West-East Pipeline

653 posts / 0 new
Last post
KenS

Rokossovsky wrote:

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.

The market for more refined product shipped from the Eastern seaboard is zero [or less].

Irving and the Ultramar plant in Quebec are interested in conventional oil that could be brought on the East West pipeline. But they are not interested in upgrades that would be required for refining bitumen. The margins in Eastern refining are very thin.

Being able to ship Western "sweet" crude is just a financial bonus for TransCanada- the driver, without which the project stays on the drawing boards, is being able to ship bitumen

Irving is keen to build the export terminal.

 

 

KenS

Rokossovsky wrote:

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.

Export barriers mean real local control over manufaturing.

Agreed.

So, the export ban on bitumen via the proposed East-West pipeline is essential.

Which is why we need to see Mulcair's own words. Does he elevate the support for a ban to the same status as his support for building the pipleline? 

Pondering

 

Pondering wrote:
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.

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.

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.

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter where the oil is refined. It is still coming out of the ground and being refined somewhere for eventual consumption outside of Canada.

The purpose of stopping pipelines is two-fold.

1) Prevent pipeline leaks as they ALL leak it's just a matter of degree and location. Leakproof pipelines could be built but the oil industry must have concluded it is uneconomical to do so. Therefore, the pipelines being proposed are leaky ones. It is unecomomical for communities to absorb the costs of leaks in exchange for a few temporary construction jobs.

2) Prevent the expansion of the oil sands because of their impact on climate change.

Mulcair's proposals don't cover either of those issues.

Trudeau is taking the position that social licence is required but can be achieved through meeting environmental concerns which is about the same position as Mulcair has only he hasn't been promoting EE the way Mulcair has been for years.

Climate change and the local threat of disaster for communities along the routes of pipelines are the driving forces against pipelines.

In comparison, the promise of jobs for some communities on the east coast and warnings of economic disaster if we don't allow pipelines right through the heart of Canada have become hollow.

Really, what's the worst thing that's going to happen if we don't allow more pipelines, another recession? If pipelines are economical it's only in the very short term. Even 20 years from now we won't be able to use the oil industry as a primary driver of the economy. As a country economic wisdom suggests we need to be planning our transition.  If Alberta wants to get maximum benefit from it's oil it should be refining it at home not trying to pump out bitumen as fast as possible.

Maybe they all have to support oil for electability. Either way, the NDP's current position on pipelines prevents them from claiming the high ground environmentally. The Liberals are no better but neither are they worse.

Pipelines have become the line drawn in the sand. You can't be a little bit better than the next guy. All three major parties are supporting pipelines. The NDP is no better than the other parties on the environmental file.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Of course if refining capacity were actually built in Alberta, and bearing in mind that it would be a multi-year endeavour, the argument that any pipelines MUST be built would be weakened, and might even slow down the frantic pace of development... it is not as if the hydro-carbons have an expiry date built in. But of course that would undermine the Manichean discourse... we couldn't have that could we?

ETA: A couple of years old, but still has an interesting analysis.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..first nations issues, pipelines, fracking, environment, trade deals and jobs must be addressed as a whole and not piecemeal or separate. what is being learned in bc and now in quebec and elsewhere is that the resource industry is not going to move forward unless communities involved agree to it. this means consultation in a genuine and meaningful way. this means concerns being addressed. this is not just a theoretical debate where you get to toss out possibilities. where is the consultation with municipalities like burnaby and vancouver. the cons are in the process of removing first nation treaty rights to push forward it's energy policies so where is the uproar from the opposition parties.

..the decision whether or not to support the kinder morgan was postponed by the federal ndp until the neb ruled on it..as in the case of northern gateway. this differed in the case of energy east. who did the ndp consult with before mulcair announced that project was going to be a priority? certainly not the first people downstream from the tarsands contracting cancers. certainly not those suffering in chemical alley that surrounds sarnia, ont. certainly not those affected by the spills happening in alta now. certainly not the victims of the massive mount polley spill. none of these existing problems are being addressed in an acceptable manner now let alone when the troubles related to the possible pipelines begin.

..just because the politicos have locked themselves into a system that disrespects life doesn’t mean we should accept their direction. and now, with many many folks speaking out it is up to politicos to convince the very diverse and growing movements opposed to these projects..via real dialog.

Unionist

addictedtomyipod wrote:
Ummm, OK Unionist. I'm from BC and QS is not on our radar out here.

Had you read the thread before making comments about "all parties", your radar would have picked up something about QS support for the mobilization here in QC.

Quote:
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.

No, that's your scaaaaary straw man. I wouldn't say that at all. I'd say, carry on. I'd also say, we don't want any of your fossil fuel traversing our homes and land for anyone's profit. Are we allowed to say we don't want no west-east pipeline? Could you, maybe, build a detour through New England or something?

Quote:
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.

Ahhhh, ok! Since the downfall of the NEP, my understanding was that Alberta's wealth belonged to Alberta. Now apparently the cleanup belongs to us?? If that were truly the case, then I have to agree with your initial straw man. Shut the entire thing down - now - save the planet - cancel NAFTA and the other FTAs, and put the unemployed fossil fuel employees to work in manufacturing goods and providing services that Canadians need.

What goes around, comes around.

And if that means the NDP loses its massive electoral support in Alberta - well, we're the ones here who can make or break the NDP, right? So keep us happy and save the planet and bring back decent jobs and win the next election. Sounds like a win-win-win-win for the NDP - right?

 

Rokossovsky

KenS wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

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.

Export barriers mean real local control over manufaturing.

Agreed.

So, the export ban on bitumen via the proposed East-West pipeline is essential.

Which is why we need to see Mulcair's own words. Does he elevate the support for a ban to the same status as his support for building the pipleline? 

Here for example, CTV paraphrases the argument:

Quote:

We understand that our resources are a blessing and we can continue to develop them,” Mulcair said.

“But for heaven’s sake, instead of shipping them raw to the U.S., this rip and ship approach that the Liberals and the Conservatives are in favour of, the NDP says why not go from West to East? You create more value-added jobs in Canada, you get a better price for the producing provinces because there’s better royalties there as well, and you’re ensuring you’re taking care of Canada’s energy security for the future.”

As an example, Mulcair referenced Quebec’s decision to ban the export of raw logs in Quebec, which spurred a furniture manufacturing industry in the province.

