Tag Archives: featured

Kinder Morgan may win in court, but it’s quickly losing social licence

November 6, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedDamien Gillis

Kinder Morgan may win in court, but it's quickly losing social licence — Citizens protest Kinder Morgan outside BC Supreme Court (Photo: AJ Klein/facebook)

Houston-based pipeline giant Kinder Morgan may obtain an injunction from the BC Supreme Court today to remove protestors from a Burnaby Mountain blockade of the company’s exploratory work. In all likelihood, it will also secure a positive verdict from the National Energy Board at the end of its hearings into the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion – and Harper Cabinet approval thereafter.

But these will be pyrrhic victories the company loses its social licence in the process. And that’s precisely the way things appear headed for the $90 Billion Houston-based energy titan.

Corrigan-vs.-Goliath

Burnaby issues Kinder Morgan stop work order over pipeline survey — Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan has been a thorn in Kinder Morgan’s side (Image: Youtube)

The Burnaby Mountain blockade was catalyzed by the strong stance taken by Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan against Kinder Morgan’s plans to build expand its Burrard Inlet shipping terminal and massively expand tanker traffic to over 400 ships a year through south coast waters.

Corrigan has made no secret about his enmity for the project altogether, but it was at Burnaby Mountain that made his stand.

When the company announced a proposed change to its pipeline route earlier this year, involving tunnelling under Burnaby Mountain, Corrigan recognized a golden opportunity. Invoking whatever municipal powers he had at his disposal, the mayor sought to block access for Kinder Morgan to the mountain – arguing that its survey work would negatively impact protected wilderness areas.

What resulted has been a protracted, complex legal battle, waged in the BC courts and before the federal energy regulator conducting the hearing into the pipeline. While Justice Brenda Brown denied the city’s injunction application to keep the company off the mountain, the NEB surprisingly went the other way, refusing to take the company’s side and override municipal by-laws.

Enter the citizens

Into this impasse strode a group of citizens, who in September constructed a camp at the base of the mountain, along Centennial Way, physically blockading the company’s work. Over the past week, including further hearings today, Kinder Morgan has been seeking an injunction which would give it the power to have protestors removed by police.

Knowing the way these hearings usually go, if not today, then sometime very soon Kinder Morgan will likely get what it’s seeking. But as the old saying goes, “Be careful what you wish for.”

Pipeline Jujitsu

What began with Corrigan’s David-vs.-Goliath battle is starting to look like a shrewd jujistu move, using his opponent’s strength (it is the largest energy transmission company in North America) against it. And now that ordinary citizens have taken up the torch – some still haunted by the memory of the company’s 2007 spill that covered their North Burnaby neighbourhood in diluted tar sands bitumen – Kinder Morgan looks more and more like a ham-fisted ogre with each passing court date.

List of critics, offences grows

The company is increasingly riling citizens and offending First Nations – who remain steadfastly opposed. But it’s not just grassroots citizens and indigenous groups. It’s prominent politicians, academics, economists, and other public figures who are increasingly lining up against the company. Here are just a few poignant examples:

Questions from the company during NEB hearings as to First Nations food fishing have sparked a viral facebook page, with thousands of pictures from around the province displaying how aboriginal people value wild salmon

The Burnaby Mountain protestors include prominent academics like SFU Biochemistry professor Lynne Quarmby, who noted in a recent press release that over 80 groups from around the world are now supporting their legal battle. “I don’t think Kinder Morgan wants you to hear what I have to say – and I think that is why they are trying to silence me,” Quarmby told media outside the court house last week.

Quambry is joined by SFU Professor Stephen Collis, who spoke out publicly against a 1000-page legal document dropped on him by the company last week, threatening $5.6 million in damages for “trespassing” in the public Burnaby Mountain park the company is trying to gain access to

Heavy-hitting aboriginal leaders like Grand Chief Stewart of Union of BC Indian Chiefs have indicated their full support for the Burnaby protests and local First Nations opposition to the project, declaring, “We stand in absolute solidarity with individuals, groups and First Nations that are standing in public opposition to these ill-conceived, uninvited, unwanted heavy oil pipeline proposals in the province of British Columbia”.

The NEB process itself is under attack as well. Former BC Hydro head Mark Eliesen recently dropped out of the pipeline hearings via a scathing letter to the regulator, calling the process a “farce”

This follows a long list of grievances against the hearings over the exclusion of 80% of applicants, the lack of any opportunity for cross-examination from interveners, and a slew of issues with the application process itself – highlighted by people like local NDP MP Kennedy Stewart

Corrigan is joined by Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson – who seems destined for a fresh mandate come Nov. 15 – in steadfast opposition to the project. Though on paper municipal governments lack much political power to block large-scale energy projects, it would be a serious mistake to underestimate the influence of these two cities and powerful mayors over the project.

Even the Clark Government has expressed concern at Kinder Morgan’s evasiveness toward the province’s questions about the project. The company couldn’t find a friendlier provincial government if it tried, so pissing off this bunch would seem counter-productive.

Much of the above has transpired since this independent poll in July, which found that 70% of Burnaby citizens supported their mayor and council’s tough stance against Kinder Morgan.

Clearly, this Texas-based company has a few things to learn about doing business in BC. If it continues on this path, it may well win a few battles but wind up losing the war.

Rafe: Shell promises “green” LNG…we can trust them, right?

November 5, 2014Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedRafe Mair

Christy Clark and Marvin Odum, President Shell Oil Company at recent BC LNG conference (BC govt flickr)

I’m sure, like me, you were excited to read in the Vancouver Sun for November 4 that LNG Canada (Shell and its Asian partners) will build a plant in Kitimat which will be very, very “green” and put even less greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere than the maximum prescribed by the BC government.

Oh, there will still be GHG escaping but just a teensy, weensy bit. And, of course, we all know that how strict BC government standards are. After all if you can’t trust Christy Clark and Mary Polak, the Environment Minister, whom can you trust?

Shell: your friendly, trustworthy oil and gas giant

Look, even the paint is green! (LNG Canada rendering)

It’s been suggested that Shell is not a very nice company, that amongst other things ruined Nigeria and the rivers therein. I don’t place much credence in this sort of whining from greenies! I’m told that wherever Shell goes it buys uniforms for the local Little League. Surely a company that does that is trustworthy!

I also was excited to realize that LNG Canada (Shell) would be carefully policed, and if necessary, be dealt with severely – just like fish farmers, private river power projects, or mines like Mount Polley mine have been.

