The psychology underlying people's behaviour is as fascinating as the things they do. “Change blindness” is a case in point. Psychologists describe it as the inability of people to notice anomalies, differences and the unusual in their surroundings. The obvious, it seems, is not always obvious...For example, we seem to have an inherent inclination to overlook or rationalize as normal the weather abnormalities that arise from global warming. If this strategy doesn't serve to diminish the significance of an extreme weather event in our minds, we excuse it by extending the range of normality — a once-in-a-century event occurring once every ten years is deemed normal.
Anthony Swift writes for Switchboard, which is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Here’s what he has to say on clean-up: "Raw tar sands bitumen is nearly solid at room temperature and must be diluted with toxic natural gas liquids to create the thick sludge that travels in high pressure pipelines...When spilled, the light natural gas liquid in the tar sands vaporizes, creating a toxic flammable gas that poses a health hazard to emergency responders and nearby landowners. The bitumen, which is heavier than water, sinks into rivers and mixes with sediments. Bitumen contains significantly more heavy metals than conventional crudes and does not biodegrade."
Read this editorial from Stephen Hume in the Vancouver Sun on the debate over the risks posed by increased oil tanker traffic on BC's coast (May 16, 2012)
Listen to the rhetoric generated by questions about the risk from supertankers carrying an additional million barrels a day of heavy oil through B.C. waters and one might be persuaded that a conspiracy of Luddite dunces advocates a return to mud huts and riding donkeys to work.
Huh? How does asking for an unbiased evaluation of risk mutate into an assumed automatic veto of the use of oil?
The point is not whether we should or should not use oil - it's whether the risks of using a particular oil resource in a particular way under particular circumstances may or may not out-weigh the claimed benefits.
Proponents of these pipelines naturally minimize the risks. And why wouldn't they present the best possible case for their projects since they want them to proceed? But that doesn't mean that B.C.'s public - which ultimately will pay the costs for cleaning up any major spill while the foreign-owned proponents pocket the bulk of profits and pay them out of the country - should swallow such assertions at face value.
Nor does it mean that subjecting such schemes to rigorous scrutiny is some kind of betrayal of Canadian society.
There is risk. And there is risk. Jaywalking downtown at 3 a.m. carries significantly less risk than jaywalking on the free-way during rush hour. One risk might be acceptable, the other looks like stupidity. Among the issues emerging from the present pipeline debate is the question of whether the risks cited by the proponents are the actual risks and potential liabilities.
Proponents of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, for example, postulate a worst-case spill of limited size that occurs in sheltered waters during the calmest summer months.
Critics reasonably ask what the consequences - and costs - of a spill would be were a super-tanker to break up during winter on the exposed outer coast, where winds, tides and currents have the capacity to distribute heavy oil over a vast area.
Critics reasonably wonder whether the assessment of risks, both environmental and economic, and who bears the brunt of them, takes place in an unbiased forum given the official demonizing of those expressing doubt.
The principal demonizer - our federal government - has now arbitrarily rewritten the rules to both redefine the criteria for environmental assessment while usurping the final decision-making power from the body intended to do so at arm's length.
The province has not even sub-mitted its position to the Joint Review Panel on this incredibly important subject. Instead, it has surrendered to the federal power its right to hold an independent environmental review in the interests of British Columbians.
Yet the risks could be far greater than those framed in the documents filed by the proponents.
Read this story from Alberta Oil Magazine on BC Premier Christy Clark's idea that BC could share in resource revenues from Alberta Tar Sands to help compensate the province for risks associated with piping and shipping bitumen across BC and down its coast. (May 14, 2012)
British Columbia Premier Christy Clark is becoming a particularly uncomfortable thorn in Alberta’s side.
In a wide-ranging interview with Brian Hutchinson at the National Post, the B.C. Liberal Party leader suggests – without explicitly saying so – that her government will not lend its support to Enbridge Inc.’s $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline without first seeing a commitment to oil sands royalty sharing.
