“There will always be a question in our minds,” Mayor Taylor Bachrach this week told the federal hearings on a pipeline to carry Alberta oilsands crude to supertankers on the B.C. coast.
“Will this be the day that we turn on the radio and hear that there's been a pipeline rupture and that oil is gushing into the Morice River or the Copper River or the Kitimat River?”
“And people in Kitimat Village and Hartley Bay will wonder, is this the day that a tanker runs off course and hits the rocks?” Bachrach asked the three-person panel.
“For people in Cordova, Alaska, Battle Creek, Mich. and many other communities, this is no longer a question because, for them, that devastating day has already come.”
Cordova, an Alaskan fishing town, has yet to fully recover from the 11-million gallon Exxon Valdez oil spill 23 years ago.
Bachrach was one of hundreds of people to give evidence as federal regulators gather information for an eventual recommendation on whether Enbridge’s $6-billion Northern Gateway pipeline should be built. Of the 500 or so British Columbians and others who have appeared before the investigative panel so far, supporters of the controversial project have been few and far between, according to hearing transcripts.
That’s not surprising. An outpouring of concern about the pipeline at the heart of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s energy strategy has reached unprecedented levels, evolving in only a few months from a regional environmental concern to a source of national friction.
For Harper, who even during five years of minority government managed to drive forward with his main policy goals, the upsurge of opposition to Northern Gateway may prove the ultimate test of his ability to assert and control Canada’s agenda.
Northern Gateway is designed to carry 500,000 barrels a day of oil sands-derived crude from Edmonton across the Rockies to Kitimat on the B.C. coast, where about 200 supertankers annually would dock to take on the petroleum for export to the U.S. and Asia.
The 1,172 km line would pass through some of North America’s most prized wilderness areas and require oil tankers to navigate the dangerous waters of the northern B.C. coast on nearly a daily basis. Harper says finding a new route to ship crude to Asia is crucial to Canada’s national interest.
But B.C. greens and more than 100 aboriginal groups have come out strongly against the project, saying it is a threat to the environment and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people. So has the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.
Opposition in recent months has been fed by coverage of the Michigan spill, bad news that peaked last month when the head of a U.S. federal agency said Calgary-based Enbridge’s response to the Kalamazoo leak was worthy of the “Keystone Kops.” The leak, at $800 million (U.S.) in damages, was one of the most costly onshore spills ever in the U.S. and led to a $3.7-million (U.S.) fine against Enbridge.
As presently conceived, Northern Gateway is a political loser, Mario Conseco, a Vancouver-based pollster with Angus Reid Public Opinion, said in an interview this week.
A new Angus Reid poll found 35 per cent of British Columbians completely oppose the pipeline, compared to 7 per cent who strongly favour Northern Gateway. The survey of 804 B.C. adults was taken between July 30 and Aug. 1.
“It’s as if people were window-shopping at first and saying, ‘Oh yeah, this is interesting, we’ll send some oil to China and get some benefits,’ ” Conseco said. “But it turns out it’s not going to be as much money as they assumed and then we saw what happened in Michigan with Enbridge, so people are saying, ‘Wait a second, maybe this is not the best course of action unless something really drastic happens and we can have world-class environmental guidelines in place.’ ”
B.C. Premier Christy Clark, after months of fence-sitting on the pipeline question, moved to protect her political flank on July 23. With a B.C. election on the horizon and polls showing her party far behind the NDP, which is against Northern Gateway, Clark announced a set of conditions for supporting the pipeline. She demanded improved environmental protection, respect for aboriginal rights and better economic returns for her province.
The demands prompted a rare public blow-up among the premiers at their summer meetings. Alberta Premier Alison Redford dismissed B.C.’s quest for a greater share of the tax revenues from the would-be pipeline. Federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney waded in, accusing Clark of a “tollgate” approach that would lead to a damaging balkanization of Canada’s economic union.
At home, Clark’s attempt to put a pricetag on B.C.’s approval of the pipeline did little to assuage the project’s opponents.
It misses the point to put a price on the risk of oil disaster on the coast or in the pristine forests, said Darcy Dobell, vice-president, Pacific conservation, of World Wildlife Fund Canada.
“We’re not saying we can’t do this until we have better safety measures or until we see a better price tag, we’re saying this is just simply not the place for this kind of development,” Dobell said in an interview.
An Enbridge promise to spend an additional $500 million to enhance pipeline safety hasn’t changed the debate. Acknowledging the fears of the project’s opponents, the company last month announced plans to use thicker-walled pipe, improve inspection mechanisms and take other measures to reduce the risk of a spill.
“After years of consultation with stakeholders and after personally attending many regulatory hearings for Northern Gateway, it has become clear — we have to do everything we can to ensure confidence in the project,” said Enbridge executive vice-president Janet Holder.
Some environmentalists were unmoved.
