Tag Archives: featured

Rafe Mair: Howe Sound under siege

May 12, 2014Energy and Resources, LNG, Mining, Ocean Health, OceansfeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe Mair: Howe Sound under siege — Boaters raise the alarm over plans to re-industrialize Howe Sound (Future of Howe Sound Society)

Howe Sound is Canada’s southernmost fjord. It is a natural beauty which should be declared a world-class heritage site.

I grew up as a child on Howe Sound and well remember the men with the herring rakes, raking out the herring for salmon bait. Speaking of the salmon, if you went fishing and didn’t catch one, you must’ve forgotten to put a spoon on your line.

Over the years, Howe Sound went downhill. Industry polluted and people became careless about the environment. The fish disappeared; the whales disappeared; the Orcas disappeared; the herring and salmon seriously diminished.

Howe Sound on rebound…

A revitalization program – partly official, mostly just people taking care – has brought Howe Sound back, not quite to where it was when I was a boy, but considerably back to where it should be. Herring came back, salmon increased, Orcas abound and humpback whales have appeared for the first time in years. The fishing industry has restarted.

…But not for long

This, unfortunately, was not to last. Industry has reappeared, big-time.

Just let me give you an example of what we now see on the horizon for Howe Sound:

1. $60 million proposed McNab Greek creek gravel mine

2. $1.7 billion Woodfibre liquefied natural gas (LNG) project

3. $350 million Eagle Mountain Woodfibre gas pipeline expansion project

4. $500 million Metro Vancouver waste incineration facility at Port Mellon

5. We already have three private, ‘run-of-river’ projects, one approved and two in the process of approval – under the radar somehow.

6. A multimillion dollar real estate development at Brittania Beach involving 4000 homes. God knows how many cars and of course all of the impact such large, new community will bring.

There are a number of citizen groups opposed to this development, both in Squamish and other parts of the Sea to Sky Highway and Howe Sound communities.

Howe-Sound-industrialization-map — Map of Howe Sound with proposed industrial projects (with help of Future of Howe Sound Society)

Gravel pit threatens salmon, recreation

McNab Creek gravel pit is the center of attention. A gravel pit, for God’s sake! McNab Creek, apart from the Squamish River, is the only salmon-bearing river in Howe Sound. The gravel pit will, of course, have all of the usual effects on salmon rivers that gravel pits do. Erosion, siltation, and habitat loss will threaten multiple species of spawning wild salmon.

McNabb Creek-gravel pit location — McNab Creek – location of proposed gravel mine

The company, Burnco, out of Calgary, wishes to use McNab Creek because it is closer to its customers and cheaper to deliver gravel by boat. This will be a catastrophe and it’s safe to say that the people of the Howe Sound area are almost entirely opposed to it.

This massive assault cannot be under played. We will have lost a world class beauty spot. I haven’t even mentioned the impact of tankers out of Vancouver.

The difficulty comes in the opposition. People are law-and-order by nature and tradition. They don’t like to offend the law but obey it. John Weston, a conservative MP for the area, is fond of talking about how there is “process” in place.

Environmental review process deeply flawed

Well, folks, this “process” is about as fair as the Soviet show trials were in the 1930s. The fix is in. The process doesn’t involve the people expressing their opinion as to whether not they want the project – all they can do is offer suggestions as to how the environmental process might proceed.

The meetings are stacked – the proceedings biased and there’s always somebody from the company on the stage to “explain things”.

Companies are ordered to perform routine processes such as have public houses and opportunities where they try to explain themselves to the public. The difficulty here is the companies are not noted for telling the truth anymore than governments are. There’s no frank discussion of the downside of the project – simply a propaganda exercise complete with pretty pictures and models showing what a marvellous thing this is going to be for the people. In the case of Burnco, they fail to mention that it will entail just 16 low paid jobs.

Time for civil disobedience

There is nothing harmless about a gravel pit on a fish bearing river indeed on any river.

Unfortunately the answer to the question – if indeed there is an answer – involves civil disobedience.

One is always reluctant to suggest this for fear of being seen as promoting violence, which I’m not. I am not fomenting revolution; I am simply saying that unless the citizens of the Howe Sound area – indeed all of British Columbia – stand up to the government and refuse to accept these projects, they will go ahead.

Refusal to accept means, frankly, getting in the way of the production. Lying down in front of bulldozers and that sort of thing.

The pattern that follows is all-too familiar. The company takes the civil law and turns it into criminal law by getting injunctions against a few of the people who protest – and when those people refuse to obey the injunctions, they are sent to jail for contempt of court and that takes the steam out of the movement.

It’s that latter phrase we must watch – taking the steam out of the movement. We must have enough people prepared to go to jail that it is the government and companies who tire of the exercise, not the public.

This takes organization and it takes people willing to make sacrifices. This means that more and more people go to jail so that the authorities tire and, in fact, perhaps even run out of jail space.

Democracy in name only

In a democracy these are strange words. The problem is is we should know we live in a democracy in name only. The public does not get the right to decide what’s going to happen to them – that’s decided by line corporations with their handmaidens in government.

Am I being too hard on governments and corporations?

I don’t think so – all you have to do is look at the amount of money spent by the public relations people in industry has been almost duplicated by governments using public funds – so a docile public hasn’t got a chance.

When you add to that a media that is beholden to government and industry, the public has almost no chance of being informed, except by volunteer efforts without the backup of expert opinion.

It is gone on long enough.

