The
Joint Review Panel (JRP) was established by the National Energy Board
(NEB) and the Minister of the Environment in December, 2009 to
evaluate the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (NGP). The three
member panel was mandated to conduct a review of the environmental
effects of the project and to determine if it was in the public
interest. As part of the process, the JRP was required to consider
comments from the public as well as groups with intervenor status,
such as First Nations’ communities, government participants and the
Northern Gateway consortium.
The
panelists refer to the pipeline project in their report as the
Enbridge Northern Gateway Project because Enbridge has formed a
limited partnership to develop and operate the project. Enbridge is
the only partner with an equity stake at this stage. There are 10
other corporate funding partners who have contributed financially to
the pre-development work and have the option of becoming equity
partners. Only 6 of the funding partners have chosen to divulge their
participation, 3 are Canadian while the others are foreign owned
companies. The names and the nationalities of the other 4 companies
are not known.
The
NGP involves building two pipelines between Bruderheim, AB and
Kitimat, BC, a distance of 1,177 kms. The larger pipeline flowing
west from Alberta would carry over 500,000 barrels per day of diluted
bitumen. The smaller line from Kitimat flowing east would carry
imported condensate, a lighter petroleum product needed to dilute the
viscous bitumen for easier transit. The two pipelines would cross one
thousand streams and rivers en route to the coast. In most cases the
pipelines would be buried beneath the water courses but in a few
instances the lines would pass overhead. In addition, two tunnels
would be drilled through the mountains for the passage of the
pipelines.
 |
| 100 ft wave in Hecate Strait |
Douglas Channel maps from whoami-whoareyou.blogspot.com Aug 2012
Enbridge's corporate map removed inconvenient islands and rocks
The reality: one
of the islands they left out is Gil Island, where BC Ferry Queen
of the North hit a rock and sank in 2006.
On 19th December, 2013 after extensive hearings, the Joint Review Panel of the National Energy Board recommended approval of the NGP subject to 209 conditions. The panel concluded that the Enbridge project would be in the public interest and that the potential benefits for the country outweigh the burdens and the risks. Supporting reasons for the decision and details of the conditions were laid out in two large illustrated volumes, Connections and Considerations.
The
decision to approve the recommendations of the JRP or to reject the
NGP will be made by the federal Cabinet in June, 2014. Before the
passage of Omnibus Bill C-38 in 2012, the decision in a project of
this nature would be made by the NEB. But the outcome is no longer
determined by an impartial board, it is now a political decision that
will be made without the approval of Parliament. The fundamental
question is whether a government representing a minority of voters
and facing an election in fifteen months has the moral authority to
approve a project of such magnitude with such potentially damaging
long term environmental consequences without even a parliamentary
discussion.
 |
| Our Responsibilities • The Construction and Operation of Pipelines and Power Lines • Efficient Processing of Applications • Traffic, Tolls and Tariffs • The Export and Import of Energy |
 |
| outside our mandate |
The
importance of the environment in the evaluation of the NGP was
emphasized as the central feature of the original JRP Agreement. In a
revised agreement published in 2012 after the passage of Bill C-38
that decimated Canadian environmental legislation, the central role
of environmental protection was reemphasized. References, such as
“The Minister of the Environment and the Chairman of the National
Energy Board establish a Joint Review Panel to conduct the
environmental
assessment of the project,”
abound throughout the Agreement.
The
panelists themselves acknowledged in Considerations
that their “purpose was to assess the environmental effects of the
proposed project.” The focus of the “proposed project” – the
Northern Gateway Project – they also clearly delineated in the
report as the two pipelines, the inland terminal at Bruderheim, the
ocean terminal at Kitimat and tanker traffic in Canadian territorial
waters.
The
panelists defined certain issues that they decided were outside their
mandate, such as “upstream” concerns (e.g. oil sands developments
and greenhouse gas emissions) and “downstream” matters (e.g.
refining and the use of products shipped from Kitimat). The focus of
the JRP’s evaluation then was obviously the “midstream” issues
(e.g. pipelines, terminals and tankers) and the application of a
range of environmental criteria as required by the NEB Act to ensure
that the “public interest” is protected.
