Tag Archives: featured

BC, Yukon First Nation bans fracking, finds economic benefits not worth impacts

BC/Yukon First Nation bans fracking, finds impacts outweigh benefits

Share
BC, Yukon First Nation bans fracking, finds economic benefits not worth impacts
Fracking operation in northeast BC’s Horn River (Two Island Films/Fractured Land)

A First Nation with un-surrendered traditional territory in both northern BC and the Yukon passed a motion late last week banning fracking. On December 5, the Carcross/Tagish First Nation (C/TFN) General Council ratified an earlier motion from the nation’s Executive Council, opposing the controversial natural gas extraction process on its territory.

“It’s our responsibility to protect our lands and water for future generations,” said the Executive Council’s George Shepherd, who moved the motion.

[quote]Not only is fracking a completely ineffective way to extract resources, it would cause a great deal of harm to the land we take such great pride in.[/quote]

The motion grew out of work by C/TFN’s Land Use team, which weighed potential economic benefits against anticipated environmental impacts from fracking. In the end, the team found “the use of fracking doesn’t make any sense,” says Lands Manager Frank James.

“It’s our responsibility to protect the environment and our Traditional Territory, which includes the headwaters of the Yukon river,” said C/TFN’s Khà Shâde Héni, Danny Cresswell.

[quote]The harm a fracking project would cause to the land and waterways would not be worth the revenues. Not to mention the damage it would cause to the natural landscape, which is something we would never be able to recover.[/quote]

The move comes amid widespread debate about the merits and trade-offs of fracking, which has prompted two Canadian provinces – Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador – and a number of other countries to pass fracking bans and moratoria.

C/TFN’s members are mostly located in the Yukon but the nation holds 4,000 square miles of territory on the BC side of the border as well, where there is intense pressure to expand fracking operations in order to feed the province’s ambitious, proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry.

That concern is now spreading north to potential future fracking plays in the Yukon. C/TFN joins fellow Yukon First Nations, the Vuntut-Gwitchin of Old Crow, whose members passed a motion at their annual general assembly in August opposing fracking in their northern Yukon territory.

Controversy over exploratory drilling for fracking by an American company in New Brunswick prompted heated protests by the Elsipogtog First Nation in recent months.

Share
Harper Government approves-Shell oilsands mine, despite significant adverse effects

Harper Govt approves Shell’s Jackpine oilsands mine despite ‘significant adverse effects’

Share
Harper Government approves-Shell oilsands mine, despite significant adverse effects
ACFN Chief Allan Adam outside an Alberta court in 2012, challenging Shell’s Jackpine development

Shell Canada’s Jackpine oilsands mine expansion plan has received the go-ahead from Ottawa, despite the environment minister’s view that it’s “likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.”

In a statement late Friday, environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq concluded that the effects from the 100,000-barrel-per-day expansion are “justified in the circumstances.”

The nearby Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation has said the project will violate several federal laws covering fisheries and species at risk, as well as treaty rights.

They said they had received so little information on how Shell plans to live up to conditions imposed on it by a federal-provincial panel that they asked Ottawa for a 90-day delay on the decision — originally expected Nov. 6 — to work some of those issues through.

They were granted a 35-day delay, but Friday’s decision didn’t even wait until that period was up.

Allan Adam, chief of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, was outraged that the federal decision came as the government was still supposed to be in talks with the band about how the project’s effects were to be mitigated, declaring:

[quote]They just kept us in the loop and strung us along and played games with us. To them it’s all a game.[/quote]

Although all 88 conditions the review panel placed on the project are now legally binding, Adam said neither the government nor the company has explained how those conditions will be met.

Adam said the government’s move to go ahead despite the serious environmental consequences of the project leave the band little choice.

“This government has to realize we’ll be holding them accountable,” he said. “We’ll be looking at legal action and we’ll pursue this through legal action.”

Greenpeace Canada issued a statement accusing the Harper government of putting the short term interests of oil companies ahead of environmental protection and First Nations treaty rights.

“Canada would be much better off diversifying its economy, investing in renewables, green jobs and projects that get us out of this madness not deeper into it,” the statement said.

