Oh dear… another name calling pundit. Mr. Gillis fails to do justice to the complexity of this very difficult dilemma facing Canadians. Here are just a few of the relevant aspects to this perplexing problem he failed to mention: There is no agreed upon “end plan” for the use of fossil fuels in Canada. The vast majority of Canadians are still very reliant on them. Mr. Gillis mentions the lack of consultation with First Nations but fails to mention that both Federal and Provincial governments have consulted with many First Nations and indeed many do support the pipeline. Should their voices not be heard? Or does Mr. Gillis just not want to include those that don’t agree with him? He mentions that loss of refinery jobs is a problem “Exporting raw bitumen also would ship away potential refinery jobs.” – What refineries??? Who would invest capital in Refineries when we are trying to end the use of fossil fuels? What about the jobs lost in Alberta? What about the serious question of using rail for transporting raw bitumen? What about succeeding in getting all provinces and territories to institute a carbon tax? What about furthering the discussion of all aspects of this difficult dilemma towards a resolution for all Canadians not just those in your own back yard???
13
"Two other pipeline projects were terminated earlier in Mr. Trudeau’s term, but he can’t take credit; one was quashed in court and the other was canceled by the company"
Shoddy reporting. Although nailing the overall conclusion (Trudeau is two-faced), a number of reported fake-news "facts" are just plain wrong, including both of the above.
Regarding the first pipeline ("quashed in court" - Northern Gateway), being quashed was a somewhat expected and also a somewhat minor setback. Trudeau himself is quoted as saying "the Great Bear rainforest is no place for a pipeline", which actually didn't even traverse the said forest. He also instituted a coastal tanker ban (oddly on one coast and not the other) which is widely regarded as having killed the project despite that <minor> legal setback.
The other (Energy East) was cancelled because Trudeau changed the rules of engagement, suddenly requiring an upstream AND downstream environmental analysis, which is not only not an industry requirement (or any industry for that matter), but one that had been instituted on this project only.
Trudeau effectively killed both projects.
Lots of other examples of simplicity (shoddy reporting); namely that Canadians largely would not benefit (absurd really - as if the US doesn't benefit from exporting fossils) and the quip about exporting refinery jobs (again, as if the US doesn't export refinery jobs).
Conclusion should be Trudeau doesn't have a clue what he's doing. Far more accurate.
2
Trudeau's talking points are false.
This pipeline is not about getting a better price for tar sands product - all of the product will go to US refineries who already have a glut of heavy oil and will pay even less for it with the increased volume.
This pipeline is about increasing production from the tar sands.
The increased capacity will bring dilbit - a condensate/bitumen mixture that is explosively flammable and carcinogenic - to BC, to a refinery that cannot process dilbit. It will reduce usable crude flow to that refinery.
The puzzle:
1. Does Trudeau know the truth about the pipeline and is pushing it anyway, indicating he is completely in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry?
2. Is Trudeau been shielded from the truth by bad advisors, so is supporting the pipeline based an bad advice?
Either way, his support for the pipeline shows a serious lack of competence within his government.
1
We are not going back to Justin's fathers 'National Energy Project'.
That turned out to be a disaster.
Justin is left with jugglying what is good and what is best for Canadian westerners (liberal voters if you must).
Believe me the Canadian government has the horrible events in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of BP negligence in the front of their minds.
But are we just supposed to stop all exploitation of resources available to us?
2
Trudeau’s idea is simply to export the dirty oil from Alberta so ‘someone else’ actually burns it adding to the earth’s carbon load while imposing punitive taxes on his fellow citizens for doing the same. It’s just more NIMBY by another politician.
1
Mr Gillis-did you obtain your PhD in wizardry from Hogwarts and can magically wave your wand and instantly transform our economic system AWAY from fossil fuels?
Do you still drive a car and heat your home with fuel oil or natural gas? If you do, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.
Can we, more correctly, move away from fossil fuels in a regimented, orderly manner- thereby enabling alternative sources (some not even invented) to gradually come on stream?
But even that probably would not play well with red-eyed, environmental lunatics.
4
This article demands an incredible sacrifice by the Canadian people while offering no actual improvement in the global environment. It would massively reduce government revenues which would necessitate huge increases in taxes or huge cus in government services, either of which would tank the economy. It would have zero impact on global oil consumption, as there is large over supply available. So what this does is hurt Canadians. And it cuts off funds needed to move Canada towards a better environmental future. Just plain dumb
4
Whatever Trudeau may say for international consumption, his first duty is to Canada. Oil exports are an important -- even critical -- part of Canada's economy. As an ex-Canadian with relatives in Vancouver and Victoria, I was dismayed at his naivety in his early days, but am pleased to observe that he has matured into an effective politician: Say what will earn you praise, but do what the country needs.
4
Oh, how the youthful and handsome have fallen.
I never thought Trudeau would go against the Paris Climate Accord, his indigenous people and imperil the fishing industries and the environment. He lied, and being cute won't save him. He should at least quit giving lip service to the Climate Accord, and should actually back out of the oil deal.
Countries that rely on fossil fuels must go green. It's the only route to saving the planet and providing new jobs.
Our own youthful, handsome leader, Macron, has kept his promises about climate. But he's also raised taxes, lowered wages, given full power to bosses and stripped workers of the ability to negotiate, and is forcefully trying to crush our remaining unions.
These two young men promised one thing to win, and have turned their backs on their own programs.
Is it really too much to expect honesty from public servants? It's despairing to think that there is not one country on the planet where leaders don't lie.
3
This is an opinion by an environment extremist. While we work towards a better world environmentally we can't ignore the fact that technology has not evolved to the point where we have sustainable and practical options for energy. We have examples of where we are heading but none are at a point in their development that they can replace what we have. It is an evolution much like the last industrial revolution was at it's start and which has continued to now.
I support environmentalists in their overall goal but the lack of practicality and common sense is very disappointing. The environmentist's message is well known but it offers nothing to move forward technology development.
10
The author is correct in that Trudeau and his government has been playing up to the environmental lobby and international press. However, Canada is no leader on climate policies. The economy is highly dependent on fossil fuels and will be for a very long time given the existing production facilities in Alberta and elsewhere. For example, Oil Sands production is forecasted to increase by over a million additional barrels in the next decade. There is a big disconnect in what is actually happening in the oil and gas industry and what politicians are saying publicly to keep the environmental lobby happy. They should be honest with people so a realistic debate can take place.
4
well, the wackos are out again. Here's what the anti-fossil fuelists have to acknowledge. We can't just simply stop using fossil fuels -- the US or the rest of the world. It is the most efficient and effective fuel source we have. And before it's all over we're going to need every bit of fossil fuel we can find to keep the global economy running.
Now, I'm all for alternative energy -- primarily because if we develop effective and efficient and reasonably priced sources that can take over some things that fossil fuel is used for -- that will stretch out the time frame we have for using fossil fuels -- which are finite.
But how effective are these alternative energy sources now? Well, I'm not an expert but CT has put up free charging stations that are powered by solar panels. Sounds like a good idea as electricity from the power companies ain't free and if they use fossil fuels, your electric car will still be burning up fossil fuels -- maybe less, but still....
In any event, in my town the charging station is where the parks and recreation center is in the parking lot. It takes 6000 square feet of solar panels to power 2 chargers -- which from observation -- take a very very long time to charge. And of course when it is cloudy or at night -- solar panels don't provide much power. So -- my observation (n of 1 admittedly) suggests alternative energy sources aren't quite ready for the big leagues.
4
The problem is that the transformation of the tar sands to liquid oil products is incredibly energy intensive in itself. Why not use the bitumen for the repaving of our neglected roads and runways-- infrastructure improvements instead? I believe the extractive nature of mining is a metaphor for our model of the modern capitalistic system, where the costs to the environment, wages, income distribution, social problems and health are not factored in to the real costs of this economic model where "profits" are all. It's time to change the equation.
2
I am greatly frustrated by the "keep it in the ground" movement, of which Damien Gillis appears to be a member. Oil and gas are required to keep our country's economy functioning. Delivery of oil and gas to refineries and export terminals is necessary, and using the safest method of transport - which is pipelines - is the best choice. It was not that long ago when an oil train exploded in Canada and did a great deal of damage. People who advocate against pipelines are, by default, advocating in favor of oil trains.
6
I am deeply frustrated by our continuing ignorance and resistance to change. This is not new news; big fossil has been exploiting people like you to prevent progress.
Subsidizing dirty fossil prevents progress. It is not possible to turn back the clock.
In fact, we have the means to go forward, and this footdragging is suicidal. Do the math:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBpmzjql4yU
6
I subscribe to the Canadian DeSmogBlog and this is not news. Though many think it's rational to have pipelines and tar sands oil, the facts are against them. Building infrastructure for the dirtiest oil on earth and catering to big fossil propaganda is not the way to address the future.
Yes, we consumers are unwilling to give up our excess consumption, no matter how dire the future is becoming (not is going to become, is becoming, you read that right).
There are ways to move forwards, and ways to move backwards. Gladhanding the Kochs and big fossil is extremely unwise.
4
Here's one article, describing a new technology that would take care of the transport issue. It does, however, have a sting in the tail, which is the simple truth:
"it looks like a win for the oil industry and another channel for Canada to sell to the rest of the world an ***oil that is 17–21 percent dirtier in carbon pollution. Despite providing some real safety benefits in the short-term, this technology does nothing to address the bigger issue of limiting dangerous global climate change.***
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/18/tar-sands-oil-technology-pellets-g...
3
Reading this excoriation of a man so much of the world put up as North America's environmental salvation, as well as some of the comments so far, I can't help but be forced to suppress hilarity, just to write this comment.
Trudeau apparently finally looked at the numbers, the jobs, the taxes, the upsides and downsides; and concluded that the berserker-enviros had their heads stuck where the sun don't shine.
Many people were concerned, but I guess Trudeau finally learned that he had a charge to support the economic well-being of his countrymen, and developed the resolve to satisfy it.
But the religiously excessive hate nobody and nothing in creation quite so much as an apostate.
4
Re: Trudeau finally discovered the numbers. The climate science has plenty of numbers for a rational mind
1
Re: Trudeau finally discovered the numbers. The climate science has plenty of numbers for a numbers-loving minds like Mr. Luettgen's to ponder upon. As for Mr. Trudeau, he knew from the beginning. He had a big-oil lobbyist in his entourage while campaigning for the elections. Trudeau is the face - though pretty - of duplicity.
1
Surely you jest...
First, tar sands are inherently oil-spill - and spill more oil back into the ground working properly than does an oil rig leaking catastrophically into the Gulf...
Second, you all "sustain" that industry on the back of hydropower that's so cheap inside Canada that folks are still using space heaters - and even right-wing cryptocurrency miners are moving there...
https://www.wayfair.ca/home-improvement/sb1/made-in-canada-space-heaters...