Economic
Issues
If
the focus of the NGP assessment was on the environmental safety of
piping and shipping dilbit and condensate, why did the economic
benefits of the project receive so much attention? If the
“downstream” issues were intentionally excluded from the
evaluation, why did Pacific Basin markets figure so prominently in
the final report? How can the report promote short term “robust
economic benefits,” such as GDP growth, increased government
revenues and job spin-offs but ignore long term negative factors,
such as greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs)? Most of the purported economic
benefits flow from the tar sands. If these upstream benefits were
taken into consideration, then why were the associated tar sands
emissions intentionally excluded from the review as an “upstream”
issue?
The
JRP Agreement, including the Terms of Reference, focuses on the
environmental aspects of the NGP; it does not include the economic
benefits. This raises troubling questions about the nature of the
mandate of the review and the relative importance assigned by the
panel to the short-term economic factors against the long-term
environmental aspects of the NGP.
 |
| Alberta tarsands |
The
driving force behind the final report and the recommendations of the
JRP appears to be the expedited and exponential expansion of the tar
sands. The Northern Gateway pipelines and tar sands bitumen are
inextricably linked; they are conjoined twins. The imported
condensate from Asia in one pipeline will dilute the outgoing bitumen
from Alberta in the adjacent pipeline for export to Asia. Twins
within twins.
We
must uncouple the Pacific pipelines from the tar sands and abandon
the Enbridge project for the sake of future generations. There are no
compelling reasons – economic, environmental or ethical – for
building the NGP. A much more compelling argument can be made for a
more measured development of the tar sands without building the
Northern Gateway pipelines.
Even
the most ardent environmentalist must acknowledge that there will be
a continuing demand for fossil fuels and that tar sands bitumen will
be part of the mix. Our task must be to slow down the frenetic pace
of tar sands expansion and maximize the economic benefits for
Canadians while minimizing the environmental impact and at the same
time fostering social stability in Fort McMurray and the surrounding
communities. Above all, development of the tar sands must be driven
by concern for the future. “Prosperity for posterity” – both
ecologically and economically – must be our rallying cry.
By
a fluke of nature, Canada has inherited a bitumen bonanza. It is our
responsibility to safeguard it and to develop it prudently, partly
out of self-interest. Liquidating a non-renewable resource in a
frenzy of stripmining is economic madness. For Alberta, in league
with the tar sands companies, to slay the proverbial goose that lays
golden eggs – covered in bitumen unfortunately – is short-sighted
policy.
Unfortunately,
the exploitation of the tar sands has progressed so far so fast that
the richest surface deposits are rapidly disappearing. The remaining
eighty percent of the reserves are increasingly difficult and
expensive to mine, requiring subterranean steam extraction methods
that involve huge quantities of natural gas and water. The fossil
fuel companies have skimmed off the easy pickings and pocketed the
profits, leaving a depreciated asset as our legacy to the future.
 |
When
the concept of EROI is extended to apply to the full dilbit cycle –
importing condensate from Asia, extracting bitumen from the tar
sands, shipping dilbit to Asia and then upgrading it for refining –
the ratio is staggering. Two engineers from BC, Christopher Peter and
Norman Jacob, in their presentation to the JRP calculated the full
cycle EROI for the NGP at 2.41:1. We have to burn one barrel of oil
to get less than two and a half barrels of crude – this is
bordering on economic and environmental lunacy.
Although
other types of Albertan oils can also be shipped along the pipeline,
their production rates are declining. The
NGP is financially dependent on transporting tar sands bitumen to
Pacific markets.
The economics don’t make sense. Why do we not upgrade the bitumen
and refine it in Canada as the late Peter Lougheed suggested for
years? There are more long term jobs in developing refining capacity
in Alberta than short term jobs building and maintaining a pipeline.
We can control the supply, we get energy security, we receive
increased taxes and royalties and we create employment opportunities
for the future. We also eliminate the need for imported condensate.
Above all, the pressure for a pipeline to the Pacific disappears.
The
dilutent or condensate for moving bitumen is in short supply in
Alberta and the bulk of it is imported from the US at present which
is then mixed with bitumen for export back to the US. Once again,
the economics don’t make sense. Upgrading and refining bitumen in
Alberta will allow us to ship value added petroleum products to the
US. Dilbit demand won’t disappear in the US, however, because many
refineries across the mid west and down to the Gulf Coast are built
to process heavy tar sands crude. The reduction in dilbit exports to
the US will reduce the demand for condensate which can then be
supplied domestically from the Duvernay field that is coming on
stream in Alberta.
