New report calls on B.C. Pension Fund management to divest from fossil fuels, reinvest in renewables

ccpa-bc_fossilpensions_june2018-thumbnailThe British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (BCI) is the fourth largest pension fund manager in Canada,  and controls capital of $135.5 billion, including the pension funds of the province’s public employees.  A June report asks the question: is BCI investing funds in ways that support the shift to a two degree C global warming limit?  The answer is “no”, and in fact, fossil fuel investments have been increasing, according to the authors of  Canada’s Fossil-Fuelled Pensions: The Case of the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation   . For example, BCI boosted its investment in Kinder Morgan, owner of the Trans-Mountain pipeline, to $65.3 million in 2017 from $36.7 million in 2016.

An article in the Victoria B.C. Times Colonist newspaper  summarizes the study and includes reaction from one of  the authors, James Rowe, an associate professor at University of Victoria.  Rowe  states: “BCI claims to be a responsible investor. …But we find some hypocrisy in that we don’t find any good signs they are investing with climate change in mind.”  The article also quotes an email from BCI,  which defends the investment in Kinder Morgan, as “a passive investment held inside funds designed to track Canadian and global markets.”  Further, it states, “BCI does invest in oil and gas companies, but that particular sector accounts for a significant portion of the Canadian economy. It’s about 20 per cent of the composite index on the Toronto Stock Exchange.”  For more from BCI,  see their website which  provides their  2017 Responsible Investing Annual Report , as well as a Responsible Investing Newsletter, with the most recent issue (Oct. 2017) devoted to “Transparency and Disclosure”.

Canada’s Fossil-Fuelled Pensions: The Case of the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation   makes the following recommendations so that  BCI can align its investments with the 2°C limit:

  1. “A portfolio-wide climate change risk analysis to determine the impact of fossil fuels on BCI’s public equity investments in the context of the 2°C limit. And, subsequent disclosure of all findings to pension members.
  2. Divestment. The surest way to address the financial and moral risks associated with investing in the fossil fuel industry is to start the process of divestment: freezing any new investment and developing a plan to first remove high-risk companies from portfolios, particularly coal and oil sands producers, and then moving toward sector-wide divestment.
  3. Reinvest divested funds in more sustainable stocks. The International Energy Agency estimates that trillions of dollars of investment are needed in the renewables sector to support the transition away from fossil fuels.”

The report is part of the Corporate Mapping Project (CMP), jointly led by the University of Victoria, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and Parkland Institute. CMP is  a research and public engagement initiative investigating power dynamics within the fossil fuel industry.

Canadian government spends $4.5 billion taxpayers’ dollars to buy Trans Mountain pipeline project and push expansion ahead

justin-trudeauDespite strenuous and prolonged opposition from environmental and Indigenous activists in Canada and internationally, and two days before a deadline imposed by Texas corporation Kinder Morgan, Canada’s Liberal government announced on May 29  that it will  spend $4.5 billion to buy the existing Trans Mountain pipeline and its associated infrastructure, so that a pipeline expansion can proceed under the ownership of a Crown corporation.  The press release is here  ; details of the transaction are here in a Backgrounder  ;  the text of the speech by Finance Minister Bill Morneau is here . Repeating the mantra of the Trudeau government, Morneau claims that the project is in the national interest, will preserve jobs,  will reassure investors and improve the price for Canadian oil by expanding its market  beyond the U.S.  Morneau says the federal government does not plan to be a long-term owner and is in negotiations with interested investors, including Indigenous communities, pension funds (notably the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board)  and the Alberta government.

trans-mountain-pipelineIn fact, the expansion pipeline, if built, would almost triple the amount of dilbit transported from Alberta to the British Columbia coast, from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels a day, and increase tanker traffic off B.C.’s coast from approximately five to 34 tankers a month.  As recently as May 24, an Open Letter coordinated by Oil Change International  and signed by over 200 groups  summed up the situation, stating there is a “….  clear contradiction between Prime Minister Trudeau’s unchecked support for the Kinder Morgan pipeline project and his commitments to Indigenous reconciliation through the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and his obligation to address climate change through the Paris Agreement.”  The letter notes that currently planned Canadian oil production would use up 16% of the world’s carbon budget to keep temperatures below 1.5 degrees, or 7% of the budget for 2 degrees.  Canada has less than 0.5% of the world’s population.

