Tag Archives: featured

“The environment IS the economy” says Tory MP Weston…Really?

December 19, 2014Canada, Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&Gas, PoliticsfeaturedRafe Mair

The environment IS the economy says Tory MP Weston — Tory MP John Weston (from his annual Christmas video message/Youtube)

There is surely nothing quite as ridiculous as a Tory pretending that he cares. Money and rich friends they understand but when it comes to the values that ordinary people revere they’re at sea. In fact they’re bewildered by those who think that the poor ought to be considered by society or that such things as lakes and mountains and animals and parks and neighbourhoods have any serious meaning to people.

This doesn’t mean that they don’t understand that they must make believe and always speak in loving terms about the things that I’ve mentioned.

There’s another sure thing to be added to Benjamin Franklin’s “death and taxes”. It’s that by reading the bullshit in a Tory MP’s annual newspaper to his constituents you can determine, with only the minimum of thinking, what the Tories are really planning and what their electoral word games are going to be all about.

LNG in Howe Sound

I hate to be seen as picking on my MP, John Weston, but because I know him, I’m bewildered that he would prostitute his brains and compromise his honesty to the extent he has over the last three years.

Now, John is a very earnest sort of a chap and I’m sure honestly feels that he is front and centre in Canadian public life and of considerable importance to the governance of the nation. I fact, he is inconsequential and in three years has contributed nothing and couldn’t if he wanted to. Nor can any of his backbench colleagues. I would respect that and leave him alone if it weren’t for the fact that he pretends importance where there is none, as do his colleagues. It must be an awful thing to have to fake self-importance in order to keep up one’s self respect.

Let’s get down to cases. I live on the Sea-to-Sky in wonderful Lions Bay. I have not always lived here, of course, but I’ve always felt much attached to Howe Sound, having spent so many of my boyhood hours happily fishing and swimming and cruising in this area. It’s sacred.

Squamish, at the top of Howe Sound, is a growing town and it’s proposed that it be “blessed” with an LNG plant. I think I can say safely that the vast majority of citizens along Howe Sound oppose this vigorously. Squamish, in a stirring upset, recently elected a mayor who is also much opposed.

Weston attacks West Van Council over LNG ban

Last summer the West Vancouver City Council – among others in Howe Sound and on the Sunshine Coast – passed a resolution condemning this project. Mr. Weston took umbrage at this and went to Council with a spokesman for the Malaysian LNG outfit and demanded time for him to be heard. He was determined to have this decision overturned but the council, which understood the public mood much better than he did, remained firm.

If you read Mr. Weston’s annual rag, you might think that he had won a stunning victory. The bold headline sings praise for Council’s commitment to “Good Process”, even though it politely told him to get stuffed. In the body of the article, Mr. Weston plays down the disappointment the entire constituency knew he had and made believe that he was thrilled that he managed to get a hearing for his client.

Not satisfied with leaving after one paragraph, Mr. Weston prattles on for seven more dealing with the wonders of development. One paragraph probably tells the story

[quote]As MP, I am increasingly required to consider the impact of industrial projects on our economy and our environment. Throughout the summer, conversations [at] backyard barbecues and coffee gatherings [are] often related to responsible resource development. “The Environment IS the Economy” [emphasis his] is the message I am increasingly taking to cabinet and other leaders.[/quote]

That is, of course, rubbish. Mr. Weston is not taking any messages to cabinet nor to any leaders, nor does any other Tory backbencher. Who in hell is he kidding? They’re overpaid ciphers who do what they are told and speak when they’re spoken to.

IS the environment the economy?

But let me deal with this slogan “The Environment IS the Economy ” – to which Weston recently dedicated a column on his website directed at yours truly. That’s a very helpful slogan indeed and reminds me of “Conscription if necessary but not necessarily Conscription”, “The Land is Strong” and “Please adjust your clothing before leaving the Lavatory”.

This all leads up to Mr. Weston’s favourite word – and I assume it is the favourite of his colleagues, – “process”. As long as you have “process” you can do anything.

When the Tory government took away protection for fish under an omnibus bill, Mr. Weston, in my presence, enthusiastically supported this move on the grounds that now there was “process”. In other words where it was once forbidden to bugger up fish habitat, now you could do it if you went through the proper “process”.

Mr. Weston goes on to say, “If a project respects the factors just mentioned, I am likely to support it. Otherwise, I will not support it.”

Again we see the ridiculousness of a Tory backbencher trying to act important. The plain fact is that Prime Minister Harper doesn’t give a fiddler’s fart what John Weston thinks about a project. The truth of the matter is that backbencher Weston was instructed to try to get the West Vancouver Council to reverse itself – after all, Harper and his poodle, Christy Clark uncritically support LNG. He failed and now must save face.

“Process”

I have spoken of this before but I think it’s worth revisiting. The “process” involved in environmental matters is a fraud. Now that’s admittedly a nasty word to use, I agree, but let’s examine the position taken by Mark Eliesen who was, until he resigned, an intervenor in the Kinder Morgan hearings before the National Energy Board.

Mr Eliesen is former Chair of BC Hydro, CEO of the Manitoba Energy Commission, CEO of Ontario Hydro, CEO of Manitoba Hydro and a director of Suncor.

In his lengthy resignation letter, Mr. Eliesen concluded:

[quote]In effect, this so-called public hearing process has become a farce, and this Board a truly industry captured regulator…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.[/quote]

John Weston no doubt believes his own bullshit, but that’s what it is. Without hesitation, I would take the word of Mark Eliesen over Weston’s and most certainly over that of Prime Minister Harper or any of his cabinet toadies.

“The Environment IS the Economy” (or is it the other way around?) simply means, in Tory Talk, “Always speak in hushed, respectful terms about the environment – but, for God’s sake, don’t ever let environmental considerations get in the way of our friends making money.”

