Ezra Levant is at it again. Only this time we aren’t rolling our eyes and quickly closing the Internet browser. No, this time we actually agree with him. Hear us out.

Last week Levant’s right-wing online news and opinion outlet The Rebel complained to the Alberta premier’s office about three incidents where Rebel staff were allegedly barred from government events. In its response last Friday, the government defended its policy.

“Our client’s position remains that your client (The Rebel) and those who identify as being connected to (The Rebel) are not journalists and are not entitled to access media lock-ups or other such events,” read a response from an Alberta Ministry of Justice lawyer, posted by The Rebel.

After a few days of outrage, the Alberta government lifted its ban on reporters from The Rebel.

“We’ve heard a lot of feedback from Albertans and media over the course of the last two days and it’s clear we made a mistake,” the premier’s office said in a statement.

While his “reckless disregard for the truth” and bigotry don’t make Levant the best crusader for press freedom, he’s right to argue that the Alberta government should not be in the game of determining who is and who is not a journalist. That opens the door to the government or press gallery of the day to disallow journalists it disagrees with.

The whole affair strikes a chord with us because DeSmog Canada has been on the receiving end of the same kind of treatment here in B.C. — stuck in the middle of a shifting debate about what constitutes a “media outlet” or a “journalist.”

Who Has The Right to Access B.C. Press Gallery?

It first happened on Dec. 16, 2014, the day the B.C. government held a press briefing on its final investment decision on the Site C hydroelectric dam. DeSmog Canada had published dozens of articles on the proposed dam, including a 12-part investigative series.

We were unable to gain access to that press conference and were provided with the following explanation by Tom Fletcher, president of the legislative press gallery:  “It was not the press gallery executive’s decision to refuse you entry. Legislature security determined that your organization is not a media outlet for the purposes of issuing press credentials for restricted areas.”

I was surprised to hear that security guards are now responsible for determining which organizations qualify as media outlets — since this is a decision typically made by the press gallery itself.

I wrote back asking if the decision would be re-visited and told Fletcher:

“Myself (and DeSmog for that matter) has an exemplary track record. In 2011, Time Magazine named us one of the Top 25 blogs of the year and we were the first online media organization to be accredited by the United Nations to attend international climate negotiations. I have personally worked as a journalist at the Calgary Sun, Calgary Herald, Cambridge Evening News and BBC Essex. We may not be part of the traditional media, but we are most certainly part of the burgeoning new media world.”

No response.

Next, I followed up with security.

Randall Ennis, the deputy sergeant at arms, quickly replied, with this explanation: “We did attempt to contact the Legislative press gallery president (Tom Fletcher) on your behalf to ascertain if he recognized you as a journalist, however were unsuccessful in contacting Tom until after the event.”

Ennis provided the following advice:

“Emma, for the future on the occasions you’d like to attend the Legislature for press conferences, I suggest that you contact the press gallery president (Tom Fletcher) in advance and make him aware of your intentions and request Tom advise the Legislative Assembly Protective Service (LAPS). This procedure works well and is used by other visiting journalists.”

That sounded perfectly reasonable to me and I could see how, in the hustle-bustle of the day, a misunderstanding might have prevented me from gaining access to the press conference. Had I realized it would be an issue, I would have made arrangements in advance.

Fast forward to March 2015, when DeSmog Canada published an exclusive in-depth interview with Harry Swain, the man who chaired the joint federal-provincial panel tasked with reviewing the Site C dam. The comments he made to us were being debated during Question Period, so I contacted Fletcher about attending.

Fletcher’s response: “I’ll contact them and ask them to give you a guest media pass for today, although I am inclined to agree with their initial assessment that Desmog is an advocacy organization and not a media outlet.”

So, there it was again — who gets to decide who is and who is not a journalist? It’s long been thought that the people best positioned to make that decision were the journalists themselves. However, our situation raises questions about that procedure.

It should be noted that Fletcher frequently publishes columns that promote denial of climate change and his company Black Press is owned by the same David Black who is proposing to build an oil refinery in Kitimat. So it’s safe to say he’s not a huge fan of DeSmog’s work.

And therein lies the risk in allowing a press gallery president or the government to decide whose work qualifies as journalism. What is journalism to some is advocacy to others and vice versa.

Sean Holman, journalism professor at Mount Royal University and former member of the B.C. press gallery, says determining what constitutes a journalist nowadays is incredibly complex.

“I think it’s a difficult question to answer and it is becoming more and more difficult as we see the collapse of legacy media and the growth of activist media that is picking up the jobs that journalists are no longer able to do,” Holman said.

On my way out of the press gallery last March, I noted the press gallery photos hanging on the wall. They started in 1912, the groups expanding over years, until they started into a perilous decline, leading to today’s state of affairs where there are often only a handful of reporters at the legislature.

Given the dwindling numbers, you’d think new members would be welcomed so long as they conduct themselves professionally and in the public interest. Wouldn’t it be a pleasant problem if too many bloggers/journalists/whatevers were to show up to report on happenings at the B.C. legislature?

Holman argues that journalists enjoy the rights and privileges they do because they act as proxies for the public, asking questions of officials and keeping the public informed.