[quote]How many more extreme weather events will it take till our Prime Minister realizes this is one problem he can’t mine his way out of?[/quote]

The Jackpine expansion would allow Shell to increase its bitumen output by 50 per cent to 300,000 barrels a day.

“We’re reviewing the recommendations and proposed conditions attached to the approval,” said Shell spokesman David Williams.

Williams added Shell must consult with the minority partners in the project — Chevron and Marathon — before making a formal decision to proceed.

A review panel concluded last July that the project was in the public interest but warned that it would result in severe and irreversible damage so great that new protected areas should be created to compensate.

The review concluded that the project would mean the permanent loss of thousands of hectares of wetlands, which would harm migratory birds, caribou and other wildlife and wipe out traditional plants used for generations. It also said Shell’s plans for mitigation are unproven and warned that some impacts would probably approach levels that the environment couldn’t support.

Shell has said Alberta’s new management plan for the oilsands area will provide more concrete data to assess and mitigate environmental impacts. The company has purchased about 730 hectares of former cattle pasture in northwestern Alberta to help compensate for the 8,500 hectares of wetland that would be forever lost.

Share
American fracker wraps controversial seismic work in Elsipogtog territory

American fracker wraps divisive seismic work in Elsipogtog territory

Share
American fracker wraps controversial seismic work in Elsipogtog territory
Members of the Elsipogtog Nation and RCMP clash at a recent protest over fracking in New Brunswick

REXTON, N.B. – SWN Resources Canada says it has wrapped up seismic testing in New Brunswick.

The company’s work has been subject to ongoing protest by opponents of shale gas development in the province.

In October, a protest near Rexton turned violent when police enforced a court-ordered injunction to halt the blockade of a compound used by SWN Resources to store equipment.

Officers arrested 40 people and six police vehicles were burned.

SWN Resources, a wholly owned subsidiary of U.S.-based Southwestern Energy Company, was recently granted another injunction that provides a buffer zone around its equipment in order to complete its work.

Chief Aaron Sock of the Elsipogtog First Nation, whose community has been outspoken in its opposition to shale gas development, could not be reached for comment.

Share
Engineers poke holes in Enbridge tanker safety plans

Engineers poke holes in Enbridge tanker safety

Share
Engineers poke holes in Enbridge tanker safety plans
A group of professional engineers says the risk of a tanker spill is far greater than Enbridge suggests

While the Harper Government reacts to this week’s release of a federal report containing 45 recommendations on improving oil spill response capabilities on BC’s coast, a group of professional engineers is launching a campaign to point out the flaws in Enbridge’s tanker safety plans.

Concerned Professional Engineers (CPE) is a BC-based group boasting “many decades of experience in the design, construction and operation of large projects for the extraction and transportation of natural resources like coal and oil.”

Enbridge downplaying spill risks

The group recently kicked off an online “crowd funding” campaign to help publicize its work, which has involved in-depth analysis of Enbridge’s tanker plans and detailed submissions by its members to the National Energy Board hearings on the project. They say Enbridge’s claim of a 10% oil spill risk from tankers connected to its proposed Northern Gateway pipeline is far too low.

“We’ve performed our own, independent review and found Enbridge’s analysis to be lacking,” says CPE.

[quote]This is not good engineering.

[/quote]

Some of the group’s key concerns are as follows:

  • Enbridge provides no justification or documentation for the ‘scaling factors’ they used to calculate the 10% risk of a major spill.
  • Enbridge’s liability ends when the tankers leave the terminal.  Who’s responsible for a spill along the narrow 300 km waterway from Kitimat to the open ocean?
  • Enbridge’s risk analysis planned for 220 tankers per year through Douglas Channel.  New LNG projects will bring that number to over 600.
  • Federal scientists, testifying during the JRP hearings, say more research is needed on diluted bitumen before they can be sure a cleanup is even possible.