Shipping natural resources away is a lost opportunity, and the focus should be on developing new technologies for energy development in Canada, he says.

“There’s a common-sense role for government in these kinds of things, because we should have a balanced economy,” Mulcair said.

“We used to ship the logs to the States and buy back the furniture they would make. Now we’re doing that with energy.”

Rokossovsky

Pondering wrote:

 

Pondering wrote:
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.

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.

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.

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter where the oil is refined. It is still coming out of the ground and being refined somewhere for eventual consumption outside of Canada.

No you are missing the point. Let's get back to where I (we) started. I was objecting to the Council of Canadians statement because it does not actually address the NDP economic position.

1) It makes the case that refining capacity in the east is not sufficient to deal with greater oil flow, and that this means that crude would have to be shipped forward to be refined elsewhere. That prospectus is based on the existing plan (ala Alberta & NB) and capacity, whereas it is clear that Mulcair is committed to finding a way to make sure that new capacity is created, for example, through export restrictions.

2) Mulcair says this is "preferable", to any of the other options, shipping Bitumen through Keystone XL (Trudeau/Harper), or the West-East pipeline because at least it will create permanent jobs in refining, not just temporary construction jobs, as the Council of Canadians suggest.

The problem is that the Council of Canadians, is not addressing the NDP argument.

Your comments on the environmental issue are fair enough about the general picture, but the NDP is also making an economic argument.

Rokossovsky

bagkitty wrote:

Of course if refining capacity were actually built in Alberta, and bearing in mind that it would be a multi-year endeavour, the argument that any pipelines MUST be built would be weakened, and might even slow down the frantic pace of development... it is not as if the hydro-carbons have an expiry date built in. But of course that would undermine the Manichean discourse... we couldn't have that could we?

ETA: A couple of years old, but still has an interesting analysis.

Quote:

But NDP energy critic Peter Julian has a different take. He says Canada’s failure to compete in the refining industry has been as much a result of government policy as economics.

“Can we build refineries? Can we build upgraders? Yes we can. We need a commitment from the government to look at policies that favour that kind of construction, and that kind of value-added production,” he told The Huffington Post. “What we have right now is a government that favours the opposite: exporting of raw bitumen.”

KenS

KenS wrote:
 Which is why we need to see Mulcair's own words. Does he elevate the support for an export ban to the same status as his support for building the pipleline? 

In answer you qoted from an interview with Mulcair:

Quote:

We understand that our resources are a blessing and we can continue to develop them,” Mulcair said.

“But for heaven’s sake, instead of shipping them raw to the U.S., this rip and ship approach that the Liberals and the Conservatives are in favour of, the NDP says why not go from West to East? You create more value-added jobs in Canada, you get a better price for the producing provinces because there’s better royalties there as well, and you’re ensuring you’re taking care of Canada’s energy security for the future.”

As an example, Mulcair referenced Quebec’s decision to ban the export of raw logs in Quebec, which spurred a furniture manufacturing industry in the province.

Shipping natural resources away is a lost opportunity, and the focus should be on developing new technologies for energy development in Canada, he says.

“There’s a common-sense role for government in these kinds of things, because we should have a balanced economy,” Mulcair said.

“We used to ship the logs to the States and buy back the furniture they would make. Now we’re doing that with energy.”

 

Mulcair's support for the pipeline is always unequivocal. He adds the clear qualification "provided proper environmental review is done."

Can you point to any equivalent qualification that his support of the pipeline is contingent on or goes only with an export ban?

Otherwise, those are just nice stories. 

Trans Canada and all the other proponents also alwasy feature national security and replacing the use of imported oil at refineries. They also would like if the refineries would use the bitumen they plan to ship in the pipeline. But they know that is not what the pipeline is about, it is an optional extra.

In real terms, what is different about the way Mulcair puts the possibility of an export ban?

Rokossovsky

KenS wrote:

KenS wrote:
 Which is why we need to see Mulcair's own words. Does he elevate the support for an export ban to the same status as his support for building the pipleline? 

In answer you qoted from an interview with Mulcair:

Quote:

We understand that our resources are a blessing and we can continue to develop them,” Mulcair said.

“But for heaven’s sake, instead of shipping them raw to the U.S., this rip and ship approach that the Liberals and the Conservatives are in favour of, the NDP says why not go from West to East? You create more value-added jobs in Canada, you get a better price for the producing provinces because there’s better royalties there as well, and you’re ensuring you’re taking care of Canada’s energy security for the future.”

As an example, Mulcair referenced Quebec’s decision to ban the export of raw logs in Quebec, which spurred a furniture manufacturing industry in the province.

Shipping natural resources away is a lost opportunity, and the focus should be on developing new technologies for energy development in Canada, he says.

“There’s a common-sense role for government in these kinds of things, because we should have a balanced economy,” Mulcair said.

“We used to ship the logs to the States and buy back the furniture they would make. Now we’re doing that with energy.”

 

Mulcair's support for the pipeline is always unequivocal. He adds the clear qualification "provided proper environmental review is done."

Can you point to any equivalent qualification that his support of the pipeline is contingent on or goes only with an export ban?

Otherwise, those are just nice stories. 

Trans Canada and all the other proponents also alwasy feature national security and replacing the use of imported oil at refineries. They also would like if the refineries would use the bitumen they plan to ship in the pipeline. But they know that is not what the pipeline is about, it is an optional extra.

In real terms, what is different about the way Mulcair puts the possibility of an export ban?

Because the specific solution to creating more capacity, is not written in stone, whether it be an export restriction, or direct investment in infrastructure, or the possibility that increased supply of cheaper oil will spur investment in capacity. All of these types of tools have been floated as part of NDP discussion on this topic. Mulcair's reply to the argument made by CoC has always been that the "assumption is that the capacity will not be built".

However it is done, the NDP clearly advocates government intervention to build home grown refining capacity. as part of its platform.

Quote:

Conservative neglect doesn’t end there. Even with synthetic crude oil from Alberta trading for as much as $41 a barrel less than imported Brent crude oil on the east coast, Conservatives have continued to pull out all the stops to promote the export of raw resources while ignoring the potential for increased pipeline capacity from west to east.

