Using confrontational words makes Canada’s government a bully.

Using confrontational words makes Canada’s government a bully.

“Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity {B.C.’s pipeline} to diversify our trade. Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources
“To judge from Oliver's nasty little letter, those vast pits of bitumen across Alberta aren't just dirtying the sky, they're starting to do some damage to the country's soul.”Bill McKibbon 350.org green activist and author of “The End of Nature”
We have all heard it before: ‘You are with us or against us.’ George W. Bush expressed this sentiment often, and now Canada’s government is saying this as well by using such words as “adversaries” for any group that confronts the devastating actions of big oil. Calling large segments of society “extreme” and “radical” is one more negative advertising campaign to brand dissent as unpatriotic. In fact any action that might slow down perceived job creation is a ‘treacherous’ act. Peter Kent, Minister of Environment, used that word to describe the NDP when a M.P visited Washington D.C. to explain why the tar sands and its distribution were unethical and destructive. Enbridge’s 2010 four million barrel pipeline spill in Michigan is still not completely cleaned up. Forgetful of this, Kent calls the tar sands “a legitimate Canadian resource which is being responsibly developed and regulated”. Regulated by whom-Alberta and its plutocracy?
The Canadian government sees Canada as a resource to be sold off; even a part of Jasper National Park is being sold off as a theme-park to make money. With this in mind, the respected journalist, Andrew Nikiforuk, explained in his book, “Tar Sands”, why Canada is becoming a “petrol-state”: countries that begin to rely on the fossil fuel industry as their main source of income lose their democracy. Think of jingoistic Saudi Arabia, Nigeria or Venezuela. Although the vast majority of First Nations in B.C. oppose the Northern Gateway pipeline as well as a large percentage of B.C.’s population, (even Enbridge has acknowledged the potential for future spills when its double pipeline transverses 1,000 rivers and pristine wilderness in order to sell bitumen to a totalitarian regime-China) only the pro-oil lobby has the ear of Ministers Kent and Oliver. As well, we’re told by the government’s propaganda machine that we sell ‘ethical oil’ but it doesn’t matter to whom we sell it. Meanwhile, the Canadian government has accused foreign groups of giving money to ‘fuel’ the fight to stop the tar sands. It has been recently revealed that these same "foreign special-interest groups" give millions of dollars more to the Canadian government.
In the last week the Prime Minister’s Office allegedly called Forest Ethics an “Enemy of the Government of Canada” and an “Enemy of the People of Canada” after they demanded that its partner, Tides Canada (a large charity) stop giving money to Forest Ethics, a legally registered intervenor in the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel process that determines if the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline should proceed. Andrew Frank, a former Senior Communications Manager with Forest Ethics Canada has written a sworn affidavit saying that Tides Canada was threatened with a lose of charitable status if they didn’t comply with the PMO’s request. The PMO denies these allegations, and now Tides Canada is refusing to grant any interviews having fired Mr. Frank after his affidavit went public.
There is a new term for people who care more about our planet than profits and oil: The Calgary Herald calls citizens “eco-pests” when 4,000 individuals and groups signed up to be heard at the National Energy Board’s Northern Gateway Review. The government now plans to “streamline” these democratic hearings. Get ready for our burgeoning petrol-state’s sticky hammer.
Bill McKibbon of 350.0rg says, “Tell Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver and Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a Canadian, I stand with people all over the world who are opposed to burning the oil sands, and demand that our leaders stop their campaign to discredit the movement to stop the pipeline.” http://act.350.org/sign/canada-oil-sands/?akid=1529.241141.L9Z6Th&a...

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of The LocalMotive Project to add comments!

Join The LocalMotive Project

Comment by Douglas Nadler on April 19, 2012 at 17:34: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBuNpczosNU

Take a look at this if you think there isn't a problem. even fox news thinks so

Comment by Douglas Nadler on February 2, 2012 at 17:35

Andrew Nikiforuk, one of Canada's most courageous journalists, poses 11 thoughtful questions in the Tyee.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/02/01/Eleven-Oily-Questions/

Eleven Oily Questions for Every MP
ENERGY & EQUITY: Before you make oil sands and pipeline decisions, can you answer these queries?

