Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader

663 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rev Pesky

From Sean in Ottawa:

Back then the Liberals and provincial NDP in Alberta could have made the case for a national significant investment in BC to move away from dependency on exporting raw fossil fuels... 

To what?

6079_Smith_W

Another thing is, B.C. has actually increased its fossil fuel exports as U.S. ports have taken the principled stand of reducing their coal exports.

Controversially, almost all of this thermal coal is coming from the United States. As lawmakers in Washington and Oregon have begun shutting down their own coal ports due to environmental concerns, thermal coal producers in Wyoming and Montana have simply diverted their product through Canada.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/yes-anti-pipeline-vancouver-really...

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Sean in Ottawa:

Back then the Liberals and provincial NDP in Alberta could have made the case for a national significant investment in BC to move away from dependency on exporting raw fossil fuels... 

To what?

Some kind of industrial replacement to the value of fossil fuels. I actually thought that this might have been possible back in 2015 but it never materialized.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

- The Liberals will build the pipeline if they can or it will fail through no fault of their own

- Horgan will fight as much as he can in a losing battle, needing to show the good fight, and that might work

- Notley will get the pipeline and this may or may not save her but it will not hurt her

The pipeline is far from inevitable. Indigenous court cases are still in process. 

While there has been a great deal of bluster no action has been taken yet nor is the federal government making public threats. Only Alberta is doing that. 

The federal government will not withhold unrelated federal program funds because that really would cause a constitutional crisis. 

The rule of law and democracy have both been upheld not undermined. 

Even once all legal avenues have been exhausted protesters will still physically stand in the way. That is the final showdown. How many thousands of people is the government willing to have arrested? Are they really willing to live with the optics of Canada's army in a showdown with indigenous peoples on unceded territory? 

We are not at a constitution crisis now. We may well be if the army is used to force the pipeline across BC. 

Trudeau insists the project is in the national interest but I don't agree. I think it is in Alberta's interest. In so far as Alberta is a Canadian province of course it impacts our economy but we are not shutting down the oil sands.

By claiming it is in the national interests Trudeau aims to get cross Canada support but I don't think he will get it. Some provinces will be watching and thinking about their own ability to reject projects they consider a threat, such as Energy East. 

The federal government may have the legal power to demand right of way for the pipeline but this is a democracy. Mass civil disobedience works. Occupy took over public parks and even hooked into the electrical system. The government gets away with a lot because people aren't watching or don't get all the ins and outs. People would be watching physical showdowns between protesters, including indigenous peoples, and security forces, on unceded territory. I don't think Trudeau has the stomach for that. I don't think even Harper would. With social media images would be up in real time. 

All this furious stamping of feet followed by private negotiations tells me there is little action they can actually take to pressure Horgan to withdraw his opposition to the pipeline. It's non-negotiable because the reason for opposition is the potential for catastrophic failure with no guarantee of full recovery and limited liability on the part of the oil industry. If it's so damn safe why can't they get insurance? 

Anything can happen but my money is on a win for the opponents. This may just be a pressure tactic on the part of Kinder Morgan but it still shows a willingness to walk away soon if it doesn't get going. They seem to have been working on the assumption that they would win the court cases. Or maybe they are just looking for an excuse to walk away. 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Another thing is, B.C. has actually increased its fossil fuel exports as U.S. ports have taken the principled stand of reducing their coal exports.

Controversially, almost all of this thermal coal is coming from the United States. As lawmakers in Washington and Oregon have begun shutting down their own coal ports due to environmental concerns, thermal coal producers in Wyoming and Montana have simply diverted their product through Canada.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/yes-anti-pipeline-vancouver-really...

Coal doesn't leak. It isn't as volatile. Much of the backing does come from people who are concerned about climate change but that is not the issue for BC communities and FNs. Their greatest concern is their immediate environment. That isn't threatened by coal. It is threatened by oil. 

6079_Smith_W

Of course it doesn't.