Christy Clark: Always looking out for people of BC

In the same Sun issue, we learned that premier Christy Clark had a lovely meeting with the premier of Alberta and that all bits of unpleasantness were resolved. We know what a great bargainer our Christy is from her toughness with LNG companies and that, contrary to what those of little faith feared, BC will be getting lots of loot out of the Enbridge Northern Gateway and the procedure for a spill in the ocean will be “world-class”. Thank God!

Now here are two of Canada’s finest politicians, so we surely trust that all is well. After all, if you can’t trust people like Christy Clark, whom can you trust?

The Sun: Bastion of independent thought

I’m always grateful to the Vancouver Sun because it brings us independent thought – like The Fraser Institute, or the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, or the BC Fish Farmers, or the president of the BC Chamber of Commerce or the Vancouver Board of Trade. If you can’t believe independent thinkers like these unbiased folk, whom can you believe?

Doubling down on fossil fuels

I must confess, dear readers, that I have been a ninny. I thought that we decided, both in the United States and Canada, we would “wean ourselves” off fossil fuels. We had to, we were told.

How could I have been so wrong! “Weaning off” apparently means something quite different to politicians and oil barons. Or perhaps it was sometime in the future?

Since then, we’ve opened up new coal mines all over the continent, new oil wells are being drilled, especially where new techniques allow us to recapture left-over oil – and we are “fracking” everywhere we possibly can for oil and gas.

BC: the new oil and gas enabler

Horn River fracking — A BC fracking drill (Two Island Films)

In British Columbia, we’re fortunate to have hydroelectric power but our job in the new scheme of things, evidently, is not to be a user but an “enabler”. We are to transport bitumen from the Alberta Tar Sands, put it on 100s of tankers and send them down our narrow fjords off to the Far East. Since we don’t actually that much of this stuff ourselves, we leave it to others, who can blame us if others pump the crap into the atmosphere?

We’ll not only put LNG plants in BC to enable overseas customers to send our stuff into the atmosphere, we’re going to “frack” away to our hearts content to produce as much as we can and fuel those plants. No small-time enabling for us, by golly!

Now, here’s my most egregious sin. I rejected the assurances of our government and the companies that “fracking” is harmless. I took the word of scientists who talk about how “fracking” sends poisonous methane gas plus the usual GHGs aloft and that, when everything is considered, in the longer run, natural gas, “fracked” or otherwise, may be just as harmful as oil or coal. Silly me!

Rafe turns over new leaf

Readers can expect me to turn over a new leaf and accept that our wise and thoughtful premier is really an environmentalist at heart and that all her thoughts are to that end. I’ll pay rapt attention to what independent commentators like the Fraser Institute say in independent papers like the Sun and Province. After all, doesn’t big business always have our best interests at heart?

How could I have been so stupid as to accept the word of 97% of climate scientists in the world and the studies done, particularly very recently, by the White House and the United Nations, that GHGs are destroying our atmosphere? That we don’t have much time left?

Surely “experts” like environmental turncoat Patrick Moore are much more reliable. Moreover, I’ve overlooked the gut instincts of climate change deniers. Hell, what could be more accurate than that?

I promise to reform. I can only hope that our publisher, Damien Gillis, doesn’t stick to his tiresome, outdated theories that we really are in trouble on this planet, that fossil fuels make a huge contribution to GHGs which are destroying our atmosphere, that we must reform our way of life and find ways to get clean energy, and all that nonsense.

I am sure that all faithful readers of The Common Sense Canadian will apply the necessary pressure to make our publisher have faith in our betters and hereafter behave himself, and make this publication even-handed like The Fraser Institute and its ilk.

And the Vancouver Sun.

Suzuki: Constitutional right to healthy environment gaining traction

November 4, 2014Canada, PoliticsfeaturedDr. David Suzuki

Suzuki- Constitutional right to healthy environment gaining traction — David Suzuki and Neil Young, who will team up in Vancouver for the “Blue Dot” tour (Photo: davidsuzuki.org)

The idea of a right to a healthy environment is getting traction at Canada’s highest political levels. Federal Opposition MP Linda Duncan recently introduced “An Act to Establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights” in Parliament. If it’s passed, our federal government will have a legal duty to protect Canadians’ right to live in a healthy environment.

Blue Dot Tour gains momentum

I’m travelling across Canada with the David Suzuki Foundation’s Blue Dot Tour to encourage people to work for recognition of such a right — locally, regionally and nationally. At the local level, the idea of recognizing citizens’ right to live in a healthy environment is already taking hold. Richmond and Vancouver, B.C., The Pas, Manitoba, and the Montreal borough of Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie all recently passed municipal declarations recognizing this basic right.

Our ultimate goal is to have the right to a healthy environment recognized in the Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and a federal environmental bill of rights is a logical precursor. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself was preceded by a federal statute, the Bill of Rights, enacted under Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative government in 1960.

Not about left or right…about right or wrong

This isn’t a partisan issue. It appeals to people across the political spectrum and has broad support among Canadians. An earlier attempt to pass a Canadian environmental bill of rights (also led by Linda Duncan) gained the support of MPs from various parties before its passage through Parliament was interrupted by the 2011 federal election.

In France, conservative leader Jacques Chirac championed the idea of environmental rights during his presidency. After more than 70,000 French citizens attended public hearings, the Charter for the Environment was enacted in 2005 with support from all political parties.

Canada has made big constitutional changes before

I’ve seen so many positive changes in our legal systems and social safety net in my 78 years — including adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. My family was incarcerated in the B.C. Interior during the Second World War, just for being of Japanese descent, even though we were born and raised in Canada. Like other people of colour, my parents didn’t have the right to vote until 1948.

First Nations people on reserves couldn’t vote until 1960. And women weren’t even considered “persons” under Canadian law until 1918, when they were given voting rights. Homosexuality was a crime punishable by prison until 1969! I’m convinced that legal recognition for environmental rights will be the next big change.

Progress is possible when enough people recognize its necessity and come together to make it happen. Protecting our country and planet, our health and the future of our children and grandchildren is absolutely necessary. We can’t live and be well without clean air and water, nutritious food and the numerous services that diverse and vibrant natural environments provide.

More than 1,000 drinking water advisories

Even in Canada, where our spectacular nature and abundant water are sources of pride, we can no longer take these necessities for granted. More than 1,000 drinking-water advisories are in effect in Canada at any time, many of them in First Nations communities. More than half of us live in areas where air quality reaches dangerous levels of toxicity.

Mercury poisoning at Grassy Narrows

And from Grassy Narrows and Sarnia’s Chemical Valley in Ontario to Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, people are being poisoned because industrial interests and profits are prioritized over their right to live healthy lives.