It
is common knowledge that both the federal and the Albertan
governments, as well as the oil industry, have been urging new
outlets to Asian markets for expanded tar sands production for years.
(Are government and industry another set of twins in the NGP saga?)
The thrust of their argument is two-fold: depending solely on the US
market is risky and the present pipeline capacity to the US is
limited.
The
argument is baseless because the premise is false. The US will always
be our most stable and secure market and there are enough pipelines
criss-crossing the border to supply the US with petroleum products
indefinitely. Enbridge is planning to upgrade its present pipeline
from Alberta to Chicago. Jeffrey Jones wrote in the Globe
and Mail
recently that exports of tar sands bitumen to the US have actually
increased by a third over the past five years using the existing
pipeline network.
The
claim by some energy commentators that the US will no longer need our
oil because of growing sources of domestic reserves is debatable.
“Energy independence” in the US is an illusion because the new
sources of oil and gas, primarily shale deposits exploited by
hydraulic fracturing or fracking, such as the Bakken field, have high
depletion rates and production levels decline rapidly. Like North Sea
and Alaskan oil, these shale resources have a limited lifespan and
they are not likely to satisfy the insatiable demand for petroleum in
the US for long.
Enbridge
announced at the beginning of April that it has been given a US
government licence to export Canadian oil from American seaports to
foreign markets through its existing pipeline system originating in
Alberta. The US has banned exports of its own oil since the Arab
embargo of the mid 1970s. The conditions permitting the re-export of
Canadian crude clearly stipulate that it must be separated from US
oil; even the condensate must be Canadian.
An
outlet for Albertan crude to the Pacific already exists. The Trans
Mountain Pipeline operated by Kinder Morgan has been shipping tar
sands products, both dilbit as well as refined oils, from Edmonton to
Burnaby for years. The petroleum products are loaded on to freighters
and barges at the Burnaby terminal for shipment through the port of
Vancouver to the US west coast and Asian markets.
Slowing
down expansion of the tar sands and ensuring an adequate fuel supply
to meet our own needs as well as continuing to service the US demand
and having access to overseas markets through American ports and the
Trans Mountain system eliminates the need for another major export
pipeline. The proposal to build the Enbridge Northern Gateway to
diversify oil markets is a political red herring and an economic
no-brainer.
The
umbilical cord linking the NGP to ballooning bitumen production in
the tar sands will entrench us in our traditional role as resource
suppliers. The Staples Theory, first developed by Harold Innis,
suggests that the export of raw materials, such as fur, fish, lumber,
wheat and, more recently, minerals and oil has locked us into a state
of economic dependency. As a consequence, the development of
renewable energy, technological innovation, advanced engineering and
sustainable manufacturing is stunted in Canada. Creativity and
intellectual initiative, not fossil fuel development, drives the
modern economy.
Tar
sands crude already comprises over 50 percent of Canadian oil
production and it is increasing steadily. Daily output in the tar
sands is about two million barrels at present and industry forecasts
the growth to more than double by 2030 when it will supply roughly 70
percent of national production. An economy trapped in tar sands
carbon offers a dead-end future.
Environmental
Factors
Restraining
the growth of the tar sands and, thereby, eliminating the need for
the NGP makes good economic sense. It makes even better environmental
sense.
GHG
emissions 2020, by Prof Simon
Donner,
UBC
Canada
committed at Copenhagen in 2009 to assist the international effort to
restrict global temperature increases to 2 degrees C this century. As
part of this commitment, our Government promised to emulate US
environmental policy and reduce our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by
2020 to a level 17 percent below the 2005 total. In its latest annual
reporting to the UN on Canada’s climate change progress,
Environment Canada estimates that we will be 20 percent over,
not 17 percent below, our target.
Canada
committed at Copenhagen in 2009 to assist the international effort to
restrict global temperature increases to 2 degrees C this century. As
part of this commitment, our Government promised to emulate US
environmental policy and reduce our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by
2020 to a level 17 percent below the 2005 total. In its latest annual
reporting to the UN on Canada’s climate change progress,
Environment Canada estimates that we will be 20 percent over,
not 17 percent below, our target.
The
tar sands are the biggest driver of GHG emissions in Canada. The
Pembina Institute estimates that carbon pollution from the tar sands
will quadruple between 2005 and 2030. Government regulations aimed at
curbing fossil fuel emissions have been delayed yet again as our
politicians keep procrastinating, hoping to catch a ride on the coat
tails of US climate policy and, thereby, free them from domestic
political fall-out. Even Alberta – which is not meeting its GHG targets either – is impatient with the federal government on its
lack of policy direction.
