Calgary Sun: More public disclosure for fracking coming down the pipe in Alberta

For the Calgary Sun, Bill Kaufmann

on February 22, 2012:

More public disclosure of so-called fracking is coming down the pipe in an Alberta that’ll be seeing much more of the controversial practise, energy regulators said Wednesday.

During a press briefing meant to minimize growing public concerns about the fracking of oil and gas, Cal Hill of the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) said Alberta will likely demand producers notify the public about fracking activities — and the kinds of chemicals they use — by year’s end.

It’s a policy that’s been adopted by other jurisdictions in North America.

“We are updating our submission requirements … we’re continually looking at how to update regulations — if we need to make any regulatory changes to minimize risks, we’ll do so,” said Hill.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is the process of injecting water, sand and chemicals to break up underground rock formations in order to free oil and gas deposits.

There’s widespread concern the practise is contaminating groundwater supplies.

But Hill said that, despite anecdotal evidence of ranchers’ tap water igniting following nearby fracking, the jury’s still out on the cause of that phenomenon, adding it could be caused by naturally-present methane.

And he said the main threat to water sources are poorly-cemented well bores that can occur in any form of drilling.

“There’s no reason to believe there’s any risk to useable water if casing requirements are met,” said Hill, adding casing integrity hasn’t been a problem in Alberta.

Another hazard, largely to surface water, is the threat of new wells contaminating nearby existing ones — causing drilling fluid to shoot to the surface, menacing water there, he said.

Since 2009, the ERCB has investigated five such blow-outs.

But Bill Donahue of the environmental group Water Matters said the ERCB’s own numbers show thousands of wells have leaked — a quarter of them from improper casings.

“To suggest casing problems are not a problem is just factually incorrect,” said Donohue.

He said the ERCB can’t be too confident about the province’s drilling record because it hasn’t monitored enough in the past.

And he said if there’s cross-contamination between oil wells, the ERCB has to be more vigilant about the threat to ground water.

“They’re trying to play catch-up and tell people they’re safe rather than identifying the problems,” said Donohue.

bill.kaufmann@sunmedia.ca

twitter@SUNbillkaufmann

I’d call this one for our side. – Mickie

CBoC Economics Blog: Cities are the Main Economic Engine

Cities Are the Main Economic Engine: Will Canada Finally Get it?
December 23, 2011 by Mario Lefebvre, Director
Centre for Municipal Studies. Conference Board of Canada

For years now The Conference Board of Canada has been pressing this country not only to recognize the importance of its large urban centres, but to put in place policies that would allow our largest cities to reach their full potential. At a time when globalization is no longer a vague concept, but a reality, it is Canada’s cities that have to compete with global urban centres like Shanghai and Hong Kong. Running a city means more than just focusing on policing, snow removal and waste management. There are other important responsibilities, including economic development, social housing and attracting immigrants. All of these additional responsibilities are financed largely with the same old tool: property taxes. This is not going to work!

Canada’s cities are the country’s main economic engine. As go our cities, so goes the country. Cities are where more and more people live and where a large proportion of innovation takes place. If this country chooses to continue to ignore this reality, our long-term wealth will be at stake.

While the perfect model to generate a “city agenda” is hard to find, Canada could at least be inspired by what is happening elsewhere, for example, in the United Kingdom. The coalition government has determined that the United Kingdom will have to focus on transforming their core cities1 into powerful, innovative 21st century cities if it is to rebound from the global recession. The government has already taken several steps towards ensuring that UK cities fulfill their role as engines of growth. An important dimension of the UK government plan is to focus on individualized city plans rather than blanket national policies.

Over the coming years, the U.K. government hopes to work with local leaders to develop tailored “city deals” with the individual core cities sculpting much of their own regional economic growth plan. During this two-way transaction, the national government will transition certain powers and financial resources to local governments. However, cities will need to demonstrate strong, visible and accountable leadership and effective decision-making structures to receive these new powers and funding. Critics argue that the UK government will actually disengage financially with its cities under this plan. But cities can’t have it both ways, i.e. additional power and at the same time continuing to receive the current level of transfers from the U.K. government. And while the plan does provide powers to cities in terms of economic development, cities will need to ensure they put in place the appropriate institutional and strategic arrangements required to complete this task.