Within a framework of sustainable development — including a cap-and-trade system and thorough environmental assessments — New Democrats would prioritize our own energy security and with it the creation of high-paying, value-added jobs, refining and upgrading our own natural resources right here in Canada — just as other resource-rich developed nations like Norway already have.

Building a balanced, sustainable energy future -- Thomas Mulcair

KenS

KenS wrote:

Trans Canada and all the other proponents also alwasy feature national security and replacing the use of imported oil at refineries. They also would like if the refineries would use the bitumen they plan to ship in the pipeline. But they know that is not what the pipeline is about, it is an optional extra.

In real terms, what is different about the way Mulcair puts the possibility of an export ban?

Rokossovsky wrote:

Because the specific solution to creating more capacity, is not written in stone, whether it be an export restriction, or direct investment in infrastructure, or the possibility that increased supply of cheaper oil will spur investment in capacity. All of these types of tools have been floated as part of NDP discussion on this topic. Mulcair's reply to the argument made by CoC has always been that the "assumption is that the capacity will not be built".

However it is done, the NDP clearly advocates government intervention to build home grown refining capacity. as part of its platform.

Quote:

Conservative neglect doesn’t end there. Even with synthetic crude oil from Alberta trading for as much as $41 a barrel less than imported Brent crude oil on the east coast, Conservatives have continued to pull out all the stops to promote the export of raw resources while ignoring the potential for increased pipeline capacity from west to east.

Within a framework of sustainable development — including a cap-and-trade system and thorough environmental assessments — New Democrats would prioritize our own energy security and with it the creation of high-paying, value-added jobs, refining and upgrading our own natural resources right here in Canada — just as other resource-rich developed nations like Norway already have.

Building a balanced, sustainable energy future -- Thomas Mulcair 

New Democrats would prioritize energy security and creation of high paying jobs, but there is no direct linkage in that long piece to the East-West pipeline.

There is this though:

Quote:

With unused refining capacity in eastern Canada already available, increasing west-east capacity is, in fact, a win-win-win — better prices for producers (and higher royalties for provinces), more jobs here at home and greater energy security for all Canadians.

The "unused refining capacity" in Eastern Canada is mothballed refineries awaiting demolition. And there is no industrial policy that can bring them back, or incentive new ones to be built, or expand the already huge surviving refineries. Even with the closed refineries there is still a huge overcapacity in the Atlantic Basin (both sides of the pond) that will persist for many years to come.

Those surviving refineries are sourcing more of their oil from the West. They would certainly like to get it in a pipeline. But as noted before they are not going to invest in upgrading required to refine bitumen. Nor is there an incentive structure that could overcome the market saturation and make it possible for them to invest. There is no economic rationale that could justify them building new capacity for refining bitumen, mothballing some of their very up to date and efficient refining of "sweet crude."

 

 

Rokossovsky

KenS wrote:

KenS wrote:

Trans Canada and all the other proponents also alwasy feature national security and replacing the use of imported oil at refineries. They also would like if the refineries would use the bitumen they plan to ship in the pipeline. But they know that is not what the pipeline is about, it is an optional extra.

In real terms, what is different about the way Mulcair puts the possibility of an export ban?

Rokossovsky wrote:

Because the specific solution to creating more capacity, is not written in stone, whether it be an export restriction, or direct investment in infrastructure, or the possibility that increased supply of cheaper oil will spur investment in capacity. All of these types of tools have been floated as part of NDP discussion on this topic. Mulcair's reply to the argument made by CoC has always been that the "assumption is that the capacity will not be built".

However it is done, the NDP clearly advocates government intervention to build home grown refining capacity. as part of its platform.

Quote:

Conservative neglect doesn’t end there. Even with synthetic crude oil from Alberta trading for as much as $41 a barrel less than imported Brent crude oil on the east coast, Conservatives have continued to pull out all the stops to promote the export of raw resources while ignoring the potential for increased pipeline capacity from west to east.

Within a framework of sustainable development — including a cap-and-trade system and thorough environmental assessments — New Democrats would prioritize our own energy security and with it the creation of high-paying, value-added jobs, refining and upgrading our own natural resources right here in Canada — just as other resource-rich developed nations like Norway already have.

Building a balanced, sustainable energy future -- Thomas Mulcair 

New Democrats would prioritize energy security and creation of high paying jobs, but there is no direct linkage in that long piece to the East-West pipeline.

It says this: "Conservatives have continued to pull out all the stops to promote the export of raw resources while ignoring the potential for increased pipeline capacity from west to east."

Your general points are a little to deterministic for my liking, markets change. For example, the market is changing right now with the increasing tensions in Eastern Europe and ongoing instability in the mid-east. Even now the EU is thinking of changing the designation of Canadian oil, so that it can reduce supply dependence on Russia.

Moreover, past discussions have included actual refining in Ontario for export to the USA. At the very least reducing dependence on imported crude to feed refineries in New Brunswick is not a bad thing from an economic perspective.

It may be that market incentives are not going to do the trick, as you said, I would never rely on such a mechanism myself, but the point remains that the NDP have clearly stated they are committed to increased upgrading and refining capacity, even going so far as to suggest, as Thomas Mulcair has said, export restrictions on raw materials.

This is the argument that the CoC fails to address -- you are doing a better job of making an argument on point about capacity.

Moreover, the reference to the Alberta Federation of Labour statement on the West-East pipeline seems a little cherry-picked, since it basically argues the point about "value added" production that Mulcair has repeatedly endorsed since he took over the leadership. My sense is that the Alberta Federation of Labour agrees more with Mulcair than it disagrees, citing the Premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick, and the lack of commitment to increased refining capacity, and "rip and ship" economics:

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.

KenS

I'm not much of a fan of the CoC, but they are on solid ground "failing to address" what is nothing more than a wish.

It is convenient for you to brush it all off as "a little too deterministic for my liking".... and citing "past discussions about increasing capacity" are just more evidence of grasping at straws. There is even less chance of hypothetical new capacity exporting into the US heartland. The Midwest basin oil majors finished a more than decade process of upgrading to process Alberta bitumen- and those are fed by other Keystone and Enbridge pipelines [including the old pipeline that spilled bitumen into the Kalamazoo that is still being cleaned.]. It is not an overall saturated market like the Atlantic Basin, but there is no basis for anyone to bring in refined bitumen without permanent subsidies from taxpayers.