Time to get together

Pipelines will abound in British Columbia to make money for somebody else and destroy our heritage. We, the people, are offered nothing else but go through the process and then sit back and take it.

Surely that’s not good enough.

Surely we must finally get together and fight back.

We have valuable allies in first Nations. Unfortunately they have the right to think that they’re standing alone on this fight and everybody else is waiting for them to win it. This is simply not fair nor is a practical. We have to get behind that leadership and support it every way we can, personally and monetarily.

If we do not rise up as one and fight back against the power of hugely-funded industry and client governments, we will lose our province.

The solution is strong medicine. It will be difficult to organize. But we’ve got to do it.

********

P.S. Rafe’s back

I have been away – I hope you noticed. It started in the middle of December when I took a bad fall and went to hospital this was aggravated by another fall after I got home in January. To make a long story short, I spent 4 ½ months in the hospital and nearly bought it three times. Presently I am home and still quite weak. It will take some time for me to get better, I am told.

In the meantime I hope to get back to doing more writing. This is my first story for The Common Sense Canadian in nearly 6 months. I hope to vastly improve upon that record.

In the meantime I thank you very much for your patience and I am delighted to see that my friend and colleague Damien Gillis has kept things running and the magazine has grown and prospered.

Sincerely,

Rafe Mair

BC gas regulator ignoring public’s LNG concerns

May 10, 2014Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedAmara McLaughlin

BC-gas-regulator-ignoring-public's-LNG-concerns — BC Oil and Gas Commission Chief Operating Officer Ken Paulson (Damien Gillis)

The BC Oil and Gas Commission (OGC) is not obligated to address stakeholder concerns with LNG facilities, despite its responsibility to oversee oil and gas operations in the province.

According to its 2014 Service Plan, the OGC is only committed to addressing 75 percent of stakeholder concerns regarding proposed LNG operations. The complaints and questions it does field are only dealt with superficially, before the commission redirects citizens and groups to the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO).

“Since LNG development is in its early stages and the commission hasn’t started permitting projects yet, the OGC does not deal directly with public concerns,” says Hardy Friedrich, BC Oil and Gas Commission communications manager in Fort St. John.

According to Friedrich, the OGC refers concerns to the EAO to address, although the commission considers this to be a performance measure in its annual service plan.

Regulator hands off LNG questions to EAO

The BC Environmental Assessment Office was created from the Environmental Assessment Act and is responsible for assessing the potential environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects of oil and gas projects in BC.

The office offers the public opportunities to engage with proposed LNG projects through tools like submitting comments during public comment periods for specific applications, or attending public meetings, open houses and other public forums arranged by the office.

“The first public comment period is held during the pre-application phase,” says David Karn, Ministry of Environment communications officer. “The first public comment period ensures that relevant public concerns are identified early, so that they may be considered in the environmental assessment process.”

Conservation groups help public through confusing process

However, organizations like SkeenaWild Conservation Trust, Douglas Channel Watch and the Northwest Fish and Wildlife Association recognize the public needs a hand navigating a sometimes complicated process. They help gather and formally submit public comments to the EAO on behalf of concerned residents with LNG development in their areas.

The Northwest Fish and Wildlife Association participated in the public comment process of the proposed Coastal GasLink Pipeline Project from Dawson Creek to Kitimat, BC, representing its membership’s concerns.

In its submission, the group called for the “creation of a Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat Legary Fund.”

“Too often we see companies come into communities, extract resources and shut down when the resource is depleted or economic conditions are not favorable,” it noted. “In its place, left behind are the negative implications to fish, wildlife, and the land and water with no compensation or funding to correct the damage done.”

Karn says the EAO will take any information submitted during a public comment period, including submissions from concerned organizations and project proponents, as it begins to evaluate additional historic or baseline information and studies before a project is able to receive its environmental assessment certificate.

EAO unsuited to address public’s LNG concerns

In order for stakeholder concerns to get passed along the environmental assessment chain of command, individuals must feel empowered to voice their opinions and know where they can be heard, say local environmental groups.

“People have good reason to be concerned and speak out, and I think government has an obligation both to listen to people’s concerns and deal with them – and [the OGC] is essentially deferring all of that to the environmental assessment process, but I don’t think that’s efficient,” says Greg Knox, executive director of SkeenaWild Conservation Trust.

[quote]It’s so complicated and the timelines are so short, that I don’t think the environmental assessment processes can properly take in people’s concerns and deal with them. A lot of people don’t even know how to participate in those processes in a meaningful way.[/quote]

Public fears salmon impacts from Lelu Island plant

SkeenaWild Conservation Trust is entering the environmental assessment process over the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG project on Lelu Island, at the port of Prince Rupert, because of the volume of calls they have received over the last few months from concerned residents who don’t know where to take their worries about the environmental and health implications of this LNG project. Knox dovetails fears about future LNG issues with pre-existing concerns about other heavy industrial operations in the Skeena Estuary – critical habitat for Canada’s second biggest wild salmon run.

Yet another LNG plant proposed for BC: Petronas' $9 Billion Prince Rupert plan — Petronas’ proposed Prince Rupert LNG plant on Lelu Island

“I had a fellow from Prince Rupert call and ask me if I was aware that a coal facility there was dumping some coal into the ocean right at the facility. I said that I wasn’t aware and that we would need information and proof of that – and that was just his most recent concern,” says Knox.

“He was also stressed about the dredging from the LNG facilities because not only would they be impacting salmon habitat, but they would be dredging up dioxins, purines and toxins from the old pulp mill site which release toxins into the estuary and it’s sitting in the sediments, so all those toxins would now likely be released from the dredging activity into the environment again.”