Another idea that could inspire Canada comes from New York State where, as reported by Bruce Katz of the Brookings Institution, a new wave of innovation in economic development is emerging at the state and local level in the absence of federal leadership on this issue. First, New York State, under the leadership of Governor Andrew Cuomo, has focused on bottom-up economy-shaping, which honors and respects the profound differences across regional economies. Over several months, 10 regional councils in New York crafted strategic plans for their regions to compete for $200 million in state funding. The distinctive strengths of disparate regions came through in every regional plan. The Regional Council competition revealed the potential for a new economic development model. Plan after plan showed the liberating effect of collaboration across jurisdictions, sectors and institutions that were either unaware of each other or locked in debilitating conflict. Beyond New York, this innovation is also directly and immediately relevant to other states that are similarly experimenting with bottom-up approaches to shaping the post-recession economy. In Nevada, a new state economic development entity is actively seeking to regionalize state strategy and implementation. In Colorado and Tennessee, Governors John Hickenlooper and Bill Haslam, respectively, have both made bottom-up economic development a central tenet of their growth strategy.

Bruce Katz goes on to argue that “if America is going to restructure its macro economy for the long haul, it will happen as metro and regional economies build on their own strengths and leverage their distinctive assets and advantages. The New York Regional Economic Development Council process presents a call not only for reinventing government but for remaking federalism.”

Undeniably, if Canada was to adopt a “city agenda”, it would have to be tailored in the same way, as the needs of its largest urban centres differ significantly. Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver, to name a few, do not have the same requirements. Each has their own unique economic structure and there is no way that a blanket national policy could work in Canada.

But two major issues remain: the funding of our cities and identifying who would be responsible for putting forward a “city agenda”. On funding, the property tax alone will not allow our cities to take this country to the next level. The Conference Board of Canada has been urging a change in the way our cities are funded and this has to be addressed as soon as possible. With regards to who would be responsible, each province should bring forward their own “city agenda” as cities remain creatures of the provinces. But given that we are talking about the wealth of the country as a whole, couldn’t the three levels of government work together to achieve a city agenda? If other jurisdictions can work together for better results, why couldn’t we?

1 Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham and Sheffield.

Water Law: Public Trust May Be Fresh Approach to Protecting Great Lakes

By Keith Schneider
Via: Circle of Blue

January 17, 2012  WASHINGTON, D.C. — Maude Barlow, a 64-year-old author and activist from Ottawa, is chairperson of the Council of Canadians, one of that country’s most influential public interest organizations. She has spent a globally prominent career advocating for clean water, environmental protection, and fairer trade deals for the Great Lakes region.

James Olson, a 66-year-old attorney from Traverse City, Michigan, is an expert in American environmental law who challenged Nestle’s authority to bottle Michigan’s groundwater in a 2003 case that spurred an eight-state pact in 2008 to block big diversions of water from the Great Lakes.

Now the two advocates, driven by their shared allegiance to the security of the Great Lakes, have teamed up to develop and promote the biggest idea of their careers. They are intent on applying two ancient governing and legal principles — defining the Great Lakes as a shared “commons,” protected by the public trust doctrine — to reverse the deteriorating condition of the largest system of fresh surface water on earth.

On December 13, Barlow and Olson took a momentous first step toward their goal when they spent 75 minutes formally introducing the concept to the Canadian and American leaders of the International Joint Commission (IJC), a bilateral agency founded in 1909 to help manage the Great Lakes and other waters that cross the boundaries of the two countries. It was the first time that a framework for managing the Great Lakes as a commons had been presented at such a high government level in both nations.

“We were asking the IJC to show leadership, by promoting a new narrative for protecting the Great Lakes,” Barlow added. “They were gracious, warm, and receptive. There was no hostility and a great deal of interest in how it would work.”

Frank Bevacqua, the IJC spokesman, said the commissioners would not comment publicly on what they heard. “Our commissioners wish to have the opportunity to discuss the material presented by Barlow and Olson amongst themselves, before giving interviews on the subject,” he said.

The proposal from Barlow and Olson also attracted interest from water law experts outside of government. Paul Simmons — a water law specialist and partner at Somach, Simmons, and Dunn in Sacramento — said in an interview with Circle of Blue that, since a 1983 state Supreme Court case, California has required water suppliers and regulators to consider the public trust implications in decisions involving water allocations from rivers for such things as supplying drinking water or for wildlife conservation.

The biggest question in defining the Great Lakes as a commons subject to public trust principles is how to install such principles in real-world law and regulation, according to Simmons.