We could chase that around forever with you claiming potentials and NDP commitments to make it work somehow. So let's leave all that aside for the purposes of discussion.

Bottom line: Tom Mulcair has promised his support for the pipeline. Period.

The pipeline gets the NDPs support regardless of how credible and realistic is the narrative that it is about ending rip and ship.

There is absolutely no question that the economic basis for the East-West is more capacity for rip and ship of bitumen. Sweet crude will also get shipped. But there is not enough of it and the future supply is not secure. While the pipeline is economic if it shipped bitumen alone. And if there were a condition on building the pipeline that the supply is refined in Canada, or even half the supply, the pipeline would be dropped.

If we get the East-West pipeline, we get rip and ship. Tom Mulcair tells us the NDP will make sure that new refinery capacity uses that supply... somehow. Eventually.

KenS

The AFL does not have that common ground with Mulcair that you hypothesize.

Their position has nothing to do with any national goals.

They have not given up on having more Alberta bitumen processed into synthetic crude. [Their hope is a little more realistic than waving a wand and talking about increased refining capacity in Central or Eastern Canada, but that is not the point here.]

More upgraders were on the horizon, until the price tags started coming in. The likelihood of a revival looks ever more remote, since it got no renewed traction at all, even with the long term discounting of Alberta bitumen.

But that price spread is all the AFL has for hope to hang on to. It seems to be dissapearing anyway, but Keystone XL, Nothern Gateway, or East-West would kill off what little chance remains.

KenS

So far at least, you do not see anyone on the big public stages featuring any kind of detail to shoot down the fairy tale that any more than a trifle of crude carried on the East-West will get used in Canada.

The critique is left at "this is not about replacing foreign oil, it is about exporting ever more Canadian oil." The debate is still early stages out here. As time goes on, the details will probably spread farther among the public. But there is no reason not to make the argument now simply as a statement.

And in fairness to the CoC, you are quoting from what is a running blog on the topic. They may have a fuller articulated position somehwere. And even in that category of one off pieces, here is another from them in the same week, one of the 3 myths being debunked is 'replacing foreign oil'. How it is all about rip and ship.

Pondering

Rokossovsky wrote:
Your comments on the environmental issue are fair enough about the general picture, but the NDP is also making an economic argument.

My point is to be progressive on this issue means not supporting any pipelines. The NDP (to me) is the worker party not the "social justice party" or the "progressive party". As "the worker party" the NDP supports big business as long as it creates union jobs.

The NDP's economic argument is immaterial to people concerned for the environment.

 

Rokossovsky

KenS wrote:

So far at least, you do not see anyone on the big public stages featuring any kind of detail to shoot down the fairy tale that any more than a trifle of crude carried on the East-West will get used in Canada.

The critique is left at "this is not about replacing foreign oil, it is about exporting ever more Canadian oil." The debate is still early stages out here. As time goes on, the details will probably spread farther among the public. But there is no reason not to make the argument now simply as a statement.

And in fairness to the CoC, you are quoting from what is a running blog on the topic. They may have a fuller articulated position somehwere. And even in that category of one off pieces, here is another from them in the same week, one of the 3 myths being debunked is 'replacing foreign oil'. How it is all about rip and ship.

Thanks for the detailed assessment.

I agree that the NDP might be more forthright about its intentions on this, and my first reaction was more along the lines of thinking that a more useful approach would be to demand a clearer and detailed policy proposal on the pipeline issue, vis jobs, and increased capacity, because the overall thrust of Mulcair's policy, fits more closely with more traditional social democratic models which likely would have gotten a pass 20 years ago from the CoC.

Rokossovsky

Obviously we are going to disagree on this one. Mulcair, and the NDP have proposed a series of initiatives to address the economic back end of this pipeline. See above where they critique the cancellation of an 11b investment in upgraders for oil cancelled by Harper.

More importantly, in fact no, you actually have to address the economic issue in its entirety. The biggest mistake of the mainstream environmental movement is to ignore the economics, and time and time again they are trapped in the mode of thinking that environmental issues are somehow above "partisanship", or "left and right", and its from this fallacy that we get the naive belief that issues of the environment are going to be solved through neo-liberal market incentive formulas such as "cap and trade", and "revenue neutral" carbon taxes.

Even worse, the biggest weakness of those trying to promote climate change awareness are these areas of economics, where the direct impact of environmental reform is born by the lower classes, which in turn creates an predictable backlash against cost downloading. Mark Carny is all for "revenue neutral" carbon taxes, since ultimately its a Green Trojan Horse for replacing progressive income tax and corporate taxes with consumption taxes. "Cap and trade" is an obvious boondoggle. So, you get direct economic impacts on the lower classes (including the middle class) accompanied by control mechanisms that are so ill-defined that it is obviouse they are permeable to plain corruption that it is easy for people to see them as a deliberate rip-off.

An sustainable future, must also be politically sustainable, and this will never happen if you increase social stresses through impoverishing people in the name of environmental reform, where you create a plutocrats paradise, where they fly and drive and everyone else has to deal with underfunded, and barely functional public transit.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Fake grassroots advocacy part of TransCanada's plan to silence Energy East critics

Documents leaked to Greenpeace show TransCanada’s plans to spend millions creating industry-funded grassroots campaigns, conducting “detailed background research on key opposition groups,” and enlisting “supportive third parties” to “put the pressure on [groups like Environmental Defence]" to thwart citizen opposition to its proposed Energy East pipeline.

The tactics described are similar to methods advocated by Richard Berman, an American consultant and lobbyist whose leaked transcript urging oil companies to "win ugly" in an "endless war" against environmentalists was reported in The New York Times....

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/fake-grassroots-advocacy-part-tran...

Screenshot from document "Energy East Quebec Plan"

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Tar Sands Devastation Unveiled outside Canada Europe Energy Roundtable

Tuesday November 18th, 2014. A coalition of climate and social justice organizations and artists held a silent presence and unveiled a large landscape which depicts the devastation caused by Canadian tar sands outside the Canada Europe Energy Roundtable this morning.

“Communities from across the UK have come together to make this banner to show our solidarity with those communities on the front lines of tar sands who have lived for generations in close relationship with the land” said Amanda Cid, a community artist “it is important to make visible the animal species and cultures that are being pushed to extinction because of decisions being made behind closed doors between industry and government.”....