Gerry Hummel's cartoon on John Weston support of private river power projects — Gerry Hummel’s cartoon on John Weston’s support of private river power projects (IPPs)

Site C Dam: Govt ignores own rules, faces multiple lawsuits

December 16, 2014Hydropower, WATERfeaturedDamien Gillis

Peace Valley ranchers Ken and Arlene Boon are part of several law suits (Damien Gillis) — Peace Valley ranchers Ken and Arlene Boon are part of several lawsuits over Site C Dam (Damien Gillis)

UPDATE – 2:30 PM PST: The BC Liberal government has approved Site C Dam, with construction tabled to start this summer.

Even if the BC Liberal government decides today to approve the now $8.5 billion Site C dam, the project still faces some big legal hurdles – based on mistakes the government made following the environmental review process.

In a nutshell, Site C faces six lawsuits from three different groups – each bringing both provincial and federal challenges. The plaintiffs include Alberta First Nations, BC First Nations and the Peace Valley Landowners’ Association (PVLA). Each case boils down to two main issues that linger from the Joint Review Panel’s indecisive verdict on the project earlier this year.

The first issue is the fact that the need for the project has still not been demonstrated. The second is the lack of fiscal due diligence surrounding the project.

Rob Botterell, former Comptroller for TD Bank in BC and the lead lawyer representing the landowners, reminds taxpayers, “At $8.5 Billion+, this would be the largest public infrastructure expenditure in the history of the province – the equivalent of 19 fast ferries.”

Independent regulator had its hands tied

Botterell’s case is built partly on the fact that the Liberal Government excluded the public’s independent energy watchdog, the BC Utilities Commission, from reviewing the project. The regulator was built precisely for this purpose: to examine proposed energy projects and plans based on their need and value to taxpayers and ratepayers.

The fact that the regulator was deliberately barred from doing its job on Site C constitutes gross political interference which may be legally actionable, in Botterell’s view. In a release prior to today’s announcement on the project, he noted:

[quote]Public infrastructure decisions of the size and scope of Site C…require the most thorough public scrutiny. It is simply unacceptable to make such decisions behind closed doors, release limited explanatory information, and conduct public policy by news conference sound bite. For the largest public infrastructure decision in provincial history we deserve better: open, transparent, and unfettered review of Site C’s economics by the independent and expert BC Utilities Commission.[/quote]

Botterell’s clients, a group of landowners in the Peace River Valley – some 30,000 acres of which would be flooded or disrupted by the project – have been granted a hearing at the BC Supreme Court on April 20. They will be seeking a Judicial Review that quashes the government’s issuance of the environmental certificate for Site C in October.

The PVLA is alleging that Cabinet erred in dismissing key portions of the Joint Review Panel’s findings on the project. While the JRP neither recommended nor argued against Site C, it found some gaping holes in the case for the project, which the government has thus far completely ignored.

BC govt breaks its own rules, gets sued

According to a legal backgrounder on the PVLA’s case, these issues include the overall need for the project – which was not demonstrated throughout the hearings – and the “uncertain economic effects of the Site C Project, including the Project cost, Site C electricity costs, and revenue requirements for the Project.”

This is the crux of the case: According to the PVLA’s legal petition, in ignoring these key findings from the panel, the government violated the very rules that it laid out in the terms of reference for the Site C review.

[quote]The Ministers relied upon a referral package from the Environmental Assessment Office that declared several key Panel recommendations to be beyond the scope of the Panel’s mandate. The PVLA Petition is based on a thorough review of the documents which set the scope of the Panel’s mandate, and which reveal that the Panel was not only permitted but was expressly required to assess the very economic impacts of the Project that were the subject of the recommendations the Ministers failed to consider. (emphasis added)[/quote]

In other words, the Liberal government set the rules for the review process, then broke them as soon as they became inconvenient. Project cost and need are no mere trivial matters and to cast them aside and proceed with Site C is highly irresponsible – and possibly illegal, according to this suit.

“The Ministers were not permitted under the Environmental Assessment Act to ignore the Panel’s findings and recommendations about the significant problems and uncertainties relating to Project and electricity cost estimates, load-forecasts, and valuation of alternatives for the Project,” say the plaintiffs.

And these are far from the only warning signs that should compel the government to halt the project or defer its decision.

Project’s cost keeps climbing

For starters, there’s the almost billion-dollar increase to the project’s sticker price leading up to the government’s announcement – now up to $8.775 Billion, making it the most expensive capital project in BC history. This from a government with a long track record of doubling initial estimates on much smaller capital projects – far, far worse than the NDP’s fiscal record in the 90s.

With dams particularly notorious for going over budget, there is no reason to expect Site C not to balloon further in cost.

BC’s credit rating in jeopardy

This would be compounded if Site C cost BC its Triple-A credit rating – a justifiable fear only made more real by Finance Minister Mike de Jong’s last-minute trip to meet with ratings agencies in Toronto on the eve of this announcement.

A lower credit rating means a higher cost of borrowing, hence a more costly dam – not to mention other fiscal challenges across the board. This last-minute trip by de Jong also begs the question: If you’ve already made the decision to proceed with Site C, then why go to Toronto now; if you haven’t, then why not leave more time to carefully contemplate your findings before rushing to announce your decision?

With soaring debt at BC Hydro, plus over $100 Billion in hidden taxpayer obligations (from private power contracts, public-private-partnership deals and the like) and close to $70 Billion in conventional provincial debt, BC’s credit rating should be in jeopardy.

Remember, when the NDP left power in the early 2000s, our provincial debt was a mere $34 billion, with none of these extra costs. Pile on Site C Dam, plus these hidden obligations – which are debt by another name – and the Liberals will have raised the real burden to BC taxpayers by over 5 fold since coming to power!

Already, we’ve seen skyrocketing power bills in recent years – which we can only expect to intensify if Site C proceeds.

No need for Site C

This will be compounded by the lack of need for the project, as we learned throughout the JRP’s hearings. This notion has been reinforced by both the premier and BC Hydro’s confused messaging around the project.

At first, Site C was to power BC’s homes, but when we became a solid net exporter of power in recent years – according to BC Stats – the rationale morphed into powering energy-intensive LNG projects. But BC Hydro undermined that statement during the JRP hearings, saying it was instead to export excess power to California – likely a money-losing proposition for BC.