The
most effective regulation to curb the rapid growth of GHGs in Canada
would be to reject the Enbridge proposal to build the Northern
Gateway pipelines to the Pacific. We have a moral obligation to
reduce GHG emissions generated by fossil fuel production and
combustion. Tar sands emissions have international repercussions,
they know no boundaries. Our planet has only one atmosphere where
heat trapping gases are increasing in ever greater concentrations,
portending serious climate consequences for the future.
A
timely warning has been issued by the UN. The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) published the second part of its fifth
report on the state of climate science at the end of March. The IPCC
assessment is circumspect and conservative as usual because
scientists tend to be cautious in their conclusions and because
governments always censor the contents of the final document.
Nevertheless, the risks to the planet from global warming are
frightening as GHGs continue their inexorable rise. According to The
Guardian,
the word “risk” is used 230 times in the IPCC report.
The
latest report discusses in great detail the major problems facing
global society: food and water scarcity, biodiversity loss and
species extinction, starvation and health issues, humanitarian crises
and mass migrations, international tensions and resource wars, social
breakdown and civil unrest. The worst impacts of climate change will
be felt by the weak, the poor and the elderly primarily in the
developing world – is that why we are so indifferent in North
America?
The
third part of the IPCC’s latest assessment report was released in
mid April. It demonstrates how fossil fuel driven GHG emissions have
risen to unprecedented levels and why it will take unprecedented
efforts to reduce them in order to restrict global temperature
increases to 2 degrees C. The IPCC message is clear and unequivocal:
divest from fossil fuels and move to renewable energy sources
immediately. Equally clear is the ethical imperative: stop building
pipelines that transport polluting oil.
In
addition to exacerbating GHG levels, the tar sands also have an
immense surface footprint. The volume of natural gas and water needed
to fuel the steaming process, the toxic waste water stagnating in
ponds and contaminating both the groundwater and the Athabasca River,
the air pollutants affecting nearby communities and the desecration
of the boreal forests are staggering. The carbon footprint of the
extracted bitumen measured by GHG emissions per barrel is 17 percent
higher than conventional crude oil production in North America and
this figure will increase as the deeper deposits are mined.
The
Alberta Energy Regulator, which is funded entirely by the fossil fuel
industry, has imposed a “no steaming” order in parts of the tar
sands. This is a significant development because eighty percent of
the remaining bitumen is buried and can only be extracted by
steaming. Therefore, if the ban on steaming becomes more widespread
in the tar sands to protect sensitive ecosystems, bitumen extraction
would grind to a halt dooming the NGP. No dilbit, no need for a
pipeline to the Pacific.
The
JRP report spells out 209 conditions that Enbridge must meet in
building the NGP. But as David Anderson, a former Minister of the
Environment, explained in an article in the Times
Colonist,
laying out the conditions is easy – whether they will be implemented is
another question. The NEB has the responsibility for enforcing some
of these conditions although the Cabinet can request that the Board
modify its decisions. More disconcerting, however, are the powers the
Government has arrogated to itself as part of Omnibus Bill C-38. The
Environmental Assessment Act was gutted in C-38 providing
opportunities for politicians to override many of the JRP’s
protective conditions for building the Northern Gateway pipelines.
 |
Dilbit
spill in Arkansas 2013
|
 |
| Kalamazoo 2010: "stinging" bitumen on river bottom (EPA) |
 |
| 2014 Washington state landslide |
 |
| Douglas channel |
Likewise, the link between tsunamis and seismic instability in BC coastal waters received short shrift in the report. Government hydrographic charts show that the Douglas Channel follows a substantial fault line. In the past, at least two major underwater landslides have occurred in the channel. The stability of surrounding land forms merits far more scrutiny in determining the safety of a project of this nature than the JRP was prepared to countenance.
The
danger of dilbit spills don’t end at the pipeline terminal at
Kitimat. Supertankers loaded with dilbit will have to traverse the
narrow Douglas Channel to open water while condensate tankers from
Asia will sail up the waterway to unload compressed gas at the
Kitimat terminal. The channel is a busy shipping route already plied
by freighters, bulk resource carriers, ferries, tankers and cruise
liners. In the past dozen years there have been five major accidents
on the waterway, including the sinking of the BC ferry, Queen
of the North.
