babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
http://www.straight.com/article-723126/vancouver/former-conservative-cab...
Churches have never been the traditional allies of the left (except perhaps United), but this is encouraging.
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Pipeline+opposition+growing+Canada+...
Pipeline opposition growing in Canada from pews to pulpits
Churches across Canada say they have a religious duty to speak out on the proposed Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline.
Next week, delegates at the United Church of Canada general council meeting in Ottawa are to debate a resolution that calls on the church to reject construction of the $6-billion Enbridge project that would take diluted bitumen from Alberta to the British Columbia coast.
The resolution was drafted in support of aboriginals in B.C., who worry a spill would poison the land and water, and directs the church to send the results of its vote to the federal, B.C. and Alberta governments and the media.
Mardi Tindal, moderator of the United Church, said care of the Earth is an important part of the faith and the church can’t shy away from the pipeline just because it is controversial and politically divisive.
“People care so much about this. People understand that you cannot separate economic health from ecological health,” she said from Toronto.
“The church has a responsibility to contribute to the conversations that make for the best public policy for the common good.”
The United Church of Canada is not alone.
Earlier this year, the Anglican Bishops of British Columbia and Yukon issued a statement that questioned the integrity of the pipeline’s environmental impact review.
The diocese of New Westminster of the Anglican Church of Canada has declared its outright opposition to Northern Gateway, and is looking at excluding Enbridge stock from the diocese’s investment portfolio.
A group representing 28 Presbyterian churches in the Lower Mainland has written a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that accuses the government of weakening environmental reviews and demonizing people who oppose projects as radicals trying to sabotage Canada’s economy.
In her letter to Harper, Rev. Diane Tait-Katerberg wrote there is already “overwhelming evidence the government of Canada has already made up its mind about the safety of these projects, and is arranging things so that nothing stands in the way of the development of the oilsands and the approval of these pipelines.”
There is so much buzz about the pipeline in religious circles that the ecumenical justice organization Kairos has written a primer on the Enbridge project titled Ethical Reflections on the Northern Gateway Pipeline. It’s meant to help churches make their own value judgments on the project.
The primer says Northern Gateway presents intersecting challenges for the economy, ecology and Canada’s relations with aboriginal people.
It says the focus on the anticipated wealth the pipeline would create threatens to obscure the magnitude of the profound challenges it would pose to the environment.
“In a very immediate way, Northern Gateway threatens the survival of the first nations whose territory it would cross,” the report says.
“A spill would devastate livelihoods, the land, food sources and the ability to pass on to future generations values, principles, languages and core aspects of how these people’s cultures are practised.”
Kairos member churches include the Anglican Church of Canada, the Christian Reformed Church in North America, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Mennonite Central Committee of Canada, the Presbyterian Church in Canada and the United Church of Canada.
Ed Bianchi, a Kairos spokesman, said the report is impartial on Northern Gateway.
"I don’t think it is a political issue. I think it is an issue that is of concern to our society because it has so many potential impacts on so many people,” he said.
Enbridge said it has no problem with churches weighing in with their opinions on Northern Gateway. But the Calgary-based corporation added it is concerned about whether people are basing their opinions on facts.
Enbridge vice-president Janet Harder said the company has been working hard to explain the project to people who live along its 1,200-kilometre route, but hasn’t done enough to explain it to the rest of Canada. Harder said Enbridge plans to release more information this fall about its environmental standards for the pipeline and how the company would protect the ocean from spills.
The information could include an advertising campaign in B.C. and Alberta and perhaps the rest of the country.
As well, she said, more facts will come out during the next phase of joint review panel hearings that begin in Edmonton next month. Government and intervener groups will be able to ask Enbridge detailed questions about the project.
Harder is confident people who are saying ‘no’ to the pipeline now may change their position before the panel wraps up by the end of next year.
“We don’t need to win the hearts and minds of people over the next couple of months,” she said. “We do have time to communicate and help people understand what this project is all about.”
The intervener phase, which runs Sept. 4- 28, is to examine the economic need for the project, how it would be financed and the toll structure it would use.
When the hearings shift to Prince George in October, the panel is to hear questions on the environmental effects of the pipeline and Enbridge’s plans to deal with accidents and malfunctions.
The final questions phase, to be held in Prince Rupert in November and December, is to look at the potential impacts of the pipeline on aboriginals and the environmental risks of shipping bitumen by supertanker in the waters along the rugged B.C. coast.
