no pipeline, no tankers, no problem 2

1125 posts / 0 new
Topic locked
Last post
Fri, 2018-04-13 08:45
epaulo13

Three arrested as protests resume on Burnaby Mountain

Protests resumed on Burnaby Mountain at the gates of the Kinder Morgan pipeline construction site, as artists showed up with colourful signs representing fish, birds and other wildlife. Three women were arrested, including Pia Massie, the artist in residence at Emily Carr University's Centre for Culture and Community.

“I'm here because I feel a great responsibility to protect our coast and stand with Indigenous leaders opposed to this pipeline," Massie told National Observer. "Artists have always helped define key moments in history and this is one of them."

Susan Smyth, a 70-year-old artist also involved in the protest, shared her hopes that her artwork is "inspiring people to stand up for our future generations."

"The art you're seeing is of all the sea creatures of the salish sea, and the latest iteration are of the children," she said.

quote:

So far, over 175 people have been arrested during daily protests for violating the court-ordered injunction that came into effect on March 15.

Top
Fri, 2018-04-13 09:15
epaulo13

‘They’re Not Getting How the Constitution Works’: Why Trudeau, Notley Can’t Steamroll B.C. on Kinder Morgan Pipeline

In the fall of 1981, Jack Woodward was a young lawyer in Ottawa when NDP leader Ed Broadbent and prime minister Pierre Trudeau struck a deal to include aboriginal rights in the Canadian constitution.

“I banged out a first draft,” Woodward recalls. “I typed it out on a manual typewriter. I had to do it in a hurry.”

In less than an hour, Woodward had laid the foundation of Section 35, the part of the Canadian constitution that recognizes and affirms the rights of Indigenous peoples.

In the ensuing 37 years, Woodward has come to know a thing or two about Canada’s constitution. For one, he fought the Tsilhqot’in Nation’s title case for a quarter century, resulting in the landmark Supreme Court ruling that the nation holds title to about 1,900 square kilometres of its traditional territory in B.C.

So when Woodward hears pundits and politicians bandying around the phrase “unconstitutional,” his ears perk up.

“The government of Alberta will not — we cannot — let this unconstitutional attack on jobs and working people stand,” Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said after the B.C. government announced its intention to limit the transport of diluted bitumen through the province in January.

“She’s completely wrong about that,” Woodward told DeSmog Canada. “And if she was right, she could go to court. But she knows she’s not right, so that’s why she’s using that word as if it is a political tool rather than a legal tool … That’s a superficial and incorrect view of how the Canadian constitution works.”

Woodward says Notley is referring to pre-1982 classic constitutional questions about the divisions of powers between federal and provincial governments.

“But since 1982, you also have the additional complexity of constitutional protection of aboriginal rights, which in some cases override either federal or provincial powers,” Woodward said.

Indigenous rights are not a footnote in the ongoing constitutional saga over the the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline — they’re at the centre of it. And yet, they’re virtually absent in media coverage of Canada’s pipeline pandemonium.....

 

Top
Fri, 2018-04-13 16:04
epaulo13

Sign the petition to tell Governor Brown to commit California to no new fossil fuels and put us on a path to real action on climate change and healthier communities.

Top
Fri, 2018-04-13 17:35
epaulo13

In the Trans Mountain pipeline debate, it’s not questions of constitutional jurisdiction that give many pause – it’s the underlying environmental policy.

Kinder Morgan’s April 8 ultimatum to Canada — clear a direct path for our Trans Mountain pipeline expansion by May 31 or we’ll down tools for good — has been called an economic and constitutional disaster. The good news is that it’s neither of those things. The bad news? It’s much worse.

A handy definition of a constitution is “a system for managing disagreement and convergence, a system that leaves open the possibility of conflict without everlasting bitterness and reproach.” Judged against that standard, our federal and provincial governments’ handling of the Trans Mountain dispute between the Province of British Columbia, which opposes the project, and Alberta and Ottawa, who both support it, leaves much to be desired.

Just don’t blame our Constitution. This is a failure of public policy, not constitutional law.....

Top
Fri, 2018-04-13 17:40
epaulo13

..more from the above post

quote:

Provided that BC’s spill response regulation meets this territorially-based jurisdictional test — and there’s no reason why it can’t be carefully crafted to do so — it will be constitutional. Then it would fall to the courts to determine whether federal and provincial jurisdiction over the pipeline can coexist. As the Federal Court recently ruled in a case called Taseko Mines, concerning the environmental assessment of an open-pit gold and copper mine in BC, “A project of such magnitude as the one considered in the present case will likely have impacts in areas of both provincial and federal responsibility.”

The trouble is that Trans Mountain’s supporters don’t believe for a second that BC’s proposed regulation is a bona fide environmental measure. As noted above, they see it as nothing more than a political stall tactic. Indeed, it’s getting harder by the day for those opposed to Trans Mountain for genuinely environmental reasons to believe BC either. The province recently announced tax incentives to attract liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects. Premier John Horgan’s own coalition partner, BC Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver, said that he was “very, very skeptical that you can even have a [climate] plan that includes adding eight megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions,” referring to LNG Canada’s proposed $40-billion natural gas pipeline and terminal project for BC. Even its most ardent supporters freely admit “LNG is not the greenest energy source.”

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 02:41
(Reply to #606)
progressive17 progressive17's picture

Martin N. wrote:

How many straw men can you fit into one post before your head explodes with the effort? You need some circus music to accompany such uninformed ranting.

Since the effort to reach tidewater with oil products is based on the fact that this oil is presently sold at a discount to global oil prices, how do you think you can buy oil cheaper on the world market? Is there a market discount for self- righteous hypocrites that only smug 'activists are aware of? That idea is almost as idiotic as the one of protesting oil Export tanker traffic by proposing importing by tanker because, you know, its different.

Do you have any idea of BC's oil demand? Or it's refinery capacity? Try thinking rather than ranting, genius.

By the way, you better save some angst for when the dust settles and KM is under construction. Horgan is already looking for a way out of this mess. Even Heyman knows the jig is up. It's been a laff  riot but the grown ups are taking over. Junior was sent home after recess so he couldn't screw up Question. Period

Well, you have learned how to spell hypocrite correctly, so that is a good start. "The effort to reach tidewater" goes through aquifers. Your beloved oil industry seeks the highest profit and the lowest bidder, and the government and hence our tax dollars to cover all the risk while you rake in all the profits. Even if I were an Ayn Rand fan (which I am not) I would have an easy excuse to slay you. You are asking me to subsidize something I do not want. You are asking for investments that private capital will not pay for. Perhaps they are smarter than you.

Why would I want drinking water put at risk for a commodity which is extremely toxic? Why would I want pipelines to go through areas where people don't want them? I want to wake up and smell the roses, not your foul odors.

When the oil boom was happening under Harper, what benefit was there for car drivers across Canada? High gasoline prices along with a high dollar, making life more expensive and our goods and labour more difficult to sell abroad. Turning Canada into a shithole petrostate.

Look at economics. Primary resource extraction is for poor countries. Rich countries take that shit and process into useful things which can be sold and taxed with added value. I already suggested you build a refinery, and you poo-pooed that. You blew the billions you had on 15% dividends and whatever else it was, and you blew the Heritage Trust Fund. All of this is all your fault. Don't expect the rest of Canada to support you corporate welfare bums, especially as you have already fucked up so badly, and proved you cannot handle the responsibility of such a serious and risk-fraught venture.