Then, just last week, Christy Clark went back on her LNG argument, admitting that Site C was not in fact required for that industry. Even Hydro acknowledges we won’t need the power from Site C until 2022 at the earliest, but the crown corporation has a long history of exaggerating demand, and, thanks to improved conservation, BC’s power consumption has barely risen since the early 2000s and shows no signs of increasing – an important fact Hydro ignores.

Buy high, sell low

Because the need isn’t there, and because Site C would be one of the most expensive new energy options available to British Columbians, every watt will be produced at a loss as we dump unused power on the North American grid – which pays something like $30-35/megawatt hour for power which will cost us around $100 to produce.

This led the retired head of the Major Power Users’ Association of BC, Dan Potts, to predict a $350 million/year operating loss for taxpayers from Site C . “This project is turning gold into lead,” said Potts at a recent Vancouver press conference on the project.

[quote]It’s going to have a legacy of wealth destruction…It’s going to sap the province’s ability to raise money and borrow money, to do other things, such as infrastructure, hospitals, schools – all the things we need to do.[/quote]

First Nations lawyer up too

Finally, in addition to both provincial and federal lawsuits from the Peace Valley landowners, Site C faces legal challenges from BC’s Treaty 8 First Nations, as well as separate actions from Alberta’s Treaty 8 First Nations.

Knowing the victorious track record of Aboriginal court cases in Canada of late, even if the Liberal government makes the mistake of forging ahead with Site C Dam, it can expect to run headlong into a wall of legal challenges.

Carbon numbers keep rising, despite UN climate deals

December 15, 2014Climate Change, Climate SciencefeaturedRay Grigg

Carbon numbers keep rising, despite UN climate deals — UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon at COP 20 in Lima

The carbon emission numbers are disquieting. Despite the 2009 pledge of multiple nations to reduce the release of their greenhouse gases so that global average temperatures do not rise by more that 2°C, the total tonnage of carbon dioxide keeps going up. The chief scientist for the United Nations Environment Program, Joseph Alcamo, issued a November 2014 climate report that calculated the emissions for all such gases, including methane, must peak by 2030 at 42 billion tonnes per year and then fall to zero by the end of the century if the 2°C target is to be met.

Long way to go

The likelihood of reaching this target is getting more and more remote. According to the UN report, all indications are that emissions will continue to rise until 2050, at which time they will be 15 to 19 billion tonnes per year above the 42 billion tonnes ceiling. This means that by 2050, 20 years after emissions should have peaked and started to decline, another 300 to 380 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases will have been added to the biosphere — plus, of course, the approximately 17 billion tonnes that should have been reduced from the 42 billion for the period between 2030 and 2050.

The prospects for keeping the global average temperature rise below 2°C is now looking bleak. Granger Morgan, a climate scientist from America’s Carnegie Mellon University, noted that keeping to this target given today’s circumstances “is akin to a 60-year old man who resolves to be 25 years old next year. It ain’t gonna happen, but it’s time to get really serious about achieving what we can.” As some scientists have already considered, this would mean abandoning the 2°C target.

2°C: a compromise from the get-go

But the 2°C target was chosen as a realistic balance between two uncomfortable alternatives, what Dr. John Holdren, former Science and Technology advisor to US President Obama, describes as “the best we can do, while being the worst we can tolerate.” Abandoning the target would offer only a temporary relief in the pressure to reduce emissions, thereby creating the opportunity for further procrastination, increasing the difficulty of meeting future reductions, and raising the threat of environmental damage.

BC, Canada on wrong track

Canada is not going to come close to meeting the reductions it promised in 2009. British Columbia, if it continues with its dream of an LNG industry, is going to shatter any prospect of containing its present level of greenhouse gas emissions.

Alberta now appears as an anachronistic petro-state enthusiastically drilling and digging toward the edge of ecological doom. Even the vague emission reductions recently agreed to in bi-lateral discussions between the United States and China are not going to change significantly the global carbon calculations. The US intends to reduce its 2005 emissions by 28% by 2025 (about 2 billion tonnes), while China has agreed to reach unspecified maximum emissions by 2030. But something is better than nothing, and the agreement by the world’s top two emitters is bringing hope that the December 2015 climate talks in Paris will be able to reach legally binding agreements on carbon reductions.

Mark Carney climate chorus

Hope, of course, comes coupled with pressure as impatience for action escalates through frustration toward desperation. Cracks are appearing in the facade of pretending. One of the most surprising examples came from Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada who is now the governor of the Bank of England. At an October World Bank seminar, he repeated the brooding reality that first received publicity two years ago.

The world’s known fossil fuel reserves were then estimated to represent 2,795 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions if burned, of which only 565 billion tonnes could be burned if global temperatures were to be kept below the 2°C target. In Carney’s judgment:

[quote]The vast majority of [these] reserves are unburnable, [so will have to be considered as] “stranded assets”.[/quote]

Signs of hope

Other signs of hope mark the laborious struggle to control global greenhouse gas emissions as it becomes attached to local concerns. More carbon emissions accounts for one of the essential objections to the movement of Alberta’s tar sands bitumen through Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline to Kitimat.

Similarly, it’s one of the reasons why 126 people — including children, grandmothers and university professors — chose to be arrested in Burnaby for protesting Kinder-Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline proposal. Concerns about greenhouse gas emissions are connected to the shipment of American coal through Vancouver and Texada Island. The global has become inseparable from the local.

Canada stands in way of climate progress

This is the context in which Canada’s government has been thwarting emission controls while promoting its oil and gas policies. Fossil fuels simply do not — and cannot — have a significant future in any equation that is going to provide an optimistic option for our unfolding energy needs. Continuing to disregard the nearly invincible wall of peer-reviewed climate science would almost certainly be disastrous.

Indeed, decades of delays in reducing our carbon dioxide emissions is already moving us into threatening circumstances.

At this very moment humanity is writing a crucial chapter in its history. What we and our politicians decide to do about carbon emissions will likely be the single largest determinant in defining our legacy, in shaping the lives of generations to come, and in regulating the health of our planet.

