Category Archives: environmental activism

Residents opposed to Hidden Quarry project build strong case at Guelph Eramosa Council

Posted on by

No 750 Posted by fw, May 19, 2013

“If you read the Rockfort Quarry OMB decision dated November 12, 2010, you realize pretty quickly why the applicant has avoided doing the visual impact study and the additional cultural heritage work, because that OMB decision refused the Rockfort Quarry in part because negative visual impacts and negative cultural heritage impacts.” —Dan Kennaley

Following up on an April 9, 2013 post, Southern Ontario residents quick to organize in response to “Hidden Quarry” proposal, here’s a transcript of Dan Kennaley’s presentation to the Guelph Eramosa Council, received by email, May 17, 2013. (Text highlighting and reformatting is mine).

Presentation to Guelph Eramosa Council, by Dan Kennaley, May 6, 2013

RE:  The Proposed Hidden Quarry

Mr. Mayor and Members of Council

I am here this evening as a member of and on behalf of the Concerned Residents Coalition or the CRC.  As you know, the CRC is a community group that has come together to in large part to ensure that the rezoning and Aggregate Resources Act licence applications for the Hidden Quarry are properly evaluated before any decision is contemplated with regards to the proposed quarry.

  • We believe that in order for the proposed quarry application to be properly evaluated the applicant, James Dick Construction Limited, must undertake additional cultural heritage studies to address built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscape resources whereas, thus far the applicant has only studied archaeological resources.  And we are requesting that Township Council require the applicant to undertake these additional cultural heritage studies.
  • Similarly, we believe that for the proposed quarry applications to be properly evaluated, the applicant must also undertake a study of visual impact, which he has not done to date, and we would again request that Township Council require the applicant to this visual impact study.

The reason we believe this additional cultural heritage work is necessary flows most directly from the policies of the County of Wellington Official Plan which at Section 6.6.5 state that in considering proposals to establish new aggregate operations, the following matters will be considered

a) the impact on adjacent land uses and residents and public health and safety;

We don’t know what impacts there will be on adjacent land uses and residents without requiring the applicant to do the visual impact studies.

i) the effect on cultural heritage resources and other matters deemed relevant by Council

Again, we don’t know what effects the proposed quarry will have on cultural heritage resources with requiring the applicant to do the additional cultural heritage work.

That cultural heritage resources include both built heritage and significant cultural heritage landscapes is evident in looking at the Provincial Policy Statement.  The PPS also  requires this Council in making any decision with regard to Planning Act applications to not only conform to the County of Wellington Official Plan but also to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

When I indicated at the March 25, 2013 public meeting that Township Council should require the visual impact and additional cultural heritage work the applicant said no, that the application had been deemed a complete application and there could be no requirement for additional work, I told Council that the applicant was wrong and that Council had every right to require additional work.

The reason I said that then and the reason I am continuing to say that has to do with one of the Ontario Municipal Board cases I brought to Council’s attention in anticipation of this delegation.  The case is the Top of Trees Developments Inc. decision of the OMB dated November 6, 2007.  The bottom line is that the OMB said in this decision that if a municipality did not have policies in their official plan requiring studies as part of a complete application, that it could require them as part of a complete application.  However the Board went on to say that where an official plan requires a study “that it is an unwise strategy for the applicant to insist on not filing this study at an early stage” and “since it may be required within the existing policy framework in any event, an applicant, with an eye to efficiency, would under such circumstances, make virtue out of a necessity”.

If you read the Rockfort Quarry OMB decision dated November 12, 2010, you realize pretty quickly why the applicant has avoided doing the visual impact study and the additional cultural heritage work, because that OMB decision refused the Rockfort Quarry in part because negative visual impacts and negative cultural heritage impacts.

In particular what the OMB said in the case of the Rockfort Quarry is that it was not sufficient for the applicant to screen the quarry operation with 6 metre high berms, but rather that the applicant had to demonstrate that there were no unacceptable visual impacts.  I then want to direct Council’s attention to Appendix C of the Cuesta Planning Report #1 dated January 29, 2013, and more specifically to the proposed Hidden Quarry Operations Plan which shows you the relative size of the berms proposed by James Dick Construction Limited compared to the size of the trees on the property.  As you can see, the proposed berms will dwarf the trees and therefore have the potential to have significant visual impacts.

Finally, I need to express concerns about the Cuesta report.  The CRC is very concerned that the Cuesta report demonstrates a predisposition to approve the Hidden Quarry rezoning application.  This predisposition is indicated:

1. When it talks about the applicable sections of the Provincial Policy Statement and fails to indicate at page 3 the need to conserve cultural heritage resources;

2.  At page 4 when it talks about the technical review process will confirm the validity of the conclusions and recommendations contained in the technical reports and ensure conformity with the PPS in this regard when it should be indicating that the technical review process could demonstrate that this is an unacceptable location for a quarry and provide a basis for Council to refuse the application

3.  When it says also at page 4 that “given the nature of surrounding development and access to a provincial highway, the site would appear to provide a suitable opportunity for the proposed extractive industrial use.  This is an entirely premature comment for the planning report to be making and, perhaps more than any other demonstrate that predisposition to recommend approval  of the quarry.  The statement is entirely premature because insufficient evaluation of the application has occurred to justify such a statement and that includes visual impact work and additional cultural heritage work.

4.  When it misquotes, again at page 4, Section 2.6 of the PPS and fails to identify the need to conserve significant built heritage and significant cultural heritage landscapes.

5.  When it comments on the Natural Environment Technical Report of the applicant at page 5, but fails to comment on the natural environment report deficiencies identified by the Burnside peer review.

6.  When it comments at page 9 that it is somewhat premature to comment as to the land use planning merits or ZBA09/12.  It is somewhat premature it is entirely premature.

7.  When it comments again at page 9 that the technical review process should continue on an on-going basis until there is consensus between the relevant parties.  No, if the applicant can’t demonstrate that this is a suitable location for a quarry or if he refuses to do the work necessary to allow for a thorough evaluation of the application, then Council should refuse the rezoning application.  The applicant should not be permitted to try and outlast the CRC and other people concerned about this application.

SEE ALSO

Reports for Hidden Quarry

Note: Some of the files below are very large. The time taken to download them will depend on the speed of your internet connection.

Application

Township Planning Reports

PowerPoint Presentations from March 25, 2013 Public Meeting

Technical Reports from Applicant

Information re: Aggregate Resources Act Application

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

Presumption President Obama will approve Keystone XL pipeline is wrong says James Hansen

Posted on by

Hansen can’t believe Secretary Kerry would let Obama’s legacies go down the tar sands drain

No 743 Posted by fw, May 10, 2013

World renowned climatologist Dr James Hansen sees evidence that “Conservatives in the United States are beginning to recognize the merits of a carbon fee, which would be a non-tax, 100% of collected funds distributed to the public on per capita basis…. Such a fee levels the playing field among alternative energies and energy efficiency, providing a spur for development of clean energies.”

This scenario would surely be the death knell for the tar sands. As Hansen puts it, “So don’t despair re the tar sands.  There are sensible alternatives.”

But how does Dr Hansen’s optimism square with Obama’s November 14, 2012 lamentation on the politics of the environment:

“There’s no doubt that for us to take on climate change in a serious way would involve making some tough political choices, and you know, understandably, I think the American people right now have been so focused and will continue to be focused on our economy and jobs and growth that, you know, if the message is somehow we’re going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don’t think anybody’s going to go for that. I won’t go for that.”

To read Hansen’s full statement, published yesterday, click on the following linked title below or read the reprint below.

Norway, Canada, the United States, and the Tar Sands by James Hansen, May 9, 2013

Today 36 Norwegian organizations sent an open letter to Prime Minister Stoltenberg expressing opposition to development of Canadian tar sands by Statoil (the Norwegian state is majority shareholder of Statoil).  Signatories include not only environmental organizations, but a broad public spectrum, including, appropriately, many youth organizations.  It is encouraging that Norwegian youth press their government to stop supporting tar sands development, given the fact that Norway saves much of its oil earnings for future generations and given the fact that Norway is not likely among the nations that will suffer most from climate change.

I wonder if the Norway government response will be better than their response in 2010.

The gap between public preference and government policy is not unique to Norway. Similar situations were found in other nations, as described in Storms of My Grandchildren. Governments talk green while doing black, supporting or even subsidizing the fossil fuel industry while doing little to solve fossil fuel addiction.

The Canadian public is also impressive.  Most messages that I receive from Canadians are ones of encouragement, apologetic that some government ministers speak out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.  On one hand, they say that tar sands will make Canada the Saudi Arabia of oil.  On the other hand, they say that the amount of carbon in tar sands is negligible.

The truth is that the tar sands gook contains more than twice the carbon from all the oil burned in human history.  If infrastructure, such as the Keystone XL pipeline, is built to transport tar sands gook, ways will be developed to extract more and more.  When full accounting is done of emissions from tar sands oil, its use is equivalent to burning coal to power your automobile. This is on top of the grotesque regional tar sands destruction.

There is a basis for optimism that the Keystone pipeline can be stopped and tar sands exploitation phased down before it becomes the monstrosity that oil companies are aiming for. Tar sands make no economic sense if fossil fuels pay their true costs to society via a gradually rising fee collected from fossil companies in proportion to the amount of carbon in the fuel.

Conservatives in the United States are beginning to recognize the merits of a carbon fee, which would be a non-tax, 100% of collected funds distributed to the public on per capita basis. The Wall Street Journal recently published an article endorsing this approach by George Shultz and Gary Becker, a Nobel prize-winning economist.  Such a fee levels the playing field among alternative energies and energy efficiency, providing a spur for development of clean energies.

