Is It Victory For Federal NDP If Trans Mountain Is Killed?

265 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
If I am correct you are acknowledging that he has said he is opposed but he has left sufficient wiggle room to change his mind with "new developments re process." That is unacceptable to you (and no doubt very many others). That seems straight forward.

Thanks for engaging, but no, you're not correct. He has not said he's opposed to the pipeline. Most importantly, the NDP has not said it's opposed to the pipeline. The Young New Democrats have said they're opposed to the pipeline.

When people and parties don't speak clearly, it's so that when (tomorrow) they change what we thought their position was, they can say: "Oh, so sorry, it's our fault you misunderstood, here's what we really meant."

If that's what you call "wiggle room", fine - then he should say, "I have no position right now on whether or not the pipeline should be built - it depends on the following list of hitherto unknown factors: how the Supreme Court will rule; outcome of further negotiations; a new/improved assessment process; etc. - so get back to me later."

Unless, of course, he thinks that by talking the way he does, people who want to hear "opposed" will hear "opposed", and people who want to hear "my jury is still out" will hear that. My personal opinion is that politicking of that nature undermines democracy and makes its proponents untrustworthy opportunists.

This is exactly what he is saying. He is opposed to it as it stands, a qualification that can change with the wind. It is still opposed but I agree that it is not what you and many are looking for.

Since I think he figures he cannot stop it, it may be that he does not want to spend capital on laying out an opinion that at the end of the day won't make a practical difference.

I think he might be able to get away with this for a time given his position, even if some do not like it. I also think this weasel words approach has to end if this is still a debate one year from now as it won't wash in an election. Also the media have not actually pinned him on this -- in that sense they are doing him a favour or just sure that he won't answer. Nobody is saying okay so you are opposed: what exactly in terms of a change would it take to be in favour? At that point he would have to state what is clear to many and that is that there is no known process that is going to get the social license he is saying it has not been garnered. By choosing a technicality (process) he gets to be opposed as it stands without clarifying if he is fundamentally opposed.

Yes, he is hiding in the shadows as a politician. So long as he is not running in an election that would put him in charge of the file, he may fudge the issue pretending that he could be satisfied to some and that he is against to others. My guess is that he would like to go into the next campaign like that if possible. If the Liberals blow the deal on bad process, then he never has to give his real opinion. If the deal is done then he might think he can avoid it.

Problem is, I suspect that this deal will not be over and the fight will only have intensified. He will run out of time. However, it is possible that he can take an opinion at that time -- if he has to -- and not have lost much more than if he did it now.

In other words he is only not going to make it definitive if he does not have to and he thinks it won't make a difference.

My guess is that he actually is against and does nto want to pay the price of saying so and does not think that there is enough upside to go beyond the qualified opposition he is now presenting.

The national party is in the same position. Without being able to make a difference why woudl they do this knowing that it would result in the disafiliation of at least the Alberta NDP, a sitting government?

I suspect that many who are against in the NDP understand that this process might come to a reconning but until it does accept that the party does not need to pay this price.

Now where things would get uncomfortable would be if there was a process that meant the NDP could make a difference. If Trudeau was really smart he could do that. At the moment only the Liberals have to be definite in their positions. Trudeau could call for a national parliamentary consensus forcing all parties to take a stand that is real. Then there would be no cover for the NDP. It would also force the Conservatives to cosign the screwing of Indigenous people and the environment -- just so they could not hold it over the Liberals later. I don't think Trudeau is that smart.

NorthReport
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
As many people have pointed out,she is a right wing turncoat because she wants to keep her job.

Even as everyone else in Alberta is willing to lose theirs, if it's the right thing to do for Gaia, Mother Earth.  You'd think that everyone trying to trade their car(s) for transit tickets would tell her there's no more future in oil, but she's just not getting it.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
As many people have pointed out,she is a right wing turncoat because she wants to keep her job.

Even as everyone else in Alberta is willing to lose theirs, if it's the right thing to do for Gaia, Mother Earth.  You'd think that everyone trying to trade their car(s) for transit tickets would tell her there's no more future in oil, but she's just not getting it.