CPE also focuses on the proposed tanker route down BC’s treacherous coast:

[quote]The proposed route to the open ocean is nearly 300 km (186 miles) long through constrained channels, some of which are less than 1400 m (4600 ft) wide.  This may seem large until you realize that the proposed ships are more than 300 m (1,000 ft) in length and can take several kilometers to slow down or stop.  Furthermore, the route is on the northern BC coast, a place famous for its challenging weather, winds, waves, and heavy fog.[/quote]

Getting the word out

The group, whose members were official interveners in the National Energy Board’s Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel, is seeking to raise $20,000 to produce and distribute educational media that goes into detail about the real risks posed by Enbridge’s plan. It is careful to point out that it is not opposed to development and trade, rather to unsafe practices:

[quote]We are not opposed to the development and export of natural resources, but we feel very strongly that these projects must be done in a safe and responsible manner, with a full accounting of the risks and visibility to the public.[/quote]

First Nations still unconvinced by safety measures

Enbridge tanker routes
Proposed tanker routes for Enbridge project

First Nations leaders who attended a press conference held Tuesday in Vancouver by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver and Transportation Minister Lisa Raitt were also disappointed with the government’s reaction to the new federal report on tanker safety measures, compiled by a panel of three experts appointed by the government.

In particular, Coastal First Nations President Art Sterritt told me after the conference, “There were no new technological advancements in spill clean-up and no commitment from the government to follow the report’s recommendation of removing an oil spill liability cap for operators.”

As it stands, oil spill liability along the tanker route is capped at $161 million – something the federal report recommends changing – but Oliver and Raitt have shown no indication of acting on that point.

Federal departments question tanker safety

The report follows the revelation that a number of federal departments – including Fisheries and Oceans and Transport Canada – concurred in a 2010 meeting that “Enbridge had not submitted enough information on the pipeline route,” according to a 2012 Postmedia story drawing on Access to Information documents.

More risks coming down the pipeline

It isn’t just oil tankers that are stirring up concerns with Enbridge’s proposal. Independent economist and former ICBC CEO Robyn Allan has also flagged the lack of safety with Enbridge’s proposed pipeline across northern BC, noting the province lags far behind other jurisdictions in terms of funding for oil spill preparedness – despite claims of “world-leading” safety. In a recent Tyee op-ed, Allan said neither Enbridge nor the province have made any real progress on meeting Premier Christy Clark’s pipeline safety condition – one of 5 for endorsing Northern Gateway.

Allan raised the increased risk of moving diluted bitumen by pipeline – a core concern for CPE with tankers in the marine environment – which the BC Liberal Government seized upon during its own submission to the Joint Review Panel, but seems to have subsequently forgotten:

[quote]The province also raised unique challenges posed by diluted bitumen when it sinks in fresh water. Enbridge consistently denied this at the hearings, despite its own spill experience with the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. Enbridge did not include the results of the Kalamazoo spill in its statistics or analysis of spill risk. Enbridge aggressively resisted filing as evidence the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report on how the company handled the spill at the hearings.[/quote]

The CPE campaign runs for another three weeks on the crowd funding website Indiegogo – which has become a popular grassroots fundraising tool in recent years.

Share
Ocean acidification accelerates in Arctic, threatening food web - study

Ocean acidification accelerates in Arctic, threatening food web: study

Share
Ocean acidification accelerates in Arctic, threatening food web - study
Ocean acidification affects shell growth for marine life (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme)

Research conducted at an ice camp high in the frozen North – part of the Catlin Arctic Survey – suggests climate change is threatening the Arctic Ocean’s food web by making those waters more acidic.

The scientists, who camped for months at a time on the sea ice near the magnetic North Pole, tested the effect of various acid levels on tiny, shrimp-like creatures called copepods (KOH-peh-pods) that almost all fish and whales depend on for food.

They found that some copepods do better than others in more acidic waters.

But their recently published research concludes that all the species they looked at suffered at some point in water with lower pH.

Carbon dioxide, the main gas responsible for climate change, increases the acidity of the oceans as it dissolves in seawater.

The Arctic Ocean is becoming more acidic at a faster pace than any other on Earth.

The paper was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and was carried out by the University of Exeter and the Plymouth Marine Laboratory.

Share
Pundits, polls and pack journalism - BC's wild year in politics

Pundits, polls and pack journalism: BC’s wild year in politics

Share

Pundits, polls and pack journalism - BC's wild year in politics

by Sid Tafler

As 2013 winds down, veteran BC journalist Sid Tafler looks back at the province’s 2013 election and the surprising (to some) victory of the BC Liberal Party.