Third - or is it "let them breathe yellowcake"...
https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/energy-investing/uran...
"...In total, those mines produced 22 percent of the world’s uranium in 2016...
Given the choice between living downwind from Indian Point, vs the leavings from these mines - Hobson would buy a condo in Yonkers, because of the upside...
.....
But somehow - don't think there'll be a caravan of refugees heading south across our northern border any time soon...
Wouldn't fit the narrative...
3
I'll tell you what Damien, before you protest too loudly we will gladly trade you trump for Trudeau and even throw in Scott Pruitt for free. You want to witness environmental devastation, just watch what trump accomplishes.
5
Except, please note, the degradation of Trudeau is partly a consequence of Trump's election. Bottom feeders all ... makes it hard to care about humanity's future, dunnit!?
3
Gillis presents his side of the story, and leaves out the rest. I live in BC, and the protesters are a motley crew of foreign-subsidized groups who represent a small part of the population. I did not see where he mentioned the majority of the people of BC support this project, as does the majority of Canada. Trudeau's Paris trip was a joke; the man clearly loves the camera and that's as deep as it gets. But to suggest the TransMountain pipeline is some evil creature is sheer nonsense. People want jobs, and that includes First Nations people who desire to invest in the project. As for Chief Stewart Phillip, the man is a laughingstock in BC. He's against pretty much anything. I live beside his home reserve in Penticton, BC, and believe me, "stewardship" of the environment is not remotely evident there. As for Gillis, he is one of those that believe they know better than everyone else; that they are the enlightened ones. Throw in Elizabeth May, a rump gadfly, and the mix is complete: eco-nuts that could care less about livelihoods and families. After all, they're okay, right?
5
Trudeau's responsibility, as PM, is to every region of the country. Sadly, some BC citizens with otherwise good intentions and instincts have a limited sense of shared purpose when it comes to the vital interests of their fellow Canadians. This is hardly anything new - nor is the extreme holier than thou rhetoric the writer resorts to in this misleading and offensive screed.
5
Hi, not a single mention of Trudeau' father, who is the ghost behind all of this posturing. Pierre Trudeau's liberals created the National Energy Program in the 1980s, that Alberta hated, and lost it from Liberals practically forever. Every single Alberta politician since 1980 was suckled on this anti-NEP creed. His son is desperate not to reproduce this federal policy catastrophe, but is destined -- if he continues -- to have to do so. Hence his agony.
5
Important to know that the Seal Hunt industry would collapse if not subsidized by the Canadian government.
See:
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/seal_hunt/facts/about_seal_hunt.html
and:
http://www.hsi.org/assets/pdfs/myths_and_facts_seal_hunt.pdf
The Canadian Govt subsidized a number of different jobs. Better that people work than do nothing. Further the seal hunt is a way of life - those workers and families and peoples mean more to me than those picturesque seal pups.
1
It's often a nice suit, but it's empty.
2
Old saying: white man speak with forked tongue.
No more pipelines for Canadian product across US soil.... and PS this is why international trade agreements which often favor $$ capitalism over everything (uber alles) including local laws or even national laws can be dangerous. IMO.
2
Trudeau isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.He campaigned on the promise that he would revisit the KM decision and then he weaseled out of it. The NEB approval process was a sham and Trudeau knows it. Putting pressure on government officials to approve the pipeline behind closed doors in unethical. Trudeau will alienate his voting base in BC if he persists. We don't want the pipeline.
3
As a Vancouverite, I want the pipeline. And it seems that 60% of BC people are similar in their wish. We need the pipeline just to get away from the elephant to the south by way of alternate buyers. The Chinese are still development coal plants and if Canadian crude puts a halt to that, it is good for the world and for Canadian taxpayers.
4
it's not just Trudeau who's a fraud - Frau Merkel in Germany promotes and expands her coal industry while complaining that the U.S. isn't doing enough to destroy ours.
2
A pretty face and doing yoga will only get you so far. While it was a grand gesture to welcome refugees, it would behoove Mr. Trudeau to give protection to his own native peoples, who were there before Canada was a country, and have been pretty much mistreated ever since.
A hypocrite in a pretty package that can speak well. Bah, humbug.
3
Ah Mr. Trudeau is a true Easterner. He cares little about the West. He is simply another NIMBY.
3
As a Canadian I'm deeply disappointed with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. I hated previous PM Steven Harper for his disrespect for indigenous people, the protectors of the land, but Trudeau is worse: he says the right things but does the opposite.
He said there is no more important relationship than that with Canada's indigenous people, then approved the Site C Dam in northeast British Columbia, a project to create unneeded energy and that will destroy vast areas of prime agricultural land and indigenous hunting, gathering and cultural territory.
He has done nothing to stop the open net-cage salmon feedlot industry on the coast of BC which has been killing our wild salmon for thirty years, a major food source for indigenous people, bears, wolves, eagles and the forest itself. All this despite the local indigenous people handing eviction notices to the feedlot industry, and peer-reviewed scientific papers confirming the damage.
He approved the Kinder Morgan Pipeline Expansion Project after an inadequate consultation process and having previously promised to redo the project's environmental assessment, an approval that has been shown was part of a deal between him and the premier of Alberta where the tar sands are located. Government documents have just been discovered showing approval was already decided upon prior to required consultation with affected indigenous nations.
The protectors of the land, air and water, Canada's indigenous people, will stop Kinder Morgan!
6
To the Albertans and other oil company folks commenting - There is no "product" here worth marketing. Nobody in North America can think of anything to do with diluted bitumen except to ship it far away to China. It cannot be cleaned up when there is an accident. Canada would rather ship good jobs overseas along with the toxic gunk. Indigenous group approvals are very far below 50%. If you look at the unemployment rate of First Nations people you will see that the few who "consent" do not give "free consent". They are capitulating to extortion at best. Despite fear-mongering by pipeline proponents the fact is that Canada and BC are NOT unwelcoming to investment. Investors in clean energy industries, manufacturing and other value-added industries are entirely welcome in Canada. The rules and process by which Kinder Morgan obtained approval were a fraud and nobody has said so more clearly than young Mr. Trudeau himself, (before he approved the pipeline nevertheless). If this were Trudeau's only double-talk it'd be bad enough, but he has reversed every substantive promise in his election platform from fighting climate change to election reform, to improving relations with indigenous peoples. Let's see him build pipelines to carry clean water to the dozens of First Nations communities whose lands and waters have been literally destroyed and poisoned by effluent from the Alberta tarsands. He is an oil company shill and a faker.
8
@ B. Mused: Brilliant post! My congratulations!
1
Perhaps this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
B.C. exports massive amounts of coal to China for steel production (it's your largest export).
Victoria pumps its raw sewage into the ocean.
1
There are no illusions about Justin Trudeau, in his 2015 election campaign he promoted oil pipelines, he wanted them done responsibly and as eco friendly and well built as possible, Canadians gave him an overwhelming majority Government. He is the most honest politician in Canadian history probably. This is not a dictatorship, he is working in earnest to benefit all Canadians despite the constant criticism from a Trumpian like alt right minority of haters
8
It's not just Justine, so are most politician's here in Canada when it comes to climate change, mostly smoke and mirrors!!
Canada is a resource economy. Canadian environmentalism has always been a charade. The country is just so big that a great deal of extractive rapaciousness could be absorbed before anyone seriously noticed.
1
That kind of thinking led to the closure of the Atlantic cod fishery in 1992. An incredibly productive resource brought to near economic extinction due to politicians putting votes over science.
1
The Atlantic cod fishery closed in 1992 because Canada could not enforce fishing limits in the Grand banks, just outside the 200 mile limit and were despoiled and looted by mostly foreign fleets, Russians, Spanish, Japanese, Taiwanese, Portuguese. Don't worry, the Fisheries Department enforced stern limits on the Canadian trawlers.
I suggest that Mr. Gilles' next documentary film should be on the Port Of Vancouver, the largest coal export port in North America. Or perhaps on the oil tankers from Alaska traveling along the BC coastline that supplies Washington State with most of its oil needs. Or, oil tankers delivering 750,000 barrels per day to the refineries in Eastern Canada, including 500 km inland to Montreal via the St. Lawrence River. Not likely; those are "inconvenient truths."
9
I am a Canadian. As such, I view Mr Trudeau, as Peter Pan, which Jordan Peterson coined recently. He is not grounded in anything besides wishful thinking and political correctness. The feminist that he is.
His father was an intellectual giant, and it his legacy that paved the way for junior to hold the mantle for a short time now. The results are not impressive
3
I'd feel better about Mr. Gillis attempting to skewer Mr. Trudeau on the environment if:
1. Most British Columbians weren't in favour of the pipeline.
2. British Columbia's biggest export wasn't coal.
4
Another one sided NY Times article on Canada written by someone whom few in Canada have ever heard of. Mr Trudeau and members of his government were opposed to the Northern Gateway and the Energy East pipelines ---both from Canadian companies---and threw hurdles up in their way, something Mr Gillis can't, it seems, bring himself to acknowledge. Kinder Morgan is an extension of an existing pipeline. The claim that oil revenues don't benefit Canadians is simply ludicrous, not just through provincial oil royalties and federal taxes, but through equalization in which poorer provinces receive revenues from federal income tax so as provide social services equal to those richer provinces can provide. Thanks largely to the oil industry, Albertans have a much higher per capita income than the residents of other provinces (at least 20%), pay much more per capita in income tax and and as a result contribute on a per capita basis much more to equalization.
Mr Trudeau and Ms Notley have introduced significant carbon taxes, equivalent to the highest in the US, as well as, in Ms Notley's case, other measures like eliminating coal generated electricity. Maybe they should have done more, but governing is hard. They may very well be replaced next year by Conservatives who will work to eliminate what they have achieved. Mr Gillis reminds me of German radicals in the early 1930s who thought the way to fight the rise of fascism was to denounce Social Democrats as Social Fascists.
9
Yes, Trudeau along with the Province of Quebec and the City of Montreal did everything they could behind the scenes to doom the Energy east project. If the line could have been completed to Irving in Saint John, N.B. we could have cut off using oil from the Persian Gulf and Venezuela, which is almost the same as oil sands bitumen, and which that refinery can process. We are wasting $40 billion dollars a year importing 600,000 barrels of foreign oil a day, money which could be better used here.
1
Regarding "science"...
Can a scientist explain to me why we have recorded similar periods of global warming very similar to the warming that is occurring today PRIOR to the existence of industrialization, and emission belching motor vehicles on our streets?
This canard about "ignoring science" should cease immediately. NOBODY questions the "science" that warming is occurring at present. That is as sure as the noses on each of our faces. What IS being questioned is whether this warming is "man-made." That is the question that science is incapable of answering, especially when it is considered that previous warmings JUST LIKE TODAY'S occurred ABSENT man-made particulate matter spewing into the ozone...