The NGP would add at least one large tanker a day to traffic on the
Douglas Channel.
The
BC government is ramping up the development of the liquid natural gas
(LNG) industry in the interior of the coastal region and Kitimat is
designated to become a major LNG terminal. Hundreds of pressurized
LNG tankers headed for Asia will add even more pressure to a crowded
waterway. An armada of tugboats cannot assure the safety of tankers
in the foggy waters of the Douglas Channel. If a dilbit supertanker
ever rammed an LNG tanker, the inferno would dwarf the Halifax
explosion of 1917.
Once
the dilbit is loaded on to tankers at Kitimat, the Enbridge
consortium will be free of any liability for damages and compensation
from oil spills. The owners of the tankers take on that liability.
The problem is that the insurance coverage and the compensation funds
are so limited and the expenses for cleaning up a tanker spill are so
enormous that the federal government will be responsible for the
shortfall that could amount to billions of dollars. Our government
underwrites the risks, future taxpayers are saddled with the costs
and corporations bank the profits.
 |
A
tanker spill would be an environmental catastrophe and, for BC, an
economic disaster. Damage to the provincial commercial and sport
fishing industry and to eco-tourism would be irreparable. It is
inconceivable that the BC government is considering reversing its
opposition to the NGP if it receives a cut of the profits. What have
we learned from the Exxon Valdez spill and the Gulf of Mexico
blowout? Would future British Columbians ever forgive the politicians
for trading a few dollars for an ecological nightmare that destroyed
their future?
 |
| Great Bear Rainforest |
First
Nations
Nobody
speaks with more moral authority about the importance of the
environment and the future of the west than our Aboriginal peoples.
They have lived in harmony with nature for thousands of years; they
are rooted in the region. Their commitment to community, like all
First Nations peoples across Canada, is summed up by the Iroquois
maxim that all decisions have to protect the welfare of their
descendants for seven generations into the future. No Canadians
better exemplify the link between the past and the future that our
First Nations.
The
presentations of the Aboriginal speakers at the JRP hearings
highlight the vast chasm between them and contemporary urban society.
“Hearings” is an inappropriate term because it is unlikely that
they were really “heard.” Aboriginal speakers couched their
concerns in a “language” largely incomprehensible to a society
focused on competitive self-interest and unending economic growth.
The “language” of our Indigenous peoples is the language of
inclusion not isolation and of nurture not exploitation. Because
their livelihood, culture and values are so intimately bound up with
their surroundings, they honour and respect nature. They are the true
stewards and custodians of our common wealth.
Native
Canadians have a deep spiritual connection with the land and a wisdom
developed over many centuries. Sadly, we have ignored both their
collective wisdom and their code of values as well as their belief in
the indivisibility of the natural and spiritual world. Txeemsim, one
of the mythological chiefs of the West Coast nations, counselled his
people that selfish behaviour is destructive for both self and
society and he urged them to regard every action or decision as a
moral choice. The Northern Gateway Project is a moral choice for
them.
According
to a National
Post
article by Andrew Mayeda recently, the Government is offering loan
guarantees for Aboriginal communities to buy into resource projects,
such as the NGP. “Responsible resource development” is a key
feature of the Government’s widely publicized Economic Action plan.
But how responsible – and even ethical – is it to risk taxpayers’
money to encourage and assist Aboriginal groups to buy into corporate
ventures that may be inimical to the future environmental and social
stability of their own communities?
News
broke at the beginning of March that a prominent banker and former
politician had been engaged by Enbridge to build trust with the
Aboriginal communities along the route and to “broker a deal”
with those opposed to the NGP. Why do the communities need this type
of pressure to negotiate under deadlines imposed by industry and
government? Is it just for a signature so the construction equipment
can move in? Our Indigenous people have a long tradition of making
communal decisions through consultations with their own members; they
do not need outsiders interfering. And as for trust . . . well, it
may just be too late.
Favourable
corporate concessions backed by government financial guarantees
and an emissary from the banking industry prepared to offer
compromises – the optics are not good.
Government
financial support for Aboriginal investments in joint ventures with
national and multi-national resource companies on community lands is
a highly contentious issue, especially where treaty rights have not
yet been settled. Promised deals and broken treaties are part of the
bitter lessons of history that are seared into the DNA of our
Indigenous people. How tragic it would be for the unity of BC and
Alberta First Nations if some communities agreed to accept the offer
of equity participation, pitting one community against another. It
sounds eerily reminiscent of the 19th century practice of “divide and rule” that the European imperial
powers used so effectively to control their colonies.