It’s not about hindering industry; it’s about ensuring that companies operating in Canada, as well as our governments, maintain the highest standards and that human health and well-being are always the priority. Evidence shows strong environmental protection can benefit the economy by spurring innovation and competitiveness and reducing health-care costs. This is about giving all Canadians greater say in the democratic process and looking out for the long-term prosperity of Canada.

Time for Canada to join other nations

More than half the world’s nations already recognize environmental rights. It’s time for Canada to live up to its values and join this growing global movement.

There’s no date yet for a vote on Bill C-634, but its introduction has started a conversation among politicians in Ottawa. Let’s hope people from across the political spectrum will recognize the importance of ensuring that all Canadians have the right to a healthy environment.

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

Creation mythology and modern environmental apocalypse

November 3, 2014Climate ChangefeaturedRay Grigg

Creation mythology and modern environmental apocalypse — Apocalyptic painter John Martin’s “The Last Man” (Oil on canvas, 1849 – The Walker Gallery)

The first thing to realize about the biblical Creation story in the first two chapters of Genesis — the mythology and its earlier roots in Sumeria have shaped the fundamental thinking of Western cultures — is that a beginning also implies an ending.

This may explain our ability as a culture to be relatively unconcerned about the threat of an environmental apocalypse. The expectation of an ending is built into the way the Western mind thinks, made inevitable by the beginning that inhabits the other pole of its mythology. This is one of many ideas thoughtfully explored by Susan Murphy in her fascinating book, Minding the Earth, Mending the World: Zen and the Art of Planetary Crisis.

The original Eden, Murphy explains, was an idyllic place, existing in a suspended state of perfection where birth and death did not occur, where pain and suffering were absent, where predator and prey mingled in peace, and where the undivided wholeness of Divine Grace had not yet been broken into confusing components by Adam’s and Eve’s decision to eat the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.

The Fall

All this is lost when Adam and Eve succumb to temptation. Not only are the two sinners evicted from the Garden, but the innocence of Eden is also lost. The Fall is total. Nature’s state of suspended perfection is shattered. The thoughtless harmony of the unsullied beginning collapses. Predators now kill prey. Change and impermanence are unleashed. Pain and suffering must be endured as a punishment.

In this fallen world, the sexual urge — not that different from the temptation that lured Adam and Eve to the forbidden fruit — becomes the source of birth and then the haunting shadow of promised death. Having been cast out of Paradise, humanity must now live its numbered days in a homeless state of conscious remorse and guilt, adrift in a hostile and ruined place where its only power is to name and subdue nature while surviving as best we can. This is the situation at the end of the Old Testament.

No reprieve for Eden

The New Testament provides salvation for the fallen. God manifests in the wreckage of Eden in the form of Jesus, who promises salvation by dying for humanity’s original sin. All is forgiven in his death, resurrection and ascension. So the descendants of Adam and Eve can escape their guilt and humiliation through belief. The curse from disobedience is lifted, an eternal reprieve from death and suffering is granted, and a return to the paradise of Heaven once more guarantees the company and order of the Divine Presence.

Except this forgiveness is not granted to nature. No reprieve is offered to Eden. The birds of the air and the fishes of the sea, the beasts of the fields and the predators that devour them are not returned to their original, uncorrupted state. They remain in their fallen condition with no promise of salvation. The natural world in which humanity must live is not restored to its initial perfection but continues in its debased and spoiled form.

Saved Humanity, unredeemed world

This creates an inherent and profound dichotomy between a saved humanity and an unredeemed world. Although humanity is on Earth, it is no longer of Earth. The original oneness in Eden is not mended. Humanity’s sense of accord with nature has been expunged, first by disobedience and then by the promise of salvation. Each event has increased the disconnection, while distancing humanity from its obligation to care for Creation.

A fallen, ephemeral and chaotic nature of incessant struggle exists only to be used and abandoned on the way to humanity’s eventual salvation. The final Ending that is anticipated by the only Beginning — the inevitable Armageddon, whatever its form — will be the last cleansing of the imperfect before everything is returned to the eternally perfect.

Nature doubly victimized

Nature, therefore, is doubly victimized: first by the Fall — of which it is wholly innocent — and then by the impending apocalypse, of which it is also wholly innocent. In this story, Earth and all the marvels of Creation are only a stage upon which the human drama of sin, redemption and salvation occurs.

In the interim, between the very Beginning and the very Ending, an imperfect nature is merely present to be used by an exceptional humanity that will, by the certainty of belief and the promise of salvation, eventually escape the bonds of its sin. At the final reckoning, whatever remains of a tattered, exploited and abused nature, will be restored by the wisdom of Divine intervention. Despite the devastation, all will be fixed and all will be well.

Unconscious mythology

These are not thoughts that lie close to the surface of human awareness. As with each mythology, its unspoken assumptions are mostly hidden in the secret recesses of its stories, rarely explained in their undisguised form because they are too close to the core of a culture’s identity to be articulated. Although ordinarily unnoticed, they are nonetheless so fundamental that they are responsible for shaping and directing most thought, attitudes and behaviour.

A culture’s mythology only comes to the surface of its own consciousness during times of upheaval and crisis: when circumstances become dire, when questions become profound, when doubt becomes intense, when urgency becomes fear, when the search for new meaning is forced to venture into places never before explored.

This is the situation in which Western culture now finds itself. The old mythology is stressed and failing. It is being examined, exposed and challenged in a rebuilding process that is usually long, arduous and painful. So some thinkers, such as Susan Murphy, are returning to the beginning to understand what is amiss, and how we might find a new way forward.

94% opposition to Woodfibre from municipal candidates answering LNG survey

October 31, 2014Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedDamien Gillis

94 per cent opposition to Woodfibre from municipal candidates answering LNG survey — Rendering of proposed Woodfibre LNG project near Squamish, BC

Of the 31 candidates who responded to a recent questionnaire on the controversial Woodfibre LNG proposal for Howe Sound, 29 – or 94% – were opposed.

The survey, conducted by Propeller Strategy, was presented by phone or email to all 98 candidates in the region of the project’s proposed Squamish plant and tanker route – encompassing Howe Sound and the Sunshine Coast. Of the 88 still known to be in the race as of this week – representing the communities of Squamish, West Vancouver, Bowen Island, Gibsons, Lions Bay and Whistler – many chose not to put their positions on the record.

Only two Squamish candidates firmly stood up for the project, which has drawn strong opposition from outgoing municipal councils – including votes for tanker bans by West Vancouver, Lions Bay, and Gibsons.

Chief among the concerns of these municipal leaders have been environmental and safety risks associated with the project and what is seen to be a negative economic trade-off for an area building a modern economy based on tourism, academia, and the growing presence of the recreation technology sector and entrepreneurs attracted by the lifestyle offered by the Sea to Sky region.