Today’s initial reaction to the government’s decision  has called it “astounding”, “shameful”, and an “historic  blunder”.  From the CBC: “Liberals to buy Trans Mountain pipeline for $4.5B to ensure expansion is built”   and “ Bill Morneau’s Kinder Morgan surprise comes with huge price tag, lots of political risk: Chris Hall”.  From  The National Observer   “Trudeau government to buy troubled Trans Mountain pipeline for $4.5 billion”   ; “BC Will Continue Legal Strategy to Oppose Pipeline After Federal Purchase, Premier Says”  in The Tyee  .  Toronto’s Globe and Mail posted at least 6 items on the decision , including  an Explainer , and Jeff Rubin’s Opinion: “Morneau had better options for Canada’s Energy sector” .

From  Greenpeace Canada: “Federal government volunteers to “captain the Titanic of tar sands oil pipelines” and risks $4.5B of Canadians’ money in the process” ; and  West Coast Environmental Law reaction points out that “There are currently 14 legal challenges before the Federal Court of Appeal, alleging that the government failed in its constitutional duty to consult First Nations about the Trans Mountain project, and that the federal review had other regulatory flaws. Success in just one of those challenges could derail the underlying federal approvals.”

In the Victoria Times Colonist, “Green Party Leader May calls pipeline decision ‘historic blunder’” ; John Horgan, Premier of British Columbia, released an official statement  , and a jubilant Alberta Premier Rachel Notley is profiled in the CBC story, ” ‘Pick up those tools, folks, we have a pipeline to build,’ Alberta premier says  “.  Reaction from B.C. First Nations leaders is compiled in this CBC story.

Social media reaction, as compiled by CBC , is here  .  The Dogwood Initiative has mounted a  “Time for Bill Morneau to go” online petition here ; SumofUs has an online petition  here,  to urge the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board not to invest in Kinder Morgan.   Direct emails can be sent to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca .   Opposition continues and the story is not over.

NDP-Green alliance promises a new chapter for B.C. government and climate change policies

BC minority-government-20170529

B.C. Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver and B.C. NDP Leader John Horgan  (photo by The Canadian Press/Chad Hipolito)

According to a June 12 press release, the Legislature of British Columbia will be recalled on June 22, when a confidence motion will determine who will lead the government  after the cliff-hanger election of May 9.  Read “Greens to prop up NDP’s Horgan in minority BC government” in the National Observer (May 29) for an overview of the alliance reached between the Green Party and the New Democratic Party (NDP) as they prepare to form the new provincial  government.  What have they agreed on?  The text of the “Supply and Confidence” agreement, “founded on the principles of good faith and no surprises”,  is available at the B.C. NDP website . Major points of agreement on climate change issues are:  implacable opposition to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline;  an increase in the province’s carbon tax by $5 a tonne each year from April 2018, rising to the nationally required $50 a tonne by 2021;  a six-month, independent review of the unpopular  Site C hydroelectric project (a concession by the Greens, who had wanted to axe it outright); revival of  the province’s Climate Leadership Team; and  an investigation into  the safety of fracking. Read also “What does a NDP- Green Alliance mean for Climate Change?” in the Climate Examiner (June 8), and for the larger picture beyond climate change-related issues, see “ BC NDP-Green agreement offers historic opportunity for game-changing new policies” by Seth Klein and Shannon Daub of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives B.C. , or  “NDP and Greens Promise Electoral Reform Referendum, Big Money Ban and Higher Carbon Tax”  in The Tyee (May 30).

The national implications of the coming changes to B.C. energy policy are raised by Kathryn Harris  in “A Historic moment for B.C. Politics and our Environment”  in the Globe and Mail (updated June 1), who states: “At the heart of the Trudeau government’s 2016 climate plan lies a political compromise: a commitment to pursue reductions in Canada’s own greenhouse gas emissions in exchange for expansion of fossil-fuel exports to other countries via new pipelines. The looming NDP-Green partnership in British Columbia reveals both the political fragility of that compromise and the contradiction of climate leadership funded by fossil-fuel development.”

In that controversial pipeline debate: new, required reading from the Parkland Institute: Will the Trans Mountain Pipeline and Tidewater Access Boost Prices and Save Canada’s Oil Industry?.  Author David Hughes  challenges the contention by pipeline proponents (for example, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley)  that Alberta would benefit from a “tidewater premium” by reaching global markets, and concludes that “The new BC government would be wise to withdraw the Province’s approval for this project.”  And “Showdown looms for LNG project”,  an overview article  in The Globe and Mail indicates the changes likely to come on that file, although the NDP-Green agreement doesn’t explicitly address the LNG issue.