By Andrew Nikiforuk, Today, TheTyee.ca

Prime Minister Stephen Harper vows to rebrand Canada as a global energy "superpower" with bitumen exports.

His government is pushing hard for the Chinese-supported Enbridge North Gateway Pipeline, which is predicated on tripling oil sands production. That may or may not happen, but such an extreme development would aggravate the project's already significant economic, social and environmental liabilities in a stagnating global economy.

It would also make Stephen Harper's 2007 promise to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 65 per cent by 2050 technically impossible.

To date, the following economic and political questions have gone unasked or unanswered in the media and Parliament:

1. Why aren't some oil sands revenues being set aside for future Canadians?

The federal government now makes approximately $5 billion a year in corporate taxes from tar sands development, or more than the government of Alberta. By some estimates, unlimited oil sands growth could deliver $500 billion to government coffers over the next 25 years. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) both recommend that oil rent, an unsustainable source of income, be saved for future generations. Canada has ignored these recommendations. To date, Norway has saved $500 billion of its oil wealth while Ottawa has saved nothing for working Canadians. Given rising income inequality in Canada and proposed pension reductions, why has the federal government not set up a fiscally accountable sovereign fund to save this one-time inheritance for the benefit of all Canadians and future generations?

2. Are we harming our democracy?

Petro states represent hydrocarbons and their developers as they increasingly rely on petro dollars instead of taxes to provide essential public services. In so doing they co-opt and buy votes. But by breaking the vital link between taxation and representation, petro states diminish political and electoral accountability. "An unusual combination of dependence, passivity and entitlement marks the political culture of petroleum exporters," explains U.S. political scientist Terry Karl. How will Canada's elected representatives prevent oil revenue from undermining the nation's democratic institutions?

3. Are you aware of 'Dutch Disease,' and if so, how do we prevent it from eroding vital parts of Canada's economy?

Every nation that depends on oil exports eventually inflates its currency and thereby destabilizes its manufacturing and agricultural sectors. "A severe case of Dutch Disease has dramatically reduced the breadth of the Canadian business sector over the past decade, hollowing out manufactured goods exporters and making the nation increasingly reliant on commodity demand," reported the independent research firm, The Macro Research Board, in 2011. Economists estimate that half of 340,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector over the last decade are due to rapid expansion of bitumen exports. What policies does Ottawa propose to deal with the hollowing out of the Canadian economy by the "Dutch Disease" and the "Resource Curse"?

4. Have you examined the geopolitical risks of tying our fate to China as superpower?

The proposed Enbridge pipeline

Comment by Douglas Nadler on February 2, 2012 at 12:59: "Getting people living basically like we do in Canada should be the priority" Tom, that is the problem when countries like Canada take everything and destroy the rest of the world. Our ecological footprint is so huge that (if we care about the Earth) we don't want people living as we do. Even Europeans use half the greenhouse gases we do- and it's not because it's colder up here- Sweden does quite well for itself.

d

Comment by Douglas Nadler on February 2, 2012 at 11:35: I'd certainly agree wholeheartedly that the politics of ethanol production makes it a tragic mistake. As well, sanitation for over a billion plus people is a critical injustice to the poorest on the planet. "Making everyone rich enough" doesn't seem to make a difference for the top 10% of this country to give a little more back to the poorest people.

"Eco sensationalism" can be most offten found in climate deniers and their think tanks/ big oil and not in the pages of "Nature" journal of Science, Tom.

Comment by Tom Andersen on February 2, 2012 at 10:42: Pipelines are the safest way to move oil. There are thousands of miles of large pipelines in Ontario alone, more if you count natural gas, etc - yet no one seems to be 'dying/sick/even noticing' them.

For the record, I don't consider myself on the right, but I just don't like eco sensationalism. I am also on the side of 'this planet'. Its just that when ever I am in a poor country I see people dying of many environmental factors, and very few in places like Canada. So I think that the most important way to save the planet is by making everyone rich enough to care about the environment. 60% of the world wakes up wondering how they will put a roof up and feed their children - the environment is far down their list. Getting people living basically like we do in Canada should be the priority. When you look at the policies like ethanol, wind and solar, you can see trillions wasted that could have gone to sewers and education in the third world. That's one thing that burns me up.

I guess I just look at the eco movement differently than you. I think its ok to disagree on details and methods. Thanks for the site. Look forward to talking to you one day. --Tom

Comment by Douglas Nadler on February 2, 2012 at 10:08: I do agree with you that it should not have been 'barrels"; that is unfortunate but as you say, a lot of oil spilt plus the massive amount of contaminated water and soil that still has not been cleaned up.

To say that pipelines are "safe, quiet and unobtrusive" is an absurd statement. Clearly the people of Nebraska did not think the Keystone was "safe" when they asked that the Keystone be not placed on their aquifer. Cutting up the B.C. interior to sell bitumen to China and then shipping that stuff across the pacific is not safe. The First Nations don't want it.

Trucks cause huge health problems. The question is not transporting either by truck or by pipeline. The tar sands, to be "ethical oil", should stay where it is-under ground.

As well, this isn't a right or a left wing issue, as the "watermelon" link that you sent is supposed to suggest. It has to do with life on this planet and has nothing to do with politics.

Comment by Tom Andersen on February 2, 2012 at 9:49: Using your number, (which is likely wrong by up to 50% or so, and agrees pretty well with Enbridges number of 819,000 gallons), its still about 4 million LITRES not barrels, so thats an error of 168 TIMES in your article.

I won't put words in your mouth, - do you agree that you were wrong about 4 million barrels, when it was really 25,000 barrels? Now 25,000 barrels of oil is a lot - I am not arguing that.

When oil trucks start killing people on B.C. highways - who will be at fault? The trucking industry does a good job on road safety, but they can't approach the safety of a pipeline. Pipelines are safe, quiet, and unobtrusive.

What happened to Toronto garbage is a case in point. The Adams mine site is a quartz basin with no real water flows, in a town that supports it, and it gets stopped by protesters. Garbage was to use rail travel - 1/4 the energy cost and 20 times safer than trucks. The 'solution' found is to pour the garbage into London Ontario farmland, using many trucks per day down the 401. Using trucking safety stats that works out to people dying every year.

Comment by Douglas Nadler on February 2, 2012 at 9:22

Interesting that the amount of oil and the economic benefits is what you target. Take a look at what the EPA had to say. "1,139,000 gallons of oil are estimated to have been contained in the contaminated waste streams generated by cleanup work." That is not all the oil that escaped but was captured; furthermore the real issue is the health of our communities and the tar sands are a disaster on all fronts- at least for those who wish to keep the B.C. wilderness in place and prevent catastrophic climate change.

Cleanup by the numbers

1,139,569 gallons of oil collected
15.7 million gallons of oil/water collected and disposed
158,435 cubic yards soil/debris disposed
466 personnel on site
$36.7 million costs to date

Updated: November 14, 2011

Response History

Enbridge Energy Partners LLP (Enbridge) reported a 30-inch pipeline ruptured on Monday, July 26, 2010, near Marshall, Michigan. The release, estimated at 819,000 gallons, entered Talmadge Creek and flowed into the Kalamazoo River, a Lake Michigan tributary. Heavy rains caused the river to overtop existing dams and carried oil 30 miles downstream on the Kalamazoo River.

As the federal agency in charge of the response to the spill, EPA assumed a leadership role in the Unified Command and mobilized an Incident Management Team made up of federal, state and local agencies.

On July 27, the day after the spill was reported, EPA issued a legal order under the authority of the Clean Water Act directing Enbridge to conduct removal actions. EPA also ordered the company to produce documents and information relevant to EPA's investigation into the source, extent and nature of the oil spill.

On July 28, 2010, the spill was contained approximately 80 river miles from Lake Michigan.

Comment by Tom Andersen on February 2, 2012 at 8:56: The amount of oil spilled in Michigan is exaggerated 200 times in this article. It was 3.3 million litres, not 4 million barrels.

Its perfectly legal for Oil to be moved by rail or truck through B.C. This will happen unless the pipeline is built. Trucking, like car driving has its risks, and people will die. Without the pipeline, Canada is selling oil at $20 per barrel under market prices, which affects things like tax revenue, jobs, etc. http://www.amazon.com/Watermelons-Green-Movements-True-Colors/dp/09...

RSS

Welcome to
The LocalMotive Project

Sign Up
or Sign In

Badges | Report an Issue | Terms of Service