Neonic pesticides “pose a serious risk of harm to honey bees and other pollinators,” a new study warns.
Bees may be small, but they play a big role in human health and survival. Some experts say one of every three bites of food we eat depends on them. The insects pollinate everything from apples and zucchini to blueberries and almonds. If bees and other pollinators are at risk, entire terrestrial ecosystems are at risk, and so are we.
New report slams neonic pesticides
Well, pollinators are at risk. And we know one of the main causes of their alarming death rates. A new report concludes that neonicotinoid pesticides, or neonics, “pose a serious risk of harm to honey bees and other pollinators.”
They also harm butterflies, earthworms and birds, and because they’re now found in soils, sediment, groundwater and waterways, they alter “biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the ecosystem services provided by a wide range of affected species and environments.”
The report, produced by the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides, is the work of 50 independent scientists from around the world who spent four years analyzing more than 800 peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Says lead author Jean-Marc Bonmatin of the National Centre for Research in France:
[quote]Far from protecting food production, the use of neonics is threatening the very infrastructure which enables it, imperilling the pollinators, habitat engineers and natural pest controllers at the heart of a functioning ecosystem.[/quote]
Neonics are a family of chemicals with names like thiacloprid and imidacloprid. They disrupt the central nervous systems of insects and are undeniably great at killing pests like aphids and grubs. Unlike traditional pesticides, neonics are “systemic pesticides” that are most often applied to seeds and roots so the chemical becomes incorporated into the plants’ leaves, pollen, nectar, fruit and flowers.
According to the Task Force, “Neonics impact all species that chew a plant, sip its sap, drink its nectar, eat its pollen or fruit” and can remain toxic for weeks or months — even years. The impacts cascade through ecosystems, weakening their stability.
As nerve poisons, they can kill targeted and non-targeted species and can cause “impaired sense of smell or memory; reduced fecundity; altered feeding behaviour and reduced food intake including reduced foraging in bees; altered tunneling behaviour in earthworms; difficulty in flight and increased susceptibility to disease.” There’s also evidence they can harm human health, especially in infants.
Neonic pesticide ban faces powerful industry opposition
Neonics make up about 40 per cent of the world insecticide market, with global sales of US$2.63 billion in 2011 — and growing. That may explain why, despite increasing evidence that they’re harmful, there’s been such strong resistance to phasing them out or banning them.
[signoff3]
After experts concluded in 2013 that neonics pose an unacceptable risk to bees, the European Union imposed a temporary ban on the use of three neonics in applications that are particularly hazardous to bees — despite fierce opposition from the agrochemical industry and several governments. At the same time, Canada re-approved clothianidin, one of the chemicals banned in Europe.
In the face of conclusive findings from hundreds of studies, industry reaction has been astounding. Said Julian Little, spokesperson for neonicotinoid manufacturer Bayer:
[quote]There is very little credible evidence that these things are causing untoward damage because we would have seen them over 20 years of use.[/quote]
Canadian agricultural pest control trade association CropLife Canada also rejected the science, blaming bee deaths on varroa mites, another serious threat to honeybees. And even though Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency confirmed neonics used on corn seed contributed to bee die-offs in Ontario and Quebec, federal Health Minister Rona Ambrose has so far rejected a ban, saying her department’s research is “inconclusive.”
Time for governments to step up
What will it take to get governments and industry to put people — and pollinators — before profits? Around the world, concerned individuals and organizations are calling on decision-makers to get serious about this threat. At writing, more than 27,000 have signed a David Suzuki Foundation action alert asking federal and provincial governments to ban the use and sale of neonics.
It’s the government’s duty to protect us from potentially harmful chemicals. With neonics, the science is clear: they’re unsafe. Researchers say “there is clear evidence of harm sufficient to trigger regulatory action.” They’re calling them “the new DDT”. It’s time to ban these harmful pesticides.
Written with Contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.
Some of the Kispiox Valley citizens opposed to LNG (Photo: NoMorePipelines.ca)
A group of citizens from the Kispiox Valley – northwest of Smithers, BC – has signed a declaration “against the LNG projects proposed to pass through their community.”
The yellow and pink lines above depict the proposed pipelines to supply BG Group and Petronas’ Prince Rupert LNG plants, respectively. The two lines converge in the Kispiox Valley, north of Hazelton.
The declaration cites impacts to “northern rivers, salmon, air and water quality” as key issues for the community. Citizens of the region have expressed concerns about early work by Spectra Energy and TransCanada Pipelines – the former slated to build a line servicing BG Group’s proposed terminal north of Prince Rupert; the latter hired to construct the proposed Petronas/Progress pipeline to the same coastal region.
Be it known that we, the undersigned community of the Kispiox Valley, British Columbia, believe that the well-being of ourselves and our neighbours, our livelihoods and economy, and our lands and waters are paramount. We highly value intact ecosystems that sustain and support a vibrant and diverse watershed.