On the night of the BC election, a supporter of Green Party candidate Andrew Weaver told a TV reporter he was overjoyed at Weaver’s win in Oak Bay-Gordon Head. Then he added that he was devastated at the overall result – a fourth consecutive Liberal majority.

Well, I guess the take-away message is, if you don’t vote to defeat the party in power, you vote to elect them.

That’s just one lesson of the May 14 election, in which the Liberals supposedly overcame a substantial NDP lead to win a surprise victory, even increasing their seat count by four.

I say supposedly because only the naïve, including most of the political media in this province, would have thought the NDP – who have only won three elections of 23 in the last 80 years – were a shoo-in as the campaign began in mid-April. That’s just a little better than a 10% success rate, or a 90% failure rate.

It could be argued that if the NDP lost the election, so did the political media, who might have done better if they did more reporting and less repeating. Throughout the campaign, members of the press gallery and the rest of the media were fixated on the polls, which formed the subtext of the entire election, instead of the issues, the campaign itself and, most importantly, the record of the government seeking our confidence in a new mandate.

Polls apart

But what about those opinion polls? Didn’t they all say the NDP was sure to win the election?

Well, we should all know by now that polls, in the age of cell phones and voter apathy, are predictably unreliable. Take two other provincial elections last year as examples. The polls were wrong in the Quebec election, predicting a PQ majority government (the result was a PQ minority, with the supposedly spent Liberals virtually tying the PQ in the popular vote and nearly winning re-election) and wrong again in the Alberta election, in which the upstart Wild Rose party was predicted to cruise to victory (instead the Conservatives cruised and the Wild Rose crashed).

Notice the commonality here with these two elections and the Liberal victory in BC? In all three cases, the party in power attracted much more support on election day than they did in the polls.

The conclusion is that opinion polls, mostly conducted months or weeks before the election, are about the past – the government’s record. Hypothetically, if I were to vote today, a month before the election, I would throw the bums out. Look at all those scandals and, hey, they hiked my Mom’s care home fee by 40%. But the actual election, those 30 seconds I spend alone in the voting booth, are about the future, my fears, my job, or the job I hope to have, which the government in power is promising. So let’s play it safe and throw the bums in. In a nutshell, how you would vote may be very different from how you do vote, or even if you vote.

If they’re so unreliable, why did the B.C. media give the polls so much credence leading up to and during the campaign? The only answer I can provide is laziness or a failure of motivation. It’s so easy to be handed the results of a poll and then slice and dice the numbers, get reaction from the parties, candidates and pundits, compare it to last week’s poll, rather than dig around for real campaign coverage and analysis. It’s great publicity for the polling companies, and it’s FREE! But as Christy Clark said as she licked her fingers after the election, you get what you pay for.

Would vs. Will

There are other psychological factors at play when the polls predict a victory for the NDP opposition. Some soft NDP supporters feel they don’t have to bother to vote — after all, it’s such a bother to draw two lines over a piece of paper to form an X. Others feel they can vote Green — sure, let’s have a Green MLA or two in a legislature dominated by the NDP government.

The absence of all those non-voters of every political persuasion or state of indecision is a major factor, especially since they form — and distort — part of the sample of respondents to opinion polls. “Here’s how I would vote,” they tell pollsters, but on election day, they don’t bother. In the early 1980s, the turnout of eligible voters in BC was in the 70% range, but in the 2009 and 2013 elections, it sank to the low 50s. The difference is 600,000 people in B.C. who would rather watch Duck Dynasty than choose which government decides trivial questions like how our children are educated, whether the doctor will be there when you have a heart attack, or what you’ll pay for hydro or even if BC Hydro will exist in the years to come.

Back in 1984, I commissioned and conducted a poll of the Victoria riding for Monday Magazine a few weeks before the federal election. As the results of our in-house poll came in, I felt a little guilty compiling the numbers and sharing them with readers. What right did I have to know the intention of the electorate before they voted? As it turned out, the poll — phoning and methodology supplied by UVic students — was almost a mirror image of the result on election day. In the 1980s, people still answered their phones, read newspapers (remember them?) and believed it was their civic duty to participate in the electoral system, by actually voting, and even telling nosy pollsters what party they supported.