The Pembina Institute offers an alternative to the Clark fossil fuel economy,  in their Vision for Clean Growth Economy  for B.C., released in May.  It outlines  five key priorities and makes specific recommendations for their achievement: 1. Build a strong clean tech sector 2. Position B.C. to be competitive in the changing global economy 3. Make clean choices more affordable 4. Stand up for healthy and safe communities, and 5. Grow sustainable resource jobs.

Kinder Morgan, Keystone pipelines move closer to reality as Canada is warned about its carbon budget

Prime Minister Trudeau set off an outcry in Alberta with these comments at the start of his cross-country tour in Peterborough, Ontario : “You can’t make a choice between what’s good for the environment and what’s good for the economy. We can’t shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out. We need to manage the transition off of our dependence on fossil fuels.”  In Calgary on January 24,  Trudeau defended his remarks in a town hall meeting in Calgary, summarized in “Calgary crowd cheers and boos Trudeau in showdown with oilsands supporters”   in the National Observer (Jan. 25) .

On January 11, British Columbia’s Premier Clark waived B.C.’s original five objections and approved the Kinder Morgan pipeline project (albeit with 37 provincial conditions) . Alberta’s Premier Rachel Notley responded with:  “Working families shouldn’t have to choose between good jobs and the environment. World-class environmental standards and a strong economy that benefits working people must go hand-in-hand. The Kinder Morgan pipeline offers us an historic opportunity to demonstrate that these values can – and must – go hand in hand.”   Reaction to B.C.’s decision from West Coast Environmental Law is here ; or read “Did Christy Clark just betray British Columbia?” from Stand.earth, which continues to organize resistance to Kinder Morgan.

As anticipated, President Donald Trump wasted no time in approving the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, signing  Executive Orders on January 24.  Negotiations and further state-level approvals are still ahead, but Canada’s Trudeau government welcomed the news, according to a CBC report which quotes Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr : “it would be very positive for Canada — 4,500 construction jobs and a deepening of the relationship across the border on the energy file.”   In a joint response by Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Canada, Mike Hudema of Canada stated:   “The question for Canadians is: will the Prime Minister continue to align himself with a climate denying Trump administration, or will he stand with the people and with science and start living up to his own commitments to the climate and Indigenous rights?”

According to a January report by Oil Change International (OCI), “Ultimately, the carbon mathematics is such that the Canadian government simply cannot have it both ways . There is no scenario in which tar sands production increases and the world achieves the Paris goals.”  Climate on the Line: Why new tar sands pipelines are incompatible with the Paris goals  continues with: “Cumulative emissions from producing and burning Canadian oil would use up 16% of the world’s carbon budget to keep temperatures below 1.5 degrees, or 7% of the budget for 2 degrees. Canada has less than 0.5% of the world’s population.” ” There is no future in expanding tar sands production. Instead, the government should begin serious efforts now to diversify the economy, supporting a just transition for workers and communities.”  Andrew Nikoforuk summarized the report in The Tyee (Jan. 10); CBC Calgary interviewed experts in its analysis, “Could the oilsands really be phased out? Here are the possibilities” (January 21).

Kinder Morgan Pipeline approval: a new chapter in the struggle against pipelines

On November 29, the government of Canada announced  the highly anticipated decision   to approve the expansion of  two pipeline projects:   Line 3 (with 37 conditions) and the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline project (with 157 conditions). The Northern Gateway project was finally, officially dismissed.

Reaction, focused on Kinder Morgan,  was swift and strong and very critical on many grounds: economic, environmental, and as a betrayal of the rights of First Nations.  The Globe and Mail summarized reaction and quoted a Stand.earth representative that the decision “signals the beginning of a new phase in the struggle against pipelines” – which will include protests, the courts, and the ballot box.  And immediately, on December 1, a rally to support the Dakota Access Pipeline protests expanded to include Kinder Morgan protest, with over 1000 people on the streets of Victoria, B.C., according to the National Observer.  See also “Trudeau’s pipeline approvals spark protests” , which quotes the president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers: “”You can either be serious about climate change, or you can expand the tarsands. But you cannot do both.”  Others have written with the same message: UBC Professor Kathryn Harrison in the Globe and Mail   ; Simon Donner  in  “Blowing the Budget on Pipelines”  (Nov. 30) in Policy Options;  Seth Klein and Shannon Daub of the Canadian Centre for Policy Analysis (CCPA) in a Policy Note article, “The New Climate Denialism“;  Tzeporah Berman, “Pipelines of Paris: Can Canada have its cake and eat it too? “. David Hughes’June 2016 report, Can Canada Expand Oil and Gas Production, Build Pipelines and Keep Its Climate Change Commitments? is again being widely cited.

