I blog about environmental and social justice issues because I am very concerned about the health of the interdependent web of life of which we are a part.

Melting Arctic ice.......beautiful and frightening!

Search This Blog
Showing posts with label oil pipelines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil pipelines. Show all posts

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Resolutions Passed!


A big thank you to the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Kamloops that passed the following resolutions today!  Please fee free to borrow from the links or other information if you need  it.
 
Support guide for anti-pipeline resolutions

prepared by UU-SEA committee

Using this guide: Text of the “whereas” preamble is printed in red, followed by additional supporting information.  Footnotes (most with clickable web links) are at the bottom of each page. 

A.       WHEREAS the effects of climate change are real, and we must immediately lower  carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels;

Evidence for warming. “The idea that Earth is warming partly because of the emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is one of the most certain concepts in natural science. The idea that greenhouse

gases increase radiative forcing is an old idea that has withstood a variety of analyses to emerge intact

(an accessible history is available on the Web site of the American Institute of Physics at www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm ). The peer-reviewed papers that provide the evidence that human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases over the twentieth century have led to increases in temperature and changes in rainfall, wind, humidity, sea level, ocean acidity, snow cover, etc. have been assessed rigorously through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a series of reports. No serious academic body, significant institution, or national government doubts the basic science (e.g., Somers 2009).”  [1]  

Effects: Climate change is increasing the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events like Hurricane Sandy, and causing record low Arctic sea ice levels,  droughts, wildfires, earlier springs and later falls, and increasing acidification of oceans.  For more details on these effects, click on these links:
 

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/10/more-vids.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932012_Southern_United_States_drought

http://www.biodivcanada.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=4E014B36-1&offset=2&toc=show

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification 

we should approve no new pipelines in the absence of a comprehensive federal carbon dioxide reduction plan;

 

Current plans: An international assessment of countries' performance in fighting climate change has placed Canada near the bottom (54th of 61) among the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases.  Only Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Turkey, China, Poland and Russia were ranked lower. [2]  Our country’s current plans to reduce the “intensity” of emissions and store carbon dioxide are completely inadequate to the problem – they will do nothing to solve the problem of climate change.   “The carbon in Alberta’s economically recoverable oil sands reserve would release 69 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide if it was all extracted and burnt - the equivalent of a hundred years of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions. British Columbia has adopted a leadership role and it is essential that Canada do the same, to accept our moral responsibility and demonstrate leadership to the rest of the world.”  [3] 
 
B.      WHEREAS the other environmental costs and risks of these projects are unacceptably high; 

Spills: Enbridge pipelines have a history of spills with poor responses. The US National Transportation Safety Board went unusually far in criticizing the Enbridge response to its massive Michigan pipeline spill.  Citing pervasive organizational failures, failure to correctly identify deterioration of the pipeline and poorly trained staff in the Edmonton control centre who ignored safety procedures, the NTSB likened the Enbridge response to the Keystone Kops.[4]  Perhaps more seriously, Enbridge resisted pressure to include documents detailing the Kalamazoo spill and response until the review panel demanded this information be included.  Although the Michigan Kalamazoo River spill was the most serious of Enbridge spills, it’s important to note that it was not an isolated event.[5]  Kelly Marsh, a Kitimat millwright, crunched Enbridge's own numbers and found that the risk of at least one medium or large spill over 50 years is around 82%.  Even Enbridge acknowledged an 18.8 per cent chance of a full bore rupture during the expected life of the pipeline.  [6]   

Once a dilbit pipeline ruptures, it is no ordinary oil spill, especially if it comes in contact with water.  Because tar sands oil, or bitumen, is too thick to flow, it needs to be mixed with a thinner, or diluent.  The mixture is referred to as diluted bitumen, or dilbit for short.  When exposed to air, the diluent evaporates and the remaining heavy oil sinks in water, instead of floating on the surface, making clean-up very difficult . The EPA reported in October 2012 that large amounts of oil are still accumulating in three areas of the Kalamazoo River, and asked Enbridge to dredge approximately 100 additional acres. During the original cleanup effort, dredging was limited to just 25 acres because the EPA wanted to avoid destroying the river's natural ecology.  [7]