“I guess the first question is: If they can do that, why haven’t they done that already?” said Dobell. “And why haven’t they done that on the rest of their existing pipeline network, which clearly needs some work?”
As the issue gathers heat, the Harper government has become increasingly cautious. Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver refused to be interviewed. His office sent out the following statement: “Diversification of our energy markets is a critical strategic objective of our government in order to create jobs and economic growth. We will continue to work in partnership with the provincial governments to encourage achieving this objective.”
B.C. environmentalists say opposition to Northern Gateway was stoked last winter when Harper and Oliver came out in favour, before the joint National Energy Board-Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency panel even began hearings. Opponents are keenly aware how the Conservatives’ wide-ranging budget implementation bill this year changed the approval process for natural resource mega-projects. Harper now has the final word on what projects go ahead.
That change was formalized in an announcement Friday. The Harper government is also moving to limits the chance of delays in the National Energy Board’s recommendations on Northern Gateway. Under the new rules, the board must report by Dec. 31, 2013, Environment Minister Peter Kent stated. This will allow the government to issue a final Gateway decision no later than June 2014.
Some say any political party that gets on the wrong side of the supertanker issue in B.C. is flirting with trouble. Polls show support for the Harper Conservatives, who hold 21 of 36 federal seats in B.C., has dropped sharply across the province since the 2011 election.
“This is becoming an identity issue for British Columbians, who feel they have a right to make this decision,” said Will Horter, executive director of the Dogwood Initiative, a Victoria-based environmental group.
“It’s just like with Quebec, where there are a whole bunch of issues that are identity issues. And you have to tread very softly around that as a federal politician,” he said. “Harper’s taking all these actions to push an unwanted project on an unwilling province. Is there a correlation between that and the fact that the federal Conservatives have dropped 33 per cent in the polls in the last few months here?”
Ottawa will rule on Northern Gateway, not B.C. Few suspect the industry-friendly National Energy Board would block the project.
Still, in the pipeline hearings across the province’s north, residents have repeatedly come forward with passionate accounts of how their lives are woven into the province’s natural beauty.
“People were always somewhat skeptical but they also felt that, given that this process was underway and it was coming to all our communities, they couldn’t live with themselves if they ignored it,” said Pat Moss, who has attended the hearings on behalf of the Smithers-based Northern Institute for Bioregional Research.
“A lot of people said, basically, I want to be able tell my children or my grandchildren that I was there and spoke out when they ask me, ‘Well,
what did you do?’ ”
at the hearings
Excerpts from testimony to the federal Joint Review Panel holding hearings on the feasibility of the Northern Gateway pipeline proposed for northern B.C.:
“Just the construction of this pipeline and the greenhouse gas created by the construction would more than offset any value ever created by the pipeline itself. The damage done to our medicine and food plants and the effect on the animals during construction far outweigh any benefits our territory and our people will ever get from this project.”
— Peter Erickson, hereditary chief of Nak'azdli First Nation.
“I’m not overly religious but I do believe this beautiful earth is a gift. I also believe that we are abusing this gift. We are taking it for granted each day and we are poor stewards of the earth. I feel this project is a perfect example of that. I teach my children to pick up trash as we walk to the farmers market, and we try to model with them sustainable transportation, but it again seems futile in the face of huge pipelines’ massive destruction of land and water and burning petroleum products.”
— Nurse Amy Klepetar.
“So in conclusion, I would like the Review Panel to think; think about building a pipeline that is guaranteed to spill . . . (that ships a product) that is proven to be doing irreversible damage to our planet, putting our province’s growing tourism industry under threat and discrediting Canada worldwide. We know better, so let’s do better. Do better so you can look at yourself in the mirror in 20 years and know you did the right thing for the generations that follow you. I know I am. I say no tankers, and no thanks.”
— Jana Gainor of Fort St. James, B.C.
“There have been some who have said that this issue is dividing people in our communities, that it's pitting neighbour against neighbour. I don't see it that way. On the contrary, I believe that this issue has brought people together in the northwest like never before. And in no instance is this more significant than the relationships and the bonds that have developed between First Nations and non-First Nations communities in our region.”
— Smithers Mayor Taylor Bachrach.
“The Pacific Ocean and the northwest coast must be protected. The element of life cannot be destroyed. How much more abuse can we take? Everyone involved in this whole business should be accountable for a crime against life, against next generations to come for destroying and polluting their environment, our environment. That is an unreasonable rush to pass this controversial project that carries a great risk of destruction and a great gain for greed.”
— Sofia Eberman in Smithers, B.C.
“I’m here today as I cannot rely on either my current elected officials or my current provincial or federal governments to represent or even consider my views and opinions on this matter. I oppose the development of this pipeline. I am deeply concerned about the irreversible negative impacts it will have on northern B.C.’s economy, environment, lifestyles and cultures, as well as on Canada’s international reputation and credibility.”
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Les Whittington
No comments:
Post a Comment