Environmental leaders like Knox say the BC government has an obligation to deal with stakeholder concerns, and stakeholders should have every opportunity to share their issues with government.

Closing the door on public participation

By the BC Oil and Gas Commission deferring these concerns to the EAO, many worry the regulator is closing its doors to residents having a voice in the province’s LNG development.

Only answering 75% of stakeholder concerns seems like a low target when the province is striving to create a dialogue between industry operators, residents and First Nations. If the OGC was committed to addressing 100% of concerns, while also working alongside the EAO in a meaningful way, it would likely instill a higher degree of public confidence in the government’s LNG process.

Corky Evans: How YOU can help save the ALR in 5 min

May 9, 2014Farmland and Food Security, Food, UncategorizedfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

Corky Evans-Our last chance to save the ALR — Former BC Environment Minister Corky Evans (Photo: Alex Hanson)

An Open Letter to Almost Everybody:

My name is Corky Evans. I garden and farm in the Kootenays of B.C. Many years ago I was the Minister of Agriculture.

I do not understand popular culture or electronic communication. I have not learned to do Facebook. What I have been told is that when people find something interesting from someone they trust, they send it on to other people and in this way it is possible to engage more people, faster, than ever before.

I have decided that this technology that I do not understand may be the last chance we have to influence the Government of B. C. not to dismantle the historical protection of farmland where we live.

All you need to know

I am not going to try to explain the issue or the history or the legislation that is being debated in Victoria as I write. You do not have to know that stuff to know that food is important and that land to grow food on needs to be protected from being paved over. That is all you need to know. For forty years we have had rules in B.C. that protected farm land pretty well. This week the Government is trying to pass a law that will destroy the protection of farmland.

The Government didn’t think up this idea. They got it from the Fraser Institute. You may have heard of those people. They represent the largest Corporations and Banks in the Province. They are not known for caring a great deal about public policy. They will get richer paving farmland than by leaving it alone.

Bad law

I think lots of the MLAs in Victoria know this law they are debating is a bad law. The law is opposed by Greens, New Democrats and Independents. They are, as I write, trying to delay passage to give citizens a chance to learn what is happening and react. I think it also opposed by some Liberal members who are too afraid to speak publicly.

You can research everything I am saying if you have time. If you don’t have time, and if you got this letter from someone you trust, I beg you to take 5 minutes to try and stop this law. I do not care, by the way, if it is stopped forever. I just want it stopped until citizens understand what is happening and get to have a say before the Government wrecks something of great importance for our shared future.

Take action

If you have 5 minutes here is what you do: You look in the phone book for the number of your MLA and call them and say you don’t want them to pass Bill 24. Or you send them an e-mail by looking here to find their address. Then you send this request to the people who trust your judgement enough to read it.

This probably won’t work. I am asking, though, because nothing else will. In a week or so we will all know how it turned out.

Thank you for reading this.

Sincerely,

Corky Evans

Winlaw, BC

Site C Dam: “The benefits are clear”…as mud

May 8, 2014Hydropower, WATERfeaturedDamien Gillis

Why Site C Dam is a bad deal for taxpayers, environment — A section of the Peace Valley that stands to be flooded for Site C Dam (Photo: Andrea Morison)

The Joint Review Panel into the $10 Billion* proposed Site C Dam released its findings on the project today.

In a summary (read full report here), it stated:

[quote]The benefits are clear. Despite high initial costs, and some uncertainty about when the power would be needed, the Project would provide a large and long – term increment of firm energy and capacity at a price that would benefit future generations. [/quote]

But there is nothing clear about the panel’s report – which leaves the waters as muddy as the banks of the mighty Peace River.

Panel offers more questions than answers

Says Andrea Morison of the Peace Valley Environment Association, “We see this as a recommendation, and there are many significant concerns that the panel has brought forward, starting with the need for the project.”

On that note, the panel conceded that BC Hydro has not adequately demonstrated the need for the project – which it clearly hasn’t. It also noted a list of unanswered environmental questions and found that “the Project would significantly affect the current use of land and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal peoples.”

Locating the dam within the broad web of industrial activities which already cover the region – with many more on the horizon – the panel stated, “whether the Project proceeds or not, there is a need for a government-led regional environmental assessment including a baseline study and the establishment of environmental thresholds for use in evaluating the effects of multiple, projects…The Panel recommends that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency undertake, on an urgent basis, an update of its guidance on cumulative effects assessment.”

And yet, in the big picture, the review held up the project as a net environmental benefit – apparently favouring its purported climate benefits over the obvious ecological impacts it carries. “It would do this in a way that would produce a vastly smaller burden of greenhouse gases than any alternative save nuclear power, which B.C. has prohibited.” Unless, of course, we don’t need the power at all…

Further complicating things is the fact that in the new era of environmental assessment in Canada, the panel itself only makes recommendations – “The decision on whether the Project proceeds is made by elected officials,” it notes. A final decision from senior levels of government on the project isn’t expected for 6 months.

This has the effect of offloading the accountability for the panel’s findings onto other parties, and it has gone the extra mile in that regard, with its “on the one hand, on the other hand” language.

That said, at first glance, the document would appear to be an overall endorsement for the project – and that’s certainly how the Liberal government will interpret it.

Panel raised hopes through hearing

The panel offered the dam’s critics some hope throughout December and January hearings in northeast BC, appearing to give proponent BC Hydro a hard time on issues ranging from the impossible challenge for citizens to engage meaningfully with its 15,000-page technical application in just one month’s time, to the utility’s dismissal of important agricultural values in the Peace River Region that would be flooded.

