Caitlyn Vernon: One coast, one climate
On February 17 in Washington, D.C., over 40,000 people gathered in the cold, calling on President Barack Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline and address the climate crisis that has brought crippling drought, devastating wildfires, and superstorm Sandy to the United States.
Here in Canada, we are told, by our federal government, that climate change considerations don’t factor into our pipeline deliberations.
At the outset of the federally-appointed Joint Review Panel, mandated to review the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and tankers project, the panel denied requests to consider the end-use greenhouse gas emissions (that result from burning the tar sands bitumen carried in the pipeline and tankers) as part of the environmental assessment, declaring that climate issues were outside the scope of its work.
As if the consequences of burning the carbon carried by the pipeline (five billion tonnes of CO2 released over its 30-year lifespan) were somehow not connected to the pipeline itself.
At community hearings throughout British Columbia, the speakers were not deterred. Many determinedly brought our climate into the discussion, again and again.
"The carbon in the tar sands is like dynamite. And just because we aren’t the ones lighting the fuse doesn’t mean we aren’t responsible." – Kathryn Harrison, university professor
"We are on our way to six degrees warming. This is the science. We need to immediately de-carbonize our economies and the time for action is now." – Gordon Kenny, medical doctor
The community hearings are over and the score is in: 1,159 against, two for. The people of British Columbia have spoken loud and clear, saying no to the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines and tankers.
From Haida Gwaii to Prince George, from Kitimat to Kelowna, from Victoria to Port Hardy, everywhere the Joint Review Panel heard from community members, the story was overwhelmingly the same. We don’t want this project. No pipelines, no tankers, no problem.
With family stories, with compelling research, with tears and humour, and with a deep connection to this place we call home, each presenter seemed to hope that they might be the one to reach the heart of the panelists, to soften and humanize the game face the panel somehow managed to maintain through it all.
The reasons for opposition varied but there were common underlying themes: oil spills, tourism economy, First Nations culture, salmon fishing, sustainable jobs, our children’s future—and our climate.
"On our industrial road of destruction, we're a car running off a cliff, and the car is run on oil." – Ta’Kaiya Blaney, 11-year-old from Sliammon First Nation
"We have to phase out fossil fuels. That is our moral obligation to our children." - Peter Nix, former researcher for the oil industry
"Mr. Harper has fired many of Canada's climate scientists, but that will not make global warming go away any more than the apocryphal ostrich prevents calamity by hiding its head in the sand." - Caspar Davis, retired lawyer
What does it mean when the panel set up to review such a major project isn’t factoring in the major issue of our times? It means that climate leadership must be found elsewhere.
Sierra Club B.C. is calling on the B.C. provincial government and opposition parties to commit to taking the urgent climate action required. Step one is to say no to the tar sands pipelines and tankers that would so massively increase our greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
The climate impacts are not limited to Enbridge, and nor is the opposition. The near-unanimous opposition to the proposed Enbridge pipeline and tankers is just a taste of what is to come if Kinder Morgan moves ahead with its proposal to build a new pipeline from the Alberta tar sands to Burnaby.
Each major tar sands pipeline locks in a climate spill of five billion tonnes of CO2. This is equivalent to nearly a century of B.C.’s current fossil fuel emissions. It is like burning a third of Canada’s recoverable coal reserves.
So the proposed new Kinder Morgan pipeline would do more than just vastly increase the number of tankers a year navigating through the Vancouver harbour, across the Salish Sea, and through the Gulf Islands. It would lead to irreversible global warming. If we are to avoid the dire consequences beyond two degrees of warming, we need to stop building pipelines.
Concern about climate change has gone mainstream, and yet somehow our governments are not paying attention.