“In the absence of traditional newsrooms, we are going to need organizations and people who are willing to hold public institutions and officials to account in the public interest,” Holman said. “And so long as they are doing that function, why exactly should they enjoy rights and privileges that are any less than that of a journalist?”

In terms of who should make the call on whether someone is working in the “public interest,” there’s no perfect answer.

“The question is: who has the right to make that decision? Is it government? Is it journalists? It strikes me that there are problems with both parties making that determination,” Holman said.

And voila, this is where the democratizing force of social media comes into play. In the old world, the powers that be could sit pretty and make these determinations quietly in a musty room.

Now, however, no one owns the means of distribution. And a disgruntled party, like Levant, can take his case online, putting the power into the public’s hands — and we’ve all seen how that works out.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Last week the Alberta government responded to the U.S. State Department's final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) on the Keystone XL project by emphasizing the province's responsibility, transparency, and confidence that the pipeline is in the "national interest" of both Canada and the U.S.

In a statement, Alberta Premier Alison Redford appealed to the relationship between the U.S. and Canada. Premier Redford pointed out that the FSEIS had "recognized the work we're doing to protect the environment," saying that "the approval of Keystone XL will build upon the deep relationship between our countries and enable further progress toward a stronger, cleaner and more stable North American economy."

Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Minister Robin Campbell also issued a statement, mentioning Alberta's "strong regulatory system" and "stringent environmental monitoring, regulation and protection legislation."

Campbell's reminder that the natural resource sector "provides jobs and opportunities for families and communities across the country" was similar to Premier Redford's assurance that "our government is investing in families and communities," with no mention made of corporate interests.

In order to provide a more specific and sciene-based response to the FSEIS report on Keystone XL, Pembina Institute policy analyst Andrew Read provided counterpoints to several of its central claims.

1. Oilsands Emissions

The U.S. State Department's report claims that "Alberta's oil sands account for about 5 per cent of Canada's overall GHG emissions and Canada is responsible for about 2 per cent of global emissions."

Read says that "oilsands are the fastest growing source of emissions in Canada," and industry and government have been unable to curtail rising emissions in contrast to other industrial sectors. Emissions in 2011 from mining and oil and gas extraction were up 450 per cent from 1990 levels, 200 per cent from 2000 levels and 93 per cent from 2005 levels. These rising numbers are "primarily attributable to oilsands expansion and transportaion emissions" according to federal reports, says Read.

The FSEIS mentions the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act, passed in 2003, as establishing mandatory annual GHG intensity reduction targets for large industrial GHG emitters. But these targets have only been around since 2007 with the passing of Specified Gas Emitters Regulation.

2. Carbon Capture and Storage

The report mentions that the Alberta government has devoted $2 billion to fund "four large-scale CCS [Carbon Capture and Storage] projects," with two involving oilsands producers. The Alberta government has actually committed to spending around $1.4 billion to support the two CCS projects involving oilsands upgrading. The projects are only expected to reduce 2.6 million tonnes of CO2 annually, not 15.2 million tonnes, as claimed by the U.S. State Department.

For more on Alberta's failed CCS plans, read DeSmog Canada's two-part series.

3. In Situ Recovery of Bitumen

The FSEIS claims that 80 per cent of oilsands bitumen is recovered through in situ techniques using SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage), which is "less disturbing to the land surface than surface mining and does not require tailings ponds."

While 80 per cent of bitumen is too deep to mine, only 50 per cent is currently produced in situ. Furthermore, the FSEIS ignores the downsides of in situ exploration and development, which disrupts ecosystems by creating "fragmentation of habitats" and "pathways for increased predation," and is also land intensive. In situ extraction techniques are also more greenhouse gas intensive than mining techniques, and increased production from those sources will ultimately lead to an increase in GHG emissions.

4. Water Withdrawals

The FSEIS reports that all approved oilsands projects can "withdraw no more than 3 per cent of the average annual flow of the Athabasca River," with 2008 withdrawals coming to 0.8 per cent of the long-term average annual flow.

Read emphasizes that these numbers are misleading because water withdrawals "are not halted when river flows reach extremely low levels that can result in damage to the Athabasca." For example, in winter periods when river flows are much lower withdrawals have been seen to reach 15 per cent of river flow. Read says that "comparing withdrawals to average flows masks the seasonal variability that is observed on the river."

The FSEIS also claims water use by oilsands operations has continued to decrease despite increased production, with many in situ operations recycling up to 90 per cent of water used. But this decrease is only on a "water use per barrel basis," with total water usage increasing due to expanded production. Furthermore, even water recycled during oilsands operations is permanently removed from the ecosystem, along with the 10 per cent additional water required.

5. Air Quality Monitoring

The FSEIS claims that long-term air quality monitoring "since 1995 shows improved or no change in CO, ozone, fine particulate matter, and SO2, and an increasing trend in NO2."

Read notes that over that 10-year period, there has been a lot of fluctuation in the ambient air concentration of these pollutants. Particularly, NO2 and SO2 have been seen to spike during certain periods. However, particulate matter "has been increasing at certain monitoring sites in the oilsands region." The Canadian government is also showing elevated levels of fine particulate matter above their own 2015 target in the "prairies and northern Ontario" region which contain the oilsands developments.

