Tag Archives: featured

Germany shows a thriving green economy is possible

November 29, 2013Energy and Resources, RenewablesfeaturedWill Dubitsky

When Prime Minister Harper is challenged on his environmental record, one of his standard replies is that between economic development and sustainable development, he must give priority to the economy. While it suits Harper’s ideological agenda to imply that economic and environmental objectives are opposing forces, the facts suggest otherwise.

[quote]In 2011, there were 372,000 people working in the nation’s clean energy sectors and the projections are such that these numbers are expected to be in the 400,000 to 500,000 range by 2020.[/quote]

Canada falling far behing world leaders like Germany

Indeed, as indicated in my previous Common Sense Canadian articles, the clean technology sectors are among the world’s fastest-growing and highest job-creating sectors of our times. Unfortunately, each year of Conservative rule represents a rapidly expanding green jobs gap between Canada and its competitors.

Among nation-specific models that disprove the Harper economic paradigm – to the effect that a natural resource-based economy is the best vehicle for prosperity – Germany is a case in point. That is, Germany, while rising to become one of the globe’s strongest national economies, reduced its emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by 2012, thus exceeding its Kyoto Protocol commitment to reduce its emissions by 21% below 1990 levels for the 2008 to 2012 period.

This is an especially remarkable achievement in light of the economic troubles in much of Europe and in the world at-large.

Components of the German Success Story

This German success story is a result of numerous factors – one might say a holistic approach.

One of the important pillars of this success story is the 2001 German Renewable Energy Act, which introduced the concept of a Feed-in-tariff (FIT) and right to connect (RTC) formula to the world – a concept entailing: 1) the paying of above-market rates for renewable energy sources over a specified time period, combined with 2) a requirement that all sources of renewable energy production within a given utility’s region must be connected to, and given priority within, the network.

This concept makes sense economically in that all new sources of energy cost more than existing sources that were developed some time ago and may be fully paid for. Over time, the plan calls for a reduction of FIT rates for new renewable power entries to the grid, thus providing incentives for manufactures to invest in innovation to lower costs.

Attesting to the success of the formula is the fact that the German model has since been emulated by 19 of the 27 EU states and 40 jurisdictions around the globe, including China. Up until recently, Ontario offered such a system.

Community ownership of renewable energy

The success synergies resulting from the aforementioned FIT/RTC model and the rapid uptake of renewables also comprise attractive terms of engagement for community and individual ownership of renewable energy production. To this effect, in 2013, 50% of the entire Germany production of renewables is owned by individuals, communities and cooperatives – with the sources ranging from home rooftop solar panels to wind power and biogas production on agricultural land. With regard to the latter point, farmers account for 11% of total German renewable production.

In effect, the individual homeowner uptake has been so successful that a March, 2013 survey showed 60% of homeowners are considering adding rooftop solar for heating or electricity generation.

An equally significant symptom of success is the fact that in May, 2013, a €50m ($66.5M) program was introduced for power-storage systems for owners of small and medium-sized PV solar installations in order to kick-start the storage sector and take pressure off grids. This has become necessary because grids are increasingly struggling with rising amounts of homemade renewable energy flooding the system at midday, creating an imbalance in supply and demand and having a distorting effect on the market.

As for the role of the utilities in the clean energy high-local-ownership landscape, only 13.5% of the nation’s renewable power is produced by Germany’s 4 major utilities and regional and municipal utilities.

Few countries have outdone Germany on this score, other than Denmark, where 83% of the renewable power sources are owned by individuals and communities.

Perhaps the most significant bottom line success of the German approach is the job numbers – once more demonstrating that the Harper economic paradigm is dated. In 2011, there were 372,000 people working in the nation’s clean energy sectors and the projections are such that these numbers are expected to be in the 400,000 to 500,000 range by 2020.

Fukushima accelerates migration to renewables

A major acceleration force for the German migration to a green economy was the Fukushima meltdown in 2011, the German Energiewende (the energy transition). The program saw 8 of its oldest nuclear power plants shut down immediately after the disaster struck and includes plans for the shutting down of the remaining 9 plants by 2022.

As for filling the gaps left by the remaining planned shutdowns, a study by engineering form BEW concluded that onshore wind could replace all nuclear plants, with backup from other renewable sources.

Offshore wind a key component of Germany’s energy future

Accordingly, among other things, the new Energiewende package comprised: 1) an increase in the Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) for offshore wind; 2) a commitment from kfw, the state development bank, for $7.2B of investments in offshore wind development, and 3) a plan to cut electricity consumption by 10% by 2020.

To be eligible for the premium for offshore wind, originally, Energiewende projects were to be completed by 2017, but given delays in the construction of the underwater offshore TenneT cable and 30 year project lifecycles, the offshore wind industry’s lobbying efforts were rewarded by the newly re-elected Merkel-led government with a November 2013 decision to extend the completion date requirement to the end of 2019.

Germany aims for 80% emissions reduction by 2050

On longer-term Energiewende objectives, the 2050 goal is ambitious, calling for a reduction of emissions by 80% with 80% of its electricity derived from renewable sources by then. Not bad considering that only 23% of the nation’s electricity was attributable to renewables in 2012. Interim renewable electricity targets are set at 35% by 2020 and 50% by 2030.

With there being a strong renewables lobby in the country – unlike Canada, where the fossil fuel industry plays a dominant role – the German renewable industry is exercising its clout to suggest a 47% renewables target for 2020.

In this regard, the results of the September, 2013 German federal elections may in fact mean that the interim goals could become more stringent because: 1) Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU) are forming a coalition with the Social Democrats (SPD); and 2) the SPD had campaigned for a 40-45% target for renewable electricity sources by 2020 and 75% for 2030. The SPD campaign also included a 25% target by 2020 for co-generation, the combining of heat and power generation.

Clearly, the Energiewende will be high on the political agenda because it was a component of the Merkel election platform.

Shift away from Nuclear still not fast enough, most Germans say

Notwithstanding the impressive speed of the energy transition away from nuclear, for much of the German public, the abandoning of nuclear power is not going fast enough. A March, 2013 poll by Infratest Dimap showed that 57% of Germans believe the shift away from nuclear is going too slowly, while only 30% feel it’s advancing too fast.

This same poll also illustrated another big difference between the energy and climate change debates in Germany versus Canada. The poll had 39% indicating that environmental protection should be among the main criteria for political decisions.

Lastly, consistent with the Energiewende goals, Germany will be building 4,400km of new transmission lines by 2022, the year of the shutdown of all of the remaining nuclear plants. This includes connecting offshore wind resources in the North and Baltic Seas.

Clean Energy vs. Fossil Fuels for electrical power: the economics

Contrary to appearances, the premium rate for renewables does not involve subsidies, as the costs are passed on to consumers. As one would expect, the German fossil fuel industry has complained that the surcharge to consumers for renewables gives renewables an unfair competitive advantage in the marketplace.