This includes thriving populations of wild Pacific salmon and steelhead, healthy forests with abundant wildlife, and clean air. These lands and waters are woven into the fabric of our lives, and are deemed as vital and necessary elements that support our economy, our community, and our way of life. We recognize and honour the Gitxsan, and hold in high regard their culture and traditional methods of responsible stewardship.
Our rural community is a proven model of economic and social resiliency, comprised of diversely skilled professionals, trades people, farmers, forest and resource workers, guides/outfitters, and creative and versatile entrepreneurs. We support common sense practices of conservative resource management, renewable energy production and use, agriculture as the basis of a strong local food system, and the long-standing wild salmon economy of our region.
The Skeena, as one of the last great salmon rivers of the world, connects our livelihoods to our communities, and our communities to each other. What occurs upstream or downstream affects us all. In recognition of this, we accept a shared regional and global responsibility to protect our water and air.
Therefore, we cannot stand by and allow any industrial presence, including oil and gas development, that would threaten or harm our values and responsibilities as outlined in this declaration.
Chief Roger Williams (left) at the the Supreme Court of Canada (Photo: Pei-Ju Wang)
The Tsilhqot’in First Nation’s Roger Williams case victory settles the question once and for all: there is aboriginal title, it is effective, and it can be enforced by aboriginal peoples.
This is a long way from where the law was 25 years ago and for many people that will take some getting used to. No doubt there will be gnashing of teeth and suggestions that perhaps Parliament should change this. Forget it – get used to it – Parliament has no such power as this was a Supreme Court of Canada interpretation of Canada’s Constitution. The only way it can be changed is by a constitutional change and that simply is not going to happen.
There are unanswered questions, of course. What about other aboriginal claims than the ones ruled upon here?
[quote]Canadians are going to have to adjust their attitudes. This is now the law, not some speculative, temporary rule.[/quote]
Decision makes it easier to assert aboriginal title
Each of those of course stands on its own merits. What this case does, however, is make it much easier for aboriginal communities to prove that they are entitled to the land. No longer must they show continuous habitation from ancient times – the fact that they can show a usage going back a reasonable period of time is enough. There will be arguments, of course, but I think one can understand, finally, that the Supreme Court of Canada is going to tend its judgments towards First Nations.
The answer is, of course, no. Aboriginal peoples are going to favour development in certain areas, consistent with their laws and customs. There will continue to be logging, mining, etc., but it will be on entirely new terms. It also will be far more environmentally sensitive.
Enbridge, Kinder Morgan face uphill battle
What this is going to mean, of course, Is the laws of the province and federal government will change, as will be the procedures of business. It is no longer a question of consultation which implies that once that takes place, one can go ahead with what one planned. Now the operative word is “consent” – a very different thing indeed.
It would be merciful to all concerned if both the Northern Gateway and the Kinder Morgan projects were terminated now.
First Nations could block LNG
There are other projects which are in jeopardy. Much of the proposed infrastructure for liquefied natural gas (LNG) would fall on First Nations territories and will be subject to their veto. It seems to me that the BC government would be very wise to canvas this situation now, rather than wait and have them done individually as they come up. While some nations have embraced LNG, others are already voicing serious concerns.
[signoff3]
This could be a very substantial blow to Premier Clark’s plans to make us all rich by LNG. No doubt some of them will be approved, but not all. How wise it would be to sort this out now rather than wait, pretending everything will be OK?
Fear of aboriginal title unfounded
Many of the fears of those who worry about these things are unjustified. From the outset, First Nations have excepted private property from their claims. They have generally made no claim that cities and other settlements within their boundaries should all of a sudden belong to them. The city of Vancouver, for example, covered with aboriginal claims can rest easy at night in the knowledge that their homes and buildings are not going to be torn down and taken away.
In fact, when one looks back at this whole process of some 20 or 30 years, the reasonableness of First Nations in this regard stands out. One is so used to confrontations where everything in the world is demanded in hopes that there be some settlement at the halfway point that the fact that the First Nations have respected the private property of other British Colombians is to be noted.
What does Williams case mean for future?
I arrive back to conclusions about the Williams case.
British Columbians specifically and Canadians in general are going to have to adjust their attitudes. This is now the law, not some speculative, temporary rule. There will be no going back. In fact, there is a great deal of work yet to be done and some of this will be uncomfortable.
There is a power in the Crown, if a project is compelling and substantive, to interfere if to do so is consistent with its fiduciary obligation to aboriginal peoples. I take this to be almost meaningless. It is not a duty to consult, etc., but a power to completely change a decision by a First Nation.
I cannot see any government using this clause – if only for political reasons. It is there as a safeguard but in my view is all but unenforceable. Its only use I can see is as a threat in extraordinary circumstances.