KenS

I think the time has passed that you can say environmentalist organizations pay insufficient heed to ecoonomic arguments that are always part of the "persuasion equation."

That said, the more what you hear comes from the grassroots, the more it will seem nothing has changed.

But even someone like me- always among the most informed about the industry dynamics of whatever we are working on- only thinks that some of the time is it the right time to focus the 'main public stage' discussion on debunking myths about economic benefits and 'needs'.

The old adage that is true of electoral politics also applies here. You may have the best rational arguments, but if it is your opponents strong suit, those rational arguments easily get trumped. Many times you are best off sticking with your strong suit, which is what both supporters and fence sitters expect from you.

That does not mean you just let the rip and extract forces have the economic benefits terrain. But you have to be careful about how, and how much, you go there.... even if you have a very compelling logical case.

KenS

Put that simply:

One should never underate the power of sticking to "We cannot do that to our home and planet."  (period)

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

epaulo13 wrote:

Fake grassroots advocacy part of TransCanada's plan to silence Energy East critics

Documents leaked to Greenpeace show TransCanada’s plans to spend millions creating industry-funded grassroots campaigns, conducting “detailed background research on key opposition groups,” and enlisting “supportive third parties” to “put the pressure on [groups like Environmental Defence]" to thwart citizen opposition to its proposed Energy East pipeline.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/fake-grassroots-advocacy-part-tran...

 

..discussion occured on democracy now by the person who reported the above story in the guardian. it begins at the 51:00 mark on the video and there is transcript available as well.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/19/as_sioux_tribe_calls_keystone_xl

eta:

..what struck me most from this interview was that the energy east pipeline was never meant to serve canadians (although this may be a secondary result) but that it needs ports to ship it elsewhere and the xl pipeline was meeting to much resistance for that to happen.

Unionist

Well this is unfortunate:

[url=https://ricochet.media/en/207/former-ndp-staffer-leads-pr-campaign-for-e... NDP staffer leads PR campaign for Energy East pipeline[/url]

Quote:

The revolving door between Parliament and the private sector has swung open once again, as a leaked report from U.S. public relations firm Edelman, prepared for Transcanada as part of a broader strategy to sell its Energy East pipeline project, makes clear that links between Canada’s New Democratic Party and the pipeline company’s PR firm are closer than previously imagined.

The document, titled “Grassroots Advocacy Vision Document,” reveals that Erin Jacobson, the former deputy director of strategic communications in official opposition leader Thomas Mulcair’s office, has been acting as “Canadian program lead” since joining Edelman’s Energy East team to “provide Canadian-specific advocacy counsel” on June 1, mere days after she left the NDP. Ms. Jacobson has been acting as vice-president of digital public affairs at Edelman, the world’s largest private public relations firm.

Rokossovsky

KenS wrote:

I think the time has passed that you can say environmentalist organizations pay insufficient heed to ecoonomic arguments that are always part of the "persuasion equation."

Not necessarily at the grass roots of more radical environmental analysis, because there are some very significant analysis that question consumption based economic models, and the idea of constant "growth", itself. All the more reason to applaud those who are standing firm on all tar sands and pipeline developement.

But the mainstream movement, and what is acceptable to the corporate capitalist class for their buy-in most certainly draw from the analysis that environmentalism is somehow "a-political", and supersede a political analysis of economy, and this shows in the ways that international environmental initiatives aimed at reducing GHG emissions are framed, in particular the nearly universal acceptance of "Cap and Trade", even in the NDP and the Green Party, as an essential regulatory tool, if not the most essential regulatory tool for curbing CO2 emissions through international agreements.

The entire edifice of international environmental agreements from Kyoto onward are heavily reliant on the neo-liberal model proposed by Al Gore, and it is things such as "revenue neutral" Carbon Taxes that are successfully deployed as Green Trojan Horses that downloading government costs onto the lower classes, while cutting progressive taxes. Objectively, good arguments for carbon taxes can be made as long as the revenue generated goes towards buiding the sustainable economy through such things as expanded mass public transportation -- but that is not what the elite are buying into.

The BC Carbon Tax will not add revenue at all, for any purpose.

Many are afraid to give these up in favour of a more holistic view of environment and economy, because to do so will on the one hand abandon whatever work has already been done, but also because it is going to get extreme resistance of the patrons of capitalist economics. Having big business on side for "revenue neutral" carbon taxes, makes things so much easier, and as such many organizations and activists are easily co-opted in this manner.

At least "something" is being done, so they say.

Sadly, the "Green Party", is even worse than the NDP on these issues.

I wish I could give fulsome support for the NDP on this particular policy, but I can not, but Mulcair in his usual precise manner, uses very precise language to define his position on the West-East pipeline. He says it is "preferable" to the other options, in the context of fulsome environmental impact studies and strong regulation, implemented through a strong consultative process, and when serviced through expansion of value added production. And I agree. It is "preferable".

But that doesn't mean its a good thing, just acceptance of the terrain provided by years and years of tar sands development, going way back to the days of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, and the NEP, and the billions thrown into this economic sinkhole already, and the fact that total rejectionism would be both economic suicide for Canada, and political suicide for Thomas Mulcair.

Hardly a strongly principled position, to say the least, but it is at least politically logical.

On the bright side, one can only hope that increased regulation and lower oil prices will just make the whole things completely untenable, economically speaking.

KenS

This article seems to have just appeared, but I think the story has been kicking around at least a couple days.

Former NDP staffer leads PR campaign for Energy East pipeline

Quote:

The document, titled “Grassroots Advocacy Vision Document,” reveals that Erin Jacobson, the former deputy director of strategic communications in official opposition leader Thomas Mulcair’s office, has been acting as “Canadian program lead” since joining Edelman’s Energy East team to “provide Canadian-specific advocacy counsel” on June 1, mere days after she left the NDP. Ms. Jacobson has been acting as vice-president of digital public affairs at Edelman, the world’s largest private public relations firm.

... and click on the document link in the quote. A chilling read.

 

 

Unionist

KenS wrote:

This article seems to have just appeared, but I think the story has been kicking around at least a couple days.

Um, yeah, I posted it yesterday lol. Scroll up.

It's chilling all right.

Would be nice if there were a political party (other than QS) that listened to real people about pipelines and tar sands.

 

 

Rokossovsky

KenS wrote:

This article seems to have just appeared, but I think the story has been kicking around at least a couple days.