There is quite a big refinery industry in New Brunswick. You might check it out. The oil can be shipped in from shithole petrostates traversing no Canadian aquifers. It is much closer to the mass of the Canadian population than Alberta is.

Plus, do you even know what greenhouse gas emissions are? Canada signed on to a global deal to reduce those emissions in Paris. The oil you produce has more GHGs than coal. Plus the toxic materials used to thin the shit out so you can even pump it down the tube. While the Athabaska Tar Sands is in operation, there is no way that Canada can meet its Paris commitments.

You are advocating the environmental destruction of Canada, which will affect soil, water, air, plants, animals, and human beings.

Now you have blown all the money you have made on oil, why not go back to farming? Alberta used to be quite good at that, and could still be, if you didn't keep fouling their land with your hundreds of oil spills.

You can call me all the names you like, but you won't get any converts to your foul oil business with me. Fuck you and the oily slime you rode in on. Oh and pardon the colourful language. I am a warehouse worker, and I move tonnes in hours with my bare hands. I can get 8 tonnes of shit rolling on a conveyor with enough brute force to make it sail until the fucking machine starts working again. Against the friction of the belt under the rollers. Put chains around me, and I can tow a van up a hill. We proletarians tend to speak like that.

If you want more of the same, keep talking to me. You have absolutely nothing to contribute to the well-being of the people, land, and biology of this country. Go take a flying fuck at a rolling oil tube.

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 05:23
(Reply to #607)
LB Cultured Thought

progressive17 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

How many straw men can you fit into one post before your head explodes with the effort? You need some circus music to accompany such uninformed ranting.

Since the effort to reach tidewater with oil products is based on the fact that this oil is presently sold at a discount to global oil prices, how do you think you can buy oil cheaper on the world market? Is there a market discount for self- righteous hypocrites that only smug 'activists are aware of? That idea is almost as idiotic as the one of protesting oil Export tanker traffic by proposing importing by tanker because, you know, its different.

Do you have any idea of BC's oil demand? Or it's refinery capacity? Try thinking rather than ranting, genius.

By the way, you better save some angst for when the dust settles and KM is under construction. Horgan is already looking for a way out of this mess. Even Heyman knows the jig is up. It's been a laff  riot but the grown ups are taking over. Junior was sent home after recess so he couldn't screw up Question. Period

Well, you have learned how to spell hypocrite correctly, so that is a good start. "The effort to reach tidewater" goes through aquifers. Your beloved oil industry seeks the highest profit and the lowest bidder, and the government and hence our tax dollars to cover all the risk while you rake in all the profits. Even if I were an Ayn Rand fan (which I am not) I would have an easy excuse to slay you. You are asking me to subsidize something I do not want. You are asking for investments that private capital will not pay for. Perhaps they are smarter than you.

Why would I want drinking water put at risk for a commodity which is extremely toxic? Why would I want pipelines to go through areas where people don't want them? I want to wake up and smell the roses, not your foul odors.

When the oil boom was happening under Harper, what benefit was there for car drivers across Canada? High gasoline prices along with a high dollar, making life more expensive and our goods and labour more difficult to sell abroad. Turning Canada into a shithole petrostate.

Look at economics. Primary resource extraction is for poor countries. Rich countries take that shit and process into useful things which can be sold and taxed with added value. I already suggested you build a refinery, and you poo-pooed that. You blew the billions you had on 15% dividends and whatever else it was, and you blew the Heritage Trust Fund. All of this is all your fault. Don't expect the rest of Canada to support you corporate welfare bums, especially as you have already fucked up so badly, and proved you cannot handle the responsibility of such a serious and risk-fraught venture.

There is quite a big refinery industry in New Brunswick. You might check it out. The oil can be shipped in from shithole petrostates traversing no Canadian aquifers. It is much closer to the mass of the Canadian population than Alberta is.

Plus, do you even know what greenhouse gas emissions are? Canada signed on to a global deal to reduce those emissions in Paris. The oil you produce has more GHGs than coal. Plus the toxic materials used to thin the shit out so you can even pump it down the tube. While the Athabaska Tar Sands is in operation, there is no way that Canada can meet its Paris commitments.

You are advocating the environmental destruction of Canada, which will affect soil, water, air, plants, animals, and human beings.

Now you have blown all the money you have made on oil, why not go back to farming? Alberta used to be quite good at that, and could still be, if you didn't keep fouling their land with your hundreds of oil spills.

You can call me all the names you like, but you won't get any converts to your foul oil business with me. Fuck you and the oily slime you rode in on. Oh and pardon the colourful language. I am a warehouse worker, and I move tonnes in hours with my bare hands. I can get 8 tonnes of shit rolling on a conveyor with enough brute force to make it sail until the fucking machine starts working again. Against the friction of the belt under the rollers. Put chains around me, and I can tow a van up a hill. We proletarians tend to speak like that.

If you want more of the same, keep talking to me. You have absolutely nothing to contribute to the well-being of the people, land, and biology of this country. Go take a flying fuck at a rolling oil tube.

Wow....just wow. Can't wait until that warehouse you rode in on needs its own downstream environmental assessment to keep operating. I guess then you'll be out in the weeds with us Albertan hicks, where all the non-government scientists and engineers of the country seem to end up. Until then, keep on yapping with your complete lack of knowledge of the oil industry. I'm sure Martin finds it just as humourous as I do.

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 08:16
epaulo13

Senior officials warned Trudeau government of concerns that Kinder Morgan process was 'moving fast'

Senior public servants warned the Trudeau government in 2016 of concerns that its consultations with First Nations on the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline were “moving fast” — comparing the process to mistakes that led to the failure of another west coast pipeline, says a newly-released internal email.

A public servant who was leading Crown consultations with First Nations about the pipeline project sent the email in October 2016. It was delivered to a team of bureaucrats from five different federal departments and one government agency about four weeks before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau approved the Trans Mountain project, proposed by Texas-based multinational Kinder Morgan.

quote:

Officials had 'post-Gitxaala' concerns

Over the past week, Trudeau and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley’s government — along with Conservative politicians, business leaders, bankers and the oilpatch — have blamed opposition in British Columbia for triggering Kinder Morgan’s threat to cancel the project. Trudeau has also summoned Notley and British Columbia Premier John Horgan to Ottawa for a special meeting on Sunday in an attempt to resolve the dispute.

But the newly-released email shows that bureaucrats believed the federal consultation process, led by the federal government's Major Projects Management Office, was failing, jeopardizing the pipeline long before the provincial fallout, and before Trudeau even announced his decision.

The Major Projects Management Office was a new federal organization, created by the former Harper government in 2007, to co-ordinate federal reviews of major projects such as pipelines. Its main mandate is to ensure a centralized, whole-of-government (WoG) approach on assessments. The government introduced this office to speed up federal reviews of major projects by bringing departments with different mandates onto the same page.

The email, dated Oct. 26, 2016 and released to National Observer through access-to-information legislation, notes that two senior public servants at that time, Associate Deputy Minister Erin O’Gorman from the Major Projects Management Office and Timothy Gardiner, a director from Natural Resources Canada, had both been briefed on the emerging problems.

The email was sent a few months after the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the former Harper government’s approval of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat on the northwest coast of B.C., following a legal challenge spearheaded by several First Nations, including the Gitxaala Nation, the Gitga’at Nation and the Haisla Nation, along with other non-government organizations and the labour union, Unifor. The court ruling said that the First Nations weren't adequately consulted prior to Harper's decision....