For First Nations, this has been a long struggle, going back perhaps 200 years or more. The issue was not settled by conquest, if only because no conquest existed. Even then, lands conquered are not ordained by God to stay that way. Obviously, there were no treaties involved. The Europeans simply came in and took the land.
It’s under those circumstances congratulations are due First Nations and the rest of the community must simply resolve to make the best of the situation.
To many, the recent decision by the Harper Government to approve the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline – a project it has so emphatically been pushing – is not surprising at all. What was surprising was the relative lack of fanfare in which the announcement was released. As Jennifer Ditchburn noted, there was no MP, let alone the minister responsible, to make the announcement: just a simple press release four paragraphs long entitled “Government of Canada Accepts Recommendation to Impose 209 Conditions on Northern Gateway Proposal”.
In this release, the government highlighted the role of the (emphasized) independent panel in making the recommendation. It noted that this is another step in a long, thorough process. It urged Enbridge now to demonstrate how it will meet the 209 conditions the independent panel put forth, as well as the additional work Enbridge has to do to “fulfill the public commitment it has made to engage with Aboriginal groups and local communities along the route” (ignore for a moment the fact that the “duty to consult” is 1) the Crown’s responsibility, not Enbridge’s; or 2) one would assume extends to Coastal First Nations that are adamantly opposed to the pipeline due to spill potential, and isn’t restricted to First Nations living along the pipeline Right-of-Way). Finally, it stated:
[quote]It [Enbridge] will also have to apply for regulatory permits and authorizations from federal and provincial governments.[/quote]
Enbridge faces big hurdles with First Nations
All of this seems all well and good. Shortly thereafter, the First Nation groups stood up to voice their continued opposition and, to be clear, the “duty to consult” provision will likely be the most difficult hurdle for Enbridge to overcome – especially in light of the Supreme Court’s Tsilhqot’in decision, which closely followed the Enbridge announcement.
What was more intriguing for me was the response from BC Environment Minister Mary Polak. She noted that this was just the first of BC’s five previously stated conditions. She then went on to note that “the Federal government also highlights the fact that there are important permitting decisions that are properly the jurisdiction of the provinces.” Interesting.
Harper couldn’t reject Enbridge
What is interesting is that in no plausible scenario could Stephen Harper reject the Northern Gateway pipeline, given this government’s behaviour in backing the oil industry generally speaking, doing its best to discredit environmental opposition and going so far as to label such opposition “radicals” with an ideological agenda, and criticizing the Obama administration for delaying its decision on Keystone XL.
Once the Joint Review Panel gave its approval – subject to its conditions – the door was wide open. The problem is the political opposition, not only within the “radical” environmental circles, but broadly speaking in British Columbia is increasing. 300 scholars signed a letter arguing that the Joint Review Panel was fundamentally flawed, particularly because it included upstream oil sands development as a benefit, while excluding the environmental and climactic costs associated with such development.
[signoff3]
Numerous polls have come out showing increasing opposition to the project (to be fair, the polls do vary,depending on whether pro-pipeline or anti-pipeline framing is given to the questions – yet even the most pipeline-friendly polling questions show 50% opposition). If Harper rejects the project based on political calculations, it looks bad, particularly to his base in Alberta. If he approves the project, he potentially loses BC in the 2015 election, which doesn’t look bad, it is bad.
The question is whether the Northern Gateway project has become such a political landmine that Harper has essentially written it off (knowing the likely outcome of First Nation challenges in court) and is searching for a way to reject the project, without him rejecting the project.
Where does BC govt stand?
Enter British Columbia. It is at this point that the comments made by BC Environment Minister Polak seem much more significant. Opposition to Northern Gateway is significant. Christy Clark has issued five conditions which must be achieved in order for her to approve the project. One of them – “Ensuring British Columbia receives its fair share” – seems almost impossible, given the structure of federal equalization payments.
In either case, it is a way for Premier Clark to publicly look like she is saying “help me find a way to yes” when she knows, politically, that she’ll have to reject it anyway. If public opinion in BC is truly in opposition to the extent that it seems, and the Federal Government’s press release makes me think that it is, then rejecting the pipeline is a political win for Premier Clark.
In addition, it would take the Northern Gateway off Stephen Harper’s agenda and let him focus his attention on other, less politically volatile pipeline proposals. The emphasis of the provincial role in issuing permits by the federal government, and shortly thereafter re-emphasized by Minister Polak could very well be coincidental. Unless this is exactly what Stephen Harper wants.
Geoff Salomons is a University of Alberta Political Science PhD student studying environmental policy, democratic theory and long-term policy problems.