She's the biggest shill for these oil pipelines than anybody left of Jason Kenney. People are taking the piss out of Trudeau,as they should,but almost nobody is pointing out Notley's role.

Someone suggested that she is just protecting Alberta's interests. Fair enough. But wouldn't that mean that Trudeau is trying to protect Canada's?

This whole thing is more toxic politically then the crude black poison everyone is fighting about. If Singh comes out against the pipeline who's got his back besides the protesters and the Greens? The Alberta NDP would certainly throw him and the entire federal NDP under the bus,you can be sure.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Someone suggested that she is just protecting Alberta's interests. Fair enough. But wouldn't that mean that Trudeau is trying to protect Canada's?

Why would it mean that?  I'm not saying it can't, but what are "Canada's" interests?  Alberta's would surely boil down to jobs and revenues and GNP contributions, but what are Canada's?  I would need to know for sure what they are before I could say whether Trudeau is protecting them.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Someone suggested that she is just protecting Alberta's interests. Fair enough. But wouldn't that mean that Trudeau is trying to protect Canada's?

Why would it mean that?  I'm not saying it can't, but what are "Canada's" interests?  Alberta's would surely boil down to jobs and revenues and GNP contributions, but what are Canada's?  I would need to know for sure what they are before I could say whether Trudeau is protecting them.

Money I would guess. And plain politics. Why the hell else would the feds be so gung ho about these pipelines? They are only influenced by those 2 things. If it were to blatantly hurt them,they wouldn't touch this. Without money and/or power they wouldn't care either way.

Pogo Pogo's picture

He is definitely opposed to the process.  He is definitely saying that the pipeline does not have approval from a valid process.  He is definitely vague on where he stands on the pipeline itself.

Thank you Unionist.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but while "money" means "money" what does "politics" mean?  To woo voters in Alberta?  OK.  To woo voters in Nova Scotia?  Tell me more. 

Maybe "Canada" could use some money.  Maybe we spend money on things, so as soon as we get some it's out the door.  But if we're all thinking of maybe getting some surgery some time in our life, or want potable water, or buses, then we do need money.

And I'm not saying we should grow and sell cocaine for that money.  But as long as most of us seem to want to buy gas, burn gas and complain about the price of gas, it doesn't seem to me that selling oil products is any kind of hypocrisy.

Do you think that Canada's interest is to burn less fossil fuel?  And if so, do you think the best way to do that is to:

a) burn less fossil fuel.  Get a bike and ride it.

b) sell less fossil fuel to others.  Because they'll probably just burn it.  Surely without our oil, the the rest of the earth would need to get a bike and ride it.

Again, I don't drive a car, so I don't really care how much gas costs.  I'm not trying to save gas money here.  I'm just not sure what the goal is supposed to be.

 

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Why Jagmeet Singh must be clear about Trans Mountain

“Today we are calling on the federal government to partner with B.C. and to submit a joint reference question to the Supreme Court,” Singh told reporters at Parliament Hill. “Let's use the institutions we trust to move forward.”

This statement is more than a disappointment for progressives hoping for a strong leadership position on the pipeline showdown. Singh has missed a rare opportunity to clearly assert his position on both the pipeline and his vision for a rapid transition to a low-carbon society that prioritizes reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, good unionized work and affordable housing.

Unless he immediately moves to rectify this — and realizes his job is to actually do politics, not just offer esoteric tweaks to existing approaches — the federal NDP might as well sit the 2019 election out.

Hedging and avoiding

Singh’s position on the Edmonton-to-Burnaby pipeline has never been exactly clear.

It took a month after launching his bid for federal NDP leader for him to confirm that he opposed both TransCanada’s Energy East and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipelines. That announcement followed significant pressure from fellow leadership candidates Niki Ashton and Peter Julian in a debate the week prior.

Now he’s appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada: an institution that serves as a bastion of private property rights and colonial domination.