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 08:31
epaulo13

..more from the above piece.

quote:

Rallying the team as the clock is ticking

The email was sent to convene all of the bureaucrats involved in the Trans Mountain decision from Natural Resources Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Health Canada, Transport Canada (referred to as TC in the email) and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority to a special meeting to be held in Vancouver the following day.

The Crown consultations lead also wrote in the email that they could discuss how to accommodate First Nations at the meeting, along with other issues identified by their departments regarding permits for Kinder Morgan and conditions needed for any potential approval.

O'Gorman and Gardiner both moved onto other government jobs after the Trans Mountain project was approved, along with several other public servants who worked on the file. The departures have made it difficult for the Natural Resources Department's access to information division to locate and retrieve relevant documents that were requested about the file.

But other documents, released to National Observer in January, revealed that public servants had informed federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr that First Nations felt the consultations were "parternalistic," "inadequate," and "unrealistic."

The legal duty for the federal government to consult First Nations on decisions that could affect their rights is enshrined in Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution. It has been upheld in several court decisions, including the Enbridge decision from 2016, which slammed the former Harper government for ignoring concerns raised by First Nations regarding the Northern Gateway project.

The Enbridge decision found that the Harper government might have been able to resolve the issue, simply by extending consultations by about four months, before it made its decision.

“But in the face of the requests of affected First Nations for more time, there was silence,” said the court ruling on the Enbridge case, delivered in Ottawa on June 23, 2016. “As best as we can tell from the record, these requests were never conveyed to the Governor in Council, let alone considered.”

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 08:38
epaulo13

..finally from the piece

quote:

In an interview last week with National Observer at the opening of a movie about communities on the Trans Mountain expansion route, Directly Affected, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip from the Union of BC Indian Chiefs said that he believed the pipeline project was dead due to the absence of consent.

"You simply can't build a pipeline in the face of such opposition. Our movement is growing on a daily and a weekly basis," he said.

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 08:43
epaulo13

..you can watch the trailer here

Directly Affected

5 years ago, Vancouver filmmaker, Zack Embree set out on a mission: to understand the impacts of the Kinder Morgan pipeline on local communities and give a voice back to those who had been ignored by the National Energy Board process.

He interviewed residents affected by the 2007 inlet drive spill, and covered the protests on Burnaby Mountain - and journeyed to First Nations communities such as Fort Mackay, Alberta to witness the impacts of fossil fuel extraction, to New Brunswick where many of the energy workers are from, as well as to France for the Paris Climate talks.

What he found was a growing storm of opposition from all walks of life and confusion over Prime Minister Trudeau’s climate plan - how to achieve it while building a major oil pipeline?

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 09:12
(Reply to #612)
progressive17 progressive17's picture

LB Cultured Thought wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

How many straw men can you fit into one post before your head explodes with the effort? You need some circus music to accompany such uninformed ranting.

Since the effort to reach tidewater with oil products is based on the fact that this oil is presently sold at a discount to global oil prices, how do you think you can buy oil cheaper on the world market? Is there a market discount for self- righteous hypocrites that only smug 'activists are aware of? That idea is almost as idiotic as the one of protesting oil Export tanker traffic by proposing importing by tanker because, you know, its different.

Do you have any idea of BC's oil demand? Or it's refinery capacity? Try thinking rather than ranting, genius.

By the way, you better save some angst for when the dust settles and KM is under construction. Horgan is already looking for a way out of this mess. Even Heyman knows the jig is up. It's been a laff  riot but the grown ups are taking over. Junior was sent home after recess so he couldn't screw up Question. Period

Well, you have learned how to spell hypocrite correctly, so that is a good start. "The effort to reach tidewater" goes through aquifers. Your beloved oil industry seeks the highest profit and the lowest bidder, and the government and hence our tax dollars to cover all the risk while you rake in all the profits. Even if I were an Ayn Rand fan (which I am not) I would have an easy excuse to slay you. You are asking me to subsidize something I do not want. You are asking for investments that private capital will not pay for. Perhaps they are smarter than you.

Why would I want drinking water put at risk for a commodity which is extremely toxic? Why would I want pipelines to go through areas where people don't want them? I want to wake up and smell the roses, not your foul odors.

When the oil boom was happening under Harper, what benefit was there for car drivers across Canada? High gasoline prices along with a high dollar, making life more expensive and our goods and labour more difficult to sell abroad. Turning Canada into a shithole petrostate.

Look at economics. Primary resource extraction is for poor countries. Rich countries take that shit and process into useful things which can be sold and taxed with added value. I already suggested you build a refinery, and you poo-pooed that. You blew the billions you had on 15% dividends and whatever else it was, and you blew the Heritage Trust Fund. All of this is all your fault. Don't expect the rest of Canada to support you corporate welfare bums, especially as you have already fucked up so badly, and proved you cannot handle the responsibility of such a serious and risk-fraught venture.

There is quite a big refinery industry in New Brunswick. You might check it out. The oil can be shipped in from shithole petrostates traversing no Canadian aquifers. It is much closer to the mass of the Canadian population than Alberta is.

Plus, do you even know what greenhouse gas emissions are? Canada signed on to a global deal to reduce those emissions in Paris. The oil you produce has more GHGs than coal. Plus the toxic materials used to thin the shit out so you can even pump it down the tube. While the Athabaska Tar Sands is in operation, there is no way that Canada can meet its Paris commitments.

You are advocating the environmental destruction of Canada, which will affect soil, water, air, plants, animals, and human beings.

Now you have blown all the money you have made on oil, why not go back to farming? Alberta used to be quite good at that, and could still be, if you didn't keep fouling their land with your hundreds of oil spills.

You can call me all the names you like, but you won't get any converts to your foul oil business with me. Fuck you and the oily slime you rode in on. Oh and pardon the colourful language. I am a warehouse worker, and I move tonnes in hours with my bare hands. I can get 8 tonnes of shit rolling on a conveyor with enough brute force to make it sail until the fucking machine starts working again. Against the friction of the belt under the rollers. Put chains around me, and I can tow a van up a hill. We proletarians tend to speak like that.

If you want more of the same, keep talking to me. You have absolutely nothing to contribute to the well-being of the people, land, and biology of this country. Go take a flying fuck at a rolling oil tube.

Wow....just wow. Can't wait until that warehouse you rode in on needs its own downstream environmental assessment to keep operating. I guess then you'll be out in the weeds with us Albertan hicks, where all the non-government scientists and engineers of the country seem to end up. Until then, keep on yapping with your complete lack of knowledge of the oil industry. I'm sure Martin finds it just as humourous as I do.

You always seem to conveniently avoid the environmental damage the oil industry does, which is repeatedly pointed out to you. You don't care about aquifers, indigenous people, the atmosphere, or the land. Instead you like to point out my alleged ignorance of your snake oil industry. In debate, this is known as attack the debater, and not deal with the facts. In other words, lose the debate.

The warehouse I rode in on uses 97% renewable energy. Even if you decided to put an environmental tax of 100% on all inputs and outputs, it would raise the company's costs by 3% of total sales volume. We could bear it. The oil industry couldn't.