So what happened between then and now? Here’s a partial list: mobile phones, electronic voice mail, call display, digital autodialing, privacy concerns, a disengaged, diminished media, and of course, the forementioned voter apathy and alienation.

These factors form high barriers between pollsters and potential voters. While you’re trying to reach me, I’m in the bar with my cell phone, and the land line you’re calling is out of order because I cancelled it last year. Or I check call display and don’t answer because I don’t know who you are — or because I do and don’t want to talk to you. Or I pick up the receiver, then hang up again during the telltale one-second delay while the auto-dialer in your calling system shuttles the call to a live pollster. Or you actually reach me, but no, I won’t tell you how I’m going to vote, because it’s none of your business, and who the hell are you anyway?

Other pollsters use robocalls or online polls, but the evidence is, these methods may be even less accurate than live calling.

The difficulty of reaching voters also seriously affects the political parties themselves, especially the NDP, which uses hundreds of volunteer callers at sweaty campaign phone banks calling for hours on end – and, in many cases, getting little usable data from voters. It seems like a terrible waste of time, but the callers are eager and unpaid, so at least it keeps them busy and gives them the illusion of helping the campaign.

So the misdirected campaign run by the supposedly poll-leading NDP was the fourth wobbly leg of the election footstool, already unbalanced by misleading polls, absentee voters and distracted media.

NDP campaign to blame too

Adrian Dix and the other brain trusters in the NDP backrooms decided they were going to redefine politics in B.C., from the stick-and-knife fight of the last century to a genteel garden tea party. The NDP would stay positive and refuse to stoop to the level of name-calling and mud-throwing of the nasty, supposedly desperate Liberals. Fine idea, except they never asked Christy Clark nor the rest of us if we approved.

So when the Liberals attacked Dix, often with lies and distortions, just as often he didn’t respond, nor did he exploit the government’s nasty scandals and disastrous mismanagement and policy flops (BC Hydro, BC Rail, HST, BC Ferries among others).

Just imagine telling your professional hockey team to refrain from body-checking because it’s not nice. You’d lose every game, until your players limped off the ice and quit.

And Dix utterly failed to articulate his own vision of government. The Liberals did it in a single word: Jobs (whether you believe them or not).

So just what did the NDP stand for? During the campaign, I scoured the websites of Victoria area NDP candidates like Carole James, Rob Fleming, Jessica Van der Veen. What local policies did they support — funding for the new Johnson Street bridge, approval or not for the highly controversial sewage treatment program (mandated by the Liberal government, but considered wasteful and misguided by many people in the capital)?

I found nothing about policy on these candidates’ pages, neither provincial nor local — a big goose egg. The message was vote for us just because. These websites are crucial, because a quick browse online is how many people make last-minute decisions these days about where to eat dinner, go on holidays, or pick the party that will run the province for the next four years.

The campaign, other than out-moded joe-jobs like door-knocking and phoning, was being managed by the heavy thinkers at party HQ in Burnaby, who gave the voters fuzzy messaging and the Liberals a pass on all their wrong-doing, failed policies and dubious promises. Like the navigator of the Queen of the North, they blithely ran into a reef and scuttled the ship.

And there the ship will remain until they find the courage to choose a capable new leader and conduct a thorough overhaul of party personnel and tactics aimed at running a party and campaign designed for the 21st century.

And the rest of us? We must learn to ignore the polls, demand more of our media and vote both for and against the parties running to form the government.

Sid Tafler is  has been a journalist in BC for 30 years. He is a former contributor and columnist for the Globe and Mail and editor of Monday Magazine.

Share
David Suzuki: Canada's environment needs constitutional protection

David Suzuki: Canada’s environment needs constitutional protection

Share
David Suzuki: Canada's environment needs constitutional protection
BC’s Great Bear Rainforest (photo: Ian McAllister/Pacific Wild)

Canada is blessed with some of the last vestiges of pristine nature on Earth – unbroken forests, coastlines and prairies, thousands of rivers, streams and lakes, open skies, abundant fresh air. Many of us live in urban areas, but our spectacular landscapes are embedded in our history and culture. They define and shape us as people.