The same message comes from a a Dec. 13 article, “ With Oil Sands Ambitions on a Collision Course With Climate Change, Exxon Still Stepping on the Gas”  by Inside Climate News (the Pulitizer Prize winning news organization whose reporting has sparked the current U.S. investigations into Exxon).  This highly detailed historical look at Imperial Oil investments and operations in Canada (complete with photos of Murray Westgate), concludes by noting the recent pipelines approvals, and states:  “Canadian officials, who have committed the nation to emissions cuts, continue to promote growth, even though environmentalists say the two are incompatible….Politicans are not being honest with Canadians.”

orcas-against-vancouver-skylineOpposition in the courts – with seven cases already underway – is being led by First Nations.  In an OpEd in the Globe and Mail, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs wrote: “ Prime Minister Justin Trudeau failed to protect the health and safety of Canadians or uphold his government’s vaunted new relationship with First Peoples when he announced approval for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.”  He stated that there are  more than 10,000 “Coastal Protectors”   who are ready “to do what needs to be done to stop Kinder Morgan”. This is in addition to  the Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion  formed  by 50 First Nations and tribes from all over Canada  and the Northern U.S. in in September 2016 – now over 100 –   to work together to stop all proposed tar sands pipeline , tanker and rail projects in their respective territorial lands and waters. And see  DeSmog blog,  “ Federal Liberals Approval of Kinder Morgan Is Final Nail in the Coffin of ‘Reconciliation’ . For a first-person account of First Nations reactions and mobilization, see “Field notes: A week of pipeline action and cross-Canada solidarity” from West Coast Environmental Law.

From Greenpeace :  “With this announcement, Prime Minister Trudeau has broken his climate commitments, broken his commitments to Indigenous rights, and has declared war on B.C. If Prime Minister Trudeau wanted to bring Standing Rock-like protests to Canada, he succeeded.”    Similarly, Common Dreams published  “Kinder Morgan Pipeline Might Be Canada’s DAPL ” (Dec. 4) , and  from ThinkProgress  , ” The next Standing Rock: Fossil fuel battles loom across North America“.

Representing reaction from ground zero, British Columbia:  The B.C. office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives blogged: “Trudeau disappoints a generation, betrays rights and title of Indigenous people with Kinder Morgan decision” .  Andrew Nikoforuk wrote in  The Tyee , “Kinder Morgan Approval Insults Democracy, Science and Economic Logic”   (Nov. 30) , that the decision “put his government on a collision course with First Nations and British Columbia’s coastal communities.” Robyn Allan, quoted by Nikoforuk, states:  “Trudeau has out-trumped Stephen Harper.”

 

Decision approaches for the Kinder Morgan Transmountain Pipeline Expansion

kmpipeline_tanker_route_salish_sea_map_smallThe Liberal government announced a national Ocean Protection Plan  on November 8, investing $1.5  billion over five years,  “to ensure that our coasts are protected in a modern and advanced way that ensures environmental sustainability, safe and responsible commercial use, and collaboration with coastal and Indigenous communities.” Although one of  the goals is “restoring and protecting the marine ecosystems and habitats”, the main thrust appears to emphasize commercial shipping,  maritime traffic, and improved response to tanker oil spills.   A sample of reaction:  An Editorial from the  National Observer “’Ocean protection’ is now code for oilsands pipelines and tanker traffic ” (Nov. 8); “No tanker ban in Trudeau’s $1.5-Billion Coastal Protection Plan”  in The Tyee ; and though Equiterre’s press release strikes a constructive tone, it links the Plan directly to the Kinder Morgan pipeline and subsequent tanker traffic.  As  Chantal Hebert wrote in the Toronto Star,  “it is obvious to everyone following along that he (Prime Minister Trudeau)  was getting some framing in place before green-lighting Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain pipeline expansion”.