1
I, like millions of other Canadians fed up with the isolated and out of touch Harper, voted for the Liberals in the last federal election hoping for better days to come. It was wishful thinking. Instead we got Peter Pan for Prime Minister. If there had been any inkling of the two-faced Trudeau we're watching push pipelines down our throats while threatening to bankroll Kinder Morgan to ensure it gets build on the taxpayer's dime, he wouldn't have gotten my vote. Can we get a referendum on this? Trudeau is finished in Canada.
3
Building an oil pipeline and developing renewables are not mutually exclusive. It will take many years / decades for all of us to switch from oil to other better sources of energy. Canada is providing a very stable long term supply of oil with some of the world’s most advanced environmental protections to the world that needs it. Canada cannot stop the world from using oil simply by not supplying it. The world will get more dirty oil from unstable parts of the world anyway. At the same time, Canada is making progress in renewables and many Provinces are lavishly subsidizing electric cars and various energy saving programs.
6
While I sympathize 100% with the author's desire to move away from pipelines, the issue of Kinder Morgan and its approval is more complex than Trudeau simply being a "pipeline pitchman".
Perhaps I'm naive, but I suspect that, on a personal level Trudeau is genuine in his professed environmentalism and that he probably opposes pipelines too. However, as prime minister of a country as large as Canada, he has many stakeholders to satisfy and many angles to consider if he wants to successfully push his agenda forward.
Rachel Notley, the embattled premier of Alberta, is one such stakeholder. I'm sure the author is not ignorant to how monumentally difficult it for an NDP leader to win an election in what amounts to Canada's Texas. (Note to American readers: the NDP is traditionally Canada's most left leaning political party.) Notley risked her already tenuous political career by backing Trudeau's national climate plan, which is grossly unpopular in her province. She knows she needs to give her constituents something, lest she cede the premiership to the Conservatives or someone worse than them.
Notley has told point blank Trudeau that, if this pipeline is not approved, she will withdraw her support for his climate plan. If Notley withdraws her support, the plan is very likely dead, and if the plan dies, Canada is quite unlikely to meet its emissions targets that the author (and myself) feel are so important.
6
If the pipeline is built, Canada cannot possibly meet its emission goals. You cannot have it both ways. If you are a conservationist then join us in BC as we fight for Salmon, Orcas, clean beaches and waterways- indeed, the legacy of the First Nations.
5
In a perfect world, if I could get rid of all pipelines, shut down the awful Alberta tar sands for good, and completely end the oil and gas economy in favor of a 100% renewable one, I would do it tomorrow.
But this isn't a perfect world and, unfortunately, by demanding purity (ideological, practical, or otherwise), we environmentalists will lose and, more importantly, the environment will lose.
Maybe I'm just bad at arithmetic, but I can't for the life of me figure out how a threefold increase in bitumen flowing to the coast leads to a seven-fold tanker traffic, as Mr. Gillis predicts.
This is only one of many distortions in this very tendentious article. I'd like to pick off couple of others, beginning with the grotesque suggestion that the Liberal Party of Canada "secretly cheered" the election of Donald Trump. The Liberals were always completely upfront about their support for the Keystone XL pipeline. Only the New Democratic Party opposed it; not because they favoured shutting down the oil sands, but because they wanted the bitumen refined in Canada, not Texas (actually a worthwhile idea).
PM Trudeau most certainly can take credit for the end of the Northern Gateway and Energy East projects. His government had options for keeping the Northern Gateway project alive; an appeal to the Supreme Court was one; engaging with First Nations, who had been illegally shut out of the project, was another. Trudeau chose to let it die, taking plenty of heat for it from the Conservative Opposition. When you take the heat, you get the credit--as simple as that.
It's true that the Energy East pipeline was cancelled by the TransCanada corporation on its own initiative; but only because it was clear that the project wouldn't pass the rigorous environmental review that the Trudeau government had promised. Again, the Conservatives cried shame--and Trudeau gets the credit.
7
This biased article does not advance the current debate over pipelines and climate change in Canada.
Attacking Justin Trudeau for his supposed betrayal of his government's commitment to reduce carbon emissions is a mug's game. Trudeau is Prime Minister of a country that includes 2 provinces that are major oil & gas producers. There are significant reserves in other provinces and territories. Trudeau was never going to throw this vital industry out the window, as the outraged green Left seems to think he promised to do.
He is trying to follow a balanced path - and avoid the unilateral energy policy approach of his father, whose disastrous National Energy Policy devastated the economy of Alberta for more more than a decade back in the 80s and 90s.
Trudeau is not wrong to insist that one province does not have the right to ban transshipments by pipeline from another province. The courts will now decide this question, instead of the politicians. This is all to the good.
The Transmountain pipeline, which Kinder Morgan now seeks to expand, has operated safely for 64 years. There have been no serious tanker spills in all that time, either.
As desirable as it is to reduce global carbon emissions, we aren't going to do it by lobbying to stop the expansion of one pipeline in Western Canada. We will all continue to live in a carbon economy until breakthoughs are made with batteries, fusion and continued cost reductions in solar power.
20
This is the problem with climate science. Even if you accept global warming as fact, no one wants to make the sacrifices necessary to address the problem - particularly when the proposed solutions won't really make any difference.
6
I believe the U.S. is the only country where "belief" in global climate change is POLITICALLY BASED!
SOMEHOW, these other countries are able to use non fossil energy sources:
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/scotland-wind-turbines-more-el...
https://thinkprogress.org/denmark-sets-world-record-for-wind-power-produ...
AND: Trump's attitude:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/business/with-a-meeting-trump-renewed...
2
That's hardly a problem with the science. It's a problem with the politics.
1
Trudeau leads a government that's trying to balance industrial output against carbon production as part of a formula, which is what serious people do. The formula is about planning and negotiating, which is what this article lacks. The writer begins by saying it's about the climate-change treaty, then switches to his real issue, a terminal that may ship oil out of the country. I think it's about real-estate values on shoreline estates. At any rate, it's all political flim-flam.
15
Combining the data sets from NOAA and NASA finds:
The five warmest years in the global record have all come in the 2010s
The 10 warmest years on record have all come since 1998
The 20 warmest years on record have all come since 1995
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-global-yea...
The argument comes down to what is best for the planet versus ‘economic interests’ as promoted brazenly with Trump, or surreptitiously through Trudeau, both of them advocates for more of the same and more profits for the big business of extracting fossil fuels. The interests of fossil fuel ‘developers’ has sadly become the mantra for the leaders of both the U.S. and Canada, serving the quick and the greedy.
As the author wisely notes, there is little gain here to Canadians, as a majority of the thick bitumen from Alberta, if pumped to the west coast in British Columbia, will not benefit Canada, with most slated for export. It is no coincidence that Kinder Morgan is a Texas based company, a state renowned for its ties to the oil industry.
These arguments that ‘if not by pipeline’ then by rail or truck do not hold water as keeping a majority of untapped fossil fuels in the ground is eminently doable, with the gradual decrease of the use of fossil fuels with the increasing use of alternative source of energy. It comes down to what it in the best interests not only for humankind but for all living species, and for our own and only home planet.
11
When you say the pipeline will not benefit Canada, you demonstrate a certain ignorance. There would be billions of incremental dollars as the price of bitumen is now artificially low due to the current land-locked situation.
2
I agree; regarding other forms of energy that "somehow" work elsewhere:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-energy/china-to-boost-non-fossi...
---------------------------------
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/scotland-wind-turbines-more-el...
https://thinkprogress.org/denmark-sets-world-record-for-wind-power-produ...
AND Trump's attitude toward wind power:
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/scotland-wind-turbines-more-el...
I would prefer to see op-eds on this subject from environmental economists, not filmmakers. The citations are unpersuasive.
19
Thanks so much Damien, that was a very well written and researched article, there is not much one could add, other than the real reason behind Kinder Morgan's threat of withdrawal. Kinder Morgan made an application to rescind the Billion Dollars required by the NEB for the purpose of dealing with any oil spill. 2018-04-12 the NEB denied that request. And that the only monopoly owned spill cleanup belongs to Kinder Morgan as well, so just how will they deal with the costs of cleaning up their own spills, when the fox owns the hen house.
5
For all those Americans reading this article it would be wise to read this article with your eyes wide open.
Even though the article is well written and researched, with plenty of external links for you to think that this opinion from this biased writer is shared widely by Canadians, it is as far from the truth that is running through Canada today as it gets.
In fact, the green movement and progressive politics in general are in serious decline in Canada. From the Leap Manifesto that has gone nowhere, (https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/) to the Federal New Democrats sitting in the low-teens in terms of political popularity - The green and progressive movement in Canada is going nowhere.
On top of this, with gasoline nearing $8 US. dollars a gallon in Vancouver (B.C has a carbon tax), the people of British Columbia are now seeing that the notion that climate change can be beaten without hurting the consumer in the wallet is nothing but a pack of lies.
For confirmation of this viewpoint, just watch who wins Junes election in Ontario - Canada's most populous and progressive province for the last 14 years. If Doug Ford, the leader of the Progressive Conservatives wins, he said he will scrap the provinces cap-and-trade system and will not support any carbon pricing at all.
In many ways, this article could be called fake news.
I guess you just can't believe everything you read today.
13
Trudeau and Notley are right, sustainable development is about more than knee jerk environmental issues. Rather it is about finding the right balance between social, biophysical and economic imperatives. He has always said that the economy and the environment must be mutually supporting.
10
This article is a bit one-sided and simplistic.
The fact is that Canada is rich in oil and natural gas, but that it has only one outlet for its production, i.e. southward to the US, which impacts negatively its selling prices. There are no pipelines enabling Canadian producers to export over the Atlantic or the Pacific, resulting in producing provinces such as Alberta being quasi 'landlocked' except for the US market.
This situation makes it logical for the Canadian government and concerned Provinces to find ways to enable pipeline companies to build such gateways to overseas markets.
For time being, this is not happening, as the Energy East pipeline project to Saint John, NB, has been abandoned, and various Pacific projects are stalled, including the most straightforward of all, i.e. the expansion of the existing Transmountain pipeline to Vancouver, BC.
On the other hand, another issue is that part of Canada's oil production is based on bituminous sands, which extraction and pre-refining has been generating massive earth, water and air pollution in Alberta, to the point that the EU considered a couple of years ago the possibility to forbid the importation of Canadian bituminous sands based oil.
The compromise is logical, although technically diffuclt to find and implement, i.e. authorize productions and pipelines for oil and gas after they have met stringent environmental requirements and First Nations acceptance.
