Tar Sands Hell 3

... where the Minister erred was in failing to provide a meaningful explanation for how he reached his conclusion not to recommend an emergency Order, given (i) the scientific and other information that was reviewed over the course of several pages in the Decision, (ii) the recovery objectives for boreal caribou set forth in the Draft Policies, and (iii) the language of subsection 80(2), the purposes of the SARA, as set forth in section 6, and the overall scheme of that legislation.

Notwithstanding the substantial scientific and other evidence that was discussed and that contradicted the overall conclusion reached by the Minister in the Decision, the Minister concluded that there are no imminent threats to the national recovery of boreal caribou in Canada. The sole basis that was provided in the Decision for that conclusion was the following:

Quote:

Although the extirpation of even the [Seven Herds] would result in further range retraction in the middle of the range of boreal caribou, it is possible to maintain a self sustaining population of boreal caribou in eastern Canada. As such, even though national recovery objectives and approaches would be constrained by the extirpation of even the 7 Alberta herds in question, the Eastern local populations could provide the basis for achieving a national recovery objective.

In my view, these very short reasons provided for the conclusion reached by the Minister do not enable me to conduct a meaningful review of the Decision... This is because the basis for the overall conclusion reached by the Minister, particularly the evidentiary basis, was not meaningfully discussed..., and the record does not otherwise explain the Minister's decision in a satisfactory manner. In the context of the Decision as a whole, this conclusion essentially came "out of the blue". The Applicants, the public and the Court are left to speculate as to:

i. the scientific basis for the conclusion that it is possible to maintain a self sustaining population of boreal caribou in eastern Canada;

ii. the content of "the national recovery objectives and approaches that would be constrained by the extirpation of" the Seven Herds;

iii. the basis upon which it was concluded that the eastern local populations could provide the basis for achieving a national recovery objective;

iv. the likelihood of achieving such national recovery objective if the Seven Herds become extirpated; and

v. the basis upon which this conclusion was considered to be consistent with the language of subsection 80(2), the purposes of the SARA, as set forth in section 6, and the SARA as a whole.

It said COAL was the worst culprit. Also, oil industry people will tell you that 85% of emissions come from "tailpipes", not productionn of oil and gas - their point being that "it is driver's fault tha planet is warming, don't blame the industry"...

Oil Sands Impacts Posing 'Financial Risks' to Alberta says PCO

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Oilsands+impact+posing+financial+ri...

"Collateral damage from Canada's booming oilsands sector may be irreversible, posing a 'significant and environmental and financial risks to the province of Alberta,' says a secret memorandum prepared for the federal government's top bureaucrat..."

Snowd wrote:

It said COAL was the worst culprit. Also, oil industry people will tell you that 85% of emissions come from "tailpipes", not productionn of oil and gas - their point being that "it is driver's fault tha planet is warming, don't blame the industry"...

I don't know what your agenda is here, but I don't much care for it. This is oil company propaganda, pure and simple. Just because coal may be worse than oil for emissions, it doesn't excuse the mining of oilsands. In fact, the emissions produced by mining and processing bitumen into usable petroleum products vastly exceed the emissions produced in the mining of coal, and that difference exceeds any difference in the emissions caused by the combustion of either fossil fuel.

Whether the bulk of the emissions of any fossil fuel come from the "tailpipe" or the extraction from the earth is irrelevant - both the extraction and the combustion of fossil fuels cause harm to the environment and force climate change. Without the extraction there would be no combustion, so the oil companies can't play Pontius Pilate and wash their hands of the environmental damage caused by their product.