All the important evidence suggests that this is not rhetorical hyperbole. Each one of us, from our prime minister, our premiers and our elected governments to every citizen will be measured by the decisions that we make in the immediate future. The numbers are clear, the calculations are disquieting, and the opportunity for avoiding a colossal tragedy is rapidly closing.

Suzuki: Wind power has come a long way – Wildlife impacts improving, health issues minimal

December 12, 2014Energy and Resources, RenewablesfeaturedDr. David Suzuki

There’s no free ride when it comes to generating energy. Even the cleanest sources have environmental consequences. Materials for all power-generating facilities have to be obtained and transported, and infrastructure must be built, maintained and eventually decommissioned. Wind turbines take up space and can harm wildlife. Hydro floods agricultural land and alters water cycles.

That’s why conservation is the best way to reduce energy-consumption impacts. Reductions in energy use and investment in energy-efficiency technologies are so significant that the International Energy Agency refers to conservation as the “first fuel”.

The lesser of necessary evils

No matter how good we get at conserving, though, we’ll always need energy, so we must find ways to employ the least damaging technologies and reduce negative effects. We know the world’s preferred, and currently cheapest, method to generate power — burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas — is the most destructive, causing pollution, global warming and massive environmental damage during extraction, transport, refining and use. And supplies are becoming more difficult to obtain and will eventually run out.

In contrast, wind power doesn’t create pollution or global warming emissions, is affordable and will never run out. Improvements to power-generation capacity, efficiency and affordability will continue to boost its importance in the energy mix. But we must ensure turbines are installed in locations and using methods that reduce negative impacts on humans and wildlife.

Wind power has come a long way

Thanks to ongoing research and testing, wind power has come a long way in a relatively short time. Wildlife behaviour studies, along with technological improvements, have significantly reduced harm to birds and bats, and better siting has reduced impacts on other wildlife and habitat. Wind power generation is far safer for birds, bats and other animals than burning fossil fuels.

But what about wind power’s effects on humans, a key argument used by opponents? Turbines, especially older ones, can be noisy, and some people find them unsightly — although I prefer the sight of wind farms to smokestacks and smog. Many problems can be addressed by locating quieter turbines far enough from human habitation to reduce impacts.

Human health impacts negligible: Health Canada

As for health effects, a recent comprehensive Health Canada study confirms previous research: Although people report being annoyed by wind turbines, there’s no measurable association between wind turbine noise and sleep disturbance and disorders, illnesses and chronic health conditions, or stress and quality-of-life issues. A 2013 Australian report concluded people living near wind installations where anti-wind campaigns were active were more likely to report health problems, suggesting some issues may be psychological.

Health Canada says more research may be needed and we shouldn’t downplay the annoyance factor. Again, improvements in technology and proper siting will help overcome many problems. And there’s no doubt that fossil fuel development and use — from bitumen mining, deep-sea drilling, mountaintop removal and fracking to wasteful burning in single-user vehicles — are far more annoying and damaging to human health than wind power and other renewable-energy technologies.

Wind becoming more affordable, reliable

Wind energy is also becoming more affordable and reliable. Denmark gets 34 per cent of its electricity from wind and Spain 21 per cent, making wind their largest electricity source. Portugal gets more than 20 per cent, Ireland 16 and Germany nine per cent. All have much higher population densities than Canada. Overall, wind power contributes about four per cent to worldwide electricity generation.

Improvements in grid and storage technologies also mean wind and other renewable technologies are increasingly feasible and desirable, especially as costs continue to drop. Investing in wind and other renewable energy is also good for jobs and the economy and can create greater stability in energy pricing than relying on volatile fossil fuel markets.

Green jobs blossoming

Total global investment in wind energy in 2012 was more than $80 billion, creating 670,000 jobs. According to a Blue Green Canada report, investing the $1.3 billion the oil industry gets in annual federal taxpayer subsidies in renewable energy and conservation could create 18,000 to 20,000 jobs, compared to fewer than 3,000 in oil and gas. And we can’t ignore the many related cost impacts of fossil fuel development, from health-care to infrastructure.

To reduce global greenhouse gas emissions at a pace and scale that experts agree is necessary to avoid increasing catastrophic effects of global warming, we need a mix of renewable energy. Wind power will play a large role.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundations Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Latest Harper Omnibus bill guts regulations for coal, LNG ports

December 10, 2014Canada, Coal, Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&Gas, PoliticsfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

Neptune coal terminal (Image: Dan Pierce/Wilderness Committee)

By Andrew Gage and Anna Johnston – republished with permission from the West Coast Environmental Law Association.

On October 23, 2014, the federal government introduced Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures (also called the “Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2”). Buried in Division 16 of the 475 page omnibus bill are proposed changes to the Canada Marine Act that, if adopted, would pose a serious threat to legal protection from environmental threats and public oversight of activities that occur in ports.

The proposed amendments raise a number of concerns for British Columbians, especially as they relate to controversial shipping industries like coal and LNG – indeed one of the most troubling amendments could be viewed as a direct challenge to a lawsuit filed by Voters Taking Action on Climate Change against the environmental assessment of the controversial Fraser Surrey Coal Docks. For detailed information, see our legal backgrounder Bill C-43: A threat to environmental safety and democracy, but two of the most concerning changes are:

Allowing the federal Cabinet to exempt port lands from key requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 and Species At Risk Act that regulate “federal lands” by turning those lands over to port authorities.
Giving Cabinet extensive powers to write new laws for ports, and to delegate law-making powers for ports to any person, without many checks and balances.

Exempting “federal lands” from federal environmental laws

Some federal environmental statutes create special environmental requirements for activities taking place on “federal lands.” Examples include:

Canadian Environmental Assessment 2012– the requirement to consider the environmental impacts of projects – even where they would not otherwise require an environmental assessment;
Species At Risk Act– The requirement to protect land-based endangered and threatened species and their habitat on federal lands.

