anonymous asked:

You mentioned Harper and the fact you're Canadian recently. I was wondering if I could get your opinion on something. What do you think of the Justin Trudeau keeping the the same climate change targets as Stephan Harper. For 4 years Mr. Trudeau said the GHG emission targets that the Conservative government set were not close to good enough. But now he keeps them in place. I guess what I'm getting at is, do you think the targets the Goverment has in place are good enough?

I’m very disappointed in Justin Trudeau’s actions on the environment. Its not just on Climate Change, on environmental issues as a whole he’s been underwhelming.

Those targets are pathetic, and the Liberals are having trouble even meeting them. Its also really counterintuitive and hypocritical that they pushed the Paris conference to adopt a goal of 1.5 degrees C warming, but then Trudeau approves 2 huge oil pipelines (Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion & Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline) and a large LNG pipeline & plant (as well as supporting the Keystone XL pipeline). Also just this week they announced they were delaying emission cuts to methane from the oil sector by at least 3 years, which is only going to make it harder to make these emission reductions by 2030. All these projects and moves are going to jack up Canada’s Carbon emissions for the long term.

Just yesterday a study came out, which outlines that without new policies the Canadian Government won’t even meet these weak targets:

Emissions down slightly, but Canada not yet on track to meet 2030 climate targets: report

This is what people said when Harper unveiled these targets:

Critics blast Harper’s new climate plan as weak, misleading

These targets are not good enough, and I’m skeptical on whether we’ll even reach them with the current government’s direction.

I know a lot about these issues because I also run a Canadian Politics blog (as well as being an Environmental Chemistry major) and keep myself informed about current events in Canada through it: @allthecanadianpolitics.


Members of Hartley Bay First Nation have stretched a 4.6-kilometre long crocheted rope across B.C.’s Douglas Channel in a symbolic blockade of the future path of oil supertankers in northern B.C.

About 200 people from the coastal community gathered at the narrow channel Friday to make the point that they will do everything they can to stop the Northern Gateway pipeline project.

Happy Aboriginal Day.

Haida Raid 2: A message to Stephen Harper 

anonymous asked:

I think oil pipes lines are important to a degree. Like if it's going to danger the environment and people then no. But if we can as safe as possible make a pipeline then go for it. Opinions?

First let’s address the fact that even if you could ensure that pipelines would not endanger the environment and people through spills, then it would still be the wrong choice. A safe pipeline is still a pipeline adding millions more barrels of production capacity to the oil industry and increasing greenhouse gases in the climate. If we have any chance of limiting climate change to 2 degrees of warming, the maximum to prevent catastrophic loss of life, then we must immediately start reducing our fossil fuel use significantly. This requires that we start right away building infrastructure for and promoting alternative energy sources and reducing our fossil fuel use and infrastructure.

For example, the Line 3 replacement which has just been approved would be a great opportunity to replace an aging pipeline with a massive investment in solar, wind, or any other technology. Instead of twinning Kinder Morgan we could do something similar. What is happening here is that the government is choosing to increase fossil fuel production rather than scale it down and transition away. This is a binary choice, and any new fossil fuel project is a commitment to the wrong direction.

That addressed, let’s respond to the idea that the pipelines being built are safe, something every government is at pains to reassure us, that these pipelines are “state-of-the-art” and that oil companies are extremely careful about monitoring them.

This is a lie.

Pipelines leak all the time (let alone the tankers that carry the oil). The companies that build these pipelines face extremely low fines when this happens, incentivizing them to respond after the fact than to protect against spills. 

If you look at the history of oil companies and specifically the two who have had their pipelines approved (Enbridge and Kinder Morgan) you’ll see that there really isn’t such a thing as a pipeline that is safe for the environment or people


“Over the last 20 years, pipeline incidents have caused over $6.3 billion in property damages. On average during this time period there were more than 250 pipeline incidents per year, without a single year where that number dropped below 220. During that time, more than 2.5 million barrels of hazardous liquids were spilled and little more than half of those spilled amounts were recovered in cleanup efforts.”

Kinder Morgan:

On Trans Mountain: “Since Texas-based Kinder Morgan bought the line in 2005, there have been 13 oil spills totalling 5,628 barrels of crude”

“US regulators have documented over thirty significant accidents and violations in the country associated with Kinder Morgan’s operations. Kinder Morgan pipelines have exploded causing disasters and death. They have paid out millions of dollars in fines and settlements.”