Read the rest of the article

Peter Gleick: “Global Warming Has Stopped:” How to Fool People Using “Cherry-Picked” Climate Data

Via: Forbes

The current favorite argument of those who argue that climate changes isn’t happening, or a problem, or worth dealing with, is that global warming has stopped. Therefore (they conclude) scientists must be wrong when they say that climate change is caused by humans, worsening, and ultimately a serious environmental problem that must be addressed by policy makers.

The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth. Here is a tiny sample of the false claims, gleaned from various blogs, comments to my previous Forbes posts, op-eds in the Wall Street Journal, news stories, and statements from pundits who spread climate misinformation:

“The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.”

“Current pause in global warming”
“lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.”
“There is no credible (statistically significant) data that says global warming is occurring”
“fifteen years of warming, then fifteen of cooling”
“The last decades “rate of warming” is flat.”
“Forget global warming…no warming in 15 years.”
I could find a hundred more variations, but you get the idea. These statements are scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods. The planet is warming – an observation noted by every climate research institution tracking temperatures, the US National Academy of Sciences (over and over and over), every other national academy of sciences on the planet, and every professional society in the geosciences.

The actual data are easy for anyone to find – they are posted and regularly updated, freely, on public websites around the world. The most consistent, highly respected, and regularly analyzed and updated data on global surface temperatures are available from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Sciences, NOAA’s National Climate Data Center, and the United Kingdom’s Met Office Hadley Center. [Feel free to redo my analysis using any of these – they all independently say the same thing: I’m using the NASA GISS data in my pictures.]

All of the false claims take advantage of one fundamental truth about the average temperature of our planet: it varies a little, naturally, from year to year. Some years are a bit warmer than average and some are a bit colder than average because of El Niños, La Niñas, cloud variability, volcanic activity, ocean conditions, and just the natural pulsing of our planetary systems. When you filter these out, the human-caused warming signal is clear. But natural variability makes it possible for scurrilous deceivers to do a classic “no-no” in science: to cherry-pick data to support their claims. They pick particular years or groups of years; they pick particular subsets of data. But when you look at all the data, or when you look at long-term trends, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is warming – precisely the conclusion the scientific community has reached based on observations and fundamental physics.

Read the rest of the article

World Economic Forum: Global Risks 2012, 7th edition

Via: Dianne Saxe of Envirolaw

January 23, 2012

The World Economic Forum’s Risk Response Network has published a fascinating, if sobering, overview of major risks that face the world in the next decade: Global Risks 2012, 7th edition.

They predict that economic and societal factors are the most likely to cause major problems, but these will be exacerbated by climate change, water shortages and resulting agricultural challenges.

“Three distinct constellations of risks that present a very serious threat to our future prosperity and security emerged from a review of this year’s set of risks.

“Case 1: Seeds of Dystopia Dystopia, the opposite of a utopia, describes a place where life is full of hardship and devoid of hope. Analysis of linkages across various global risks reveals a constellation of fiscal, demographic and societal risks signalling a dystopian future for much of humanity. The interplay among these risks could result in a world where a large youth population contends with chronic, high levels of unemployment, while concurrently, the largest population of retirees in history becomes dependent upon already heavily indebted governments. Both young and old could face an income gap, as well as a skills gap so wide as to threaten social and political stability…

Case 2: How Safe are our Safeguards? As the world grows increasingly complex and interdependent, the capacity to manage the systems that underpin our prosperity and safety is diminishing. The constellation of risks arising from emerging technologies, financial interdependence, resource depletion and climate change exposes the weak and brittle nature of existing safeguards – the policies, norms, regulations or institutions which serve as a protective system. Our safeguards may no longer be fit to manage vital resources and ensure orderly markets and public safety….

Case 3: The Dark Side of Connectivity. The impacts of crime, terrorism and war in the virtual world have yet to equal that of the physical world, but there is fear that this could change. …”

———————————————————————-

The top-five risks in terms of impact are expected to be:

“Major systemic financial failure

Water supply crises

Food shortage crises

Chronic fiscal imbalances, and

Extreme volatility in energy and agriculture prices.”

