West-East Pipeline

653 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Marche des peuples #10 : Interview avec Clayton Thomas-Muller (Fr-Eng)

video

Interview avec Clayton Thomas-Muller, à l'occasion de son passage à Kanehsatake pour l'arrivée de la Marche des peuples pour la terre-mère.

Interview With Clayton Thomas-Muller in Kanehsatake on the arrival of the Marche for Mother earth.

http://montreal.mediacoop.ca/video/interview-avec-clayton-thomas-muller-...

Brachina

Crap I can't google translate video. What's the gist of the interview?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

National Energy Board orders Enbridge to cease work on Manitoba pipeline

The National Energy Board has ordered Enbridge Inc. to stop work along its Line 3 oil pipeline in Manitoba after an inspection earlier this month revealed numerous environmental and safety concerns.

Line 3 has been carrying crude between Alberta and Wisconsin for nearly half a century. Enbridge announced plans earlier this year to replace the pipeline in its entirety – a $7.5-billion undertaking that would be the largest project in the company’s history....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-a...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Brachina wrote:

Crap I can't google translate video. What's the gist of the interview?

..it's actually a great video brachina. and it has a thermometer analysis. it lays out where things are at right now politically in canada..from an aboriginal perspective. i recommend you try to find a way to see it. if i try to give you a gist it would not do it justice.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Big Oil Threatens Maine City After Tar Sands Export Ban

Big Oil has always been a bad, bad loser.

And it is therefore no surprise that it has threatened to sue a small coastal city in Maine which on Monday night struck an historical blow against the industry by banning the export of tar sands from its harbour.

The decision by South Portland to approve, by 6-1, to ban tar sands exports, has catapulted this small coastal town which is famous for its scenic light-houses against the collective might of the oil industry and Canadian government.

The decision is another blow to the tar sands industry which is desperate to find ways of getting its dirty carbon-munching oil to market.

It effectively bars any attempt by the oil industry to bring oil from Alberta to the city’s port, the second-largest oil terminal on the east coast of the US.

The move has ramifications for the tar sands industry, because it was planning to reverse the flow of the Portland-Montreal pipeline to carry tar sands to the coast....

http://priceofoil.org/2014/07/23/big-oil-threatens-maine-city-tar-sands-...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Sunrise action at Line 9

Environmental activists calling themselves Citizens' Response Unit for Decontaminating our Environment (CRUDE) interrupted work at a large Enbridge Line 9 worksite in G. Ross Lord Dam and Park near Dufferin and Finch at sunrise this morning. 

The action is one of several in recent days as Enbridge has begun so-called integrity digs to uncover and repair suspected weak points along the Sarnia to Montreal stretch of the line. The company received approval last March to ship Alberta crude through the pipe to refineries in the east. 

Designed in the mid-1970s to transport natural gas, activists argue the line cannot withstand the pressure associated with transporting heated diluted bitumen....

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=199190

Centrist

As I posted in another thread, Tom was recently in Nathan Cullen's BC riding of Skeena-Bulkley Valley vociferously opposing the Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker traffic. And its potential impact upon the ocean and wildlife. Fair enough even though it's now after the fact. So do the Libs and Greens, splitting the opposition vote in that regard to the Cons benefit here in BC.

Yet. Tom approves of the East-West pipeline, which is basically the conversionn of the old 1950's-era Trans-Canada natural gas pipeline to eastern Canada and some new piping built to the eastern Canadian coast for export. So why is bitumen acceptable to be piped across Canada and not BC? When the same Alberta bitumen crosses across rivers, lakes, environmental areas, drinking water aquifers, etc. across the rest of Canada?

Apparently enviro orgs. and FNs already oppose the East-West pipeline as a result.

Just today, environmentalists opposed the East-West pipeline due to its potential impact upon Beluga whales in the St. Lawrence River.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/pipeline-threatens-beluga-whales-...

And then we have inconsistencies about Tom's approval of the East-West pipeline and opposition to BC's Northern Gateway pipeline:

"Mr. Mulcair, the Gulf of Saint-Lawrence Is As Important As the Pacific Coast"

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/gerard-montpetit/gulf-of-st-lawrence_b_5731...

I know very well how the Cons operate and they will kill Tom's inconsistencies on these 2 matters during the 2015 fed election campaign. Have seen the same thing happen to Adrian Dix during the May, 2013 BC election campaign here in BC.

Again, communications outta NDP HQ continues to severely lack IMHO.

 

 

 

 

KenS

Do you propose that he be consistent, period? That which way he is consistent is secondary?

In other words- if he were to tack against the East-West pipeline, that would be better than where the NDP is now?

 

By way of background, opposition to the pipeline in Quebec is just getting started, and will build. In the Maritimes it is still background, but that will change... as much if not more in NS, even though it does not come here. There will be many proponents too, with virtually the entire media and regional elites behind them. And Trudeau would never come out against it.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

The Class Politics of Pipeline Resistance

The Jane-Finch community is among the many neighbourhoods in Toronto that Enbridge’s Line 9 runs through. Standing at the geograph­ical margins of the city, Jane-Finch is a low-income, racialized community that faces many challenges, including chronic unemployment and underemployment, targeted policing, and substandard housing. Not surprisingly, the community is routinely stereotyped and vilified. It also happens to be a hotbed of activism.

Line 9 currently carries conventional oil from Montreal to southern Ontario but is slated to transport bulkier Alberta tarsands oil and less stable Bakken crude oil in the opposite direction. The proposal to reverse the flow of the 38-year-old pipeline has been the subject of significant activism across Ontario. The fact that Enbridge’s proposal was approved by the National Energy Board without there being an environmental assessment has also generated concern. Errol Young of Jane-Finch Action Against Poverty says: “The Line 9 reversal adds to the environmental concerns faced by the community, including tank farms [oil depots] that create air pollution and result in a constant movement of giant trucks carrying gasoline on our roads.” The prospect of a spill is highly distressing as the pipeline passes close to homes, shopping malls, schools, health centres, and a subway line under construction.