- We don't expect the government to take on our risk, unlike the oil industry. If people suddenly stop buying the shit that we have, you will not be expected to bail us out, unlike the oil industry. We live and die on what people want and don't want, unlike the oil industry, that only the oil industry and its shills like you want. If people could get an alternative to oil at a reasonable price, they would buy it. As every week goes by, that is happening.
- If there were an environmental assessment on everything we did, it would apply to everyone else, including the oil industry. The oil industry's costs would be much higher than anyone else's, as they do considerably more environmental damage than anyone else, except perhaps for gold mining, which is another industry we could do without.
- If nothing was made from petroleum products, we would still be rolling along, while the oil industry would be dead. Demand would actually increase.
- If all the transport vehicles were converted to electric/ammonia, we would still be rolling along, while the oil industry would be dead. By the way, ammonia is an especially convenient alternative to oil, the larger the engine gets. You think you are smarter than the Japanese?
- The profits our company makes remain in Canada, unlike the oil industry, where Exxon-Mobil-Imperial Oil has a great share.
- We deal in finished manufactured products which are not as subject to world prices as oil is. Therefore we are much more profitable than any primary extraction business could ever be. And if you decided to slap a "downstream environmental assessment" tax, we would be able to pay it, and the oil industry could not.
- We are not demanding you build infrastructure to support the motion of product in and out of our facility. We use the infrastructure which is already there, and pay taxes for its maintenance to the appropriate levels of government. 
- We have no tolerance for health and safety violations. The oil industry does not. Oil is extremely toxic, and if you work around it for a while, you can get very sick.
- If we ever made a mess like the oil industry routinely does (which is impossible), we would be expected to clean it up, and not have that liability borne by the planet and its people.

Downstream environmental assessment? Bring it on.

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 11:28
epaulo13

Trudeau’s Trans Mountain fight isn’t with B.C., it’s with First Nations

This weekend, instead of flying from Peru to Europe, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is jetting back to Canada to meet with the premiers of Alberta and B.C., hoping to solve what is being called a “constitutional crisis” over the federal government’s disagreement with B.C. on the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Kinder Morgan, the Houston-based company behind the $7.4 billion pipeline, announced last Sunday it is halting non-essential construction on its project, pointing the finger squarely at B.C. premier John Horgan’s threats of new regulation. The company said it will cancel the project if the Trudeau government doesn’t find a way for the pipeline to proceed through B.C. by May 31.

But the federal government, Kinder Morgan, and just about everyone else, has wrongly identified the conflict as Trudeau versus Horgan, according to legal experts tracking Indigenous-Crown relations. Horgan himself said Thursday “the best way forward is to determine jurisdiction,” suggesting the two feuding governments refer the matter to the Supreme Court.

In fact, on the question of jurisdiction, legal experts say the biggest threat to the pipeline’s construction through B.C. comes not from Horgan’s NDP government, but from members of coastal and interior First Nations along the pipeline route who oppose it. They stand on unceded land and have signed no treaties with the Crown that could undermine their legal position. They can point to previous Supreme Court wins regarding First Nations title to land in B.C. And they are willing to erect barricades to stop construction of the pipeline through their territory.....

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 12:32
Martin N.

Wow....just wow. Can't wait until that warehouse you rode in on needs its own downstream environmental assessment to keep operating. I guess then you'll be out in the weeds with us Albertan hicks, where all the non-government scientists and engineers of the country seem to end up. Until then, keep on yapping with your complete lack of knowledge of the oil industry. I'm sure Martin finds it just as humourous as I do.

 

No, LB, I'm quite disappointed at the expressions of ignorance and it's equally ignorant expression. In fact, while quite compelling to less cynical minds, I find the bait unappealing. Overplayed his/her/insertpreferredpronounhere 's hand methinks.

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 12:41
(Reply to #615)
Martin N.

epaulo13 wrote:

..finally from the piece

quote:

In an interview last week with National Observer at the opening of a movie about communities on the Trans Mountain expansion route, Directly Affected, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip from the Union of BC Indian Chiefs said that he believed the pipeline project was dead due to the absence of consent.

"You simply can't build a pipeline in the face of such opposition. Our movement is growing on a daily and a weekly basis," he said.

Like the enviro movement's penchant for co opting indigenous values as their own, many indigenous politicians are co opting indigenous interests in KM to use in their own agendas without any concern about how their agendas affect the actual bands themselves.

Luckily, the courts will not entertain such posturing in their decisions. All these 'activist' grandstanders have nothing to lose by throwing the bands that have something to gain under the bus.

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 14:20
epaulo13

..interesting!

Imperialism, capitalism, and the revolutionary potential of urban Indigenous land relationships: By Natalie Knight (Yurok/Navajo)

The following talk was delivered at the “From the Tar Sands to the Salish Seas: Resisting Pipelines & Profits” panel held on March 23, 2018 at Holy Trinity Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral in Vancouver, B.C., unceded Coast Salish territories

Thank you to the organizers who have put together this weekend’s events including tonight. My name is Natalie Knight and I am Navajo from New Mexico and Yurok from northern California. I have been an unwelcomed guest on unceded Coast Salish territories for six years. Right now I live on Qayqayt territory.

What I would like to talk about tonight is land stewardship and how we practice land stewardship in the city, whether we are Indigenous or non-Indigenous. This is also a suggestion for one way that we can both broaden and deepen anti-colonial and Indigenous sovereigntist movements. There are three points I would like to make in the course of my talk, and they have to do with: imperialism, capitalism, and urban Indigenous people.

quote:

North American Indigenous peoples within capitalism

What I am hoping my words point towards is that if we just see colonialism as the root cause for the injustices experienced by us Indigenous peoples and the root cause of land dispossession and destruction, we’re leaving a big part of the story out. Part of what it means to be Indigenous is to practice different ways of being and perceiving the world around us than Canadians. These different ways of being and perceiving the world indicate totally different understandings of our place within a complex network of interrelatedness. One aspect of this network of interrelatedness is the economic practices of harvesting, hunting, and gardening in respectful relations with the land that our nations practiced and continue to practice.

These economic practices are in direct contrast to the laws of capitalist production: competition, which requires the amassing of profit at an infinite and exponential rate; perpetual growth, requiring capitalist markets to always seek to grow rather than seek sustainability; and domination, requiring the imperial imposition of the interests of “great” countries over other sovereign nations in order to steal their natural resources and their cheaper human labour power. So, rather than focusing on the cultural and political ways that Indigenous difference expresses itself, I’m suggesting that another, and crucial, form of difference is the living practice of noncapitalist Indigenous economic forms that are as diverse as our nations are culturally diverse.

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 14:24
epaulo13

..from the above piece

Gord Hill: Tsonokwa in the City

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 16:06
(Reply to #618)
Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:
Provided that BC’s spill response regulation meets this territorially-based jurisdictional test — and there’s no reason why it can’t be carefully crafted to do so — it will be constitutional. Then it would fall to the courts to determine whether federal and provincial jurisdiction over the pipeline can coexist. As the Federal Court recently ruled in a case called Taseko Mines, concerning the environmental assessment of an open-pit gold and copper mine in BC, “A project of such magnitude as the one considered in the present case will likely have impacts in areas of both provincial and federal responsibility.” 