Yet its final verdict, for the most part, fits into a pattern of rubber stamps issued by environmental assessments for major industrial projects like the recently-approved Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. As I noted in these pages following that decision, there is a troubling trend in these assessments – the inevitable conclusion that the purported economic benefits somehow outweigh the project’s impacts.

In the case of Site C, having reviewed the project closely for years now myself, it is clear that this is simply not the case. Like the Enbridge project before it, it is not incumbent on the assessor to support these conclusions with proof.

Here are 4 big reasons why the benefits of Site C do not outweigh the costs:

1. There is simply no need for the power

Throughout this latest period of Site C’s 30-year saga, we’ve heard the justification for the project morph into radically different permutations. First, we were told Site C would power 500,000 homes in BC. Except, as we’ve repeatedly demonstrated in these pages, that’s not true. BC’s power consumption has flatlined. We’re now in surplus power position for the longterm foreseeable future. Site C has nothing to do with BC’s homes.

Next, we heard it was essential to power the government’s much-vaunted liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry on the coast – a notion that was undermined by Hydro’s befuddled attempt to address LNG in its latest energy planning document. It is clear the utility has no idea how to handle LNG and Site C is but a minor, hypothetical piece of the puzzle.

Finally, during the hearing itself, the reason changed to exporting excess power to California – raising the question: how can we trust a government and utility that are continually changing their story on the dam.

Moreover, this presents a bizarre irony: At a time when we can no longer depend on cheap agricultural imports from California due to the extreme drought it faces, we are now proposing to flood some of our best farmland in order to export power to California. Go figure.

2. Flooding enough farmland to feed a million people

On that note, as the panel heard loud and clear from esteemed agrologists Wendy Holm and Evelyn Wolterson – contrary to BC Hydro’s assertions – the Peace Valley contains some of Canada’s best farmland. The 30,000-plus acre tract that would be flooded or disrupted by the dam could feed a million people. That’s a quarter of BC’s citizens. In the words of Wolterson:

[quote] It is our opinion that the public interest is better served [by] agriculture and other uses for this valley, rather than a hundred years of power production…Power has other alternatives; agriculture doesn’t.[/quote]

Good point. Too bad it fell largely on deaf ears.

3. Get ready for huge cost overruns

Any cost-benefit analys depends partly on knowing the real cost side of the equation. Clearly, there are significant environmental and food security costs from the proposed dam, but what about the financial costs?

The panel rightly acknowledged doubts about the accuracy of Hydro’s $8 Billion price tag for the project. Don’t forget, this is a government whose overseeing of large capital projects makes the NDP’s fast ferry fiasco look like the paragon of good project management. From the convention centre to the stadium roof to the Port Mann Bridge, the BC Liberal government boasts a track record of cost overruns routinely in the 50-100% range.

Couple that with the notorious inflation for dams around the world (27% on average, according to the World Bank), and we’ll call Site C $10 Billion – conservatively. This on top of deepening debt and deficits from this government – not to mention skyrocketing power bills, which will keep rising as a result of this project.

4. Serious grassroots and First Nations opposition

Local “Cowboys and Indians” – the landowners and Treaty 8 First Nations whose farms and territories would be flooded by the dam – have made it clear where they stand on this project. They’ve put themselves on the line many times before to stop the dam – and consistently won.

The panel’s ruling – muddy though it is – will likely be embraced by the Liberal Government as an approval, which puts First Nations and citizens on a path to conflict with the province in the coming months and years.

Whether it be from the lack of need for the project, the lingering geotechnical challenges it faces (though they won’t admit it, Hydro still doesn’t really know how to build the thing), the financial burden it presents to a province already deeply in debt, the growing awareness of the importance of food security in an era of climate change, or the opposition it will face on the ground, this dam is still a long, long way from being built.

NDP Leader Horgan opposes BC’s proposed Site C Dam

May 6, 2014Hydropower, WATERfeaturedCanadian Press

BC NDP leadership race down to John Horgan — Newly-minted BC NDP Leader John Horgan has come out against the proposed Site C Dam

VANCOUVER – B.C. New Democratic Party Leader John Horgan is raising concerns about the proposed Site C hydroelectric dam, just days before an environmental review on the project becomes public.

The dam proposed by BC Hydro would be the third on northeastern B.C.’s Peace River and would flood about 55 square kilometres of land along 83 kilometres of river valley.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency conducted hearings in December and January, submitted its report to the federal government last week and is expected to post the document online Thursday.

Horgan says it’s a good project, except for the fact B.C. doesn’t need the energy, First Nations oppose it and the dam would destroy so much agricultural land.

He says he wants a third party to answer some legitimate questions like when will the province actually need the power and how much should the people pay for it.

The Crown utility has said the dam is a clean, cost-effective source of much-needed electricity for British Columbia.

“The BC Liberals have made a mess of BC Hydro,” says Horgan.

[quote]

We have 28 per cent rate increases coming down the pipe. We have deferred debt. We have long-term debt, and we have projects that are wildly over budget.

[/quote]

Pro-Keystone XL pipeline bill stalls in Senate

May 2, 2014Energy and Resources, International, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsfeaturedCanadian Press

Pro-Keystone XL bill stalls in Senate — Sen. John Hoeven has been unable to gather the votes for his pro-Keystone XL bill (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

By David Espo, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Senate supporters of the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline conceded Thursday they lack the 60 votes necessary to pass legislation authorizing immediate construction of the project, but said they remain hopeful of prevailing.