6. Tailings

The FSEIS observes that "processing 1 tonne (1.1 tons) of oilsand produces about 94 liters (25 gallons) of Tailings," to which Read responds that 1.5 barrels of tailings are produced for every barrel of bitumen mined from the oilsands.

The volume of tailings will continue to grow "more than 40 per cent from 830 million cubic metres to more than 1.2 billion cubic metres in 2030," and will continue to grow until stabilizing at 1.3 billion cubic metres around 2060, says Read.

A recent Environment Canada study found toxic chemicals from tailings ponds are leaching into groundwater and the Athabasca River.

7. Land Reclamation

The FSEIS reports that "602 km2 (232 mi2) have been disturbed by oilsands mining activity of which 67 km2 (26 mi2) has been or is in the process of reclamation."

The actual area of land disturbed by oilsands development is 715 square kilometres (71,500 hectares). Out of that, "only 1.04 square kilometres (104 hectares) is certified by the government as reclaimed." The FSEIS's figure is closer to the amount of land unofficially reclaimed (65 square kilometres), but this self-reported claim remains unverified due to "a lack of regulated standards and requirements to reclaim land as further land is disturbed," says Read.

Read puts the estimated cost of reclaiming the disturbed land, based on available government and industry data, at $10-$15 billion, or approximately $220,000 to $320,000 per hectare.

8. Potential Impacts and Environmental Monitoring

The FSEIS states that "Alberta has committed to a cumulative effects approach that looks at potential impacts of all projects within a region," and requires oilsands operations to have plans to "minimize their effects on wildlife and biodiversity." The report also mentions that the Alberta government "monitors and verifies" that these plans are undertaken.

Alberta and Canada have continued to approve projects that have been shown to have "significant and irreversible" adverse environmental effects through the environmental review process. There are also concerns about the enforcement of these rules. Read points to a 2013 report that surveyed 9,000 reported incidents in the oilsands, and found that "less than one percent of likely environmental infractions drew any enforcement."

Images: Kris Krug via flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A Canadian National (CN) Rail freight train carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire Tuesday night near the northwest New Brunswick town of Plaster Rock. No injuries have been reported.

The Transportation Safety Board ((TSB) reports that 17 cars are believed to have derailed, eight carrying dangerous goods and one a locomotive.  According to CN Rail President and CEO Claude Monganu five of the derailed cars were carrying crude oil, and the other four propane.

The 122-car train was heading to the Irving Oil Refinery in St. John from central Canada. The derailment occurred just after 7 pm about five km from Plaster Rock, in Wapske.

Dan Holbrook with the TSB told the CBC the incident was cause by a mechanical failure affecting the train's breaking system. A ruptured airline connecting the cars caused an emergency break application, he said. 

"Trains have a continuous pipe running throughout the train that supplies air to the brake system on every car," he said.

"If that brake pipe comes apart, that causes the brakes throughout the train to go into emergency…and that means the train will stop as fast as it can."

The incident comes just over a week after an accident in North Dakota caused several oil train cars to burst into flames and explode. The North Dakota accident is just one among many high-profile oil train accidents to occur within the last six months, including Lac-Mégantic where 47 people perished as the result of a tanker train derailment.

The TSB has deployed a team of investigators to the scene, where the fires still burn. The site is under the control of authorities with the local fire department.

Premier David Alward attended a news conference this morning to express gratitude there were no injuries and said there appeard to be no serious impact to the environment. 

"Every day we have the movement of goods and services across our country by many different modes of transportation," said Alward. "Every mode of transportation is not without risk.

"What is important to realize is how we are able to respond to situations when they happen really determines how we are able to manage as we go forward."

The TSB will further investigate the site when they determine it is safe to do so.

"The team will evaluate the accident and document the derailment site, inspect the equipment and track infrastructure and identify any items that may require closer inspection. They will examine the maintenance history of the train, operation of the equipment and operation policies, meteorological conditions, and review any human factors," states a TSB press release.

First responders were forced to stay a safe distance from the fire, which was large enough to be seen from a "significant" distance away, reports CBC. A 2km radius including 45 households has been evacuated, said Feeny, director of public and government affairs for CN Rail.

Plaster Rock mayor Alexis Fenner reportedly said all roads were blocked and shut down by the police after the derailment.

"On our balcony, we can just see flames. Every now and then, there's a huge fireball, as if there was an explosion," Plaster Rock resident Carol Jervis told Global News.

Another resident said her husband went to the area and "could see flames shooting in the air from quite far away. He could see it very clearly. It was about 50 to 60 feet he told me he could see."

J.D. Saddler, a resident of Wapske, told CBC that he was driving back there from Plaster Rock when the derailment occurred, and he saw "a great big cloud of orange smoke and the flames were really high in the air, the smoke was really high in the air."

At the time, there was no given time frame for when crews could move in. Feeny said CN Rail senior managers and hazardous materials experts were en route from Moncton, Montreal and Toronto.