8
There are many British Columbians who are in favor of the KinderMorgan pipeline transporting crude oil as in the past. These same people are in strict opposition of this very pipeline being twinned and used to transport bitumen. Sand is an abrasive, period. The chemicals added to transport bitumen are extremely toxic and increase the flamibility of crude. Not a great idea to transport through a province filled with rugged terrain which battles thousands of wildfires each summer. (The Kalamazoo incident the dilbit sank to the bottom of the river and, remains there to this day.) Increasing tankers and, now, supertanker traffic via one of the most dangerous passages on this planet to supply a wildly exaggerated demand to China? A spill that when, not if, will cost our province and our country billions of dollars in lost revenue from Forestry, Fishing, Aquaculture, Agriculture, and Tourism. The cost of cleaning up spills in Canada typically falls on the shoulders of our taxpayers and now add on the cost of building it in the first place. Canadians are on the hook for this pipeline in every way conceivable. Wait, have I even mentioned the environment? This project is not feasible- never was. I suspect an ongoing cash grab through NAFTA lawsuits that will not end until Alberta deals with thier dirty oil. As it stands, that bitumen in worth more to foreign investors if it stays in the ground.
6
You make it sound like all First Nations oppose this project... not true. There are bands on both sides of support for the pipelines in Alberta and B.C.
Nor is there any alternate solutions being provided as to how to transport oil to B.C. Do you continue to ship it up from Washington State at a premium? Send 100's (1,000's?) on tanker trucks daily from Alberta to B.C daily across the Rocky Mountains? Trains, when they are already can not deliver crops to the West Coast in a timely manner? All these alternates are far more expensive and a lot more dangerous.
The B.C. lower mainland already has the highest fuel costs in North America, without the pipelines this will never change, if they have any.
12
Excellent article Damien. You laid out the options clearly and your points are well researched. Despite some of the other comments fossil fuel production is a dying business. Propping it up is short sighted. Despite setbacks with Keystone and at Dakota the people will win this time. Despite his failings Justin Trudeau is of a different ilk to our Trump, Pruitt and Zinke. For a start he's smarter than the three of them put together. He's also much more in touch with the voice of the people. And given how passionate Canadians are about the environment he will realize how foolish he would be to fight his own people. He doesn't have the short term greed and lack of compassion that the people in our administration have. The pipeline won't go ahead.
1
Very kind words for Jr. (Trudeau) but I'm afraid you have 'drunk the kool aid 'prepared by Liberal Party of Canada. There was a time when Jr. was the 'golden boy' of Canadian politics. I admit I was sucked in & did vote for him in 2015, to rid the nation of the gray man. In 2018 we find 'the bloom is off the rose' and the Jr's core values are not exactly as advertised.
I live on the Pacific Ocean very near the endpoint of the proposed Kinder Morgan debacle. Those at fault for trying to manhandle the situation in their own favour ($$$) will burn in hell if they kill our Orcas' and ruin the unique environment.
1
Trudeau should send Canadian oil out of a Canadian port instead of risking disaster by sending it through a pipeline that is a disaster waiting to happen.
2
The pipeline Trudeau approved takes the oil to a port!
2
Yes, a disaster waiting, still waiting, to happen. Do some homework: figure out how much product is shipped through pipelines across North America vs. spills. You'll be amazed! Pipelines are actually safe. But then facts may not be your thing.
Trudeau is the political equivalent of Mark Zuckerberg. He sells himself as one of the good guys, while behind the scenes he undermines the values he supposedly stands for. The Kinder-Morgan pipeline is a political sop to the labouring economy of landlocked Alberta, the fossil fuel capital of Canada. But it is at the expense of the province of BC, from the rights of our First Nations people to our pristine coastline (over 25,000 km or 10 percent of the entire Canadian coastline, with over 40,000 islands) to our "Supernatural BC" environment stretching from the coast to the Rocky Mountains. All this to prop up an industry well on its way to becoming as extinct as the fossils that created it. BC voters will not forget that Mr. Trudeau chose to risk our environment to line the pockets of a foreign company with Canadian tax dollars. Look out for us at the polls in 2019, Mr. Trudeau.
11
Bravo !
We will see.
Canada avoided a recession following the financial collapse in 2008 because of the activities in the oil patch, in which thousands and thousandfs of Canadians travelled across the country to work for very high wages. That activity has diminished significantly, in no small part because of uncertainty over pipelines. Trudeau's problem is that he tells everyone what they want to hear: the oil industry, the workers, the environmentalists, the aboriginal communities, and then of course he is unable to deliver because there is no solution which satisfies the conflicting requirememtns of all these groups. For all those voters who have no close connection to any of the groups, and who would just like to support a politican who has answers to problems facing the country, Trudeau is revealed as a phony, a pretender, someone not to be trusted. I like Andrew Sheer and the Coservatives: I think they will win the next election.,
1
The world's opinion of Prime Minister Trudeau is far rosier than that held by many Canadians. Since his election, the Liberals have shown that many of their campaign promises were nothing more than adoptions of positions held by the further-left-leaning New Democratic Party in order to siphon votes away from them. That tactic worked, and after the fact the Liberals have shown that they never intended to fulfill many of the promises they campaigned on. In fact, the most significant broken promise is not their environmental position, but rather the party's reneging on electoral reforms that would have allowed the people to elect members of parliament who align more closely with their actual wishes for governance.
Justin Trudeau's Liberals have shown the same contempt for the voter that Jean Cretien's Liberals did, not having learned any humility from the intervening years of Conservative dominance. Come next election, the Conservatives will again have a majority government and it won't be because of their platform — it will be because the Liberals handed it to them.
14
I am really, truly afraid that you are correct and when I consider the current Conservative leadership, I shudder to think about what that might look like.
8
The Liberals won't mind handing control back to the Conservatives. The Liberals are basically place-holders for the Conservatives. Both parties are equally cat's paws for the oil industry.
We can all forget about oil (a) when all cars are electric, (b) when plastic is no longer needed, and (c) just as soon as they invent a jumbo jet that flies on batteries or solar power. Until then, the questions are about which petroleum resources we can cost-economically exploit, the best environmental regulation guidelines possible for our vehicles, and the safest way of moving oil to markets. Pipelines are far and away the best. Politics is not just about what's right or wrong; its about what's the right thing to do in the circumstances.
8
I wouldn't want to be Mr. Trudeau, walking a tightrope between the many competing provincial interests when it comes to oil extraction. In Canada, we are reaping the consequences of having encouraged the "oil patch" and the revenue it produces for decades. Turning that around on a dime is tricky. That said, we need a concrete timeline for a transition to cleaner energy. Mr. Trudeau has faced a lot of opposition because he is telling provinces to implement either a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax. The Conservative leader in Ontario vows to dismantle the cap-and-trade system that Ontario now has with Quebec and California should he win the upcoming election. Mr. Trudeau has implemented other policies that the author chooses to leave out of his column - the P.M.'s position on this file cannot be as straightforward or clear as I would like.
5
As a party member and person who campaigned hard for the Liberals and Justin in particular I feel totally betrayed. The real truth in the matter is that several weeks ago Kinder Morgan put it out there that the business model does not work anymore and that they might not proceed. So much for desperately needing this pipeline for their business to survive.
13
Nope. Kinder Morgan does not produce oil, it moves it. They are saying they will back out because BC's threat to thwart the pipeline creates unacceptable business risk. The need to move Canadian oil to export position remains. How else to Liberals expect to pay for all the social programs remaining from their last electoral platform? This is actually a serious question: how do you pay for the business of government when you reduce the income those services require? And, please, don't say the "new economy".
3
I'm sure Mr Trudeau is sincere about his commitment to helping save the world. But unfortunately for activists, he was elected to promote the interests of the Canadian electorate, who largely stand behind this development. And he knows that it would be a mistake in the long term to submit to people who warn that they have “warriored up.”
Kudos to the author, however, for the clever euphemism "more muscular defiance".
1
Whether or not Mr. Trudeau is being duplicitous as the article suggests, the irony is that he is arguably failing on both fronts. He is pitching for a pipeline at home which may never be built. He is pitching for tough climate standards internationally which may never be adopted or, if they are, are likely never to be adhered to.
6
Many of the commenters on this article say that pipelines and reducing CO2 emissions are not mutually exclusive. But, the reports I've seen have associated increased oil sands production with the building of new pipelines. They do go hand-in-hand.
Will Canada be able to meet its international commitments to reducing GHG if the Kinder Morgan pipeline is built? The Liberals say yes. Many others -- less partisan -- say no.
Canadians collectively -- and not just Justin Trudeau -- are having a hard time facing the reality of the situation.
2
This is a very one-sided opinion piece. The author does not mention that Trudeau has put in place a national carbon price framework, which Alberta has agreed to adopt. This seems like a very fair balance to me. As others have commented, we are entering into a transition period and there will still be demand for oil and its products. It is better to be able to send oil via pipeline overseas where it will fetch the world price than shipping by rail to the US and receiving a heavily discounted price.
Oh, and the author also did not elaborate on the large LNG project that the BC government is strongly supporting. Last time I checked, natural gas was a fossil fuel.
10
Shipping to the US would also start bringing world price, since our current Administration is intent on increasing exports - the tar sand gunk was ending up at refineries in the Midwest - and the resulting petcoke was piling up in the open near neighborhoods on Chicago's South Side. After producing polluting dust there, it was to be loaded onto ships and sold as fuel in other nations with looser pollution controls.
Natural gas is a fossil fuel. It also wouldn't spill if the pipeline leaked, so the watersheds and coastal areas wouldn't be dealing with the task of dealing with the kind of gunk that tar sand produces.
"The Kalamazoo River oil spill, also described as The Dilbit Disaster,[1] occurred in July 2010 when a pipeline operated by Enbridge (Line 6B) burst and flowed into Talmadge Creek, a tributary of the Kalamazoo River. A 6-foot (1.8 m) break in the pipeline resulted in one of the largest inland oil spills in U.S. history (the largest was the 1991 spill near Grand Rapids, Minnesota). The pipeline carries diluted bitumen (dilbit), a heavy crude oil from Canada's Athabasca oil sands to the United States. Following the spill, the volatile hydrocarbon diluents evaporated, leaving the heavier bitumen to sink in the water column."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill
The Exxon Valdez spilled lighter stuff, and it's still around in Alaska. This might explain a bit of B.C.'s "no thanks".
4
Exactly !
I am somewhat shocked that the NYTimes is not providing a balanced opinion of this subject, I count on op-eds here to be usually contain facts for both sides. This has nothing to do with Mr.Trudeau.
British Columbia is not following the rule of law; ignoring all the safety and environmental studies that have been done for this expansion of the existing pipeline. Indigenous groups have been consulted and 40-50% of them are on board. Pipelines are proven safer, faster, and do not use carbon like railway cars.