Alberta's atrocious record of thousands of pipeline leaks a strong warning to BC
Piping Crude? 'There Is No Leak Proof System'
http://billtieleman.blogspot.ca/2012/08/pipingcrude-there-is-no-leak-proof.html
The Anglicans used to be known as the Conservative party at prayer, but that ended in the 1970s, as the Anglcian Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church of the USA took pro-left stances on many issues - and both the United and the Anglican churches have had NDP clergy as MPs going back at least that long.
Fair enough.
My American rabbi uncle has done work with evangelical churches on uniting behind common environmental causes.
This is making the rounds on Facebook:
Link: http://sumofus.org/campaigns/enbridge/?sub=fbi
excerpt:
Enbridge knows that as the public is learning about its 800 oil spills in the last decade, they are turning against the company’s plans to run pipeline and tankers through pristine rainforest and coast. So it hired the same PR firm that worked for Big Tobacco and Enron to roll out a multi-million dollar public image makeover. Its slick website campaign is designed to convince the public that the oil tanker route is safe, but a scientist just discovered that Enbridge deliberately removed 1,000 km2 of islands off of a public video and map to make the oil tanker route look much less treacherous than it actually is.
Another fail for the anti-science forces.
You know, I heard about Marc Garneau running for the Liberal leadership... I'm on team orange, and say what you will about Liberals, but at least if he won he'd be another ally against the anti-science movement. The man's been in space - he's incapable of denying science!
I expect we will see a few proposals like this to deflect opposition to the proposed pipeline:
B.C. publisher proposes $13B crude refinery near Kitimat
David Black, owner of Black Press Group Ltd., said his other company, Kitimat Clean Ltd., is submitting an environmental assessment application for approval to build the plant.
It's a project worth $13 billion, and Black said the refinery will create 3,000 full-time jobs and 6,000 temporary jobs during the construction phase.
In a written statement published online, Black said the refinery is being designed specifically for processing Alberta oilsands heavy crude oil, and should have the capacity to process the entire output of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.
Black said the plant would process up to 550,000 barrels per day of dilbit — condensate diluent and Alberta oilsands bitumen — and would return the separated diluent to the Edmonton area through a proposed secondary pipeline.
He said the plant would produce 240,000 barrels of diesel, 100,000 barrels of gasoline and 50,000 of kerosene, or jet fuel, per day.
The refinery is being planned on a 3,000 hectare parcel of Crown land near DuBose, B.C., that is zoned for industrial use, he said.
Nice idea, but I'm sure it won't take too long for people to point out to him that such a refinery would be better built in Fort St. John (assuming he wants it where it will be of economic advantage to B.C.).
Why bother running pipe through the mountains and rain forest and risking all those spills when they can just refine it closer to the source?
Even if the refinery is built closer to the source, that doesn't end the risk of pipeline spills, does it?
Not end, but reduce. A shorter span through less difficult and sensitive terrain means less risk.
Really, those who want to go this course should build a refinery right at the source, but I presume this publisher wants an economic advantage for B. C.
I didn't post the whole article as per babble policy, but maybe I can post a bit from the end of the article:
NDP energy critic John Horgan said he doesn't think the project is feasible.
"The Chinese have not expressed any desire to buy refined crude, they want the raw bitumen," Horgan said.
"That's why Enbridge is so aggressively pursuing their proposal. The NDP opposes it today, we'll oppose it tomorrow despite Mr. Black's initiative."
Horgan says he can't support an increase in oil tankers on the coast whether they're carrying raw or refined crude oil.
The view is shared by Green Party leader Elizabeth May.
"I can't imagine anything worse leaking from a tanker than bitumen crude mixed with diluent but that doesn't mean a super tanker full of processed crude is a safe or acceptable alternative for British Columbians,” said May.
No matter how you move the oil, May says the Green Party doesn't support a pipeline moving crude oil across ecologically sensitive northern B.C.
The corporate cock-up that's refuelled the Canadian tar sands debate
The 17 hours it took for someone to notice oil gushing from Enbridge's pipeline in Michigan last year was, along with everything else, a ticking PR time bomb. Now the company's due a geography lesson, as Facebookers in Canada will tell you, given the way its newest cock-up is trending. Everyone's sharing the corporate drawing of the Douglas Channel leading from the Pacific ocean to Kitimat, BC. A waterway packed with 1,000 sq km of pointy islands was shown in an Enbridge presentation to be open water. Enbridge says it was only for "illustrative purposes". Illustrative indeed. Five thousand people shared it from LeadNow. Another couple thousand from activist David Suzuki. Even before this, one cabinet minister was already wary of Enbridge. Now? Who knows. But that oil still needs to go somewhere.