The statue ‘Ivstitia’ (Justice) guards the entrance of the Supreme Court of Canada (Sean Kilpatrick/CP)
The BC Liberal Government just couldn’t leave well enough alone. In choosing to appeal the Tsilhqot’in First Nation’s BC Supreme Court victory over land title and rights, the government set in motion a chain of events that could have profound consequences for its future resource development plans.
The Tsilhqot’in won a landmark legal victory affirming title and rights over 200,000 hectares of their traditional territory, west of Williams Lake, at the BC Supreme Court in 2007 (with limited rights to an even larger area). The 17-year case was the longest and arguably most important in the provincial court’s history. But at the lowest level of the courts, its ramifications remained unclear – especially as they applied to other territories.
Then, the BC government decided to challenge the ruling – initially winning a small victory in 2012 at the Court of Appeal, which undermined key aspects of the lower court’s decision. But the move would ultimately backfire.
BC government its own worst enemy
Like other seminal aboriginal rights cases such as Haida and Delgamuukw before it, in choosing to appeal the Tsilhqot’in case, the province ultimately made matters much worse for itself by entrenching the substance of the lower-court decision in the highest judicial precedent of the land, when the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its verdict this week. The SCC’s decision maintained the nation’s title and rights to 170,000 square hectares – essentially affirming the BC Supreme Court’s original ruling.
The choice of the Liberal government to roll the dice with the higher courts was likely motivated by two factors: 1) Its fixation on the proposed Prosperity Mine at Fish Lake, in Tsilhqot’in territory; and 2) Concerns over the broader implications for its resource development program throughout province if the BC court decision stood.
By proceeding with the challenge, the government failed spectacularly on both accounts.
The Fish Lake that got away
The province’s unrelenting support for Taseko Mines’ Prosperity project saw it clash with the Harper Government on several occasions. It rubber stamped the mine’s first iteration, only to watch federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice shoot it down after the panel reviewing it identified serious environmental and First Nations issues.
While all this legal wrangling over the mine was going on, the province was appealing the separate-but-related BC Supreme Court decision on the nation’s title and rights.
When the company submitted a new proposal for the mine in 2013, it too was rejected in February of this year. The company, still unwilling to take “no” for an answer, is now seeking a judicial review of the second rejection – but this week’s SCC decision surely must represent the final, final nail in the coffin for Taseko’s ill-fated mine.
What does ruling mean for Enbridge, other projects?
The SCC ruling’s impact on other contentious resource projects, like the proposed Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipelines, remains to be seen. “Just because the Supreme Court of Canada has issued this claim doesn’t mean that the government is going to start giving all the land back to the aboriginal people,” says Garth Walbridge, a Métis lawyer.
[quote]But it could have a serious economic impact. The size of the boulder that Enbridge is rolling up the hill to get their pipeline built just got much bigger today, because the First Nations in that part of the country now have much much bigger say in whether or not Enbridge can go ahead.[/quote]
In pushing the case to the Supreme Court of Canada – and losing, big time – the BC Liberal government has ensured that these questions will be central to all resource development in the province going forward.
November 2011 injunction case over Prosperity Mine
3.0-plus magnitude earthquakes in the midcontinental US. USGS
By Emily Schmall And Kristi Eaton, The Associated Press
AZLE, Texas – Earthquakes used to be almost unheard of on the vast stretches of prairie that unfold across the U.S. Midwestern states of Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma.
But in recent years, they have become commonplace. Oklahoma recorded nearly 150 between January and the start of May. Most were too weak to cause serious damage or endanger lives. Yet they’ve rattled nerves and raised suspicions that the shaking might be connected to the oil and gas drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, especially the wells in which the industry disposes of its wastewater.
Now governments in all three states are confronting the issue, reviewing scientific data, holding public discussions and considering new regulations.
[quote]In recent weeks, nighttime shaking in Oklahoma City has been strong enough to wake residents. [/quote]
Oklahoma rattled by quakes
The latest example comes Thursday in Oklahoma, where hundreds of people are expected to turn out for a meeting that will include the state agency that regulates oil and gas drilling and the Oklahoma Geological Survey.
States with historically few earthquakes are trying to reconcile the scientific data with the interests of their citizens and the oil and gas industry.
In recent weeks, nighttime shaking in Oklahoma City has been strong enough to wake residents. The state experienced 145 quakes of 3.0 magnitude or greater between January and May 2, 2014, according to the Oklahoma Geological Survey.
That compares with an average of two such quakes from 1978 to 2008.
[signoff3]
North Texas has had 70 earthquakes since 2008 as reported by the U.S. Geological Survey, compared with a single quake, in 1950, reported in the region before then.
Regulators from each state met for the first time in March in Oklahoma City to exchange information on the quakes and discuss toughening standards on the lightly regulated business of fracking wastewater disposal.
“This is all about managing risks,” said Oklahoma Corporation Commission spokesman Matt Skinner. “It’s a little more complicated than that because, of course, we’re managing perceived risks.”