But a Greenpeace study showed that the exact opposite is true. Specifically, while renewables received €17B ($22.7B) in aid via the surcharge in 2012, the fossil and nuclear sectors actually represented a staggering €40B ($54B) in hidden costs. The hidden costs are composed of direct state aid and tax breaks, as well as external damage costs associated with climate change impacts and costs resulting from nuclear accidents – all of which are borne by taxpayers. But – unlike the renewables surcharge – these costs don’t appear on electricity bills and aren’t transparent. If these hidden costs were slapped on electricity bills, consumers would be burdened with a surcharge of €0.102/kWh (14₵/kWh).

Wind, solar now close to on par with fossil fuel costs

Based on these calculations, currently wind, solar and hydro are the cheapest sources of electrical supply. According to a Nov, 2013 Fraunhofer ISE study, with innovation driving down production costs, actual costs for wind are now lower than coal and gas. Solar production costs are still higher than fossil sources but the ratio is expected to favour solar by 2030.

More generally, the impact of the German energy model on the country’s electricity mix has been that of pushing of gas-fired plants out of the market, and the lowering of load factors for both coal and gas-fired plants, expected to decline to 33% by 2015.

Taking into account the popularity of the German model throughout Europe and the influence of the European cap-and-trade scheme – The European Trading System (ETS – cap and trade system) – E.ON, one of Germany’s largest utilities, indicated it may close 11 gigawatts (GW) of fossil fuel capacity across Europe by 2015. In July 2013, EnBW, another German utility, announced plans to mothball 668 megawatts (MW) of fossil fuel production, involving 4 power facilities.

Lessons for Canada from Germany, European Cap and Trade

Germany’s achievements mean that it will be one of the most, if not the most, important contributor to achieving the EU-wide aggregated goal for a 20% reduction in GHG’s by 2020. (Note: to achieve the EU goal, member states have also taken on nation-specific targets related to national wealth for GHGs not covered by the EU ETS, such as the housing, agriculture, waste and transport sectors – sectors representing 60% of total EU emissions).

As Canadians contemplate the possibility of adopting some cap-and-trade scheme like Europe’s ETS, it is worth considering: 1) The degree to which the ETS has helped put EU nations on track for meeting their respective Kyoto targets; 2) the fact that it has become less influential in reducing carbon as the price of carbon has dropped considerably in recent years. Indeed the price of carbon declined from €13.09/tonne in 2010 to a new record low of €2.63/tonne in April 2013.

The European Commission has recommended backloading 900 carbon credits – that is temporarily removing them from the market. In July 2013, the European Parliament approved the measure, which now must be ratified by the European Energy Ministers.

For Germany’s part, the backloading details will largely be a funtion of the outcome of coalition government negotiations. The CDU wants backloading to be an integral part of a long term plan, while the SPD wants a onetime one-of solution.

Accordingly, the lesson for Canada here is that any cap and trade system that Canada sets up should include a mechanism for annual reviews of the supply and demand for emission credits to ensure no oversupply occurs that can drive down the price of credits.

As well, for select sectors which may have difficulty in complying with Canada’s cap-and-trade scheme, a loan guarantee program – with a maximum of one-loan/firm – may be in order.

Harper government spending $40 million to clean up Tar Sands’ image

November 28, 2013Energy and Resources, International, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Tar SandsfeaturedCanadian Press

Harper government spending $40 million to improve Tar Sands image — Stephen Harper is trying hard to convince other nations not to shun Tar Sands bitumen (Adrian Wyld/CP)

by Bruce Cheadle

OTTAWA – The Conservative government is spending $40 million this year to advertise Canada’s natural resource sector — principally oil and gas — at home and abroad.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver revealed the figure Wednesday as his department seeks another $12.9 million to augment an international campaign designed to portray Canada as a stable and environmentally responsible source of energy.

That will bring NRCan’s 2013-14 ad budget to about $40 million — $24 million for advertising abroad and $16.5 million for the domestic market.

“The government has a responsibility to provide Canadians with facts to assist them in making informed decisions,” Oliver, under opposition questioning, told a Commons committee.

[quote]This engagement and outreach campaign will raise awareness in key international markets that Canada is an environmentally responsible and reliable supplier of natural resources.[/quote]

The entire federal government advertising budget last year was about $65 million, according to preliminary estimates, with $9 million allotted for Natural Resources.

In 2010-11, NRCan spent just $237,000 on advertising, according to the government figures.

Outside the committee room, Oliver justified the spending by linking it directly to winning over American public opinion in order to get approval of TransCanada’s controversial Keystone XL pipeline. The $5.4-billion project to carry Alberta bitumen to the Gulf Coast has become a lightning rod for environmental activists as it awaits a decision from U.S. President Barack Obama. Said Oliver:

[quote]Let’s understand what is at stake here,” Oliver said. “When we’re looking at Keystone, for example, we’re talking about tens of thousands of jobs.[/quote]

Asked to justify ad spending for one industrial sector that’s swallowing up almost two thirds of last year’s total government ad budget, Oliver was emphatic: “You justify it by what it’s going to achieve and there are billions, tens of billions of dollars, in play.”

Peter Julian, the NDP natural resources critic who teased out the ad spending at the committee, isn’t buying the government rationale.

“I don’t see how the Harper government can justify spending tens of millions of taxpayers’ money to do something that the private sector could choose to do,” Julian said after the hearing.

The New Democrat said the ads won’t work because the Conservatives, through their policy choices, have “killed the possibility of social licence” — getting public buy-in, essentially — for major resource projects.

He said that by slashing environmental assessments and limiting “meaningful public consultation” on pipeline proposals, the government has sparked a public backlash.

The backlash, Julian asserted, is “worldwide. Canada has a black eye. There’s no doubt.”

He cited the Obama administration, which has openly urged Canada to up its environmental game, and the European Union, which is targeting higher emissions from oilsands production.

Rather than millions on ads, said Julian, “the way the Harper government can start to gain back the social licence is by starting to make better decisions on the environment, on the economy and on the whole process of approving these new projects.”

To that end, the government is making an effort to establish a baseline of research on cutting edge oilsands technology.

Natural Resources has asked a panel of experts to help catalogue and chart a way forward for technologies that can help reduce the environmental footprint of oilsands development.

Oliver has asked the Council of Canadian Academies to turn its gaze on new and emerging technologies for extracting bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands.

A 13-member panel will study what’s currently working and has been asked to identify economic and regulatory hurdles that slow the spread of the most promising technologies.

“There’s a lot of rhetoric, there’s a lot of exaggeration,” Oliver said of the study.

[quote]People can come to different conclusions based on the facts, but let’s start all together. We should all start with the facts.[/quote]

The council was created in 2005 with a 10-year, $30-million government grant and is designed to provide peer-reviewed, science-based assessments to help inform public policy.

