Advertising

What in hell is the federal government advertising? 

The latest annual report on advertising by the federal government has been posted here. In the fiscal year of 2011-2012, the Harper government spent $78.5 million on advertising, which is actually the lowest total since the Conservatives formed government. http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/government-advertising/
 

The tar sands , among other things.   Pardon me - responsible resource development.

Natural Resources Canada ran extensive focus groups last summer to fine tune an ad campaign designed to convince Canadians of the industrial benefits and environmental stewardship of the energy sector — particularly the oilsands. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, meanwhile, is running its own campaign called "Responsible Canadian Energy" that plumbs the same themes. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/natural-resources-minister-aligned-priorities-with-pipeline-lobby-documents-195632671.html?device=mobile

 

One of the key concerns for the federal government in a multimillion-dollar Natural Resources advertising campaign was the negative publicity around the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, according to internal government documents.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/03/25/pol-northern-gateway-federal-ads.html?cmp=rss

Jesus - I don't even need to comment.  Could the right Honorable Stephen Harper be any cozier with the fossil fuel industry? I shouldn't ask rhetorical questions....

Tailings ponds from oilsands production are leaking and contaminating Alberta’s  groundwater, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver was told in an internal memo obtained by Postmedia News. The memo, released through access to information legislation, said that federal government scientists, including Quebec City-based research geoscientist Martine Savard, had discovered evidence of the contamination in new research that rejected longstanding claims that toxins in the region of the Athabasca River were coming from natural sources. “The studies have, for the first time, detected potentially harmful, mining-related organic acid contaminants in the groundwater outside a long-established out-of-pit tailings pond,” said the memo from deputy minister Serge Dupont, dated June 19, 2012.  http://o.canada.com/2013/02/17/oilsands-tailings-leaking-into-groundwater-joe-oliver-told-in-memo/

 

They didn't advertise that, did they?

Update: Perhaps they could advertise the following - maybe for speed of cleanup or speed of notifcation.....

Officials from Suncor Energy Inc. and Alberta Environment are scrambling to test for contaminants after the discovery Monday that industrial waste water from the oil sands giant’s base plant was leaking from a ruptured pipe into a pond close to the Athabasca River....People living and working downstream of the plant, including First Nations communities, have been notified of the release, Ms. Seetal added. Water in the outflow pond is already treated. But she didn’t have specific details about the content of the untreated industrial waste water, which is used in Suncor’s extraction and upgrading processes. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/alberta-officials-test-for-contaminants-after-suncor-plant-leaks-waste-water/article10363390/

Crude Reality

Alberta's oilpatch is anxious to mine the tar sands and sell dilbit. It would be good for the economy, news media states.

Stymied by insufficient pipeline capacity, Alberta’s oil patch is facing problems in getting its product to market. The resulting glut has driven the price for Western Canadian Select oil more than $30 (U.S.) a barrel below that for West Texas Intermediate crude...However, a new report from RBC Economics says that oil patch investment will continue to provide a bright spot for the Canadian economy. It also argues that there is good reason to think that the spread between Western Canadian oil and West Texas crude will narrow in the years ahead.The report notes that swelling production from the oil patch has outpaced pipeline expansion, creating a bottleneck that will be tough to unplug without a direct southbound corridor (think Keystone XL) and an east-west pipeline (Saint John’s enormous oil refinery says hello). The good news is that the current $30-plus discount on every barrel of Canadian oil provides powerful motivation to build the needed pipelines. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/the-bright-side-of-canadas-weak-oil-prices/article8123055/

There's another crude reality out there, however.  It's discussed in Scientific American.

To avoid passing tipping points, such as initiation of the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, we need to limit the climate forcing severely. It's still possible to do that, if we phase down carbon emissions rapidly, but that means moving expeditiously to clean energies of the future," he explains. "Moving to tar sands, one of the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet, is a step in exactly the opposite direction, indicating either that governments don't understand the situation or that they just don't give a damn."  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tar-sands-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-impact-on-global-warming

The reality of climate change has sunk in: ome very surprising sources  and institutions are worrying about the effects of climate change.