The Report from the Ministerial Panel for the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project  was presented to Natural Resources Minister Carr in early November, the Panel having been appointed by the Minister  in May 2016  to quell  public outrage over the National Energy Board  process. From the Report introduction: “The panel’s mandate was not to test or build social licence for the project. It was to identify what might have been missed in the original review. Appropriate to the panel’s mandate, therefore, this report does not contain specific recommendations. Rather, it provides an overview of input, a reflection of public concern about changing circumstances, and a synthesis of major issues “.   Nevertheless, the panelists managed to say that the Kinder Morgan project “cannot proceed without a serious reassessment of its impacts on climate change commitments, indigenous rights and marine mammal safety. ”   DeSmog blog summarizes the report and commends the Panel .

Others  dispute that the pipeline is even needed, on economic grounds – see Climate Action Network   or Robyn Allan in “Opinion: Premier Notley relies on fiction to push Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion”  in the National Observer (Nov. 14)  . From Vancouver-based   Conversations for Responsible Economic Development  (CRED),  self-described as “fiercely pro-business and pro-economic development” : “It’s crucial that the federal government reject the KM pipeline and instead support sectors in BC that create family-sustaining jobs, make significant tax contributions, insulate the regional economy from boom-and-bust cycles, and promote economic growth compatible with Canada’s national climate commitment.”  See the full CRED report,  What’s Fuelling Our Economy: Is Kinder Morgan’s Proposed Pipeline Inconsistent with New Economic Trends and Realities?

Protests and legal action against the Kinder Morgan project have been going on for years – see our previous WCR coverage here –  but they are intensifying with the upcoming December 19 deadline for a government decision.  In October, 99 protestors were arrested on Parliament Hill, and  British Columbia’s former Premier Mike Harcourt warned in a November interview   that an approval could result in “a  Clayoquot or North Dakota type of insurrection”. A November 17 event hosted by Leadnow.ca  also makes the link: “From Standing Rock to Burnaby Mountain: Can Direct Action Stop the Kinder Morgan Pipeline?”.   On November 16,  the Canadian Youth Delegation at COP22 in Marrakech delivered a  petition with 210,000 names opposing the Kinder Morgan pipeline; demonstrations and vigils are planned across Canada for November 21, coordinated by 350.org , Leadnow.ca, Greenpeace Canada   , the Council of Canadians    , the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition  and others.  The Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion is being framed as the acid test for the Liberal government’s environmental position.

 

 

Non-violent climate insurgency: people using the power of the law to protect the planet

Despite the hooplah of Paris and Marakkesh,  a new article by Jeremy Brecher argues that climate protection will never be accomplished by existing government and institutional actors.  “Climate Emergency: Global Insurgency: There is no choice but to escalate today’s campaigns against global fossil fuel infrastructure”  appeared in Common Dreams  on October 14  , and while the author commends the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, (mirrored in Canada by protests against the Kinder Morgan Pipeline) he quotes Bill McKibben that “Fighting one pipeline at a time, the industry will eventually prevail.” Brecher advocates instead what he calls a “global nonviolent constitutional insurgency”.  “A non-violent insurgency, like an armed insurgency, refuses to accept the limits on its action imposed by the powers that be. Unlike an armed insurgency, it eschews violence and instead expresses power by mobilizing people for mass nonviolent direct action….It is not formally a revolutionary movement because it does not challenge the legitimacy of the fundamental law; rather, it asserts that current officials are in violation of the very laws that they themselves claim provide the justification for their authority. Although the established courts may condemn and punish them, constitutional insurgents view their “civil disobedience” as actually obedience to law, even a form of law enforcement.”

Recalling the great civil disobedience campaigns of Gandhi, the American civil rights movement, and Polish Solidarity movement , Brecher points to the current “Break Free From Fossil Fuels” global campaign, begun after the Paris Agreement in 2015, as an encouraging start to the climate insurgency he advocates.   The U.S. organizers of Break Free From Fossil Fuels issued a “Public Trust Proclamation”   which summarizes the principles.  The legal actions inspired by the Urgenda case and  Our Children’s Trust in the U.S. share many of the same values, but apply them in the courts.  Brecher links these two movements in an earlier article, “A new wave of climate insurgents defines itself as law-enforcers“.   Brecher’s 2014 book,   Climate Insurgency: A Strategy for Survival    has been updated and reissued as a free ebook , to make it as widely available as possible to those who want to understand and help halt climate change.