Despite formally opposing the pipeline in his climate change plan, Singh’s stance seemed to become more nebulous after he won the leadership. In February, he told the National Observer that “if [Trans Mountain is] subject to an environmental assessment that was modernized, that’s science-based, that had all the concerns around the environment addressed, then and only then can we move forward.”

He’s continued to deploy the “environmental assessment” angle since then, pointing out that Prime Minister Trudeau pledged to assess the project under modernized processes only to later change course and accept the National Energy Board review conducted under Harper-era rules as legitimate — which is all true.

But Singh’s trip to British Columbia in March only further confused things after he skipped the massive mobilization in Burnaby against the pipeline. His Twitter moment summarizing the trip concluded that “B.C. was a vibe” but didn’t even acknowledge the unprecedented direct action that took place while he was there.

Now he’s appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada: an institution that serves as a bastion of private property rights and colonial domination. As Anishinaabe political scientist Hayden King observed on Twitter, the Supreme Court has already ruled that governments can override Aboriginal title if the project is deemed in the “national interest.”.....

quote:

The oil sands only represent two per cent of the country’s GDP and 22,400 direct jobs. Yet decades of corporate propaganda and hijacking of formerly combative politicians like Alberta Premier Rachel Notley have rendered the image of the oilsands far larger in the average voter’s mind that it actually is.

NorthReport

The Liberals aren't falling for it, the Liberals are part of it!

Kinder Morgan is playing Canada

This is a shakedown, and the Trudeau government is falling for it

https://ricochet.media/en/2170/kinder-morgan-is-playing-canada

NorthReport

The naysayers forget a provincial member of the NDP is automatically a member of the federal NDP as well.

So, of course, it would be a massive and significant victory for the NDP if the project were stopped, or even a more likely scenario, rerouted.

But there are powerful financial interests at work here, and combined with their right-wing mainstream press including the CBC, it is a massive uphill battle to stop KM or even reroute the process.

Meeting with PM won't force B.C. to off its pipeline stand: environment minister

George Heyman

Premier John Horgan and Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy George Heyman arrive to answer questions about the Alberta dispute during a press conference at the Legislature in Victoria, B.C., on Wednesday February 7, 2018. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chad Hipolito)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/meeting-with-pm-won-t-force-b-c-to-off-i...

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but while "money" means "money" what does "politics" mean?  To woo voters in Alberta?  OK.  To woo voters in Nova Scotia?  Tell me more. 

Maybe "Canada" could use some money.  Maybe we spend money on things, so as soon as we get some it's out the door.  But if we're all thinking of maybe getting some surgery some time in our life, or want potable water, or buses, then we do need money.

And I'm not saying we should grow and sell cocaine for that money.  But as long as most of us seem to want to buy gas, burn gas and complain about the price of gas, it doesn't seem to me that selling oil products is any kind of hypocrisy.

Do you think that Canada's interest is to burn less fossil fuel?  And if so, do you think the best way to do that is to:

a) burn less fossil fuel.  Get a bike and ride it.

b) sell less fossil fuel to others.  Because they'll probably just burn it.  Surely without our oil, the the rest of the earth would need to get a bike and ride it.

Again, I don't drive a car, so I don't really care how much gas costs.  I'm not trying to save gas money here.  I'm just not sure what the goal is supposed to be.

 

 

Well I honestly don't know either. But why are the feds invested in this if not for money or protecting their political asses.

But I think you're on to something with option (b)

It would be nice if people rode bikes or traveled public transit (where I live there are electric powered buses and so is our metro)

But unfortunately,people love their trucks,SUV's and lixury cars. They don't want to be told that their oil addiction is killing the planet,mopst of them would never drive an electric car whether they could keep the same vehicle they already have but make it electric powered.

And I think that's why this whole pipeline thing is toxic politically. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

That's what I think,I could be wrong but I'm trying to identify the motivation. Like you,I don't drive. I'm 50 and never drove a car in my life.Clearly I never will.

I'll let someone who knows what the motivation and the obvious angle is and can explain to laity such as myself.