The potential environmental harm connected to the pipeline is not limited to the local perspective, however. The climate crisis, which is fuelled by projects like the Line 9 reversal, also concerns Jane-Finch residents. And climate change, now experienced in the form of increasingly powerful storms, droughts, and floods around the planet, can feel very close to home. Extreme weather events like last year’s devastating Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines routinely strike countries to which residents of Jane-Finch have intimate ties....

http://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/the-class-politics-of-pipeli...


epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

TransCanada Open House Disrupted in Lachute

Citizens Talk About Local Dangers and Climate Change Implications

TransCanadavs open house in Lachute, QC, was interrupted at around 6 pm on Tuesday September 30th. A group of 10 people began the disruption with a short skit mocking the inability of pipeline companies to respond to spills. The group held up posters naming the towns and dates of nine major recent spills of TransCanada and Enbridge pipelines. After going around in the circle reading out their posters, the group then drew attention to questions they had. Many people in attendence joined in asking TransCanada representatives questions critical of the project until the event ended at 8 pm....

http://montreal.mediacoop.ca/story/transcanada-open-house-disrupted-lach...

Pondering

KenS wrote:
And Trudeau would never come out against it.

Trudeau has already stated that his approval of pipelines is conditional on environmental concerns being met AND social licence and he has already stated that Energy East hasn't met those conditions yet.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/trudeau-raises-environmental...

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau says a proposed west-east pipeline project will not go forward unless it addresses key environmental concerns....

The federal Liberal leader told the CBC’s Information Morning Fredericton on Thursday he has specific questions about potential toxins that may be used in the pipeline.

"I think it is a proposal that is extremely interesting. We are waiting to look at how they are going to deal with both the community, local, aboriginal concerns and the environmental concerns," Trudeau said.

"The [substance] that they put to make that thick crude, thick bitumen run through those pipes can be very toxic. I want to see the plan for being environmentally responsible on it because it won’t go ahead if it will cost us on pollution, in degradation and in inefficiencies in the coming years."

The pipeline project has won widespread support from political leaders in New Brunswick. Trudeau's comments created a stir in question period in Fredericton on Thursday.

Premier David Alward said Trudeau's comments "sent a bad message to the rest of Canada."

Mulcair has been promoting Energy East for some time as evidenced by this thread.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

[url=https://ricochet.media/en/84/along-the-pipeline-photo]Along the Pipeline: The many faces of Energy East[/url]

Quote:
TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline — a project mere weeks away from being filed with the National Energy Board — would be the single largest tar sands pipeline, and the longest pipeline of any sort, in North America. The pipeline would carry crude oil and dilbit (diluted bitumen) from Alberta, through Ontario to Quebec, and all the way to export terminals in the Maritimes. It would cross hundreds of waterways, countless communities, vast tracts of farmland, drinking water supplies, First Nations territories, beluga whale habitat and iconic Canadian landmarks.

NorthReport

It's right up there with the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal  Laughing

KenS

Pondering wrote:

KenS wrote:
And Trudeau would never come out against it.

Trudeau has already stated that his approval of pipelines is conditional on environmental concerns being met AND social licence and he has already stated that Energy East hasn't met those conditions yet.

Mulcair has been promoting Energy East for some time as evidenced by this thread.

What I said still stands.

Trudeau is just doing his constant thing of all things to all people. When the proponents go through all the easily cleared hoops, he will support it. Meanwhile he can posture.

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Redeye - Co-op Radio: audio

Summary:  The Line 9 pipeline was built to carry oil from Montreal, Quebec to Sarnia, Ontario. But now Enbridge wants to reverse the flow and run tar sands oil east to markets on the eastern seaboard. The company is meeting with opposition from communities along the route. Marilyne Tovar is with Climate Justice Montreal.

http://www.radio4all.net/files/redeye@coopradio.org/91-1-Enbridge_meets_...

Thanks for this. This is just the beginning - we ain't seen nothing yet.

You would have loved every one of these actions, Boom Boom! This morning in Montréal:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/activists-chain-themselves-to-fen... chain themselves to fence to protest Enbridge's Line 9 reversal[/url]

 

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Suncor sneaks tar sands tankers into St. Lawrence and Great Lakes

Suncor is setting a precedent around the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin with its new shipments of bitumen on the St. Lawrence River.  On September 24, the first ever tanker to ship bitumen on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin left the port of Sorel-Tracey in Quebec. The tanker, the Minerva-Gloria, carried an estimated 700,000 barrels of bitumen to Sardinia, Italy which arrived on Tuesday at 4:22 p.m. local time. A second tanker, the Genmar Daphne, is expected to arrive in Sorel on Sunday, October 12 where it will be loaded, travel along the St. Lawrence River and transport another load of Alberta bitumen to Italy. There are plans to ship 20 to 30 vessels like this each year along the St. Lawrence River.

A spill would have catastrophic effects on this waterway that millions of people rely on for drinking water.

Transport Canada and the government of Quebec approved these shipments without a thorough environmental assessment, public consultation and free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities and municipalities....

