Ben West: Who will defend our coast?

Comments

By Ben West

October 22 was an amazing and inspiring day. On a cold Monday morning, thousands of B.C. residents came together in front of the legislature in Victoria to show their opposition to the export of tar-sands bitumen across the province and through our coast.

Our provincial government buildings sat empty on this historic day, because our premier had cancelled this legislative session. The symbolic image of the legislature left empty begs the question, who is really defending our coast?

British Columbians have been frustrated with the lack of leadership on this issue and continue to wait for someone to step up to champion this cause.

Two days later, I got a chance to speak with the provincial leader of the opposition, Adrian Dix, at his Vancouver-Kingsway constituency office. At the same time, actions were taking place at over 60 constituency offices across the province, calling on our provincial leaders to "Defend our Coast."

This not only gave folks who couldn't make it to Victoria a chance to show that they too oppose the proposed Enbridge and Kinder Morgan tar-sands pipeline projects, but some MLAs, including Dix, opened their doors and invited people in to discuss the issues.

The B.C. NDP has stated its opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and the party's MLAs have announced their intention to take back control of the approval process by conducting their own "made in B.C." environmental assessments—which would give them the ability to block the project from going forward.

They have also made it clear that, in regard to the Kinder Morgan pipeline proposal, they would ensure a “made in B.C.” assessment for that project as well.

The Houston-based megacorporation, Kinder Morgan, has quietly been trying to set itself up as the alternative to Enbridge. This company is owned by two former Enron executive billionaires, Richard Kinder and Bill Morgan, who were smart enough to leave Enron—taking with them millions of dollars—and then purchasing a subsidiary company, Enron Liquid Pipelines LLP, which has turned into the biggest pipeline company on the continent.

These Enron alumni bought B.C.'s only oil pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline, which we have been using to supply 90 percent of our oil consumption in the province since the 1950s.

Around the time that Kinder Morgan bought the pipeline in 2005, we began to see a shift toward increased tar-sands extraction as traditional oil supplies dried up and nonconventional and dirtier sources became profitable. Since then, the company has unassumingly been transforming the pipeline and the Vancouver harbour into an export route for tar-sands oil.

Already the corporation is limiting the amount of oil going to supply the local Burnaby refinery in order to export more raw bitumen. We already have seen an increase from 20 tankers a year—mostly taking oil to be refined in California and then brought back for our consumption at home—to 80 tankers per year since 2005.

The increase has explicitly been for the sake of export profits for Kinder Morgan, not for local consumption. Each of these tankers carries three times as much oil as was spilled by the Exxon Valdez.

Now this company wants to build a new pipeline about the same size as the Enbridge pipeline, along the same Trans Mountain route through what are now B.C.'s most heavily populated areas. This would result in at least 750,000 barrels per day going through the pipeline and more than 300 tankers a year in the Vancouver harbour.

The NDP has yet to take a strong and clear position against this proposal. At Dix's office this week, I questioned him on his party's stance on the proposal. I brought up the NDP's submission to the National Energy Board regarding the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, which focused heavily on "Dutch Disease"—the economic principle that basing your economy on exporting raw resources actually hurts your manufacturing sector and ultimately is bad for jobs and the economy.

I asked this potential premier what difference he saw between the Kinder Morgan pipeline and the Enbridge pipeline in terms of "Dutch Disease", and asked if they would take a consistent position and oppose both pipelines.

He didn't really answer my question, but instead said that the differences between these two projects were their timelines, namely that Kinder Morgan has not yet formally applied to the National Energy Board for approval.

I smiled a little, remembering the sign a local resident had been holding up outside his office that said "No slick talk".

The fact is, Kinder Morgan has already started hosting dozens of "open houses" with members of the public all along the pipeline route. It has also filed a "tolling application" with the National Energy Board, which would set the rate of compensation for stakeholders along the pipeline route.

And the NEB has actually announced that First Nations, environmental groups, and local landowners couldn't be interveners at these tolling hearings. The right to participate was only granted to municipalities and other industry members, such as oil companies.