“At this point we’re still working to get 60,” said Sen. John Hoeven. R-N.D., as he and Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., introduced a bipartisan bill to end the delays and build the proposed oil pipeline from Canada to the United States.

Landrieu, who chairs the Senate Energy Committee, faces a tough re-election challenge this fall, and has said she will use all her power to make sure the project is built.

In remarks on the Senate floor, she said supporters of the project think:

[quote]There is so much potential for Canada, the U.S. and Mexico … to become completely not only energy independent, but an energy powerhouse for the world…what signal does it send if America is not willing to do its part when it comes to production right here?[/quote]

11 democrats support bill, but still not enough

In their statement, Landrieu and Hoeven said the legislation has the support of 11 Democrats and all 45 of the Senate’s Republicans, a total of 56 of the 60 that will be needed. “A vote on the bill is expected in the coming days,” they added.

The obvious targets for additional support include six Democrats who voted in favour of a non-binding proposal 13 months ago that expressed general support for the project: Sens. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Chris Coons of Delaware, Tom Carper of Delaware, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Bill Nelson of Florida.

Among the group, Casey noted he has twice before voted in favour of the project, and said it was “probably a good guess” to assume he will do so again.

Carper said he is undecided, and intends to meet with Landrieu, Hoeven and others in the coming days.

Johnson, Coons and Nelson indicated Thursday they do not support the legislation to require construction.

Senators want to know where Obama stands

In an interview, Johnson said he wants to know President Barack Obama’s position. Ian Koski, a spokesman for Coons, said the lawmaker “believes the law makes clear that it’s up to the (Obama) administration to make permitting decisions like this one,” and not up to Congress.

Nelson’s spokesman, Ryan Brown, said the Florida lawmaker favours the pipeline’s construction, but won’t vote for the legislation because it permits the oil that would flow through the project to be exported.

Bennet could not be reached for immediate comment.

The proposed pipeline would carry oil from Canada to the United States, where it eventually would reach Gulf Coast refineries. Supporters say it would create thousands of jobs and help the United States get closer to a goal of energy independence. Opponents include environmentalists who say the project wouldn’t create much permanent employment once it was finished, and say it would reinforce the nation’s use of an energy source that worsens global warming.

White House delays Keystone decision indefinitely

The legislation is the latest response in Congress to the Obama administration’s recent announcement that it was delaying a decision on the pipeline indefinitely, citing a Nebraska court case relating to the project.

The House has voted previously to approve construction of the pipeline.

The White House has not taken a formal position on the legislation, although Democratic officials in the Senate as well as Republican lawmakers say they expect Obama likely would veto it if it reaches his desk.

In a sidebar dispute, some Republicans said the vote should occur on an amendment to energy efficiency legislation that is expected to reach the Senate floor in the next few days. That would present Obama with a more complicated choice, since large numbers of lawmakers in both parties are likely to favour the broader measure.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., said a vote on a free-standing bill that deals only with the pipeline is insufficient “because it will never see the light of day. The president’s not going to sign it.”

He said the pipeline’s fate is in the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., “and how serious he and our Democratic friends are about this issue.

Associated Press writers Matthew Daly and Alan Fram contributed to this report.

The rise of Predator Economics

May 1, 2014EconomicsfeaturedMark Taliano

Anishinaabe Native American activist Winona LaDuke coined the term “Predator Economics” (youtube)

Canadians are forever being informed, explicitly or implicitly, that the solution to the crisis of the day, or decade, is a freedom-sounding word called “privatization”. This, the free-marketeers tell us, will solve our problems.

The reality is invariably the opposite. “Privatization” – also known as bailed-out, highly subsidized corporatism – is in fact the problem, not the solution.

Furthermore, the crises being addressed are often manufactured for the express purpose of rolling out a parasitical regime of corporatization that profits from calamity, even as its “host”, the public, is fleeced.

Exploiting the commons

Canadian author and social activist Naomi Klein identifies the process as the “shock doctrine” and/or “disaster capitalism”; author, environmental activist, and economist Winona LaDuke calls it “predator economics”; writers call it neoliberalism, and corporate media pretends it doesn’t exist.

A tattered thread is woven into a seemingly endless series of crises, and it is the public sector, the commons, that is invariably being exploited.

Neo-conservative strategists disguise the real problem, and deflect attention from it, using a myriad of strategies, all of which serve to instil what insurance whistle-blower Wendel Potter calls FUD – Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt—in the collective mental landscape of the masses.

Instead of identifying the real problem – neoliberalism/predator capitalism/shock economy—neo-cons typically scapegoat other polities.

Canada’s emblematic instituions being undermined

According to neo-con politicians, union bosses and their minions, as well as public servants, and public institutions, are the causes of our economic woes, even as these are some of the few remaining polities that mitigate the damages caused by predator capitalism.

Two of Canada’s “emblematic” institutions, currently being undermined so that they can be replaced by inferior models, are “universal” health care, and Canada Post.

Canada’s public healthcare system is in distress. Community hospitals are closing, wait-times are long, and the public is dissatisfied. Corporate messaging proclaims that since the status quo of public universal healthcare is failing, then the answer must be privatization/corporatization. Consequently, the 2004 Health Accord has not been renewed, and the federal government will be cutting $36 Billion over ten years from its Canadian Health Transfers (CHT’s) to the provinces.