“Because at the moment, what we know about it is, we’re moving an Alberta product through British Columbia, with no value added in our province, and we’re taking 100 per cent of the risk,” she said.
Clark is understandably reluctant to back the Pacific-bound oil sands pipeline. With a provincial election on the horizon, Hutchinson notes, polls show the B.C. Liberals trailing a resurgent New Democratic party. Adrian Dix, the NDP leader, is blunt about his party’s opposition to the Gateway scheme.
From an April 30 caucus letter submitted to the Gateway Joint Review Panel:
We believe that the NGP will cause significant adverse economic and environmental effects and is not in the public interest. Therefore the NGP should not be permitted to proceed.
Against this backdrop, Clark has wholeheartedly endorsed plans to liquefy and ship tanker-loads of super-cooled natural gas to many of the same markets targeted by Enbridge.
The B.C. premier is so enthusiastic about LNG that she is prepared to alter the western province’s climate-change policies to take credit for greenhouse-gas reductions in countries that import B.C. gas, Justine Hunter reports at the Globe and Mail.
Overlooked in her zeal for natural gas – a jobs plan calls for three LNG terminals to be built by 2020 – is the fact that a good deal of B.C. exports currently pass through Alberta (via the Alliance Pipeline) en route to the Chicago market.
Greenpeace co-founder Rex Weyler summarizes the enormous costs of an oil spill in Vancouver - including cleanup, tourism, fishing and other economic losses, health impacts and other incalculable costs..."The City of Vancouver passed a motion this month demanding that Kinder Morgan pipeline company carry full liability to cover the costs of an oil spill in our Vancouver Harbour. The request is just common sense but demonstrated very uncommon courage in the public political realm. So, how much liability would Kinder Morgan – the now notorious ex-Enron billionaires from Texas, who bought BC Gas and flipped it for the pipelines – need to carry to indemnify our city from the ravages of an oil spill? Well, for starters, some $40 billion, as I will explain here."
"With respect to northern gateway, let me say our government is pro pipeline," says the Premier of British Columbia. Christy Clark made this claims in question period last week. She did so while berating the NDP for opposing the project on the grounds that they are doing so prematurely and without adequate information to make an informed opinion. This is the definitive moment that marks the turning point in the now long standing myth that the BC liberals are "neutral" or have chosen to take "no position" on the Northern Gateway Pipeline. And it was done with the stunning Liberal hypocrisy we have been forced to endure for too long.
Read this editorial from the Globe and Mail, which argues that the Harper Government should stop its campaign of smearing environmental groups who oppose the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines and alleging criminal activity on their part, such as "money laundering". (May 7, 2012)
Environment Minister Peter Kent’s unsupported accusations of “money laundering” involving foreign and Canadian environmental charities are part of an apparent campaign of the Conservative government to smear and intimidate groups opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline.
Mr. Kent’s accusation in Parliament and media interviews, and the pattern they are a part of, suggest the government is improperly taking sides between the environment and business – trying to discredit those who raise environmental concerns in a public-hearing process mandated under federal law.
This pipeline may well prove a financial boon to Canada, but there are legitimate environmental concerns that need to be heard, including the danger of oil spills in environmentally sensitive waters. The pipeline will take bitumen from Alberta to Kitimat, B.C., before it is loaded on ships bound for Asia. Business and the environment do not exist on two separate planes, where one matters and the other doesn’t.
The Environment Minister has accused unnamed environmental charities of criminal activity, and yet provides no specifics, except to point to the work of Conservative Senator Nicole Eaton. “There is political manipulation,” she said. “There is influence peddling. There are millions of dollars crossing borders masquerading as charitable foundations into bank accounts of sometimes phantom charities that do nothing more than act as a fiscal clearing house.” There is paranoia, there is partisanship, there are wild allegations. But evidence? No.
Civil Disobedience has had successes in the past in BC but too often there have been one or two who have refused to obey the law and once they have been jailed, the protest has petered out. We must organize such that scores, even hundreds, defy the law and are ready to do time. There has been very little by way of organization in the overall community but First Nations appear to be ready and, if nothing else, the rest of us must be prepared to support them and face the same consequences. Our first step must be, in my view, a clear statement by environmental organizations and individual British Columbians that we will stand shoulder with First Nations - and we at the Common Sense Canadian plan to meet with their leaders and see how we can help.
Read this story from the Chilliwack Times on a recent telephone townhall meeting held throughout the riding of Chilliwack-Hope to discuss proposed oil pipelines and tankers in BC in advance of the recent provincial byelection there. (May 1, 2012)
Thousands of residents in the provincial Chilliwack-Hope riding took part in a telephone townhall meeting on the topic of Kinder Morgan's oil pipeline expansion before Thursday's byelection.
The call was organized by Victoria-based Dogwood Initiative and went out to everyone listed in the phone book, approximately 14,000 homes.
Dogwood campaigns director Eric Swanson said 4,572 people opted in to the discussion, although most did not stay on the entire time.
"At any given moment we were talking to just under 400 people," Swanson said.
The call involved a number of poll questions about oil tankers and pipelines. On the line for a discussion were three panelists: former Socred MLA and current political commentator Rafe Mair; economist and former ICBC CEO Robyn Allan; and Abbotsford resident John Vissers, an outspoken critic of the pipeline.
The three main Chilliwack-Hope byelection candidates were asked to provide their positions on the issue, but only New Democrat Gwen O'Mahony responded.
When asked if those on the line supported or opposed projects like Kinder Morgan's, or the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, 39 per cent supported, 44 per cent opposed and 17 per cent said they didn't know.
Sixty-eight per cent of respondents said the issue of pipelines and tankers would be a voting issue in the byelection, as opposed to 32 per cent who said it wouldn't be.
Check out this video and report on Vancouver City Council's decision to come out swinging against Texas pipeline giant Kinder Morgan's plans to increase dramatically Tar Sands traffic to and through Vancouver. "The vote, which passed with all but one in favour - NPA councillor George Affleck - is the latest move by municipal leaders against Kinder Morgan since the company formally announced the intention to twin its existing Trans Mountain Pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to its Westridge Terminal in Burnaby." Ben West comments by video on the motion and growing movement against Kinder Morgan.
Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation of the Burrard Inlet's strong stance in opposition to Kinder Morgan's plans to ship over 400 Tar Sands supertankers a year through their waters. (April 18, 2012)
The Tsleil-Waututh Nation says it "wants to make it crystal clear" that it opposes Kinder Morgan's $5-billion pipeline expansion to export oil from the Lower Mainland overseas to Asia.
Kinder Morgan announced last week its oil pipeline expansion plans grew even larger last after the company received huge commitments from Asian customers.
The new plans would ship enough crude oil from Alberta to fill 25 to 30 tankers a month through the company's Westridge, Burnaby terminal.
The Tsleil-Wautuh Nation's territory encompasses the Burrard Inlet, including the terminal. The first nation's main community is on the North Shore.
The company wants to have the pipeline - which will face a federal review - complete by 2017.
Tsleil-Waututh chief Justin George said the first nation will assert its aboriginal rights and title to the Burrard Inlet.
"We live in the most beautiful city in the world and we live here because of the great quality of life our environment provides us with," George said in a statement released early this morning.
"The idea of having 400 Super Tankers in our Inlet on an annual basis and turning Vancouver into an export facility for heavy oil is simply unacceptable," he said. "We will work with the mayors, all concerned first nations, all levels of government and the general public who oppose this project."
The company has said that design and routing work, along with consultation with communities and first nations, will take place during the next 18-24 months.
George said the first nation is not against economic development, pointing to development, construction, wind power, eco-tourism.
The Whispering Pines, Coldwater and Lower Nicola Indian bands in the interior have also stated concerns with the project.