At a September meeting where representatives of the project – owned by Indonesian Billionaire Skuanto Tanoto – pled their case to West Van Council, Councillor Mary-Anne Booth openly scoffed at the paltry job promises from Woodfibre:

[quote]For the risk that’s associated with this and the impact to that area, for…dozens of jobs – that’s the best you can do? And we’ve got to to stand for that? You haven’t convinced me.[/quote]

Yet despite the high rate of opposition amongst candidates who answered the survey, Stan Proboszcz, a director of Propeller Strategy, was surprised at the reluctance of many candidates to put their opinions on the record, after being contacted up to 3 times.

“Woodfibre LNG is one of the biggest election issues in the region, yet it seems some candidates aren’t eager to provide a straight-up yes or no answer about whether they support it or not,” says Proboszcz.

The survey will remain open to any candidates who still wish to make their opinion of the project known prior to the November 15 election.

The most common reasons for opposing the project, in order of priority, were:

environmental risks
economic risks
human safety concerns
navigational hazards of tankers

The two candidates backing Woodfibre are doing so because of economic benefits and a lack of known negative impacts to the community.

Based on the focus placed on the proposal by departing councils over the past year, whether or not candidates are putting their positions on the record now, they are bound to have to do so soon after they assume office.

Shell Game: Public being fooled by great BC LNG illusion

October 29, 2014Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedRafe Mair

We are allowing ourselves to be mesmerized over Liquified Natural Gas (LNG).

Perhaps we’re doing this to ourselves but the sad fact is that the government’s total ineptitude is not the only story. Not that that isn’t a big story. In fact, it was magnified last week when the Liberals set their tax regime for LNG companies.

It was not 7% or anything near it. It was not even 3.5% as reported – at least in the short term. In fact, for years it will be just 1.5% and assessed, to use the vernacular, on the company’s net profit.

Magically disappearing profits

As Andrew Nikiforuk has pointed out so often, this may well be illusory.

There is, of course, the use of offshore regimes to disguise profits. It may well be like the film industry, where many an offer of a substantial percentage of future profits has been offered the author, only to find that – surprise! surprise! – there were no profits. Probably the classic example of this is our own Bill Kinsella, whose marvellous story Shoeless Joe was made into the runaway hit, Field Of Dreams, which somehow never made a profit.

Of one thing we can be certain – LNG companies will use every possible stratagem to avoid showing profits.

“Clean” LNG? Yeah, right

But getting down to how we are being fooled, LNG is being sold to us as environmentally benign. If not totally benign, at least it’s better than coal.

Interestingly, in an op-ed piece in the Weekend Province this past Sunday, four Labour spokespeople would have us believe that coal is a marvellous fuel. The fact that they are all involved in shipping it from Vancouver ports may have something to do with their enthusiasm. In saying that, if I were in their position, I would probably feel the same but my point is that we can’t even accept the fact that coal is a terrible polluter so how in the hell can we deal with other fossil fuels? Not to mention the fact that the latest climate science suggests that LNG from fracked gas is actually worse than coal for the climate.

The Postmedia press, of course, are so firmly up the backsides of big business and the governments they buy that they can be relied upon to publish such blatant rubbish as long as it supports their pals.

Fracking up our climate and water

The best place to start on this subject is probably Ben Parfitt’s study a couple of years ago. It is fairly long but very easy to read and understand. And is truly LNG 101. That’s because LNG is produced from natural gas, the extraction of which is highly dangerous to the environment in most cases these days. Most of the natural gas converted into LNG would be obtained from shale gas by horizontal drilling into shale rock by a process, called “fracking”, which requires huge amounts of water, such that even large bodies of water like the Williston Reservoir in the Peace River District, which supplies the Bennett Dam, are being drawn on to supply the industry.

The disposal of the water after each use is also a huge problem as it is highly toxic having been liberally sprinkled with toxic chemicals. This discarded water can get into the water table, even into drinking water.

The actual fracking process is not benign, leaves substantial scars and, as well, is seen as creating earthquake potential. It also substantially contributes to greenhouse gases ( GHG) in the atmosphere.

LNG poses safety issues

Moreover, LNG itself is not as benign as the producers and your utterly incompetent government would have you believe. It is safer to transport than some other forms of fossil fuels but it is far from being absolutely safe. It’s instructive to remember that when it appeared that LNG ships would go from the east coast of the US along the Canadian coast, Prime Minister Harper raised hell and it didn’t happen.

Nor is the use of LNG for power benign, by any means. It may burn cleaner than coal, but on the whole – when you consider the full life cycle from extraction to burning, it now appears it’s worse than coal.

The evidence and all of the appropriate numbers can be found in Parfitt’s paper and the studies to which he refers.

This Changes Everything

To add to this overwhelming evidence is This Changes Everything, Naomi Klein’s latest book. This Canadian bestseller will not only curl your hair, it will provide for you with irrefutable evidence that we are in our last decade of opportunity to come to grips with GHG and all of their ghastly ramifications.

The line taken by industry and governments is that Ms. Klein is a left-winger. So, I might say, is Ben Parfitt. To the extent that they are, I am as well.

Evidence, for God’s sake, is evidence. “Ad hominem” attacks are no more than cowardly efforts to disguise the truth. I am unable to find any scientific reasons or evidence that either Mr. Parfitt or Ms. Klein or the studies upon which they make their cases, exaggerate the reality.

Our problem, and especially the problem of the government, is that we simply don’t want to face reality.

Our continued denial of science

It is so much easier and more comfortable to sail along on the proposition that people like environmentalist turncoat Patrick Moore may be right.

Notwithstanding the fact that 97% of all climate scientists support the notion of human-caused climate change, we are told that there is nothing to be concerned about. Our present situation, the revisionists allege, is simply part of a weather cycle that has been going on for thousands of years. Usually some statistics are trotted out about the situation 1000 years ago.

Quite apart from all of the scientific evidence to refute these claims, what is overlooked by these idiots is that since the Industrial Revolution starting in the 18th century, it’s been a radically different ball game as we have consistently dumped more and more GHG into the atmosphere without relief. We’re talking huge amounts here.

Who do you trust?

The Issue, in my view, gets down to credibility. Whom are we going to believe? Those with such a huge stake in the status quo that they will cheerfully gamble with the future of civilization – or scientists with nothing at stake except the search for truth?

I can tell you that I don’t believe a single solitary word I hear by either the governments or big business on these issues. Not a word. They, frankly, lie through their teeth. Their evidence is self-serving and it’s instructive to remember that industry spends billions of dollars a year on public relations to convince the public that they are as pure as choirboys.