Texas regulator hires state seismologist
In Texas, residents from the town of Azle, which has endured hundreds of small quakes, went to the state capitol earlier this year to demand action by the state’s chief oil and gas regulator, known as the Railroad Commission. The commission hired the first-ever state seismologist, and lawmakers formed the House Subcommittee on Seismic Activity.
After Kansas recorded 56 earthquakes between last October and April, the governor appointed a three-member task force to address the issue.
Fracking linked to quakes
Seismologists already know that hydraulic fracturing — which involves blasting water, sand and chemicals deep into underground rock formations to free oil and gas — can cause microquakes that are rarely strong enough to register on monitoring equipment.
However, fracking also generates vast amounts of wastewater, far more than traditional drilling methods. The water is discarded by pumping it into so-called injection wells, which send the waste deepunderground. No one knows for certain exactly what happens to the liquids after that. Scientists wonder whether they could trigger quakes by increasing underground pressures and lubricating faults.
Another concern is whether injection well operators could be pumping either too much water into the ground or pumping it at exceedingly high pressures.
No clear correlation: Industry advocates
Still, seismologists — and the oil and gas industry — have taken pains to point out that a clear correlation has not yet been established.
Nationwide, the United States has more than 150,000 injection wells, according to the Society of Petroleum Engineers, and only a handful have been proven to induce quakes.
Nonetheless, ExxonMobil is supporting a study by Southern Methodist University, company spokesman Richard Keil said.
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (left) and former US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson
By Jonathan Fahey, The Associated Press
NEW YORK – Climate change is likely to exact enormous costs on U.S. regional economies in the form of lost property, reduced industrial output and more deaths, according to a report backed by a trio of men with vast business experience.
The report, released Tuesday, is designed to convince businesses to factor in the cost of climate change in their long-term decisions and to push for reductions in emissions blamed for heating the planet.
It was commissioned by the Risky Business Project, which describes itself as nonpartisan and is chaired by former New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Thomas F. Steyer, a former hedge fund manager.
Among the predictions: Between $66 billion and $106 billion in coastal property will likely be below sea level by 2050, labour productivity of outdoor workers could be reduced by 3 per cent because extremely hot days will be far more frequent, and demand for electricity to power air conditioners will require the construction of more power plants that will cost electricity customers up to $12 billion per year.
“Every year that goes by without a comprehensive public and private sector response to climate change is a year that locks in future climate events that will have a far more devastating effect on our local, regional, and national economies,” warn the report’s authors.
The analysis and calculations in the report were performed by the Rhodium Group, an economic research firm, and Risk Management Solutions, a catastrophe-modeling company that works for insurance companies and other businesses. It was paid for by the philanthropic foundations of Bloomberg, Paulson and Steyer, among others.
The report analyzes impacts of climate change by region to better show how climate change affects the businesses and industries that drive each region’s economy.
The Northeast will likely be most affected by sea level rise, which will cost an additional $6 billion to $9 billion in property loss each year.
The Southeast will likely be affected both by sea-level rise and extreme temperatures. The region, which has averaged eight days of temperatures over 95 degrees each year, will likely see an additional 17 to 52 of these days by midcentury and up to four months of them by the end of the century. This could lead to 11,000 to 36,000 additional deaths per year.
Higher temperatures will reduce Midwest crop yields by 19 per cent by midcentury and by 63 per cent by the end of the century.
The Southwest will see an extra month of temperatures above 95 degrees by 2050, which will lead to more frequent droughts and wildfires.
The report does not calculate the cost of these droughts or wildfires, or many other possible costs such as the loss of unique ecosystems and species and the possible compounding effects of extreme weather conditions. Nor does it calculate some of the ways economies could adapt to the changing climate and reduce the costs of climate change.
“There’s a whole litany of things not calculated in the assessment,” said Gary Yohe, an economics and environmental studies at Wesleyan University and vice chair of the National Climate Assessment, a U.S. government project set up to study the effects of climate change. Yohe was not part of the Risky Business Project report, but he was asked to review it.
Still, he said, “The general conclusions are right on the money.”
And he said that while other groups have also attempted to calculate the financial impacts of climate change around the world, this report is notable because of the business and financial experience of the people behind it. Beyond the three co-chairs, the members of the group’s risk committee include Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Cargill CEO Gregory Page, and George Shultz, former treasury secretary and secretary of state.
“These are people who have managed risk all their lives and have made an enormous amount of money doing so,” Yohe said.
HARTLEY BAY, B.C. – The women of the Gitga’at Nation of British Columbia planned to erect a symbolic blockade made of yarn across the Douglas Channel on Friday to protest the federal government’s approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline.