An evacuation centre was set up at Plaster Rock, with the Canadian Red Cross dispatching volunteers with supplies to assist local authorities at the centre. Bill Lawlor, Canadian Red Cross director of disaster management for New Brunswick, said that this was a precautionary measure, as the area is sparsely populated and the small numbers impacted by the evacuation would probably stay with friends or family.

Lawlor added that the volunteers were ready with blankets and cots should any residents require shelter, or if circumstances should change.

According to the CBC, another derailment that occurred at Plaster Rock was one of two incidents that led the TSB to issue a summons in 2006, requiring CN Rail to turn in all its records.

The CBC's investigation discovered that CN Rail did not report more than 1,800 derailments and accidents over a six-year period, including 44 derailments and one collision on "key arterial rail tracks."

The derailment comes days after a joint task force announced by BC and Alberta premiers Christy Clark and Alison Redford handed in a report exploring the feasibility of transporting oil by rail as a backup in case pipeline projects fall through.

Image Credit: Andrew Jenkins / Facebook

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A joint task force announced by B.C. and Alberta premiers Christy Clark and Alison Redford in July has handed in a report examining the feasibility of transporting oil by rail, according to the Canadian Press. The report is not yet available to the public.

The task force, whose mandate includes exploring the possibility of transporting crude oil from the oilsands via rail to the coast if proposed pipelines like Enbridge's Northern Gateway are denied, has been called "underhanded" by environmental group ForestEthics.

Ben West, campaign director for ForestEthics, said that the task force was a "backdoor way for industry to bring tankers to the coast without the same sort of public oversight or public process that we've had around the Enbridge pipeline or would have around the Kinder Morgan pipeline."

"Myself and other people were pretty freaked out about what happened there," West said of the recent explosions.

The joint task force was announced as a way for the two provinces to develop recommendations on opening up new export markets for oil, gas and other resources, including oilsands bitumen. Spills, fiscal and economic benefits and First Nations rights were also to be discussed.

The provincial working group was mandated to submit its report to premiers Clark and Redford by December.

"Rail can be considered a viable alternative to pipeline movement based on costs of transport," the terms of reference for the group states. "If pipelines are not developed, rail will step into the void to deliver bitumen to the West Coast."

Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline was recently approved by a federal panel, and Kinder Morgan officially submitted its application for the Trans Mountain Expansion project to the National Energy Board in December. Both projects will bring oil to the BC coast.

The provincial task force was led by Steve Carr, deputy minister of natural gas development in B.C. and Grant Sprague, deputy minister of energy in Alberta.

Neither ministry could be reached for comment. CN Rail declined to comment.

Image Credit: BC Gov Photos / Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Provincial auditor general Merwan Saher has agreed to conduct an audit of oil pipeline safety in Alberta, responding to requests from a coalition of 54 public interest groups dissatisfied with the provincial government's third-party report released in August.

"We will be auditing the government's monitoring systems to ensure compliance with Alberta's pipeline regulations. Our audit would include inspection and enforcement processes," Saher wrote in a letter to Alberta's Opposition parties Wildrose and the NDP, which were among the groups demanding the review.

The government-commissioned pipeline safety review, conducted by Group 10 Engineering, was announced by Energy Minister Ken Hughes in July 2012 after several major pipeline oil spills in the province, including a 475,000 litre leak from a Plains Midstream Canada pipeline in Central Alberta in June. The final report was made public a year later, in August 2013.

Following the release of the report last month, a coalition representing 54 environmental, First Nations, labour and landowner groups wrote to Premier Alison Redford requesting another review. The letter stated that "Albertans deserve to know the real scope of the province's pipeline problems and they deserve real solutions," leaving the group "no choice but to begin to petition the Alberta auditor general to take on such an examination."  

Eriel Deranger, Communications Coordinator for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation said “Oil spills pose a major threat to our community, which depends on clean air, water and soil to sustain our way of life. We are pleased that the Auditor General will be looking into pipeline safety, as we feel the provincial government hasn’t been doing enough to prevent spills from happening.”

“It’s been a long road pushing for this review but hopefully the Auditor General will finally give Albertan’s some answers to Alberta’s pipeline woes because the Redford government definitely hasn’t,” said Mike Hudema, Greenpeace Canada’s climate and energy campaigner. “Groups from across the political spectrum joined together to push for this review because of the growing threats pipeline spills are posing to Alberta’s communities and environment. I hope this review will give the government time to pause on its pipeline-pushing ways because all is not well in Alberta.”

Jennifer Grant, director of the oilsands program at the Pembina Institute, applauded Saher for "showing leadership on this important issue," saying that the "audit presents an opportunity to restore Albertans' confidence in the provincial regulator's ability to manage pipelines and the associated risks."

"With 400,000 square kilometres of pipelines crisscrossing the province, and an average of two crude oil spills a day for the past 37 years, ensuring the integrity and safety of Alberta's pipeline network is absolutely critical and could set an important precedent for other jurisdictions," Grant said in a news release.

Global News reports that the auditor general "has been considering a pipeline safety audit for much of the past year" according to spokeswoman Kim Nishikaze. Nishikaze added that they "will be looking at pipeline safety in the foreseeable future" but "can't say when."

Saher wrote in his letter that the pipeline safety audit would be undertaken "as soon as reasonably possible."