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/making-waves/2014/10/suncor-sneaks-tar-s...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

 Energy East to ignite pan-Canadian battle over Alberta’s oil sands

quote:
Already on the weekend, one of the pipeline's proposed refineries in the small Quebec community of Cacouna (population 2,002) saw some 2,000 people rally against the TransCanada project, reported the Montreal Gazette.
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/energy-east-ignite-pan-canadian-ba...
.......
Energy East 101, a four-minute handimation gives a comprehensive background on the controversial Energy East pipeline proposed by TransCanada.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfCWlTBLDJE#t=86 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

On Proposed Mega-Pipeline, Tar Sands Opponents Vow: 'It's Not Going to Happen'

The energy corporation TransCanada on Thursday filed a 30,000-page regulatory application for its proposed Energy East Pipeline Project, which is expected to cost approximately $12 billion and would transport 1.1 million barrels of tar sands oil daily from Alberta and Saskatchewan in Western Canada to the Irving oil refining complex in Saint John, New Brunswick.

If built, it would be the longest oil pipeline in North America—almost 3,000 miles—and would cross at least 90 watersheds and 961 waterways. Part of the project involves constructing a marine terminal and storage facility in Cacouna, Quebec, on the Saint Lawrence River.

quote:

Though the pipeline company claims to have been "out in the field for more than 18 months gathering data, performing environmental studies and engaging with Aboriginal and stakeholder groups in the initial design and planning of the project," some of those groups don't feel that their concerns have been heard.

"TransCanada entered my territory, Kanehsatàke, like a slick snake oil salesman with promises of jobs and economic benefits," said Ellen Gabriel of Kanehsatàke, a Mohawk community in Quebec. "The company's unscrupulous manner to impress upon our community that Energy East is a 'done deal' is unethical and coercive. In the absence of our free prior and informed consent, it would be illegal for the National Energy Board to grant TransCanada an application for Energy East."

Just this week, voters in three Ontario cities—Kenora, North Bay, and Thunder Bay—elected city councils with strong mandates to oppose Energy East; Thunder Bay, in northwestern Ontario, also re-elected Mayor Keith Hobbs, who is an opponent of the pipeline. In the Canadian capital of Ottawa, a majority on city council have expressed concerns about Energy East, while more than 40,000 Canadians have signed petitions opposing Energy East....

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/10/30/proposed-mega-pipeline-tar-s...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

English Canada! It's time to support Quebec's pipeline resistance

quote:

Many people in Quebec are at the beginning stages of organizing and can use support and encouragement from anglophone communities. There are also many lessons to be learned from the movement in Quebec.

So how is the resistance coming together in Quebec?

"It is decentralized and it is citizen-led," says Symons-Belanger of the resistance. "NGO's can't be everywhere. We need citizens in the locations organizing."

Citizen-led campaigns like Coule Pas Chez Nous! (Don't Spill in Our Home!) and the umbrella movement Stop Oléoduc (Stop Pipelines) are bringing people together. People taking initiative together in their communities is how sizable protests in recent weeks in Cacouna, site of TransCanada's proposed port, and Sorel-Tracy also on the St. Lawrence. 

The big NGOs Equiterre and Greenpeace have let citizen energy and organizing carry the movement along. Sidney Ribaux of Equiterre wrote enthusiastically that the movement is so strong because it is citizen-led. While staying out of the media spotlight (though the media keeps trying to drag them into it), the big green groups have been good at getting networking happening, publishing educational resources and occasionally helping organize events.

While much of the organizing in citizens groups is led by the older generation, a group of young people brought the energy for the 700km La Marche des Peuple Pour la Terre Mère (Peoples' Walk for Mother Earth) this spring. La Marche went through communities along the proposed Energy East route holding events connecting people who may have been isolated in their opposition to TansCanada's pipeline. This group organized in a horizontal consensus-based model, with every day beginning with all 30-70 walkers sitting in a circle to discuss what they would be doing....

http://rabble.ca/news/2014/11/english-canada-its-time-to-support-quebecs...

Glenl

This will never be built, same goes for the Northern Gateway. Keystone, maybe?

Glenl

The west -east pipeline is an intended distraction.

Unionist

The anti-pipeline anti-fossil fuel movement is really taking shape in Québec. This brand-new coalition is student-driven - here's their web site:

[url=http://coalitioneco.org/]COALITION ECO[/url]

lagatta

That is very interesting.

They don't seem to have an e-mail; I guess they expect people to reach them via twitter or facebook.

I was pissed off by this sentence in the English version (it doesn't appear in the French): We will not stand by as the greed of our elders destroys our planet.

That is the greed of the capitalists, eh? And of course public indifference, but that is not restricted to any particular generation: I see lots of young adults driving huge cars and otherwise wasting petroleum.  The "chromé" type.

MickYaggar

The modern pipeline and mechanisms for safety are an absolute marvel.  The population should should embrace it.  Petroleum energy is still very much apart of our lives, even for all of you on this Rabble site.  There are networks of existing pipelines beneath your feet that you don't even think about.  Those are the one's you should be concerned about. A 40 year old pipeline is the current environmental liability.  Your position on environmental safety should be directed at these, not the new builds that are truly an engineering marvel both in design/build and in their hi-tech mechanisms for environmental safety.  

Centrist

MickYaggar wrote:
There are networks of existing pipelines beneath your feet that you don't even think about.  Those are the one's you should be concerned about. A 40 year old pipeline is the current environmental liability.  Your position on environmental safety should be directed at these

You do realize that TransCanada's proposed Energy East pipeline will not be a "new-build"? That the current 1950's era TransCanada Pipeline between Alberta and Quebec will be the "new Energy East Pipeline?

And that this 1950's era pipeline, currently carrying natural gas to eastern Canada, will be converted to carry bitumen?

With the replacement of the current natural gas compressor stations, along the route, with oil pumping stations?

And if and/or when Energy East commences transmission of bitumen, the pipeline will be at least 60 years in age?  

lagatta

Oh, I know that such earth-destroying technology is a part of all our lives (I'm sure part of the Internet is fuelled by it) though I make little DIRECT use of it. I've never owned or driven a car in my life (which is longer now than I'll admit to on CVs) and our electricity and métro are powered by hydro - yes, stolen from Native peoples like most of these things, but not petroleum based).