I think B.C. has a strong case because there are no studies, as far as I know, showing that bitumen can be cleaned from the ocean floor. Oil companies themselves won't accept full liability for spills. So why should we? If they were confident there would be no spills why won't they accept full liability?

epaulo13 wrote:
The trouble is that Trans Mountain’s supporters don’t believe for a second that BC’s proposed regulation is a bona fide environmental measure. As noted above, they see it as nothing more than a political stall tactic. Indeed, it’s getting harder by the day for those opposed to Trans Mountain for genuinely environmental reasons to believe BC either. The province recently announced tax incentives to attract liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects. Premier John Horgan’s own coalition partner, BC Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver, said that he was “very, very skeptical that you can even have a [climate] plan that includes adding eight megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions,” referring to LNG Canada’s proposed $40-billion natural gas pipeline and terminal project for BC. Even its most ardent supporters freely admit “LNG is not the greenest energy source.” 

The primary opposition has nothing to do with climate change. That may be why they are being funded, but the primary concern of people in BC blocking the pipeline is the immediate environment. General environmental activists priorize climate change and meeting paris targets but that is only an "also" reason for the actual people of BC including First Nations. The issue stopping the pipeline is spills, not climate change. 

By placing profits ahead of safety the oil industry made its own bed. If environmentalists didn't have spills large and small to point to they would have much more difficultly gaining support. Anybody living next to a lake or river or ocean shore is going to say no to oil because they know it could destroy the value of their homes and of the lake. Whether someone's family has lived there for generations or they just moved there because they love to be near the water, oil is too great a threat. 

The oil company is constantly issuing assurances that it will be perfectly safe. Why would anyone believe them? 

Trudeau and Notley can say until they are blue in the face that the pipeline will be built. Does that mean they won't respect the decision of the courts in cases before them? They don't seem to have much respect for that rule of law. 

There is no negotiable solution because the negotiation leads to one end only. The pipeline goes through. The feds have the attitude that the courts can only force more safety measures, not allow any group to stop it altogether. To an extent I think they are correct, but the courts can allow the province to demand proof that bitumen spills can be cleaned up and that resources to contain spills be close at hand along the full length of the pipeline making it much more expensive to built. 

The truth is they are desperate to get it out of the ground while there is still a strong market. It's a time sensitive pipeline. The plan is to triple production. Get it out of the ground asap. They can't do that by rail. At the same time they know that if the pipeline doesn't get built in the next 10 years it never will be. They see a limited window during which the oil remains valuable. 

Some of us don't see it that way. I hope for Earth to last for all of eternity. The resources of the planet don't lose value. A thousand years from now, 10 thousand years from now, there will be a use for oil. It is about time Alberta starts weaning itself off its oil economy. The industry won't die overnight. Existing sales will continue. Start paying taxes like the rest of the country. Use the wealth it has now for the transition. 

Trudeau talks about the things it will fund, like better protection of the coast and social programs, but those things can be funded other ways. Like through not cutting corporate taxes. 

I thnk a lot of Canadians will be outraged if the federal government forces the pipeline through against the wishes of the BC government. Canadians will see that as a constitutional crisis. They will be thinking about what could be forced on them. The implication is that the federal government could then force all the other provinces to accept Energy East and they would have no right to refuse it. 

The federal government wasn't ready to push that hard on EE because of Quebec. They knew it would excite separatist sentiment enormously. I would be a separatist rather than allow a pipeline through. No matter which way it goes BC will set a precedence. Either the federal government will be much more powerful or the provinces will keep a degree of atonomy on the issue of protecting the land and people. It is also precedence setting for First Nations rights on unceded territory. 

My money is still on the right to protect the environment and First Nations rights to protect the land from contamination. There is evidence to show that pipelines are not benign. 

Do we know when a judgement is expected for the First Nation's court challenge?

How do you think BC will word the question to the Supreme Court? Is there any precedence for what form it will take?

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 17:13
epaulo13

Trading cars for shelter is a win-win

Who could possibly be against doing something that would be both good for the environment and improve housing affordability in our biggest cities?

By turning public land devoted to noisy, dangerous and polluting vehicles into social, co-op, or rental housing, it is possible to put a dent into runaway climate change while improving housing affordability and urbanity....

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 17:01
NorthReport

And who does he speak for?

Environmentalists 'red-wash' their fight against pipeline, First Nation chief says

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/environmentalists-red-wash-their...

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 17:04
NorthReport

 

 

 

 

This is the kind of stuff opponents of the pipeline are up against: A full court press by the right-wing mainstream press including the CBC to squish BC like an annoying bug!

 

Justin Trudeau faces his Margaret Thatcher moment on pipelines ... and cowers

Thatcher was determined, courageous and, most important, believed in the justice of her cause. When it comes to Trans Mountain, Trudeau is deficient on all three scores

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/william-watson-justin-trudeau-...

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 18:05
epaulo13

Do we know when a judgement is expected for the First Nation's court challenge?

How do you think BC will word the question to the Supreme Court? Is there any precedence for what form it will take?

..not sure on when a decision will come down. grand chief phillips once said the cases will be continuous.

..i read what the prov was asking a couple days ago. can't remember where. it's out there though. please share if you find it. don't know about a precedence. 

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 20:23
(Reply to #623)
Martin N.

epaulo13 wrote:

Do we know when a judgement is expected for the First Nation's court challenge?

How do you think BC will word the question to the Supreme Court? Is there any precedence for what form it will take?

..not sure on when a decision will come down. grand chief phillips once said the cases will be continuous.

..i read what the prov was asking a couple days ago. can't remember where. it's out there though. please share if you find it. don't know about a precedence. 

Supposed to be this spring ie: any day for the Court of Appeals decision.

As Horgan and co are well aware, anything they present will have to wend its way through the process all the way to the SCC, if it has merit to go that far. It will take years and Horgan will likely be thrown out before his court case is. 

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 20:29
Martin N.

Translate toSpanishArabicDutchFrenchGermanGreekItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussian

Toggle to Graphic display. Hold for 2 seconds to lock graphic mode

ISLAND

Spill base work now on hold 

STEVEN HEYWOOD PENINSULA NEWS REVIEW

All work on new spill response bases on Vancouver Island is on hold after Kinder Morgan announced Sunday that it was stopping all non-essential work on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project.

Michael Lowry, manager of communications for Western Canada Marine Response Corporation (WCMRC), says they’ve halted all capital investment on six new spill bases — at Sidney, Beecher Bay, Ucluelet, Nanaimo, Richmond and Port Alberni.

At their new base in Port Alberni, construction had already started but will now stop, barring safety monitoring at the work site.

“There’s some work that’s been done on the wharf and that work will continue,” said Lowry in an interview with the Alberni Valley News. “The construction of our main base on the port property will be on hold.”

A wharf is partially built along Port Alberni’s waterfront where some of the vessels would have been housed. The decking will be completed to make the site safe, said Port Alberni Port Authority CEO Zoran Knezevic.

Continued on Page A4

Top
Sat, 2018-04-14 20:32
Martin N.

FROM THE FRONT

Bases expected to be funded from oil industry 

Continued from Page A1

“We’re disappointed that Kinder Morgan has halted their decision and that subsequently put on hold the development of the WCMRC project here,” Knezevic said. “It affects more than our jobs plan development.”

Knezevic said the spill response base in Port Alberni would have employed 22 people, and included “five or six” vessels.

Lowry said the company already had a pair of small barges moored at the Van Isle Marina near Sidney, where they had planned to keep their ocean-based vessels for the Sidney base. WCMRC had found land at the Victoria International Airport on which to build their Sidney office and warehouse — but that work is now on hold. Lowry had said in June of 2017 that the Sidney base could be ready as early as June of this year.