Image Credit: Jasonwoodhead23 / Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is the third post in a three-part series. For Part 1 of Parsing Redford's Little Black Lies, click here. For Part 2, How Redford Can Walk the Walk, click here.

ON March 1, the U.S. State Department released its draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would increase the flow of Alberta’s tar sands oil to the U.S. by an estimated 510,000 barrels per day. It’s a big deal, both for those who support additional tar sands development and for those who want to limit the pace and scale of the world’s most controversial energy development.

For the latter, the draft SEIS was a disappointment. Like the original Environmental Impact Statement, the SEIS does not adequately account for the pipeline’s impact on water and climate. In particular, the SEIS ignored evidence that Keystone XL would contribute significantly to the escalation of the already rapid expansion of the tar sands, one of the world’s dirtiest forms of energy, and the resulting increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Not surprisingly, this suited Alberta Premier Alison Redford just fine. Redford had just returned from a “mission” to Washington, D.C., where she played fast and loose with the facts as she tried to convince American politicians that Keystone was an integral part of what she likes to call responsible energy development. For her, the draft SEIS was the long-overdue next step in the approval process, and she used the opportunity to exaggerate and mischaracterize Alberta’s environmental record.

“On behalf of the people of Alberta, I welcome further progress towards a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline,” Redford gushed in a press release issued shortly after the SEIS was made public. “I had the opportunity to speak today to U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Jacobsen and Gary Doer, Canada’s Ambassador to the U.S., where I reinforced Alberta’s efforts to place strong environmental policy and clean technology development on an equal footing with a healthy energy sector.”

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

It’s no secret the Alberta government has gone out of its way to ensure the health of the oil industry, but her description of Alberta’s environmental policy as “strong,” and tar sands development in particular as “responsible,” continue to rely on the Pinocchio Strategy of Public Relations: Tell little black lies and hope your nose doesn’t grow.

It’s already well documented that Alberta’s climate change strategy has been an abject failure, in large part because of its failure to adopt a meaningful carbon tax, but there’s more to Alberta’s failure to adequately manage the environmental impacts of the tar sands than just hot air.

Andrew Nikiforuk recently reminded us that air pollution from the Peace River tar sands in northwest Alberta has forced residents to abandon their homes. Recent research indicates that the tar sands toxic tailings ponds are leaking into the groundwater, something the Alberta government has not been adequately monitoring while continuing to allow mines and the tailings ponds they create to expand. There’s also the little matter of air pollution that is depositing troubling amounts of toxic chemicals in the lakes and rivers in the tar sands region, despite the fact the government’s monitoring program has been unable to detect them during its 20 years of operation.

Redford also praised the SEIS for “acknowledge[ing] Alberta’s environmental leadership” by referencing the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP), “a comprehensive land-use plan for the oil sands region that sets out strict triggers and limits through environmental frameworks, and sets aside a significant amount of protected land.”

Redford’s comments, no doubt written by a PR specialist with little or no understanding of what constitutes environmental leadership, refers to a single paragraph in the SEIS that references the LARP as part of the “ongoing” mitigation of the environmental impacts of tar sands development being undertaken by Canadian officials.

In fact, the SEIS admits that the State Department “did not conduct an assessment of the potential impacts of the Canadian portion of the proposed project.” Instead, it simply included what one can only presume from reading the Alberta government’s website was sanguine and misleading information, carefully constructed to “Tell It Like it Is” by a government increasingly aware of the gaping chasm between the reality on the ground and the words that come out of its collective mouth.

There is much to be said about the integrity and effectiveness of the LARP, none of which you’ll find in the SEIS. The Pembina Institute, for instance, has assessed the ability of the LARP to achieve the government’s stated commitment to setting cumulative environmental limits beyond which tar sands development would not proceed. In many respects, the LARP fails miserably.

A few examples will suffice, I think, to add to the government’s failure to reduce GHG emissions and put the lie to Redford’s misleading statements about Alberta’s so-called “environmental leadership.”

There is no mention, for instance, of a policy that would prevent the massive obliteration of wetlands in the region, which are an essential component of the ecological integrity of an area larger than many U.S. states. Nor is there any means of compensating for wetland destruction, even though the LARP’s Regional Advisory Council recommended that the LARP include offsets and market-based instruments to conserve wetlands and biodiversity. This is a considerable weakening of Alberta’s previous tar sands plan, which had included the objective of implementing a conservation offset strategy by 2012.

Neither does the LARP adequately address woodland caribou conservation needs in the Lower Athabasca region. Woodland caribou, a legally listed threatened species at both the federal and provincial levels, has been declining in northeastern Alberta for decades despite government commitments and recovery plans to ensure their survival. Indeed, most biologists have concluded that without drastic emergency interventions, planned tar sands development will all but ensure they disappear over the next 50 years.

Redford’s comments are part of an increasingly sophisticated shell game.

The Alberta government has always done just enough to make it appear it is “balancing” environmental protection and economic development, but anyone who is paying attention knows that the government rarely achieves any of the laudable commitments it makes to protecting the environment from the impacts of rampant and irresponsibly managed industrial development. In other words, environmental policy in Alberta has always been about providing the necessary cover to continue with business-as-usual.