No one in Alberta, or Canada wants to see the waters damaged off the west coast, but we need to see the product get to market. BC is not only preventing that, they are affecting any future investment in Canada. What does it say about our laws if a company like Kinder Morgan follows all the rules and gets approval, to be up-ended by local protest?
Please NYTimes, get the 'other' factual side to this story.
10
A lot of commentators here keep insisting that we need bitumen. The thing is, the expansion of the pipeline is not for domestic consumption, its only for exports.
The current pipeline is fine for meeting BC's needs which is why no one was protesting it before.
Another point is moving it by rail. Actually, moving solid bitumen by rail would be very safe. Its only a potential disaster when its diluted so that it can flow as a liquid.
Lastly, its not the pipeline people are concerned about here. Its the tanker traffic. Canada has very little demonstrated capacity to clean up even minor spills let alone a major one.
Our current system is hoping a pleasure boater that sees an oil slick will have a cell phone so the spill can be reported and then if we're lucky a coast guard vessel will show up a few hours later to confirm. We have a sunken ferry leaking oil for seven years that has never been cleaned up. So its hard to take Trudeau's talk of a "world class response system" seriously.
6
A good opinion piece.
I know it's complicated but
Mr. Trudeau needs to remove his brown shoes and fancy socks, and walk barefoot on the earth and remember the future he talked about for this country.
Betrayal never has a good outcome.
28
That the Paris agreement is considered "ambitious" is utterly disheartening.
We are seeing the changes happen faster and faster. Right now there is 15 years of continued warming already in the air even if we ceased CO2 generation today. Last year CO2 levels increased at their fastest rate on record. There is significant potential for a methane release from the arctic that would destroy civilization. And we worry about the economics of saving our lives.
Humanity is staring into the abyss and wondering just how much closer it can tip-toe to the edge.
9
Setting aside politics for the moment, pipeline expansion challenges are two-fold: the need to reduce global atmospheric carbon and technical safety issues around transportation. There are potential answers to both these objections.
Specific point-of-supply choke points do not reduce fuel consumption; Higher prices and ONLY higher prices do that. Oil is fungible. A barrel here is completely interchangeable with a barrel of the same quality elsewhere. Restricting a specific supply point simply increases production by the same amount elsewhere. It penalizes some producers and benefits others by exactly the same amount. Shutting down flow from Canada would hurt Canada without reducing the amount of global fuel supply by so much as a teaspoon.
As for safety, we are right to be skeptical of pipeline companies with their past disasters and misleading claims however scrutiny and the accountability it brings are much higher than they used to be. Current safety claims are actually supported where regulation is sufficiently high. The specific route discussed here is already in use. Doubling the line and quadrupling the inspections would make spills less likely, not more.
As for shipping, if there are self-driving busses zooming safely on the winter mountain roads of Germany then there can be specialized ships sailing safely through coastal waters. It is an engineering challenge and an expense that politics will justify. It is how we move ahead.
2
I would respectfully disagree with the author, in that I don't believe that being in favor of the pipeline automatically makes Mr. Trudeu a hypocrite. Many environmentalists appear to assume that any investment in fossil fuels directly contributes to the global warming and is otherwise detrimental to the preservation of the planet. At the very least, this is not self-evident to me, especially in this particular case. A gallon of oil extracted in Canada is not necessarily an extra gallon of oil consumed globally. The way our world operates, it is more likely to simply be one gallon of oil less purchased from Russia or Saudi Arabia or some other oil exporter. It would definitely be a better outcome to stop consuming fossil fuels altogether. But since this is not a viable option right away, we may actually be somewhat better off consuming oil produced in a country like Canada - a civilized democracy with some environmental regulations in place, where oil industry is subject to at least some degree of oversight. Unlike other places from which we buy oil, where corporations can pollute the environment with virtual impunity. (This is without even getting into the moral and ethical considerations of financially supporting some seriously evil regimes by buying their oil and gas!)
If nothing else, if we keep using fossil fuels, it may simply be more honest and actually less hypocritical to use our own - rather than passing the problem to the third world nations by relying on theirs.
7
The Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion is designed to carry diluted bitumen from the Alberta tar sands. Tar sands production is especially energy intensive, contributing significantly more to GHG emissions than conventional oil production. So not all barrels of oil are created equal.
Also, the diluted bitumen is intended to be shipped abroad, whether it's to the U.S. or Asia. There will be a big increase in tanker traffic through the ecologically very sensitive waters of the Salish Sea and a fear is that diluted bitumen will be much harder to clean up than conventional oil if there's a spill.
In 2019 the current faux-leftist government of Alberta will be replaced by a Texas-style conservative party that has indicated its rejection of Trudeau's already flawed climate plan. (And in Ontario a similar repudiation of Trudeau's plan is likely to take place even sooner.) As a result, Canada will have worsening threats to the environment and no national strategy to deal with them.
2
Seismologists predict a "BigOne" from the San Juan Subduction Zone so buildings in BC are built to weather a quake. Tsunamis follow quakes so the Inner and Outer coasts of BC have a warning system linked to our cell phones. These follow the precautionary principle which should be invoked given the potential disaster when a 20 foot wave travelling at tsunami speed hits a bulk tanker with a load of diluted bitumen in inshore waters.
6
The pipeline that already exists is 53 years old (and has never leaked) but it needs replacing, the new pipes are double-walled and much safer. Canada's economy runs on oil and other resources and as such the oil needs to get to market. He really has no choice but to back it. It is possible to use resources and still care about the environment. Let's face it, we all drive cars, fly, and buy things made from plastics.
34
The existing pipeline and associated infrastructure have produced 82 reportable leaks:
https://www.transmountain.com/spill-history
Some incidents have been significant, like the 2007 spill that coated a Burnaby, BC neighbourhood in heavy oil:
http://www.burnabynow.com/news/the-day-oil-rained-down-on-burnaby-1.2128...
3
There is more at stake for those of us that live close to the site in question, than just $$$. We have a moral obligation to object to anything that threatens the unique flora & fauna of the west coast of BC . Jr. (et al) is evidently unburdened by _integrity and ethical reasoning_when it comes to trading off Canada's greatest natural wonders for $$$.
3
This is a deeply biased description of the current Canadian debate on climate and the fossil fuel industry. Sadly, this position of zero compromise is prevalent on both sides of the debate here. Reality is that Trudeau's position of compromise was laid out even before he was elected and is the only one likely to achieve any greenhouse gas reductions in the Canadian context. The author and many like him have decided that it is better to achieve nothing than to attempt the "art of the possible" lest they be soiled by the realities of politics. After all, only the planet will suffer.
6
Canada is a federation of provinces.The federal gov't is not the be-all-and-end-all. Trudeau's 'deal' with Alberta, by far the largest source of CO2, is that the Federal gov't would support the expansion of a currently existing, relatively small, pipeline if Alberta would sign on to the Federal plan to reduce the country's overall CO2 emissions, including a carbon tax plan and limits on oil sand production. Crunch the numbers. If Trudeau's plan comes to pass, still a big 'if' mind you, Canada's CO2 emissions will be lower than if Alberta continued as before. Trudeau is not being two-faced, he's being a realist. The United States, of all countries, should understand the limits of political power in a federal state.
3
I am not sure I follow - Trudeau's approach is sensible; combatting climate change and building pipelines are not mutually exclusive. I am an ardent environmentalist, but I am also a pragmatist - we are not suddenly going to do away with fossil fuels; we need pipelines (and, guess what, the oil not being so transported are being shipped via other, less safer, means) and will do so for the foreseeable future. The expansion in Vancouver simply expands capacity - and I'd much rather that than oil transported by rail cars. Get real . . .
24
Agreed. Same approach as Norway...don't see protests there.
Hate to say it, and I love the environment more than most, but sun and wind ain't gonna be able to handle 20 billion people. Humanity is on course to be unsustainable. Once the oil goes, we are in big trouble.
9
Plenty of studies show we can supplant the vast majority of oil usage with renewables. Solar is already close to being the cheapest form of electricity.
6
Hard to find much to disagree with in Mr. Gillis' piece. For those of you outside this debate note the concept here of the "tyranny of the majority." Much of Canada is against us--but that doesn't mean we're wrong.
Whereas the rest of Canada (mostly Ontario and Alberta) are crowing about demand and federalism and painting us as radical environmentalists, we're simply protecting our homes and our community. It defies logic that we get blamed for this, while the rest of Canada is carping about accepting a carbon tax.
Please explain the logic that says "pipelines are good for Canada" but the carbon tax is bad for my province.
5
Pipelines might be cleaner and safer than the rickety old rail cars that constitute the immediate alternative. Canada has some rather grizzly experience with that.
Sure, we all wish the oil could be replaced with wind and solar, but for the next decade or two, pipelines just might be the greenest alternative.
9
People who are against this pipeline expansion (it's not a new pipeline) are forgetting that the excess oil is now being shipped by rail which is a more dangerous method and runs along the Fraser River at various points.
While it may feel good to stand up and say no they are not doing anything to solve the existing problem of reliance on fossil fuels. Nor are they increasing environmental protection.
There are 3 items I would like to see come out of the pipeline expansion:
1) Canada has a per incident liability cap of 1 billion $ (Canadian) for offshore spills.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canada-raises-liabili...
The limit should be removed for all spills, whether offshore or on land. Corporate directors should have to worry that failure to take all necessary safety and environmental protection measures could wipe out the corporation and ruin their reputations.
2) Canada needs to have a national consultation with environmentalists, industry, academia, and citizens at large that results in a national green energy transition plan that takes into account regional requirements. (e.g. Electric vehicles aren't capable of functioning in all of Canada's climates.)
3) Funding for item 2.
Let's be honest, we all recognize the world over that there is global warming and that we must do something about it, but people, especially liberals, only give lip service. e.g.s-
-Trudeau's 2-faced policy
-German automakers emissions fraud (VW but not only VW).
-Senator Ted Kennedy's vocal opposition to a windmill farm off Cape Cod. NIMBY
-the mass migration advocates who fail to admit and acknowledge that the mass migration of peoples from lower CO2 countries to higher CO2 emitting countries such as the US will significantly increase the carbon footprint.
-the stone silence of mass migration advocates about overpopulation in the developing world which will also significantly increase the carbon footprint.
There were so many critics of Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Accord, but at least he was honest. He correctly deduced that China was getting a sweetheart deal literally at the expense of the US, who was expected to make substantial payments to China to assist them in reducing their CO2 emissions. There was no downside for China, but there was a tremendous downside to the US. Liberals and the MSM lambasted Trump for it, including liberal world leaders, but none of the western countries are meeting the targets either.
It is hypocrisy - the pot calling the kettle black. I would prefer the honesty of Trump' withdrawal than the duplicity of Trudeau et al. The end result is the same.