Former NDP staffer leads PR campaign for Energy East pipeline

Quote:

The document, titled “Grassroots Advocacy Vision Document,” reveals that Erin Jacobson, the former deputy director of strategic communications in official opposition leader Thomas Mulcair’s office, has been acting as “Canadian program lead” since joining Edelman’s Energy East team to “provide Canadian-specific advocacy counsel” on June 1, mere days after she left the NDP. Ms. Jacobson has been acting as vice-president of digital public affairs at Edelman, the world’s largest private public relations firm.

... and click on the document link in the quote. A chilling read.

 

I don't know, its got some upside's to it, as well, such as these observations:

Quote:

• Permanent, persuasive, nimble and well-funded opposition groups

• Pipeline projects being used as proxies for the broader "off-oil" public debate

• Record low levels of public trust in government, meaning regulatory approval is no longer sufficient to successful project implementation.

Unionist

Wow. This June 4, 2012 release looks like the definition of irony now:

[url=http://marjolaineboutinsweet.ndp.ca/ndp-joins-black-out-speak-out-campai... JOINS “BLACK OUT, SPEAK OUT” CAMPAIGN AGAINST C-38[/url]

Quote:
“The Conservatives want to weaken our environmental protections by accelerating the development of oil pipelines, reducing environmental assessments and limiting the right of environmental charities to speak out,” said NDP Environment Critic, Megan Leslie. [...]

For more information, please contact: Erin Jacobson, Director of Communications, 1-613-236-3613 x 2238

I guess if you're good at directing communications against pipelines, you could also be good at directing communications for pipelines.

Well played, Ms. Jacobson!!

KenS

Laughing

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

Wow. This June 4, 2012 release looks like the definition of irony now:

[url=http://marjolaineboutinsweet.ndp.ca/ndp-joins-black-out-speak-out-campai... JOINS “BLACK OUT, SPEAK OUT” CAMPAIGN AGAINST C-38[/url]

Quote:
“The Conservatives want to weaken our environmental protections by accelerating the development of oil pipelines, reducing environmental assessments and limiting the right of environmental charities to speak out,” said NDP Environment Critic, Megan Leslie. [...]

For more information, please contact: Erin Jacobson, Director of Communications, 1-613-236-3613 x 2238

I guess if you're good at directing communications against pipelines, you could also be good at directing communications for pipelines.

Well played, Ms. Jacobson!!

I guess that is one way to put it, except that it would be a bald fabrication to say that the NDP said that it was against pipelines. What they say in the press release is that they are opposed to reduction of environmental standards and regulation to accelerate "the development of oil pipelines".

At the very same time, some will recall, Mulcair was promoting "environmentally sustainable" development, not no development, specifically in the context of the "Energy East" pipeline project, which refurbishes and renovates existing pipeline infrastructure, for the most part, as opposed to building a whole new conduit over the Rockies and to Kitimat, the present target to be destroyed by the Conservatives:

Quote:
“It’s two very different things. If you’re internalizing your environmental costs; if you’re enforcing legislation then you can continue to develop,” said Mr. Mulcair, later adding that “I was very clear that I was never going to preach against developing the oil sands. What I was saying was that you have to include the environmental price in the way you’re doing it.”

This from 2012: Mulcair says NDP will support West-East pipeline provided Enbridge pays environmental costs

Some people are (deliberately pehaps?) failing to remember the actual content of NDP policy, in order to make the charge of hypocrisy while they try and wrap them up in a big conspiracy guilt by association ball made out of straw men?

I don't know if Jacobsen had anything to do with creating NDP policy on the pipeline, but I do know that she was never a "puplic servant", as the "Richochet" article implies when it says observes that: "Other recent examples of parlaying public service into lucrative pay cheques abound." She worked for the NDP in communications, not the government and was not attache to the Parliamentary NDP offices, as far as I can tell.

A few too many loaded and inaccurate statements, makes it look like a writer is harbouring an agenda of their own, as opposed to reporting the facts, in the cause of informed debate.

The NDP has been supporting the general idea of the "Energy East" project for some time. What they opposed was reduction in environmental standards in C-38.

KenS

Fair enough to say that it is a stretch of the actual information being used to accuse the NDP of hypocricy.

But you place an overarching defence of everything about the NDP's defefence on a thin base of some things that can be called overstatements.

Lets allow it is not out and out hypocricy. The whole thing still does not pass a basic smell test.

Jacobsen did not have anything to do with policy. But that she could go from a "nuanced" support of the East-West to working for TransCanada's global counter-attack on oppenents says something. She isn't working on nuances anymore. She is beating the bushes to create some 'advocacy' for TransCanada's whole corporate agenda.

And getting back to the NDP itself, here is as kind and friendly a criticism as you could ask for. From here in Halifax.

You can’t lead on climate and support Energy East. Catherine Abreu of the Ecology Action Centre writes: “At this point, it is an either/or choice: either we invest in clean energy infrastructure or we continue down the road of fossil fuels.”

Unionist

KenS wrote:

Fair enough to say that it is a stretch of the actual information being used to accuse the NDP of hypocricy.

Ken - do me a favour - please ignore the professional straw-man manufacturers. Scroll back and see. NO ONE IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD accused the NDP of "hypocrisy".

The accusation is the opposite - that the NDP unabashedly and proudly pushes west-east pipeline transmission. Jacobson making her fortune churning out propaganda for the pipeline barons is perfectly consistent with that.

Quote:
You can’t lead on climate and support Energy East. Catherine Abreu of the Ecology Action Centre writes: “At this point, it is an either/or choice: either we invest in clean energy infrastructure or we continue down the road of fossil fuels.”

That's the real point here. The Jacobson episode just shows the ugly features of the "expert" communicators who will sell their souls for a song.

Rokossovsky

KenS wrote:

Fair enough to say that it is a stretch of the actual information being used to accuse the NDP of hypocricy.

But you place an overarching defence of everything about the NDP's defefence on a thin base of some things that can be called overstatements.

Lets allow it is not out and out hypocricy. The whole thing still does not pass a basic smell test.

Jacobsen did not have anything to do with policy. But that she could go from a "nuanced" support of the East-West to working for TransCanada's global counter-attack on oppenents says something. She isn't working on nuances anymore. She is beating the bushes to create some 'advocacy' for TransCanada's whole corporate agenda.