Bill C-43 gives the federal government the ability to get around these legal protections by converting federal lands into port lands. Specifically, Cabinet would gain the ability to sell its lands in a port to the port authority. Once it does so, even though the port authority is supposed to act as an agent of the federal government, those lands will no longer be considered “federal lands.”

And, presto, as if by magic those nasty environmental protections disappear.

A controversial coal port proposed for Surrey, BC gives a tangible example of what this might mean. As we write in the backgrounder:

[quote]…Fraser Surrey Docks LP’s proposed Direct Transfer Coal Facility in Surrey, BC was required to undergo a federal environmental assessment by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority because the project occurs on federal lands under Port Authority supervision. The Port Authority’s approval of the facility has been challenged in court by a group of citizen and non-profit applicants represented by Ecojustice and Beverly Hobby (with funding from West Coast) for failing to follow the requirements of CEAA 2012. If the Bill C-43 changes to the Canada Marine Act come into effect and the federal government were to sell the property on which it is located to the Port Authority, it would be possible for controversial projects like this one to bypass reviews under CEAA 2012 altogether.[/quote]

Trust us, we’re law-makers

The second thing that Bill C-43 does is to turn over exceptionally wide law-making powers to Cabinet, including giving it the ability to turn broad powers over to port authorities, provinces or even industry. While Cabinet often has the power to make regulations under a statute, these powers are exceptionally broad, and include powers to:

hand over regulatory, administrative or even judicial (court) control of industrial activities in ports to any person, including a province, port authority or even industry itself;
powers to incorporate industry or other documents in the regulations without necessarily making those documents publicly available;
create rules for the retention or destruction of documents.

The Bill provides few explicit constraints over how these powers could be used, and the government hasn’t given any real indication as to its plans, but:

Powers that can be delegated include responsibility for making laws and policies regarding specified industrial activities in ports, administering activities under those instruments, and hearing disputes that occur regarding port activities. For example, Cabinet could in principle allow an industry association to write the rules regarding the assessment and permitting processes for LNG facilities and coal storage, and the shipping of both. It could then incorporate those rules into federal law without public notice or opportunity to comment.

The Bill even purports to allow Cabinet to take oversight of the new rules away from the courts by creating a tribunal to hear any disputes regarding those activities in ports, including challenges by the public. It could appoint industry representatives as the tribunal’s members and authorize port authorities to write the rules governing port activities and for hearing disputes (including who would have standing to bring a challenge).

Canadians understand the value of checks and balances and transparency in laws. These amendments do away with both.

Secret amendments

What are these amendments doing in a budget bill? This is the latest of a series of amendments to environmental laws that have been hidden in voluminous budget bills and debated by the House Finance Committee (instead of environmental committee). This is not the way democracy is supposed to work, and now is the time to say no.

Andrew Gage and Anna Johnston are staff counsel at the West Coast Environmental Law Association. They are calling on concerned citizens to write to Finance Minister Joe Oliver about this proposed omnibus budget bill.

Calgary paper dispenses free parenting advice to BC’s Kinder Morgan opponents

December 9, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedRafe Mair

Kim Fink-Jensen (left) and daughter Kate pose with MP Kennedy Stewart after protesting the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline at Burnaby Mountain (Photo: Kim Fink-Jensen/facebook)

I say two cheers and a hey nonny nonny for the Vancouver Province. How good it was of them to re-print, on the op-ed page yesterday a lecture from one David Marsden of the Calgary Herald editorial board, entitled “Pipeline foes could use a lesson in civility”.

Energy politics, Alberta-style

Now the Calgary Herald is an unqualified supporter of the Oil Patch and the Province of Alberta’s energy policy. They are indifferent to the noxious gases streaming out of the Tar Sands into the lungs of nearby First Nations folk, and who gives a damn about and those pesky fish upon which they feed?

They ignore the “hysterical” claims of cancer deaths linked to the Tar Sands and all of the other diseases the medical profession has uncovered in the area. They realize that piping all that highly noxious bitumen through British Columbia to the Far East brings money and lots of it into to the producers’ hands, thus bundles of taxes to the Alberta government, and that money far outweighs any of these silly social concerns possessed by “liberal” bleeding hearts who are against all development.

I might add for those who are not great fans of the Alberta government’s energy policy, you might look at Andrew Nikiforuk’s Tyee articles on Ann Croft, a lady in Alberta who was apparently personally injured and lost her drinking supply due to “fracking”. You’ll see that the Alberta government, in keeping with its obligation to the people to cut down costs, has so stonewalled this poor woman that she may be forced to accept a totally inadequate settlement from Encana and nothing from the government’s energy regulator nor environment department.

In that article is an amazing recording of a nationally known lawyer, Glenn Solomon, who acts for the Alberta government and told this lady that they will throw every obstacle in her way to prevent her getting what she childishly thinks is justice.

Free parenting advice from Calgary

Now, Mr. Marsden, who apparently doesn’t have enough to worry about in Alberta, has advice for those ignorant, anti-capitalist demonstrators in Burnaby who, he tells us, spat on the police and said naughty things.

I would be the first to agree that peaceful demonstration does not include spitting for any kind of physically aggressive act. But to say that people must maintain the politeness of a Sunday morning at church is at asking a bit too much when you consider what it is they’re demonstrating against.

Is it a burden on their intellect to ask the Marsdens of the world to understand that this is their home, their neighbourhood and that they have had some experience with what happens when a Kinder Morgan pipeline bursts?

Not content with this, Mr. Marsden specifically takes a run at the Fink-Jensen family for allowing their 11 year daughter to be part of the demonstration and to court arrest. Marsden referred this matter to some professor in the far east of the United States who clucked his tongue about children flouting the law. I gather Mr. Marsden had to go far and wide to find such a prof.

Kinder Morgan flouted the law

The fact that it was Kinder Morgan who was flouting the law, and that the case against them is pending in the courts, seems to have escaped Mr. Marsden’s attention. Are Canadian citizens not to be permitted to defend their homes and neighbourhoods from pipelines carrying highly noxious bitumen?

He also ignores the basic points raised here and by so many readers supporting Kate and her folks.