I watch baseball a lot and on the TV station there are regularly three ads – one from Enbridge, one from Suncor, and one from the Tar Sands lobby. You have never seen such bullshit in your life! It staggers the imagination to think that anybody believes a single second of these ads.

We have to make changes to our lifestyle. That does not mean we have to crawl back into caves but that we must make a substantial and dedicated effort to change our energy needs and the type of energy we use.

This, surely, can be done – but we have to get started. And that certainly doesn’t involve doubling down on LNG, fracking and Tar Sands.

If we are truly in our last decade of opportunity to get started, there is no time like now.

Justin Trudeau continues Liberal greenwash legacy: Ex-govt insider

October 27, 2014Canada, Carbon Tax - Cap and Trade, Climate Change, Climate Science, PoliticsfeaturedWill Dubitsky

Justin Trudeau continues Liberal greenwash legacy- Former govt insider — Justin Trudeau argues for Keystone XL at a think tank in Washington, DC (Photo: Chip Somodevllla/Getty)

The Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) has a history of big talk on the environment, but, once in power, failing to deliver. Each climate change action plan has demonstrated this trend, accompanied by boastful press releases on how much money the LPC would be investing in sustainable development. Now, Justin Trudeau is showing every sign of repeating this pattern.

Liberal Party never serious about climate change

Stéphane Dion, as the former minister of the environment, introduced no comprehensive packages of legislation, fiscal measures, programs and policies to make much of a difference in addressing climate change.

As a former Government of Canada employee, I can attest, from a unique insider’s perspective, that various Dion/Liberal climate change action plans were all designed to fail, or lacking in substance to achieve stated GHG targets. Eddie Goldenberg, Chétien’s highest ranked government employee and key adviser, admitted as much in February 2007 when he revealed that the LPC had no idea how it would meet Kyoto objectives when it ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

The result was that carbon emissions spiked as much under Chrétien and Paul Martin’s governments as they have during the Harper regime. Michael Ignatieff got it right when he said to Dion, during one of the Liberal leadership debates, that Dion failed to get the job done.

Justin Trudeau represents a continuation of this LPC legacy, as I will demonstrate. What follows is an insider’s detailed view of LPC failures on climate change – leading up to Trudeau’s positions to-date and the choices Canadians face going into the 2015 election.

Subsidizing fossil fuels and paying the polluter

Prior to the Liberal defeat, Stéphane Dion, as environment minister, introduced yet another climate change action plan, this one with a $1B Climate Fund designed for the government to purchase emission reductions from Canada’s largest emitters, in particular the fossil fuel sectors. In other words, the more one emits, the more government support one could get under the Dion plan, a pay the polluter formula — rather than the polluter pays.

And no rewards were offered for the small and medium size private firms that had already contributed, or would like to contribute, significantly to emission reductions.

Price on carbon, maybe – but it would have to be cheap

Further along the lines of subsidizing the fossil fuel sector, Chrétien made a sweetheart deal with the oil industry to the effect that in the event of a price on carbon, it would be cheap/symbolic. My guess is that Trudeau’s “endorsement” of a price on carbon is the sequel to the Chrétien model.

Ambitious targets, ambitious cheating

In keeping with the LPC greenwash tradition, during the 1999 to 2000 period, a key element of the LPC plan to meet their ambitious GHG objectives was an attempt to get UN/international approval for crediting Canada for its forests – including reforestation efforts – which absorb CO2. The Liberals referred to their forest component of the climate change action plan of the time as “carbon sinks.”

In other words, the LPC wanted to get carbon credits for doing absolutely nothing, by creating a fairly tale to give the impression that they were making progress GHG targets. Fortunately, the UN rejected the carbon sink proposal.

This brilliant idea on carbon sinks has since been adopted by none other than Prime Minister Tony Abbott of Australia, known for being as ferociously anti-environment as Stephen Harper.

Carbon Capture and Storage: subsidizing greenwash

Yet another facet of the LPC subsidizing of the fossil fuel sector was a heavy investment in the carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) experiment in Weyburn, Saskatchewan.

The problem with CCS is that this technology 1) is so prohibitively expensive that no one would adopt CCS in the absence of major government subsidies 2) is very energy intensive consuming up to one third of total energy produced from a given generator facility and 3) offers no assurance that the carbon sequestered in former and empty wells would in fact stay there.

It is worth noting here that, prior to the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) elimination of all sustainable development innovation funds, the CPC continued the LPC tradition with more than one CPC sustainable development fund supporting CCS.

One of the CCS initiatives supported by the Conservatives, is the current Boundary Dam CCS project pertaining to one of the five coal-fired generation stations in Estevan SK, a project which received a $240M CCS subsidy from the Harper administration. For the generating station equipped with the CCS technologies, one third of the 165 MW of energy produced, or 55 MW, is dedicated to powering the CCS system, while only capturing 20% of the generator’s GHGs, falling well short of the objective to capture 90% of GHGs.

Recently, TransAlta abandoned its CCS project in Pioneer, AB after having received $800M in federal funding.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)

The LPC record on the auto sector also reflects its tradition of putting the emphasis on appearances rather than getting the job done.

On this, there is the matter of the auto sector corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) – a given manufacturer’s CAFE performance for a given year is weighted by the individual sales and fuel consumption of each model, aggregated over the total vehicle sales of the manufacturer in the year in question.

During the Pierre-Elliot Trudeau reign, CAFE was approved but wasn’t presented as a law before Parliament. In its place, the elder Trudeau’s Cabinet adopted a voluntary CAFE without a government verification system in place.

Justin continues Liberal Party’s record

Justin Trudeau has chosen to continue in the LPC tradition of appearing to be committed on action on climate change, with doses of window-dressing, while ceding to powerful interests.

To this end, Justin has: 1) defined Canada as a resource export economy; 2) claimed that cap and trade and opposition to Keystone are not based on science; 3) also used the line that opposition is not based on science with regard to the proposed largest volume pipeline, the 1.1M barrel/day TransCanada Energy East pipeline, with it’s Cacouna, Quebec port planned on the St-Lawrence River, precarious for tankers ; 4) blindly supported free trade agreements with China and Europe that would allow foreign enterprises, including state-owned ones, to sue Canada in the event our environmental laws or aboriginal rights impede the maximization of profits from their investments in Canada; and 5) praised former Alberta Premier Redford for boasting of Canada’s environmental record as a sales pitch to convince the US to approve Keystone.

Trudeau firmly in denial camp

Trudeau’s cavalier dismissal of opposition to tar sands exports as not being based on science puts him squarely in the same camp as Harper – the denial camp.