———————————————————————-

The World Economic Forum calls for more flexible, more effective regulations: “To improve management of uncertainty in a complex world, it is necessary to accept that we will not get safeguards right the first time. Regulations have often been viewed as a way for authorities to signal to the public that they are in control of a situation, but in a complex system this control is often an illusion. While we should start by considering counterfactuals in order to anticipate possible outcomes of regulations, it is even more important to define broader system safeguards. Such safeguards need to be flexible and dynamic enough to adapt to changing information and should closely involve stakeholders in the co-production of new types of regulation…

Such a dynamic process of iteration between regulators and practitioners at the cutting edge of knowledge exemplifies how safeguards should ideally be defined. At the heart of this process is a necessary understanding of who bears the risks and who reaps potential benefits, so that incentives can be aligned in an appropriate manner…”

The report also includes a study of the Japanese earthquake, and a snapshot of companies that proved most resilient. For example, “Lawson stores continued to serve their communities, make vital supplies available and minimize financial losses to the company. This response has been attributed to the networked managerial structure put in place as a result of lessons learned from the 1995 Kobe earthquake disaster (see Figure 25). Each branch office was required to assess emerging risks and draft detailed disaster recovery plans twice a year; this will increase to three times a year in 2012. For example, bicycles were stationed in branch offices because they were the only functional means of transport in the 1995 earthquake. It became mandatory to keep stocks of emergency goods in branch offices, and the concentration of distribution hubs was reassessed to allow for more effective catering to disaster-struck evacuees. As the nature of crises can never be fully anticipated, a network of employees who have access to real-time coordinating mechanisms and the authority to make decisions can be more valuable than teams of highly-trained, specialized risk managers…”

ForestEthics: Whistleblower Andrew Frank’s Open Letter to Canadians

Prime Minister’s Office Tries to Silence Pipeline Critics; Labels Environmental Group “Enemy of the Government of Canada” and “Enemy of the people of Canada.”,

A Whistleblower’s Open Letter to the Citizens of Canada published January 26, 2012.

My name is Andrew Frank. I grew up in a small town in the Okanagan valley of British Columbia. My granddad taught me how to fish. My father was a well‐respected lawyer known for his unwavering integrity, and my mother was a favourite kindergarten teacher.Both have always impressed upon me the importance of telling the truth.Today, I am taking the extraordinary step of risking my career, my reputation and my personal friendships, to act as a whistleblower and expose the undemocratic and potentially illegal pressure the Harper government has apparently applied to silence critics of the Enbridge Northern Gateway oil tanker/pipeline plan.As I have detailed in a sworn affidavit, no less than three senior managers with TidesCanada and ForestEthics (a charitable project of Tides Canada), have informed me, as the Senior Communications Manager for ForestEthics, that Tides Canada CEO, Ross McMillan,was informed by the Prime Minister’s Office, that ForestEthics is considered an “Enemy of the Government of Canada,” and an “Enemy of the people of Canada.

”This language was apparently part of a threat by the Prime Minister’s Office to challenge the charitable status of Tides Canada if it did not agree to stop funding ForestEthics,specifically its work opposing oilsands expansion and construction of oilsands tanker/pipeline routes in Canada.This is especially concerning because ForestEthics is a legally registered intervenor in the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel process, currently examining the Enbridge oiltanker/pipeline proposal. By attempting to silence a registered participant in the review, I fear the Harper government may have permanently damaged the integrity of this process.

After waiting more than two weeks for Tides Canada to go public with this story, it has become clear to me that the organization is too afraid of reprisals from the government to act. Tides is responsible for the employment of hundreds of Canadians and dozens of crucial environmental projects like the Great Bear Rainforest, and has been understandably paralyzed in challenging the Prime Minister’s Office on this matter. I on the other hand, am speaking out as a private citizen because I feel that the rights and civil liberties of my fellow Canadian citizens, including freedom of expression and freedom of speech, are at risk.There was a look of fear and disbelief on my fellow staff members’ faces the day they were told our own government had labelled them enemies of the state. Our administration coordinator had tears in her eyes. In the days that followed, our employees couldn’t sleep well. They lost their appetites, and they began to fear for their own personal safety and civil liberties, and those of their families and loved ones. They began looking over their shoulder, out of fear and paranoia, because their own government might be watching them.

The language of anti‐terrorism, when applied to Canadian citizens who legitimately question the wisdom of an unsustainable oil tanker/pipeline plan, is an affront to the rights of all Canadians.

It is the language of bullying. It is language that is violent and above the law, and harkens to previous examples of RCMP surveillance of Canadians for political rather than legal purposes, including Tommy Douglas. The casual use of such loaded language at the top of our government is immoral, unethical and probably illegal.A strongly opposed oil tanker/pipeline plan is now the least of this government’s worries.