While it was beyond the scope of the SEIS to assess the integrity of Alberta’s environmental policy, it should have been easy enough to include a more accurate characterization of what the truth behind all the little black lies that pass for effective public policy in the tar sands.

Shame on you, State Department, for not doing your homework. And shame on you, Alison Redford, for misleading Americans about what goes on in Alberta’s out-of-sight, out-of-mind northern boreal forests.

Image Credit: PremierofAlberta via flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is the second post in a three-part series. For Part 1, Parsing Redford's Little Black Lies, click here.

As Alberta Premier Alison Redford tries her best to hoodwink American politicians into believing Alberta is leading the way on climate change, it’s worth considering where the problems lie and how they might be addressed. The solutions, of course, have nothing to do with more and better public relations, just a commitment to environmental stewardship that Alberta has yet to embrace.

As I wrote in the first part of this column, Redford’s claims about “responsible oil sands development” in her recent USA Today column are patently false. This is because Alberta has failed to implement its own climate change strategy, allowing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the province to grow significantly over the last 20 years despite a commitment to steep reductions.

There are three reasons for this failure. The first is the rampant expansion of Alberta’s tar sands development, which is the fastest growing source of GHG emissions in Canada. GHG emissions from the tar sands more than doubled over the last 20 years, and planned growth under current provincial and federal policies indicates they will double yet again between 2009 and 2020, from 45 megatonnes in 2009 to 92 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2020. Environment Canada knows full well that tar sands production, which is expected to double between 2008 and 2015, "will put a strong upward pressure on emissions."

The second is our politicians’ unwarranted technocratic faith in technology, namely carbon capture and storage, to solve the GHG problem. Alberta’s climate change strategy relies on CCS for 70 per cent of GHG reductions. Although other countries have begun to capture and sequester carbon, Alberta hasn’t managed to get a single project up and running, and two projects have been cancelled altogether. This should come as no surprise. As far back as 2009, when I wrote about this issue for Alberta Venture, it was clear that CCS would not work in the tar sands, and that this nascent technology would be unable to reduce GHG’s while the Alberta government pursued its fantastical dream of becoming a dirty energy superpower.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

The third is a combination of weak policy mechanisms that can actually achieve policy goals and objectives, and an unwarranted faith in industry to “do the right thing” without the need for strong policies. Alberta’s skyrocketing GHG emissions is adequate proof that the tar sands industry is unable or unwilling to reduce its carbon footprint. It’s also obvious that the $15 per tonne price on carbon Redford trots out as evidence of Alberta’s environmental leadership  is more of a PR tactic than a meaningful market signal that will force industry to reduce its GHG emissions, either by limiting production or by implementing the necessary technologies that can reduce GHG intensity. There is ample evidence that a carbon tax of $150 per tonne is necessary to actually implement Alberta’s Climate Change Strategy.

This failure to implement Alberta’s (and Canada’s) climate change policies should come as no surprise to anyone following the environment file north of the Medicine Line. This is the way things are done in Canada these days. There are dozens of examples of politicians adopting policies and plans they have no intention of implementing while they carry on with their ideologically driven plans for business as usual.

As Redford (and Prime Minster Stephen Harper, her ally and counterpoint in Ottawa) blather on about “our readiness to demonstrate our strong track record on responsible oil (sic) sands development,” they need to understand that Americans and Canadians aren’t interested in more slick TV commercials and better messaging from the governments’ increasing staff of spin doctors. What we want and need is actual improvements in environmental performance in Alberta’s beleaguered and increasingly vilified tar sands and elsewhere.

If we want the world to love our dirty oil as much as we do, we’ve got to slow it down and clean it up. In this particular case, that means a meaningful price on carbon that forces the tar sands industry to get serious about reducing its carbon emissions. And if the power of the market and the innovativeness of industry aren’t up the task, then Canada can turn its attention to building the clean energy economy Canadians want and deserve. The sooner we figure this out, the better off we’ll be.

Image Credit: PremierofAlberta via flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is the first post in a three-part series. For Part 2, How Redford Can Walk the Walk, click here. For Part 3, click here.

Within weeks of becoming Alberta’s first female premier in October 2011, Alison Redford realized that the tired old propaganda about jobs and Canada’s reputation as a safe and friendly supplier of oil wasn’t helping in the battle over the future of tar sands oil in America.

“We heard very quickly that they don’t want to hear anymore the security argument or the jobs argument. We get that,” Redford told the Globe and Mail. “Really, this is about environmental stewardship and sustainable development of the oil sands. We were quite happy to talk about that, [but] that was a shift in the kinds of conversations that Alberta was having.”

What Redford doesn’t seem to have understood is that it’s not about talking the talk, it’s about walking the walk. In a recent column in America’s biggest newspaper, USA Today, Redford tried to convince Americans that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is part of Alberta’s “responsible oil sands development.”