“Here is a list of incidents involving Kinder Morgan’s BC operations in the past several years:July 15, 2005: About 210,000 litres of crude were released into the area surrounding the company’s Sumas Mountain storage facility in Abbotsford, making its way into Kilgard Creek.July 24, 2007: An oil spill occurred along the Kinder Morgan pipeline in Burnaby when a construction crew inadvertently hit the unmarked pipe with an excavator. Almost 250,000 litres (about 1500 barrels) of oil shot out of the ground, soaking a residential neighbourhood and seeping into the Burrard Inlet. At least 50 homes had to be evacuated. (Click to view the BC Ministry of Environment Incident Report)May 6, 2009: A sizeable spill was discovered at the company’s Burnaby Mountain tank farm, with almost 200,000 litres leaking out into the facility.January 24, 2012: A pipeline rupture at the Sumas Mountain tank farm spilled an estimated 110,000 litres of oil. Local residents reported health problems including nausea, headaches and fatigue, and schoolchildren were kept indoors for fear of airborne toxins.April 3, 2012: Another spill in a “containment area” at the Abbotsford Sumas Mountain facility caused nuisance odors and air quality concerns in surrounding communities.June 12, 2013: A leak was discovered on the Kinder Morgan pipeline near Merritt, BC.June 26, 2013: Just two weeks after the spill near Merritt, yet another leak was discovered – this time spilling 17,800 litres of oil at a site near the Coquihalla Summit, about 40 km east of Hope, BC.”


“Using data from Enbridge’s own reports, the Polaris Institute calculated that 804 spills occurred on Enbridge pipelines between 1999 and 2010. These spills released approximately 161,475 barrels (25,672.5 m3) of crude oil into the environment.”

one incident among many: “2007 (November 27th) – Clearbrook, Minnesota – killed two employees. Enbridge was cited for failing to safely and adequately perform maintenance and repair activities, clear the designated work area from possible sources of ignition, and hire properly trained and qualified workers.”

“The year 2010 was a bad one for Enbridge. The total number of barrels of oil spilled was 34,122, the equivalent of more than one million U.S. gallons, including the 20,000-barrel Marshall, Mich., incident in July. Just six weeks after Marshall, another major spill occurred along the same pipeline, Line 6B, at Romeoville, Ill. In that spill, 9,000 barrels, or more than 250,000 gallons of crude, poured into the town’s industrial sector.”

My name is Meredith, a Welsh name meaning “guardian of the sea”. I am speaking today to voice my vehement opposition to the Northern Gateway Pipeline project and to share some of my story.

I came to North Beach, Haida Gwaii ten years ago and I stayed because it felt wild and clean and safe. My son was born five years ago in Queen Charlotte Hospital. His name is Fisher because no matter where he goes in his life and in this world, we want his name to always connect him to this land and to this coast, where the health of the sea determines the health of this ecosystem as a whole. Fisher eats regularly from our front yard. He knows when to set the traps for Dungeness crabs, he can dig razor clams with his bare hands, he invents recipes with seaweed and kelp and we brave hurricane force winds at night with headlamps to harvest rock scallops and cockles that wash up in front of our house. Like many children in this community, Fisher is well versed in the issues of pollution and climate change, and he can identify more plants, animals and constellations than most adults. And Fisher is also well versed in the aspects of proactive personal responsibility that go hand in hand with the reactive nature of protest. Our electricity at home is derived from the wind and the sun, we give thanks at meals for the local bounty on our plates, he knows about supporting local economies and bartering, and he doesn’t think that driving around with used vegetable oil in the fuel tank is funny or unusual. He is developing a deep and uncomplicated relationship with his natural world, and his delight is palpable when he makes a new discovery in his surroundings.

He has nothing to fear in this place. This for me is the greatest immediate risk of such a project. That we will have to live with fear, waiting for the morning when we hear that a very large crude carrier has lost its cargo to our coastline. Every winter storm will bring with it a feeling of dread that maybe this will be the day.