WCMRC operates on funding by industry and is regulated by the federal government. The new bases, vessels and spill response equipment are part of the conditions of the pipeline’s approval by the National Energy Board. $150 million was earmarked for a spill response plan and was expected to create approximately 125 new jobs. Without the pipeline, Lowry said, that money will not come from industry and the new bases would likely not proceed.

https://www.vancouverislandfreedaily.com/eeditions/

Top
Sun, 2018-04-15 03:44
progressive17 progressive17's picture

Maybe the tide is turning against Rockefeller Snake Oil.

Top
Sun, 2018-04-15 11:12
epaulo13

Burnaby won’t cover policing costs related to Trans Mountain protests

The City of Burnaby, where protests and arrests have been taking place over work under way to expand the Trans Mountain pipeline, has ruled out paying policing costs related to managing the activism, says its mayor.

Like many B.C. communities, Burnaby is policed by the RCMP, and is normally on the hook for expenses, but Mayor Derek Corrigan – a vocal critic of the pipeline project – says he is drawing the line at overtime and other RCMP costs related to Trans Mountain as a project the city opposes.

“We’re not paying for the additional policing costs that are being accumulated as a result of the protests at the Trans Mountain project,” Mr. Corrigan said in an interview. “I don’t think there is anybody in the Western world who doesn’t know now that Burnaby is not paying.”

He casts the position as a reflection of Burnaby’s opposition to the project as well as the view that the Trudeau government, which approved the project, should be picking up the costs to deal with protests against it.

This isn’t the first time the issue has come up. The B.C. government says there is an outstanding $800,000 bill for policing 2014 protests related to the project that “remains in dispute,” according to a statement from the provincial Ministry of Public Safety and the Solicitor-General.

“The province is aware of Burnaby’s views on paying for these policing matters and we confirm there is an outstanding non-payment with respect to 2014,” said the provincial statement issued by Colin Hynes for the Ministry of Public Safety.

In their statement, the provincial public safety and Solicitor-General’s ministry said the Police Act in B.C. compels municipalities with populations over 15,000 to pay for the cost of policing within their boundaries. “This includes the cost of policing matters related to civil disobedience.”....

Top
Sun, 2018-04-15 11:50
Martin N.

Mayor Corrigan will be extremely fortunate if squabbling over policing costs is his only predicament. The Municipalities Act gives BC all the power.

Top
Sun, 2018-04-15 13:11
epaulo13

Quebec warns Trudeau about Kinder Morgan

Quebec's Canadian relations minister has penned a letter warning Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government to tread carefully around its approach to Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain expansion project.

In the letter, published on Saturday in Montreal daily, La Presse, Jean-Marc Fournier suggested that Quebec would never accept a project if the federal government tried to ram it down the province's throat as it now appears to be doing in British Columbia.

"The recent statements made by federal representatives regarding the Trans Mountain pipeline, evoking the explicit application of federal rules don't help resolve this file and they are concerning for the future," wrote Fournier, a veteran politician who has previously worked as a high-ranking political advisor to the federal Liberals.

Fournier said the current federal position encourages companies to "ignore provincial environmental regulations" that have been established to protect the public and those affected by industrial projects.

Even though interprovincial pipelines fall under federal jurisdiction, the Quebec minister in Premier Philippe Couillard's Liberal government, said that Trudeau's approach was running counter to cooperative federalism.

"The federal government should instead collaborate with the affected provincial governments and agree on a joint assessment process that ensures respect for each province's jurisdiction, as well as the democratic choices made by all Canadians," Fournier said in the letter....

Top
Sun, 2018-04-15 13:12
Martin N.

'Cooperative federalism' translates into 'Just sign the cheque and go away'.

Top
Sun, 2018-04-15 13:19
epaulo13

..more from the que piece

Trudeau criticized for not inviting Indigenous representative to meeting

Quebec's concerns were not the only ones raised over the past week.

Perry Bellegarde, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, has also criticized the prime minister for failing to invite any Indigenous representatives to the Sunday meeting.

In an interview with CTV political talk show, Question Period, Bellegarde said that Trudeau had made a "big mistake."

“I think it’s a very big miss for the government," Bellegarde said in the interview. "You’ve got the federal Crown, you’ve got the provincial Crowns, you’re missing out the rights and title holders and that’s the most important element."

Federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr has said that the Trudeau government led extensive and unprecedented consultations with Indigenous communities and other stakeholders prior to approving Trans Mountain.

But Carr has declined an interview request regarding a recent report by National Observer that revealed the government was warned by public servants in 2016 of concerns that its Kinder Morgan process was "moving fast" and in danger of repeating mistakes that led to the failure of another west coast pipeline, Enbridge's Northern Gateway project, that saw its federal approval quashed by the Federal Court of Appeal in June 2016.

Top
Sun, 2018-04-15 13:36
Pondering

I've always appreciated the fact that Quebec has its own provincial police so is not dependent on the RCMP. Maybe that has an impact on my respect for provincial rights in Canada. The RCMP can still act in Quebec but they act purely as federal police not provincial. 

This might be a good time for BC to consider having its own provincial police as well. The province would then have control over the level of resources and type of action to take in the case of civil disobedience. If the feds are deciding on the level of response then they should pick up the tab. 

Top
Sun, 2018-04-15 16:58
epaulo13

..this makes me sick to my stomach

Trudeau government to privately discuss money for Kinder Morgan in Houston, New York, Toronto and Calgary

The Canadian government is going into the boardrooms of Calgary, Toronto, Houston and New York to privately discuss new financial subsidies for fossil fuel giant Kinder Morgan, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Sunday at a news conference.

Trudeau made the comments after summoning Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and B.C. Premier John Horgan to Ottawa to discuss the unfolding political drama surrounding the Texas-based company's proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project.

quote:

"As I said, we have engaged in financial discussions with the pipeline owner, with Kinder Morgan," Trudeau said. "This is a series of discussions that are happening in Calgary, in Toronto, in Houston and New York. They won't happen in public, but as soon as we have something to announce, I promise we will let you know."

Any new money for Kinder Morgan would be added onto hundreds of millions of dollars that the Trudeau government has already committed, on behalf of taxpayers, for the pipeline, which would triple the capacity of heavy oil from Alberta flowing to the west coast of British Columbia, allowing oilsands producers to ship up to 890,000 barrels of heavy oil per day.

..and kinder morgan signing agreements does not replace the need to consult even if those agreements where legit.

quote:

Trudeau says 43 out of 114 First Nations have signed agreements with Kinder Morgan

The Trudeau government previously announced a $1.5 billion federal plan to protect Canada's oceans and address the dramatic increase in west coast oil tanker traffic that will be driven by the Trans Mountain expansion. This despite ecommendations from the federal Environment Department that the company should cover these costs on its own. The government also created a $65 million program to accommodate First Nations affected by the project that will be paid for through federal funds, and not by the company.

Trudeau has said that the pipeline project is in the national interest since it will support growth in Canada's oil and gas industry as well as Alberta's participation in a national climate change plan.

But many First Nations believe he has taken the wrong approach, describing it as "paternalistic," "inadequate," and "unrealistic," according to memos prepared for Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr a few weeks before the government announced it was approving the pipeline project.

quote:

In British Columbia, Chief Bob Chamberlin, vice president of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, immediately reacted to Trudeau's latest statements, saying that the prime minister's comments were running counter to Canada's commitments to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which requires Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), prior to making decisions that affect their rights.