Tankers:  The waters of Douglas Channel (the waters where tankers would pick up oil form Northern Gateway's terminus) are very dangerous.  Mal Walsh, a Master Mariner with 40 years of experience in the international oil exploration and shipping industry, has called Enbridge's tanker routes “flawed and dangerous.” [8]   The tankers in Vancouver picking up oil from Kinder Morgan's terminus would sail through a very busy port, alongside heavily populated communities. The Kinder Morgan pipeline project would result in a quadrupling of tanker traffic from the Burnaby terminal.[9]  Officially, there is still a moratorium on oil tankers on BC’s west coast, although it is already being ignored.

Effects of pipeline building on pristine environment: The Northern Gateway pipeline threatens woodland caribou. Scientific literature suggests that “linear disturbances actually contribute to population decline,” said Elena Jones, a wildlife biologist with Resources North, a joint government-industry organization based in Prince George, B.C. She has studied caribou in the region for a decade. “They don’t co-exist well with development,” she said.[10]

Environmental deterioration through expanded tar sands: The  mined tar sands in Alberta are never as biodiverse as untouched land.  One study compared 20 reclaimed areas (with an average age of 16 years since reclamation) to 25 undisturbed sites.  Seventy per cent of the reclaimed sites were in poor ecological health: lower biodiversity, less-productive plants and more land exposed to erosion.[11]  Also, plant communities and carbon cycling in reclaimed wetlands around the world average about three-quarters of what they would if undisturbed — even after a century. And the colder the climate, the slower the recovery. In addition to site quality, the quantity of reclaimed land plays a role.  Year after year, we see the gap between disturbed land and reclamation increasing at an exponential rate. [12]

 Uncertain benefits: There is a solid body of evidence that suggests the benefits of pipeline construction are overstated.[13]  Moreover, "Enbridge gives a much rosier picture of growth in oil production in Canada in its pitch for the pipeline than it gave to its investors at a shareholder meeting." [14]   There is also doubt as to whether the pipeline capacity is even needed before 2025.[15]  In addition to all the environmental risks, economic risks in the event of a major spill are a real concern.  Questions have been raised as to whether the oil companies could be held liable if the insurance they carry proves inadequate.[16]  This may leave taxpayers are on the hook for the costs of any oil spills.   Finally, the energy return on investment for the Enbridge project is very low: we get 2.41 barrels of oil out for every 1 barrel of energy we expend getting the oil.[17]   Energy return on energy investment (EROI) is becoming an accepted approach to determining the viability of energy projects. In this case, we assert that such a high-risk project cannot be justified by such low returns. 

C.      WHEREAS we wish to demonstrate solidarity with the over 100 First Nations, the Union of BC Municipalities and many other groups who have publicly opposed these projects; 

A majority of folks in BC are opposed to the pipelines.[18]  First Nations are opposed.[19] ,[20]   The UBCM passed a resolution opposing pipeline projects like Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan's twinning that would expand tanker traffic in coastal waters.[21]  The municipalities of Burnaby and Vancouver are on record opposing the twinning, which would result in 5 times as many tankers in the port.[22]  The Vancouver Unitarian Church passed a resolution stating their opposition to the proposed pipelines.  Kairos holds that the Northern Gateway project is “inimical to respect for God's creation.”  They say the Gateway project poses threats of contamination, and  contributions to increased carbon emissions and in turn climate change, that would disrupt eco-systems critical to shared survival.[23]

BE IT RESOLVED  

1.       THAT we, the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Kamloops, oppose the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline to Kitimat, BC and the proposed expansion of the existing Kinder Morgan pipeline to Burnaby, BC; and

2.       THAT we encourage our members holding financial instruments containing Enbridge or Kinder Morgan stock to divest or cancel those financial instruments, informing the companies or managers of mutual funds of the reasons for these actions.