The crochet chain was expected to stretch 2.5 nautical miles, or about 4.5 kilometres, across the opening of the narrow channel tankers will have to navigate to a marine export terminal set to be located in Kitimat, on the north coast.
“It’s to show that we’re prepared to do what it takes to stop them because we can’t let it happen. It’s the death of our community, our culture,” said Lynne Hill, who came up with the crochet blockade.
[quote]And if there was an oil spill there would be nothing left.
[/quote]
Members of the community in Hartley Bay — best known for rescuing passengers from the Queen of the North ferry as it sank in 2006 — initially planned to set out at 6:30 am to string the crochet chain across the water.
That departure was delayed by weather, and a flotilla of boats planned to set out by noon to drape the multi-coloured yarn, decorated with community memorabilia and messages of hope, between buoys across the ocean. The slender chain is more than six kilometres long to ensure it will reach from one side of the narrows to the other.
[signoff3]
Hill, 70, said the protest began in Hartley Bay and spread, with supporters sending in crochet links from all over Canada. One woman knit an entire kilometre-long link by herself, she said.
On Tuesday, the federal government granted final approval to the pipeline that will bring oil from Alberta to the B.C. coast for export, with 209 conditions. Hill said it was a devastating day for the Gitga’at.
She said community members will see the tankers from the project pass right in front of the remote community at the mouth of the channel, about 630 kilometres north of Vancouver. The village is reachable only by boat or plane.
“We thought right down the line that somebody that cared would be listening to what we were saying. Not just us — to what lots of people were saying,” she says.
[quote]When the joint review panel was here we thought they were listening. We thought they heard what we had to say.[/quote]
Hill says the crochet chain is a warning that the Gitga’at will do what it takes to stop the pipeline.
“We get our food from the sea. We travel on the sea,” she says.
Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard is putting green jobs on the back burner (Photo: facebook)
One thing Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau, BC Premier Christy Clark and new Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard all share in common is the dated notion that economic and sustainable development are competing concepts that need to be reconciled, with great difficulty. And in hard times, the economy must take precedence.
New Quebec government disappoints with green jobs policy
Among its first public statements on the natural resource sectors and environment, the new Quebec Liberal government announced:
A one-year strategic environmental evaluation study (SEE) of the development of fossil fuels in Quebec to be completed in 2015
The continuation of the strategic environmental evaluation (SEE) of the shale oil potential of the pristine Anticosti Island
A new variant of the previous Charest goverment’s Plan nord, a key component of the Liberal an economic development plan calling for the development of mining potential in Quebec’s northern most regions
Approvals for small hydro facilities on rivers all over Quebec.
What has become clear with the above and other pronouncements by the Couillard government to date is that it is preparing the terrain with inadequate or smoke screen environmental analyses to facilitate full-tilt fossil fuel and natural resource development in the province.
China invests $70 billion a year in renewable energy
It will do so without assessing the economic costs and benefits – only paying lip service to the opportunities of the green economy. With regard to the latter point, China is now the world leader in clean energy technologies, having installed 28 GW of new wind and solar capacity in the single year of 2013 while also being a world leader in electric vehicles. Meanwhile, there are currently 3.5M jobs in the EU green sectors.
Accordingly, in a May 30, 2014 press release, the Liberal government stated that while it is favourable to the development of fossil fuels in Quebec, it wanted to assure the population that the environment would be protected and safety would be addressed.
As for the rationalization of its interest in the development of the fossil fuel sectors, the Couillard government argues that while awaiting the shift to a green economy, it’s best that Quebec produce its own fossil fuels, rather than importing them. A rather strange line of reasoning since the prime focus on fossil fuels and other non-renewable resources diverts funds that could otherwise be directed towards to the high-growth and high-job-creation green sectors.
Investing in the green economy would offer better returns on public funds and the logic of Couillard’s yesterday’s economy club could entrench new fossil fuel economic dependencies, thus further impeding the migration to a green economy.
Shale gas and oil moratorium in jeopardy
Quebec currently has a moratorium on shale gas development. But all the signals are that the new Quebec government wants to put an end to this moratorium, under the guise of an environmental report which said that with certain precautions and regulatory tweaking, all will be well. Nothing to worry about.
[signoff3]
Indeed, Couillard and company want us to think that a one-year strategic evaluation study (SEE) on the development of fossil fuels in the entire province will be more exhaustive than: 1) the two-and-a-half-year study on the development of the shale gas in the St-Lawrence River valley; and 2) the findings of the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE) (the public consultation office on the environment), which is now reviewing shale gas issues a second time.
Some very substantive, scary, empirical evidence is coming to the fore, but, as with the case of the early reports on the impacts of smoking on human health, the private and government lobbies for shale gas development are implying that the absence of hard, one-to-one cause-effect data means the practice of fracking is safe.