Canada is not on track to reach its international pledges for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020, but the Conservative government has frequently held out hope that technological breakthroughs will alter that trajectory.

A spokeswoman for the academy, a not-for-profit corporation, says expert panels typically take between 18 and 24 months to report and do not make policy recommendations — but instead provide a base of solid evidence to use in the policy mix.

The panel is to be co-chaired by Eric Newell, the former CEO of Syncrude Canada, and by the head of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Scott Vaughan.

MLA, Mayor turn up heat on Fraser River jet fuel, tanker plan

November 27, 2013Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedDamien Gillis

MLA, Mayor turn up heat on Fraser River jet fuel, tanker plan — Fisheries expert Otto Langer and MLA Vicki Huntington take on Fraser River jet fuel plan (Tanya Zboya)

A group of BC politicians and community leaders held an emergency meeting yesterday near the mouth of the Fraser River, in the Richmond community of Steveston, to voice their concerns about the plan to build a jet fuel terminal, tank farm and pipeline on the banks of Canada’s largest salmon river.

Independent MLA for nearby riding Delta South, Vicki Huntington, a vocal critic of the project in the Legislature, was joined by Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie, retired DFO scientist Otto Langer, and the community group VAPOR in a final plea for the B.C. government to reject the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project.

Fraser River jet fuel project would mean tankers in salmon river

The B.C. Environmental Assessment Office has been reviewing a $100 million proposal by the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (VAFFC) to build an 80-million-litre fuel terminal and tank farm on the South Arm of the Fraser River in Richmond and run a 15-kilometre pipeline to Vancouver International Airport. A decision is expected soon from the Ministry of Environment. Critics of the jet fuel project are concerned about the consequences of a spill in critical salmon habitat and health risks to residents.

Said Brodie at the Tuesday press conference, “These are tankers that are 950 feet in length — that’s like three football fields long.”

[quote]They’re going to be loaded with jet fuel. They’re going to be regularly coming up the river, introducing an unnecessary risk to the people and to the city of Richmond.[/quote]

The new project would supplement or replace a current pipeline from Chevron’s Burrard Inlet refinery and the use of tanker trucks. Chevron has seen its crude supply from the Trans Mountain Pipeline dwindle as owner Kinder Morgan moves to export more and more of its Alberta oil to other markets – something Chevron complained about to the National Energy Board last year.

The irony is that YVR is now seeking to import jet fuel from Asia, while Kinder Morgan exports unrefined oil to foreign markets.

Decision expected soon

A decision on the project, which has stalled at various points over the past several years, is expected from BC Liberal Environment Minister Mary Polak by December 24. Huntington and other critics say alternatives to the plan have not been properly explored. Huntington charges:

[quote]Unfortunately, our rubber-stamp EAO process has presented the Environment Minister with a Faustian bargain: By Christmas she must decide whether to trade catastrophic environmental risk for tanker access to the Asia-Pacific jet fuel markets.[/quote]

The terminal, tank farm and pipeline would directly impact the local community, posing health risks and “introducing catastrophic risk to the globally-recognized Fraser River estuary,” says Huntington.

After several delays following its 2011 introduction, the proposal cleared a major hurdle with the October release of a pair of reports by the Ministry of Environment, outlining best practices and industry standards and presenting the province’s marine spill response framework.

“The marine report is already in the news for raising red flags about B.C.’s spill response capacity,” says Huntington.

[quote]Yet even if B.C. surpasses world-class standards, our government knows no procedure in the galaxy could fully contain a large jet fuel spill in heart of the fragile Fraser River estuary. It would be a disaster…Just one gallon of jet fuel can spread up to 300 feet on the water’s surface. The Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project would feature Panamax-class fuel tankers carrying over 10,000 gallons of fuel.[/quote]

A pipeline or terminal incident would also threaten vital habitat from 5 million migratory birds on the Pacific Flyway, Huntington notes.

A jet fuel spill in the Slocan Valley this summer served to heighten concerns about the risks of this proposal for the Fraser.

Greenpeace Arctic 30 arrests yet another attack on enviros

November 27, 2013Energy and Resources, Oil&GasfeaturedDr. David Suzuki

Greenpeace Arctic 30 arrests another attempt to silence environmentalists — Friends of the Earth-UK shows its solidarity with the Arctic 30

Early November marked the 18th anniversary of the tragic murder of outspoken writer and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight colleagues by the Nigerian government. Saro-Wiwa and the others had waged a long campaign to stop multinational oil company Royal Dutch Shell from drilling in the lands of the Ogoni people in the Niger delta.

Nigerian military harassed and intimidated members of the Ogoni community for years because they opposed Shell’s drilling program. Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues defended their communities and local environment from a notoriously toxic industry. In November 1995, a special court established by the military government illegally detained and tried them on spurious charges. Convicted without due process, they were executed 10 days later, despite enormous international outcry.

700 activists murdered over past decade

Sadly, this is not an isolated occurrence. A recent report by human rights organization Global Witness documents the murders of more than 700 environmental and indigenous-rights activists over the past decade – more than one killing a week, on average. They reviewed databases, academic studies and news reports, and consulted with the United Nations and other international agencies. They found citizens are often harassed, intimidated, beaten up, sexually assaulted and sometimes killed for opposing endangered wildlife poaching, illegal logging, dams and activities of foreign mining companies – including some Canadian firms.

I experienced this reality in 1988 when we interviewed rubber tapper Chico Mendes about his battle to save the Amazon rainforest in Brazil for The Nature of Things. He was assassinated two weeks later. The following year, Kaiapo Chief Paiakan asked me to help stop a dam proposed for Altamira, Brazil. My wife, Tara, and I helped raise $70,000 for a demonstration, and the World Bank was persuaded to withdraw its project loan. Paiakan was then subjected to death threats. We brought him and his family to Vancouver until the danger subsided.

Most attacks occur under democratically elected governments

Many instances of persecution and killing have occurred in countries with atrocious human rights records, such as Sri Lanka, Guatemala and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Yet surprisingly, most attacks on environmentalists have been in countries such as Brazil, Mexico and the Philippines, with democratically elected governments, independent judiciaries and other institutions intended to protect their citizens’ rights to voice concerns about the environment without facing harassment, intimidation and violence. These countries have also signed international agreements to protect human rights, like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Arctic 30 confronted Gazprom’s drilling plans

As the recent incarceration of 28 Greenpeace activists and two freelance journalists by Russian authorities clearly demonstrates, human rights are vulnerable at a time when governments aggressively promote the interests of corporations over a healthy environment, and are willing to use heavy-handed tactics to ensure people who disagree don’t stand in the way.

In this latest case, Russian special operations forces arrested the Greenpeace International activists, including two Canadians, Alexandre Paul and Paul Ruzycki, for attempting to hang a banner off the side of an oil rig in Arctic waters. They were peacefully protesting Russian company Gazprom’s plans to drill for oil in one of the most ecologically sensitive regions of the planet, and raising awareness of the consequences of climate change. For speaking out in defence of the Arctic, they were imprisoned for two months under difficult conditions and all but one were only recently released on bail. They now face the possibility of long, harsh jail sentences if found guilty on trumped-up charges of piracy and hooliganism.