5
What hypocrisy, Pipelines are one of the most environment friendly way to move oil. This piece is incredibly skewed, Renewable energy while the future is not established enough to sustain an entire country. Anyone with half a brain who supports a greener environment would realize that without the pipeline the excess oil would have to be moved by another means. In this case it would be loaded into train cars and shipped along important rivers and blotches of nature that have been mostly untouched.
There is no hypocrisy in the way that the Prime Minister acts, he acts according to his beliefs and plans prior to acting.
Put that in contrast of Trump who fires off tweets without a second thought and is often incorrect in a numerous amount of his statements, if this intentional or not is a subject up for debate.
In case you want a source https://www.factcheck.org/person/donald-trump/
Here are a few good examples
1
Exactly!
Thank you.
We are all going to die and leave a burned out husk of a world for our grand children. So lets party and pollute like we have been doing. It doesn't matter to us. Let those in the future worry about their lives. We neeeeed oil and gas. It's tooooo expensive and hard to change. Lets be honest and give up trying.
I got mine. Too bad for you.
Stupid hypocrites trying to save the world.
1
The way to address CO2 emissions is almost certainly by curtailing demand through a carbon tax, not by making it difficult for oil and gas companies to get their products to consumers. Attacking distribution is the direct analog of the failed war on drugs and will likely be just as ineffective. If we are going to burn oil and gas to provide our energy needs we should make sure the fuel is distributed as efficiently as possible.
Put your energies into pushing for a carbon tax that will make a meaningful difference rather than feel good campaigning.
1
You can't stop fossil fuels by shutting it down "one pipeline at a time" as the head of the Environmental Defense Fund put it during the Obama years. Pipelines were picked as an easy target to get mass support and more members for environmental groups. They are a symbol of the problem, not the problem itself.
The world is moving toward renewables, no question. Where they can be use efficiently and well, they will be used. Ten years or less from now, no one will be building new houses in sunny climates without solar power attached.
If there are some forms of fossil fuels that are just too dirty to even be considered for use, that should be attacked directly, not in a round about way by preventing it from moving to market. If this involves the loss of billions of dollars, then the issue should be faced squarely.
We are moving rapidly toward a new energy future, one in which fossil fuels play an ever decreasing role. People who protest new pipelines use their cars and fly in airplanes to get to the demonstrations. They would show real dedication if they walked.
3
The LEFT is in dire need of true political leadership.
Trudeau works for Big Oil. Macron works for the bankers, as does HRC. I'm not sure who Corbyn works for but he's left his party to be overrun by anti-Semites.
Meanwhile, a populace sensing growing injustice demands change. A 2-faced demagogue with orange hair says he'll bring change. But of course, he's just another Capitalist in it to steal from the poor and give to his rich friends.
1
The author neglects to mention the gross hypocrisy in British Columbia’s opposition to a federally mandated pipeline being built alongside an existing line which has operated without any major incident since 1961. BC pumps more raw sewage into clean water than any other province in Canada; BC has the largest coal export terminal in North America; BC is riddled with the effects of forest clear cutting, mining, and sloppy aquaculture. On top of this the government is offering incentives for an LNG terminal to built on the coast north of Vancouver. As the saying goes, people in glass house should not throw stones.
18
There have been 82 reportable spills associated with the existing pipeline. I'm not sure your definition "major incident", but the residents of Burnaby, BC whose neighborhood was covered in oil in 2007 would likely call that major. http://www.burnabynow.com/news/the-day-oil-rained-down-on-burnaby-1.2128...
Also, no disagreement with your other points, but these concerns aren't mutually exclusive.
6
BC also ships out a fair bit of coal but that export isn't under attack.
1
So many readers lobbing the tu quoque fallacy around; it's disheartening. Just because not everyone can be pure does not mean that therefore all impurity is justified.
"But those tourists DRIVE to BC!" Yes. Yes they do - although many take trains, many drive electric vehicles, many pack onto buses with lots and lots of other passengers. The fact that someone uses oil doesn't mean that everyone must use oil. If the filthy - and let's not mince words, this stuff is filthy, even compared to the usual crude oil - bitumen will, as one commenter puts it, "inevitably find its way to market", then let the willing provide passage to it. If you want the pipeline running through your yard, sing out! I'm sure Kinder Morgan will be in touch!
5
Let us not forget that Mr. Trudeau is propping up a dying industry with welfare - the annual seal hunt, in which upwards of 80,000 baby seals are bludgeoned to death, every year. Just because a politician is deemed a liberal, does not mean they hold humane views. This is not sustenance hunting for the First Nations, but a purely commercial venture benefiting one company.
5
Which company is that? Seals eat copious cod; seal hunt is not a one company profit maker; it’s a resource for both indigenous people and fishermen. Cottage industries also benefit as seal meat is served in local restaurants and seal products (namely coats and boots) are designed and produced and sold.
1
The Athabasca Tar Sands Deposit, in Alberta Canada, contains double the CO2 released in all of human history--Full Stop.
That we are here, in 2018, debating whether or not to continue pumping it into the atmosphere, is a abysmal shame on Trudeau, on American corporations like Chase and U.S. Bank which underwrite such projects, and on the failure of the human species, as a whole, to take on the responsibility for stewardship which accompanies the gift of life.
No to you, sirs, who would roast us all.
A thousand times, no.
I and many others will put our bodies on the line
to protect our children and the wild creatures of the planet from what can only be classified as your collective insanity.
Step back from your fever dream of cash-without-strings through planetary destruction, and join with science, and with moral leadership.
Or step aside.
8
You could say exactly the same thing about the coal in West Virginia; the shale oil inTexas; or any other reserve of fossil fuels. It is when they are extracted and burned that climate change occurs. What about volcanic eruptions? Forest fires? Nature plays a role as well.
2
In a perfect world, we wouldn't have any oil and gas, but we're not there yet. The fact is that right now Canada depends on our resources, and oil and gas is a big part of this, to fund our country. As a long-time Edmontonian (but I was born in Ontario if that makes me appear anymore "objective"), it is hard not to feel more than slighted when for decades Alberta has paid out to the rest of Canada more than it has received back. Now that Alberta needs Canada, no one other than Saskatchewan is in our corner. It is naive to think that the rest of Canada will not suffer if Kinder Morgan is not approved.
Mr. Gillis, like many who live on the west coast and are protesting, keeps on raising the spectre of an environmental catastrophe. If Kinder Morgan proceeds, it will increase tanker traffic from 3000 commercial vessels every year to about another 444 ships and barges. And the idea that we can ship all this by rail, first of all is economically not feasible, and second it's more dangerous and the accident rates are higher. No one can guarantee a 100% risk-free world.
Now in my rant here, I haven't even touched on Prime Minister Trudeau. If he doesn't step up and take a stand by the end of May, there will be consequences for him and his party. While on different sides of the issue, I do agree with some of the comments from others here that his "happy" attitude is starting to wear thin.
4
Let's not conflate all forms of commercial marine traffic in the region. Burrard Inlet presents significant navigational challenges and the consequences of a spill for local ecology, residents and economic values are undeniably significant. A seven-fold increase to dilbit tanker/barge traffic through these waters is a big deal.
4
It's not true that nobody but SK is in your corner. Stop playing the victim. Your Prime Minister, ineffective though he may be, is actively advocating for you and is staking his reputation and reelection on getting the thing built. Even us evildoers in BC are in favour of the project, albeit not by a huge margin, and we are clearly the net losers inasmuch as we take on all the downside from this expansion. We are held hostage to a minority government propped up by a handful of Green Party MLA's. Remember the pro-pipeline Liberal party won the popular vote last election.
1
"Government Revenue from Fossil Fuels in Sharp Decline -- New report documents dismal fiscal trend for governments who tout energy industry’s importance to bottom line"
https://thetyee.ca/News/2018/05/02/Government-Revenue-Fossil-Fuels-Sharp...
Alberta is like a child who discovers a large wad of cash stashed under the floorboards of her bedroom in the house her family has moved into -- and then whines bitterly at the idea of sharing any of "her" money with other members of the family. Truly, Alberta is so hard done by it makes the rest of us weep with pity.
1
Well, this is certainly an opinion piece. I believe Mr. Trudeau has certainly painted himself into a corner on this issue. However, much of Mr. Gillis' article is extreme enviro-talk to say the least.
4
as a Canadian, I agree; for once, Justin Trudeau seems pretty realistic about energy and jobs and less prone to the selfy-based policy-making that has characterized his first 3 years
1
This is a far more complicated story than Mr. Gillis good vs. evil tale. First off, it is one NDP government(Alberta) facing off against another(BC). In Americanese, one socialist government in opposition to another. For another, first nations communities are not unified in opposition to the pipeline- about 40% are in support and will benefit financially. Third, this is not a smokescreen- as Trudeau has said many times, resource development albeit with extra precautions built in is the only way to sell Canadians on carbon taxing- which incidentally has been implemented in BC and has proven effective. And let's not glorify the BC government- they are dependent on three Green party members for their minority government- so what looks like ecological awareness may just be political survivalism. Diatribes like this add noise instead of casting light.
14
I saw opinion polls on Global this morning stating that support for the pipeline in Alberta is at 87% and in BC at 55%, while opposition is at 7% here and 37% in BC.
3
In the short term a robust hydrocarbon infrastructure is needed because most of the population has no other way to keep from starving while freezing in the dark. In the long term, sustainable energy programs are a must. Trudeau is right on both.
1
There are no perfect choices. However, anything that reduces the use of coal and petroleum is a step forward and is more than the United States is doing. In fact, the United States is NOT doing nothing. The United States is doing all it can to make the problem worse.
1
This is an excellent article.
Our Prime Minister has landed himself in quite a pickle. I voted for him because he said he cared about our world. I am disheartened that he now says he wants the pipeline to go ahead.
It is a new day. Now is the time for more electric cars and less dependency on oil. There is no money in oil any more and even Kinder Morgan is aware of that. If it's about jobs, then get Alberta on board with green energy.
I hope that Mr Trudeau does the right thing and cares enough about our planet to say NO to another pipeline.
7
if there were massive numbers of jobs in green energy, people would be flocking to them; there aren't , certainly not yet
The main reduction in air pollution and CO2 emission in the US and Canada and elsewhere has been due to the switch from coal to natural gas. Trudeau's support for a new liquified-natural-gas pipeline is GREEN.
Activists should stick to the truth.
4
The BC NDP are hypocrites - they favour a LNG plant in Northern BC that would greatly increase tanker traffic and support the building of a short pipeline from the Coast to the Vancouver airport to bring in jetfuel purchased from Asia in Panamax size tankers. The Trudeau Government has gotten Alberta to sign on for a Carbon Tax with the understanding that Alberta oil will have access to tide water and international market prices - not the discounted US prices. Sometimes compromise is necessary but sadly lacking from the opposition in BC.