Concerning shale oil, the Quebec Liberals said they will be an investment partner with the private sector to explore the shale oil potential on the of the pristine and huge Anticosti Island. The exploration will proceed this summer, long before the Strategic Environmental Evaluation on the matter is completed in 2015!
As for the much-touted economic benefits of the industry, we only have to look south of the border to see that the shale gas sector in the US is going through a boom to bust cycle, because after one has drilled to get to an easy to access sweet spot in a given well, it’s too expensive to go after the rest. US shale oil is on the same path and a decline in shale oil production may come as early as 2016.
Offshore oil development: Old Harry
The Old Harry potential offshore development area is on the Quebec-Newfoundland border, not very far from the Îles-de-la-Madeleine (Magdalen Islands), an area for which the economy is largely about fishing and tourism.
Couillard has already indicated he will sign an agreement with Harper for the development of fossil fuels in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. The 2014-15 Budget confirms this intention.
Proposed offshore oil development at Old Harry (Council of Canadians)
With the possibility of developing Old Harry on the horizon, a 3-year, 800-page strategic environmental evaluation report on the Gulf, published in 2013, highlighted the deficiencies of exploration and development technologies – and the biological and human impacts of spills in the region. These risks are particularly high, given the region is covered with ice for much of the year. The study concluded that Quebec does not havethe capabilities to deal with a tanker spill.
The fishing industry in the Gulf represents $1.5 billion/year and tourism $800 million, while the development of Old Harry site on the Quebec side of the border would only generate about $300 million
Included in the “package” of Coulliard’s gung-ho development of the fossil fuel sectors are favourable views on pipelines running through Quebec to ship tar sands oil for export as well as meet Quebec “needs”. Such is the case with respect to the TransCanada Energy East pipeline to bring Alberta bitumen to the Cacouna port, in the eastern section of the St-Lawrence River.
In this region, any spill would be devastating to both the fragile beluga population and a dozen important natural marine habitat zones. A spill during the winter would be especially destructive, since there aren’t any adequate means to clean up bitumen in the presence of ice. It would also be devastating to the tourism industry, with $80 million in annual revenues.
Under the Couillard government – not all that different than the position of BC’s Christy Clark government on pipelines – Quebec would take all the risks as a transportation region for the sake of something in the order of 200 jobs. The main beneficiaries would be the exporters of the bitumen to foreign markets via tankers from Cacouna, carrying 80,000 to 200,000 tons of bitumen.
Despite Quebec’s surplus electricity capacity, for which hydro power represent 94% of the supply, the new Quebec government favours building more dams – much like the BC Liberal government’s private “run-of-river” policy.
Carried over from the preceding PQ government without any changes proposed by the Liberals, on Hydro Quebec’s, site one finds a glowing synopsis from Hydro-Québec on the 1550 MW Rivière Romaine projects. The web site informs us that, in the name of sustainable development and clean energy supplies for future generations, the 3 new power stations make sense. No mention is made of Québec’s electricity surplus or that the Romaine is one of Québec’s last “damable” wild rivers.
Not content with having targeted all of Quebec’s great rivers with high hydro power potential, the new Couillard government has also announced approvals for small hydro facilities on rivers with modest hydro potential.
In this regard, this article – “10 Things You Should Know About Dams” – offers a global portrait on dams to the effect they are are far less environmentally friendly than their proponents care to admit.
Plan nord, Version 2.0
The Couillard government picks up where Jean Charest left off, with an enhanced version of the former Liberal premier’s Plan nord. What Couillard has not factored into his economic vision is the fact that natural resource prices – relative to the prices of finished products manufactured with these very resources – have been declining for the last half century.
Subsidizing cement factories, cutting electric car budget
Last but not least are the following two amazing decisions of the Couillard government.
First, there is the amazing approval under an Liberal austerity Budget 2014-15 of the Port-Daniel cement facility, in the easternmost part of Quebec – the Gaspésie area. The government allotted $450M to support the $1B project, despite the fact that existing cement factories in Quebec are operating at 60% of capacity.
Moreover, the intention is to use the petecoke residues from petroleum/tar sands bitumen refining as a fuel. Petcoke is cheaper than coal but has much higher emissions.
Second, to keep his promise to the preceding PQ government, Couillard has agreed to maintain the transport electricification initiative. However, unlike the PQ, which allocated $500M for this initiative, the Couillard government has de-funded it, with responsibility transferred to Hydro-Québec. Meanwhile, the Liberals are putting a similar amount of funding into the unnecessary and high-GHG emission Port-Daniel cement plant.
This while China’s BYD is manufacturing electric buses and cars and recently built an electric bus manufacturing plant in California. Meanwhile, two Quebec urban transit commissions – the STM serving the Montreal area and the STO serving the Gatineau area – have run pilots projects with BYD electric buses.
