On November 16, TransCanada Pipeline shut down the existing Keystone Pipeline to contain a spill in South Dakota, estimated at 210,000 gallons– the third in the area since operations began in 2010. Reports include “South Dakota Warns It Could Revoke Keystone Pipeline Permit Over Oil Spill” in Inside Climate News . On November 20, the Nebraska Public Service Commission granted approval to Keystone – but an approval which Anthony Swift at NRDC describes as a “pyrrhic victory” because the original proposed route through Nebraska was rejected, and the new alternative route approved – the Keystone Mainline Alternative route – must now undergo new state and federal environmental approval processes . Official intervenors may also file an appeal in the Nebraska courts within 30 days and may petition the Public Service Commission for a rehearing within ten days. Even TransCanada seems to wonder if the Keystone will ever get built – the official press release states: “As a result of today’s decision, we will conduct a careful review of the Public Service Commission’s ruling while assessing how the decision would impact the cost and schedule of the project. ” Other reaction to the news of the approval: from The National Observer ; Alberta’s Calgary Herald; Council of Canadians ; Bold Nebraska (an alliance of landowners, environmental groups and First Nations), and from Common Dreams, ” ‘This Fight Is Far From Over’ Groups Declare as Nebraska Clears Path for Keystone XL Construction” – summarizing the responses of 350.org and the Sierra Club.
As for strong and resolute opposition: In May 2017, CBC reported that leaders of the Blackfoot Confederacy in Canada, the Great Sioux Nation (U.S.) and the Ponca tribe (U.S.) signed a joint declaration of opposition to Keystone XL . In a broader coalition, First Nations, along with non-native groups such as 350.org and Greenpeace USA, have now launched the Promise to Protect campaign which states: “We will make a series of stands along the route – nonviolent but resolute displays of our continued opposition to a project that endangers us all. Join native and non-native communities in the Promise to Protect the land, water, and climate. ” In light of the resolute and deep resistance, it is important to note an article in The Intercept “Nebraska approves Keystone XL Pipeline as opponents face criminalization of protests” (Nov. 20), which reported: “In anticipation of the Keystone XL’s construction, legislation was passed in South Dakota in March that allows the governor or a local sheriff to prohibit groups numbering more than 20 from gathering on public land or in schools, and also allows the Department of Transportation to limit access to highways by prohibiting stopping or parking in designated areas.” The South Dakota Senate Bill 176 is here.
Assessing the Federal Government’s Actions on Climate Change was released by the Green Economy Network in February (with a 4-page Executive Summary here ) . It estimates the job creation value of four fossil fuel projects under active consideration – Petronas LNG in B.C., Kinder Morgan TransMountain Pipeline, Enbridge Line 3, and Keystone XL Pipeline – using figures from the proponents of those projects, and concludes that the estimated total investment of $60.3 billion would result in 380,900 direct, indirect, and induced person job years of employment over 5 years, many of which would be in the U.S. The investment would also increase Canada’s annual GHG emissions by 89.9 megatonnes. In comparison, GEN estimates the job creation and emissions impacts of that same $60.3 billion investment if it were directed to energy efficiency, renewable energy, and transit, as recommended in its One Million Climate Jobs Plan . GEN concludes that the green investments would create 784,570 person job years of employment over five years while reducing annual GHG emissions by up to 190 Mt after ten years.
In its discussion of the government’s Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change , the Green Economy Network notes that “it is unclear how the emissions from federally approved fossil fuel infrastructure projects are factored into the PCF”. Regarding the Pan-Canadian Framework considerations of employment and Just Transition issues , the report further states: “Calculations for job creation from each of the proposed measures are completely absent”. Though the term “Just Transition” gets a mention, “there are no specific measures outlined to ensure that workers and their families are supported in the transition to a low-carbon economy.” … “The Framework also misses a significant opportunity to demonstrate how major public infrastructure projects can be designed to include Just Transition measures, including skills training and integrating mandatory requirements for contractors to sponsor apprenticeships, which will aid in increasing apprenticeship completion rates and ensure that our workers have the skills that they need.” GEN makes recommendations to improve these deficiencies.