This is putting the cart before the horse by negotiating compensation before even proposing the details of the project, and it should be reason enough to be outraged. It is proceeding with the proposal as if in the midst of an environmental review and public-consultation process, but there is no such project underway.

In fact, the company has yet to even produce a map of their proposed pipeline route.

Dix did state that his party was open to opposing the pipeline if the results of a “made in B.C.” assessment showed that the project shared the same flaws as Enbridge's proposal. That is good, but not good enough.

The City of Vancouver and Burnaby led the way by opposing this project months ago, and a couple weeks ago the Union of B.C. Municipalities voted to oppose all increases to tanker traffic off the B.C. coast.

The local Coast Salish First Nations have been outspoken in their leadership opposing these projects. Furthermore, a number of big unions have stated their opposition including, among others, the Alberta Federation of Labour and the Communication Energy and Paper workers (C.E.P.), which represents workers at the Chevron refinery in B.C. and workers in the Alberta tar sands.

The NDP may be keeping an open mind, but this experience should serve as a reminder that we need to pressure all of our elected leaders to defend our coast...all of it.

We also need those representing us to defend our climate, as either one of these projects would push us further down the road toward increased fossil-fuel dependence instead of getting us on the path to a sustainable and ethical local economy.

At the NDP’s 2012 convention, the party chose the passionate green jobs and social-justice advocate Van Jones as the keynote speaker. We need a province based on these kinds of ideas, good new sustainable jobs in a new economy. As of yet, we are seeing no indication this will become a reality.

As Van Jones points out in his book Reclaim the Dream, former U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt did not bring in the New Deal simply because he wanted to. He was pressured to do it by strong social movements.

The same could be said for every major social change throughout history: the civil-rights movement, woman's suffrage, the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, and so on. No matter who you support, we need to call on all political candidates to do the right thing and reject these pipeline proposals.

Progressive politicians may be more open to listening and be more likely to act on the concerns of citizens, but at the end of the day, it's up to us to organize the social movements required to make change. The Defend our Coast actions were a historic moment in these campaigns, but there is still a long way to go and a lot of work to be done.

We are going to keep the pressure on with more of our own town-hall meetings, educational reports, and other activities. We need all of the province’s elected officials to defend our coast, and to be champions of green jobs for the sake of our collective good.

Ben West is the Vancouver-based healthy communities campaigner with the Wilderness Committee.

Comments (11) Add New Comment
Forward thinker
I would like the NDP to take a stand against the KM expansion as well, but I understand why they have not yet done so. They have already been challenged on their position of NG pipeline before they have had the " made in BC" environmental assessment they have promised. While KM has begun consultations, they have yet to apply so there is plenty of time to take a position after the election, so why not " keep their powder dry" and wait. We know they are opposed to pipelines which put our environment at risk, but not ALL pipelines do that so it would appear to be political rather than based on science to take a stand now. That is what Harper did and for which he is rightly criticized.
1
3
Rating: -2
Ian Stephen
The Green Party at municipal, provincial and federal levels have taken a "No slick talk" stance on defending our coast.

http://www.greenparty.ca/media-release/2012-09-12/edmonton-vancouver-pip...
2
2
Rating: 0
G.J.W.
Gordon Campbell thieved and sold BC's resources to Communist China too. Chinese are coming to BC to take the mining jobs. Everything of value in BC, has been thieved, sold and is now gone. Terry Lake said. The BC Liberals are keeping their doors wide open for China.

All the BC citizens have left of this province is the beauty, our abundant woodland wildlife, our beautiful Orca and Humpback Whales and thousands of other marine creatures. Our Great Bear Rain Forest, where the Spirit Bears and the unique small wolves live. People come from all around the world to, Bear watch and Whale watch.

Our F.N. People rely on the bounty of BC, for their food sources to feed their family's. The F.N. People are, our unpaid stewards of, all our eco systems. They are fighting to save our wild Salmon, from the dirty diseased fish farms. They are the first to spot the danger of pollution being done, We respect their knowledge and warnings. We are standing up with them, and supporting them. We will help the F.N. to save our coast. They rely on the sea, for food as well.