NorthReport

Why is Trudeau afraid of referring the case to the Supreme Court as Jagmeet has suggested as it seems the obvious answer to the dispute?

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-peace-deal-slippery-in-politics-of-oil-pipeline-expansion

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

Why is Trudeau afraid of referring the case to the Supreme Court as Jagmeet has suggested as it seems the obvious answer to the dispute?

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-peace-deal-slippery-in-politics-of-oil-pipeline-expansion

Because the Constitution clearly says this is Federal. The issue is not about authority in jurisdiction it is about the broken Liberal promise on social license. Suggesting this has to do with jurisdiction is useful to both the provincial NDP to justify their promise to fight this as being less than empty and to Singh to avoid a definitive answer that may cost but not make any difference. Very few will consider the nuance between Singh being against on principle or being against on technicalities, so he is banking on punting this further out of his interest. As I said here http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/will-justin-trudeau-be-one-ter... in posts 101 in response to an article on the topic, everyone is doing what is in their political interest -- exactly. Like it or not.

Sean in Ottawa

This is significant:

“When you’ve got two provinces both contemplating legislative action which clearly, in my view, is outside their jurisdiction … then you’ve got a constitutional crisis. There are basic rules to our political game and parliamentary system being openly ignored.”

The actions are --

BC: Attempt to stop the pipeline is out of his jurisdiction and so too is attempting to speak for Indigenous people. Both are federal. While the Liberals are breaking direct promises on this, there is nothing in the constitution to stop that.

AB: The targeting or preference of one market over another when it comes to Canadian exports is expressly prohibited in the Constitution.

Now the Feds:

The Feds have a responsibility to Indigenous people and are breaking a direct promise to them. If anyone has a claim against the pipeline on Constitutional grounds it is the Indigenous people who are against this.

I think that the NDP is wrong in BC and federally to suggest that BC has a case. However, the BC government could fund a case for Indigenous peoples to make a case that they have. That is the only case worth hearing in my view given any reading of the Constitution I can make.

NorthReport

Opinions, opinions, opinions. Let's get a Supreme Court ruling, and then we will know for sure, eh!

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture
NorthReport

Good article e13.

Jagmeet Singh and John Horgan approach is the right one here. And Notley is living in the real world of Alberta politics, wanting to continue doing what she thinks is best for Albertans.

NorthReport

Why is it So Hard for Canada to Have a Real Conversation about Pipelines?

 

https://www.desmog.ca/2018/04/11/why-it-so-hard-canada-have-real-convers...

Sean in Ottawa

I don't actually agree with all of the article but I do on one point.

I disagree that the province would have the authority to stop the pipeline even if they have some ability to regulate certain aspects of it. There is some difficulty disclosing in advance that the intention is not to regulate it but to stop it. So while cooperative federalism is a thing and regulation would be shared, it does not negate the clear federal provincial division of powers over the decision.

I think the constitutional question here resides soley over Indigenous rights and lands. I think the Federal government can get its way on this over the BC government but it will not be able to force its way over the First Nations who oppose. the Liberals themselves have served to define enough of the issues that their own definitions will come back to them.

This is not really a shared federal provincial power in the manner many are.

Still, the constitutional question regarding Indigenous lands is not only worth a reference but on that point the position of the Indigenous objections look compeling and well founded in law. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..yes i agree with that sean re indigenous folk. it will be interesting to see what comes out re province.

..here's another piece

quote:

Not even a year ago, the Supreme Court overturned a National Energy Board (NEB) decision to allow Enbridge to conduct seismic testing that could have a negative impact on Inuit hunting and fishing rights, because they were not adequately consulted.

“A project authorization that breaches the constitutionally protected rights of Indigenous peoples cannot serve the public interest,” the Court said in that case.

This duty to consult nations that have claims to land title is particularly relevant in parts of British Columbia, where treaties were not signed with the Crown (land was never ceded).

But even for some of the affected bands in Alberta, where there are treaties, the duty to consult still exists. In the 2005 Mikisew Cree decision, the Supreme Court overturned Ottawa’s plan to build a winter road through Wood Buffalo National Park (which lies on Treaty 8 land) because it had not consulted the people with constitutionally protected rights there.

Treaty rights and land title aside, there are also section 35 rights – hunting and fishing for example – that trigger consultation. The landmark 1990 Sparrow case, involving the Musqueam Indian Band, established a test for infringing on these rights – the Crown must justify the infringement.

“Parliament is not expected to act in a manner contrary to the rights and interests of aboriginals, and, indeed, may be barred from doing so by the second stage of s. 35(1)  analysis,” the Court wrote.

It is the Crown – not a corporation such as Kinder Morgan – that had the duty to consult (see more on this in the 2004 Haida decision). The Liberal government itself underlined “the honour of the Crown” in this regard in its principles governing its relationship with Indigenous Peoples.

Sean in Ottawa

Yes-- when it comes to projects like this the federal government has a greater legal liability to the rights of Indigenous people than individual provinces. If BC wants to address this in the best way it can, it might want to consider supporting the Indigenous  people raising this with funding for a challenge. I do not think the province on its own has a chance to stop this. I do not think they are that interested in co-regulating which I acknowledge they could do.

I trust people have already read the plainly worded provisions of the constitution (Sections 91-92). They do not allow much wiggle room for the provinces.

Secton 91.24 jurisdiction is just the start with respect to Indigenous rights which have been affirmed time after time by decisions. This is the weak point for the Federal government's constitutional case. It is also the focus of Liberal promises on the issue. Let me put this another way: should Indigenous peoples ALL sign on across the entire path, there would be little the province could do other than demand reasonable regulations.

So BC's strategy, if it really want to win this fight, must be to support the First Nations in whatever way they can.

That said, I do not see any ability for Alberta to punish BC by withholding exports they would be willing to share with other provinces. That too, is unconstitutional.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..the funding for cases have been going on for years and that's not about to stop. the bc gov is fucking around though. a champion for indigenous rights re the pipeline but excluding them when it comes to their pet project..lng.

 

NorthReport

Meeting with Trudeau unlikely to overcome Horgan's opposition to Trans Mountain, says official

Instead, Trudeau plans to tell B.C., Alberta premiers what Ottawa will do to see the project built

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-trans-mountain-alberta-bc-pip...

NorthReport

Meeting with PM won’t stop B.C.’s opposition to pipeline: Horgan

 

 

http://www.burnabynow.com/meeting-with-pm-won-t-stop-b-c-s-opposition-to...

NorthReport

Please Advise! Why Can’t NDP Buddies Notley and Horgan Just Get Along?

Blame ‘pipeline vision’ on all sides for escalating clash of governments.

 

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/04/13/Please-Advise-NDP-Buddies-Get-Along/

NorthReport

Media outlets circle wagons around Justin Trudeau and Rachel Notley sloganeering about the national interest

  • Alberta premier Rachel Notley and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's claims about the national interest have not been subjected to serious scrutiny by the media.

 

  • Alberta premier Rachel Notley and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's claims about the national interest have not been subjected to serious scrutiny by the media.

It's been astonishing to witness national media coverage of the Kinder Morgan pipeline dispute between Alberta and B.C.

Virtually every commentator east of the Rockies appears to be of one mind.

They've drank the federal Liberal and Alberta NDP Kool-Aid that this carbon-spewing project to mostly benefit U.S. shareholders is in the "national interest".

This is so even though it will increase tanker traffic nearly seven times in the waters off Vancouver. They don't appear to care that this project imposes a threat to B.C.'s tourism sector and its Super Natural brand.

But most alarming, this supposed "national interest" undermines Canada's capacity to meet its commitment under the Paris climate agreement.

The logical corollary is that the Paris climate agreement is not really in the national interest.

Justin Trudeau, Alberta premier Rachel Notley, various industry associations, and newspaper columnists who peddle this mantra about "national interest" will never publicly admit that they don't think the Paris climate agreement is in the national interest.