"It doesn't matter how many times @JustinTrudeau states extensive #Consultation w/ #First Nations about #KinderMorgan," Chamberlin wrote in a message posted on Twitter. "It represents sole Crown decision making, undermines #Reconciliation & inconsistent w/ #UNDRIP which has #FPIC."

Chamberlin added that any further demonstrations and court actions launched by First Nations peoples would be a "clear response" to decisions made by governments to disregard their human rights.

Top
Sun, 2018-04-15 17:27
Martin N.

It does not matter how much consultation and, if necessary, accommodation Canada does because it will never be enough for those individuals whose power rests solely in their ability to delay and frustrate decision making.

These entities are usually unelected by individuals and hold sway only by holding a cabal of like-minded rent- seekers together. None of these entities are interested in problem solving or reaching consensus, they are only interested in legitimising and expanding their own authority.

It will be up to the courts to decide the outcomes of this constitutional tug-of-war. This potential access to indigenous power is the reason that many indigenous opportunists are jumping into the fray. In my opinion, these opportunists are a greater threat to legitimate indigenous interests than any project.

Indigenous entities will simply be changing masters, from the Indian Act to self serving indigenous politicians, none of whom have the interests of legitimate indigenous entities in their agendas.

Top
Sun, 2018-04-15 19:51
Mr. Magoo

Quote:
It does not matter how much consultation and, if necessary, accommodation Canada does because it will never be enough for those individuals whose power rests solely in their ability to delay and frustrate decision making.

I'm not specifically agreeing with everything you're saying, nor everything you're thinking.

But I do agree that it's easier, by far, to thwart a plan you don't agree with than to make a plan you do agree with.  Easier to drown out a speech you don't agree with than to stand up and make a speech you do.  Easier to react against something you don't like than to lead the way to what you do like.

Top
Sun, 2018-04-15 19:55
epaulo13

..what a cop out magoo. is that what you believe is going on then just say it.

Top
Sun, 2018-04-15 20:47
(Reply to #637)
Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

It does not matter how much consultation and, if necessary, accommodation Canada does because it will never be enough for those individuals whose power rests solely in their ability to delay and frustrate decision making.

These entities are usually unelected by individuals and hold sway only by holding a cabal of like-minded rent- seekers together. None of these entities are interested in problem solving or reaching consensus, they are only interested in legitimising and expanding their own authority.

It will be up to the courts to decide the outcomes of this constitutional tug-of-war. This potential access to indigenous power is the reason that many indigenous opportunists are jumping into the fray. In my opinion, these opportunists are a greater threat to legitimate indigenous interests than any project.

Indigenous entities will simply be changing masters, from the Indian Act to self serving indigenous politicians, none of whom have the interests of legitimate indigenous entities in their agendas.

There is no money in it for indigenous communities or leaders rejecting the pipeline. Their motivation is to protect the land. 

It is more likely those approving it were paid off. 

Top
Sun, 2018-04-15 22:09
Martin N.

 "It is more likely those approving it were paid off. "

Of course they were. With benefits agreements that spell out yearly funding, jobs, business opportunities etc.

It is quite insulting for 'activists' to turn their noses up and sniff about 'payoffs' when these bands are proud of their negotiating skills and their ability to manage their own affairs.

In the normal course of business, these contracts are proprietary, with neither side willing to make them public.

Top
Sun, 2018-04-15 22:06
(Reply to #639)
progressive17 progressive17's picture

Martin N. wrote:

'Cooperative federalism' translates into 'Just sign the cheque and go away'.

What a surprise to hear Quebec-bashing from an angryphone Canadian.

Top
Mon, 2018-04-16 11:50
Pondering

On the issue of BC coal:

Between 70-90 per cent of coal produced in B.C. is metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel.  The province also produces thermal coal, which is burned for heat to generate electricity and for other industrial uses.

http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/mining/geoscience/coal/Pages/default.aspx

So only 10 to 30% of BC coal gets burned. Still too much, but nothing compared to the damage the oil pipeline would create and certainly doesn't threaten the immediate environment the way the pipeline and tankers of bitumen would. 

Top
Mon, 2018-04-16 15:48
epaulo13

..a good read

There are parts of Canada's national interest that Trudeau didn't talk about

The Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion conflict reveals a much larger crisis than the “constitutional” or “investor confidence” crises constructed by the projects’ proponents. The conflict reveals a profound failure of leadership from both levels of government, but most of all, from the prime minister, in response to the true crises facing this country.

The April 15 statement of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirms that he has failed to grasp both the nature of Indigenous movements in this country today as well as the depth of the climate change crisis.

When Trudeau and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley speak of the “national interest” they do not speak about reducing greenhouse gas emissions or decolonization. They do not speak of climate change’s existential threats to communities across the country or the incalculable costs of climate change for future generations. Decolonization is not mentioned as a process that is central to Canadians’ national interest.

quote:

False framing of alternatives

We are being presented with a false framing of the possible alternatives. We are being told that “tough decisions have to be made that will not please everyone,” but never in the context of the subordination of private economic interest to he public good—only in the context of the subordination of environmental and democratic objectives to the interests of private investors...

Top
Mon, 2018-04-16 16:00
(Reply to #642)
Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

On the issue of BC coal:

Between 70-90 per cent of coal produced in B.C. is metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel.  The province also produces thermal coal, which is burned for heat to generate electricity and for other industrial uses.

http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/mining/geoscience/coal/Pages/default.aspx

So only 10 to 30% of BC coal gets burned. Still too much, but nothing compared to the damage the oil pipeline would create and certainly doesn't threaten the immediate environment the way the pipeline and tankers of bitumen would. 

You may wish to rethink that response, pondering.

How is metallurgical coal used? What damage does an oil pipeline create? If only threats to the immediate environment count, why do downstream emissions count? 

 

Top
Mon, 2018-04-16 16:03
(Reply to #643)
Martin N.

epaulo13 wrote:

..a good read

There are parts of Canada's national interest that Trudeau didn't talk about

The Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion conflict reveals a much larger crisis than the “constitutional” or “investor confidence” crises constructed by the projects’ proponents. The conflict reveals a profound failure of leadership from both levels of government, but most of all, from the prime minister, in response to the true crises facing this country.

The April 15 statement of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirms that he has failed to grasp both the nature of Indigenous movements in this country today as well as the depth of the climate change crisis.

When Trudeau and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley speak of the “national interest” they do not speak about reducing greenhouse gas emissions or decolonization. They do not speak of climate change’s existential threats to communities across the country or the incalculable costs of climate change for future generations. Decolonization is not mentioned as a process that is central to Canadians’ national interest.

quote:

False framing of alternatives

We are being presented with a false framing of the possible alternatives. We are being told that “tough decisions have to be made that will not please everyone,” but never in the context of the subordination of private economic interest to he public good—only in the context of the subordination of environmental and democratic objectives to the interests of private investors...

Oh, False Framing? What a novel idea - didn't Greenpeace invent that back in the day?

Top
Mon, 2018-04-16 16:47
epaulo13

..more from post #642

quote:

The rhetoric of “reconciliation” permits Canadian governments to ignore the more radical process of decolonization. The term is employed in the sense of reconciling Indigenous peoples to ongoing colonialism. Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Notley have referred to the secret, one-on-one agreements made between Kinder Morgan and Indigenous bands located along the route of the pipeline, and to the consultations undertaken by the federal government with First Nations prior to the approval of the TMX, as setting a benchmark of excellence for securing Indigenous consent.