That said, battery manufacturing and electric motor stakeholders in Quebec all have to take a back seat to the top priority given to the mining industry under Plan nord. So does the Volvo-owned Nova Bus urban transit facility in Ste-Eustache, which is working on the development of an electric bus.
Also reflecting Couillard’s sense of priorities are the nomination of his economic Executive and Cabinet ministers, with the Minister of Finance Carlos Leitao, President of the Treasury Board, Martin Coiteux, and Jacques Daoust, Minister of l’Économie, de l’Innovation et des Exportations (Economy, Innovation and Exports). All of them have strong economic backgrounds.
By contrast, the Minister of Développement durable, de l’Environnement et de la Lutte aux changements climatiques (Sustainable Development the Environment and Climate Change), David Heurtel, has no background in environmental fields.
As for the Minister of Énergie et des Ressources naturelles (Energy and Natural Resources) Pierre Arcand, he was the Environment Minister in the previous Liberal Charest government, where he played the role of an eternal apologist for weaseling out of the responsibility for defending the environment.
It’s clear that the environment will not play a key role in Philippe Couillard’s government – despite the clear financial benefits of investing in the green economy.
A Vancouver rally against proposed pipelines earlier this year (Damien Gillis)
By Dene Moore, The Canadian Press
VANCOUVER – One of the biggest hurdles for the Northern Gateway project is one the company has never had the means to address.
Now that the project has received federal approval, the next phase of the pipeline fight will not focus on the Calgary pipeline company but on the government that many B.C. First Nations ultimately blame for the dispute.
More than a pipeline issue
Said Peter Lantin, president of the Haida Nation, Wednesday:
[quote]For us, it’s a rights and title discussion. It’s not necessarily about a pipeline.[/quote]
The Crown has failed to resolve aboriginal rights and title in B.C. for generations, he said. Now, native communities are united for a sweeping legal challenge against the federal government approval, he said.
The expected legal challenge involves a coalition that includes all three major aboriginal organizations in the province: the pro-treaty First Nations Summit, the anti-treaty Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the regional branch of the Assembly of First Nations, as well as dozens of individual bands.
They will meet in the coming weeks to decide on the course their case will take, Lantin said.
Lantin said the Haida recognize the importance of natural resource projects and the national interest, and he said they would be happy to have that conversation — about another project.
“There is no compromise. There is no mitigating measures that we could talk about that would satisfy or change the Haida position,” he said.
[quote]I don’t believe that after the fact we can somehow hit a reset button…The damage is done.[/quote]
Enbridge: ‘We believe that we can move past this’
The company said it will continue trying to engage aboriginal and other communities.
Janet Holder, vice-president of western access for Northern Gateway Pipelines, said there have been some discussions and more are planned.
Enbridge (TSX:ENB) and its partners remain committed to the project, she said.
“We believe that we can move past this,” Holder said. “I don’t think we’ll get 100 per cent support. There’s never anything, any significant issue, that’s ever been dealt with in Canada that has ever had 100 per cent support.”
But the project is worth working on, she said. Canadians are losing billions of dollars a year in revenue without access to the coast for export, she said, and Enbridge and its 10 partners will push forward and find a way to make it work.
“They truly understood before and understand now what the issues are, what needs to be done to move forward, and they’re still willing to fund the project,” she said.
Enrbidge shares dip amid analysts’ pessimism
Analysts and shareholders appeared less optimistic. Shares in Enbridge dropped slightly the morning after the federal announcement.
Said an analysis by CIBC World Markets:
[quote]All told, we see the federal government’s approval largely as academic at this point, with B.C. provincial, environmental and First Nations challenges likely stalling further progress, potentially for years. We do not believe it likely that a consensus can be reached on the project; the environmental and First Nations groups have become entrenched in their positions.[/quote]
In announcing approval, Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford said the company has more work to do to engage aboriginal groups and local communities.
Onus on federal government to deal with First Nations
But it’s not necessarily the company that has work to do, said one legal expert.
First Nations have legal rights, but in the absence of treaties in B.C., it’s not clear just what those rights entail, said Gordon Christie, an expert in aboriginal law at the University of British Columbia.
“The federal government has the responsibilities to First Nations, not the company,” he said. “This is all about the government making a decision to allow the pipeline to be built.”
Legal challenges could take up to two or three years to resolve, he said.
The Conservative government already faces another challenge in Federal Court that could affect the approval.
The Mikisew Cree and Frog Lake nations in Alberta have filed for a judicial review of changes to the federal environmental assessment rules and the Fisheries and Indian acts included in the Tories’ omnibus budget bill two years ago.
They argue the changes undermine environmental protections and the Crown’s duty to consult aboriginals.
They also harm butterflies, earthworms and birds, and because they’re now found in soils, sediment, groundwater and waterways, they alter “biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the ecosystem services provided by a wide range of affected species and environments.”