And getting back to the NDP itself, here is as kind and friendly a criticism as you could ask for. From here in Halifax.

You can’t lead on climate and support Energy East. Catherine Abreu of the Ecology Action Centre writes: “At this point, it is an either/or choice: either we invest in clean energy infrastructure or we continue down the road of fossil fuels.”

It's not a "defense" of their position. Its a correction on the facts of the NDP position, which were being misrepresented.

So I think we agree that to say that the NDP was never "against pipelines". And there is no flip-flopp on the issue, with an additional point that there is not much that the NDP can do about subordinate PR people, taking their skills, and moving on to the corporate sector. That is a matter of Jacobsen's conscience, and doesn't reflect on the the NDP, no more than Nick Kouvalis appearing as the campaign manger for Rob Ford, then Christie Clarke, and then John Tory, reflects on any of those parties, despite the fact that they are nominally in different camps, and even in opposition to one another at times.

It might say something about the culture of Jack Layton's office, given that Jacobsen's career was solidified there. It is certainly an interesting move.  Perhaps her stint there will teach her something about what the corporate sector is all about.

Having said that I guess we can get back to discussing the actual policy, which was where I entered into this discussion with the Council of Canadians statement in this thread, and on this one the NDP has been remarkably consistent, so to spin it as if the NDP once "against" pipelines is false, even if those who are critiquing Meaghan Leslie want to impose the definition that it must be an "either/or choice" is one that the NDP continue not to accept. As a demand it is fair enough, and I certainly support those who want to emphasize and pressure any and all parties along these lines.

The point Catherine Abreu even more interesting in its original context, where she says:

Quote:

It is true that we will continue using fossil fuels for a while longer. It is also clear that fossil fuels are becoming more difficult and costly to extract. Plus, there’s that whole business of our addiction to fossil fuels propelling changes in the climate that will obliterate our coastlines and dramatically shorten the lake hockey season.

The era of fossil fuels is drawing to a close. It must end if we are to safeguard the health of future generations, and it can end because present generations have developed the alternatives.

Transition takes time and those alternatives won’t entirely replace our fossil fuel-based systems in the next decade. They will, however, dominate the global energy and electricity landscapes of 2050.

At this point, it is an either/or choice: either we invest in clean energy infrastructure or we continue down the road of fossil fuels. The future can not afford for us to have it all.

And this more clearly engages the problem that Mulcair is addressing in the issue of governance. So, its great to call for "investment" in sustainable energy, but its another thing to propose where that "investment" is going to come from, particularly in an political environment, where the existing government is on the one hand hollowing out the financial ability of government to "act" proactively as an "investor", while on the other shredding the ability of local government to rein in corporate projects.

Mulcair insists that if Enbridge wants to run the pipeline they will have to pay for the environmental costs.

Quote:
“It’s two very different things. If you’re internalizing your environmental costs; if you’re enforcing legislation then you can continue to develop,” said Mr. Mulcair, later adding that “I was very clear that I was never going to preach against developing the oil sands. What I was saying was that you have to include the environmental price in the way you’re doing it.”

And, just to note, it is not strictly true that pipeline is "new" infrastructure, the great majority of the Energy East pipeline, is refurbished existing infrastructure.

So, unlike that other parties, in Mulcair you actually have a politician who is engaging these issues from an environmental perspective, as policy, with a very clear objective of maintaining local control and power of government to intervene in the process, and seeking benefits to make transition to a more sustainable future that are economically tenable. And this is of utmost importance because sustainable future must be economically sustainable, or it will be politically untenable.

It would seem that Mulcair would aim to minimize the damage, by refitting existing infrastructure, asserting the right of government to intervene, and allowing for greater input from affected communities, and directing energies toward building a stronger manufacturing economy by keeping as much of the production "in house", and rejecting wholesale development of entirely new infrastructure, elsewhere, which will have next to no redisdual benefits at all, and greater global impact since that development will be entirely outside of the control of the Canadian government, ala Keystone XL, or floating Bitumen laden tankers along the BC coast to China.

In his usual careful manner Mulcair's operative word was "preferable", in reference to the other available options of dealing with the tremendous "sunk costs" of the pell mell rush to develop the tar sands. That Harper must strip all the teeth out of environmental regulation says volumes about how those regulations act as a deterrent on the financial viability of the whole tar sands project. I think the point is to strangle the beast through regulation, incrementally, while recovering investment.

NorthReport

Serious problems ahead. 

How could the NDP work out a deal with Suzuki?

David Suzuki “Won’t Be Intimidated” By TransCanada’s Dirty War Against Climate Justice Activists

http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2014/11/21/david-suzuki-wont-int...

Unionist

Great article - thanks for the link, NR!

 

Rokossovsky

NorthReport wrote:

Serious problems ahead. 

How could the NDP work out a deal with Suzuki?

David Suzuki “Won’t Be Intimidated” By TransCanada’s Dirty War Against Climate Justice Activists

http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2014/11/21/david-suzuki-wont-int...

Interesting material.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Ontario, Quebec sign deals on electricity, climate change

The premiers of Ontario and Quebec signed a joint agreement to work together to share electricity and to advance their climate change agendas after a combined meeting of their cabinets today.

The statement makes a direct reference to the pipeline projects planned to carry Alberta oil through Ontario and Quebec....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ontario-quebec-sign-deals-on-electricity...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i understand now that more than $300,000 has been raised in que. incredible!!!!

Anti-pipeline fervour not the legacy Stephen Harper had in mind: Hébert

quote:

This is only one small measure of how quickly Central Canada’s public opinion is gelling against the plan to link the Alberta oilfields to the refineries of eastern Canada.

Once considered the pipeline bid most likely to succeed, TransCanada’s project is on the way to joining Enbridge’s Northern Gateway on the long shots list.

According to a poll on Friday two thirds of Quebecers oppose Energy East.

On that same day, the premiers of Ontario and Quebec put forward a list of provincial conditions that TransCanada would have to meet to secure their support.

In so doing Kathleen Wynne and Philippe Couillard borrowed a page from British Columbia Premier Christy Clark’s handbook.

Two years ago she presented Enbridge with a list of conditions to meet in exchange for her government’s support for its Northern Gateway pipeline.

B.C. had five conditions. Quebec and Ontario have seven.