In doing so, they demonstrate three things:

  1. That they either do not understand or choose not to adhere to the conditions for free, prior, and informed consent;
  2. That they intend to follow the same old model of consultation used by their predecessors;
  3. That they do not comprehend the shift that has taken place in indigenous leadership since the Idle-No-More movement. This movement will not be reconciled to ongoing colonialism; it demands decolonization and a new relationship between First Nations and Canadian governments. And I will add what no Canadian government yet dares to acknowledge: a resource-extractive economy driven by short-term profit-making interests is in direct conflict with Indigenous peoples’ struggles for self-determination.

(It is highly questionable whether consent is "free" when isolated bands are offered the choice only of a benefit agreement or no benefit agreement, but no alternative opportunities to develop a local economy, and not the right to say "no" to a project. Moreover, the confidentiality clauses in the agreements permit the companies to divide and rule; they have the upper hand in negotiations. Finally, not all the affected Indigenous communities have consented in any fashion to the pipeline extension.)

Top
Mon, 2018-04-16 16:52
(Reply to #645)
Pondering

Martin N. wrote:
How is metallurgical coal used? What damage does an oil pipeline create? If only threats to the immediate environment count, why do downstream emissions count? 

Making steel without coke: dramatically cutting coal use in steel making

The surprise for me is that for many years now there has been an emerging revolution in the steel making industry that heralds a switch from blast furnace (coke requiring) steel making to more nimble Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) steel construction. I was amazed to learn that the most recently constructed blast furnace in the U.S. was built in 1965!! And the cost of refurbishing a blast furnace can be $100s millions!

https://seekingalpha.com/article/3785906-metallurgical-coal-future?page=2

Well it looks like coal is going to be phased out as there are alternatives that are cheaper. 

Climate change activists are part of the battle which is why they discuss downstream issues. Climate change is why anti-pipeline activists get international money to support their battle. It is not at the root of their opposition. If there was no risk of spills on land or water the pipeline would have been through years ago. 70 to 90% of the opposition would walk away or be bought off. Spills, not climate change, is driving local opposition. 

Quebec is backing BC on the basis of provincial rights not environmental issues. 

Top
Mon, 2018-04-16 17:36
(Reply to #646)
Pondering

Martin N. wrote:
Oh, False Framing? What a novel idea - didn't Greenpeace invent that back in the day?

I doubt it. It is a combination of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology)

Trudeau declaring that the pipeline will be built is false framing as that is not certain. Passing legislation declaring it in the national interest won't change that. Investing in the pipeline or buying it outright won't change that. 

If it doesn't go through, and I do believe it will be cancelled, and Notley buys it, she will have to answer to the people of Alberta for that enormous debt or for having spent the Heritage Fund. 

In my opinion neither Notley nor Trudeau will buy a stake in the pipeline. Trudeau may agree to eat some of the risk in some complicated way that is handing them money but doesn't look like it. Although they are saying the opposite they know it isn't a done deal. 

Alberta will not cut gas or oil supplies to BC either. Forbidding private companies from selling oil or gas to BC would be way worse for investment than not getting a pipeline. 

Notley is going to pass some nonsense legislation that will "allow" her to cut off supplies to BC but it won't be constitution and it will never be used. It is just more sabre-rattling. 

Horgan has stated he will abide by the court's decision. Presumably so will Trudeau and Notley as they don't have any choice. 

Protesters still have a choice and are still ready to block progress physically. If people start going to prison in the thousands that will cause a constitution crisis and will create a significant separatist movement. 

So far this is a game of chicken and nobody is blinking. 

I think that this is going to end with the pipeline being canceled by Kinder Morgan who will sue Canada through NAFTA. Alberta will be even more bitter against BC and Quebec for rejecting pipelines. The sky will not fall. Canada's economy will not crash. 

Top
Mon, 2018-04-16 18:53
Martin N.

Apparently no one likes democracy unless it is in their favour. The balkanisation of Canada is a distinct possibility if the confederation is unworkable. It is unfortunately an issue for the courts. I agree that arresting 'thousands' becomes difficult but I also think that the authorities will ensure that those arrested face consequences and that the lawbreakers, as opposed to the protesters will consist of the usual types with nothing to lose. Protesters with something to lose will not bear that risk lightly and will obey the law.

I guess we will see if Junior has the stones for the conflict to come.

Top
Mon, 2018-04-16 18:59
epaulo13

..i agree, pondering, that the pipeline will not be expanded. since 2011 i've been covering these struggles. governments came and governments went yet still no expansion.

PRESS RELEASE - Indigenous Women’s Delegation To Europe Continues Push For Fossil Fuel Divestment By Major Banks

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, California (April 16, 2018) – Infused with the spirit of their ancestors and unwavering determination to seek accountability and justice, an Indigenous Women’s Divestment Delegation will travel to Switzerland and Germany from April 20th to 28th, 2018.

Despite rights violations and dangers to the health of the global climate, some of Europe’s most powerful banks and financial institutions continue unethical financing of fossil fuel projects. The Indigenous Women’s Divestment Delegation is highlighting human rights and Indigenous rights violations, requesting divestment and accountability from companies responsible for these harms.  

The Delegation of Indigenous women leaders from across North America and allies will engage with political leaders, representatives of financial and insurance institutions, civil society groups, and members of the media to share stories, data, and calls to action for immediate movement towards fossil fuel divestment, and a transition to a just, clean energy future.

While obstacles are many, previous delegations have illuminated the power and potential for successful results, as Indigenous women leaders meet eye-to-eye with representatives of the entities responsible for immense cultural and ecological devastation in their home regions.

Spotlighting destructive projects such as Energy Transfer Partners’ Dakota Access and Bayou Bridge Pipelines, Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain Pipeline, and Enbridge’s Line 3 Pipeline, advocacy efforts are aimed at accountability and divestments by Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank and other companies that are endangering rights and neglecting Indigenous People’s right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) as outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

There will be a special event in Zurich, during which Swiss elder women activists will formally welcome the Delegation to Switzerland, strengthening alliances and solidarity between women’s networks, and between nations to bring well-being to the world.....  

Top
Mon, 2018-04-16 19:06
Mr. Magoo

Quote:
..what a cop out magoo. is that what you believe is going on then just say it.

I thought I did say it.

Quote:
Well it looks like coal is going to be phased out as there are alternatives that are cheaper.

Electric Arc Furnaces!

Surely all powered by tidal energy. 

Problem is, when you convert heat -- e.g. from burning coal -- into electricity, the universe introduces a lot of entropy into this system, and you actually get less electrical energy to create heat than the heat you created to generate that electrical energy.

Top
Mon, 2018-04-16 19:55
epaulo13

Pipeline leaks 290,000 litres of oil and saltwater in northern Alberta

The Alberta Energy Regulator is reporting that a pipeline leaked about 100,000 litres of oil and 190,000 litres of salty produced water near Zama City in the far northwest corner of the province.

The AER says on its website that Calgary-based Paramount Resources Ltd. reported the leak last week from one of its pipelines about nine kilometres northeast of the community.

It says the leak was discovered by employees checking on a low-pressure alarm from the pipeline's leak detection system.

The regulator says the pipeline has been isolated and depressurized and cleanup is underway....

Top

Pages

Topic locked