Tar Sands Hell 3

hey boomboom, can you tell me what that PandP stands for, and is there any way I might find it on the net? I'd love to see it, looks interesting...thanks!

http://greenparty.ca/blogs/7/2012-01-09/open-letter-joe-oliver

Elizabeth May wrote an excellent letter.

Inspired by Joe Oliver.

Harper interfering with Northern Gateway review: Liberals

Makes me wonder what a federal government other than Conservative (ie: NDP or NDP/Liberal coalition) will do after the 2015 election - overturn whatever decision Harper makes on the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL?

Good timing, eh!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/enbridge-reports-leak-from-us-pipeline-as-northern-gateway-hearings-begin/article2298173/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/pipeline-rhetoric-is-a-radical-attack-on-due-process/article2297894/

Excellent, Lefty! I hope the NDP win by a landslide in BC. Just wish it was sooner rather than later. Has Dix commented on the Northern Gateway/Oliver letter yet?

I haven't seen direct comment from the BCNDP on the letter. They are generally opposed to the pipeline, both on environmental and labour concerns. The BC Liberals have been  hemming and hawing, no doubt because they don't want to alienate neither the centrist environmentalist flank nor the right-wing pro-all-development flank. Rob Fleming, BCNDP environment critic, commented on the pipeline in general late last year.

http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/10297-tar-sands-pipeline-not-wort...

“The pipeline would carry over 500,000 barrels of raw tar sands  crude each day. The pipeline goes over mountains, across farmland, over the  Fraser and Skeena rivers, and straight through the Great Bear Rainforest to  the Pacific where it will be picked up by supertankers trying to navigate our inland coastal waters,” said New Democrat environment critic Rob Fleming. 

“The opportunities for disaster are many, and the B.C. Liberals should re-assure British Columbians that it will not go through.”

...

Fleming said there have been many disasters in the oil industry  recently, and this report clearly spells out how the tar sands pipeline  project is high risk.  

“British Columbians don’t want to see rivers and lakes killed,  fisheries destroyed or towns and farmland contaminated,” said Fleming. “While Alberta oil companies have a lot to gain, the small benefits to British Columbia are far outweighed by the enormous risk to our northern industries, fisheries, communities and ecology.”

Fleming said the report highlights an incident in Michigan last  year where another Enbridge tar sands pipeline ruptured, dumping three million  litres of crude into the Kalamazoo River. The area and surrounding wetlands are expected to be contaminated for many years.

“There is a reason why First Nations oppose the pipeline and  associated tanker traffic. There’s a reason why the Union of B.C. Municipalities voted against it. There’s a reason why British Columbians are  against it,” said Fleming.  

Fleming said that the report also underlines the need for a  commitment from the B.C. Liberals to put pressure on the federal government to  create a meaningful national plan on climate change.

Come to think of it, I heard on CBC News that the consultation process is supposed to take 18 months. That means it closes out circa June or July 2013 before a single shovel breaks ground. Coincidentally, the BC fixed election date law states that we're to have our next election in May 2013. So any provincial showdown over the pipeline is sure to set the tone for an election.

Peggy Nash calls out Stephen Harper on his smear campaign

"Harper's latest smear campaign against credible environmental organizations is an attempt to distract Canadians from the real issue," said Nash. "A majority of Canadians agree that the control of Canada's natural resources should not be ceded to big business, yet that's exactly what the Harper Conservatives want to do."

The proposed Enbridge pipeline project would ship raw bitumen crude to Kitimat, BC over 1200 kilometers of mountains and rivers and through 100 First Nations territories for shipment to Asia by supertanker through treacherous coastal waters. The Harper Conservatives voted down an NDP bill that would have legislated a ban on tankers along the north coast.

"Protecting coastal communities should be a priority for all parties," Nash continued. "Their livelihoods depend on a healthy ocean, but the Harper Conservatives insist on protecting their friends in the oil sands instead of this precious natural heritage."

"And Harper has the nerve to call environmentalists ideologically driven."

Polls show that the majority of British Columbians are opposed to the Enbridge pipeline and more concerned about foreign control over the oil sands than the US funding of Canadian NGOs Harper's PR machine has been touting.

"In solidarity with the 100 First Nations and coastal communities impacted by this reckless project, I will continue to challenge Harper's blatant disregard for Canadians' wishes, and will fight for environmental regulations and strengthening of the Canadian Environment Assessment Act," affirmed Nash.

WTF is up with that?