With energy-related carbon dioxide (CO₂) representing the majority of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the fight against climate change has become a defining factor for energy policy-making – but the implications are daunting. Meeting the emission goals currently pledged by countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) would still leave the world some 13.7 billion tonnes of CO₂ – or 60% – above the level needed to remain on track with the 2°C goal in 2035. Much additional investment will need to be directed towards lower- CO₂ technologies, on supply and end-use sides alike. The benefits that society would reap from these measures, beyond avoided climate impacts, would be of an equal if not larger magnitude than the cost to the energy sector. Meanwhile, energy policy-makers need to start thinking about the impact of committed climate change on the security of the energy sector . http://www.iea.org/topics/climatechange/

 The International Energy Association isn't exactly an environmental group!

A 4°C warmer world can, and must be, avoided – we need to hold warming below 2°C," said World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim. "Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today. Climate change is one of the single biggest challenges facing development, and we need to assume the moral responsibility to take action on behalf of future generations, especially the poorest.  http://climatechange.worldbank.org/

The World Bank hasn't had the environment on its mind either in the past.  Perhaps we should pay attention to climate scientists - and very conservative institutions such as the World Bank and the IEA.

The real crude reality is that either we quit burning fossil fuels or  kill off millions of people and ecosystems.

Oil and British Columbia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNN7h2teaCA
Not from the world of black humour:
"Enbridge Inc. faces a record $3.7-million US penalty for a 2010 Michigan oil spill that leaked more than 20,000 barrels of crude into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River. The U.S. pipeline regulator, in issuing the civil fine Monday, said its investigation uncovered two dozen violations related to the July 25 rupture on Enbridge's Line 6B near Marshall.  The fine is the largest ever proposed by the U.S. Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration."
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/energy-resources/Enbridge+with+fine+2010+Michigan+spill/6874631/story.html

Does this "record" fine matter to Enbridge?  In terms of money  -  well.....maybe.  And maybe not. In August 2011, a Calgary newspaper reported that:
"Enbridge, which is also one of Canada’s largest natural gas distributors, said Friday it earned $259 million or 35 cents a share, up from $138 million or 19 cents a share a year earlier. Revenues soared to just under $5 billion from $3.5 billion in the same period last year."
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1034999--enbridge-s-profits-rise-as-revenues-soar

Therefore, that "record" fine works out to 1.43 % on a quarter's profits.    What may be making excutives at Enbrridge cringe is the bad publicity resulting from the fine just as they are hoping to get approval for the Northern Gateway pipline  through British Columbia.  For example: 

"The evidence includes testimony from a senior Enbridge employee who suggests the energy company is ....  years away from achieving "world-class" safety standards." http://www.vancouversun.com/Enbridge+control+room+confusion+spurred+2010+spill+probe+alleges/6886497/story.html

Do we really want this pipleline through BC?  Do we really huge oil tankers on BC's coast?  If you don't,  please let your MP and your MLA know that you oppose oil tankers navigating BC's coastlines.

And please consider donating to the Dogwood Initiative at:
http://dogwoodinitiative.org/no-tankers/learn-more

Syncrude is Guilty

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/syncrude-guilty-in-ducks-trial/article1618384/

A judge has found oil sands giant Syncrude Canada Ltd. guilty of a pair of environmental charges stemming from the deaths of 1,606 birds two years ago. Provincial Court Judge Ken Tjosvold ruled Friday that Syncrude was indeed responsible for its tailings pond where the ducks were found, and it “did not deploy the [bird] deterrents early enough and quickly enough” around the 12-square-kilometre pond, which contained toxic, oily bitumen byproduct.

Mr. White [the lawyer acting for Syncrude] will recommend his clients appeal because he believes the “judgment is incorrect,” arguing that to find the company guilty when its tailings pond was provincially licensed could effectively make all such ponds illegal.