According to the International Energy Agency, to avoid catastrophic climate change, 80% of known reserves must be kept in the ground, which translates into a maximum tar sands production rate of 3.3M barrels/day. But tar sands production projections, based on current and planned projects, are for 7.1M barrels/day.

Furthermore, the facts on the ground are affirming that Trudeau’s characterization of Canada as a resource export economy is dated. The fossil fuel party is over. Specifically, it has become evident that non-conventional fossil fuel resources, such as the tar sands, cannot be supported by market prices. Already, Big Oil has pulled out of many non-conventional resource projects around the globe and it is now clear that long-term energy and energy-related investments favour clean energy and clean transportation, and more generally a green economy.

China leading way on renewable energy

As for the FIPA trade agreement with China, Trudeau has gone so far as to proclaim that FIPA, provides a great opportunity for Canada to sell its resources to China. However, contrary to Trudeau’s dated paradigm, China is moving with incredible speed towards a green economy with: 1) 28 GW of solar and wind capacity added in the single year of 2013; 2) its coal consumption down in 2014; 3) aggressive policies on electric vehicles; and 4) a strong possibility for the introduction of a national cap and trade system beginning in 2016. China already has two cap and trade pilots, one in Shenzhen and the other in Beijing.

Of particular significance to Canada, the above-mentioned green economy initiatives of China will ultimately lead to greater energy independence, thus once again showing that Trudeau’s FIPA resource export opportunity paradigm is totally out of sync with emerging new realities. Moreover, the gap between Trudeau’s tunnel vision and China’s new paradigm will surely widen as China accelerates its migration to a green economy under their 5 year plan for the 2016-20 period.

Trudeau wrong to pan cap and trade

With respect to Trudeau’s comments against cap and trade, the empirical evidence from the longest standing existing international cap and trade scheme, the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), proves otherwise. That is, the ETS has proven to be critical component of the EU success in meeting Kyoto Protocol objectives. More importantly, the ETS has put nearly all EU nations on track for meeting their respective 2020 targets

Yet Justin referred to Australia’s abolition of a cap and trade system as proof that the cap and trade concept is not supported by science. This, despite the fact that Australia’s Prime Minister Abbott has views similar to those of Harper on environmental matters.

Corporate tax stance misguided

Lastly, though indirectly related to the green economy, another important Trudeau policy position that would have an adverse impact on Canada’s ability to go green is maintaining Canada’s corporate tax rate at 15%, the lowest in the G7. While $630B lies dormant in corporate liquidity, the low corporate tax will limit a Trudeau government’s ability to assure adequate investments of financial resources in Canada’s own migration to a green economy.

Not only does Trudeau propose to maintain the low corporate tax rate, but he is also on record implying that he might go one step further than Harper by lowering the rate more in the future.

Suffice it to say that empirical evidence on the Liberals’ past, together with Justin Trudeau’s policy statements to date, clearly reveal that, for the LPC, environmental issues are primarily about political manipulation, rather than facing environmental challenges.

One cannot be serious about the environment and support the LPC.

Our choices for 2015 election

By contrast, the NDP is committed to a cap and trade system; ending subsidies to the fossil fuel sectors; and using the money saved on fossil sector subsidies to invest massively in the green economy – one of the highest growth and job creation sectors of our times.

As for subsidies for fossil fuels, at a cost of $110/tonne, they are one of the most significant barriers to our migration to a green economy. On this matter, the International Monetary Fund has estimated that in 2011 US dollars, Canadian subsidies associated with fossil fuels – including indirect costs pertaining to climate change and health – amount to $26.4B/year.

In contrast to the Trudeau Liberals, the NDP would raise the ridiculously low federal corporate tax rate of 15%.

To conclude, the only barriers stopping Canada from catching up with our competitors in the global migration to a green economy are Harper and Trudeau.

We should all keep that in mind heading into the election of 2015.

Clean-tech is good for the economy and environment

October 23, 2014Energy and Resources, RenewablesfeaturedDr. David Suzuki

Clean-tech is good for the economy and environment — Photo: Associated Press/ Ed Andrieski

What’s the fastest-growing sector in Canada’s economy? Given what you hear from politicians and the media, you’d be forgiven for thinking it’s the resource industry, especially extraction and export of fossil fuels like oil sands bitumen and liquefied natural gas. But we’re no longer just “hewers of wood and drawers of water” — or drillers of oil, frackers of gas and miners of coal.

Although extraction, use and export of natural resources are economically important and will remain so for some time, we’re starting to diversify. According to Ottawa-based consultants Analytica Advisors, clean technology, or clean-tech, is the country’s fastest-growing industry.

Green jobs boom

The firm’s “2014 Canadian Clean Technology Report”, found direct employment by clean-tech companies rose six per cent from 2011 to 2012, from 38,800 people to 41,000, with revenues increasing nine per cent to $11.3-billion. According to Industry Canada, mining and oil and gas sector revenues grew just 0.3 per cent in the same period, manufacturing 1.9 per cent and the construction industry 3.9 per cent.

At the current growth rate, Analytica estimates Canada’s clean-tech industry will be worth $28 billion by 2022. But with the global market expected to triple to $2.5 trillion over the next six years, Canada hasn’t come close to reaching its potential. It’s our choice to seize the opportunity. With just two per cent of the global market (matching our share of population), we could have a $50 billion clean-tech industry by 2020 — double the size of today’s aerospace industry.

Clean-tech also outshines other sectors on research and development investment, with $1 billion invested in 2012 and $5 billion from 2008 to 2012. That’s more than the combined R&D investments of natural resource industries (oil and gas extraction, mining, agriculture, forestry and fishing), and only $200 million less than the aerospace sector.

“If you look at the sum of the investments and revenues of all these companies, we have a significant industry today,” Analytica president Céline Bak told the Hill Times.

[quote]Given the growth in investments today, it will continue to be significant and can grow into an industry comparable in size to other significant industries, like aerospace for example.[/quote]

Sector powered by diversity

The clean-tech sector is broad. “These companies are working on problems that we all care about, like how to use the constant temperature from the ground under our offices buildings for heating and cooling and how to replace expensive and polluting diesel power in our remote communities with clean affordable energy or transforming greenhouse gases into stronger concrete to build greener buildings,” Bak said in a Vancouver Sun article. Clean-tech comprises about 700 companies in 10 sectors across Canada, including renewable energy, water treatment, green building and development of environmentally friendly consumer products.

Many experts argue that putting a price on carbon, through carbon taxes or cap-and-trade, is a good way to stimulate clean-tech, by targeting greenhouse gas emitters and encouraging technologies and measures aimed at energy conservation and renewables.