But this isn't just a case of coal being safer. One of the biggest charges levelled at the tar sands is that they are so dirty, and coal is far moreso. And this is also a jurisdiction - Vancouver - taking action against climate change on the one hand, but with the other profitting because of other ports closing their doors to coal.

And the bottom line is that no, they aren't reducing those exports. They are the biggest exporter of coal in North America.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Of course it doesn't.

But this isn't just a case of coal being safer. One of the biggest charges levelled at the tar sands is that they are so dirty, and coal is far moreso. And this is also a jurisdiction - Vancouver - taking action against climate change on the one hand, but with the other profitting because of other ports closing their doors to coal.

And the bottom line is that no, they aren't reducing those exports. They are the biggest exporter of coal in North America.

None of which has anything to do with the pipelines. So they are hypocrites on climate change. What's your point? 

6079_Smith_W

Well this thread isn't about pipelines either, so I don't think that puts me off-topic.

You read Sean's post at #651; you quoted from it. I was actually commenting in line with some of his points about parties acting in their own interest. If there is any example of that stronger than the approval of Site C, it is B.C. profitting off of American ports' decision to oppose coal exports.

As for coal not being an issue because it doesn't spill like oil, that is just an even starker example of kicking a bigger problem down the road and hoping no one will notice:

Coal is the single biggest contributor to anthropogenic climate change. The burning of coal is responsible for 46% of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide and accounts for 72% of total  greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the electricity sector. If plans to build up to 1200 new coal fired power stations around the world are realized, the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from these plants would put us on a path towards catastrophic climate change, causing global temperatures to rise by over five degrees Celsius by 2100. This will have dire impacts for all life on earth.

https://endcoal.org/climate-change/

Coal might not be quite as sexy an issue as oil, but it is a far bigger problem. It is the biggest source of Saskatchewan's record carbon footprint. And B.C. is continuing to profit off it just as Alberta is with the tar sands. At the same time they pride themselves on standing up to pipelines because that will dirty up their backyard.

 

 

 

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

If that is so the Supreme Court should decide very quickly. If the feds don't act BC could take months just to formulate the question.

I'm not sure how having the Supreme Court reiterate that pipelines are federal jusidiction would change things. BC is not challenging federal jurisdiction, they are challenging some aspects of the construction of the pipeline. They would continue to do that no matter what.

If BC would agree beforehand that they would end their opposition to the pipeline if the Supreme Court said pipelines were federal jurisdiction, then there may be a point in doing it. Otherwise it's just a useless waste of time. 

The question BC will be referring to the Supreme Court will be based on the province's jurisdiction on the environment and health and safety, not pipelines in particular. That is, the question will apply equally to trains transporting dangerous goods. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
That is, the question will apply equally to trains transporting dangerous goods.

Trucks too?

If they end up having to say "we don't want ANY hazardous stuff going on" that could get interesting.

NorthReport

I thhink Singh should run for a seat soon not necessarily Outremont but run for a seat he should Hebert’s article though is a bit over the top

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/04/13/running-in-quebecs-outremont-would-be-a-risky-move-for-ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh.html

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

If that is so the Supreme Court should decide very quickly. If the feds don't act BC could take months just to formulate the question.

I'm not sure how having the Supreme Court reiterate that pipelines are federal jusidiction would change things. BC is not challenging federal jurisdiction, they are challenging some aspects of the construction of the pipeline. They would continue to do that no matter what.

If BC would agree beforehand that they would end their opposition to the pipeline if the Supreme Court said pipelines were federal jurisdiction, then there may be a point in doing it. Otherwise it's just a useless waste of time. 

The question BC will be referring to the Supreme Court will be based on the province's jurisdiction on the environment and health and safety, not pipelines in particular. That is, the question will apply equally to trains transporting dangerous goods. 

Is there a question regarding Indigenous lands?

I don't think the Province can win on this question. Risk benefit judgement woudl be the Feds. The Province likely woudl be able to bring measures for details of regulation provided they not negate the Federal decision.

Pages