The Green Economy Network represents the concerns and solutions of an alliance of approximately 25 labour unions, environment and social justice organizations in Canada. Their signature One Million Jobs campaign is part of an international campaign which includes the U.K. and South Africa.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources delivered its report on The Future of Canada’s Oil and Gas Industry in September 2016; see the WCR coverage from September here. On January 19, the Government released its Official Response to the Committee Report, with this introductory statement: “It is clear to our Government that in order for the energy sector to continue to be a driver of prosperity and play a part in meeting global demand for energy, resource development must go hand in hand with the environmental and social demands of Canadians.” Not surprising then, that when Donald Trump opened the door for construction of the Keystone Pipeline on January 24, Justin Trudeau and his cabinet members welcomed the news .
Yet author Marc Lee reinforces what others have stated in his January 25 article in CCPA Policy Notes. “Canada can’t have it both ways on environment” demonstrates that “the amount of fossil fuel removed from Canadian soil that ends up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide—has grown dramatically. ” Although not technically “counted” in our own emissions reporting under the Paris Agreement, the emissions from Canada’s fossil fuel exports, counted in the countries where they are burned, is greater than Canada’s total GHG emissions within the country. Lee goes on: “Based on our share of global fossil fuel reserves, Canada could continue to extract carbon at current levels for between 11 and 24 years at most (the smaller the carbon budget, the less the damages from climate change). This means a planned, gradual wind-down of these industries needs to begin immediately.”
Marc Lee’s article summarizes a more complete report he authored for the Corporate Mapping Project, jointly led by the University of Victoria, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Parkland Institute. Extracted Carbon: Re-examining Canada’s contribution to climate change through fossil fuel exports updates a 2011 CCPA report, Peddling GHGs: What is the Carbon Footprint of Canada’s Fossil Fuel Exports? in the context of the Paris Agreement and Canada’s contribution to the global carbon budget. It concludes that “Plans to further grow Canada’s exports of fossil fuels are thus contradictory to the spirit and intentions of the Paris Agreement. Growing our exports could only happen if some other producing countries agreed to keep their fossil fuel reserves in the ground. The problem with new fossil fuel infrastructure projects, like Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) plants and bitumen pipelines, is that they lock us in to a high-emissions trajectory for several decades to come, giving up on the 1.5 to 2°C limits of Paris.” It follows that “Canadian climate policy must consider supply-side measures such as rejecting new fossil fuel infrastructure and new leases for exploration and drilling, increasing royalties, and eliminating fossil fuel subsidies.”
“Contested Futures: Labor after Keystone XL” was published in New Labour Forum and reproduced on the website of Trade Unions for Energy Democracy , where author Sean Sweeney is Coordinator. His analysis begins with the considerable complexities of union positions in the Keystone XL pipeline debate in the U.S. between 2011 and 2015, and continues to the present, considering the divided approaches towards the Clean Power Plan and the upcoming U.S. election campaign . His vision: “Labor’s KXL fight could be the precursor to more disunity and acrimony in the labor movement in the years ahead, especially if the Black-Blue Alliance remains in place and “Saudi America” imaginings continue to shape labor’s discourse. Alternatively, unions in all sectors—the Trades, transport, health, and so on—can work together to support an approach to energy and climate that is needs-based, grounded in the facts, and independent of both industry interests and the mainstream environmental groups that support renewable energy “by any means necessary.” Sweeney calls for labour to unite behind an energy democracy agenda which would shift control over energy toward workers, communities, and municipalities.
U.S. President Obama announced on April 18th that he will extend the government comment period on the Keystone XL pipeline until at least the end of May, frustrating Canadian boosters of the project. Read the CBC report at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-to-delay-keystone-xl-decision-1.2615062. Protests against KXL continue in the U.S., the latest including U.S. First Nations – see “Keystone Protesters mark Final Roundup – For Now” in Politico at: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/keystone-protesters-mark-final-roundup-for-now-106053.html?ml=la.