SECOND RESOLUTION

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the President of our Fellowship, with the help of the Social and Environmental Action Committee, communicate this resolution to elected officials, selected First Nations and journalists, as well as selected financial, environmental, social justice and faith groups in Canada, including the managers of the Canada Pension Plan.

 

[1] The Psychology of Global Warming: Improving the Fit between the Science and the Message by Ben R. Newell and Andrew J. Pitman, American Meteorological Society, August 2010
[2] Climate Change Performance Index 2012, Germanwatch (funding from European Union) http://germanwatch.org/klima/ccpi.pdf
[3] Guy Dauncey, Founder, BC Sustainable Energy Assoc. http://www.bcsea.org/blog/guy-dauncey/2012/06/13/alberta-oil-pipelines#_edn3
[4] National Transportation Safety Board press release, July 10, 2012  http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2012/120710.html
[5] A Decade of Enbridge Spills, Watershed Sentinel http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/enbridge-spills
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Speaking of Undemocratic

I went to a talk by Maude Barlow (among others) in Kamloops last night.  One of the items in her speech caught my attention:   the impacts of the Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection Protection and Promotion Agreement   on the citizens of Canada.  And it's not just the left that is wondering why there's no public scrutiny and discussion on the impacts of this deal.

In one week’s time, unless something strange happens, a far-reaching Canada-China investment agreement will take effect. It’s one of the most important commercial agreements Canada has signed since NAFTA. But whereas NAFTA could be terminated on six months’ notice, this deal locks in the signatories for a minimum of 15 years.It’s tantamount, you might say, to a commercial bill of rights for China in this country – an economic meshing on our part with the authoritarian Asian giant, giving it potentially considerable weight in the pace and scale of our resource development.
The problem is, few know much about the deal. It’s being rammed through the parliamentary system without scrutiny, foisted on the business community, the opposition parties and the country with hardly a word of debate or a vote. Our role is to accept it on faith – to take the government’s word for it. But how are we to know if the pluses outweigh the negatives without public examination? This agreement didn’t even make it into one of those democracy-shredding omnibus bills the Conservatives have become so fond of.    
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/why-arent-we-debating-the-canada-china-investment-pact/article4629358/
 Lawrence Martin and Maude Barlow aren't the only people worried about this deal.  Gus Van Harten is urging the premier of BC  to stop this deal.
 
 I wrote to Premier Clark by email on Oct. 10, 2012 urging her to take action to stop the federal government from ratifying the Canada-China Investment Treaty (aka FIPA) on or about Oct. 31, as planned, until the treaty's constitutional and other implications could be assessed properly and resolved.  Under the Canadian constitution, the federal government is incapable of unilaterally implementing international treaty obligations in areas that fall within provincial jurisdiction. Nor is it acceptable for the federal government to use its treaty-making powers to do an end run around the federal-provincial division of powers or in a way that diminishes Canadian federalism and democracy.      http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/10/24/BC-FIPA-Response/
Andrew Nikiforuk, the author of The energy of Slaves reviewed in my previous post, says:

Appallingly, the treaty would give Sinopec, one of the big Chinese backers of the Northern Gateway pipeline, the right to sue the government of British Columbia if it blocks the project. Sinopec could also demand that only Chinese labour and materials be used on the pipeline. Moreover the treaty gives Chinese state owned companies "the right to full protection and security from public opposition."The agreement, like all bad deals, comes wrapped in totalitarian paper. The deal does not require provincial consent. It comes without any risk-benefit analysis. And it can be ratified into law without parliamentary debate.  http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/10/11/Chairman-Harper/
 



I'd suggest we all contact Terry Lake and Christy Clark asking that they seek an injunction to stop this deal from passing as the federal government seems to be implementing a treaty obligation that trespasses on provincial jurisdictions.   If you're worried about the pipelines proposed by Kinder Morgan and Enbridge, please write!    If you're worrid about democracy, please write!

Moreover, please write to the Conservative members of the federal committee demanding that Parliament seek a debate and vote in the House of Commons before this deal becomes law on November 1, 2012 .  That's NEXT week, for Pete's sakes! 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)