Elizabeth May writes on Facebook: Praise beyond party lines! Good for BC NDP Leader Adrian Dix for insisting on a BC environmental review of the proposed pipeline!
Do we have a thread on the Kinder Morgan pipeline? I can't find it, but we were talking about it in an unrelated thread.
Here's an older link that was posted earlier: Why Kinder Morgan's B.C. pipeline plans will fail
Now: Save the Salish Sea: Respecting Indigenous rights means stopping tar sands tankers
Both by the amazing Ben West.
I don't know how you stop the pipeline(s) from going ahead. Harper's ideological bent seems to steamroll any and all attempts to oppose such projects. How do the folks here (on this message board) keep from feeling overwhelmingly discouraged? Are you confident the Conservatives will not win re-election 4 or so years from now?
I think Harper will be forced to back down because of the massive opposition to Northern Gateway in BC, and certainly he will have a huge fight with the BC NDP when Dix becomes Premier next year.
Kinder Morgan is probably the more difficult of the two projects to stop because it already exists. The new proposal to massively increase capacity is absolutely appalling and deserves at least as much opposition as does the Northern Gateway. Fortunately, there's huge public opposition in BC to Kinder Morgan as well, and that can only grow.
So, no - with such popular support to Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan, there doesn't seem much room for pessimism in my opinion. Think positive.
Harper faces major problems in trying to ram through Northern Gateway. First, the people of the province in polls have shown they are overwhelmingly against it. Second, Adrian Dix,who is leading the LIbs by 45% to 23%, has promised to use every possible legal tactic, such as constitutional challenges and refusing construction permits, to delay and even halt the project. Third, the Cons now have 21 BC MPs, as well as 6 additional ridings added for the 2015 election, that would be at risk if they push through this project against the wishes of BCers, which is enough potential MP losses to put a Con majority seriously at risk. Even Harper's BC lieutenant James Moore has acknowledged the widespread opposition to the pipeline. Finally, several First Nations have promised to block the construction of the pipeline should it go ahead. I therefore think even a bullheaded Harper is likely to hesitate before the challenges created by ramming through the pipeline.
Northern Gateway is now running into opposition from other groups, including one that one might not come to mind immediately - the Alberta Federation of Labour. The United, Anglican, and Presbyterian churches are also opposing the pipeline. The mounting opposition is making the political cost of building it extremely high.
http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCABRE88402C20120905?pageNum...
"Enbridge Inc's proposed Northern Gateway oil pipeline to Canada's Pacific Coast could cost thousands of high-paying refining jobs in Alberta, a labor group warned on Tuesday as the company faced its first day of grilling at public hearings into the contentious project. Alberta Federation of Labour contends the C$6 billion ($6.1 billion) line, which would ship 525,000 barrels a day of oil sands-derived crude to tankers bound for Asia, would mean 5 percent less refinery throughput at home and the loss of 8,000 jobs. ...
Until now, the company has watched as many aboriginal communities and environmental groups harshly criticized the proposal, saying it would bring unnecessary risks of oil spills, both along the rugged route and in coastal waters.Enbridge's case has been undermined by oil spills on other parts of its system and a highly critical report by U.S. regulators into a 20,500 barrel leak in Michigan in 2010.
Alberta Federation of Labour was first to grill Enbridge's witness panel, made up of authors if its financial and economic reports, and its lawyer took most of the opening afternoon questioning them on the reliability of long-term forecasting. The federation has been front and center calling for more plants to extract and refine bitumen oil from Alberta's vast oil sands in order to create jobs, rather than shipping raw materials overseas. The industry has said the market should decide if processing plants are required and that there is enough oil to go around."
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/energy-resources/United+Church+mov...
"The United Church of Canada has decided to publicly oppose the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline and to communicate that decision to the government, Enbridge Inc. and the public. The pipeline proposed by Calgary-based energy giant Enbridge would do severe environmental damage, traversing waterways where salmon spawn, said Ray Jones, the chair of the church’s aboriginal ministries council. And the potential for an oil spill in the port of Kitimat, B.C., and for devastation to the coastline is very real, he said. 'It is a strong message when we passed this motion this afternoon that the United Church is and will continue to practice what it says, especially environmentally,' Jones said in Ottawa Tuesday. The proposal from the British Columbia Native Ministries Council, stating the group’s opposition to the pipeline, was one of about 130 proposals church commissioners from Canada’s largest Protestant denomination are discussing at the 41st General Council in Ottawa."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/08/06/pol-cp-northern-gateway...