Manufactured health care crisis

The manufactured crisis in health care is chronic under-funding, and the solution is more comprehensive public funding, not corporatization. Since 1981 hospital funding has decreased significantly as a share of Canada’s health care budget.

Corporate health care is less efficient, and more expensive, than public health care. The more it is corporatized, the more expensive (and less accessible ) health care becomes.

A CUPE article entitled, “Public Health Care Costs Less, Delivers More”

clearly shows that the “private” components of health care far exceed its public counterparts in costs even as they deliver less. Listed below are some (of numerous) examples identified in the article:

Ontario paid 75 per cent more to for-profit labs than it had to non-profit community labs over the previous 30 years, for the same tests.¹⁰

Public-private partnerships are 83 per cent costlier to finance than public projects.¹¹ * (Canadians) spend roughly half of what the private US system spends per person,¹⁶ and we get better coverage and outcomes.

Studies comparing US and Canadian outcomes for heart attacks, cancer, surgical procedures and chronic conditions show that Canada does at least as well, often better.²¹

A recent Canadian study found that expedited knee surgery in a for-profit clinic costs $3,222 compared to $959 in a public hospital (with worse return-to-work outcomes)²⁴

Clearly, the false “solution” is making a bad situation (under-funding) worse.

What happened to Canada

Canada Post is also suffering from a manufactured crisis. Marianne Lenabut argues in “What Happened To Canada” that Canada post ran a profit for the last 16 of 17 years, and that it has yet to receive a tax-payer bailout. Yet the “solution” to the illusory crisis has been the creation of a real crisis, consistent with Shock Doctrine economics. Canada Post is being restructured so that service costs increase dramatically even as services are deteriorating: bulk stamps will cost .85 cents and a single first-class stamp will cost a dollar, door-to-door urban delivery is being ended, and 8,000 postal positions are slated to be eliminated.

The crisis is being engineered so that the public will become frustrated, blame the victim (Canada Post), and welcome a false “market-based solution” so that the private sector can roll in, and further erode the public domain.

Private mail will raise cost to public

James Clancy of the National Union Of Public And General Employees argues in “President’s Commentary: Privatization is not the answer at Canada Post, modernization is” that “when the final play is made in this game, Canadians will see private companies selling mail service at a higher cost. There will be no accountability mechanism if this happens because the public will no longer own the service.”

These two important examples are, nonetheless, the tip of the iceberg. The list is long, but the strategies are consistent: create a crisis to undemocratically impose inefficient, expensive corporate models in domains best suited to public funding.

Internationally, the same strategies are being used, and the descriptors are the same: predator economics, shock doctrine economics, neoliberalism. But, when supranational polities such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund (IMF) impose these strategies on other countries, the process is called colonialism.

BC LNG economics don’t add up: New report

April 30, 2014Economics, Energy and Resources, LNGfeaturedDamien Gillis

BC LNG economics don't add up-New report — Christy Clark announces agreement to build an LNG facility at Grassy Point ( BC govt photo)

The Clark government’s rosy projections of a $100 Billion “Prosperity Fund” from its proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry will never materialize, says a new report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The big idea is to export BC’s natural gas to new markets in Asia, taking advantage of the much higher price they’re currently paying for the resource. But that’s easier said than done, as the process of cooling and liquefying gas – in order to load it on tankers – is enormously expensive. Moreover, that higher price, a historical anomaly, is predicated on a number of factors that will likely change by the time exporters invest the tens of billions of dollars in capital and years of construction time into the pipelines and terminals required to make it all happen.

Asian LNG price not a sure bet

The CCPA report takes a closer look at a number of key factors and market indicators in order to paint a more accurate picture of the touted benefits and real financial risks to the nascent industry – everything from the future Asian price for LNG, to infrastructure costs, to the government’s tax and revenue structure, outlined in the 2014 Budget.

Key findings include:

[quote]

Asian demand for LNG will be undercut as Japan and Korea reopen nuclear facilities, while China has many domestic and international options for new energy supplies in addition to BC-based LNG. And five countries that account for 70% of LNG imports (India, Japan, Korea, China and Taiwan) are forming a common front on price through a “buyer’s club”, making it far less likely that they’ll continue to pay top-dollar for imported LNG.

The start-up costs for BC’s LNG industry are massive, greatly eating into the gap between Asian and North American gas prices. Meanwhile, many competitors are simply adding capacity to existing facilities, increasing supply and driving prices down.

[/quote]

Falling prices, shrinking revenues

Last year, one of the world’s leading business publications, Bloomberg, predicted a 60% drop in the Asian LNG price by 2020, the first year BC exporters could realistically begin shipping their product. Because LNG is currently 2 and a half times more expensive to produce than typical gas, that figure would fall below the break-even point, adding up to a 6 million dollar loss per tanker. These sort of cold, hard realities have been sorely absent from the BC Liberal government’s rhetoric on LNG, the CCPA report argues.

Meanwhile, the long-awaited export tax regime at the root of projected BC LNG revenues, announced in last month’s Budget, doesn’t suggest the windfall profits the government has been promising. The CCPA report predicts just $0.2 to $0.6 billion per year for a fully mature industry, far short of the $5 Billion a year that would be required to achieve a $100 Billion “Prosperity Fund” by 2040.

As Kevin Logan has detailed in The Common Sense Canadian, the BC LNG tax structure enables companies to deduct their enormous capital costs from their 7% export tax payments (phase 2 rate, which only kicks in 3-5 years after the paltry 1.5% in phase 1). With an industry notorious for huge cost-overruns – like Chevron’s staggering $54 Billion Gorgon plant in Australia, still unfinished – taxpayers could be waiting a long time to see a single penny out of the industry.