Note:  In Canada, the May 2016 Break Free protests were focused on the Kinder Morgan pipeline (photos still available here ).  Protests are continuing – including sit-ins in the offices of government ministers in November, as even the federal government’s Ministerial Panel Report , released on November 3, raises questions about how the pipeline fits with the government’s commitments on climate change, First Nations reconciliation, and social license for fossil fuel projects. According to Environmental Defence, rejecting Kinder Morgan and restarting the review process after reforming the National Energy Board is the only viable option for the federal government.  The government’s decision is due December 19, and is seen as a defining moment for the Trudeau government to demonstrate a clear commitment to its climate goals, rather than a compromise with energy/economics.

June 2016 News: British Columbia

Controversy in B.C. over the Pembina Institute report released on June 14, How do B.C.’s Climate Action commitments stack up?  .  The report uses modelling by the Canadian Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project Team to predict that  B.C.’s emissions will rise 39 per cent above their 2014 level by 2030 following the current policies.  Over 80 per cent of the emissions increase between 2014 and 2030 is projected to come from oil and gas development, including liquefied natural gas (LNG).  See also the Pembina Backgrounder  as well as “How B.C. became a Climate Laggard”   in the Globe and Mail , a review by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS)   and  “How the B.C. Government responded”  in The National Observer .

And public opinion continues to oppose current policies,  including  Petronas’ $36-billion Pacific Northwest LNG  development, and the Kinder Morgan pipeline proposal, where both the City of Vancouver and the Squamish First Nation  have filed appeals in B.C. courts.   Even the academics at the normally apolitical Royal Society of Canada have issued an Open Letter  opposing the Site C Hydro Dam on the Peace River.  Against this backdrop, the government’s updated Climate Change policy is expected at the end of June.

NEB Conditional approval for Kinder Morgan Pipeline is met with Determined Opposition

KMpipeline_Tanker_Route_Salish_Sea_Map_small

Enter a caption

On May 19, a National Energy Board press release stated,  “Taking into account all the evidence, considering all relevant factors, and given that there are considerable benefits nationally, regionally and to some degree locally, the Board found that the benefits of the Project would outweigh the residual burdens.”  The Kinder Morgan TransMountain Pipeline NEB approval, with 157 conditions , is subject to review by a three-member federal panel, announced on May 17    , which has until  November to report to  the Minister of Natural Resources.  The final decision will then be made by the federal Cabinet. See “ Trudeau Declares Resource Promotion a PM’s ‘Fundamental Responsibility’” , and “McKenna won’t give a straight answer about Enbridge pipeline” (May 17)  , summarizing the mixed messages and political manoeuvering over pipeline development.  Also of interest, from DeSmog blog: “Enbridge and Kinder Morgan lobby hard as Feds change tune on Pipelines”  .

The Kinder Morgan decision had been the focus of Canada’s Break Free divestment protests on May 14, and Canada’s 350.org states that the NEB decision doesn’t change “the simple fact that the Kinder Morgan pipeline will never be built.” EcoJustice reacted with: “Ready to continue fight against Kinder Morgan”  in the courts, and citizens , local governments, and environmental groups also oppose Kinder Morgan: see  “Local Governments deeply disappointed”   , and “NEB sides with Texas-based pipeline company against B.C. citizens, First Nations”  .   Chances that First Nations will approve the pipelines are non-existent, according to a National Observer report (May 19)   in which  Rueben George, spokesperson for the local Tsleil-Waututh Nation, states ” First Nations have won 170 legal cases around resource extraction, that’s a 97 per cent victory rate. It’s pretty clear to me that we have veto power over this company.”  The  interactive map  (above) by the Wilderness Committee shows the Kinder Morgan route and summarizes the opposition by First Nations throughout the NEB consultations .

The Alberta Government  calls the NEB decision “a responsible national approach to energy infrastructure. Canada is balancing the need for much stronger action on climate change with the need to pay for that action, by sustainably developing our natural resources – including our energy resources.”  From the British Columbia government: “ We will only support new heavy-oil pipelines in British Columbia if our five conditions can be met. These conditions include the successful completion of the environmental review process, ensuring world-leading marine and land-based spill response, prevention and recovery systems are in place, ensuring legal requirements regarding Aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed and First Nations are provided with the opportunities to participate in and benefit from a heavy-oil project, and, finally, that British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits from any proposed heavy-oil projects.… “The responsibility for meeting the five conditions is complex and will take a great deal of effort from both industry and governments….we will continue to work with the proponent and all stakeholders to address B.C.’s needs.”  And indeed, the B.C. government passed legislation  to alter the boundaries of Finn Creek Provincial Park in May, after a Kinder Morgan submission that requested changes to four park boundaries .