"Earlier this year, the Anglican Bishops of British Columbia and Yukon issued a statement that questioned the integrity of the pipeline's environmental impact review. The diocese of New Westminster of the Anglican Church of Canada has declared its outright opposition to Northern Gateway, and is looking at excluding Enbridge stock from the diocese's investment portfolio.
A group representing 28 Presbyterian churches in B.C.'s Lower Mainland has written a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that accuses the government of weakening environmental reviews and demonizing people who oppose projects as radicals trying to sabotage Canada's economy. In her letter to Harper, Rev. Diane Tait-Katerberg wrote there is already "overwhelming evidence the government of Canada has already made up its mind about the safety of these projects, and is arranging things so that nothing stands in the way of the development of the oilsands and the approval of these pipelines."
After hiring Geoff Plant, former Liberal BC Attorney General, as part of Cristy Clark's "A team" to cross-examine witnesses at the Northern Gateway hearings in Calgary, the hearing chairwoman, Sheila Leggett, almost immediately shut him down, saying that questions on pipeline disaster preparedness were out of line because those questions were to be asked only in BC hearings while the Calgary hearings were reserved for the "economic impacts of the pipeline". If this is the approach taken to a government largely in sympathy with the pipeline but looking for a way it can mollify the wide opposition to the pipeline in BC, one can only imagine the treatment that the "environmental radicals and terrorists", which Joe (alias McCarthy) Oliver made famous, will receive. This also made Clark look foolish because, after tooting the hiring of the big-name "A-team" representative to protect BC's interests, he was shot down before he could barely ask a question. As with the environmental radical and terrorist comment, the hearing's approach is going to make BCers even more inclined to oppose the pipeline. While Plant noted that Enbridge had created a shell company for Northern Gateway (which therefore could run out of money to deal with any disasterous spill while leaving Enbridge solvent and profitable) he said this did not concern him - some defender of BC interests. NDP environment critic Rob Fleming said Clark's phot-op "A-team" had "completely flopped" and was a "disaster" at the hearing. He also questioned why it had taken two years for Clark to name a lead legal strategist for this process. He argued that the Liberal strategy was "politically designed to avoid a real position" and that it was extremely negilent about BC concerns about the pipeline. Wilderness Committee member Ben West called Plant's appointment "political theater".
http://www.calgaryherald.com/mobile/business/top-stories/Enbridge+tells+...
"The B. C. government arrived at the Northern Gateway pipeline hearings in Edmonton with its environment minister, its former attorney general and a binderful of questions, only to get shut down for being out of bounds. Elisabeth Graff, the lawyer for the province, was stopped moments into her cross-examination Thursday of pipeline builder Enbridge. Graff was asking Northern Gateway president John Carruthers about the insurance for oil spill disasters when panel chairman Sheila Leggett intervened. Leggett reminded Graff the Edmonton hearings are to focus on the economic impacts of the project and that disaster preparedness is being dealt with at upcoming hearings in B.C.
Graff said there had been consultation with Enbridge on the topics to be covered and that any overlap with other hearings would be minimal. Not good enough, said Leggett.
'We have, as the panel, taken great pains to set these issues up in a way that we believed would be logical and would be in a manner so that we wouldn't have any overlap,' said Leggett. Graff is expected to resume Friday with questions on the corporate structure of the project.
Earlier Thursday, at a news conference held at the Vancouver Airport, B.C. Premier Christy Clark announced Plant had been hired to oversee the questions the province will ask Carruthers and six Enbridge (TSX:ENB) economists at the hearings in Alberta and the upcoming ones starting next month in B.C. 'He's going to be making sure that we get the answers to the questions that we need,' said Clark. '(He) is one of the finest legal minds in our country. He understands the environment, he understands the government, he understands politics, and our coastline. And the protection of our land base here in British Columbia is deeply important to Geoff.'
Enbridge is seeking federal approval to build a $6-billion pipeline to ship oilsands crude from the Edmonton area to Kitimat on the B.C. coast, where it would then be shipped to markets in Asia. Plant said the corporate structure is of particular interest, given that Calgary-based Enbridge has created a separate entity to deal with the pipeline. 'I'm not worried that they're creating a shell (entity), but I don't want them to create a shell, and the people of British Columbia don't want to face the prospect of someone building a pipeline that isn't in a position where they can be held directly accountable for some harm caused.' "
Geoff Plant is the only sitting Attorney General of BC to have been censured by the Law Society of BC in a secret ballot vote in the largest meeting of lawyers this province has likely ever seen. By the way he got censured because he took all the money from taxes on lawyers fees that had been going into the legal aid fund and diverted it into general revenues leaving citizens with no access to the legal system. Of course his excuse was that the NDP in balancing the books had already stepped onto the icy hill when they took 15% of the money for general revenue.