We are also defined by our Constitution, which is far more than a set of legal prescriptions. It embodies our highest aspirations and values. As our nation’s top law, one would expect it to reflect our connection to the land, air, water and wildlife that keep us alive and healthy. Our Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives us freedom of expression, equal protection from discrimination and the right to life, liberty and security of the person. But it doesn’t mention the environment. How can we fully enjoy our freedoms without the right to live in a healthy environment?

Some provinces taking the lead

Some Canadians are further ahead than others. Quebec’s Environmental Quality Act and Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms both include environmental rights. Other provinces and territories – including Ontario, the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut – provide limited environmental rights. Worldwide, 110 countries enjoy constitutional rights to a healthy environment, and 181 of 193 UN member countries support recognition of such a right. Canada and the U.S. are among the exceptions.

Canada dead last in environmental protection

The sad truth is that Canada fares poorly among wealthy nations on environmental performance. A recent ranking by the Washington-based Center for Global Development puts Canada last of 27 industrialized nations. The Conference Board of Canada rated our country 15th out of 17 industrialized nations for standards on air pollution, climate change, water and other environmental factors. And the World Health Organization reports that 36,800 premature deaths a year and 13 per cent of illnesses and injuries in Canada are related to exposure to environmental hazards – costing us tens of billions a year in health-care expenses and lost productivity.

The benefits of constitutional protection of the environment are many and the drawbacks few. In places with such a right, people have legal avenues to protect them from activities that pollute the environment and put human health at risk.

Argentina’s constitution saves river, people

For example, Argentina’s constitutional environmental-rights protection was used in a case where industrial pollution was seriously affecting the health of people along the Matanza-Riachuelo River. After residents sued the national, provincial and municipal governments and 44 corporations, Argentina’s government established clean-up, restoration and regional environmental health plans. It has increased the number of environmental inspectors in the region from three to 250, and created 139 water, air and soil quality monitoring points. There’s still much to be done, but three new water-treatment plants and 11 new sewage-treatment plants mean millions of people now have access to clean water and sanitation. Many garbage dumps and polluting industries were shut down. And the local economy benefited.

France has environmental charter too

A legal right to a healthy environment is not about hamstringing corporations; it’s about ensuring they’re run responsibly and that people’s health and well-being come first. It’s also about ensuring laws are enforced and penalties imposed when they’re violated. The total amount of fines imposed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act from 1988 through 2010 (about $2.4 million) amounted to less than what the Toronto Public Library collected in overdue-book fines in one year, 2009 (about $2.7 million)! And it’s not a right-versus-left political issue. Jacques Chirac, France’s conservative president from 1995 to 2007, made constitutional recognition of the right to a healthy environment one of his priorities. More than 70,000 French citizens attended public hearings on the issue and France’s Charter for the Environment was later enacted with broad support from all political parties.

Environmental protections can strengthen economy

Evidence suggests that stronger environmental regulation spurs innovation and competitiveness, so the right to a healthy environment can benefit the economy. In the aftermath of the Walkerton disaster, Ontario strengthened its drinking-water legislation, which stimulated development and growth of the water-treatment technology sector. Countries with constitutional environmental protection, such as Norway, often enjoy high economic and environmental standards.

It won’t be easy to get the right to a healthy environment enshrined in Canada’s Constitution. But with public support and small steps along the way – such as encouraging legal protection from municipal, regional and provincial governments – we can make it happen.

With contributions from from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Share
Ex-Harper energy advisor slams Keystone XL pipeline promotion

Ex-Harper advisor slams Canada’s Keystone XL pipeline promotion

Share

Ex-Harper energy advisor slams Keystone XL pipeline promotion

WASHINGTON – A former Harper government appointee used a keynote speech at a Washington event Monday to trample Canadian authorities’ message on oil pipelines while describing the country as an environmental “rogue state.”