Canada could lose out

But we could lose out if we take the industry for granted — especially because 74 per cent of clean-tech companies here sell products and services outside Canada, with export revenues of about $5.8 billion in 2012 and 42 per cent going to markets other than the U.S. “High-performing companies are often bought by international players that take the intellectual property, manufacturing and jobs to other countries,” Bak cautioned, adding:

[quote]The world already looks to Canada for our clean technology solutions. Isn’t it time that we did too?[/quote]

And, while the federal government has strategies to track and promote the fossil fuel and aerospace industries, it has yet to do this for clean-tech.

Diversity in nature is important — ensuring ecosystems remain resilient in the face of threats. So, too, for the economy. It’s folly to rely too heavily on extracting and selling finite resources, especially those that cause pollution and contribute to climate change and other threats to the environment and human health and survival. Canada’s economic growth potential through clean energy is huge, but it needs to be given the same priority government gives other industries.

Clean-tech may not be the answer to all our problems, but it’s a sector that offers a lot of promise for our economy and environment.

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

Rafe: Runaway Simushir may be safe now; BC’s coast is anything but

October 20, 2014Energy and Resources, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedRafe Mair

Runaway Simushir may be safe now, but BC's coast is anything but — The Simushir under tow from US tugboat Barbara Foss (via Maritime Forces Pacific Facebook)

The incapacitation of a Russian cargo vessel off Haida Gwaii caused great panic amongst all of us who watched the events unfold over the past weekend. The seas were very heavy – not an unusual state of affairs for that part of the world at this and other times of the year.

For very good reason, the Haida Nation was extremely worried and upset about the developments. It looked up for a while is if they might have to deal with this themselves and, course, although they were prepared to use and sacrifice their own vessels, none of these were built for this kind of an emergency. Eventually, the chance intervention of an American tugboat got the situation under control.

During the time of this emergency, the story was covered regularly on the BBC and CNN, in addition to our own local news. It was a national and international news event. One ship! No accident! No oil-soaked beaches! No dead and dying birds!

What about hundreds of oil tankers?

This being so with one vessel in trouble off our coast – and far from the first – what are the risks when the number of tankers off the coast is in the hundreds, plus those coming out of Vancouver and Howe Sound? The risks involved are enormous. If one vessel, not carrying bitumen, can threaten this much damage and cause so much concern, consider that we’re bound to have that happen over and over again. The law of averages means we’ll have accidents. Indeed, the law of averages is that we will have accidents on an ongoing basis – as a group of learned fossil fuel transport engineers found after examining Enbridge’s plans.

In addition to tankers carrying bitumen from the Enbridge pipeline, if, heaven forbid, it ends up being built, we have the prospect of more tankers on the south coast from Kinder Morgan’s planned pipeline expansion to Burnaby. The very minimum number of extra tankers a year coming out of Vancouver will be 404 – more than one per day. In addition to that, there will be, if the LNG plant goes ahead in Squamish, another 40 tankers coming out of Howe Sound.

(Let me pause there for a moment. It has taken us 50 years to clean up Howe Sound after Britannia mines, pulp mills and so on. We now have salmon back, herring back, shellfish back, whales back – the whole recovery has been a near miracle made possible by the efforts of the people of British Columbia. Now all of this is jeopardized so that an Indonesian billionaire can make buckets of money providing virtually no employment and no money to the local community or the province.)

Accidents happen

The companies, of course, say that they have a great safety record and that they don’t think that anything will happen. Companies say this all the time and have hugely expensive public relations departments and outside agencies to help them disseminate that message.

The problem, is obvious – notwithstanding all of the optimism of the companies and governments, accidents will happen. You cannot have something in the order of 450 huge tankers a year coming out of the harbour of Vancouver and Howe Sound without having accidents – they are inevitable.

It is not just a question of an accident that we must concern ourselves with. If the accident is going to be a benign one, or one where very little damage is done, that’s one thing. The fact of the matter is that a serious accident to a tanker will be catastrophic. Remember the Exxon Valdez, which was carrying ordinary crude oil, not bitumen. As this incident and the Enbridge catastrophe in the Kalamazoo River teaches us, is all but impossible to clean up.

Kinder Morgan would change Vancouver forever

Like many of you, I have lived in the greater Vancouver area all my life. Many of you will have been here for a number of years; even those who have just arrived will know of the beauties of our harbour, the Salish Sea, the Gulf Islands, and the southern part of Vancouver Island. For the vast majority of us, this is why we live here.

I must confess to you that I have forgotten about the beauties of the many beaches in Vancouver itself. I have forgotten the joys I had as a child and then as a younger person using these beaches. I have forgotten how important these beaches are to tourism. I have forgotten how beautiful these beaches are and how much their very presence adds to the enjoyment of people who live here.

That’s the problem, isn’t it? We all become so familiar with the wonderful surroundings in which we live that we tend to ignore them. All of these things, however, when we think about them, become hugely important to us. And we are about to jeopardize all of that in order to transport highly toxic bitumen from the Tar Sands to the Far East.

Saving BC falls to provincial, local governments

We tend to forget that the ultimate responsibility for this rests with the provincial government. We have to pretty much forget the feds. It’s true, that they are the ones that will approve the pipelines but the provincial government and indeed local governments have a great many ways to curtail them while Ottawa – the Harper version – has no intention of doing so.

Let’s face it, the federal government is hopeless. They simply do not care. They go through the motions, always knowing what the results will be.

We know that the prime minister and his idiotic finance minister, Joe Oliver, have already committed to both the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and Kinder Morgan. They really don’t care what the National Energy Board, their poodle, says anymore than they care about what the people of British Columbia think.

While they are the ones we really ought to be petitioning, we know that’s hopeless. One only has to look at what BC Tory MPs are saying. Like the little pet parrotts they are, they all squawk the government line.

The responsibility rests with Premier Clark and her government. There are a great many things that she can do to stop both of the pipelines and any subsequent tanker traffic.

Premier Clark abdicates duty

Here is the problem – premier Clark and her government have no intention of doing a damned thing.

Why do I say that?

She is in thrall to foreign energy companies. All one has to do is look at their policy with respect to liquefied natural gas (LNG). LNG plants contribute tankers just as pipelines do. In the case of the one proposed for Squamish in Howe Sound, there will be at least 40 tankers per year if we accept the company’s word. Though they may not be carrying bitumen, they are hardly without risk – and catastrophic risk at that.

World-Class rhetoric

I must confess that I am sick and tired of hearing about “world-class accident prevention” and “world-class recovery” after the accident that wasn’t going to happen.

World-class means absolutely nothing. They are two words intended to comfort us all without having any specific guarantee attached to them. They are just words without substance. Moreover, what we do know of as “world-class” isn’t worth a damn if we look at the results of tanker accidents around the world.