Canada silent on Arctic 30 – including two Canadians

Although leaders of the Netherlands, Brazil and Germany called for release of their nationals and other members of the “Arctic 30”, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird have so far been silent. You can sign letters at Greenpeace.ca asking Baird to bring the Canadians home and Greenpeace.org asking Russian embassies to urge their government to drop the charges.

Too often, governments are quick to use excessive force and even pervert the course of justice to keep oil and gas flowing, forests logged, wild rivers dammed and minerals extracted. As the Global Witness study reveals, citizens are often killed, too – especially if they’re poor and indigenous.

We must remember the sacrifices of Ken Saro-Wiwa, Chico Mendes and hundreds of other advocates and defend people’s rights to peacefully speak out for the environment, without fear of intimidation, arrest and violence.

With contributions from from David Suzuki Foundation Ontario and Northern Canada Director-General Faisal Moola.

Former Agriculture Minister Corky Evans: Time to speak up for ALR

November 24, 2013Farmland and Food Security, FoodfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

Former Agriculture Minister Corky Evans: Time to speak up for the ALR — The days of the family farm are numbered if we don’t act to protect BC’s ALR now, says ex-Minister Corky Evans

by Corky Evans

Imagine that you might, someday, want to farm for a living. Or imagine your kids might want to farm, or your grandkids. All over the world such dreams become harder and harder to achieve as land capable of supporting crops is paved over for roads or built into shopping centers or houses or is used for industry.

In B.C. during the 1960’s and early 70’s, we lost 6,000 acres of farmland every year to subdivisions and other non-farm activities. In 1972 there was a provincial election and farmers came together to ask all of the parties to do something about the preservation of farmland before it was all gone. Every party responded to those concerns by talking about various solutions they might enact should they win the election.

Farm protection grows with birth of Agricultural Land Reserve

In 1973 the new Government created the Agricultural Land Reserve to protect land capable of producing food. The new law was tough, and owners of land who wanted the right to sell it for subdivision or some other use were surprised and angry. Surprised because such zoning laws are rare in the whole world, and angry because if they ever decided to stop farming, they would only be able to sell their land as farmland (not to developers from whom they could make much more money).

But the people of B.C. liked the idea of protecting farmland and, surprisingly, the law has remained on the books and functioning for four decades. Thus, if you or your kids or your grandkids want to farm someday, or if you want to be able to buy food from people who live and farm near you, B.C. is a good place to live to make those dreams come true.

Tough road to hoe for Commission

The outfit responsible for supervising the Agricultural Land Reserve is called the Agricultural Land Commission and it is a group of people appointed by whoever is the Government of the day. They have the very hard job of receiving applications from owners of farmland for various uses and deciding what is good for the protection of farming and what is not.

Back in the late 1990’s I was honoured to be the Minister of Agriculture. My friend John van Dongen was the Opposition Critic of Agriculture for the Liberal Party.

One day John rose in the Legislature and accused me of Conflict of Interest in a case being considered by the Agricultural Land Commission. Conflict is a serious charge. A Minister can, and should, lose their job if they are guilty of Conflict. Even just the accusation of Conflict implies the possibility of a serious breach.

I could tell from John’s expression as he raised the issue that he didn’t believe his claim to be true. And I knew it wasn’t true and, later, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner would research the charge and find it was wasn’t true.

While I was not, legally, guilty of wrongdoing or Conflict, John’s accusation was, nevertheless, justified. My point is that the relationship between any Government of British Columbia and the Agricultural Land Commission is always fraught with difficulty. Provincial Ministers charged with representing the interests of the Crown are, under any administration, frequently skating on the edge of real Conflict in their dealings with the Commission.

But it cannot be otherwise. The Agricultural Land Commission is charged with doing the work of the Angels in protecting land capable of producing food from development. Conversely, the Government of the Province is charged with doing the work of the Devil in trying to make development happen in order to sustain an economy and employ people and get themselves re-elected. The interests of the two are at odds with each other even in times when the Government of the day is supportive of the Agricultural Land Reserve in principle.

BC’s ALR a world-renowned model for food security

I live and produce food on land that I purchased prior to the creation of the ALR and still own. I love the Agricultural Land Reserve and hugely admire the politicians who had the guts and the foresight to put it into law so many decades ago.

When I had the honour to serve as Minister of Agriculture of B.C. I received separate visits from farmers from Ontario, Alberta, Tennessee and New Mexico who traveled all the way to our Province to ask our advice. They all wanted to know how they might develop a similar law to protect their livelihood, threatened as it was by various forms of encroachment into farmland by other interests.

In every case I had to tell them that I did not know how they could enact such legislation in the face of modern pressures that would oppose them.

I also told them that if they could achieve sufficient political will to consider such legislation we would, of course, assist them in any way we could to write or to debate such legislation. But, I said, sufficient political will in this day and age was hard to imagine. If we hadn’t seen fit to pass the law protecting farmland in 1973 there is no way we could manage to do so now.

Right-wing think tank plants seeds of ALR’s demise

Such is the debt that we, British Columbians, owe to those who made the ALR in the 1970’s. It was possible then to consider such a vision, policy and law. It is almost unfathomable today to imagine a government, anywhere, achieving a similar objective.

A few years ago, a B.C. organization that speaks for corporatist values, the Fraser Institute, commissioned a report calling for an end to the Agricultural Land Reserve. The report disparages both Canadian farmers and consumers of food who desire to purchase food produced locally. The report is online and it is worth reading to understand that your dreams or your values may run counter to those of some people with a great deal of power in our society (download full report).

Following the publication of that 2009 report, we had an election in B.C. While the issue of the future of the Agricultural Land Reserve was not an issue in the election, the Government that won the election appears to have decided to support the ideas of the Fraser Institute.

Time to speak up for agricultural land

That is why it is time for all of the people in the province who produce or eat food to rise up and defend the Agricultural Land Reserve. If we weaken it now, it will die.

Although the Land Reserve may have been visionary and, therefore, hard for some people to accept way back in 1973, I think it’s time may have finally come. Everywhere I go people are beginning to talk about food and the quality of food and where it comes from and how it is produced. Young people, for pretty much the first time in my 65 years, are talking about wanting to learn to farm for a living. Village, town and city people are often even more interested in food issues than my neighbours in the rural area.

This might be the moment when both urban and rural people could build a coalition of consumers and producers to defend farmland and support farmers that would define public policy in B.C. for decades to come.

An issue of values

At this moment in history, when everyone from the Fraser Institute to the Provincial Government seems to want to do away with the ALR, or manipulate it to serve their interest, the situation reminds me of that line we hear at weddings, the one that says “Speak now or forever hold your peace.”