In its heavy‐handed attempt to override public opposition, the government has breached the public’s trust.I now invite Canadians, including the media and members of the House of Commons, to challenge the unacceptable behaviour described in this letter and sworn in my affidavit. Approximately three weeks from now, Mr. Harper will visit China on an official state visit.In China, Amnesty International asserts that a half‐million “enemies of the government” are held in prisons without charge.

If the argument in favour of the Enbridge pipeline is that Canada stands to make billions selling oil to an oppressive Chinese government, then my answer is “no thank you.” That’s not “ethical oil,” especially when profiting from this oil wealth requires repressive tactics against critical citizens ‐ tactics we would normally associate with the Chinese state, not Canada.The events of the last month have ensured that I will never take my rights as a Canadian citizen for granted again. That is both sad and encouraging. Sad that I ever had to question them, and encouraging because I have been reminded of another lesson taught to me by my parents: the best way to stop a bully is to stand up to him.I invite you to join me in expressing your voice on what is perhaps the most pressing moral crisis facing our nation today. Together we can hold this government to account and prevent the dismantling of Canadian civil society and the further erosion of citizens’ rights.

Andrew Frank is a Canadian citizen, and the former Senior Communications Manager with ForestEthics Canada. He is also an instructor in the Environmental Protection Technology program at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, in Surrey, British Columbia.

Wetlands an endangered space?

Reblogged from :

Feb 2nd is World Wetlands Day and today in southern Manitoba we will drain 15 acres of wetlands. Wetlands are perhaps the most unappreciated ecosystem on the planet.  Governments seem them as “waste” lands, some agricultural producers seem them as obstacles to operational efficiency, some developers see them as a great place for a condo unit, and lots of people believe that they are reservoirs of mosquitoes and disease.  Fortunately, there are just as many people, producers and developers who not only …

Borden Ladner Gervais: Québec’s Plan To Protect Its Northern Environment

via: mondaq.com

By Pierrette Sinclair, December 28, 2011

Among the features of Québec’s twenty-five-year master plan for the development of its northern territory (the Plan Nord ), released on May 9, 2011, is the objective of setting aside no less than 50% of the land mass concerned for non-industrial purposes by 2035, in order to protect its environment and safeguard its biodiversity. The total area concerned measures a gigantic 600,000 sq. km.

On August 12, the Québec Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks, Pierre Arcand, unveiled a Working Paper and launched a public consultation process designed to permit the gradual attainment of that objective, beginning in the next few years.

The Working Paper is called “The government’s commitment to dedicate 50% of the territory of the Plan Nord to protecting the environment, safeguarding biodiversity and developing the natural heritage, as well as to various types of development that do not rely on industrial activities”. The document is posted on the Ministry’s website, with the English version at http://www.protegerlenord.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/index_en.htm .

The Working Paper contemplates creating “protected areas” covering at least 12% of the Plan Nord territory by 2015. These areas are legally designated expanses of land or water ensuring the protection and maintenance of biological diversity and of related natural and cultural resources. The remaining 38% of the land will be environmentally protected, with its biodiversity safeguarded, while allowing for various types of non-industrial development (e.g. tourism, ecotourism, hunting, fishing and trapping).

By 2020, at least 5% of the Plan Nord territory will be set aside as areas for conservation and non-industrial development. This entails reserving at least another 60,000 sq. km., in addition to the 12% of land already designated for creating protected areas. Implementing these measures will enable Québec to meet the 17% land conservation goal set by the Nagoya Protocol of October 2010 to the Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992. In addition, at least 12% of the “boreal forest blanket” (part of the boreal zone, containing softwood stands) is to be reserved for the creation of protected areas by 2015.

Ecological planning will identify areas to be set aside for conservation or non-industrial development, and greater ecological knowledge of the territory in question will be acquired. In 2020 and again in 2030, the Working Paper calls for Plan Nord partners to report on progress and establish new conservation targets, based on then-current knowledge, as the province moves towards the ultimate objective of protecting 50% of the land concerned by 2035. Enterprises and promoters of industrial activities or projects that result in the loss of biodiversity and ecological services will be required to implement environmental mitigation, restoration or compensation measures.

Only time will tell whether this planning and consultation process will succeed in reconciling the objectives of environmental protection and economic development in developing northern Québec.