It is to be hoped that Mr White is correct and that this ruling has serious repercussions for resource extraction industries.  (However, had Syncrude taken steps to prevent ducks from landing on its ponds, it wouldn't have been found guilty. ) June 25, 2010 may be identifiable later as the day where the tide turned against polluters - the day where they became responsible for their "externalities."  How can it be profitable to extract resources if taxpayers are left with the bills for cleanup of horrible messes?  It shouldn't be....

Ruling Expected in The Case of the Dead Ducks

No - I haven't found an undiscovered  Agatha Christie manuscript secreted in Grandmother's trunk.  The Globe and Mail contains an excellent article on Syncrude and those ducks that perished in their tailings pond. 

More than two years after 1,606 dead ducks were first found in a northern Alberta industrial tailings pond, a judge is scheduled to rule Friday afternoon on whether the deaths amounted to a violation of provincial or federal law.

A guilty verdict would be a major victory for environmentalists, long critical of Alberta's oil sands. But energy giant Syncrude Canada Ltd., which has been operating in the oil sands for over 30 years, warns such a verdict would effectively make tailings ponds – which are essential in the refining of Alberta's oil sands bitumen – illegal, bringing the economically vital industry to a standstill.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prairies/ruling-expected-in-syncrude-duck-trial/article1617402/?cmpid=rss1

In other words, tar sands miners are worried that the costs of their "externalities" may be brought home to them. 

Why Are We Doing This?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/gulf-oil-spill-runs-a-pipeline-to-our-collective-unconscious/article1584868/

"This is what I don't understand,” she admitted. “If BP doesn't know how to cut off the well, why are they drilling on the bottom of the ocean in the first place?”
“Don't be ridiculous,” another man at the table replied. “It's a mile deep. It's not just a question of shutting off a tap.”

Why are we drilling a mile deep if we have no idea how we are going to plug leaks or clean up spills?  Risky behaviour and no idea of consequences will be coped with is symtomatic of  addictions.  Have a look at the article diagram for a visual depiction of the size of the oil spill - it is gigantic.   And, read right to the end. There,  Ian Brown states "The temptation is to pass it all off as American. We ought to remember the oil sands in our own backyard. Their toxic tailing ponds already cover more than 50 square kilometres. They're a stone's throw from the Athabasca River, one of the continent's most delicate watersheds. Let's hope they don't spring a leak. "

Water Shortages in The Tar Sands

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/oil-sands-report-warns-of-investor-risk/article1571659/

Oil sands companies could soon run out of water and, in years to come, find themselves with a shrinking market for their product, according to grim new research.  Under current expansion plans, companies could run out of adequate winter water supplies as early as 2014, estimates the report, which was prepared for Boston-based investor and environmental advocacy group Ceres....“All of this should give investors pause as they consider anteing up for what has become a $200-billion bet,” said Douglas Kogan, director of climate risk management for research group Riskmetrics Group, which wrote the report. “There may be safer places to put their money, and certainly more environmentally sustainable ones.”

I predicted this: not the shrinking markets  -  the water shortages.  Check your RRSP and make sure you're not investing in the tar sands.  And nag your pension plan administrators regarding the issue.  Not only will you be environmentally responsible, you'll make more money investing elsewhere.  Where ??? Run proposed investments through my link titled "Corporate Environmental and Social Reports."

Syncrude and Those Dead Ducks

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/court-hears-final-arguments-in-syncrude-trial/article1566630/

A lawyer for Syncrude says charges faced by the oil sands giant over 1,600 dead ducks on its tailing pond are a cheap shot and a gross overreaction by prosecutors.....  If Syncrude is found guilty, then the ground will have shifted for every company in Alberta, Mr. White argued....Crown prosecutors, in their final arguments, have said the case is clear: Syncrude is mandated to take steps to keep birds off the tailings ponds and didn't do it.  Court has heard that Syncrude staff assigned to get air cannons and scarecrows deployed on the pond were two weeks behind schedule that spring and didn't get going until mid-April. Even when they did, the seven-member team couldn't do much. Their boats were out of service and they had one truck to deliver all the equipment. They managed to get eight cannons around the pond compared with 130 the year before.