Unnoticed amidst the Kinder Morgan debate was a report released on April 28 by the Council of Canadian Academies(CCA). Commercial Marine Shipping Accidents: Understanding the Risks in Canada , explores the likelihood of commercial marine shipping accidents, including oil spills,  and considers their potential social, economic, and environmental impacts. Noting significant gaps in the available data, and that there have been few such accidents, the report concludes that the Pacific Region has the highest level of shipping activity, but has a relatively low risk profile. The report concludes that Canada has a well-developed oil spill response regime overall, but identifies areas for improvement as “ the need for a hazardous and noxious substances (HNS) preparedness and response regime across Canada, as well as further research into how substances classified as HNS behave in a marine environment.” The report was commissioned by the Clear Seas Centre for Responsible Marine Shipping,  a not-for-profit  based in Vancouver since 2014.  Its goal is to provide unbiased, independent research; its funding comes from the governments of Canada, Alberta, and “industry groups represented by CAPP” (the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers).

 

 

 

 

 

Feds issue Interim Rules for Environmental Assessment, including Climate considerations

In one of the first concrete actions of the Trudeau government, interim changes to the environmental assessment process were announced on January 27, 2016  . Interim Measures for Pipeline Reviews  applies specifically to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain and Energy East Pipeline projects, extending the deadlines for the National Energy Board reviews to allow for greater consultation with First Nations and the public, and to “Assess the upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with this project and make this information public”. Some reaction was favourable, for example, Environmental Defence . Ecojustice states “Liberals’ Interim Pipeline Measures fall Short” ; the Pembina Institute is supportive but asks “4 Key Questions for the Canadian Government’s New Climate Test ” , as it might apply to Petronas’s Pacific NorthWest LNG project in British Columbia. And David Suzuki asks, “Paris changed everything, so why are we still talking pipelines?” .

Northern Gateway Supreme Court Decision, and Kinder Morgan Pipeline battles in British Columbia; NEB improvements promised

On January 13, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the B.C. government breached its duty to consult the Gitga’at and neighbouring First Nations on the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. The decision is seen as a major victory for Coastal First Nations , effectively nullifying the federal government’s initial approval of Northern Gateway , and also providing a precedent protecting First Nations rights in the Trans Mountain pipeline hearings. “ First Nations win court challenge against B.C. over Enbridge pipeline”  includes a copy of the Court’s decision. The West Coast Environmental Law group provides a history of the Northern Gateway case, and its implications for the Kinder Morgan NEB review in Province Can’t Pass the Buck on Oil Pipelines: BC Supreme Court.

The B.C. government formally submitted its letter of opposition to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline  to the National Energy Board on January 11 , citing the grounds of safety and the risks of an oil spill. Unifor has also consistently opposed the project, seeing it as a exporter of energy jobs, and a threat to its members in the fisheries industry. (Alberta submitted its letter of support on January 12 ).    Even U.S. Aboriginal tribes have filed complaints before the NEB regarding the threat of Kinder Morgan, according to a report in The Guardian . Read an overview of the arguments against KinderMorgan from EcoJustice  . The Tar Sands Reporting project of the National Observer, based in Vancouver, has compiled a series of articles documenting the NEB hearings and the many public protests.

The Kinder Morgan NEB hearings have developed as a symbol of the new Liberal government’s intention to live up to its campaign promises  to review the NEB process and restore transparency and evidence-based decision making in environmental assessments, according to DeSmog Blog.

The Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development  was tabled in the House of Commons on January 26, and was strongly critical of the National Energy Board’s regulation of pipeline projects. (The CBC summary is here ) . In response, the government has promised additional climate tests and First Nations’ consultations for the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, Energy East pipeline, and Pacific NorthWest’s planned LNG export terminal in B.C., according to the Globe and Mail on January 25. (“Ottawa to mandate climate tests for proposed pipelines, LNG terminal ” )

 