The real challenge for scientists and engineers is to propose workable solutions to this earth-destroying petroleum, private car, truck instead of rail, and generally destructive model of development. They can certainly do it if there is the political and social will.

Ecosocialism or death.

Glenl

My first career as an engineer was designing dams. Built quite a few. It petered out in the late 80s. The last major dams out west were Rafferty/Almeda in Sask and the Old Man River dam in Alberta, formerly called the Three Rivers Dam. The name was changed because it gave the public the impression we were destroying three rivers with one dam, which was pretty accurate. Seems you believe hydroelectric projects are environmentally friendly. I'm guessing you live in a urban area far away from the source of your electricity. I wonder what those living closer to the source feel?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

A city bylaw can protect us from hazardous oil

On August 28, 2014, Toronto City Council voted overwhelmingly to ask pipeline company Enbridge Inc. not to pump dangerous tar sands oil (diluted bitumen) across the city.

Enbridge ignored City Council’s request.

Enbridge’s troubled Line 9 project, running across the top of the city near Finch Ave., poses an urgent threat to the health of Toronto residents.

Meanwhile, on the rail line crossing mid-Toronto, rail tanker cars carrying another form of unconventional, toxic crude oil pose a similar danger. This equally unconventional crude called Bakken fracked oil killed 47 people when it exploded in Lac Mégantic in 2013.

quote:

Burnaby leads the way

A recent NEB order violating the spirit of this Supreme Court decision is now being appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal by the City of Burnaby, BC. The NEB had overruled a Burnaby bylaw protecting a city park from damage by pipeline company surveyors.

Burnaby says the NEB lacks authority to take such an action. “No federally appointed panel should have that power; it doesn’t exist in the NEB Act, and it has never been claimed before by any federal tribunal. This is a very serious question that a higher court needs to decide”, says City of Burnaby counsel Greg McDade....

http://eastendnotar.org/2014/11/09/intra-vires-within-our-jurisdiction/#...

MickYaggar

CENTRIST - yes I'm very aware of the vintage of the Energy East line. I know that the engineers working on the existing 3,000 km of line are planning the installation of new pipe under the waterways as a first phase of upgrade. Over time the entire line pipe will be replaced. Understandably so....

 

LAGATTA - there's not much I can communicate with you. Your post indicates do many things about you I wouldn't know where to start....

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..see the pipeline at the 2.50 mark.

What’s the Condition of the Pipeline Beneath the Straits of Mackinac: VIDEO

This past July, NWF conducted a diving expedition to obtain footage of aging oil pipelines strung across one of the most sensitive locations in the Great Lakes, and possibly the world: the Straits of Mackinac. Footage of these pipelines has never been released to the public until now.

quote:

The footage shows pipelines suspended over the lakebed, some original supports broken away (indicating the presence of corrosion), and some sections of the suspended pipelines covered in large piles of unknown debris. This visual is evidence that our decision makers need to step in and demand a release of information from Enbridge and PHMSA.

Heightening our concern around this pipeline and the company that owns it: despite having cleared our dive work with the U.S. Coast Guard, several Congressional members, and Homeland Security, our staff and the dive crew had uncomfortable interactions with Enbridge representatives. As soon as our team set out on the water, we were quickly accompanied by an Enbridge crew that monitored our every move. This monitoring did not stop at the surface: Enbridge also placed a Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) into the water to watch our team....

http://blog.nwf.org/2013/10/whats-the-condition-of-the-pipeline-beneath-...

addictedtomyipod

There seems to be a popular misconception by Green Party supporters that their Party is against all pipelines.  That is not the case, in fact it is similar to the NDP's.

http://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/9/29/bruce-hyer-1/?page=25

Scroll down to statment by Bruce Hyer, where he says this;

'We should look after Canadians' needs first. An east-west pipeline could allow us to do just that.'

 

The Greens are being disingenuous on this issue, preferring to let some supporters believe what they want and others something different.  Oh that's called pandering isn't it? Yup, that's what they do.

Aristotleded24

I think there is a bit of confusion over the pipeline issue. A vision of an east-west pipeline to bring Alberta oil to Eastern Canada has been around for decades, mainly because Alberta exports its oil and Eastern Canada imports its oil. What kind of sense does that make? So this idea is finally getting some traction. As for the implementation, of course we want rigourous environmental protection to be met. It appears that the specific proposal on the table doesn't meet those concerns, and Mulcair has said that his support of any pipeline is conditional on that.

And I've said it repeatedly and will probably say it again, if you want to eliminate the need for pipelines, act on the demand side and give people alternatives that don't rely on oil. That's what's really going to take down the pipelines.

Unionist

Luckily, the people that matter are not fooled by the neoliberal pandering of the political parties (all of them, it seems, except of course Québec solidaire).

Hundreds of students demonstrated this afternoon in downtown Montréal against all the pipeline projects and the Couillard government's "Plan Nord". The demonstration of course was declared "illegal", because those are the times we live in. And Amir Khadir proudly announced his participation. Don't know about any of our worthy NDP MPs... maybe it's a "provincial" issue now? Or the muzzle.

[url=http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/students-in-montreal-stage-pr... of students are staging a protest Saturday afternoon in downtown Montreal to voice their opposition to pipeline projects in Quebec.[/url]

 

Unionist

[url=http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/students-in-montreal-stage-pr... great quotes here:[/url]

Quote:

“We’re destroying an ecosystem in Cacouna for what? 400 jobs and a few dollars for Quebec,” said William Daviau, 16, a student at Collège Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes in Longueuil. He was referring to a terminal that TransCanada is set to build in Cacouna, near a beluga habitat. “Life isn’t just about money. We need water; we need trees to survive. A generation is rising up and screaming loud and clear that it’s not just money that matters.”