If Syncrude is found guilty, then the ground will have shifted for every company in Alberta.  Precisely, Mr White, precisely.   The ducks aside, what happens to those toxic tailing ponds in the long term?

Addicted to Oil

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/panel-reveals-litany-of-failures-on-oil-spill/article1566781/

A litany of failures in the blow-out preventer led to the catastrophic spill from BP’s leaking Gulf of Mexico well, a powerful Congressional investigations panel revealed on Wednesday, suggesting that BP and Transocean officials overlooked warning signs and then disagreed on what to do about them. “Our investigation is at its early stages, but already we have uncovered at least four significant problems with the blow-out preventer used on the Deepwater Horizon drill rig,” said Bart Stupak, the Michigan congressman who chairs the oversight and investigations subcommittee of the House of Representatives’ energy committee.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/bp-fought-safety-measures-deepwater-oil-rigs/story?id=10521078

BP, the company that owned the Louisiana oil rig that exploded last week, spent years battling federal regulators over how many layers of safeguards would be needed to prevent a deepwater well from this type of accident.  In a letter sent last year to the Department of the Interior, BP objected to what it called "extensive, prescriptive regulations" proposed in new rules to toughen safety standards. "We believe industry's current safety and environmental statistics demonstrate that the voluntary programs…continue to be very successful."

We don't let corporations and individuals manufacture and sell crustal meth or crack cocaine if we can prevent it.  We consider it immoral or unethical - no matter big the profits.  Period. If I could pass regulations, BP would have cause to complain about "extensive, prescriptive regulation!"

Why aren't we regulating drilling for oil / mining the tar sands/ and the uses of oil ?  We've only got so much of the stuff left - why waste it? We're gonna need lots of energy in the near future to save something form the wreckage.  We need  to use the energy  from oil  to build light rapid transit -  move our coastal cities inland or shore up defences such as levees and dikes - and create wind farms and solar energy farms.  Climate change is already happening  - we need to deal with it.   And we need to deal with corporations that pollute the environment and ignore worker safety.  Eleven men died on the Deepwater Horizon -   think about  ecosystem death and destruction in the Gulf of Mexico - and for what?  Higher emissions of greenhouse gases from our Hummers?

Peak Oil - Again

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/jeff-rubins-smaller-world/drilling-and-spilling-for-all-the-oil-thats-left/article1548522/

Most forms of unconventional oil and gas (including, by the way, shale gas) are invariably very hard on the environment. Although tar sands production draws most of the world’s criticism, we are quickly discovering that deep-water wells and the pressure surges they engender run the risk of wreaking even greater ecological and environmental devastation. ...Why is this so potentially devastating to America’s oil future? The Gulf of Mexico was the only area of the country where there was any reasonable hope of expanding domestic supply. Production in the lower 48 states peaked in the early 1970s....If you’re wondering why we’re risking catastrophic environmental consequences by drilling wells miles below the ocean floor, the answer is simple enough. It’s the same answer to the question of why we’re pouring billions of dollars into the tar sands.

It’s all that’s left.

Addicts usually deny they have a problem.  When an individual persists in use of alcohol or other drugs despite problems related to use of the substance, substance dependence may be diagnosed.  As a society, we're addicted to oil. We don't care that our use of fossil fuels destroys the environment - or the freedom of whole peoples.  (If you don't believe me, do some research on the Ogoni in Nigeria.  Or on Ken Saro Wiwa ring a bell.)   We don't care that we're running out - we don't wnat to plan an energy descent.   We just want to continue doing what we're doing......consequences be damned.

We're addicted to oil.

The Impacts of Fossil Fuel Subsidies

http://blog.iisd.org/2010/04/22/earth-day-time-to-consider-how-fossil-fuel-subsidy-reform-can-contribute-to-climate-change-energy-security-and-poverty-alleviation-goals/

Fossil-fuel subsidies drive to the heart of sustainable development: removing them has the potential to dramatically reduce carbon emissions and open investment pathways for cleaner sources of energy; it frees vast sums of money – for both developed and developing country budgets – to spend on other priorities such as healthcare and education; and it helps to move us away from our dependency on what we know well to be a finite resource.

http://www.oilsandswatch.org/media-release/1242

Groups from across Canada today renewed calls for the federal government to eliminate massive tax subsidies to the country's booming oil and gas industry. Last fall the groups formally petitioned Canada's Auditor General to investigate the billions of dollars in government tax breaks to oil and gas companies....The most recent data, based on government figures, show that the industry receives $1.4 billion annually in federal tax breaks.