Riffing off President Obama’s comments in his recent State of the Union address to get serious about dealing with the climate change crisis, Redford raved about Alberta's “commitment to strong environmental policy and clean technology development,” even boasting that Alberta is “leading the way” in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Such nonsense is a familiar, if nauseating, refrain here in Canada. As the battle over the future of the Keystone XL pipeline heats up, Canadian politicians have resorted to the twisted Orwellian abuse of language to portray Alberta (and Canada) as responsible environmental stewards. Despite a mythical international reputation as such, nothing could be further from the truth, as Alberta’s climate change policy aptly illustrates.

Alberta released its Climate Change Strategy in 2008, which committed to reducing GHG emissions to 50 megatonnes below so-called business-as-usual (BAU) levels by 2020, and a total of 200 megatonnes below (BAU) levels by 2050. (This is equivalent to 14 per cent below 2005 levels, a far cry from Canada’s reduced commitment to reducing GHGs 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.) The plan relies largely on capturing and sequestering carbon while allowing industrial development in the tar sands and elsewhere to continue along its steep trajectory into the stratosphere.

According to the Alberta government's website, this climate change strategy reflects the government's “strong commitment to maintaining a healthy economy, securing Albertans’ quality of life and protecting our environment.” In essence, it is Alberta’s blueprint for meeting the “challenge for policy and decision makers on both sides of the border” of “striking the right balance and moving our countries forward, together.”

So far so good, except that the Alberta government has failed miserably in achieving the “balance” set out in its climate change strategy, something Redford’s army of spin doctors must have known when they left it out of her USA Today column. Just two days after Redford put her reputation on the line in America’s biggest newspaper, the Alberta government was forced to admit that it won’t come close to meeting its targets for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. “As of today we are not on the right trajectory to meet that commitment,” Alberta Environment deputy minister Dana Woodworth told the Public Accounts Committee. “We are actively looking at this exact issue as we speak.”

Woodworth’s admission is something of an understatement. According to the Pembina Institute, Alberta has contributed 52 per cent of Canada’s GHG emissions since 1990, despite being responsible for only 18 per cent of GDP growth and 19 per cent of the growth in population. This is in large part because, as Woodworth admitted, the province has reduced emissions by just 32 megatonnes over the past six years, an average of only five megatonnes a year. Alberta Environment has already admitted that by 2020, annual reductions will be about 14 megatonnes a year, a far cry from the 50 megatonne-a-year reduction stipulated in Alberta’s climate change strategy.

Image Credit: PremierofAlberta on flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

We’ve heard it all before: get your oil from Canada, or get it from the devil.

Okay, well, maybe not the devil, but if you aren’t dealing with Canada, you’re dealing with despots, tyrants, oppressors of women and suppressors of democracy.

This is the pervasive pseudo-logic brought to us by conservative commentator and Sun News correspondent Ezra Levant. In his book Ethical Oil, which eventually grew into the Ethical Oil Institute, Levant poses Canadians with a false dichotomy: either we support Canada’s ethical oil – which is democratically developed in an environmentally responsible way – or we support conflict oil.

The argument is a classical for-or-against proposition meant to polarize Canadians on a complex issue. And it is Canada’s latest export to America.

In the current media volley between American and Canadian leaders on President Obama’s upcoming decision to either approve or deny the Keystone XL pipeline border crossing, this deceptive ‘you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists’ argument is on the loose, begging the overall question: is Canada taking its talking points straight out of the Ethical Oil playbook?

Let’s begin with Canada’s Ambassador to the US – Gary Doer. During the February 17th Forward on Climate rally in Washington DC – the largest climate change rally in US history – Doer claimed protestors lacked “logic.”

The ‘outspoken minority’ who oppose the Keystone XL, said Doer, don’t express American wishes; they just happen to get more media attention than the “65 percent of Americans that prefer to get their oil from Canada rather than Venezuela or the Middle East.”

Doer followed up with an interview this week with Postmedia News where he posed the issue this way: “If you ask the question: Do you want your oil from Hugo Chavez or Alison Redford, I think I know the answer.”

“If you look at the fundamental criteria for presidential legacies,” Doer said, commenting on the idea that Keystone XL is Obama’s legacy issue, “it’s peace and prosperity.”


“I would argue that that means less reliance on Middle Eastern oil and more jobs building the independence here in North America.”

Doer’s sentiments were echoed this week by Alberta Premier Alison Redford whose column in USA Today stressed “Alberta is the safest, most secure and responsible energy supplier to the US.”

“The same cannot be said for the other foreign countries and regimes that currently feed US energy demand.”

Levant himself has been somewhat more forthcoming with his thoughts on the subject, claiming nearly one year ago that the Keystone XL is “a pretty straight swap of Canadian ethical oil for Venezuelan conflict oil. And Obama chose Hugo Chavez over us.”

“Blocking the Keystone XL isn’t going to stop a single American car trip. It will simply ensure that car is fuelled by Hugo Chavez and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who must have been popping champagne while laughing at Obama on TV.”

Around the same time Ethical Oil spokesman Jamie Ellerton wrote “every drop of Venezuelan oil that Americans buy, is more money that ends up helping Venezuela to help support Syria’s massacre of its own people. Conflict oil is fuelling more conflict.”

