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

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

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.

Citizens urged to force hand of National Energy Board over outrageous Line 9 application rules

Either allow citizens’ applications, or, by rejecting, confirm public input not welcome at review process

No 722 Posted by fw, April 17, 2013

“The newly-revealed NEB rules were imposed by the federal government as part of its omnibus legislation last spring, and have generated media incredulity and even an editorial denunciation from the Globe and Mail.  Local organizations like Environment Hamilton and the Hamilton 350 Committee are urging individuals and groups to submit the application form as a way of challenging the restrictions and forcing the NEB to either approve applications or confirm that its review process is largely off-limits to the public.” —CATCH

A recent Line 9 pipeline spill in the Hamilton region and an Arkansas pipeline rupture will likely contribute to local public anxiety over Enbridge’s plans to transport toxic tar sands oil through Line 9. Harper’s attempts to silence public input at upcoming National Energy Board (NEB) review hearings will just exacerbate public concern. To read more about this Line 9 controversy, click on the following linked title. Or read the reprint below with added subheadings and highlighted text.

Enbridge oil spill in Westover published by CATCH Hamilton, April 16, 2013

Enbridge and National Energy Board facing more controversy over Line 9 plans 

A small oil leak from Line 9 near Westover is adding to the controversy around Enbridge’s proposal to increase the flow rate in the cross-Ontario pipeline and begin using it to transport diluted bitumen from the Alberta tar sands. The company’s plans are also hampered by new revelations about the Arkansas pipeline rupture, and widespread outrage over the National Energy Board (NEB) requirement that residents complete an application form before being allowed to submit written comments on the Line 9 plans.

Public urged to force NEB’s hand over application rules

The newly-revealed NEB rules were imposed by the federal government as part of its omnibus legislation last spring, and have generated media incredulity and even an editorial denunciation from the Globe and Mail.  Local organizations like Environment Hamilton and the Hamilton 350 Committee are urging individuals and groups to submit the application form as a way of challenging the restrictions and forcing the NEB to either approve applications or confirm that its review process is largely off-limits to the public.

The revelations spurred the Ontario NDP to demand a provincial environmental assessment, and the ruling Liberal Party to say it will consider this option and to promise that it will be an active intervenor in the NEB process.

Enbridge releases details about the Westover leak

The Westover leak was reported to the NEB by Enbridge in a required monthly review of the company’s construction work associated with the reversal of flows in the Sarnia to Westover 9A section of the pipeline approved last summer by the NEB. It was discovered when exposing a portion of the pipe where a “stopple plug” was to be installed.

“As the hydrovac operator re-positioned his ‘boom’ to a different position, he noticed a sheen of oil on the surface of the water, then discovered that the body bleed piping on a 30’ mainline value had been damaged and oil was leaking out”, states the report covering the February 15 to March 15 construction period, which goes on to estimate that “approximately .14b (23 litres) escaped to the ground.”

The report says the bleeder valve was replaced “and the pipeline was restarted” followed by a cleanup. “The damaged pipe riser was sent for non-destructive examination testing and the results are pending”, it continues. “The worker involved was taken for post incident alcohol and drug testing.”

Leak underscores public concerns about Line 9 safety

The incident was apparently not serious enough to require a report to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada which tracks pipeline spills, including a much larger one in 2001 from an Enbridge pipe near Binbrook, but it underlines worries about the company’s proposal to bump up volumes in Line 9 to over 300,000 barrels a day, while reversing the flow direction to allow shipment of western oil products including diluted bitumen.

Massive rupture of older Exxon-Mobil pipeline in Arkansas exposes pipelines pressure risks

New details are emerging about the massive rupture of an Exxon-Mobil pipeline in Arkansas. Like the Line 9 proposal, flows had been reversed in the 65-year-old Pegasus pipeline to allow shipment of diluted bitumen from the Alberta tar sands.

Exxon-Mobil continues to clean up after the 1.5 million litre spill of that Canadian tar sands product in Arkansas on Good Friday when its 70-year-old Pegasus pipeline suffered a 22-foot-long split – nearly four times the tear in an Enbridge pipe that polluted Michigan’s Kalamazoo River. The remediation of the latter is continuing 33 months after it occurred with costs expected to exceed $1 billion.

“At the time of the rupture, the pipeline was operating at 708 psig (pound-force per square inch gauge), about 14 percent below its maximum operating pressure of 820 psig,” reports Inside Climate News, the independent media outlet that has just been awarded a Pulitzer Prize for its pipeline coverage. “That’s more than twice the pressure of a fire hose, which can spray water 30 floors into the air. But a fire hose is a few inches in diameter, and the Pegasus is 20 inches wide.”

Line 9 opponents skeptical of Enbridge’s claim it will not extend pipeline beyond Quebec City

Enbridge’s 38-year-old Line 9 pipe is approved to operate between 585 and 805 psig between Sarnia and Hamilton. Its application to the NEB is to increase the flow volumes to 300,000 barrels a day and reverse the flow direction to allow shipment of western crude oil products including diluted bitumen.

While the company insists it only wants to use the Sarnia to Montreal Line 9 to service refineries as far east as Quebec City, others believe their objectives include export of bitumen through New England to foreign markets – a plan that Enbridge unveiled in 2008 but has since withdrawn. In addition to the Line 9 application, Enbridge is seeking to double the capacity of its Line 6B that ruptured in Kalamazoo and which supplies Sarnia, and has now filed an application with the NEB to build a new 180 km pipeline from Edmonton to Hardisty, Alberta that could also help feed tar sands materials to Michigan and Ontario.

The work currently underway at Westover was approved by the NEB in July last year and includes  “infrastructure additions and modifications” at Enbridge’s Westover terminal, North Westover pump station, and at a “densitometer site 4.12 km west” of the pump station.

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.