Moment of truth

We are coming, as a people, to the moment of truth. The National Energy Board – which incidentally won’t let you ask questions of their witnesses – will approve the Kinder Morgan pipeline. That having happened, who’s to stop 404 bitumen-laden tankers?

Now is the time we must let this provincial government know, in no uncertain terms, what we feel and the consequences we will visit upon them at election time if they ignore us.

Christy Clark is the premier of British Columbia, for God’s sake! She and her government have a sworn duty to protect us and the environment in which we live. Her obligation is not to LNG companies, or the tar sands or pipeline companies, nor to those who own the tankers, but to us, the citizens and the place in which we live.

Surely, we must hold her to that duty.

Harper’s new fish farm laws would open floodgates to waste dumping

October 19, 2014Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquaculturefeaturedDC Reid

Haper govt's new salmon farm regs would open floodgates for waste dumping

The following is a letter by salmon farming critic and Common Sense Canadian contributor DC Reid to Prime Minister Stephen Harper on his government’s proposed gutting of aquaculture regulations, which would enable virtually unrestricted dumping of fish farm waste into our oceans. The public can comment on the proposed changes until October 22 by emailing: fpptr-rtppp@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Dear Stephen Harper et al,

New laws would enable fish farms to dump more waste, chemicals — Yardstick standing upright in waste layer below fish farm, up to 32 inch mark (Friends of Port Mouton Bay)

The people of BC do not want fish farms in our ocean anymore, so we do not want your Aquaculture Act that would give them the opportunity to dump everything they have into our pristine waters. More than 100,000 people have signed a petition against fish farms in BC.

The only people who want the old-tech, dinosaur fish farms in the waters of BC are a few federal and provincial employees and fish farms themselves. Fish farms only want to be in the water to use it as a free, open sewer. My estimate of the sewage damage in BC is $10.4 Billion that fish farms get away with but the cost comes to taxpayers. You will find the formula I used and a summary of 20,000 pages of fish farm environmental damage science on my site. You will find the links to the science that shows that fish farms put out more sewage than the entire human populations of many countries they operate in. This includes Scotland, and Norway itself. Norway is so polluted they had to dredge several kilometres of one inlet of fish farm sewage and put it on land.

Better technology exists

Of the 85,000 page views I have had in the three years that I have been posting, the most popular by far is the one on the 69 on-land fish farm systems I have found around the globe – comprising more than 8,000 actual on-land farms. People do not want fish farms in the ocean anymore. Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafood follow my blog daily – they are followers who won’t use their own names – as 12,000 of the views are from Norway alone; that is 1 in 7. And look at the Nancy Greene Raine posts for the deficiencies in the current laws.

Farmed fish prompt health warnings

Fish farms like to say they operate under the strictest laws in the world – here and every other country they operate in, recently, Chile, Scotland and Norway. Norway is so polluted that the big story in the past year has been scientists and doctors warning Norwegians not to eat farmed fish because of the POPs, PCBs, dioxins and other organic chemicals that cause, among other things, cancer. But once fish farms say they operate under the strictest laws, they lobby behind the scenes for getting rid of them. Your Aquaculture Act is an example of this.

Gutting fish farm regulations

Other of your examples include the omnibus ‘budget’ bill of 2013 that gutted S-35 and -36 of the Fisheries Act, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Among other things you fired 200 scientists, including those at the ocean sciences facility in Victoria. In addition, you will find a post on my site that the Royal Society of Canada scientists levelled a stinging indictment at you for your poor treatment of our three ocean coasts.

I have just finished a book by a federal DFO enforcement officer, Randy Nelson, who points out that enforcement funding is always a race to the bottom because of the Ottawa view of west coast enforcement.

What your Aquaculture Act does is create a race to the bottom of all the countries that produce farmed salmon because fish farms then deal with those countries and tell them they will have to take their jobs and revenue elsewhere. And, the BC industry’s only market, 85% of it, goes to the USA, but the parent companies of the BC industry have just had a 26% tariff lifted in the USA so Norway is now selling into the only market for BC farmed salmon – and the Norwegian fish farm industry is ten times the size of its BC operations. They will be putting their own Canadian operations out of business, because they are also setting up shop in the USA right now.

At the same time, Chile’s production has peaked since their 2008 crash due to ISA virus and most of it goes to the States. The BC industry is in peril from its own parent companies – right now. This has nothing to do with law, only economics.

No action on Cohen recommendations

You haven’t responded to the Cohen Commission that told you to eliminate DFO’s conflict with supporting fish farms and get on with saving wild salmon. The Williams review of the mid-90s and the 1982 Pearse Commission also made environmental recommendations to DFO. Unheeded.

Alienating British Columbians with onslaught of projects

Harper et al, you are forcing BC away from the rest of Canada. At the same time your fish farms are destroying our ocean and you want to make the weak laws even weaker, you are backing the Enbridge Pipeline and the Kinder Morgan Pipeline. There is the shipping of USA coal through BC and the Site C dam is current, along with LNG and fracking. The last two are provincial issues, but all of these are happening at the same time and your conservative government is taking the hit in BC. You undoubtedly know that your current majority is slim and balance of power is in BC.

BC nets few jobs from aquaculture

Just so that you know, fish farms are not about jobs and revenue. They and DFO like to claim that employment is 6,000 and revenue is $800 million. These figures are not true. The BC Stats report shows that fish farming is stagnant and all of aquaculture contributes only $61.9 Million to GDP, while sport fishing, processing, and commercial contribute 90%, more than $600 million.

These figures were paid for by DFO and its name is on the document, but because it didn’t like the figures, it took the 1,700 multiplier job figure for fish farms and inflated it 250% to 3,900 recently. This is simply not true. The actual employment is only 795 jobs. That is all there really are. You can find on the Marine Harvest site, for example, that it only has 6,000 staff world wide. As it operates in 22 countries, this means about 270 staff per country. As I have said, the real employment figure in BC is a small 795 jobs, that is all.

British Columbians fed up with fish farms

BC does not want fish farms anymore; they cause too much damage and the net economic effect is negative. Fish farms jobs don’t add anything, they just replace existing jobs. The commercial sector has lost the same number of jobs that BC stats says are the fish farm multiplier numbers of 1,700. Also on my site you will find the science that shows that fish farms result in a 50% decline in wild salmon numbers around the world. This includes BC and the indicator stream used on Vancouver Island, Black Creek, is in John Duncan’s riding.

DC (Dennis) Reid

Send your feedback to the Harper Government on its proposed changes to aquaculture regulations by October 22 by emailing: fpptr-rtppp@dfo-mpo.gc.ca