Mark Jaccard became one of the first people nominated by the Conservatives to the environmental file when he was named in 2006 to the federal government’s now-defunct National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

Seven years later, the environmental economist delivered a lengthy rebuke of Canada’s climate-change performance at Monday’s event while the Obama administration grapples with whether to approve the Alberta-U.S. pipeline.

Jaccard, an adviser to different governments and a professor at B.C.’s Simon Fraser University, said he doesn’t want the oilsands shut down — he just doesn’t want them to grow. Said Jaccard:

[quote]On climate, Canada is a rogue state. It’s accelerating the global tragedy … The U.S. government should reject Keystone XL and explain to the Canadian government that it hopes to join with Canada (on a global climate plan).[/quote]

That message stands in sharp contrast to that of the Canadian government, which has spent millions to publicize the benefits to both countries of developing the oilsands.

Jaccard was the headline speaker at a summit tied to a well-connected Democratic donor, the so-called “green billionaire” Tom Steyer, and attended by a number of U.S. media outlets.

Jaccard has become an increasingly bitter critic of the federal government. He was even arrested last year after joining a blockade on a train carrying U.S. coal from B.C.

His disenchantment with the Conservative government reached a boil after the 2011 election, Jaccard said in an interview after his speech.

He said he tried to work with the government — not only at the Round Table, but as an adviser to then-environment minister Rona Ambrose. But after the Conservatives won a majority in 2011, the rhetoric hardened, the Round Table vanished and it became clear they had no interest in tackling climate change, Jaccard said.

“In 2011, the gloves came off.”

In his career as an author, academic, and adviser to different governments since the Mulroney era, Jaccard also criticized the Liberals for a climate approach he still derides as a “labels-on-fridges-and-Rick-Mercer-ads” strategy to encourage behaviour changes.

More drastic policies are in order, he told his audience: greenhouse-gas emissions need to drop 50 to 75 per cent by 2050 to limit temperature growth to a 2C target — an impossible task with a growing oilpatch, Jaccard said.

The event, and the choice of location, were designed to arm-twist the Obama administration as it faces its Keystone dilemma.

It was held in Georgetown, where President Barack Obama delivered a speech in June saying Keystone would not be approved if it significantly increases greenhouse-gas emissions.

The title of the event was, “Can Keystone Pass The President’s Climate Test?” One speaker after another suggested that, no, Keystone cannot be approved without a significant increase in carbon pollution as a result.

In the hallways, the many Obama supporters speculated about when the long-awaited decision might come down. And some suggested they’ve become increasingly hopeful the project will be blocked, given Obama’s choice of words.

Former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm even allowed herself to daydream about what an eventual presidential rejection speech might sound like. A decision is expected in early 2014.

“I think he could deliver a speech that could give him a legacy he would be proud of,” Granholm, the event moderator, said from the stage.

Earlier, Steyer described Keystone as a logical investment for the oil industry that would drive up the value of Canadian oil and ramp up development — which is precisely why he believes it shouldn’t be allowed to proceed.

“(Keystone) is a literal and a figurative line in the sands,” Steyer said. “Keystone is the economic key to unlocking the tarsands and, as such, it fails the president’s test.”

The other side of the Keystone debate was not represented at the event. TransCanada boss Russ Girling (TSX:TRP) and Gary Doer, Canada’s ambassador to the U.S., both declined to attend.

Share
Taseko wants judicial review into Prosperity Mine's harsh assessment

Taseko wants judicial review into Prosperity Mine’s harsh assessment

Share
Taseko wants judicial review into Prosperity Mine's harsh assessment
Fish Lake, near the proposed “New Prosperity” Mine in BC

VANCOUVER – Taseko Mines Ltd. (TSX:TKO) has formally requested a judicial review of a critical environmental assessment for the proposed New Prosperity copper-gold mine in the B.C. Interior.

The company said Monday it has filed the request with the Federal Court in Vancouver to comply with a 30-day time limit.

Taseko has objected to parts of the assessment, saying the panel based its conclusions on faulty information — failing to account for a design feature intended to prevent seepage of contaminant material from a tailings storage facility. Said the company:

[quote]Taseko is asking the court for a declaration that certain panel findings relating to seepage and water quality be set aside, and that the panel failed in certain respects to comply with principles of procedural fairness[/quote]

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has said it is reviewing information provided by Taseko.