He actually refers to "Imperial" China - a term that's about 100 years out of date.

ETA: Nikiforuk actually seems to be promoting the "ethical oil" canard in reverse; the Canadian fossil fuel industry should be developed to serve "North American" markets (i.e., you-know-who), and not those evil Chinese.

  | 11. Jan, 2012 by APTN National News |

By Jorge Barrera
APTN National News

quote:

First Nations currently form the bedrock of opposition to the pipeline. The majority of the pipeline in B.C. would travel through the traditional territories of these First Nations. Most First Nations in the province have never signed treaties, meaning they’ve never ceded their traditional territories.

“They are sidestepping First Nations,” said Nadleh Whut’en First Nation Chief Larry Nooski.

Nooski said Oliver is instead focusing on a softer target, namely environmental groups that get funding from the U.S., to drum up public support for the project.

“That is why he hasn’t directly gone against the First Nations,” said

Nooski, whose community is part of the Yinka Dene Alliance. “He is trying to scare up some boogeyman up there so the general public won’t look to see what is actually going on here.”

About 130 First Nations oppose the pipeline and the tanker traffic along B.C.’s coast it would bring. Sixty-six First Nations have signed a declaration opposing the project.....

Ruh-roh. BC Finance Minister Kevin Falcon lines up beside Joe Oliver...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-finance...

B.C. Finance Minister Kevin Falcon went off script this week, deviating from his government’s carefully neutral stand on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

Premier Christy Clark has refused to be drawn into taking a position, stating that her government will await the outcome of the National Energy Board process before arriving at any conclusions.

But this week, Mr. Falcon joined the Harper government in attacking critics of the project.

With the pipeline regulatory hearings just getting under way this week, the federal government has ramped up a campaign to brand opponents as radical environmentalists backed by foreign interests, accusing some environmental organizations of seeking to hijack the hearings and kill the project through tactical delays.

“Well, I think they've got a point,” Mr. Falcon told reporters. “I think we have to be very worried about the fact that foreign money is going into lobbying efforts against British Columbia and Canada's economic interests.”

----

That's funny, because I thought that environmental damage was against our economic interests too, and plenty of foreign money is going into lobbying efforts in favour of such damage :P

Paul Dewar released an energy policy paper today. It does not deal with bitumen exports or pipelines. Perhaps Linda Duncan is going to help him establish a position on that. He does call for withdrawals of corporate subsidies.

WOW...

That is... just... the most brazen conserva-bot I have ever seen. But you have to admit, she really has the FOX News strategy down. Repeat the same message as many times as possible, and any point that catches you off-guard is a conspiracy theory.

Some highlights from the comments:

They could have replaced that lady with a parrot that says "Foreign Special Interests". She's obviously been ordered to make sure she included a few key fear phrases in her "debate".

Please explain this: When you click donate on the ethicaloil [dot] org website your payment goes to "Ethical Oil Institute". This Business is registered as a non-profit which shares the same address (600 - 12220 Stony Plain Road, Edmonton) as McLennan Ross LLP - A firm specializing in Oil Sands Litigation.

I have watched the "debate" and find it hard to believe that Enbridge or any other oil company will would pay her to be a spokes person on there behalf with her "I know you are but what am I" debating style. With the amount of money at stake you would think Enbridge would support someone that actually prepare for the debate If I were Enbridge I would pay her not to speak in public!

No campaigns against Enbridge could possibly hope to get this golden 10 min worth of publicity. Thanks, Kathryn, for doing such an effective job.

That was some of the most embarrassing television I've ever seen. To be asked NINE times whether you're funded by Enbridge and not provide a response is, at the very least, asinine debating strategy and, at worst, a cover up. If Ethical Oil is indeed funded by Enbridge, then there is nothing ETHICAL about the organization.

Gotcha! "Ethical Oil dial-a-quote Kathryn Marshall is married to Hamish Marshall, Stephen Harper’s former strategic planning manager." from the Ottawa Citizen- Google it. Kathryn Marshall worked for the Fraser Institute, a conservative think tank. Critics of Fraser Institute such as David Suzuki have also named Exxon, Koch and Scaife as the Institute's donors.

MEDIA LITERACY MOMENT: Here is an example of a PR hack at work. The key startegies are 1. define the focus and scope of the story regardless of what questions you are asked 2. Use language that insights fear and otherness to describe your critics (in this case "foreign") 3. Don't bother with truth, reason or the general rules of language or interviews