This is not a partisan issue. New Democrats wrote the law in 1973. It was sustained by Socreds for a quarter century. When John van Dongen rose to defend the Commission in the 90’s, he was a Liberal. I know lots of farmers and discerning consumers who vote Green. One of the strongest voices in defence of the ALR in the Legislature, Vicki Huntington, is an Independent. This issue isn’t about your politics, it is about your values. Either your values, or those of the Fraser Institute.

Let’s choose to speak. Loud and from everywhere, with no urban/rural difference, in support of the Agricultural Land Reserve and in support of the producers who work that land.

What you can do

And if you are moved to speak I have thoughts about how you might go about it. First, send this or some writing of your own to everyone you know who eats, gardens or farms to let them know what’s happening.

Second, take an old-fashioned pen and some paper and write your thoughts in a letter to the Premier of British Columbia. Your own thoughts. Do not bother with the Ministers whose names have been attached to this issue. Ministers are supposed to try “trial balloons” to see if they are accepted by the public. They will not be the ones who decide whether or not to mess with the Land Reserve. The Premier will make that call. Do not bother sending her an e-mail. E-mails do not make a stack on anybody’s desk. E-mails are not given the weight of a letter that you write yourself. A big stack of letters will not go unnoticed.

This issue will be resolved, one way or another, by the spring. Now is the time to choose to speak.

Corky Evans is a retired BC NDP MLA for Nelson-Creston and provincial agriculture minister.

First Nation in Ontario’s ‘Chemical Valley’ affected by pollutants

November 24, 2013First Nations, Health and EnvironmentfeaturedDamien Gillis

A new study is drawing attention to the health problems being faced by a First Nations community living near one of Canada’s most industrialized areas.

Members of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation living on a reserve near Sarnia, Ont., have long suspected harmful chemicals were behind an unusually low male birth rate and slew of other reported health issues.

Now, tests performed by a McGill University professor suggest mothers and children are being exposed to higher-than-average levels of harmful hormone-blocking pollutants.

While the study doesn’t prove that the pollutants are to blame for earlier research that found baby girls outnumbered boys by a two-to-one ratio in the community, it does suggest a possible link.

Chemical Valley

The reserve at the centre of the study is located near a patch of southern Ontario that some environmental activists call “chemical valley.”

There are 60 industrial facilities found within a 25 kilometre radius of Aamjiwnaang lands.

“It’s the first study to really show that mothers and children in the area are exposed to a number of pollutants,” said Niladri Basu, a McGill professor and the study’s lead author.

More detailed research is needed to establish a connection between pollutants, health risks and the surrounding environment, Basu said.

Residents of Aamjiwnaang have been calling for such a study for years, though a lack of funding continues to impede more detailed research.

The Bucket Brigade

Ada Lockridge, who helped found Aamjiwnaang’s environmental committee, said pollution is a fact of life for the reserve’s roughly 800 residents.

Like others in the community, Lockridge keeps a special plastic bucket — as part of a group known as the “bucket brigade” — to collect environmental samples that can be tested for toxins whenever the air seems especially poor. The results are sent to a U.S.-based monitoring organization.

“It’s a beautiful place, but there is all kinds of industry close by,” she said.

According to Lockridge, the evidence continues to mount in favour of stricter environmental controls in the area.

“Everything we do gets us a little further, but it’s moving very slowly,” she said.

[quote]Every study we’ve ever done, people say, ‘this is cause for concern,’ but more studies need to be done.[/quote]

Sarnia home to 40% of Canada’s chemical industry

Approximately 40 per cent of Canada’s chemical industry is clustered in the area, according to a 2007 report by the Canadian environmental group Ecojustice.

Located at the southernmost tip of Lake Huron on the border between Ontario and Michigan, activists say the area has become one of Canada’s pollution hot spots — lined with chemical plants, manufacturing plants, and refineries.

Miscarriages and asthma

A 2006 community survey by Aamjiwnaang’s environment committee cited a number of health issues, including miscarriages, chronic headaches and asthma. Forty per cent of band members surveyed required an inhaler.

Elaine MacDonald, a scientist who co-authored the 2007 Ecojustice report, is hopeful Basu’s study will encourage further research.

As it stands, it’s difficult to draw a direct correlation between pollutants and health issues such as the low male birth rate.

“This is a start, and it’s a great start, but to me there’s so much that needs to be done, and there’s no money,” she said.

More studies needed, but government money hard to come by

MacDonald said it’s been difficult to get government funding at both the federal and provincial level. A more comprehensive study that includes the surrounding area, Lambton County, has stalled due to lack of funding. Said MacDonald:

[quote]The major exposures in this community are via air, so I would like to see a study focusing on air pollutants.[/quote]

Higher exposures to cadmium, mercury, PCBs

For the recent McGill study, 43 mother-child pairs from the community were tested for environmental pollutants. Blood, urine and hair samples were taken from those who participated.

Exposures were higher-than-average for chemicals such as cadmium, possibly mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs.

Potential sources of the chemicals are industry, the general environment, and the home. It’s not conclusive which is to blame in this case.

PCBs are used in industrial applications such as coolants in transformers and motors and have been largely banned, although they can remain in the environment for years.

Previous studies of other populations have linked exposure to PCBs with low male birth rates.

Aamjiwnaang’s low male birth rate was documented in research published in the U.S. journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

Between 1999 and 2003, the sex ratio of girls to boys was roughly 33 per cent for boys and 67 per cent for girls.

Atlantic Canada faces climate consequences for our energy choices

November 24, 2013Climate Change, Climate SciencefeaturedDr. David Suzuki

Atlantic Canada faces climate consequences for our energy choices — Hurricane Earl strikes Peggys Cove, Nova Scotia, in 2010. (Andrew Vaughan/CP)

David Suzuki Foundation supporters who live in Western Canada often have eyes riveted on Ottawa to see what the federal government’s next move will be when it comes to environmental issues. So we sometimes too easily overlook Canadians in the Maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador – coastal regions, like ours, on the front lines of climate change.

As oceans warm, water expands and sea levels rise. Melting glaciers, icebergs and ice sheets add to the water volume. Scientists predict oceans could rise by more than a metre before the end of the century. They’re also increasingly convinced that escalating carbon emissions are linked to the risk of extreme weather events and intensified storms, such as the recent Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines or super storm Sandy in the U.S. in 2012. A key finding from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is that Atlantic Canada faces similar risks if climate change is left unchecked, with more severe storms causing surging tides, flooding and widespread coastal erosion.

Climate change already affecting Atlantic Canada

For his captivating documentary, Climate Change in Atlantic Canada, Ian Mauro, an environmental and social scientist at Mount Allison University in New Brunswick, interviewed farmers, fishers, local residents, First Nations community members, scientists and business people from all around the Atlantic provinces. All say climate change is affecting their communities and livelihoods. They also agree something must be done and that the “business as usual” scenario is no longer an option.

Extreme energy, extreme weather

The heart of the problem is our seemingly unquenchable thirst for mainly fossil-fuel based energy resources. As our desire for comfort and efficiency grows, so does our energy consumption, prompting the search for sources increasingly difficult to extract. The words tar sands, shale gas, offshore drilling and fracking have only entered our vocabulary in just the past few decades – including in Atlantic communities, many of which now also rely on these fossil-based industries to fuel economic prosperity.

But with current talks about oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, shale gas fracking in New Brunswick, and moving tar sands bitumen from Alberta to the East Coast, we must ask if economic profit and prosperity for a few are worth the environmental and social risks to so many – especially when the latest IPCC report suggests that to avoid global catastrophic climate chaos, we must leave much of the known reserves of fossil fuels in the ground.

Increased wealth ≠ improved health

In light of what the scientific community is telling us about the scope and impacts of climate change – largely a result of burning fossil fuels – we owe it ourselves and our children and grandchildren to consider the implications of the choices we’re about to make in Atlantic Canada and the rest of the country. As former Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner Scott Vaughan reminded us before leaving his position earlier this year, Canada is not prepared for a major oil spill off the East Coast. And, as New Brunswick Chief Medical Health Officer Eilish Cleary points out regarding the economics of shale gas development:

[quote][We] cannot simply assume that more money equates to a healthier population.[/quote]

Oil and gas development threatens valuable tourism economy

Coastal regions such as Atlantic Canada have a long cultural history based largely on fishing, tourism and other marine activities. Although fossil-fuel activities have been in Atlantic Canada for decades, proposed new on- and offshore energy projects will likely put Atlantic Canada’s existing economy and way of life at risk, affecting tourism and fishing in the ocean and on rivers like New Brunswick’s famous Miramichi.

We have a choice

When it comes to climate change, our future will not be determined by chance but by choice. We can choose to ignore the science, or we can change our ways and reduce carbon emissions and our dependence on fossil fuels. It’s up to us and our leaders to consider and promote energy alternatives and other solutions that modernize our energy systems, provide a clean, healthy environment for our families and offer long-term economic prosperity.

I’ll be touring Atlantic Canada with local and national experts at the end of November, premiering Mauro’s film and holding conversations with Atlantic communities about climate change and energy issues. Please join us and be part of the solution!

With contributions from David Suzuki Foundation-Quebec Science Project Manager Jean-Patrick Toussaint.

With LNG, Asian takeovers of Canadian energy assets still booming

November 22, 2013Economics, Energy and Resources, LNGfeaturedKevin Logan

Asian investment explodes in BC’s LNG market, rivalling the scale of resource development in the tarsands, as new trade deals threaten to entrench foreign state ownership of Canada’s key energy assets.

“The relationship is suffering,” or so goes the mantra in our mainstream press.

For the last number of months, politicians, media and the talking heads have repeated the story that foreign investment – read Chinese – has fallen of a cliff and bi-lateral relations are frosty due to Harper’s “tough” new, yet undisclosed, policies on investments from foreign state-owned-enterprises (SOEs) in particular.

Chief among the irritants causing the Chinese-Canadian bilateral “suffering” is the “delays” in ratifying the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Act (FIPPA).

But how does that square with reality?

Yes, overall “investment” from Chinese specific SOE’s has fallen slightly, but that is largely because politicians and media compare it to when the largest investments in Canadian history occurred with the Progress Energy and Nexen takeovers – totalling over $20 billion.

Were they expecting a never-ending flow of SOE dollars at that rate?

Foreign investment still going strong

Well, as it turns out, that is exactly what has occurred despite the rhetoric. Asian SOE investment has at least doubled and more private Chinese investment was just announced this week!

What’s more, it’s been happening regiularly since the big takeovers, as investment from PetroChina in western Canadian natural gas plays occurred immediately after Harper announced his “new tough laws,” as we reported on their partnership with Canadian energy giant Encana at the time.

And foreign SOE investment has never really stopped since. Despite Harper’s bold claim at the time that the takeovers marked the “end of a trend and not the beginning of one,” and his infamous hard line:

[quote]To be blunt, Canadians have not spent years reducing the ownership of sectors of the economy by our own governments (Petro Canada), only to see them bought and controlled by foreign governments instead.[/quote]

The Floodgates have opened despite media, government claims

Earlier this week, it was announced that in addition to PetroChina and CNOOC, Sinopec was in discussions with Rich Coleman about their LNG intentions for our coast, all negotiations are under non-disclosure as we were the first and ONLY ones to report.

This announcement comes on the heels of the Petronas (Malaysia’s SOE and according to fortune 500 Asia’s most profitable company) claim that they intend to “invest” 36 Billion dollars in BC LNG.

That one announcement alone is over twice the investment CNOOC made to acquire Nexen. And on November 8th Petronas/Progress moved to acquire a large swath of Talisman’s natural gas assets in BC, further displacing Canadian ownership with ever-growing Asian SOE dollars.

Also this week came the news that ENN, China’s largest natural gas distributor, intends on building two LNG processing facilities, one in Vancouver the other in Edmonton, to supply “gas stations” across the country with our LNG – making them the first, largest and only Canadian domestic retail distributor.

This all puts the lie to Harper’s claim that “it’s the end of a trend” and that we’re not divesting Petro Canada only to have foreign governments replace it..

Asian SOEs have lock on both export markets, domestic distribution

Thus far, of the approximately 80 million tonnes in 25 year LNG export licenses the Harper government has approved, or intends to, four Asian SOEs are on the receiving end. (PetroChina, Sinopec, CNOOC and Petronas)

To put that in perspective, 80 million tonnes of LNG is the oil equivalent of over 2 million barrels a day, every day, for twenty five years.

In this recent NEB filing, a total of six LNG project proposals in BC have received, or have submitted an application for, an export licence. According to a BC government press release, these projects include:

Douglas Channel Energy Project – Proponents are LNG Partners and Haisla Nation. Located in Kitimat (floating facility). Received a 20-year export licence in February 2012, authorizing the export of 1.8 million tonnes of LNG a year.
Kitimat LNG – Proponents are Apache Canada Ltd. and Chevron Canada Limited. Received a 20-year export licence in October 2011, authorizing the export of 10 million tonnes of LNG a year.
LNG Canada – Proponents are Shell Canada Ltd., Korea Gas Corporation (KOGAS), Mitsubishi Corporation and PetroChina Company Limited. Located in Kitimat. Received a 25-year export licence in February 2013, authoring the export of 24 million tonnes of LNG a year.
Pacific NorthWest LNG – Proponents are Petronas, Progress Energy Canada Ltd. and Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. Located in Prince Rupert. Submitted an application to the NEB on July 5, 2013, to export 19.68 million tonnes of LNG annually for 25 years.
Prince Rupert LNG – Proponent is BG Group plc. Submitted an application to the NEB in June 2013, to export 21.6 million tonnes of LNG annually for 25 years.
WCC LNG Ltd. project – Proponents are Imperial Oil Resources Limited and ExxonMobil Canada Ltd. Will be located in the vicinity of Kitimat or Prince Rupert. Submitted an application to the NEB in June 2013, to export 30 million tonnes of LNG annually for 25 years.