And don't forget his stellar role protecting human rights by spearheading his racist Treaty Referendum based on a serious misreading off the existing case law concerning unceded aboriginal rights and title.
So no he is not a brilliant lawyer but my isn't it nice to see he still has access to the gravy train.
Christy Clark announced at the Union of BC Municipalities today that she has "serious environmental concerns about the proposed Enbridge Inc., (TSX:ENB) project, which "will not be built, period, if they aren't addressed," suggesting she now recognizes that the massive opposition to the pipeline in BC means she had better start getting in tune with BCer's, at least until the election. She went on to say that when she meets with Premier Redford of Alberta next week she will bring them up, in addition to the other requirements (give us money, money, money) she laid out if the pipeline is to be built.
She assured the audience that ""The bigger issue for us is how do we protect our environment. We are not going to do it at the expense of our environment." However, she then immediately laid out plans for $509 in spending to build 4-lane highway from Kamloops to the Ablerta border along the Trans-Canada, as well as $200 million in other road and capital building projects. As with the 'follow the money' saying, the latter Clark statement reveals what her true priorities in government are - say whatever needs to be said and do the blacktop the province thing when in political trouble with an election coming for a right-wing government.
http://www.theprovince.com/news/politics+Premier+Christy+Clark+looks+ahe...
duplicate
Clark requests meeting with Redford over Northern Gateway It's a desperation move prior to the next election....
Now, Ms. Clark says she is “deeply concerned” about the project’s risks and is threatening to smother the pipeline with red tape if her concerns are not allayed. “As you may know, there are a significant number of permits required for any pipeline project to proceed in British Columbia,” she reminded Ms. Redford on Wednesday.
No Tankers motion passed by B.C. local governments
excerpt:
Previous UBCM motions have focused solely on Enbridge and consultation. Today’s motion means that the UBCM now opposes ALL projects, current or future, that would bring more oil tankers anywhere on B.C.’s coast. That was a hard sell for some local governments because it is a very definitive position.
The fact that such a strong, all-encompassing resolution was passed speaks to a growing province-wide realization that this isn’t just about our environment. It never has been. This is about protecting the very fabric of our communities, our local economies from Prince Rupert to Victoria to Fort St. James that depend on a healthy coastline and rivers, and our sense of ourselves as British Columbians.
Does today’s stand by local governments mean that the fight is over? No, local governments don't have formal jurisdiction over oil tanker and pipeline proposals. The power of today’s victory is in the symbolism of the motion and the political signal that it sends to Premier Clark and Prime Minister Stephen Harper that local communities have considered these proposals and, in many cases across the province, have found that any iteration of these schemes are contrary to the best interests of their residents.
The most powerful change starts from the ground up, and we sincerely applaud those elected mayors, councillors, and regional directors who courageously took a stand today. We’re inspired by the many First Nations who have laid the ground work for so long, we're inspired by you and everyone who is committed to carrying on the struggle.
Note there is not a single coastal town on the list of Con speakers. I think the wording of this is amazing. I would have loved a breakdown to see whether any coastal reps voted for it.
My other half says maybe Comox.
This looks bad:
Chinese companies can sue BC for changing course on Northern Gateway, says policy expert
The biggest foreign trade treaty since NAFTA will come into effect on Nov 1 for the next three decades. What does it mean for BC?
Lib or Tory, it doesn't make a difference. Representative government is dying in this g-d country. Watch the Libs and Tories jump on the train.
Aren't you just so pleased that NAFTA, brought to you by Cons and not abrogated by Libs but who signed on the dotted line in 1993, now are showing exactly how they take care of Canada? We need a Danny Williams here, who will rip NAFTA to shreds.
i doubt any BC Newspaper like The Tyee show the picture of Christy Clark with a VP of Enbridge at the recent UBCM? Christy had her head down looking like a little kid being SPOKEN to.
don't think we'll have Christy pretending anymore affiliation with BCers. her head of communications i heard this morn also was changed. Musta been her idea for Christie to challenge Enbridge and AB to try and score points.
Enbridge is putting multi-millions in to promote the pipeline. this says to me they really may fear BCers and FN's fighting against it. and Christy made it a whole lot worse for 'em.