Kate asked to protest the use of her park and her neighborhood in the manner proposed by the company. She fully understood what the consequences were. In fact, her parents carefully advised her about flouting what was apparently the law and what consequences could flow.

What should we be teaching our children anyway?

There are many, including me and countless other British Columbians, who believe that it’s first class citizenship for parents to advise their children what the issues are in the world and what they can do about them.

Sometimes these are beyond the comprehension of children, but in this case, surely not. Here was a park and a neighbourhood proposed to be desecrated by a company wishing to put a dangerous pipeline through it and it is suggested that young Kate didn’t understand those issues! The question of course arises as to who was really breaking the law.

I realize that the Vancouver Province feels a special obligation to right wing zealots like the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation, the BC Fish Farmers’ Association, any and all pipelines, the Tar Sands, the Alberta government’s energy policy and so on, but in discharging what it believes to be its obligation, surely it can spare us the lectures of the Tar Sands fraternity through the editorial board of its sister paper, the Calgary Herald.

Having to put up with the Vancouver Province itself is cross enough to bear by a public deprived of anything resembling an independent media.

Listen to the above-mentioned audio recording of a Calgary lawyer discussing the government and fracking industry’s legal methods – courtesy of Will Koop.

Clark govt, Science World selling LNG Kool-Aid to kids

December 8, 2014Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedDamien Gillis

BC Liberal ministers Rich Coleman and Shirley Bond look on at a recent demonstration about the "science of LNG" (BC Govt) — Ministers Rich Coleman and Shirley Bond watch a recent demonstration on the “science of LNG” (BC Govt)

The BC Liberal government’s all-out push to build an LNG industry is extending into the province’s classrooms and the minds of its students. The latest partner in this effort, Science World, is co-hosting a series of community seminars in rural communities to educate students “about the fundamentals of energy science.”

Alongside presentations by Science World, an October government media advisory promises:

[quote]…young people will be able to talk with government and industry representatives and take part in Find Your Fit, an interactive event where grades 6-to-10 students get hands on experience with the skills needed for in demand jobs throughout the province.[/quote]

Events have already taken place in Prince George, Fort St. John, Terrace and Prince Rupert – with upcoming dates in Squamish, Nanaimo, and Kamloops.

Science World CEO defends “neutral” program

On CBC radio’s Daybreak North last month, Science World CEO Bryan Tisdall deflected concerns about the controversy surrounding the LNG industry and its environmental and social impacts. Said Tisdall, “Our shows will be quite neutral and they will be based on the belief that order to be able to make those decisions, to address those very challenging questions that are in front of us, the residents of the province need to have a basic level of knowledge about what is energy – where does it come from?”

But the events Science World is partnering in can hardly be construed as “neutral” or strictly science-focused. They’re clearly designed to promote the industry to youth through big job promises – a message with which Tisdall appears to be fully on board, noting:

[quote]There will be the opportunity not only to learn more about the science of energy generally – and more specifically about LNG – but careers that might be involved in that…all the trades and professions that will be essential for the future energy industry in the province.[/quote]

LNG policy creeps into classrooms

This development is merely the latest example of the troubling creep of the government’s energy agenda and the oil and gas industry’s influence into BC’s classrooms.

From the massive shifting of post-secondary education funding away from academia towards “skills training” for the LNG industry to Chevron’s controversial attempt to donate $200,000 to the Vancouver School Board, BC’s youth are increasingly being targeted to advance oil and gas development.

Liberal MLAs attend BC Lions-endorsed "Skills for Life" session (Photo: MLA John Yap) — Liberal MLAs attend BC Lions-endorsed “Skills for Life” session (Photo: MLA John Yap website)

It’s not just post-secondary students who will be encouraged to abandon dreams of social work or nursing careers for LNG training. Clark has acknowledged this focus on trades must extend to high school students as well.

A recent example was the student delegation the government brought to its global LNG summit earlier this year, wooing high schoolers with promises of jobs in the trades.

Even the kid-friendly BC Lions have been roped into this sales pitch – partnering in the government’s “Skills for Life” program, along with Petronas’ Pacific Northwest LNG project.

These Science World community sessions are reaching even younger students with this pro-LNG message – some as young as elementary school.

Let’s talk about science…really

Mr. Tsidall’s Science World is supposed to be in the science business. So here’s some of the science that’s missing from their seminars.

How about estimates that suggest even a modest number of LNG plants could more than double the entire carbon footprint of the province? Or does Science World not concern itself with climate science?

How about the science of fugitive methane emissions – 86 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 over a 20-year period – that stem from shale gas (a.k.a: fracking)? Or the geology that tells us BC’s LNG industry would be fed by a massive increase in fracking.

Or the science of tens of billions of litres of fresh water being removed from the hydrological cycle and contaminated with a cocktail of chemicals – some of them known carcinogens?

Or the science of earthquakes caused by fracking?

These are all fascinating topics, surely of interest to inquiring young minds. If Science World wanted to engage with youth on the subject, they could do it independently of the government and let our youth weigh the jobs they’re being promised against a full picture of the negative impacts of this industry. As it stands, Science World is allowing itself to be used as the lackey huckster of the government’s Kool-Aid.

What jobs?

Speaking of jobs, how many of these students will actually see employment in the industry while company after company backs out? While the very BC government making these promises signs deals with China and India to import foreign temporary workers to build LNG infrastructure at cheaper wages…

Meanwhile, Christy Clark, hardly a fan of education herself, is full of lessons for BC’s youth – and their parents, both beneficiaries of her recent lecture on protesting the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

Is this LNG program about providing kids with opportunities – or about using kids to get to their parents, the voters who elected this Liberal government on an LNG platform that is disintegrating beneath its feet?

If the Liberal government wishes to continue hawking the Kool-Aid of its failing LNG industry, that’s its prerogative – but to Mr. Tisdall and Ms. Clark, I say: Leave the kids out of it.