After 10 years a carbon fee rising $10 per ton of CO2 per year would reduce United States carbon emissions by 10-11 times more than the carbon carried by the Keystone pipeline. The funds distributed to the public, 60 percent of the people getting more than they pay in increased prices, would spur the economy.  The energy revolution would create millions of jobs.

So don’t despair re the tar sands.  There are sensible alternatives.

The common presumption that President Obama is going to approve the Keystone XL pipeline is wrong, in my opinion.  The State Department must provide an assessment to President Obama.  Secretary of State John Kerry is expert on the climate issue and has long been one of the most thoughtful members of our government.  I cannot believe that Secretary Kerry would let his and President Obama’s legacies go down the tar sands drain.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

New study implies Alberta and federal politicians gambling with Canadians’ environmental wellbeing

Posted on by

They’re playing fast and loose with the truth. Premier Redford’s greenwashing speeches “ring hollow”

No 734 Posted by fw, May 03, 2013

“Pembina’s report lays bare how little progress has been made to improve the environmental impact of the tar sands. Over the past two years, substantial progress has been made on only two of the nineteen recommendations. And progress on one of those two is debatable….The Government of Alberta needs to move urgently to deliver on its overdue commitments…” —Andy Rowell

Canada’s “Hollow Promises” on Tar Sands by Andy Rowell, The Price of Oil, April 30, 2013

For the last three years, Canadian and Albertan politicians have toured the great cities of America and Europe, with one mission. To persuade the world that we could exploit the tar sands in an “environmentally responsible” way.

To many people, the concept of strip mining Alberta, and exploiting this dirty carbon-intensive fuel and then trying to greenwash it as green, is a disgraceful misnomer that has to be challenged at every level.

But as they have toured the capitals, the Canadian politicians have argued that they are making progress in reducing the tar sands toxic legacy. Albertan Premier, Alison Redford, has argued that Albertans would have “world class environmental stewardship” of the tar sands. They can have their carbon cake and eat it responsibly, they say.

But, as so often in the past, Redford and her fellow Canadian politicians have been playing fast and loose with the truth. Enter the respected Pembina Institute, one of Canada’s leading environmental watchdog organisations.

They have just released an update on the progress of some 19 recommendations they made two years ago on how there could be “responsible” tar sands development.  They have found that “very little progress has been made on the recommended policy improvements”.

The Canadian press is non-plussed: “Tailings ponds are expanding, greenhouse gas emissions are set to double by 2020, and there is a seven-year delay in a promise to restrict water use from the Athabasca River at key low-flow times,” reports the Edmonton Journal.

Pembina’s report lays bare how little progress has been made to improve the environmental impact of the tar sands. Over the past two years, substantial progress has been made on only two of the nineteen recommendations. And progress on one of those two is debatable.

The Pembina Institute argues there was a need to monitor the impact on biodiversity.  Well, the Joint Canada-Alberta Implementation Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring was announced in 2012.

There have been problems with the monitoring plan from the start. Back in February we pointed out that the “Canadian press is reporting that nearly a year after the Albertan and Federal government unveiled a three-year plan to increase the monitoring of the tar sands, there are still no formal public results.”

Indeed the plan still is far off from being perfect: “Independent governance free from industry and government influence, plus a long-term and sustainable funding model, are the final key pieces that will determine the success of the plan,” says Pembina. So I would argue the jury is still out on that.

So the real one partial success could be the fact that the new Lower Athabasca Regional Plan, or LARP, which was released in August 2012, has increased the percentage of the land in the area that is protected from industrial activity to over 20% of the region. But Pembina was originally asking for 50 per cent and the land has not been legally protected.

Well that was the good news.

There has been “limited progress” on the following: protecting the Athabasca River, raising the pollution levy; mandating Carbon Capture and Storage for tar sands development; setting land disturbance limits; establishing compensatory offsets for impacts to biodiversity and wetlands; reducing reclamation liability; protecting woodland caribou; managing groundwater withdrawals; enhancing surface water monitoring; cleaning up tailings; and prohibiting end pit lakes.

And on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) the report is damning: “The Government of Alberta has acknowledged that it is not on track to meet its target to reduce annual GHG emissions by 50 MT below business as usual by 2020. Since Alberta’s GHG management plan is designed to support an increase in GHG emissions, it is not consistent with Canada’s target to reduce emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.”

All in all it’s not looking good. Simon Dyer, policy director at the Pembina Institute, argues that Redford’s recent greenwashing speeches to Washington audiences “ring hollow” given this lack of progress. He argues “The Government of Alberta needs to move urgently to deliver on its overdue commitments” and finally implement the recommendations outlined in the report.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.