As much as a year ago, conservative staffer and Ethical Oil campaigner Alykhan Velshi suggested “Americans are still stuck supporting…Chavez. Sanctions won’t stop that; working on replacing every last drop of Chavez’s Conflict Oil with Canada’s Ethical Oil, will.”

The argument loses full steam however, when you consider Canada imports a tremendous amount of Venezuelan crude. That’s right – imports.

As reported yesterday by DeSmogBlog’s Kevin Grandia, “a May 2011 Natural Resources Canada report notes that Canada imported 33,000 barrels per day of crude oil from Venezuela in 2009. That works out to about 12 million barrels of oil that year.”

Those imports were valued at $778 million for the year and made up roughly 86 percent of Canada’s total imports from Venezuela.

As Grandia notes, Canada imports oil from other countries – like Algeria, Angola, Iraq and Nigeria – that suffer worse human rights records than Venezuela.

So Canada, if anything, represents a layover for Venezuelan oil.

And Canada’s oil (whether developed domestically or imported), like any other oil, is merely looking for a cheap and easy access to the global market, where it can fetch a higher price.

Albertan oil is landlocked and desperately needs an export strategy. Canada isn’t offering the US an ethical escape from conflict oil. We’re just looking for a path – any path – to an export terminal. And if the US allows it, we’ll track our oily footprints all over the national carpet on our way. 

Americans should be on their guard against Canada’s dirty exports – whether of the bituminous or rhetorical kind.

Image Credit: visionshare via flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The government of Alberta’s continued reliance on the tar sands as the province’s main economic driver has put Premier Alison Redford in a very awkward position recently. With the market for foreign oil drying up in the US, her government is facing a $6 billion budget shortfall. For the first time in many years, Alberta is being forced to reach out for a little help from its neighbours, but the reception has been chilly.

The trouble began last year, when British Columbia Premier Christy Clark discovered that putting her unqualified support behind Enbridge’s plan to run its Northern Gateway pipeline through the province would constitute political suicide in an election year.

Whatever Clark’s motivations may have been—environmental or political—the result is that now they are in the midst of a struggle that Maclean’s Magazine calls, “the greatest political rivalry since former Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams ordered the Canadian flag removed from every government building in a dispute with the feds over offshore energy royalties.”

Then late in January, Redford met with Ontario’s new Premier Kathleen Wynn and by all accounts, relations were similarly strained. Several municipalities in Ontario have expressed concerns over the environmental dangers involved in Line 9, which was constructed in the 1970s and may not be up to carrying the highly corrosive bitumen being put out by the tar sands.

To be fair, this mess isn’t all Redford’s doing. Given Alberta’s history, it’s not surprising that other provinces might be wary of her advances. As Parkland Institute director Trevor Harrison pointed out last year in an op-ed piece for the Winnipeg Free Press, Alberta’s energy policy has historically leaned towards isolation and contempt for the rest of the country’s wishes.

In 1982 while serving as mayor of Calgary, Ralph Klein ran into a similar problem attracting investors to his city because of the open contempt he showed for the eastern workers seeking jobs in the province’s newly developing oil patch. With characteristic bluntness, he called them “bums" and "creeps” and blamed them for the rise in crime in his city. 

During his 14 years as Premier, the famously cantankerous Klein steered Alberta through much of the oil boom, but showed little interest in sharing or saving the wealth, preferring instead to spread it around in the form of “prosperity bonuses” of $400 to each Alberta resident in 2005. It’s sobering now to think that if that money had been saved, the interest alone might have gone a long way to digging Alberta out of its current financial hole. It’s even more frightening that, while the rest of the world was beginning to accept the hard lessons of climate change and oil dependence last year, the Alberta Wildrose Party promised a new round of bonuses beginning in 2015 should it have been elected.

Klein also had little interest in federal calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In 2002, as part of a campaign to keep then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien from ratifying the Kyoto Accord, he famously dismissed warnings about climate change by wondering whether the first ice age was caused by “dinosaur farts.”

The message from the Alberta government has always been, the oil is ours and how we mine it, refine it and sell it is no one’s business but our own. Now that position is simply no longer tenable. In a recent address to the Alberta people, Redford laid out the challenges before the province and promised to find a way out without crippling social programs or, magically, raising taxes.

What she didn't say was that Alberta can no longer afford to make policy as though it were cordoned off from the rest of the country. It needs the help of other provinces to export its oil and that means taking into account the concerns of those who have not been blinded by a couple of decades of short-sighted prosperity.

But it is not enough to simply look for new markets; if Alberta is to free itself from this uncomfortable cycle of boom and bust, Redford must begin to rethink this reliance on the tar sands and find ways to diversify the economy. The question is, can the province let go of decades of rhetoric and take a new road?

In her address, Redford said that oil and gas “are our assets.” I disagree. In the 15 years that I lived in Alberta I learned that, as well as being a province of extraordinary resource wealth, it is a province rich in industriousness. Redford’s constituents are willing to work hard to secure their future, so why does she, like her predecessors, insist upon leading them down a path that puts them at the whim of politics and world markets?

Why not skip that inevitable pain and redirect some of that skill and ingenuity into clean, renewable energy industries that we know have a future? 

Image Credit: Government of Alberta.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.