Why does the fossil fuel extraction industry need tax breaks and government subsidies?  Does that poor, pitiful struggling industry  need  help  from governments of all stripes including  the Canadian government?  It must - it receives them.  So, we the taxpayers, are helping the fossil fuel industry belch greenhouse gas emissions!  As the former President of Costa Rica, J.M. Figueres, stated, "if you don't want more of something, then don't subsidize it."  

More on Those Dead Ducks

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100421/edm_syncrude_100421/20100421/?hub=EdmontonHome

Documents obtained by CTV News show oil giant Syncrude knew several birds had been landing on its tailings ponds before more than 1,600 ducks were found coated in bitumen.  This comes as a series of employee interviews were entered as evidence at the company trial.  The documents show details from interviews conducted with about 20 Syncrude employees.  And on one page, an e-mail was shown suggesting the company knew about the waterfowl landing on the tailings ponds before the May 2008 incident.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Shortfall+bird+protection+deliberate+Syncrude/2941727/story.html

Senior Syncrude officials couldn't tell federal and provincial investigators why resources for the company's waterfowl protection plan declined in the years prior to the 2008, when more than 1,600 ducks died on a tailings pond.  Court documents show Alberta Environment investigator Sean Harris raised the issue with Syncrude managers a month after the ducks died, asking why the number of scare cannons being deployed to deter waterfowl dropped from 150 in 2001 to 67 in 2007. He also noted the number of deployed effigies or scarecrows dropped from 100 in 2001 to 27 in 2007.

Perhaps Syncrude needed to pinch pennies and decided not to worry about a few dead ducks.  (The Oil Sands Project reported earnings of only $ 737 million for the year ended 2007.)  They may regret their parsimony now that the chickens of bad publicity are coming home to roost. 

Those Dead Ducks

A few dead ducks in Syncrude's tailings ponds don't matter: after all, hunters kill millions of ducks per annum.   And wind power kills birds - so it must be OK that ducks drown in toxic goo.  Why are we wasting money on a trial?  We are only damaging the reputation - and that reputation was carefully built  too - of a great Canadian energy company - and perhaps the entire industry.  This isn't my opinion - it is that of Gwyn Morgan's in the Monday, April 19th business section of the Globe and Mail.  On page B7 to be exact.

I hope his eyes are brown!  Syncrude is on trial as prosecutors allege that the company broke the law.  Remember those stupid kids who sluiced ducks out of season and posted their hilarious video on You Tube?  They were charged  with killing migratory birds - and convicted.  Afterwards, one of them said:

"What happened was severe," he added. "A few ducks were killed and that's tragic. But this has been getting coast to coast and international coverage when endangered species are being killed everywhere, all over the planet." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2009/08/11/sask-youtube-duck-hunter-convicted-observations.html

Sounds rather like the arguments Mr Gwyn Morgan used.  Yes, we killed a few ducks - but other people do worse things.  I hope Syncrude's lawyers have better arguments than that to present in court.  Is he suggesting that , since trials are expensive, that we shouldn't charge and try alleged child abusers?  After all, worse things have happened - look at the Holocaust! 

I think Mr Morgan is  spinning on behalf of tar sands producers and their carefully built reputation.   I'm sure he is worried about the effects on the industry if Syndcrude is convicted - and is therfore attempting to build support for the industry.   However, suggesting that Syncrude and the industry should be exempt from the rule of law seems a tad excessive to me.