These figures were as of June of last year and totaled 105 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) for 25 years. There has been some shuffling since, and this does not include Sinopec who is scoping out a 30 million tonne project, and suggested this week it was making good progress with its BC LNG negotiations.

LNG plans rival tarsands in scale

But at the much lower 80 mtpa figure, that is still larger than the equivalent current tarsands production in oil. (conversion chart here)

Yet another LNG plant proposed for BC: Petronas' $9 Billion Prince Rupert plan — Petronas’ proposed Prince Rupert LNG plant (artist’s rendering)

Or put another way, at 80 mpta, it is four times the entire existing Australian LNG export market, and they are third largest exporters of the product in the world behind Qatar and – you guessed it – Petronas (Malaysia).

In the case of Petronas alone, they have already depleted much of their own natural gas resources supplying Japan and their stock was plunging until the Progress takeover. And while everyone was talking about it being a “tarsands takeover” with Progress and Nexen being swallowed up by bizarre late Friday night Federal government approval “processes”, the real takeover was occurring in BC’s natural gas industry.

There, the Haperites leveraged investment into the risky and marginal tarsands by handing over nearly the entire natural gas industry of BC. These deals are so sweet that Petronas has already begun selling off their piece by offering huge, lucrative partnerships in the whole LNG train from fracked well to regasification for their prospective partners to enjoy. Japan is already on board and we may see even more Chinese SOE involvement in this deal when all is said and done.

That covers off the export market, and this week’s ENN announcement that it intends to be the primary distributor across Canada means that foreign-based companies will have a head start on supplying retail LNG from coast to coast, as they intend to begin pumping by 2016.

Promised LNG Prosperity delayed and deterred

Also this week, Coleman announced yet another delay in rolling out the required royalty and taxation regime for the promised “prosperity” his Liberal government campaigned on.

Energy expert debunks Minister Coleman's BC LNG math — BC Minister of Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman (Damien Gillis)

Apparently, negotiations with the mostly Asian companies involved are so complicated that not only are they done under non-disclosure agreements, but the results we have been promised this month are now delayed until his government tables its budget next year.

If you are tired of waiting, simply go here and listen to Coleman deliver a speech to the Chinese Economic and Environment forum, where you will learn of a new ministry Coleman announced to ensure foreign workers can meet the fracking LNG demand.

You will also learn that Coleman intends to lock down the world’s lowest royalty and taxation regime, streamline approvals and that peace and stability exist among environmentalists, the government and First Nations as a result of revenue sharing agreements and “world-class” environmental regulations, as I recently wrote about.

Trade Agreements and Democracy Collide with TPP

The controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership will revolve around natural gas – BC’s in particular – as many of the proponents of the TPP are in on the BC LNG play that has been trumpeted as the largest deals in history.

In Malaysia, the government has announced an open and transparent process. TPP developments there will involve stakeholder consultation, public participation and debates in parliament. This is a sharp contrast to Canada’s secretive approach as we rely on Wikileaks to deliver our first peak at the agreements “cyber” oriented contents.

There is still no word on the TPP text outlining the new paradigm for Canada’s natural resources, but it is clear we are not on the winning side, as we are treated to more secrecy and backroom deals.

FIPPA implications and why we need to act now

Which brings us back to FIPPA and how our relationship with Asia is “suffering” as a result of the delay in ratifying this deal. Minister John Baird recently claimed that ratification was imminent, and as we learn more and more about the significance of the Chinese FIPPA – given their majority ownership position in both our LNG export and domestic markets, in addition to the full basket of other natural resource investments and their huge stake in our retail markets – you can see why China is interested in closing this deal.

However, if we are interested in true prosperity for Canadians, it’s high time we take a sober second look at the huge, far-reaching impacts of the FIPPA Treaty. You may recall the work done here at The Common Sense Canadian to bring attention to how the FIPPA Environmental Assessment was carried out against the letter of the law, and how it dismissed any impact on the environment whatsoever as a result of Chinese investment.

These conclusions are patently ridiculous as we learn to what extent Chinese investment permeates the entirety of our economy.

It’s time to follow up with the Cabinet and Chief negotiator of the FIPPA treaty on our request to clarify how they completed a successful Environmental Assessment, based on the flaws we pointed out and I detailed in a submission through the public process.

The LNG export approvals alone are going to result in such a massive escalation of fracking that we cannot let the FIPPA EA conclusions stand based on that one issue alone.

GO HERE for the orignal letter and instructions on how to register your concerns with the Harper Cabinet on this vital subject.

The day I discovered the Harper Government spying on me

November 21, 2013Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

by Emma Gilchrist – cross-post from Desmog Canada

Nov. 19^th, 2013. A Tuesday. The day started out sunny, but hail fell out of the sky in the afternoon. It was a Victoria day like any other until I found out the Canadian government has been vigorously spying on several Canadian organizations that work for environmental protections and democratic rights.

I read the news in the Vancouver Observer. There, front and centre, was the name of the organization I worked for until recently: Dogwood Initiative.

My colleagues and I had been wary of being spied on for a long time, but having it confirmed still took the wind out of me.

[quote]I love my country. And in my eyes, there isn’t anything much more patriotic than fighting for the interests of Canadian citizens.[/quote]

Harper Government spying on church gatherings

I told my parents about the article over dinner. They’re retired school teachers who lived in northern Alberta for 35 years before moving to Victoria.

I asked them: “Did you know the Canadian government is spending your tax dollars to spy on your daughter?”

Then I told them how one of the events detailed in e-mails from Richard Garber, the National Energy Board’s “Group Leader of Security,” was a workshop in a Kelowna church run by one of my close friends and colleagues, Celine Trojand (who’s about the most warm-hearted person you could ever meet). About 30 people, mostly retirees, attended to learn about storytelling, theory of change and creative sign-making (cue the scary music).

CSIS, RCMP, Enbridge working together

In the e-mails, Garber marshals security and intelligence operations between government operations and private interests and notes that his security team has consulted with Canada’s spying agency, CSIS.

To add insult to injury, another set of documents show CSIS and the RCMP have been inviting oil executives to secret classified briefings at CSIS headquarters in Ottawa, in what The Guardian describes as “unprecedented surveillance and intelligence sharing with companies.”

These meetings covered “threats” to energy infrastructure and “challenges to energy projects from environmental groups.” Guess who is prominently displayed as a sponsor on the agenda of May’s meeting? Enbridge, the proponent of a controversial oilsands pipeline to the coast of British Columbia.