7
Agreed. Last time I checked the west coast of Canada belongs to Canada not BC.
3
He's no different than Obama, who spoke so eloquently about steps he took to slow down climate change - then would brag about how he speeded up climate change. Here's a great quote of Obama, supplied by Bill McKibben:
""Over the last three years, I've directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We're opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore. We've quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We've added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth, and then some. . . . In fact, the problem . . . is that we're actually producing so much oil and gas . . . that we don't have enough pipeline capacity to transport all of it where it needs to go.""
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-climate-change-the-...
Opportunists like Obama and Trudeau get into politics in order to please the wealthy and once out of office, reap the bennies of servitude to the .1%.
Obama, after leaving office, vacationed on Richard Branson's private island and then gave a $400K speech to Wall Street.
Life is good to obedient politicians.
26
We are selling 'green absolutions' for our fossil fuel sins that would make the medieval church green with envy.
The 'climate pipeline' is to be foisted on the backs of Canadian pensioners and working poor so insiders in Ottawa can pick and choose winners and losers in the new, green economy. It baits provinces with loose tax offsets (many go unclaimed in B.C.) to pretend to balance the impact of the carbon tax on families.
There are no concrete data to support the claim in B.C that the carbon tax has reduced GHG since its implementation in 2008. The 'climate pipeline' is not in the national interest. It is in the interest of insiders of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Tax grab. Pork.
4
The dirty secret of the Liberal party is they rip off the NDP agenda (socialist party) to garner the progressive vote to win power , but never implement those policies once elected.
In many cases the NDP policies are more realistic, modest and honest, but the Liberals don't care about unrealistic promises, as they will not implement them.
This is a party whose leadership is a bunch of trust fund kids, their backers are people implicated in the leaked money laundering emails. The definition of born on 3rd thinking they hit a triple.
Trudeau Jr is a good looking man who says the right things that are on the script. When he is away from the script, you get pipelines, a carbon tax that is hitting peope that have no access to public transport, and refugees in homeless shelters.
6
How could you possibly write an article about Trudeau's approach to climate change without mentioning his pan-national carbon price?
4
Would you care to trade leaders?
5
To hell with the worry about pipelines.
I never thought that a son of Pierre Elliot Trudeau would kneel to the leftist radicals and legalize recreational use of cannabis.
1
The fact that it was a major campaign promise was a clue?
3
Pipeline problem has been an issue much before Trudeau came to power and I agree that he has difficult choice given his support for environmental causes. No one is perfect and as politician who has to run the country and grow the economy, he will have to make difficult choices which may not please all parties. But Canada is very very lucky to have Trudeau as the Prime Minister of the country. The economy is in excellent shape. He is charismatic and a rare politician in the entire world, who has a heart and a soul, believes in equality, and who treats all Canadians and the entire humanity with love and respect.
2
Time to pull your head out of the tar sands and stop falling for the snake-oil pitch. Trudeau may be socially progressive when it comes to personal "lifestyle" but he is very much on the side of big money and big business when it comes to the economy.
2
But maybe Taylor, just maybe, that is what the people want. Somebody who is liberal on social issues but leans right on business and the economy, because we all still need to put dinner on the table.
Justin Trudeau the son of one of the greatest Canadian politicians, Pierre Elliot Trudeau knows how to get elected by playing 2-faced games. Justin is no different leader in a democracy than any other leader. To run elections you need money and lots of it and who are the donors? Those who want to get the elected officials to create a good business climate where or not it will cause climate change becomes secondary. Sure protests will work but what will work better is if Justin feels that the environmentalists will defeat him. The enthusiasm for Justin staying in office is eroding fast can he afford to lose the donors who will fuel his reelection? Thats a choice that Trudeau has to make. Hopefully he will do the right thing. The first Canadian prime minister to tightly embrace Indian culture, PM Modi and kurtas has to demonstrate that he is not an empty kurta and not be 2-faced on climate change.
2
This fight is described as between pipelines and the environment. The real fight here is between oil economy and environmentalists. The environmentalists have won several other Canadian pipeline fights (Northern Gateway, Energy East). But this one was legally approved, including rigorous federal requirements to protect the environment.
What Trudeau really has at stake is a question of whether Canada can federally make this decision, or does every affected person have the right to stop any project they wish.
In favor of this pipeline are many 'First Nations' native governments, as well as the majority of the Canadian population.
Against are environmentalists.
How should a country decide? Canadian oil trades at as much as a $25 discount because they can't get it anywhere but to Houston. And even then in limited quantity.
Can the federal government approve pipelines, or can they only be built if everyone withholds their veto?
10
Junior wasn’t elected to deal with any serious matters. He was elected as a Poster Boy to run around the world making sure folks understood Canadians are not aligned with Americans. His rhetoric is fantasy in a still resource based economy.
4
Not a surprise to any Canadian who knows the Liberal Party of Canada. While they are good at running the economy, they are never above saying one thing, then doing another.
Climate/energy is only one thing Trudeau says one thing only to do another - electoral reform was another bait and switch early in his term. Expect another flip-flop if their poll numbers sink and the Conservatives and/or NDP start biting at their heels.
But at least in the end with the Liberal Party you know you will get some action on the environment and climate change, unlike the party they replaced.
What's most overlooked in the current pipeline debate is the two provinces most affected - both under NDP direction - and both are not giving an inch to the other. Trudeau's government has to find a way to smooth that over and so far, they have failed miserably.
9
Two-faced, like so many politicians. I always figured Trudeau was too good to be true.
3
No one's territories are "endangered" by a pipeline. It provides jobs, pays taxes, etc., in exchange for use of a narrow corridor.
"indigenous" is an adjective, not a proper noun, and in English and French is not capitalized unless at the beginning of a sentence.
Finally, climate change is not necessarily a bad thing. For a cold country like Canada, it is likely positive, extending the agricultural belt to the north by lengthening growing seasons. Let Canada and the U.S. be the new "Persian Gulf" of petroleum supply, keeping it in reliable and friendly hands.
3
The melting ice cap in the Arctic will have devastating consequences for the polar bears. Forests are ravaged by fires caused by warmer than a normal spring/summer season and drier winter and forcing displacement of people and animals. Climate change is not positive for Canada.
31
A spill in your "narrow corridor" can easily spread to seriously contaminate land and water far and wide. You may belittle concerns about ppm contamination miles away, but such concerns are real; drugs flushed down sewers have demonstrable effect the endocrone systems of marine species. The ecology of the Salish Sea has been dramatically and negatively impacted by this and other human activity.
That Canada may see a net benefit from anthropogenic climate change may be true. It would be the height of arrogance to conclude from this that such is therefore acceptable. The chaos we're now witnessing in Syria originated with water shortage. With further rapid change in climate, we can expect concomitant increase in conflicts such as this.
From a purely economic pov, the problem is the cost of energy does not include these risks; they're "socialized", spread round the world in quantities so tiny at the individual level that they can be dismissed by those with a narrow view if the world, the "tragedy of the commons". Your comment is in defense of a tragedy, the loss of a planet.
17
that "narrow" corridor is not so narrow when we consider current and depth of the ocean that this pipeline is directing the oil towards. this expansion will mean a tripling of capacity, and with this, a dramatic increase of oil tanker traffic.
the other falsehood of the oil economists' argument is that the market for the dilbit is not Asia - rather, this dilbit is more likely headed for Cherry Point in Washington State.
Finally, there has already been a spill from the existing pipeline on Burnaby Mountain in 2007. The spill was caused by a contractor accidentally hitting the pipeline. The "narrow" corridor where this pipeline will go through in Metro Vancouver is heavily populated, with residential neighbourhoods, industrial areas and a university all in very close proximity.
8
Not only on climate but also on refugee program. Trudeau took photo ops with a Syrian family to indicate that they are a beacon of welcome to the refugees and show case holier than thou compared to USA. Then just a few thousand refugees/immigrants show up due to USA admin starting to rollback TPS programs and Canada is now asking USA for help and advertising in immigrants communities that they cannot just come to Canada.
Definitely two-faced game.
2
Two-faced? The two things Trudeau is advocating for are not mutually exclusive. Purporting that they are is a quintessential strawman, and led me to not read the rest of Gillis's "fake news."
7
By the way, regarding "science"...
Can a scientist explain to me why we have recorded similar periods of global warming very similar to the warming that is occurring today PRIOR to existence of industrialization, and emission belching motor vehicles on our streets?
This canard about "ignoring science" should cease immediately. NOBODY questions the "science" that warming is occurring at present. That is as sure as the noses on each of our faces. What IS being questioned is whether this warming is "man-made." That is the question that science is incapable of answering, especially when it is considered that previous warmings JUST LIKE TODAY'S occurred ABSENT man-made particulate matter spewing into the ozone
Looks like Trudeau has smartened up since his campaign. Is Canada going to provide sufficient heat and electricity to its citizens from solar and wind? Not this century. The author is simply a hypocrite. He uses fossil fuels to write his articles, to travel, and heat his home but wants everyone else to use renewables. The one lesson from the debacle in Puerto Rico is that a strong economy is the best way to combat the effects of climate change.
3
Are British Columbians ready today to halt their carbon emissions by parking their cars and cycling to work?
The original Kinder Morgan proposal in the 1950s was to terminate in Washington. BC and Canada required it to terminate in Vancouver for economic opportunity. Since then, Kinder Morgan has had an excellent record - something the true believers refuse to see.
Blocking Kinder Morgan locks Canadian oil into the North American market where increased US production is suppressing prices. The eco warriors are making Canada's energy prices subservient to the US.
4
Mr Gilllis is transparently a NIMBY. I echo the observations of others that a debate about global and domestic demand is absent in this discussion. Until the "faux" environmentalists start focusing on demand, (as is effectively being done with coal) no-one should take their pipeline protestations seriously. And in that context the oil WILL make its way to markets. Given that, and as a reasonable Canadian I am entirely in favour of Alberta getting the maximum price possible - something this pipeline facilitates.
10
Claiming that the Trans Mountain Pipeline is a potential threat to British Columbia's multi-billion dollar tourism industry is priceless. Those tourists flocking to BC contribute enormously to the threat of global warming and climate change. Environmentalists working to shut down the pipeline should also be working to shut down Vancouver Int'l, Whistler and the border crossings with the US. Like Trudeau, the environmentalists can't have it both ways. You can't pick and choose the sources of contamination based on how they impact one's ideology and lifestyle. Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide. It doesn't know Greenpeace from Davos.