NAFTA and The Tar Sands

http://environmentaldefence.ca/pressroom/viewnews.php?id=764

A coalition of environmental organizations and citizens filed a citizens’ submission today with the environmental side-body of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The submission alleges that the Canadian government is failing to enforce the anti-pollution provisions of the federal Fisheries Act by allowing the tar sands tailings ponds to leak contaminated materials into both surface waters and groundwater in the Athabasca watershed.  The citizens’ submission documents cases where contaminated tailings leakage has reached surface waters in addition to the ongoing massive and increasing leakage from un-lined tar sands tailings ponds into the region’s groundwater. The Fisheries Act prohibits the discharge of substances harmful to fish, yet the federal government has never prosecuted documented infractions nor has it enacted regulations that would permit the discharge.

A very interesting tactic!  Let's hope it works .  Think of the long term implications to industry if they  are forced to accountand pay for their "externalities."   Gee , clean water and viable ecoysystems for the rest of us versus theri profits - I know which I prefer!

It is shameful that the Canadian government doesn't enforce its own regulations.  Particularly when a paper published in the peer reviewed Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences concludes that " oil sands development is a greater source of contamination than previously realized."

Peak Oil

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply

The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.  The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel. 
"By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.

http://www.jeffrubinssmallerworld.com/2010/03/31/new-price-peak-by-next-year/

Does anyone still believe the reassuring forecasts from discredited feel-good organizations like the International Energy Agency about new sources of cheap supply, like those that once flowed from places like Prudhoe Bay in Alaska or the North Sea? If so, where is that supply of new affordable oil coming from? Surely not from tar sands or from ultra-deep water fields six miles below the ocean’s floor.  By the fourth quarter of this year, oil prices will be back in triple-digit range, and by next year oil prices will rise to record highs, taking out the high-water mark of $147 per barrel that was set back before the recession began in 2008.

Shouldn't we be using the cheap energy aka oil remaining to build a more sustainable way of life?  Obviously, cheap oil isn't going to last forever:  why not use what we've got left to create light rapid transit, local food supplies, alternate sources of electricity, and a happier way of life?
 
Moreover, we'd be working to solve the problem of climate change instead of playing of  "Last One Standing."    Why live in denial until disaster strikes?

Ecocide

Were this to pass, I predict that groups like the Hutarees would scream that the UN was taking over thier lives.  
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/09/ecocide-crime-genocide-un-environmental-damage

A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace - alongside genocide and crimes against humanity - is being launched in the UK.  The proposal for the United Nations to accept "ecocide" as a fifth "crime against peace", which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins.   The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry.  Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute "climate deniers" who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.

I think it is a great idea: it is a way of making industries and corporations accountanble for costs currently downloaded to the populace at large or the gloabal commons.

Higgins will launch her campaign through a website – thisisecocide.com – asking for global support to pressure national governments to vote for the proposed law if it is accepted by the UN Law commission. The deadline for the text is January, and a vote has been scheduled on other amendments in 2012. It would need a two-thirds majority of the 197 member countries to pass.

http://www.thisisecocide.com/
Check out Polly Higgins website above for more information and actions you can take.   (Please notice Canada made it to a list of the worst examples of ecocide - thanks - Alberta tar sands producers.)

Drill, Baby, Drill

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-race-to-define-last-border-of-canada/article1528462/

In the dark icy waters off Canada’s most northerly island coasts, a small yellow submarine called Discovery and a team of researchers in helicopters are busily building the case for drawing a new line, a line Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon calls the “last border of Canada.”  Although the work takes place in one of the most remote locations on earth, the researchers are not alone. Americans, Norwegians, Danes and Russians are all rushing to do the same. Canada has until 2013 to submit its research to a United Nations body that reports on the legitimacy of international border claims.  The high-stakes race has long-term financial implications as the melting arctic opens up to resource development and new shipping routes.

Is the government of Canada deep in denial? Or are they mentally ill?   On one hand, they acknowledge that Arctic ice is melting - and that that fact may give rise to an  opportunity to obtain  resources now under Arctic ice.  On the other hand, they refuse to take serious steps to reverse climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  

The answer to both questions is no.  Why then the discrepancy?  There is none - both sets of actions benefit the oil and gas industry.  Refusing  to reduce greenhouse gas emissions benefits tar sands producers right now.  Staking out Canada's claim on oil and gas reserves under Arctic ice may benefit the same in the future.  Canada's motto may be Sarah Palin's - "Drill, baby, drill."