All the risk, very little reward

To the CCPA’s chief economist Marc Lee, BC is taking enormous environmental and economic risks with very little promise of reward. “The danger is that BC ramps up production at a large cost—including costs of regulatory oversight, infrastructure, and additional public services, for example, as well as environmental costs—but doesn’t receive much benefit in terms of revenue,” says Lee.

[quote]Rather than rely on fantasy projections of LNG investment, BC should go back to the drawing board to develop a regime for LNG development that ensures public benefits.[/quote]

As the CCPA report underscores, it’s high time the Liberal government’s rhetoric be held up to proper scrutiny. And the potential environmental, health, and socio-economic impacts of the industry demand more sober reflection before racing headlong into what could very well become a major boondoggle.

“BC has been rushing to get resources out of the ground regardless of the returns. Without a well thought out plan, the proposed LNG industry is likely to do more of the same,” it notes.

[quote]With market prices expected to drop and a poorly thought-out plan for public benefits, it’s time for the government to take a step back and ask themselves if we can do better.[/quote]

Salmon farms: Has anything changed after a decade of controversy?

April 29, 2014Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquaculturefeaturedDr. David Suzuki

The David Suzuki Foundation and others have run ads over the past decade decrying British Columbia’s open net-cage salmon farm industry. With significant expansion planned for the West Coast, the question remains: Has B.C.’s salmon farm industry improved?

Salmon farming threatens some of the planet’s last remaining viable wild salmon — a keystone species that touches all our coastal ecosystems. The issues in dispute include feed ingredients, disease transmission between farms and wild salmon, bird and marine mammal deaths, pesticide and antibiotic use, and the effects of multiple farms in concentrated areas.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program recently released science-based ranking reports on open net-cage farmed salmon in B.C., Norway, Chile and Scotland. All received a “red” or “avoid buying” designation. Canada’s SeaChoice followed suit.

Salmon farm diseases pose risk to wild fish

More than 90 per cent of migrating juvenile salmon die before returning to freshwater to spawn, most in the first months after entering the ocean. Pathogens may be a significant factor, although not all specifics about diseases are fully known. Justice Bruce Cohen’s Commission of Inquiry investigating the decline of Fraser River sockeye included pathogen risk — along with habitat loss, predation and contaminant exposure — as a factor in the 2009 sockeye collapse. Disease from salmon farms is one risk to wild salmon that can be controlled.

Salmon-farming shouldn’t be done at the expense of wild salmon. Both wild- and farmed-salmon industries provide fish and create economic activity, but the province’s sports and commercial wild salmon fisheries and marine tourism contribute more to B.C.’s economy and quality of life than salmon farming. Employment, revenue generation and food creation are important, but so are preserving wild salmon and protecting the environment for our children and grandchildren.

Salmon farms dump waste on ocean floor

Aquaculture must stop using the ocean as a free waste-treatment system. Closed-containment — in the ocean or on land — is better at controlling water and removing feces and chemicals like antibiotics and pesticides used for sea lice. One B.C. open net-cage company lost over $200 million in one year because of disease, enough to build 10 closed-containment farms. Yet the industry claims closed alternatives cost too much.

Although the salmon farm industry has decreased pesticide use, improved parasite management and reduced feed waste and wild fish used for feed, it hasn’t eliminated the problems. Continuing threats to wild salmon and the environment prevent us from supporting expansion of the industry or advising people to eat ocean-farmed salmon.

Harper govt opens door to more farms

Despite the risks, last year the federal government quietly opened the door to expand B.C.’s aquaculture industry. Thirteen applications for new or larger farms along the coast have been submitted. Fish farm expansion avoids the bigger question: What kind of economic development is best for our coastal ecosystems?

As Justice Cohen said, more federal research into the effects of fish farms on wild salmon stocks is critical. We need to address this research gap, along with the lack of availability and transparency of data from farming operations, before allowing the industry to expand.

Research project zeroes in on aquaculture diseases

A promising partnership between Genome British Columbia, the Pacific Salmon Foundation and Fisheries and Oceans Canada to discover the microbes that may cause disease in B.C.’s wild salmon and hinder their ability to reproduce could provide answers. But those answers don’t yet exist.

The fish farming industry is making efforts. In 2013, a farm in Norway was the first to be certified by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council. Although certification doesn’t fully address the risk to wild salmon, it indicates which farms are best operated and includes requirements to consider cumulative impacts. It is not a signal that the entire industry is free to expand.

Closed-containment: a positive alternative

Closed-containment systems, which have fewer impacts on the environment and wild fish, are also growing. The Namgis First Nation on northeastern Vancouver Island recently starting shipping its first closed-containment “Kuterra” Atlantic salmon to Safeway stores in B.C. and Alberta. The aquaculture industry could also improve environmental performance by producing food such as scallops, mussels, tilapia and seaweed that are a lower risk to the environment and use less feed and chemicals.

Our coastal waters are rich in opportunity. They can contribute to food security and community resilience without open net-cage salmon farms. Unless we chart a sound course, salmon will lose — but so will we, and the bears, eagles and magnificent coastal forests that support so much life.

With contributions from David Suzuki Foundation B.C. and Western Region director-general Jay Ritchlin.

Fukushima residents unsure of return to no-go zone

April 29, 2014Energy and Resources, NuclearfeaturedCanadian Press

By Yuri Kageyama, The Associated Press

TOMIOKA, Japan – Whenever Kazuhiro Onuki goes home, to his real home that is, the 66-year-old former librarian dons protective gear from head to toe and hangs a dosimeter around his neck.

Grass grows wild in the backyard. The ceiling leaks. Thieves have ransacked the shelves, leaving papers and clothing all over the floor so there is barely room to walk. Mouse dung is scattered like raisins. There is no running water or electricity.

Above all, radiation is everywhere.

Fukushima reactor 4 — Fukushima’s badly damaged Reactor 4 building

It’s difficult to imagine ever living again in Tomioka, a ghost town about 10 kilometres (6 miles) from the former Fukushima Dai-chi nuclear plant. And yet more than three years after meltdowns at the plant forced this community of 16,000 people to flee, Onuki can’t quite make the psychological break to start anew.

His family lived here for four generations. Every time he goes back, he is overcome by emotion. Especially during that brief time in the spring when the cherry blossoms bloom.

“They flower as though nothing has happened,” he said. “They are weeping because all the people have left.”

The Japanese government is pushing ahead with efforts to decontaminate and reopen as much of a 20-kilometre (12-mile) no-go zone around the plant as it can. Authorities declared a tiny corner of the zone safe for living as of April 1, and hope to lift evacuation orders in more areas in the coming months and years.

Former residents have mixed feelings. In their hearts, many want their old lives back. But distrust about the decontamination program runs deep. Will it really be safe? Others among the more than 100,000 displaced have established new lives elsewhere, in the years since the 2011 earthquake and tsunami sent three of Fukushima’s reactors into meltdown.

If the evacuation order is lifted for their area, they will lose a monthly stipend of 100,000 yen ($1,000) they receive from Tokyo Electric Power Co., the owner of the Fukushima plant.

A survey last year found that 16 per cent of Tomioka residents wanted to return, 40 per cent had decided never to return, and 43 per cent were undecided. Two-thirds said they were working before the disaster, but only one-third had jobs at the time of the survey, underlining the challenges to starting over.

Former resident Shigetoshi Suzuki, a friend of Onuki, is outraged the government would even ask such a question: Do you want to go back?

Of course, we all want to return, he said. People like him were effectively forced into retirement, the 65-year-old land surveyor said. If he hadn’t evacuated to a Tokyo suburb with his wife, he would have continued working for his longtime clients.

“It is a ridiculous question,” Suzuki said. “We could have led normal lives. What we have lost can’t be measured in money.”

In protest, he has refused to sign the forms that would allow his property to undergo decontamination.

The government has divided the no-go zone into three areas by radiation level.

The worst areas are marked in pink on official maps and classified as “difficult to return.” They are still enclosed by a barricade.

Yellow designates a “restricted” area, limiting visits to a few hours. No overnight stays are allowed.

The green zones are “in preparations to lift evacuation orders.” They must be decontaminated, which includes scrubbing building surfaces and scraping off the top layer of soil and is being carried out throughout the zones.

Tomioka has all three zones within its boundaries.

Fukushima radioactive water crisis returns — The plant faces ongoing issues with water leaks (Kyodo/Reuters)

The green zones are those where authorities have confirmed radiation exposure can be brought below 20 millisieverts a year.

The long-term goal is to bring annual exposure down to 1 millisievert, or the equivalent of 10 chest X-rays, which was considered the safe level before the disaster, but the government is lifting evacuation orders at higher levels. It says it will monitor the health and exposure of people who move back to such areas.

In the yellow restricted zone, where Sukuki’s and Onuki’s homes lie, a visitor exceeds 1 millisievert in a matter of a few hours.

During a recent visit, Onuki and his wife Michiko walked beneath the pink petals floating from a tunnel of cherry trees, previously a local tourist attraction.

The streets were abandoned, except for a car passing through now and then. The neighbourhood was eerily quiet except for the chirping of the nightingales.

“The prime minister says the accident is under control, but we feel the thing could explode the next minute,” said Michiko Onuki, who ran a ceramic and craft shop out of their Tomioka home. “We would have to live in fear of radiation. This town is dead.”

Both wore oversized white astronaut-like gear, which doesn’t keep out radioactive rays out but helps prevent radioactive material from being brought back, outside the no-go zone. Filtered masks covered half their faces. They discarded the gear when they left, so they wouldn’t bring any radiation back to their Tokyo apartment, which they share with an adult son and daughter.

Junji Oshida, 43, whose family ran an upscale restaurant in Tomioka that specialized in eel, was at first devastated that he lost the traditional sauce for the eel that had been passed down over generations.

He has since opened a new restaurant just outside the zone that caters to nuclear cleanup workers. He recreated the sauce and serves pork, which is cheaper than eel. He lives apart from his wife and sons, who are in a Tokyo suburb.

“There is no sense in looking back,” Oshida said, still wearing the eel restaurant’s emblem on his shirt.

Older residents can’t give up so easily, even those who will never be able to return — like Tomioka city assemblyman Seijun Ando, whose home lies in the most irradiated, pink zone.

Ando, 59, said that dividing Tomioka by radiation levels has pitted one group of residents against another, feeding resentment among some. One idea he has is to bring residents from various towns in the no-go zone together to start a new community in another, less radiated part of Fukushima — a place he described as “for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.”

“I can survive anywhere, although I had a plan for my life that was destroyed from its very roots,” said Ando, tears welling up in his eyes. “Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suffering. I’m just worried for Tomioka.”

___

Follow Yuri Kageyama on Twitter at twitter.com/yurikageyama