“We don’t want to see our planet die because of the mistakes of our politicians,” said Aisha Hamelin, 17, who attends Cégep St-Laurent. [...]

“We have to mobilize a large-scale combative movement that will take on this issue and not compromise, because we have no choice,” said Garoufalis-Auger, a Concordia student. “We will leave a future generation with an unstable climate if we don’t stop these projects right now and start a de-carbonization of our economy and our environment to prevent climate chaos.”

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

Luckily, the people that matter are not fooled by the neoliberal pandering of the political parties (all of them, it seems, except of course Québec solidaire).

Hundreds of students demonstrated this afternoon in downtown Montréal against all the pipeline projects and the Couillard government's "Plan Nord". The demonstration of course was declared "illegal", because those are the times we live in. And Amir Khadir proudly announced his participation. Don't know about any of our worthy NDP MPs... maybe it's a "provincial" issue now? Or the muzzle.

What is neo-liberal about an export restriction that forces value added production within a national territory?

addictedtomyipod

There are no political parties that are against some form of west east pipeline, as I said before, the Greens are in favour of supplying crude to the eastern market, same as the NDP.

Unionist

addictedtomyipod wrote:

There are no political parties that are against some form of west east pipeline, as I said before, the Greens are in favour of supplying crude to the eastern market, same as the NDP.

You never heard of Québec solidaire. They don't mindlessly follow the consensus of the chickenshits who don't want to rock the boat, who feel they need to smile at Bay Street and Wall Street to get elected.

Here in Québec, even 16-year-olds are smarter than your Greens and NDP and Liberals and Conservatives. They actually owe nothing to the bankers and oil tycoons, and they don't dream of cushy jobs. They have a planet to protect.

mmphosis

<rant>Politics.  I am an undecided voter without an allegience to any particular party.  I realize that the views of rabble tend to back the NDP which is okay with me.  I see a few trying to promote the Justin Trudeau party mostly in the hopes of defeating Harper in the next election which is okay with me.  I approve of the policies of Green parties where ecology comes first.  I am starting to question whether the Green party of Canada really puts ecology first.  I don't support that Bruce Hyer wants a pipeline and voted for war after crossing the floor from NDP to Green.  Many of the Green party of Canada members seem to be from the former Progressive Conservative party which is okay with me as long as conservative only means conservation of ecology.  The Greens are looking less green, and the NDP are looking a little more green although not the "Left Green" party that I imagine.  I find it difficult to see Elizabeth May saying she "hates" the NDP, but I certainly don't think she is doing herself and her party any favours by turning away from the NDP.  A united "Left Green" party consisting of primarily green leaning NDP supporters, a few left leaning Green supporters, and a leader as popular as JT but with the substance and smarts of Mulcair could sweep in and put Proportional Representation in place and immediately call another election using Proportional Representation.  I say this because our First Past The Post system is not democratic, it is about marketing and who can appear to be the most popular -- discussion of issues seems lost in the negative campaigning.</rant>

If I needed to drive and sometimes I do, I would rather be using an electric vehicle.  I've committed to stop buying gas. Currently, I use transit, ride a bike, walk, and grudgingly drive a gas guzzler.  In my future, there may an electric vehicle or no vehicle. Cars are expensive no matter how you slice it.  To me, an electric vehicle just means making more of an upfront investment.  The investment from the solar panels to the battery in the vehicle that are available today are becoming more affordable.  I am not totally against oil.  Shipping huge amounts of discounted petroleum to China to be burnt and put into the atmosphere is stupid.  Maybe using small amounts of the remaining costly sweet crude to create lasting materials used in reusable, recyclable technology makes more sense to me. The amount of energy, destruction of ecology, and waste of fresh clean drinking water used in the pursuit of money for tar sand oil and fracked gas does not make any sense.  Oil and gas are heavily subsidized in so many ways -- I think that this needs to stop.  I've said it before and I'll say it again:  No pipelines, no tankers, no problem.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

NDP supports the Energy East pipeline

quote:

This is not the first time Mulcair has expressed support for a west-to-east pipeline. In September 2012, the Globe and Mail reported, "The federal NDP – which strongly opposes plans for a Northern Gateway pipeline to the Pacific coast – is now pledging its full support for a pipeline that would see Alberta oil pumped to Eastern Canada. In a speech to the Canadian Club of Toronto at the Royal York Hotel, Mulcair gave his clearest sign of support yet for the notion of a west-to-east pipeline." And this past February, he told the Canadian Press, “As a matter of principle between something like Keystone XL, which as far as we’re concerned is a big mistake, west-east is a better alternative."

The Council of Canadians
We unequivocally oppose the Energy East pipeline.

We reject Mulcair's assertion that it makes more sense to move bitumen in Canada east rather than west. In terms of sheer distance of the pipelines, it doesn't stand to reason that the 4,600 kilometre Energy East pipeline would be safer than the 1,177 kilometre Northern Gateway pipeline. Our report Energy East: Where Oil Meets Water estimates that Energy East could spill more than one million litres of crude oil in just 10 minutes. Furthermore, the pipeline would cross the source of drinking water for millions of people. A spill would have devastating effects on waterways flowing through cities such as Winnipeg, Ottawa and Quebec City.

We reject Mulcair's presumption that Energy East would mean refining, upgrading and adding value to bitumen in Canada. The report TransCanada’s Energy East Pipeline: For Export, Not Domestic Gain shows that refineries located along the Energy East pipeline route can process up to 672,000 barrels of crude a day (combined). Much of that capacity is already being filled by Atlantic crude and U.S. crude, with Line 9 soon to become a third major supply source. The report estimates that 978,000 barrels a day from the Energy East pipeline would be available for export. The Alberta Federation of Labour has commented, "Energy East will only solidify our role as 'hewers of wood, drawers of water…and diggers of bitumen."

We reject Mulcair's belief that it will create jobs in Canada. The majority of the jobs promised would be short-term, not permanent, and in construction and secondary industries. The Cornell Labour Institute found not only would TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline in the U.S. create fewer jobs than promised, but could actually kill more jobs than it creates. A spill from Energy East could also be a job killer for numerous industries. For example, a tanker spill in the Bay of Fundy, which sustains 2,500 direct jobs in fishing on the New Brunswick side alone, would be devastating to that sector, not to mention its impact on tourism jobs.

And we reject Mulcair's view that the greenhouse gases produced by the Energy East pipeline could be offset by companies paying for the pollution they create. In fact, the pipeline would produce 32 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year from the crude oil production required to fill it. That's greater than the 22 million tonnes that would be produced by the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline would also spur 650,000 to 750,000 barrels per day of additional production from the tar sands. That would mean a 39 per cent increase in tar sands production from 2012 levels. As such, this pipeline represents a dangerous expansion of the tar sands and GHG emissions that cannot be "attenuated" as Mulcair claims.

The next federal election is scheduled for October 19, 2015. The NDP will face resistance across the country to its position on the Energy East pipeline, particularly in Quebec where the party holds 54 of its 96 seats. We call on the federal NDP to reconsider its position on the Energy East pipeline....

http://canadians.org/blog/ndp-supports-energy-east-pipeline

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Fossil Free Canada Convergence deepens an international movement

As a junior in college, I helped to organize a conference at my alma mater, Swarthmore. A number of us had traveled to Appalachia two years prior on a school-funded trip to visit with communities resisting mountaintop removal coal mining there. Upon returning, we decided to start what would become the country’s first fossil fuel divestment campaign.

quote:

Last weekend, the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition hosted the first-ever Fossil Free Canada Convergence. Held at Concordia and Magill Universities in Montreal, the convergence brought together 80 youth organizers from around the country. Divestment has been up and running on campuses across Canada for well over a year; campaigns at the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, have already passed successful referenda for divestment through their student governments.

Kristen Perry — a fourth year student at McGill, who helped to organize the convening with Divest McGill — remarked on what it was like to have the country’s divestment activists together for the first time: “A lot of the time we get wrapped up into our individual campaigns and we need to remember that this is a bigger movement, within divestment and also within the climate movement.”

Like Quebec itself, the conference was bilingual in French and English. English programming focused generally on fossil fuel divestment, while French workshops and speakers dealt with the province’s growing anti-extraction movement against tar sands oil and pipelines, like the Energy East pipeline slated to stretch from Alberta and through Winnipeg and Montreal before its endpoint in Saint John, New Brunswick....

http://wagingnonviolence.org/2014/11/fossil-free-canada-convergence-deep...

Rokossovsky

The Council of Canadians wrote:

We reject Mulcair's presumption that Energy East would mean refining, upgrading and adding value to bitumen in Canada. The report TransCanada’s Energy East Pipeline: For Export, Not Domestic Gain shows that refineries located along the Energy East pipeline route can process up to 672,000 barrels of crude a day (combined). Much of that capacity is already being filled by Atlantic crude and U.S. crude, with Line 9 soon to become a third major supply source. The report estimates that 978,000 barrels a day from the Energy East pipeline would be available for export. The Alberta Federation of Labour has commented, "Energy East will only solidify our role as 'hewers of wood, drawers of water…and diggers of bitumen."

http://canadians.org/blog/ndp-supports-energy-east-pipeline

This is a highly questionable conclusion based on Mulcair's public statements. The inference is that there is not enough capacity to cover an influx of oil from the west and that this will mean that new oil will be shipped forward for processing elsewhere, which is fair enough under present conditions, however Mulcairs public statements indicate that he supports forcing the creation of new capacity for refining, by blocking exports of unrefined resources.

See his statements on the "Duch Disease".

It is just fine for CoC to critique the NDP position, but it should actually represent the NDP position fairly, and this does not.

Moreover, the Alberta Federation of Labour's comments are directed at the Premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick, not Thomas Mulcair, and their language actually echos many of Mulcair's points:

Quote:
We raise these points in an effort to encourage the public and media to look more closely at the claims being made by proponents of the pipeline, including the Premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick. Despite all the rhetoric and the spin, it’s clear that Energy East is not a ‘nation building’ project. Instead, it is yet another in a long line of projects aimed to perpetuating the ‘rip-it-and-ship-it’ approach that has characterized Canada’s resource sector for too long.

In fact, Mulcair's position is "preferable" to other proposals, because he is proposing to guarantee more economic benefits by an export barrier.

addictedtomyipod

Unionist wrote:

addictedtomyipod wrote:

There are no political parties that are against some form of west east pipeline, as I said before, the Greens are in favour of supplying crude to the eastern market, same as the NDP.

You never heard of Québec solidaire. They don't mindlessly follow the consensus of the chickenshits who don't want to rock the boat, who feel they need to smile at Bay Street and Wall Street to get elected.

Here in Québec, even 16-year-olds are smarter than your Greens and NDP and Liberals and Conservatives. They actually owe nothing to the bankers and oil tycoons, and they don't dream of cushy jobs. They have a planet to protect.

Ummm, OK Unionist. I'm from BC and QS is not on our radar out here.
With billions of foreign money in Alberta, would you just close shop and tell everyone to suck it up? The fact is it is easy to say no to all pipelines, but not pragmatic or realistic. The Greens have finally figured this out.
those 16 year olds may not owe anything to the oil tycoons, but they are Canadian and therefor own the mess made in Alberta and that means finding a way out of it that is not a poltical and diplomatic minefield. Calling someone a chickenshit does not qualify as a plan, that's just an asshole overreacting.

Pondering

Rokossovsky wrote:

This is a highly questionable conclusion based on Mulcair's public statements. The inference is that there is not enough capacity to cover an influx of oil from the west and that this will mean that new oil will be shipped forward for processing elsewhere, which is fair enough under present conditions, however Mulcairs public statements indicate that he supports forcing the creation of new capacity for refining, by blocking exports of unrefined resources.

See his statements on the "Duch Disease".

It is just fine for CoC to critique the NDP position, but it should actually represent the NDP position fairly, and this does not.

Moreover, the Alberta Federation of Labour's comments are directed at the Premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick, not Thomas Mulcair, and their language actually echos many of Mulcair's points:

Quote:
We raise these points in an effort to encourage the public and media to look more closely at the claims being made by proponents of the pipeline, including the Premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick. Despite all the rhetoric and the spin, it’s clear that Energy East is not a ‘nation building’ project. Instead, it is yet another in a long line of projects aimed to perpetuating the ‘rip-it-and-ship-it’ approach that has characterized Canada’s resource sector for too long.

In fact, Mulcair's position is "preferable" to other proposals, because he is proposing to guarantee more economic benefits by an export barrier.

The point of the pipeline is to increase production in the oil sands and access tidewater so the oil, refined or otherwise, can be shipped to foreign markets.

Energy East carries 1/3 more oil than Keystone so it is even worse than Keystone from the perspective of impact on climate change. Energy East also threatens the local Canadian environment much more than Keystone does. I don't want any pipelines at all and I do not support Trudeau supporting Keystone but of all the pipelines contemplated Keystone is the least threatening to Canada. Energy East, the Northern Gateway, and any Arctic exit routes are the worst from an environmental perspective.

That Energy East creates more jobs in Canada is completely immaterial.

 

Aristotleded24

addictedtomyipod wrote:
Unionist wrote:

addictedtomyipod wrote:

There are no political parties that are against some form of west east pipeline, as I said before, the Greens are in favour of supplying crude to the eastern market, same as the NDP.

You never heard of Québec solidaire. They don't mindlessly follow the consensus of the chickenshits who don't want to rock the boat, who feel they need to smile at Bay Street and Wall Street to get elected.

Here in Québec, even 16-year-olds are smarter than your Greens and NDP and Liberals and Conservatives. They actually owe nothing to the bankers and oil tycoons, and they don't dream of cushy jobs. They have a planet to protect.

Ummm, OK Unionist. I'm from BC and QS is not on our radar out here. With billions of foreign money in Alberta, would you just close shop and tell everyone to suck it up? The fact is it is easy to say no to all pipelines, but not pragmatic or realistic. The Greens have finally figured this out. those 16 year olds may not owe anything to the oil tycoons, but they are Canadian and therefor own the mess made in Alberta and that means finding a way out of it that is not a poltical and diplomatic minefield. Calling someone a chickenshit does not qualify as a plan, that's just an asshole overreacting.

I would add to this that the right wing often succeeds by pitting the idea of jobs against that of environmental protection, and people aren't going to go along with eliminating their own jobs. I've also said countless times that the way to stop the pipelines is to give people alternatives to fossil fuel consumption to make building these pipelines uneconomical in the first place. That's what some in the environmental movement don't understand.

Look up [url=http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html]Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.[/url] For most of us, being able to eat comes before saving the whales, and that's what we'll collectively choose if the choice is framed this way. We need better options.

Rokossovsky

Pondering wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

This is a highly questionable conclusion based on Mulcair's public statements. The inference is that there is not enough capacity to cover an influx of oil from the west and that this will mean that new oil will be shipped forward for processing elsewhere, which is fair enough under present conditions, however Mulcairs public statements indicate that he supports forcing the creation of new capacity for refining, by blocking exports of unrefined resources.

See his statements on the "Duch Disease".

It is just fine for CoC to critique the NDP position, but it should actually represent the NDP position fairly, and this does not.

Moreover, the Alberta Federation of Labour's comments are directed at the Premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick, not Thomas Mulcair, and their language actually echos many of Mulcair's points:

Quote:
We raise these points in an effort to encourage the public and media to look more closely at the claims being made by proponents of the pipeline, including the Premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick. Despite all the rhetoric and the spin, it’s clear that Energy East is not a ‘nation building’ project. Instead, it is yet another in a long line of projects aimed to perpetuating the ‘rip-it-and-ship-it’ approach that has characterized Canada’s resource sector for too long.

In fact, Mulcair's position is "preferable" to other proposals, because he is proposing to guarantee more economic benefits by an export barrier.

The point of the pipeline is to increase production in the oil sands and access tidewater so the oil, refined or otherwise, can be shipped to foreign markets.

Energy East carries 1/3 more oil than Keystone so it is even worse than Keystone from the perspective of impact on climate change. Energy East also threatens the local Canadian environment much more than Keystone does. I don't want any pipelines at all and I do not support Trudeau supporting Keystone but of all the pipelines contemplated Keystone is the least threatening to Canada. Energy East, the Northern Gateway, and any Arctic exit routes are the worst from an environmental perspective.

That Energy East creates more jobs in Canada is completely immaterial.

 

Sorry, you haven't followed Mulcair's policy statements on this issue clearly. He proposes an raw material export ban, or restriction. This is the reverse of an import tarriff or barrier. This is what Quebec did with raw lumber exports, something which forces manufacturers to create "value added" production facilities in Quebec, if they want to use Quebec's raw lumber.