Tar Sands Producers Have Plans to Spend Money on Expansion

http://www.wwf.org.uk/news_feed.cfm?3757/Tar-sands-billions-could-be-better-spent

The thought-provoking new WWF/Co-op report, Opportunity Cost of the Tar Sands, puts into perspective the estimated £254 billion ($379 billion) that the big oil companies are planning to invest in tar sands between now and 2025.  It explains how this money could instead be used to kick-start ambitious green energy plans in Europe, or to enable the world to hit half the UN’s Millennium Development Goals in the 49 least-developed countries, which would mean averting four million child deaths annually.The money that oil companies want to pump into tar sands would cover the cost of the proposed Desertec Industrial Initiative, linking North African solar plants into a supergrid supplying 15% of Europe’s electricity by 2050. Or it could fund a Europe-wide shift to electric vehicles.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Oilsands+defensive+after+double+attack/2686142/story.html"

"If Canada extracts its probable reserves of oil from tar sands, this will almost single-handedly commit the world to dangerous levels of CO2 in the atmosphere — contributing to dangerous climate change, destroying ecosystems and habitats around the world," said Butfield. "The $379-billion question is: Will the oil companies listen? For the planet's sake, they have to."

Reason totters on its throne ......379 Billion dollars to extract dirty oil and emit how much greenhouse gases?

Peak Oil and Climate Change

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8563985.stm

China's demand for oil jumped by an "astonishing" 28% in January compared with the same month a year earlier, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says. The body added that demand for oil in 2010 would be underpinned by rising demand from emerging markets, with half of all growth coming from Asia.

http://www.jeffrubinssmallerworld.com/2010/03/10/looking-for-oil-demand-in-all-the-wrong-places/

It’s Wednesday, and the week’s US oil inventories numbers will soon be out. I have no clue what they will say, nor much interest, either. But others do. Exactly why oil traders and speculators think the data has anything to do with the state of world oil demand is beyond me. .... It certainly wasn’t US fuel demand that took oil prices over $100 in the first place, and it won’t be US fuel demand that will push them back into that range anytime soon. US oil consumption is almost 3 million barrels per day short of its pre-recession peak.

Looks suspicioulsy like peak oil  is almost here.....Peak oil and climate change are intertwined problems: the solution to both is transitioning to a low carbon economy. Subsidising  tar sands porducer is not a lotng term solution: please let our Prime Minsiter know thaat we want Canada to invest in  clean energy and green technology. We want Canada to plan for a low carbon future - because we're going to get one whether we like it or not. 

Syncrude Goes to Court

Call me naive: I'm  wondering why Syncrude is fighting federal and provincial charges in the case of the dead ducks in their tailings pond.  Syncrude has apologized in public for the  1600 duck deaths.  So why isn't Syncrude taking its legal fees and putting its money into measures to prevent this from happening again? 
Not only that, their public relations staff could announce that Syncrude fully accepts responsibility amd os saving taxpayers the cost of a full trial. The answer, of course, is that the issue at stake is bigger than a one time incident. 
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2010/03/01/edmonton-syncrude-trial-dead-ducks.html

Speaking outside the courthouse Monday, Sierra Club Prairie director Lindsay Telfer said the case goes far beyond the ducks, and the "tailings ponds themselves are on trial.  I think that this incident specifically showed the world just how toxic the tailings ponds are," she said. "We know now that the waters have killed 1,600 ducks, we know that those waters are leaking into the Athabasca [River] and we know downstream communities have significant health problems."  Environmentalists and observers from the oil industry are watching the trial closely because it could set a precedent for tailings-pond operators.

And there you have it: tar sands producers are worried this case will set a legal precedent.  They fear they will be forced to take responsibility for their despoilation of the commons.  And if Syncrude loses, might tar sand producers also be forced to account for their emission of greenhouse gases?

 Watch for this case to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada if Syncrude loses.