On paper the federal government and the National Energy Board have the final say on the way forward.

But there are myriad ways for a province to block or delay a federal infrastructure project and it would not be the first time that voters had forced governments to think twice about allowing a controversial one to go forward.

The fact that otherwise business-friendly provincial governments are putting more and more distance between themselves and the pipeline file is a sign that public opposition to these projects is fast spreading well beyond the environmental movement....

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/11/24/antipipeline_fervour_not_t...

Rokossovsky

Looks like they might have to refine in Alberate, which will probably please the AFL.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Council of Canadians map of Energy East pipeline route

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..press release

Edelman and TransCanada agree to end collaboration on the Energy East Pipeline project

TORONTO, Nov. 26, 2014 /CNW/ - Over the last week, attention has moved away from the merits of TransCanada's Energy East Pipeline project.  As a result, and in the best interests of the project, Edelman and TransCanada have mutually agreed not to extend Edelman's contract beyond its current term.  The contract concludes at the end of December, but Edelman will support the transition of work.

The communications strategy for the Energy East Pipeline is "to drive an active public discussion that gives Canadians reason to affirmatively support the project."

We stand by our strategy. It was both ethical and moral, and any suggestion to the contrary is untrue.

Unfortunately, the conversation about our efforts has become so loud in certain areas that it is impossible to have an open and honest conversation about the Pipeline project.  The project is too important and a thoughtful, deliberative conversation is needed more than ever.  For that reason we feel that selection of a new partner for the project is necessary at this time so a new conversation on the merits of the project can begin.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1453435/edelman-and-transcanada-agree-to...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Kanestake grand chief says Energy East pipeline will impact land claims

video

Kanesatake Mohawk Grand Chief Serge Simon is worried.

TransCanada proposed Energy East pipeline will have a direct impact on his band’s comprehensive land claims says Simon.

He wonders why the Crown is absent from the process between his people and the company.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

[url=https://ricochet.media/en/217/quebec-vs-energy-east]Quebec vs. Energy East[/url]

Quote:
Sunday night, on the most watched television show in Quebec, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois — who is, in full disclosure, a weekly columnist for the French edition of Ricochet — announced he would be donating the $25,000 Governor General’s Literary Award he received for his first book, Tenir tête, to the fight against pipelines.

...

Quote:

Nadeau-Dubois made an appeal for Quebecers to match his donation through a crowdfunder launched concurrently with the show. He asked for $25,000.

In 24 hours, he raised almost $300,000 and counting. All of the money raised will be donated to Coule Pas Chez Nous, (It will not flow here), a coalition of regional community groups from all parts of Quebec. It will be used to help organize grassroots resistance to Energy East and the reversal of Line 9B (Quebec’s other incipient pipeline project).

Based on the dollars raised in the first 24 hours, it is the most successful crowdfunder in Canadian history. It is also a game changer in the fight against pipelines.

...

Quote:

That’s right, we said menace. The editorial position of this media outlet, unlike most other outlets in Canada, is to accept the work of the Nobel-prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations Environment Program and 97 per cent of all climate scientists. According to them, we must leave most of the tar sands oil, and other fossil fuels, in the soil to avoid catastrophic climate change.

We cannot do that if we build these pipelines. Not Northern Gateway, not Kinder Morgan, not Keystone XL and certainly not Energy East. It isn’t a question of picking the least worst pipeline, as Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau have framed it. We cannot allow even one to be built, not while staying within the carbon budget our scientists agree we must in order to stave off disaster.

Rokossovsky

epaulo13 wrote:

..press release

Edelman and TransCanada agree to end collaboration on the Energy East Pipeline project

TORONTO, Nov. 26, 2014 /CNW/ - Over the last week, attention has moved away from the merits of TransCanada's Energy East Pipeline project.  As a result, and in the best interests of the project, Edelman and TransCanada have mutually agreed not to extend Edelman's contract beyond its current term.  The contract concludes at the end of December, but Edelman will support the transition of work.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1453435/edelman-and-transcanada-agree-to...

Guess that is it for Erin Jacobsen's new job. Welcome to the corporate sector. :)

Rokossovsky

This didn't seem to make the grade for this thread -- Council of Canadians: Liberals and Conservatives support Energy East oil terminal on the St. Lawrence River

Quote:
The NDP put forward a motion in the House of Commons that states, "the proposed Port of Gros-Cacouna oil terminal, which will be used for the sole purpose of exporting unprocessed Canadian oil, will have a negative impact on the Canadian economy through the loss of well-paid jobs, will constitute an unacceptable environmental threat to the St. Lawrence ecosystem, including the beluga whale population, and therefore, is not consistent with the principle of sustainable development, and must be rejected."

At 6:55 pm on Monday, the House voted 94 in favour, 175 opposed to this motion.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..don't be so glum. it's a good thing that people are coming together in such a strong way. it bode's well for the future. and that they are under no ones thumb. all the talk about movements and the ndp coming together..well the movements are speaking. time for the ndp to talk with them. time for the ndp to support them. mulcair was just in vancouver talking at the bc fed convention. he didn't even make time to go up to bby mt. that didn't go unnoticed i'm sure.

Rokossovsky

Glum? Who is glum?

The NDP has never supported the Northern Gateway Pipeline. You seem to be implying that Thomas Mulcair's failure to make an appearance in Burnaby, indicates that he does, and he is avoiding the issue?

In fact, the reason he supports the general West-East pipeline idea, without the terminal in Quebec, is because he believes that it is superior to the Northern Gateway Pipeline. They consistently oppose anything that involves shallow water shipping. That is the whole point, I think:

Tom Mulcair's NDP firmly against Northern Gateway pipeline

Quote:
"Allowing super tankers into the Douglas Channel is madness, and it should not take place," Mulcair said. Aside from the risk of spills, Mulcair said the federal government has failed to consult First Nations that would be impacted by the project. "The pipeline itself suffers from one major flaw, which is the fact that we're not dealing with First Nations a nation-to-nation basis," Mulcair said.

You think not showing up in Burnaby indicates a shift in his position?

They also don't support shipping in the St. Lawrence either.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..what i'm suggesting is that the ndp just wants to tell others what to do. just like the other parties. i'm well aware of the ndp positions on the pipeline so you can stop trying to spin me. so when is the ndp going to start talking to people on the ground?

Pages

Topic locked