Kinder Morgan's expansion will increase pipeline capacity for crude by 550,000 barrels a day, to 850,000 barrels from the current 300,000 barrels a day.
30 year-old William Housty's powerhouse presentation to the National Energy Board's Enbridge hearings in his community of Bella Bella. William describes the history, language and culture of his people in fascinating detail - and how the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline and Tar Sands supertankers transiting the waters of his people's territory would destroy their traditional way of life.
Highlights from this week's National Energy Board hearings in Bella Bella on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and supertankers on BC's coast. Powerful testimony from three members of the Heiltsuk First Nation, sharing their experiences with the sea.rn
The Heiltsuk First Nation learned late Monday that scheduled National Energy Board hearings on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline will resume Tuesday in Bella Bella, following their cancellation Monday in the wake of a peaceful demonstration to which the Joint Review Panel overreacted.
Close to 2,000 people turned out on a rainy Monday afternoon in Vancouver last week to speak out against Tar Sands oil tankers on BC's coast. The occasion marked the 23rd anniversary of the disastrous Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. The crowd gathered at the Art Gallery to hear from guest speakers like 350.org's Bill McKibben and members of the Heiltsuk First Nation of Bella Bella, who coorganized the rally, along with ForestEthics and Greenpeace.
Rueben George of the Tsleil-Waututh (Burrard) First Nation and Ben West of the Wilderness Committee discuss Kinder Morgan's quiet plan to twin its existing Trans Mountain Pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to Vancouver - which would result in up to 300 supertankers a year plying the waters of the Burrard Inlet and South Coast.
Eleven year-old Ta'Kaiya Blaney of the Sliammon First Nation sings her hit song "Shallow Waters" to some 2,000 people outside the Vancouver Art Gallery. She tells the audience one year ago on this day she was chased from Enbridge's Vancouver office when she tried to present her song to company officials.
World renowned climate activist Bill McKibben of 350.org lent his voice to the "Our Coast, Our Decision" rally in Vancouver Monday. McKibben told the crowd of close to 2,000 outside the Vancouver Art Gallery, "This is one of these great moments in human history and you guys are absolutely at the white, hot centre of it."
Rafe Mair pulls no punches in this, the second of a two-part interview with BC NDP Leader Adrian Dix - grilling the potential future premier of BC on Liquid Natural Gas, fracking, the proposed Enbridge pipeline and salmon farms.
Marven Robinson, a spirit bear guide from the Gitga'at Nation of Hartley Bay, speaks to Damien Gillis in Prince Rupert the day after the big rally he helped organize against Enbridge on Feb. 4, 2012.
In the first of a two-part interview, Rafe Mair grills BC NDP Leader Adrian Dix on private power, Site C Dam and BC's flawed environmental assessment process. What will the NDP do with existing and future private river power projects (a.k.a. IPPs) if they form the next government - and where do they stand on Site C Dam?
The beating of drums echoed throughout the seaside community of Prince Rupert, BC, on February 4 as thousands of First Nations and BC citizens banded together to express their opposition to the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway twin pipelines from the Alberta Tar Sands to nearby Kitimat on BC's central coast.
The various spokespeople for supposed "grassroots" pro-Tar Sands and pipeline organization EthicalOil.org have steadfastly maintained their campaign has no connection to the oil and gas industry or the Harper Government. But as the links between these groups continue to pile up, that contention becomes harder and harder to swallow.
In the wake of the bogus deal Enbridge attempted to foist on the Gitxsan people of Northwest BC last month to help pave the way for its controversial proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, the community has banded together in inspiring fashion - with camcorders and the Web as their weapons of choice.
Watch this series of clips by independent filmmaker Craig Delahunt from the Cohen Commission, including a key hour of testimony from the final day of ISAv hearings and interviews with experts outside the Commission.
See how the Gitxsan are banding together in a moment of crisis, following the unauthorized deal with Enbridge signed by rogue treaty negotiator Elmer Derrick.