26
This is a great example of how useless the "climate debate" is and why it is so widely dismissed. Our economy depends on fossil fuels. Climate change is the price. The world has done the calculation and for better or worse determined it is worth it. Politicians who pretend that entering into "agreements" like the Kyoto Protocol or Paris Accord will have *any* impact on climate change are...well...playing politics. Mr. Gillis correctly calls out that behavior. At this point I'd rather just have my political rep admit the truth: we're burning all the oil. When it's gone we'll burn something else. Someday we'll have power without burning anything at all and that will be nice. And oh by the way...until then the planet is going to continue to get warmer and sea levels are going to rise. Get prepared.
3
Suppressing supply does nothing to decrease demand. Where there is demand, the supply will materialize. Alternatives to pipeline-supplied oil include the same oil supplied at higher cost and environmental risk by truck or train, and of course oil supplied from different countries to which the financial spoils accrue.
The author's argument is not an environmental argument if it does not address supply. His argument is NYMBY only.
37
I live in Alberta, I hope that the pipelines are constructed, and I voted for both the provincial New Democratic Party and the federal Liberal Party. I'm also moving to Vancouver Island in the summer of 2019. I don't see anything inconsistent with any of this.
Canada is switching to a carbonless economy, but it is going to take 30 years. For example, the Alberta government is using the carbon tax to pay for the building of wind and solar power generation farms. This process will be complete by 2030 when the burning of coal for power generation will cease in the province. The Alberta plan is closely coordinated with the national plan.
Mr. Trudeau's task is to set us on a path to a carbonless future without bankrupting and disrupting the lives of millions of Canadians who depend on the energy sector for employment, either directly or indirectly. I think he's doing an excellent job, and I intend to vote for him in the next federal election, and for the NDP's Rachel Notley in the next provincial election.
61
“... millions of Canadians who depend on the energy sector for employment…“?
Labour market participation in Canada is about 65%. This means there are perhaps 24 million working Canadians in Canada.
The estimated future peak output national GDP contribution of the Alberta oil patch is under 3% (when oil is over $100 per barrel; it’s more likely closer to 2%) including all spinoff jobs from coast to coast.
Assuming a direct relationship between GDP contribution and numbers of workers employed, this means that Alberta oil employs in the order of 600,000 Canadian workers.
This is approximately equivalent to the tourism and cultural sectors, at 2% of GDP each, and a small fraction of the number of Canadian workers employed in manufacturing, mining, forestry, finance, and other sectors that are of far greater economic importance than mining, selling and burning bitumen oil.
Alberta tar sands oil will account for 10% or more of Canada’s carbon contribution. This is disproportionate.
600,000 jobs are not trivial, hence Trudeau’s apparent double game. May his left hand prevail over his right, in due course.
5
Thank you for the fact check. I'm not just talking about Alberta, though: I'm talking about energy sector workers and those directly and indirectly associated with it from BC to Newfoundland.
Good guess, AO. Here are the actual figures, according to Natural Resources Canada: 600,000 indirect and 270,000 direct energy sector jobs in Canada:
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/facts/energy-economy/20062
That includes renewables as well. Jobs in that sector are on the rise, despite Canada trailing other industrial countries in clean tech investment:
https://tinyurl.com/n64qxnd
For instance, Canada has about 76,000 direct jobs in both crude oil and electricity. Some of that electricity is coal-fired or nuclear, but a lot of it (in BC, Manitoba, and Quebec, particularly) is hydro power, with wind and solar starting to enter the mix.
Now, those 75K crude oil jobs and tens of thousands in natural gas and coal are hardly trivial – and I have a number of family members who work in the gas industry – but the significance in terms of jobs in the larger Canadian economy is too often exaggerated. Some companies are shedding jobs with increased automation:
https://globalnews.ca/news/4000125/suncor-union-outcry-automation-oilsan...
The real long-term, sustainable growth opportunities for jobs lie in renewables and Trudeau would do well to consider that.
The people have put politicians like Trudeau in a trap. They want a pristine environment, they want a solution to global warming, but they also want all the energy they desire. In particular, they want their cars and they want gasoline any time they pull into a service station. Electric cars are still too expensive for most, and there isn't much infrastructure to support them (admittedly a chicken and egg situation). Developing countries (naturally) want more energy, to live like Canadians and Americans live. Fossil fuels are the only option for most, especially for transportation. So what is Trudeau to do -- purposely create a fuel shortage? Let the lights go out? Of course not.
63
In either case, Trudeau is in a no-win situation. By cancelling the pipeline, he appeases B.C., but, offends Alberta and seriously affects their energy driven economy going forward OR he goes ahead and Alberta is happy and B.C. is not. Let's face it, ultimately, decisions like this have a large political element built into them. As it stands now, there is some very serious bantering flowing back and forth between B.C. and Alberta and Alberta has threatened to limit energy supplies to B.C. which already has the highest gas prices in North America.
Unfortunately, the author neglected to point out that the whole situation is really not that simple. There are those in BOTH provinces that are FOR and AGAINST the pipeline.
34
Put me down as someone VERY concerned about global warming. I have seen the dramatic impact of ocean warming on coral reefs throughout Asia. BUT, this article omits an important piece of science. Trucking vast amounts of oil (or carrying it by train) also has an environmental impact. What is the difference in environmental impact between carrying oil in a pipeline and carrying it via transport that itself burns fossil fuels. I don't know the answer, but I think it is an important question to consider. Perhaps there are characteristics of pipelines that make them more environmentally undesirable than other forms of transport, but the article does not make the point quantitatively. It needs a bit more science.
22
The answer to your question, of course, is "How about NEITHER, and keep the oil in the ground—as we'd need to to have a remote *chance* to avoid runaway global warming—and heavily ramp up solar, wind, and battery deployment paid for by fair taxes and seized offshore accounts?"
24
A couple of comments SR. The oil comes from somewhere. If demand is flat, and you cut the supply, say in Alberta, then the supply comes from somewhere else. The key to fighting global warming is cutting off demand. Also, the heavy oil facilities are built, oil is flowing, and right now, much of that goes on rail and is heavily discounted. You just don't turn off the tap, it is a large fixed cost operation.
We - all of us - are headed toward the worst case climate change scenario in which much of the Earth is uninhabitable. By the time a child born today is middle age much of the Gulf, Southeastern and East coast regions of the US will be collapsing economically because they're uninhabitable due to extreme weather events and/or sea water inundation of infrastructure and water supplies. Climate change is disrupting agricultural cycles and climate change is acidifying the oceans and destroying fish stocks; climate change is destroying the world's food and water supplies. There will be mass migrations of people out of uninhabitable areas to areas that still have adequate water and food. In virtually every region of the US today, Americans are already fighting over water - water sources, water supply and water safety. Any Canadian who thinks the border will protect them from desperate Americans is unreasonably optimistic. No one's child - no matter how rich or powerful the parent today - will escape the ravages wrought by unchecked climate change.
3
Trudeau is two faced on immigration as well. Chastising the U.S for trying to enforce immigration laws, bragging about how Canada takes refugees and diversity is their strength all the while enforcing a system that has high standards for legal status, long thorough vetting and no tolerance for illegal immigration.
Classic do as I say not as I do.
3
Trudeau is the Prime Minister of all of Canada and the economic interests of all Canadians are impossible to reconcile. Until we discover whether we go forward with Nafta or leave Nafta and start a process of abandoning our economic dependency on the USA Trudeau's options are limited.
Here in Quebec our well run Provincial financial institution is heavily invested in Kinder Morgan and the pipeline ending in Montreal is a viable and preferred outcome if the pipeline is built.
I am with Mr Gillis but like our Prime Minister I do not know where the USA is going to survive neoliberalism. The debate between British Columbia and Alberta is vital but it is secondary to the internal debate in the United States as to whether it is again a liberal democracy or a Russian style kleptocracy.
We are a satellite economy and the truth is we will not be able to make the important decisions until the USA decides where it wants to go. We are a very very rich democratic safe and cold Guatemala but we are right now Guatemala.
8
Tar sand is the bottom of the list for materials someone would use to create liquid petroleum products. The amount of energy to extract it lowers the energy density considerably - but the Koch Bros are heavily invested and the mineral extraction industry in Canada makes them seem like tree-huggers. Of all the fossil fuel sources after coal, tar sand is the one that should stay in the ground.
Promoting export of this product, over the objections of the First Nations tribes and the workers in BC who depend on clean water for their living is the last thing Trudeau should be doing.
50
He has to govern the whole country and that leads to trade-offs that disturb the purists. Shutting down all fossil fuel production is not economically or politically viable, and bringing the product to market using rail is even more dangerous environmentally than a pipeline. At least he got some agreement on a carbon tax. It's a hard problem and anybody who thinks it isn't is kidding themselves.
75
Bitumen extraction is far dirtier than traditional oil, and the US has been a net exporter of oil for some time now, so the oil is unnecessary. Call it what it is -- a giveaway to monied interests.
6
Nils, I cringe when I see oil derived from the tar sands referred to as "dirty". Once it's in the pipeline it's as clean as conventional oil. And please check your facts. The USA is still a net importer of oil.
Are you suggesting that the folks in Vancouver should get their gasoline from Saudi, Venezuelan or Nigerian sourced oil? Is that better for the planet?
The only way to help global warming is to reduce demand for carbon sourced energy and since approximately 70% of vehicles sold in North America are SUVs or trucks it appears that isn't happening soon.
There already is a pipeline, and nobody is saying "shut down all fossil fuel production." We don't want the pipeline expanded and seven times more tanker traffic in our waters. Trudeau is a hypocrite and a bully.
2
Trudeau's hypocrisy in this case extends well beyond climate issues. As the author notes, First Nations are involved in this process. Trudeau has promised a new relationship with First Nations and he is very good at easy, symbolic gestures (and his government, to be fair, has made some smaller accommodations to First Nations interests). But on the big issues, he's happy to trample First Nations rights and treat them as the government always has. And worse, in the case of Trans Mountain, his government is now actively trying to foment conflict between First Nations in BC by playing up the financial interests some FN's might have in the pipeline. This is neo-colonial politics par excellence and it is scurrilous.
As for the idea put forth by Nyalman in these comments, who says this issue has nothing to do with Paris: that is utter nonsense, and precisely the sort of logic that Trudeau uses to justify what is clearly a climate-damaging project.
18
The Paris Agreement is a framework for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions - not production of fossil fuels. It was a demand side - not a supply side initiative. Attempts to claim nations that continue to produce fossil fuels but agree to adhere to their emission targets as running afoul of the accord (in letter or spirit) are disingenuous.
9
According to one of the articles linked to by the op-ed (*), oil and gas production is Canada's leading source of greenhouse gas emissions.
(*) https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28032017/justin-trudeau-canada-climat...
4
@abo
And that will factor into the emissions reductions that Canada will need to address elsewhere. Also trucking oil is a lot more carbon intensive than a pipeline.