I asked my folks: “Isn’t that scary? CSIS is hosting classified briefings sponsored by Enbridge?” No answer. My parents are not the type to get themselves in a flap about things like this, but I prodded them: “Dad, this is scary, right?”

“It’s scary,” he admitted.

Is this Canada or Nigeria?

How much information is being provided to corporations like Enbridge? What about state-owned Chinese oil companies like Sinopec, which has a $10 million stake in Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker proposal?

What kind of country spies on environmental organizations in the name of the oil industry? It seems more Nigerian than Canadian.

I fought the urge to react with indignation, a sentiment I find all too common in the environmental movement. I also didn’t want to be overwrought about it. Fact is though, the more I thought about those documents, the more I began to feel a sense of loss for my country.

Enemies of the State

I’m not the touchy-feely type. Everyone from my conservative cousins in Alberta to my former colleagues at the Calgary Herald could attest to that. I grew up in northern Alberta playing hockey and going to bush parties. I think our oil and gas deposits, including the oilsands, are a great asset to our country — if developed in the public interest. Yes, that’s a big “if” — but Canadians own these resources and the number one priority when developing them should be that Canadians benefit.

For speaking up for the public interest and speaking out against the export of raw bitumen through the Great Bear Rainforest, hundreds of people like me have been called radicals and painted as enemies of the state, as somehow un-Canadian. That last bit is what hits me in the gut.

Exporting raw bitumen, Canadian jobs

I love my country. And in my eyes, there isn’t anything much more patriotic than fighting for the interests of Canadian citizens. I’ve argued that after 25 years of oilsands development, Albertans should have something to show for it — not be facing budget crises and closing hospital beds; that Albertans aren’t collecting a fair share of resource revenues; that we should develop resources at a responsible pace that doesn’t cause rampant inflation, undermining Canadians’ quality of life and hurting other sectors of the economy; that we should prioritize Canadian energy security (half of Canada is currently dependent on foreign oil). And I’ve agreed with the Alberta Federation of Labour that exporting raw bitumen and 50,000 jobs to China doesn’t make sense for Canadians.

Enbridge hearings drew unprecedented public turnout

Now, I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but it’s a stretch to portray any of those statements as unpatriotic or radical. In fact, one of my proudest moments as a Canadian was encouraging citizens to register to speak at the public hearings on Enbridge’s pipeline and tanker proposal for B.C. With a team of committed people at Dogwood, in collaboration with several other groups, we helped more than 4,000 people sign up to have their say — seven times more than in any previous National Energy Board hearing.

It was this act of public participation that sparked the beginnings of the federal government’s attacks on people who oppose certain resource development proposals. Helping citizens to participate in an archaic public hearing process is a vital part of democracy— not something to be maligned.

Corporate media ignores Harper Government spying

What makes me sad is the thought that we’ve been reduced to being the type of country that spies on its own citizens when they speak out against certain corporate interests. Not only that, but our government then turns around and shares that intelligence with those corporations.

Disappointingly, a scan of today’s news coverage indicates Canada’s major newspapers never picked up the spying story, save for one 343-word brief on page 9 of the Vancouver Province. Is it now so accepted that the Canadian government is in bed with the oil industry that it doesn’t even make news any more? Now that’s really sad.

Whether you agree or disagree with my ideas about responsible natural resource development, I’d hope we could all agree Canada should be a country where we can have open and informed debate about the most important issues of our time — without fear of being attacked and spied on by our own government.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Common Sense Canadian’s Damien Gillis was also featured in an email from CSIS to the National Energy Board, spying on Enbridge critics, as revealed in this story from The Vancouver Observer.

$US House passes bill to speed up oil and gas fracking$

US House passes bill to speed up oil and gas fracking

November 21, 2013Energy and Resources, International, Oil&Gas, PoliticsfeaturedCanadian Press

$US House passes bill to speed up oil and gas fracking$

by Matthew Daly, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The House approved a bill Wednesday aimed at speeding up drilling for oil and natural gas.

The measure was one of three energy measures the House was considering this week as Republicans controlling the chamber push to expand an oil and gas boom that’s lowered prices and led the U.S. to produce more oil last month than it imported from abroad.

Another bill expected to win approval later Wednesday would restrict the Interior Department from enforcing proposed rules to regulate hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on public lands. A third bill would streamline permitting for natural gas pipelines.

Supporters say the bills are needed to ensure that a drilling boom taking place on state and private lands extends to millions of acres, mostly in the West, under federal control.

Obama to veto bills

President Barack Obama has promised to veto the bills, saying they are unnecessary and run counter to protections put in place for oil and gas drilling.

Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., who sponsored the bill to speed up permitting, said the current energy boom has mainly occurred on state and private lands, including the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana and the Marcellus Shale region centred in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. Said Lamborn:

[quote]The only reason we haven’t seen that same dynamic growth on federal lands is because of excess regulations.[/quote]

Automatic approval, $5,000 bill for protestors

Lamborn’s bill would deem a drilling application approved if no decision is made within 60 days, set a minimum threshold for lands leased by the Bureau of Land Management and charge a $5,000 fee to groups that protest lease permits. The House approved the measure, 228-192.

Lamborn said the bill would reduce federal “red tape” and cut down on “frivolous lawsuits that act as stumbling blocks to job creation and energy development.”

Democrats and environmental groups called the bill a handout to the big oil companies and said it would gut important environmental protections and stifle efforts by the public to intervene in drilling decisions.

Democrat: Bills a “waste of time”

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, called the bills a waste of time, since they were unlikely to be taken up in the Democratic-controlled Senate and faced veto threats from Obama.

The drilling bill and others being considered in the House “distract and delay this body’s critical attention to the issues of critical concern to all Americans,” including adoption of a federal budget and passage of a farm bill and immigration overhaul, Hoyer said.

The House was debating another bill, sponsored by Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, that would block the Interior Department from enforcing a proposed rule on hydraulic fracturing on federal lands in states where drilling regulations are already in place.

All about fracking

Hydraulic fracturing, also called fracking, involves pumping huge volumes of water, sand and chemicals underground to split open rocks to allow oil and gas to flow. Improved technology has allowed energy companies to gain access to huge stores of natural gas underneath states from Wyoming to New York but has raised widespread concerns that it might lead to groundwater contamination and even earthquakes.

A draft rule issued this spring would require companies that drill for oil and natural gas on federal lands to publicly disclose the chemicals used in fracking operations. A final rule is expected next year.

Flores called his bill an important step to reaffirm states’ rights to determine energy production, as well as a way to create jobs.

Because of fracking and other techniques, the U.S. could be “energy secure” by 2020, Flores said.

[quote]This is a goal we should pursue, just as we did in the 1960s to put a man on the moon.[/quote]

Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., said state rules on fracking vary widely.

“That’s why it’s important that the Interior Department put in place a regulatory floor of safety measures to assure that there are at least minimal protections in place on all public lands in all states,” he said.