 took up the cudgels against tanker traffic on our coast. Tanker Free BC was formed some 5 years ago, specifically to take on the Kinder Morgan issue and the organization laid much of the early groundwork for the campaign to block the project.
Ben is a first class student of the environment and a very able presenter. I have had the privilege of appearing at podiums with both he and Rex.
Huge proposed increase in tanker traffic
The number of tankers required on our coast to transport the oil proposed by Kinder Morgan runs about 400 per year – minimum. This doesn’t count tankers coming from Squamish from a proposed LNG plant.
Despite what the professional mariners tell us, it’s a matter of mathematics. Sooner or later we’ll have a serious accident on our coast. In fact, there’s nothing to say there won’t be more than one.
If this were a relatively minor matter, we could and would have to live with it. But they are transporting bitumen, or dilbit, which is highly toxic and, as the spill on the Kalamazoo River by Enbridge 4 1/2 years ago demonstrated, it is virtually impossible to clean up. This means, to articulate the obvious, that the risk of running tankers on our coast cannot possibly match any advantage it would confer upon the people of British Columbia.
It’s for this reason that opposition to both the Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipelines has been so vigorous. Of course, part of the opposition has come from those who must live with the pipeline in their communities but the issue is the same – be it train, truck or pipeline, they transport a vicious and dangerous poison.
Oil-by-rail threat used to scare pipeline opponents
MP James Moore being interviewed by CBC’s Chris Hall (Photo: James Moore/Twitter)
At the same time as the West/Weyler story we hear from Tory cabinet minister James Moore that pipelines must come, otherwise transportation will be by rail which, by common consent, is far more dangerous than by pipeline.
I must confess here that I’m not certain about the capacity of rail to deliver a comparable quantity of oil – in the case of Kinder Morgan 780,000-1.000,000 barrels a day, and this is of course an important figure to know. If pipelines were simply not to happen, would rail transport be sufficient to fill up 400 or more likely 450 tankers per year?
The answer, according to the limited research facilities available to me, is that this is highly unlikely. Moreover, the safety factors are enormous and make those of pipelines pale into insignificance. This, of course, is the argument that James Moore and the supercilious finance Minister, Joe Oliver, are making – permit pipelines or else…
Weston continues “Environment IS Economy” refrain
Just by way of an aside, a few moments ago when Wendy brought the mail, there was yet again another release by my MP, John Weston, bleating once more “the environment IS the economy”. As I’ve mentioned before, this slogan has about as much meaning as “please adjust your clothing when leaving the lavatory” and gives an idea of typical Tory bafflegab which desperately hopes that their own appalling ignorance is matched by that of the bovine masses.
Rex and Ben face the ill-disguised ultimatum laid down by James Moore that bitumen will come through British Columbia one way or another. The Tories are, of course, in thrall to Alberta voters with an election coming up where every seat is crucial and the safety of unreliable British Columbians not on the radar.
Remember the bitumen
We must remember that the enemy is not the train or the pipeline or indeed the tanker – it is the bitumen from the tar sands. We’re being asked – indeed perhaps ordered – to transport this highly noxious substance through the wilds of our province to populated areas, into tankers and shipped down our coast.
Sham “Process”
The politicians are unconcerned about the feelings of the people of our province. Mr. Moore has, from the beginning, been contemptuous of public opinion and those of us who have fought against the transport of bitumen are portrayed as American-financed neo-hippies. The so-called “process” by which energy decisions are made is as phoney as a three dollar bill as has been amply demonstrated by no less a figure than Mark Eliesen, one of the most prominent energy experts in the country.
Public attention, diverted by the pipeline issue, has not considered that the governments of Canada and British Columbia would cast aside safety issues and threaten the transport of this terrible substance by rail. What this does, of course, is clarify the issue for Ben and Rex and all those who join them in the fight, very much including me. It is the two senior governments who are the enemies – the bitter enemies.
The public of British Columbia must, by civil disobedience if need be, convince the federal and provincial governments that we have sufficient democracy left in this country that the people still count, or we’ll end up with a an oil sands catastrophe on our land and on our coasts, whether we like it or not.
A coho spawning in a small stream (Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife)
I come today in praise of the Vancouver Sun and trust that events don’t prove that I should’ve approached the mainstream media with my usual skepticism.
First, let me tell you a story from my early life which you may have heard and, if so, please bear with me.
Coho spawn in the darndest places
When I was a young lad, my friend Denis and I used to bicycle down to the Musqueam Indian reserve and fish two tiny creeks, one which we called Tin Can Creek, more properly known as Musqueam Creek.
With shiner lines, a tiny hook and a bit of worm, we would catch small cutthroat trout and, as with all young boys, rejoice at every second.
At Tin Can Creek, one day, a First Nations lad with a gaff came along, bent down over the edge and scooped out a fish which must’ve run 5 or 6 pounds at least. We were thunderstruck! If we’d known there were fish that size in the creek, it might’ve scared us out of fishing it!
Moments later, and a bit further upstream, the lad did the same thing.
This taught me a lesson of a lifetime. These were coho salmon and this tiny creek contained their spawning ground. For those unschooled in these matters, the coho salmon is the second largest of the seven Pacific salmon* which inhabit our waters, and in my opinion is the most beautiful; certainly it’s very sought after as a sports fish and considered a delicacy by those who like eating fish.
It must be noted that thanks to the careful stewardship of the Musqueam Nation, this run has survived and prospered – a rarity indeed in Greater Vancouver.
As I grew older and got more involved in fishing and later in governments dealing with fishing, I learned that the coho is unique in that it doesn’t spawn in great numbers in rivers and lakes but in small runs in tiny streams and even ditches all up and down our coast. I learned too that the reason the coho was an endangered species in the Salish Sea area was loss of habitat due to agricultural practices and land development.
Farmers try to make a amends for habitat destruction
Photo: geograph.org.uk
A front page article of Monday, December 29 in the Vancouver Sun tells how the paper’s “Minding The Farm” series – probing fish-bearing creeks on farms and activities by landowners which have damaged habitat – prompted some farmers to attempt habitat “remediation” on their properties.
One does not, unfortunately, gain the impression that the farmers are very enthusiastic about this program. To them, the creeks are no doubt a nuisance and very much get in the way of their normal farming activities. This is compounded, I’m sure, by the fact that some drainage ditches have even become spawning grounds.
The major culprit is waste. When this seeps into the creeks, it kills the fish, as simple as that.
Fish an “inconvenience” to farmers
Since I first learned of the problem it was obvious that farmers weren’t about to take a few fish in a creek seriously. They were no different than real estate developers who would report that there were only a “few fish” in the creek and therefore needn’t concern anyone.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been extremely slow off the mark over the years and has hesitated to charge anyone. (This longtime observer smells political interference). One fisheries officer, quoted in the article, showed his frustration by asking:
[quote]What does it take to get charged? You really have to try hard.[/quote]
One stream at a time
The question is one of overall public good. While it doesn’t seem a huge sacrifice to allow a handful of fish to be killed in a stream, to accommodate agriculture or a new suburb, the aggregate of such losses is unacceptable. Therefore, the solution is a step-by-step, small stream by small stream business – hard to implement, even harder to enforce.
We quickly run into the phrases “remedial measures” and the weasel word of all, “mitigation”. I do not regard a culvert or a re-created stream as either remedial or mitigating. Nor do fish biologists.
The basic decision the public must make is whether it’s worth it to save these small runs of fish. The Vancouver Sun believes that it is worth it and I agree with them.
A moral question
This question can’t be measured in dollars and cents – at least it ought not to be. One can always find a monetary reason to destroy things. The issue is, of course, monetary in the sense that progeny of these runs do supply sports and commercial fisherman, thus generating revenue – and it does cost money to preserve streams.
But can we, in all conscience, permit the destruction of salmon runs, however big or small, for any reason? Once we decide to destroy things for money, it is a slippery slope and we become cynics, for, as Oscar Wilde observed:
[quote]A cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.[/quote]
The Pacific Salmon is what identifies British Columbia the world over. I don’t think it goes too far to say that it is sacred – the soul of our province.
It gets down to this: If British Columbians won’t protect and enhance the symbol of what our lovely home is all about, who will?
*Chinook, Coho, Chum, Sockeye, Pink, Rainbow (Steelhead) and Cutthroat.
BC NDP and Official Opposition Leader John Horgan (BCNDP.ca/youtube)
I’ve been very critical, especially recently in the tyee.ca, of John Horgan, leader of the NDP, and the Official Opposition itself. This is, I assure you, nothing personal but is entirely a matter of the quality of the opposition presented and the effect it has on forming public opinion.
Socred praise for Barrett NDP
A few days ago, I had the pleasure of talking to an old friend of mine of some 40 years, Grace McCarthy. As a couple of old pols will do, we started to reminisce. We got onto the topic of Oppositions and I was surprised – I shouldn’t have been – to hear both Grace and me extol the virtues of the NDP under Dave Barrett when we were in the House.
We talked about how the NDP kept us on our toes which, combined with a hostile press, did much to ensure that we moved carefully both in legislation and in policy.
I found both Grace and me not only congratulatory towards Dave Barrett, but there was a sense of warmth because both of us know what the opposition was supposed to do and enough time had passed for the personal sharpness to have disappeared. We agreed, of course, that we didn’t like it a damned bit when they did their job but that it was very much in the public interest.
The duty to oppose
The classic definition comes from Lord Randolph Churchill who said “it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose.” This doesn’t mean that it opposes the trivial but on all major issues it opposes the main parts.
A good example is Site C, which is as controversial an issue as British Columbia has seen in decades and, in fact, it goes back to my time in government in the 70s. In those days, our government rejected Site C largely based upon the cost, the lack of information as to alternatives and the consistent history of BC Hydro over-estimating its energy needs. “The more things change …”
With the present announcement of approval, Mr. Horgan should be dealing, may I say harshly, with a number of aspects of the development.
The residents of the area have a right to have their views expressed in the legislature and in the public. It doesn’t matter if Mr. Horgan thinks that it’s just “too bad” that they will lose their farms and homes – he and his colleagues must take up their case.
Plenty of faults to find with Site C
There is the question of the loss of 30,000 acres of farmland. Mr. Horgan may think that’s a worthwhile sacrifice but there are a hell of a lot of British Columbians who feel this land is sacred and that, indeed, it was the NDP which first made the inviolability of agricultural land the law.
There’s the question of alternative forms of energy. Mr. Horgan should have BC Hydro on the griddle asking about sources of supplementary power such as wind, tide and in particular geothermal. BC, we’re told, has virtually unlimited geothermal resources, yet there is a paucity of information on whether or not that could be harnessed instead of Hydro, or at least, supplementary to hydroelectric power.
As one who has seen these things develop in the past, I would simply guess, just based on a gut the feeling, that the final price for Site C is likely to be closer to 12 billion than eight. Of course I could be wrong, but I bet my gut feeling is shared by many British Columbians who’ve watched these matters over the years.
Can Mr. Horgan assure us, as Leader of the Opposition, that he’s thoroughly tested this cost and is satisfied with it?
Instead of opposing in the way of our longstanding parliamentary practice, Mr. Horgan has chosen to ally himself with the Liberals, making this a “non-partisan issue”. (Now, in fairness, Mr. Horgan has retained some reservations in the area of revenue and need, but has not been vocally opposed to it.)
Where does NDP stand on the environment?
This brings into question this government’s entire environmental policy and whether or not Mr. Horgan is generally satisfied with it. If not, where is he opposed?
You simply cannot, logically, oppose the Ebridge pipeline because it brings toxic substances through our land and down the coast while at the same time supporting Kinder Morgan doing precisely the same thing.
To be opposed to governmental policy, as a proper Official Opposition, doesn’t mean being against every jot and tittle. Moreover, in the fullness of time, you may support some or all of it. What it means really is the old American expression, “I’m from Missouri” and using skepticism to bring from the government a full justification of its policy, point by point.
There is another very serious aspect of the Official Opposition which Mr. Horgan seems to have overlooked. The Official Opposition should present to the public a “government in waiting” with its own policies in place as well as spokespeople for these policies.
Can anybody look at the Opposition as it exists today and say “I see a future government there”? I sure as hell can’t. I don’t even see a future Premier!
John Horgan and the NDP have less than 2 1/2 years to present themselves to the public has something to be supported.
Unless they get started on this project now, it will never get done in time.
The following is a letter to the editor from Malcolm Johnston of Rail for the Valley.
One has to shake one’s head with the ‘Metro Vancouver congestion improvement tax’ referendum, as clearly the Metro mayors haven’t a clue what they are talking about.
The name, Metro Vancouver congestion improvement tax is false advertising, as the only way to reduce road congestion and associated gridlock is by reducing road space for cars and this is not being done.
Subways don’t reduce congestion and are only built to accommodate high ridership on routes which demand long trains and large stations. Traffic flows along Broadway come nowhere close to justifying a multi-billion dollar subway which, if built, will drag TransLink into a financial morass as it has done in other cities. The ill-planned LRT for Surrey, which is being planned as a poor man’s SkyTrain, will do little in alleviating congestion.
Don’t Metro mayors realize that after investing over $9 billion in ‘rapid transit’, mode share by auto has remained at 57% for over 20 years?
The one mode with a proven record of alleviating congestion is modern LRT because it uses road space for its route, thus modern LRT reduces road space for cars while at the same time offering a convenient and attractive transit alternative. It’s why LRT is built around the world and SkyTrain is not.
So instead of the oxymoronic, ‘Metro Vancouver congestion tax’, a more accurate name would be; “Let’s do the same thing over again and hope for different results” tax.
Oh, excuse me, that’s the definition for insanity.