But for the F.N. fighting to save this province. BC would have been a polluted wasteland, long before now.

Vancouver relies on tourism. No-way must that beautiful city, be destroyed by a spill..

Everything of value has been taken from us. Now, they want to dirty and destroy the only thing we have left.

Government greed trumps common sense every time. However, this time we stand fast.
1
2
Rating: -1
Nunya Biznis
No-one is defending anything except for the ability of corporations to make a profit. The coast is up for sale, along with all of our other resources and guess what? It's not Canadians that are buying them all up.Can you say ni hao?
2
2
Rating: 0
Ian Stephen
@Forward Thinker; I am puzzled by the statement re putting the environment at risk that "not ALL pipelines do that". Could you expand on that?
3
2
Rating: +1
devils advocate
how about someone defend our economy from all these leftist enviro nuts who want shut every project down
2
6
Rating: -4
RME
To Devil's Advocate..

What air do you breathe? What water do you drink? What are the costs
to our economy from a devastated environment, a disaster and an increasingly ill population? There are no jobs on a dying planet.

Pitting the environment against the economy is a strawman argument.
In today's world with green technologies, innovative ideas etc., booming,
you can have both... But the political will doesn't serve status quo vested interests like Kindermorgan etc.
2
2
Rating: 0
Birdy
Any fake enviro-politicians from ANY party wanna talk about the US military's continued testing of radioactive weapons in Canadian waters along the West Coast? No?

Doesn't fit the corporate media narrative? Shucks.
How 'bout the quasi-alternative left media narrative? No!?

Oh well, maybe next year...
2
3
Rating: -1
Time to Wake Up
Your right Birdie in that the ugliest truths - like radioactive testing in waters or the despicable use of depleted uranium by the U.S. military in Iraq etc. - are never covered by the the controlled opposition let alone the big boy media.

The environmental devastation and mutant D.U. babies that are being born with monsterous birth defects in Iraq (and to some of the exposed U.S. troops families, too) is a mega crime against humanity and the planet.

10
3
Rating: +7
R U Kiddingme
How did those thousands of people get to the legislature on Oct 22? Did they all walk or ride their bicycles? Or did they use some form of fossil fuel?

I too oppose the burning of stored hydrocarbon. We need oil to make plastic, medicine and fertilizer -- using it as fuel is ridiculous. However, that is what we have got right now. It is going to take some time to switch to solar, wind and, fingers crossed, cold fusion...in the meantime, how are we going to get from A to Z?

My fear is that if we don't get the oil, we get the coal instead, or god forbid fission.
2
1
Rating: +1
Ian Stephen
@R U Kiddingme - It''s already taken too much time. The physicist and chemist Svante Arrhenius developed a theory of global warming from fossil fuel emissions in 1896. The affect was measured in the atmosphere in the 1930s. In the US, President Johnson addressed Congress about it in 1967. The World Scientists Warning to Humanity was issued in 1992. Here we are in 2012 and we've continued to design and build our societies to rely on fossil fuels. In this era labelled the Anthropocene, we are seeing profound and accelerating changes in climate and in ocean chemistry, accompanied by a mass extinction some say is occurring at a rate greater than any previous. The systems our lives depend on are threatened. The only questions are to what degree and at what rate.

Many who are reluctantly complicit in fossil fuel use feel trapped by the lack of options open to them in their present circumstances, but "that is what we have got right now" only because of past choices. It is long past time to demand and create change, to recreate society the way we want it. Not coal or fission. Wind, geothermal, solar. More efficient community design, more efficient buildings, more sustainable farming, less consumerism. With every choice we make each day and with every vote we cast we need to make this change.

The time to have started would have been in the 1960s, around the time we put a man on the moon and were laying the foundations of the Internet. Before things got so bad. Looking forward, there will never be a better time to start than now.
2
2
Rating: 0
Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.