If
the optics of incentives to buy into the NPG are bad, the actual
investments might be far worse. Borrowing money to invest in an asset
that will rust away in fifty years is perhaps not a wise venture. In
addition, a potential shortage of tar sands dilbit to fill the
pipeline which needs 60 percent capacity to be profitable and the
expense of pipeline leaks could spell financial ruin for investors. A
tanker spill would close down operations of the Northern Gateway
indefinitely further eroding the value of the company.
If
the UNFCCC negotiations end in a “carbon budget” to control escalating GHG emissions and global temperature increases, Canada will be morally
obliged to leave 80 percent of its fossil energy resources buried.
The stock market valuations of most energy and resource companies are
partly based on the assumption that their fossil fuel assets will
eventually be developed. However, if an international “carbon
budget” is implemented to slow climate change and investment is
shifted to renewable energy, corporate fossil fuel reserves could
become stranded assets sending company stock prices tumbling.
Economists term this potential scenario a “carbon bubble.”
Another
threat for investors is the fossil fuel divestment initiative – not
dissimilar to the anti-apartheid boycott of the 1980s – that is
taking root in the US and Canada. Throw in speculation in oil futures
and we could have mayhem in the energy markets. Investments in the
Northern Gateway project may evaporate faster than condensate
escaping from a ruptured pipeline.
How
unfortunate it would be for those First Nations communities who
bought in to the NGP if the energy market imploded and they were
unable to repay their equity purchase that had been financed by the
consortium. What will the consortium demand as collateral for an
equity stake? Can a First Nations community declare bankruptcy?
Would corporate rights override ancestral rights? The future
financial viability, like ecological sustainability, of our
Indigenous communities is essential for their cultural survival and
independence.
Investing
for the long term is usually sound advice. Why trade security then
for a risky investment? First Nations communities may well be advised
to concentrate on their existing equity in land and water – both
permanent natural resources that have sustained them for centuries
and will sustain their descendants for generations too. There is no
better way of highlighting the issue than the way a group of First
Nations’ women summed up the pipeline project when they met with
Jodi Williams and the Nobel Women’s Initiative: You can’t drink
the oil, you can’t eat the money.
 |
| the risk of "stranded assets": Carbon Tracker |
Conclusion
The
JRP claims in both volumes of their report, Connections
and
Considerations,
that their assessment is science-based and precautionary in approach.
But ignoring the Species at Risk Act and downplaying the problems of
dilbit in saltwater and minimizing the dangers of seismic activity is
hardly sound science. The panelists admitted that a large spill,
although they suggested it was unlikely, would have adverse effects
on ecosystems initially but that scientific evidence suggests the
environment would recover to its natural state “in weeks and
months.” In contrast to the rigorous scientific assessment of the
IPCC reports, this sounds like junk science.
The
“precautionary principle” states that in the case of a major
policy initiative or project proposal the burden of proof shifts to
the proponents to demonstrate unequivocally, supported by conclusive
scientific consensus, that society will suffer no harm both now and
in the future. What is the potential for harm is the key question
that legislators must consider. An ethically responsible and mature
society ensures that its present actions impose no harm on the
future. The precautionary principle has its origin in the Seventh
Generation precept of the Iroquois.
The
frequent use of the term “precaution” – as opposed to the
precautionary principle – in the report is disingenuous because,
unless backed by concrete action, it is such a nebulous notion. It is
understandable – but never acceptable – why the precautionary
principle was not adopted as the standard for evaluating the NGP.
This project is so fraught with environmental problems and the
potential for harm is so pervasive that it could never have withstood
the exacting critical analysis demanded by the application of the
precautionary principle.
The
report acknowledged, for example, that there would be adverse
environmental effects from the construction and operation of the
pipelines but argued that they would be “temporary.”
Disturbingly, the panelists admitted that some of the effects “may
not be fully mitigated” and that in certain circumstances some
“significant adverse environmental effects are justified.” These
are startling statements in an assessment of a major project where
the focus was on environmental protection. This is decidedly not the
language of authoritative science embedded, supposedly, in
“precaution” – it sounds like the language of the marketing
industry.