"A 4°C warmer world can, and must be, avoided—we need to hold warming below 2°C." – Jim Yong Kim, president, World Bank Group
"Even doubling our current rate of decarbonisation would still lead to emissions consistent with 6 degrees [C] of warming by the end of the century. To give ourselves a more than 50% chance of avoiding 2 degrees [C] will require a six-fold improvement in our rate of decarbonisation." - PricewaterhouseCoopers
The science is clear. The choices are apparent and the solutions are known. All one needs to do is read through the smart, compelling, passionate testimony from the Enbridge community hearings to know that British Columbians understand the risks to our climate and are ready to do what is necessary to end our addiction to fossil-fuels.
Courage and leadership flowed abundantly at the community hearings. Will our political leaders take heed and find the courage and leadership to do what is needed? The time for climate action is now. Our future depends on it.
Comments
10 Comments
PJ
Feb 26, 2013 at 5:34pm
And what pray tell are we going to do till we all run on air,wind power,solar power are not enough to power our world.To stop oil production,and import from other countries is better?.And what pray tell do the World bank Group and Price water house know about climat change?These are power,and money people.If there is climate change can it not be the world is changing its position to the sun which has happend througout history.wehave heard of THE ICE AGE,THE TROPICAL NORTH POLE that has the remnants of palm trees under the ice.Remember there is BILLIONS of dollars in climate chang hype.Bankers love mony.
I Love: One coast, One climate, One Earth
Feb 26, 2013 at 8:38pm
Dear Caitlyn Vernon: One coast. One climate
Thank you for writing this amazing article.
What our government(s) fail to acknowledge at a core level is that man is only part of the environment, and must learn to live in harmony with all elements that provide life on earth. It is inhumane and unconscionable for man to continue to inflict catastrophic destruction of all elements of nature yet still want to live on earth as if there's no consequence for his actions.
If I may also add another article that caught my attention:
"Environmentalists sue to force Ottawa to protect species along Northern Gateway route"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/environmentalists-s...
Seriously, Canadians need to demand fresh air, clean water, uncontaminated land and speak for all species that support our life here on earth.
David Suzuki Foundation - Write to President Obama
http://action2.davidsuzuki.org/clean-energy-not-pipelines
Current List of Memebers of Parliament Canada
http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimeP...
Matthew McCarville
Feb 26, 2013 at 11:57pm
Great work! Drastic problems demand definite solutions. British Columbians can harness wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, wave, run-of-river & large-scale hydropower. These are collectively referred to as wind, water & sun (WWS). Here’s a peer-review scientific study co-authored by several scientists, “Examining the feasibility of converting New York State's all-purpose energy infrastructure to one using wind, water, and sunlight” (Energy Policy, 2013, http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NewYorkWWSEnPolic...).
What about BC & Canada? By 2050 it should all be done with wind, water, sun--energy for the long run. To power half Canada's electricity, heating/cooling, transport, & industrial needs requires 55,000 5-megawatt wind turbines spread across windy area < 1/5 of Athabasca oil sands or 24,449 km2. With half the turbines placed offshore 12,225 km2 are needed inland, or 0.12 percent of Canada’s land for space between turbines which remains useful. Towers themselves will occupy 0.7 km2, < 8 times Parliament Hill.
Can this be done? Yes. In times of great import Canadians show what can be accomplished. Canada produced 16,000 airplanes during WWII in five and a half years, many more than the 6300 5-MW wind turbines to theoretically power Canada's 20 million vehicles with wind, including 690 such turbines for BC’s entire light-duty fleet.
We can provide all Canada's energy using WWS power with less new land (footprint & spacing) than is flooded by existing hydro-reservoirs. This reduces demand 1/3 without changing a light bulb--it's so efficient (we should also switch to LEDs & reduce end-use demand by a factor of 20 compared to incandescent bulbs, etc.) Costs of WWS technologies will be similar to today’s fuels except price-stable, as fuel cost is zero.