Last month, an agency panel released a report saying it didn’t believe Taseko’s design for the project could avoid contaminating nearby Fish Lake. The survival of the lake is at the centre of the dispute.

The assessment found the project would have “significant adverse environmental effects” on water quality, fish and fish habitat in the lake, on grizzly habitat and on First Nations traditional activities.

The final decision on allowing the mine to proceed is in the hands of federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq.

The review is a second attempt by the company to have the project approved.

The proposed mine has already been rejected once after an earlier assessment because the company proposed using the lake as the tailings pond.

“Taseko had no choice but to file this application in order to comply with a 30-day time limit,” Taseko president and CEO Russell Hallbauer said.

[quote]But we remain of the view that the federal government should allow the project to proceed to the next stage of detailed permit-level examination and if so the judicial review would not need to proceed.[/quote]

Share
Hydro rate shock powered by lies

BC Hydro rate shock powered by lies

Share
Hydro rate shock powered by lies
BC Energy Minister Bill Bennett

How do you know when a politician’s lying?

When you see his/her lips move.

Bill Bennett, the BC Hydro point man in the government, tells us that there will be a 28% increase in Hydro charges over the next few years, which NDP critic John Horgan says will raise a family’s costs by $300 dollars annually.

The NDP sent out a fundraising plea last week “to fund our work to protect British Columbians from these gigant rate hikes.” Simply campaigning to kill the increases without getting to the root of the matter will do nothing to solve the problem long-term, as our independent economist Erik Andersen has explained in these pages.

Mr. Bennett didn’t tell the whole truth about the need for this rate increase and Horgan, who talks about the obvious impact this will have on families, doesn’t seem to want to go to root of the matter. I will get to that in a moment. First, an obvious question which doesn’t get raised much if at all.

Bleeding Hydro still pays dividends to Liberal Govt

With all its financial woes, BC Hydro still pays a dividend to the government. How can a corporation bleeding to death financially pay a dividend?

The answer is – are you ready for this? – The cost is passed onto us, the beleaguered ratepayer/taxpayer. What is happening is simple – the government takes the dividend that can only be paid by a Hydro rate increase. So, the government steals from our pocket then makes up the theft by raising rates!

The real reason for Hydro’s financial woes

Let me spell it out – these hikes have very little to do with upgrades and everything to do with rank fraud perpetuated by the Campbell/Clark government and placed on the shoulders of BC Hydro, then passed on to us!

Let me pause for a moment to observe that this sleight of hand is indeed happening and raise Mair’s Axiom I to the forefront: “You make a serious mistake in thinking that those in charge know what the hell they’re doing.”

Now the grand theft, entirely unmentioned by the mainstream media.

Here’s the skinny. In 2003 the Campbell government took away BC Hydro’s right to generate any new energy (except Site “C”) and all new energy must be created by private power companies.

(As we go on here, remember Mair’s Axiom I.)

For the most part, private companies – the so-called “run of river” projects – produce the majority of their power during the Spring run-off, just when Hydro has full reservoirs and has no need of private energy.

Well, then, I guess BC Hydro simply doesn’t buy energy from these companies, right?

Wrong! And remember Mair’s Axiom I as we proceed.

BC’s private power sham

These private companies have “take or pay clauses”, which means that Hydro must pay for this unwanted and unneeded energy!

Ah! You say, Hydro would be able to get this power cheaply, right?

Wrong. Remember Axiom I – they must pay 2-3 times the market price and about 10x what they can make it for themselves!

What are the consequences from this for Hydro?

Over the next 20-40 years they will have to shell out over $50 BILLION dollars to these private companies, somewhere between $1.5 and $2 BILLION per year for power that don’t need and must pay at least double its worth. Note, that these private contracts, by all accounts, are indexed to increase over time, so that they are protected from the marketplace.

Now the scandals: Bill Bennett is shielding this $50 BILLION from his reasons for Hydro increases – and for reasons I can’t fathom, the NDP critic, John Horgan, isn’t talking about it.

“You make a big mistake…”

Share