OPPOSITION TO KINDER MORGAN’S TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE CONTINUES

The TransMountain Pipeline Expansion project by Kinder Morgan proposes to build a new pipeline from Alberta to Burnaby, B.C., as well as a new marine terminal, to be served by oil tankers. CBC has created a compilation of stories about the highly unpopular project and the protests against it, available here .   The project is currently under review by the National Energy Board with a recommendation to Cabinet expected in January 2016 – all official documents and proceedings are here . On May 26, the Tsleil-Waututh’s First Nation, whose traditional territory includes Burrard Inlet, rejected the project . The City of Vancouver also formally opposes the project and released a report estimating the economic damage to the City from potential oil spills.   On May 27, Unifor submitted evidence to the NEB, laying out the union’s reasons for its opposition, which include the environmental risks, but also relate to the economic interests of the union’s membership in the oil and gas sector and the B.C. commercial fishery. Unifor also criticized the narrow scope of the NEB review, which excludes consideration of the impacts of the pipeline project on workers and commercial interests as part of its “public interest” mandate. On June 1, a study released by Simon Fraser University and Living Oceans concluded that the public interest is not served by the project. Public Interest Evaluation of the Trans Mountain Expansion tests a variety of economic scenarios, and concludes that the project will result in a net cost to Canada that ranges between $4.1 and $22.1 billion, mainly because it will create excess pipeline capacity, and because of the enormous environmental risks.

Pipeline News: Report Questions Economic Benefit of Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Project ahead of Mass Arrests

A report released by Simon Fraser University and The Goodman Group Ltd. on November 10th asserts that pipeline company Kinder Morgan has exaggerated the number of jobs to be created by its Trans Mountain Expansion Project and drastically underestimated the potential cost of spills. 

While the company holds that the project will support 36,000 person-years of work for British Columbians, with an additional 2000 jobs in spin-offs, the Goodman Group report estimates a maximum of 12,000 person-years during the construction period – amounting to about 4000 jobs per year. Further, revenues for the province may also be lower than claimed. The Goodman report was released just after Kinder Morgan was granted an injunction on November 14th against a group of residents protesting the Trans Mountain project on Burnaby Mountain. 53 protestors have been arrested as of November 22nd.

Read the Goodman report, Economic Costs and Benefits of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMX) for B.C. and Metro Vancouver. Read “Economists Question Projected Value of Trans Mountain’s Pipeline” from The Globe and Mail. For information about the protests, see “Kinder Morgan Slaps Burnaby Residents with Multi-Million-Dollar Lawsuit” from the Vancouver Observer, and “Kinder Morgan Protests: More Protesters are Arrested as Test Drilling Starts” from the CBC.

National Energy Board Rejects B.C. Academics’ Participation in Transmountain Pipeline Hearings

A public letter sent to the National Post states: “This week, the National Energy Board (NEB) announced plans for its upcoming hearings on the proposal to triple the capacity of Kinder Morgan’s Transmountain Pipeline, which transports oil from Alberta to the Port of Vancouver. The new pipeline alone is expected to lead to 50% more carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions each year than all of British Columbia currently produces. That fact prompted 26 university professors who study climate change to apply to lend our expertise to the NEB’s assessment of whether this project is in the public interest. Every one of us was rejected, because we proposed to talk about climate change…” See the letter at: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/10/donner-harrison-hoberg-lets-talk-about-climate-change/; see the NEB website for the Transmountain project at: http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rthnb/pplctnsbfrthnb/trnsmntnxpnsn/trnsmntnxpnsn-eng.html.

Concerns over Spills if Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline Allowed to Triple Volume

Applications to participate in hearings on the proposed twinning of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline have flooded the National Energy Board. The expansion would triple the amount of oil shipped through the pipeline from Strathcona County, Alberta to Burnaby, B.C. Over 40 First Nations, including some coastal nations in the U.S., cite concerns over the impact of potential spills on the salmon and shellfish stocks they depend upon for their livelihoods. The city of Vancouver has filed a submission that identifies increased tanker traffic and potential spills as threats to its $3.6-billion a year tourism industry and the port’s massive contribution to the overall Canadian economy. The province of BC has filed for status as an intervener, which Environment Minister Mary Polak says will ensure the province has a say in environmental and public health protection standards.
ANY_ITEM_HERE
See “First Nations Sign Up For Kinder Morgan Pipeline Hearing” in The Globe and Mail at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/first-nations-sign-up-forkinder-morgan-pipeline-hearing/article16888886/; “Vancouver Cites Environmental Impact, Tanker Traffic Concerns In Trans Mountain Submission” in The Globe and Mail at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouver-cites-environmental-impact-tanker-traffic-concerns-in-trans-mountain-submission/article16820452/; and a National Energy Board press release listing issues surrounding the pipeline is available at: http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rthnb/nws/nwsrls/2013/nwsrls22-eng.html, with more information at: http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rthnb/pplctnsbfrthnb/trnsmntnxpnsn/trnsmntnxpnsn-eng.html.