Air pollution, global warming & energy security problems can be solved with clean energy. CMA estimates 21,000 Canadians a year die prematurely from air pollution with current fuels (~3000 deaths/yr. in BC). When health & climate costs are accounted for, WWS power costs less than today’s sources. When the change is done for everyone, everywhere--the power of people harnessing wind, water n’ sun—we’ll finally relegate many major problems of our age to the annals of history.
For more energy planning with WWS, visit:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/susenergy2030.html
Matthew McCarville
Feb 27, 2013 at 6:14am
Great work! Drastic problems demand definite solutions. British Columbians can harness wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, wave, run-of-river & large-scale hydropower. These are collectively referred to as wind, water & sun (WWS). Here’s a peer-review scientific study co-authored by several scientists, “Examining the feasibility of converting New York State's all-purpose energy infrastructure to one using wind, water, and sunlight” (Energy Policy, 2013, http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NewYorkWWSEnPolic...).
What about BC & Canada? By 2050 it should all be done with wind, water, sun--energy for the long run. To power half Canada's electricity, heating/cooling, transport, & industrial needs requires 55,000 5-megawatt wind turbines spread across windy area < 1/5 of Athabasca oil sands or 24,449 km2. With half the turbines placed offshore 12,225 km2 are needed inland, or 0.12 percent of Canada’s land for space between turbines which remains useful. Towers themselves will occupy 0.7 km2, < 8 times Parliament Hill.
Can this be done? Yes. In times of great import Canadians show what can be accomplished. Canada produced 16,000 airplanes during WWII in five and a half years, many more than the 6300 5-MW wind turbines to theoretically power Canada's 20 million vehicles with wind, including 690 such turbines for BC’s entire light-duty fleet.
We can provide all Canada's energy using WWS power with less new land (footprint & spacing) than is flooded by existing hydro-reservoirs. This reduces demand 1/3 without changing a light bulb--it's so efficient (we should also switch to LEDs & reduce end-use demand by a factor of 20 compared to incandescent bulbs, etc.) Costs of WWS technologies will be similar to today’s fuels except price-stable, as fuel cost is zero.
Air pollution, global warming & energy security problems can be solved with clean energy. CMA estimates 21,000 Canadians a year die prematurely from air pollution with current fuels (~3000 deaths/yr. in BC). When health & climate costs are accounted for, WWS power costs less than today’s sources. When the change is done for everyone, everywhere--the power of people harnessing wind, water n’ sun—we’ll finally relegate many major problems of our age to the annals of history.
For more energy planning with WWS, visit:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/susenergy2030.html
PJ
Feb 27, 2013 at 7:27am
RE wind,solar,etc.First BC was going to build a new hydro dam on the fraser and people went mad against it.Now look at the wind turbins,envition 1000 times as many,solar panels sprea out over farm lands,tide gen.all along the beaches,wouldnt yhat look great?Then there is the storage of this power you harness from solar and wind as it is not consistant.The battry packs would be great probably incocevable.The power from these gens, is only used where there is a constant supply from gas or coal.Have you ever seen the bird and bat killing fields they call wind turbins? now think if you build thousands more? No matter how you look at it for now we need to gen.by burning fuel,and as the population grows we will need more thats only the facts.As for NEW YORK by the time they have ANY mony to rebuild their city,there will be three more gov. to change things.Its always good to talk green its very expenive(billions)and as of yet not concevable.Note;China builds 1 coal gen.stn.per week,now you want us to cut back?
Ron
Feb 27, 2013 at 8:56am
There is 50 years left of world oil supply and consumption is increasing at a alarming rate its time to shift away from oil and move towards green energy we have no choice its the future. As intelligent humans and for the future of our kids and their kids and for the sake of the environment and Oceans its the right thing to do for everyone.The problem is that the wealthy people with the money are the ones running the show money is powerful this is what we are up against to save this world from more destruction and global warming. This beautiful world we live in is worth the fight save.
DH
Feb 27, 2013 at 9:51am
I am totally appalled at all the ill-informed comments made regarding this whole debate. Add this with complete misconstrued and total lack of understanding or acknowledgement of any of the scientific data. Our climate has been changing for millions of years, and will continue to change. When are you people going to wake up??
Matthew McCarville
Feb 27, 2013 at 11:57am
Our climate has been changing for millions of years DH and PJ. One hundred million years ago it was warmer than today, but nobody lived back then. You've never seen warming like this, the rate of warming is ten times any rate of temperature change since deglaciation occurred 12-14 thousand years ago. So we've never seen warming like this in the presence of 7 billion people on Earth.
If we continue burning everything we'll eventually melt all the icepack and raise sea levels by 65-70 meters, flooding 7% of the world's land. If we power the world with wind, water and sunlight, it requires only 1% of world land, mainly open space between turbines.
PJ says there is not enough wind and sunshine to power the world. This is false. Large-scale integration of clean renewable energies will increase the availability of energy for humankind.
When we combine wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, wave, run-of-river and large-scale hydro across BC and Canada, there is no shortage, we can make the system reliable, costs will be affordable, price stable, and less added land is needed than is already flooded by existing hydro-reservoirs.
Wake up DH, air pollution and global warming are real problems, fossil fuels are depleting and too costly to maintain, and global clean energy is within reach. Even aircraft can run on liquid hydrogen which can be produced using excess wind and solar power, similar to how the space shuttles already run on LH2, although airplanes may be the last to be transformed.
Matthew McCarville (one last try)
Feb 27, 2013 at 4:04pm
Air pollution from current fuels kills 2.5-3 million people worldwide, including 21,000 Canadians and 3000 British Columbians, according to the Canadian Medical Association. The world has already warmed 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1750 and even if we could instantly stop emissions globally it would warm another 0.8 C before stabilizing. Energy insecurity from depleting fossil fuels and growing demand is a severe problem, yet amidst all this we still subsidize fossil fuels $1.4B-2.8B/yr in Canada, the high number includes federal and provincial subsidies.
We don't need more fracking gas & tar sands pipelines. Let's beef up power transmission lines for clean, renewable energy!
To power half of Canada for all-purposes with wind requires 55,000 5-megawatt wind turbines spread across windy areas less than 1/5 the Athabasca oil sands, or 24,449 km2. With half the turbines placed offshore, less than 9% of the Athabasca oil sands area or 12,225 km2 is needed inland for spacing between turbines, this is about 0.12% of Canada’s land, which remains useful for multiple purposes. The turbine towers themselves will occupy less than 8 times Parliament Hill.
So, it turns out to repower all of Canada’s electricity, heating/cooling, transport and industries using wind, water, and solar power, it really does require less additional land (footprint & spacing) than is already inundated by current hydro-reservoirs which've flooded 0.6% of Canada’s area. The conversion to clean energy reduces demand by 1/3 without changing a light bulb--it’s so efficient; switching to LEDs further reduces end-use demand by a factor of 20 compared to incandescent bulbs, etc.
Can this all be done? Yes. In times of great import, Canadians have shown what can be accomplished. Canada produced 16,000 airplanes during WWII in five and a half years, many more than the 6300 5-MW wind turbines to theoretically power all Canada’s 20 million vehicles; BC only needs 690 such turbines to power its entire light-duty fleet. While BC has little agricultural land, about 47,000 km2 is available in the sunny southern and northeast interiors. Doing the math, it turns out only a trivial bit of this is needed for solar farms and BC can combine clean renewable energy sources to replace the current energy infrastructure for all-purposes.
Eric Doherty
Mar 4, 2013 at 10:27am
Thank you Caitlyn! It is great to see climate front and centre in the fight against pipeline expansion, it has been pushed to the back burner for too long. Of course, the facking pipeline proposals including Chevron's PTP proposal need to be stopped too, not just the tar sands pipelines.
#nopipelines - bring on the wind turbines and trolley buses!