Before coming to Haida Gwaii I worked with Greenpeace International for 13 years. In 2002, as crew onboard the Rainbow Warrior, we were called to respond to the sinking of the oil tanker MV Prestige off the coast of Spain. After suffering damage in a storm the ship spilt in half and lost around 20 million gallons of oil, which washed up all along the coastline of Spain and Portugal. We came into port in A Coruna in Galicia where we were met by thousands of angry and desperate citizens, cheering and relieved that someone was finally paying attention to their ongoing struggle against political apathy towards their environment and their source of livelihood, the fishing industry. We picked up some journalists, scientists and activists and set out to find the worst concentration of the spill. As we neared what we thought was the epicenter the captain sent me up the mast to the crow’s nest to keep a lookout for the slick. After hours of searching I finally saw, far in the distance, that the sea state had changed. We were sailing through a heavy chop but a great patch of calm loomed ahead of us. The oil had literally subdued the ocean, made it docile, lethargic and heavy. As we approached the spill our ship was forced, under penalty of arrest, to stay out of the boundaries imposed by the Spanish authorities. After a day of cat and mouse chase we managed to get our small inflatable boats into the area and our helicopter over the spill so that the journalists had a chance to document the images that were broadcast through news agencies internationally. Being in that slick was one of the eeriest experiences of my life. It was as if the ocean was being suffocated. I have never been anywhere since that felt so void of life. This turned out to be the worst environmental disaster in both Spain and Portugal’s history with massive repercussions to both the fishing and tourism industries, and long-term health consequences for many of the people who participated in the clean up.

In 1999 I worked with an African American community in Lake Charles, Louisiana in an area of the states known as Cancer Alley. The town’s population was being decimated by cancer caused by dioxin and other industrial effluent dumped into the Mississippi River. A drive through the impoverished town showed maybe a third of the houses abandoned, not because people were leaving – where would they go? – but because they were dead. I watched old guys fishing on the riverbanks, knowingly catching and eating poisoned fish, clinging to their way of life. The term environmental racism was coined upon the realization that in the US it is poor and marginalized black and native communities that are the innocent victims of unregulated industrial pollution. I have travelled on the Amazon River from Belem to Manaus campaigning and blockading to put pressure on multinationals pillaging the rainforests. I spent weeks in the winter living in a little pod on the ice in the Beaufort Sea during the construction of one of British Petroleum’s undersea pipelines, hoping to illustrate to the world the impossibility of any clean up should the pipeline rupture under seven feet of ice. I have blockaded a US ship in Japan secretly carrying PCB’s for disposal, and a ship carrying newsprint made of pulp from old growth trees from our coastal rainforests, I have blockaded roads leading into pristine watersheds slated for clear-cut logging, I have knocked on doors and marched in cities and signed petitions and written to my MP’s. I have been tear gassed by riot police in two countries and arrested for environmental activism seven times in four countries. I have witnessed the effects of industrial mayhem on five continents.

I have lived and fought for years with grief from the feeling of helplessness and hopelessness trying to stem the drive of industry. I got really tired of fighting so I settled down and found a home. But now this danger is threatening my home and I won’t sit this one out.

I will fight.

My son Fisher is sitting here with me today because I want him to know that I tried. When he helps me raise wind turbines and hook up solar panels for our neighbours, he’ll know that we tried. And when he watches me get dragged off to jail for protesting the Northern Gateway Pipeline project, he’ll remember that I tried. And if that day does come when we have to put on HAZMAT suits to try and clean up the beaches, we will at least be able to say we tried.

With respect to the panel members as individuals, I find it difficult to believe in the relevance of this review process and nearly withdrew my registration to speak. The message I have for you to add to your review is one more resounding NO. But I am not really speaking today to the Joint Review Panel. I am speaking to my community and to my son. I stand in solidarity with all of the voices and stories and promises and opposition that I have heard and read during these hearings, and I will stand in support of the greater movement to protect this wilderness, at any cost.


—  Meredith Adams, my sister.

This Is How You Shut Down a Pipeline

Today people in so called “Quebec” shut down the valve of Enbridge’s controversial Line 9B pipeline, essentially cutting the flow of tar sands oil to eastern “Canada”

…a 2012 study from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives compared the public value from a $5 billion pipeline— the rough cost of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway— and the value that could be derived from investing the same amount in green economic alternatives. It found that if $5 billion is spent on a pipeline, it produces mostly short- term construction jobs, big private sector profits, and heavy public costs for future environmental damage. But if $5 billion is spent on public transit, building retrofits, and renewable energy, economies can gain, at the very least, three times as many jobs in the short term, while simultaneously helping to reduce the chances of catastrophic warming in the long term. In fact, the number of jobs could be many times more than that, according to the institute’s modeling. At the highest end, green investment could create thirty- four times more jobs than just building another pipeline.
—  Naomi Klein - This Changes Everything
Regulator demands details on Enbridge line reversal

* Enbridge sees demand for Portland-Montreal reversalBy Jeffrey JonesCALGARY, Alberta, Oct 17 (Reuters) - Canada’s energy regulator has asked Enbridge Inc to explain whether a proposed pipeline reversal is part of a bigger plan to export crude, a concern expressed by environmental groups seeking a more thorough review of the project.The National Energy Board has asked Enbridge to provide more details of its Line 9 Phase 1 project, the initial part of a plan to reverse the flow of its Montreal to Sarnia, Ontario, oil pipeline to allow Quebec and Atlantic Canadian refineries access to western crude.The board, which must decide on the level of review the project is subject to, made the requests at the end of an extended public comment period that attracted nearly 100 submissions from landowners, environmentalists, aboriginal groups and oil companies.In a letter, the NEB asked Enbridge to explain by Oct. 21 the relationship between Phase 1, future stages and a previously proposed plan called Trailbreaker, which would have moved oil sands-derived crude to the U.S. Atlantic Seaboard.The NEB also wants to know if any of the phases is dependent on another, as well as the current status of the Trailbreaker project, which Enbridge floated three years ago, regulatory documents show.It noted that many of the comment letters suggested possible linkages between Phrase 1 and Trailbreaker.The C$17 million ($16.7 million) first phase, which includes a reversal of flow between Sarnia and Westover, Ontario, has become the latest target for environmental groups opposed to development of the Alberta oil sands and infrastructure aimed at moving the crude to more markets.Enbridge wants the project vetted under a section of the NEB Act allowing for a less intensive review, saying the first phase has minimal land disturbance and no adverse environmental or socioeconomic impact.Green groups, led by Environmental Defence, want the board to deny the exemption from a full review, arguing that Phase 1 is just the beginning of a resurrection of Trailbreaker, which would have included a full reversal of the 240,000 barrel a day Line 9, as well as a pipeline that runs to Montreal from Portland, Maine, allowing oil to be loaded onto tankers.“This is a good step,” said Gillian McEachern, climate and energy program manager for Environmental Defence.“It’s forcing some more transparency and accountability about what the goal of the project is - and the game changes if you’re looking at the impacts of the entire project that was Trailbreaker versus the pipeline reversal in Ontario."In its letter, the NEB said it wants Enbridge to provide additional details "regarding the purpose of the project as it relates to business demands of shippers and refiners, including how they would benefit."Earlier this month, Enbridge Chief Executive Pat Daniel told Reuters that his company is seeking a deal to reverse the flow of the Portland pipeline due to demand for light crude from the Bakken region among Philadelphia-area refineries.



Wealth for Big Oil Corporations is his priority over Canadians. Leads one to wonder what Incentives have been offered to Prime Minister Harper from Big Oil Corporations?

Reblog: Spread the word, we deserve to know the truth. We deserve a better Prime Minister. 

[Image Description: In the art style of the Pacific Northwest Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island, this picture features two bears (?) protecting the land from the advance of harmful industrialization practices of companies such as Enbridge by resisting the presence of things such as power lines, railways, and excavators that have violated the integrity of Native land ownership and the environment.]

Enbridge pipeline could be disastrous for BC

If - as a British Columbian who truly cares about this astounding West Coast place - you do not eventually want your heart broken so badly it can never heal, then oppose Enbridge’s proposed crude-oil supertanker traffic down this coast.

One massive spill and it would finally happen, and B.C.’s magical coastline will be oil-soddened for hundreds of miles and for decades, if not centuries. It would never be the same again.

Nothing is worth this risk, not any kind of increased prosperity, including jobs created.

And assurances given or lessons heeded from previous spills is meaningless jargon.

Once this obscenely huge tanker traffic is allowed, a catastrophic tragedy to this wondrous coast is in its future. Not necessarily the next day, week, month, year but in its future with absolute certainty, guaranteed inevitability.

What already happens is too much.

With this controversy exists the rare opportunity to unquestionably assert that this country and its incomparable majesty belongs to us, the people of Canada and not exclusively to pro-supertanker Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.

We can assert that at least out here on this jaw-dropping, breathtaking coast, our common soul still sides with the beach poet and the seascape painter, the plight of the whale and the shorebird and the kelp bed - not with some bloodless line being edged up on some corporation’s boardroom graph.