The
JRP had many examples of the application of the precautionary
principle to emulate because every major international environmental
treaty in the last 30 years has incorporated the precautionary
principle, including the UN World Charter for Nature in 1982, the
Montreal Protocol in 1987, the Rio Declaration in 1992 and the Kyoto
Protocol in 1997. It is to the unending detriment of future Canadians
that the panel chose not to apply the universal standards of
precaution and protection in approving the NGP.
In
the concluding section in Connections,
entitled Balancing
burdens, benefits and risks,
the JRP supported their recommendations for Cabinet approval of the
NGP by arguing:
- The Enbridge Northern Gateway Project would meet an economic need by diversifying Canada’s oil markets and condensate supply
- The Project would produce economic and social benefits for Canadians
- Enbridge Northern Gateway’s proposed measures would reduce, eliminate or offset the potential negative environmental effects
- Other negative effects would be addressed by the conditions imposed and regulatory oversight of the project.
There
is an obvious mismatch between these supporting reasons for building
the NGP and the environmental focus of the original Agreement and
Terms of Reference. Even the order of the reasons above implies a
secondary role for the environmental concerns and a rather nonchalant
approach to the safeguards. There is also a disconnect with the
acknowledgement by the panel, quoted earlier, that their “purpose
was to assess the environmental effects of the proposed project.”
It raises the question whether the purpose of the review changed its
focus during the course of the proceedings.
The
“fundamental question” to be addressed is now spelled out in the
introduction of
Connections
as: “Would Canada and Canadians be better or worse off if the
project goes ahead?”
There
is a shift from the environmental emphasis of the original and the
amended Agreement centred on protection and precaution to a focus on
contemporary economic and social benefits. The modified mandate is
both mystifying and troubling and, more importantly, it raises the
question again whether the recommendations of the JRP exceed the
statutory limitations of the review process.
It
is incongruous, in the face of the near certainty of the IPCC and
national scientific academies around the world that climate change is
the result of fossil fuel generated GHG emissions driven by economic
expansion, that the panel would recommend constructing a polluting
petroleum project on the basis that it promotes GDP growth and offers
positive economic benefits for Canada.
Designating
volume 1 of the report as Connections
is ironic. Our two fundamental “connections” are to nature
as the sole source and sustenance of our existence as a species on
this planet and to the future
that
belongs, not to us, but to our offspring. Environmental assessments
are by their nature long term in their vision and that is why the NEB
Act specifies the importance of the “future public interest.” The
NGP was assessed solely through the prism of the present. Sadly, the
review of the Northern Gateway pipelines has failed the future.
The
final decision on the fate of the pipelines rests with the Cabinet.
Although the federal government came out in favour of the NGP during
the review process and it has also assumed wide-ranging powers to
speed up decisions on resource projects, it must surely abide by the
spirit of the Joint Agreement. A clause in the Agreement stipulates
that the Cabinet “will
make the decision on the environmental assessment (whether the
project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects
and if so, whether such effects are justified in the circumstances).”
No
matter the “circumstances,” attempting to justify the
“environmental effects” of building and operating the NGP that
are so obviously “adverse” would be ethically and ecologically
indefensible by any standards. Governments have an obligation not
just to their supporters and to the electorate in the short term,
they also have a commitment to consider the well-being of future
societies. All governments are bound by a moral covenant with unborn
generations, summed up succinctly in the Great
Law of the Iroquois:
"Look
and listen for the welfare of the whole people and have always in
view not only the present but also the coming generations, even those
whose faces are yet beneath the surface of the ground – the unborn
of the future Nation."
 |
| Yinka Dene chief Martin Louie |
Northern
Gateway should not be an issue driven by economic ideology and
partisan politics; it is an issue of ethics, equity and social
justice focused on the needs of the future. The decision on the
merits of the Northern Gateway pipelines is not a political decision
or an economic decision – it is a moral decision.
---
Updates:
The Conservative federal cabinet is considering an "imminent decision" 11 June 2014 Financial Post.
Divide and rule (the equity offer to aboriginals) Huffington Post 5 June 2012
Former aboriginal leader gets huge salary for promoting tarsands refinery: Newswire 11 June 2014
The Conservative federal cabinet is considering an "imminent decision" 11 June 2014 Financial Post.
Divide and rule (the equity offer to aboriginals) Huffington Post 5 June 2012
Former aboriginal leader gets huge salary for promoting tarsands refinery: Newswire 11 June 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment