Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Canada set to approve Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion


Funny how newz is reported or NOT reported these dayz.  I pawed through all the Canadian News Websites looking for something postable but it was only when I got down to the "R's", RT to be exact, that I found a tidbit.  According to RT, Canada is set to approve the Trans Mountain oil pipeline.  This is nowhere to be found in the Canadian media.  Here's the story and I will have more comments to follow:

Canada is likely to announce in mid-June that it would be proceeding with the controversial expansion of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline designed to double the flow out of Alberta to the west coast in British Columbia.

Justin Trudeau’s federal cabinet will meet to discuss the Trans Mountain expansion on June 18 and is expected to take the decision on that day, officials tell Bloomberg, noting that “it’s possible but unlikely” that the government extends again the decision deadline in order to allow more time for consultations with stakeholders.

While Alberta and its leaders have been advocating for the pipeline expansion, British Columbia has been strongly opposing the project, which is now owned by the federal government of Canada. The fierce opposition in British Columbia has forced Kinder Morgan to reconsider its commitment to expand the Trans Mountain pipeline, and to sell the project to the Canadian government in August 2018.

Days later, the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the federal government’s approval of the Trans Mountain expansion project, saying that the National Energy Board’s (NEB) review of the project was fraught with flaws that made it unsuitable as a basis for the government’s approval. The court ruled that the NEB failed to adequately consider how increased tanker traffic off British Columbia’s coasts would affect the environment and First Nations people in the region.
Currently, the federal government is conducting consultations with First Nations regarding the project, in an attempt to address all possible concerns that opponents may have. Should the outcome of the consultations be positive, work on the project could start fairly quickly, the business entity in charge of the expansion said last month.

Newly sworn-in Alberta Premier Jason Kenney expects the Canadian government to proceed with the project and told BNN Bloomberg in an interview last week: “After all, the federal government owns it now, so they’d better.”

********************


Greencrow says: I have been opposed to the expansion based on the fact that there's "nothing in it for BC".  The Province of Alberta likes to tear up its hinterland, and pollute the regions that the oil is coming from.  But Alberta makes lots of lucre out of doing so. Please read the insert from today's National Post below:

Alberta Tar Sands
National Geographic published an online article on April 11th about oilsands development in northern Alberta. Called “This is the world’s most destructive oil operation — and it’s growing,” the article, by a Toronto-based reporter, made claims about health effects in Fort Chipewyan caused by oilsands development activities, including cancer, stillbirths and miscarriages. A claim was also made about the case of a baby born in Fort McKay, located in the oilsands region, with an underdeveloped heart (congenital heart defect). The article stated that “Though proof is elusive, his family believes his condition was caused by pollution from nearby oilsands developments.”


British Columbia, OTOH, is a silent and unwilling partner in all this destruction.  We get the tearing up of our wilderness for the pipeline build and...worst of all...British Columbia risks total destruction of our coastline, salmon fishery and waterways, when the inevitable huge oil spill occurs. But what is the "Up" side to all this?  Is Alberta and/or the Federal government going to compensate us, up front, for all this risk and all the potential losses should they occur?  No.  Did Alberta and the Federal government offer British Columbia anything to "sweeten the pot"?  I suggested they bury all the unsightly transmission lines routing through the lower mainland as some kind of compensation.

So far as I know...NOTHING specific has been offered to BC.  So WHY on earth should we go along with the project?  Well, all I can say is there probably won't be very many Liberal Members of Parliament elected in BC in the Fall Election.  I decided to vote Green yesterday after Andrew [banned from travelling to Russia] Scheer gave his disastrous clunker of a speech.  As my blogging colleague, Northerntruthseeker said yesterday, Scheer would, if elected PM, move the Canadian Embassy to Jerusalem as a slap at the indigenous Palestinians and as a way of garnering support for the Conservative campaign from the Jews in Canada.  The guy has the worst political instincts of any Canadian politician in modern times.  With the possible exception of le Dauphin.

Yes, as NTS said yesterday, Canada is truly screwed.  No one to vote for and all kinds of shit being shoved down our throats.  British Columbians are paying the highest gas prices in the West.  Coinkydynk?  I think not.  Our Premier, John Horgan, has asked a government body to investigate why.  No need for an investigation.  We're being Royally Fu*ked over by Big Oil, John.

But there is a silver lining to all this.  I read a local headline the other day that said "BC will switch entirely over to Electric Cars by 2040".  Not soon enough...I say.

4 comments:

Penny said...

Electric cars are not as 'green' as has been touted
There are a myriad of problems with electricity- from transmission/energy loss to the dependence on expensive but highly subsidized nuclear power
What to do with the batteries
and more

http://www.europeantransportforum.eu/mediaroom/why-battery-power-might-not-be-as-green-as-you-think/

"Beyond the emissions savings, there are other environmental issues with electric vehicles. If you translate the production of batteries into emissions, the overall carbon footprint of a battery-powered car is similar to that of a conventional car, according to a study* by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IFEU) in Heidelberg
That’s not all. Batteries also need minerals like copper, lithium and cobalt, and rare elements like neodymium. They are mined in places like China, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Latin America, where there has already been colossal ecological damage from dust, fumes, wastewater, water shortages and toxic spills.

A final question concerns what happens when we eventually get rid of the batteries. Due to the toxic chemicals inside the batteries, the end-of-life procedures are much more complicated than conventional steel engines that can be recycled relatively easily"

https://www.cnet.com/news/study-electric-cars-not-as-green-as-you-think/

greencrow said...

Hi Penny:

How about solar-powered cars?

greencrow said...

This is the reality...according to some Cassandras at least:

https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/blb6wq/found_this_thought_it_was_pretty_good_for_people/

Penny said...

Yah, I looked at the link and don't buy it for a moment-

"denier propaganda"

"Eat food that does not mine the soil "

and what food would that be?
Anything grown in soil draws out valuable nutrients hence they all mine the soil- That's a silly statement (made by someone whose never grown anything,clearly)

"compost your own poop" well that would open a whole bunch of issues- depending on what big pharmaceuticals your consuming- the water you drink etc

" It is us and our "western" lifestyle, Understand that those that are currently arguing against refugees and climate change are both increasing the effects of climate change and causing millions of climate refugees."

We have have limited population growth here -not even replacemtn and climate refugees is just one of those memes

while their are a few good points in that article it's mostly lots of gibberish.