First Nations react to LNG approvals with highway blockade

December 8, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, UncategorizedfeaturedDamien Gillis

Highway 16 blockade on Saturday (Photo submitted)

A group of 65 Gitxsan First Nations and supporters, led by several hereditary chiefs, showed up on an icy December Saturday to block Highway 16, near Hazelton. They were peacefully registering their opposition to the recent granting of 3 new environmental certificates for proposed LNG infrastructure in northern BC – including two pipelines that would transit Gitxsan territory and an LNG plant that threatens Skeena River salmon stocks.

The demonstration was led by the hereditary chiefs who, this past summer, constructed a camp named Madii Lii in the path of several proposed pipelines designed to carry fracked shale gas from northeast BC to LNG plants near Prince Rupert. The camp is part of a growing movement of hereditary and grassroots First Nations in various northern territories who are standing up against proposed LNG development – including the Unist’ot’en camp in the path of several Kitimat-bound pipelines.

The provincial approval of more LNG infrastructure by the Clark government in late November spurred the group to take to the streets this past weekend. The projects approved include Malaysian energy giant Petronas’ proposed pipeline and LNG plant on Lelu Island, in the heart of the Skeena Estuary. The project has drawn criticism from fisheries experts and First Nations over its potentially catastrophic impacts on juvenile salmon. Also approved was Spectra’s planned Westcoast Connector pipeline.

Spookw hereditary chief Guuhadakwa (Norm Stephens) declared in a press release Saturday:

[quote]The Gitxsan people have relied on the Salmon for thousands of years. The importance of the salmon to the Gitxsan people far out weighs any of the financial benefits that are and may be offered in the future for these LNG pipelines. The risk to the salmon is far to great to allow any pipelines to cross our territories and none will. We will not loose the salmon on our watch.[/quote]

But LNG opponents have something to celebrate as well, since Petronas, just one week after receiving its environmental certificates, announced late last week that it is putting its projects on hold – due to the rapidly deteriorating economic fundamentals of the global LNG market. Plunging oil prices are negatively affecting Asian LNG rates, while intense competition and a growing global glut of LNG supply mean it’s harder for companies like Petronas to see a profit from the massive investment they would need to make in BC LNG.

The other recently approved pipeline being protested by the Gitxsan on Saturday, Spectra’s Westcoast Connector, also faces an uncertain future, as British giant BG Group has been getting cold feet about the Prince Rupert LNG plant that Spectra’s pipeline is intended to supply.

With both tough economic hurdles to face and growing First Nations opposition, it appears the bloom is off the rose for BC’s once-vaunted LNG industry.

Rafe: What’s the NDP thinking jumping on Liberals’ sinking LNG ship?

December 6, 2014Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedRafe Mair

afe--What's-the-NDP-thinking-jumping-on-Liberals'-sinking-LNG-ship — BCNDP Leader John Horgan talking LNG at UBCM meeting (Photo: BCNDP)

I suppose it’s not unusual for an electorate to feel swindled. It sure as hell happens often enough.

The BC electorate has every right to feel swindled in the election of 2013 by the Christy Clark government’s solemn promise to make us all wealthy through LNG plants. This was a very specific promise and even went as far as promising a “prosperity fund” of $100 billion, plus all of our provincial debt soon paid off. This was crap, they knew it, we fell for it.

Now, for God’s sake, the NDP opposition has joined in the swindle at a time when the Liberals, now that their promises cannot possibly be fulfilled, are frantically looking for a way out for the 2017 election.

NDP support comes as LNG industry falls apart

It’s incomprehensible that the John Horgan opposition would support the Liberals on their LNG endeavours, particularly since Petronas has all but admitted defeat, and they are supposed to be the first out of the box!

What’s even more distressing for those who want LNG plants as soon as possible and as many as possible, is the statement by Petronas that nothing will be going until the end of the decade (which is three years after the next election). Even more troubling for LNG lovers is experts like Bloomberg suggesting that Canada’s LNG industry is highly vulnerable to intense global competition.

It’s really difficult to see just how the campaign promises for 2017 are going to shape up.

The Liberals, like Mr. Micawber, are hoping “something will turn up”.

What is the NDP’s plan for BC?

There has been nothing from Mr. Horgan or the NDP to suggest that they have a new plan for BC. That may come, but it’s pretty late to start setting the stage for an unknown program to be their campaign 2 1/2 years from now.

As it now stands, we have the Liberals looking for a way to avoid dealing with LNG in 2017, with the NDP, not caught in the Liberals’ trap but one of their own making, really not knowing what the hell to do. At least the NDP have plenty of experience in that regard.

It is a new world out there, something that the media has not cottoned onto and, apparently, something that has escaped the notice of Premier Clark and opposition leader Horgan.

Public hungers for environmental leadership

The public are in a strong environmentalist mood. The municipal elections in November demonstrated that but, I think more importantly, the comments to The Common Sense Canadian and The Tyee demonstrate that there is a hard-core, and growing opposition to pipelines, LNG plants and the like which is much different than the cries of years gone by.

There is no doubt that the public’s appetite for preserving our environment got a great boost back in the days of Clayoquot Sound and before, but these things take time to mature and in my belief the environmentalism of the public has reached new heights and more is yet to come.

I don’t for a moment think that the public is against all development or anything of the sort. This is why the “right” has so much trouble dealing with the issue. They can’t think beyond their political philosophy that whatever is dug, cut down, mined, drilled, or transported must be good and those who ever, even for a moment, oppose those things must be evil. For the “right”, unrestrained capitalism is a religious tenet and non-believers deserve contempt.

Citizens fed up with being ignored by politicians, media

Rafe: Critics of Burnaby Mountain citizens are out of touch with public will for change — 84 year-old retired librarian Barbara Grant getting arrested at Burnaby Mountain (Burnaby Mountain Updates/facebook)

In fact, a growing number of citizens don’t see the mindless greed of industry and their bought-off governments as their salvation. Moreover, more and more voters are pissed off at not being consulted and not having their views represented by their politicians.

The media’s mindless and dedicated adherence to the desires of big business make them not only unbelievable, and all but devoid of influence, but damn near unreadable to boot.

When ordinary, decent, British Columbians see their fellow citizens threatened with jail because they want to preserve their parks and neighbourhoods, they’re disgusted.