This proposal is not addressed by the Council of Canadians statement, nor by you.

In short you could not export Canadian oil to foreign markets, without first refining it. This would mean that greater refining capacity would have to be created, with consequent permanent employment.

addictedtomyipod

I agree Ari24, you make a good point.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
I would add to this that the right wing often succeeds by pitting the idea of jobs against that of environmental protection, and people aren't going to go along with eliminating their own jobs. I've also said countless times that the way to stop the pipelines is to give people alternatives to fossil fuel consumption to make building these pipelines uneconomical in the first place. That's what some in the environmental movement don't understand.

It's not an either or situation. There are lots of people in the evironmental movement working on alternate energy and battling the pipelines is making them more unecomomical or illustrating that they are falsely economical as they shift environmental costs onto communities.

The jobs against the environment angle is a false argument. Pipelines destroy jobs too as a result of spills. The economic benefits to a particular area for allowing a pipeline to cross territory is negligible in comparison to the economic benefits.

The oil industry has proven that they can't transport oil by pipeline, rail or ship safely. Other provinces and territories have no obligation to accept the risk.

mmphosis

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I would add to this that the right wing often succeeds by pitting the idea of jobs against that of environmental protection, and people aren't going to go along with eliminating their own jobs. I've also said countless times that the way to stop the pipelines is to give people alternatives to fossil fuel consumption to make building these pipelines uneconomical in the first place. That's what some in the environmental movement don't understand.

Look up [url=http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html]Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.[/url] For most of us, being able to eat comes before saving the whales, and that's what we'll collectively choose if the choice is framed this way. We need better options.

The combined number of jobs in oil, gas and mining is very small compared to other sectors of the economy.  Someone mentioned that in Canada, the beer industry alone employs more people than the oil industry.  As for eating, a large amount of food is wasted.  Oil and tanker spills threaten peoples lives, jobs and the fish stocks that we depend on for food.  Like us, whales are at the top of the food chain and are an important part of the ecology of the sea that provides our food.

I agree with you Aristotleded24.  There are simplified 'false choices' being touted, like:

  • shipping dangerous Bakken fuel cargo on trains vs. pushing tar sand oil through old pipes (sic)
  • "jobs jobs jobs" (but actually only very few temporary in remote locations that might only be filled by TFWs) vs saving the whales (sic)

I really don't think the remaining oil, gas, and mining are economically viable without the amount of subsidies that these so-called industries receive.  Billions of dollars per year are given to corporations by government and trillions are spent to try keep the illusion going.  Resources are often extracted with little regard to the inputs of energy, fresh drinking water, and damage to ecology.

A real local thriving economy, better jobs, better pay, and conservation of ecology are attainable, compatible, and exist today.

"We need better options."

Rokossovsky

What we are looking for is a different attitude toward the economy, one that priortizes local interests and autonomy, including more localized manufacture of basics products. We should be able to see quite plainly that long distance import of commodities, only increases the carbon emissions of its transport, and this transport is subsidized by the low wages of foreign workers, and lax environmental controls. Sooner or later, this delicate economic infrastructure is being undermined globally, as we can see by the high price of imported essentials, such as food.

Moreover, local autonomy allows for superior democratic control over issues of the environment, while the globalized economy puts control well out of the reach of the concerns of ordinary people, about the environment, about working conditions, about anything.

One pipeline, and one project is not going to restore the Canadian economy to its hay day status as one of the chief manufacturing economies in the world. Mulcair is no revolutionary, but he consistently proposes means to increase local control that should have long term benefits for those that elect the government, and prevent capital flight, either through the export of non-value added products, to increased corporate taxation.

If we are ever to have real control over environmental concerns, then it is absolutely paramount that our government have the ability to control the economy, and have say over and above the profit-based motives of the international corporate sector.

Increased corporate taxation means real control over capital by government. Export barriers mean real local control over manufaturing.

We do not. And will not here simillar from either of the other leaders.

KenS

highlights of your quotes are mine:

Rokossovsky wrote:

.... however Mulcairs public statements indicate that he supports forcing the creation of new capacity for refining, by blocking exports of unrefined resources. 

See his statements on the "Duch Disease".

It is just fine for CoC to critique the NDP position, but it should actually represent the NDP position fairly, and this does not.

... the Alberta Federation of Labour's comments are directed at the Premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick, not Thomas Mulcair, and their language actually echos many of Mulcair's points:

AFL wrote:
We raise these points in an effort to encourage the public and media to look more closely at the claims being made by proponents of the pipeline, including the Premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick. Despite all the rhetoric and the spin, it’s clear that Energy East is not a ‘nation building’ project. Instead, it is yet another in a long line of projects aimed to perpetuating the ‘rip-it-and-ship-it’ approach that has characterized Canada’s resource sector for too long.

[Mulcair] is proposing to guarantee more economic benefits by an export barrier.

 

Rokossovsky wrote:

Sorry, you haven't followed Mulcair's policy statements on this issue clearly. He proposes an raw material export ban, or restriction. This is the reverse of an import tarriff or barrier. This is what Quebec did with raw lumber exports, something which forces manufacturers to create "value added" production facilities in Quebec, if they want to use Quebec's raw lumber.  

First you say that Mulcair 'indicates' he wants an export ban. The you say he has proposed one.

He has not just indicated he thinks the East-West pipeline is a good idea. His support of the pipeline has been unequivocal. He has said it would be conditional on the kind of environmental review [whcih the Harper govt will not give it, but Quebec will].

You are presenting his support as if it was equally qualified on an export ban. We need to see Mulcair's actual words. 

Pages

Topic locked