But when you look at this pipeline and Enbridge Line 3's impact on Canada's capacity to meet its international commitments, it's very easy to draw this conclusion.

"National interest" is a phrase designed to make Canadians with concerns about the pipeline appear to be parochial, small-minded, and opposed to the greater good.

The reality is that those who are risking arrest have a much broader interest: the survival of humanity on Earth in the face of rapidly rising greenhouse gas emissions.

They're willing to go to jail because of their beliefs and their deep concern about people in other parts of the world.

That's the antithesis of parochialism.

It's easier to make a case that pipeline advocates, like National Resources Minister Jim Carr and Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna, are actually the small-minded thinkers opposed to the good of humanity.

Do you think people facing rising floodwaters in places like Bangladesh or Maldives or droughts in sub-Saharan Africa and Mexico give a fig about Canada's "national interest" as a justification for making their lives more miserable or the needless deaths of their loved ones?

Does the national interest trump those who could see their homes burn up in future forest fires, which are resulting from hotter temperatures brought on by this fossil-fuel madness?

Does the national interest take precedence over residents of the Caribbean and Gulf states whose lives are going to continue to be devastated by hurricanes?

Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna, and former premier Christy Clark are all onside with a project that threatens Canada's capacity to meet its international greenhouse-gas commitments.

Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna, and former premier Christy Clark are all onside with a project that threatens Canada's capacity to meet its international greenhouse-gas commitments.

As the Straight  cover story noted this week, rising greenhouse gas emissions could conceivably make the planet uninhabitable for humans by the end of this century if feedback loops kick into high gear, resulting in large releases of carbon from oceans and methane from the Arctic.

This week, the Washington Post reported that circulation of water in the Atlantic Ocean hasn't been this sluggish in 1,000 years.

The story was based on a study published in Nature, and it links these changes in ocean currents to summer heat waves.

We're already on track to have mean global temperatures increase within a decade by 1.5 ° C above pre-industrial times.

Children and teenagers in our midst could be on a collective path to climate Armageddon, yet the media continue being taken in with clever phrases like "national interest". You're a bad Canadian if you don't support increasing greenhouse gas emissions!

It was probably coined by a high-priced spin doctor in some backroom to flog this pipeline to the public. Where's the intergenerational justice?

The next time one of these smarmy politicians uses the words "national interest" on a national TV talk show, I would love to see the host respond with this question: "Is the Paris climate agreement in the national interest?"

Are you listening Evan Solomon, Rosemary Barton, Vassey Kapelos, Anna Maria Tremonti, Michael Enright, Carol Off, and Eric Sorenson?

Based on what I've seen and heard to date, the answer is probably not.

https://www.straight.com/news/1057716/media-outlets-circle-wagons-around...

Pondering

progressive17 wrote:
16 tonnes and what do you get?

Another day older and deeper in debt. 

voice of the damned

The Straight wrote:

They're willing to go to jail because of their beliefs and their deep concern about people in other parts of the world.

Okay, so let's say Trans Mountain ends up dead and buried, but Keystone(running through Alberta and the US), gets revived. How many of the BCers protesting Trans Mountain would switch to protesting Keystone with the same degree of commitment, out of "deep concern about people in other parts of the world"?

 

NorthReport

The fossil fuel party’s over - get used to it! There is no turning back if we want future generations to survive.

NorthReport

 

More and more it is looking like Jagmeet’s approach is the correct course of action which should be undertaken to resolve this delimma

https://www.thestar.com/vancouver/2018/04/12/work-it-out-demand-pro-pipeline-bc-business-leaders.html

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Despite NDP stamp of approval, pipeline rally on Alberta Legislature's steps looked like a UCP event

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/alberta-diary/2018/04/despite-ndp-stamp-...

NorthReport

It is quite clear Singh supports Horgan's, and does not support Notley's, approach to the Kinder Morgan pipeline project. What's not to understand about this!

NorthReport

In Trudeau's mind, or more probably, what the Federal Liberal con artists want you to believe, is that this never happened!

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: 25 Years Ago Today

On March 24, 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez had just entered Alaska's Prince William Sound, after departing the Valdez Marine Terminal full of crude oil. At 12:04 am, the ship struck a reef, tearing open the hull and releasing 11 million gallons of oil into the environment. Initial responses by Exxon and the Alyeska Pipeline Company were insufficient to contain much of the spill, and a storm blew in soon after, spreading the oil widely. Eventually, more than 1,000 miles of coastline were fouled, and hundreds of thousands of animals perished. Exxon ended up paying billions in cleanup costs and fines, and remains tied up in court cases to this day. The captain, Joseph Hazelwood, was acquitted of being intoxicated while at the helm, but convicted on a misdemeanor charge of negligent discharge of oil, fined $50,000, and sentenced to 1,000 hours of community service. Though the oil has mostly disappeared from view, many Alaskan beaches remain polluted to this day, crude oil buried just inches below the surface.

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/03/the-exxon-valdez-oil-spill-25-...

NorthReport
NorthReport

Nuff said!

After 25 years, Exxon Valdez oil spill hasn't ended

https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/23/opinion/holleman-exxon-valdez-anniversary...

NorthReport

Kinder Morgan brouhaha shows why it's time for Canada to pull the plug on NAFTA

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/alberta-diary/2018/04/kinder-morgan-brou...

NorthReport

Science is a casualty of the Trans Mountain pipeline debate

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/thomas-sisk-science-is-a-casualty-...

Mighty Middle

NorthReport wrote:

It is quite clear Singh supports Horgan's, and does not support Notley's, approach to the Kinder Morgan pipeline project. What's not to understand about this!

Tell that to Unionist

NorthReport

Unionist is a disgruntled ex-NDPer.

Not matter what Jagmeet Singh says or does will distract from Unionist's continual attacks on the NDP!

Mighty Middle wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

It is quite clear Singh supports Horgan's, and does not support Notley's, approach to the Kinder Morgan pipeline project. What's not to understand about this!

Tell that to Unionist

NorthReport

This pipeline project will probably proceed, and in the process hundreds, if not thousands more, will be arrested, but it's already obvious Trudeau doesn't care one iota about that. 

NorthReport

And where is Glen Clark today? Oops!

Quote:
In 2005, Glen was appointed Executive Vice-President of the Jim Pattison Group; in March 2011, was appointed President of the Jim Pattison Group and in 2017 President & Chief Operating Officer of The Jim Pattison Group.  He also serves on the Board of Directors for The Jim Pattison Group, Westshore Terminals and Canfor.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3779226/glen-clark-biography/

This is just more of the oil industry's heavy-handed mainstream media outreach.

The last time a B.C. NDP premier challenged federal authority, he lost horribly

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-last-time-a-b-c-ndp-premier-chal...

NorthReport
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

The Straight wrote:

They're willing to go to jail because of their beliefs and their deep concern about people in other parts of the world.

Okay, so let's say Trans Mountain ends up dead and buried, but Keystone(running through Alberta and the US), gets revived. How many of the BCers protesting Trans Mountain would switch to protesting Keystone with the same degree of commitment, out of "deep concern about people in other parts of the world"?

 

..people are acting in unison which is a rare occurrence on such a scale. people are engaged. isn't that what progressives have been calling for?  why the cynicism?

..there has been cross border solidarity for some time now beginning with the treaty alliance against the tarsands. it happen around dakota access and it's happening now with line 3.   

jerrym

The NDP could win if its message becomes that it will shift to renewable energy investment instead of fossil fuel investment, instead of simply opposing pipelines. 

The subtext of this thread so far is that it's pipeline fossil fuels or nothing. No one is talking about the economic opportunity costs and risks of extremely massive expenditures on fossil fuels, to say nothing of the environmental costs of betting Canada's future on such megaprojects when global renewable energy investment, jobs, efficiency and use is growing exponentially. 

Continuing down this single track fossil fuel route risks leaving Canada behind as the global economy shifts increasingly and rapidly to other sources. 

Clean energy's relentless progress at the expense of the fossil fuel sector tallied up another key milestone, with the International Energy Agency reporting that investment in electricity exceeded fossil fuels for the first time last year.

Global investment in electricity infrastructure accounted for 42% of the $1.7 trillion in energy sector investment over 2016, as money continued to pour into new grids and renewable base-power capacity, while upstream oil and gas investment slumped following the fall in oil prices.

"Global electricity investment was nearly flat at $718 billion, with growing network spending mostly offset by fewer coal-power additions," said the IEA in a report published Tuesday, July 11. "While renewable investment (fell)... 3% lower compared with five years ago, it will generate 35% more power thanks to cost declines and technology improvements in solar PV and wind."

https://www.thestreet.com/story/14221281/1/clean-energy-investment-surpa...

 

Global employment surpassed fossil fuel energy jobs in 2015 but Canada continues down the same road. 

For the first time, there are more people employed in renewable energy worldwide than there are in oil and gas. That statistic — based on data in a recent report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) — should be a wake-up call to Canada, where a large part of the economic debate continues to focus on pripeline construction and hopes for an oil-price rebound. The renewables sector employed 8.1 million people in 2015, up five per cent in a year, the report said, while oil and gas lost some 250,000 jobs by the end of 2015.

Canada clocked in with 36,000 jobs in renewables, with wind farms the largest employer. The country isn’t entirely out of the renewables game; it’s the seventh-largest producer of wind energy in the world, thanks in large part to Ontario’s green energy program, which has succeeded in eliminating coal-fired power plants from the province. But relative to population size, the U.S. has created twice as many jobs in renewables as Canada has. The boom in renewables has helped the U.S. offset some of the pain from the oil-price crash, which led to major job losses in oil fields. ...

The boom in renewables isn’t just an opportunity that Canada is largely missing out on — it presents a threat to Canada’s existing fossil fuel industry. If the world shifts to renewables faster than expected, future demand for oil will be weaker than expected, and that will threaten the existence of the world’s most expensive oil producers — including Canada’s oilsands. Without oil prices at US$80 or better, new investment in the oilsands makes little sense.

If the world shifts to renewables without Canada in the game, the Great White North could find itself an importer of renewable energy technologies in the decades to come, even an importer of renewable energy itself — quite a shift for a country that not long ago aspired to “energy superpower” status.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/13/canada-oil-renewables-energy_n_...

 

Costs are dropping dramatically as renewable use soars.

In the United States, solar and wind power accounted for nearly 95 percent of all new electricity capacity added last year, according to Engadget. That success can also be partially attributed to the closures of fossil fuel plants. 

In the coming years, we're sure to see renewable energy become a real competitor in the fossil fuel industry. A new report recently published by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), predicts the cost of renewable energy will experience a noticeable drop by 2020, putting it on par with, or cheaper than, fossil fuels.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/13/canada-oil-renewables-energy_n_...

 

The NDP need to look at what we can do with renewables, not just at what we should or should not do with fossil fuels. 

  • Global competition is helping to spread the best project development practices, reducing technology and project risk and making renewables more cost-competitive than ever before.
  • In developed countries, solar power has become cheaper than new nuclear power.
  • The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) from solar photovoltaics (PV) decreased by 69% between 2010 and 2016 – coming well into the cost range of fossil fuels.
  • Onshore wind, whose costs fell 18% in the same period, provides very competitive electricity, with projects routinely commissioned nowadays at USD 0.04/kWh.
  • As installation accelerates, the cost equation for renewables just gets better and better. With every doubling of cumulative installed capacity for onshore wind, investment costs drop by 9% while the resulting electricity becomes 15% cheaper. 
  • Solar PV module costs have fallen by about four-fifths, making residential solar PV systems as much as two-thirds cheaper than in 2010.

https://www.irena.org/publications/2018/Jan/Renewable-power-generation-c...

Pages