In a way, it all rather goes back to Lincoln’s aphorism:

[quote]You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.[/quote]

One might respectfully add to that, once the people know that they have been fooled, they get very cross indeed.

Reform is coming

The political systems, federal and provincial, make it very difficult for parties of protest, such as the Green Party, to make headway. The present system suits party lines and party discipline, not individual thinking and representation of the voter. 2017 will be, however, a time when the Green Party will demonstrate whether, even under a lousy system, they can gain public support. It will be, for them, a watershed election.

There will be reform both of the system and the way we are governed. That may take time, although what needs to be done is pretty obvious to most of us.

No matter how big a majority a government has, it can’t govern if the people don’t support it. The public will continue to protest environmental degradation of which they do not approve. That the traditional parties don’t understand that means only that it’s going to take the people a little longer to make their views materialize in reform.

Be all of that as it may, reform is coming, sooner or later, and you can make book on that.

National Energy Board clearly doesn’t serve Canadians

December 3, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedRay Grigg

The 3-member NEB Joint Review Panel for the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline (Damien Gillis)

The National Energy Board (NEB) is supposedly an independent legal body constituted by the government of Canada to consider evidence on proposed energy projects and then to objectively decide if such projects as oil or gas pipelines are in the “public interest”. But, true to its literal name, the NEB almost never decides against an energy project.

This nearly perfect record of approval can be explained by the industrialized world’s continued dependency on fossil fuels, by the royalty benefits accruing to Canada, and by the political inclination of the present federal government whose economic policies clearly support the oil and gas industry. The threat of global climate change, the risk of devastating oil spills and the growing precariousness of ecologies are now altering the meaning of “public interest.”

[quote]The “public interest” the NEB is supposed to represent must entail more than profitability for the oil and gas industries.[/quote]

Hardly apolitical

The NEB is supposed to be making apolitical assessments in the “public interest”. But it is hardly apolitical. The appointees to the NEB have political partialities. The parameters of evidence allowed to be presented in the NEB hearings come with political implications. So, too, do the time allocations allowed for evidence.

The Board conducts hearings with only a precarious semblance of objectivity. But this lasts only as long as the NEB is rendering decisions that seem to have social license. When a proposed project is controversial, when the NEB is subject to critical examination, and when the public’s understanding of its “interest” is changing, then the NEB’s inherent bias becomes conspicuously obvious.

Enbridge gets OK despite overwhelming opposition

One recent example is Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline, a project intended to bring Alberta bitumen through spectacular and rare wilderness to coastal BC at Kitimat. While the NEB approved the Enbridge project subject to the proponent meeting 209 conditions, the decision contradicted the nearly unanimous evidence of all presenters at the Board’s hearings — 1,159 of 1,179 submissions were opposed, including almost every expert witness.

The NEB’s approval of this pipeline also received the scathing censure of over 300 scholars and scientists from around the world whose open letter to the Board pronounced the assessment process so “flawed” as to be essentially “useless” in reaching any meaningful finding. In their thoughtful judgment, the NEB failed “to provide an explanation of how it had reached its conclusions, especially the central one, that the project’s benefits justify its risks and costs.”

NEB makes mess of Kinder Morgan hearings

The most recent example of the NEB’s controversial assessment process is the current hearings for Kinder-Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline, another project intended to bring more of Alberta bitumen to BC’s coast, this time via a southerly route that would pass through the Fraser Valley and Burnaby to a refinery in Burrard Inlet. In this case, the NEB has been empowered to overrule city and municipal bylaws, to radically restrict the duration of the hearings, to include only select presenters directly impacted, and to so limit the parameters of the evidence received as to exclude any careful examination of peripheral risks and damages.

In considering the “public interest” of this bitumen pipeline, the NEB has decided that it will not receive evidence about global climate change, it will not require Kinder-Morgan to answer hundreds of pertinent questions, and it has compounded its already conspicuous bias by eliminating the critically important tradition of oral cross-examination of witnesses — without this critically important step, any submitted evidence would be of questionable validity.

Respected energy executive quits hearings

Marc Eliesen, with 40 years of executive experience in Canada’s energy sector, has quit his role as an intervenor because of what he calls a “lack of respect for hearing participants,” as well as a disregard for “the standards and practices of natural justice that previous boards have respected.” Elieson’s conclusion is that, “In effect, this so-called public hearing process has become a farce, and this Board a truly industry captured regulator.”

The NEB maintains its credibility, and therefore the credibility of the energy projects it approves, by being thorough, objective and apolitical. The “public interest” it is supposed to represent must entail more than profitability for the oil and gas industries and the supportive policies they are receiving from the present Canadian government. Like this government, the NEB has chosen to be indifferent to the pressing need for a transition out of the fossil fuel age.

The ebbing tide of history

Fossil fuels are on the ebbing tide of history. The energy equation is shifting away from carbon. CO2 emissions are now a critical factor in the calculation of social benefit, while pollution from leaking pipelines and dashed supertankers has become anathema to a world already alarmed about losing valuable ecologies to a multiplicity of other environmental abuses. The entire calculation of economics is being reconsidered by a planet increasingly damaged by an industrialized system now incurring costs that are challenging the benefits. Meanwhile, the public’s tolerance for risk is shrinking dramatically in a world already suffering from an excess of ecological threats.

Image: Dan Pierce — Recent clash at Burnaby Mountain (Dan Pierce)

These threats are now becoming ubiquitous. Extreme weather is a constant reminder, while the worrisome parade of other related and unrelated threats are getting too numerous to list. The public is getting nervous, its tolerance for ecological risk is collapsing, and its optimism for the future is darkening. Meanwhile, pro-fossil fuel energy policies in Canada, linked with conspicuously anti-environmental measures, are increasing a national mood of brooding cynicism.

The impatience, frustration and anger that is building in Canadians has to express itself somewhere. The NEB has made itself an obvious target. So, too, have the ambitions of Enbridge, Kinder-Morgan and everything associated with Alberta’s tar sands. All are becoming increasingly incompatible with the emerging vision for a sustainable future.