About BLG

The MOVE! Charrette greening GTA & Hamilton transportation

December 9, 2011

For some exciting, detailed thinking about how greening the Greater Toronto Area could actually work, focussing on transportation, read the handbook from the MOVE! Charrette, held recently at Evergreen’s Brickworks.

Evergreen and the Institute without Boundaries have organized 10 interdisciplinary teams to address 10 different sustainable transportation challenges based on the future needs of the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA). They will propose design solutions for 10 geographic locations based on a 2040 time horizon. Drawing inspiration from international case studies and best practices, the teams will explore issues such as energy, environment, health, land use and infrastructure as they relate to a sustainable transportation future.

The charrette will culminate in a public presentation and the results will be prominently featured at MOVE, opening in May 2012. In addition, the outcome of each charrette will include policy suggestions and actionable recommendations to be made available to key stakeholders in the coming months.

Partial funding for the MOVE charrettes was provided by Metrolinx, an agency of the Ontario Government created to develop and implement an integrated regional transportation system.

For complete details or to learn more about sustainable transportation for Toronto, visit:  http://ebw.evergreen.ca/move/

Twitter: #MOVE2012

Phone: 416.596.1495
Email: info@evergreen.ca

(Via: envirolaw and BlogTO)

Link to the pdf: http://envirolaw.com/wp-content/uploads/MOVE-Charrette-handbook-LOW-RES.pdf

HuffPost: Northern Gateway Pipeline Decision Delayed Until Late 2013

By Brendan DeMelle (DeSmogBlog.com)

The Calgary Herald reports that the decision on the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline was delayed today until late 2013, a year later than planned. The three-member panel said it “would anticipate releasing the environmental assessment report in the fall of 2013 and its final decision on the project around the end of 2013.”

The joint review panel of Environment Canada and the National Energy Board announced that it will take the additional year to review the widespread public concern over the proposed pipeline, which would cut through First Nations lands in order to shuttle the dirtiest oil on the planet, Alberta tar sands, to Asian export markets.

The delay is not a good sign for Enbridge or KinderMorgan, the two major tar sands pipeline interests hoping to enable the export of Alberta’s climate-killing product overseas. As we learned last week, the oil industry will face a powerful adversary since BC’s First Nations pledged, as a united front, to halt construction and prevent the proposed pipelines from crossing their territory.

Marking their commitment against the pipeline projects, 55 First Nations leaders from across BC signed the Save the Fraser Declaration.  “These First Nations form an unbroken wall of opposition from the U.S. border to the Arctic Ocean,” said the group in a statement.

In response to the firm commitment of First Nations leaders, federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said today that Northern Gateway “shouldn’t be held hostage by aboriginal and environmental groups threatening to create a human “wall” to prevent construction,”according to the National Post article, “Oil industry’s ‘nation-building’ pipeline won’t be stopped by protesters.”

The joint review panel will begin community hearings in Kitimat, B.C., on Jan. 10 to hear from both sides on this contentious issue.  The hearings are sure to attract a lot of attention, and chances are pretty good that much of it will not be favorable to Enbridge or any other proposed tar sands pipeline.

In the wake of the delay and likely demise of the Keystone XL pipeline, all indications point to a difficult, and perhaps insurmountable, challenge ahead for any tar sands pipeline construction.

A massive public movement is mobilizing to repel the incredible threat to the global climate system posed by further development of Canada’s filthy tar sands. Stopping these ill-conceived export pipelines is the first order of business to ensure all of that carbon pollution stays in the ground and that Canada’s boreal forests remain intact.

First Nations leaders across B.C. are organizing the most formidable opposition to the pipelines. In August, 35 chiefs of the Dene First Nation passed a unanimous resolution opposing expansion of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, claiming the project is an affront to their right to self-governance and traditional way of life. At the time the nation was dealing with the effects of a massive Enbridge spill on their land.

Chief Jackie Thomas of the Saik’uz First Nation, who also signed the resolution, suggests that, by pushing the pipline projects, Canadian offiicals are running roughshod over their rights.

“Harper wants to force pipelines through BC, ignoring our rights are ignoring the majority of British Columbians. Well I have news for you Mr. Harper: You are never going to achieve your dream of pushing pipelines through our rivers and lands and putting oil tankers on the coast.”

After announcing opposition to the pipeline expansion this summer, Dene National Chief Bill Erasmus put it this way, “ with over 100 pipeline spill and accidents recorded in Canada over the past two years there is only one thing to say about pipelines: they will spill.”