An article published last week in the National Post that claims a “secret” deal was struck between oil companies and environmentalists has ruffled many feathers — from corporate big wigs in Calgary to environmental activists on the West Coast.

According to Claudia Cattaneo’s story, Alberta’s climate change plan — which introduced a carbon tax, phased out coal-fired electricity and put a cap on oilsands emissions — was “the product of secret negotiations between four top oilsands companies and four environmental organizations.”

I’m not sure how secret any of that was given that all of those players could clearly be seen on stage with Alberta Premier Rachel Notley when she announced the plan, but the story goes on to state: “The companies agreed to the cap in exchange for the environmental groups backing down on opposition to oil export pipelines, but the deal left other players on the sidelines, and that has created a deep division in Canada’s oil and gas sector.”

The remainder of the story goes into how various oil companies have their knickers in a twist over the deal.  You’d think environmentalists would be dancing in the streets about that, but no — it’s actually hard to say who’s more outraged: environmentalists, who bristle at the idea of a secret deal and who don’t think the agreement is strong enough, or oil companies, who don’t think the new regulations will help them gain the market access they’re so desperately seeking.

Let’s just all hold our horses for a second.

First off, let’s look at the source. Cattaneo has spewed quite a bit of industry drivel over the years and her interpretation of Canada’s energy politics leaves much to be desired. Has she exhibited much understanding of how social movements actually work? Nope.

Secondly, was there a deal to stop opposition to oil export pipelines? There were at least five environmental groups on stage for the announcement: Forest Ethics, the Pembina Institute, Clean Energy Canada, Equiterre and Environmental Defence.

Forest Ethics has publicly stated that its campaign against Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline won’t change.

Environmental Defence’s executive director Tim Gray told DeSmog Canada that its work on pipeline issues from a climate, water, biodiversity and community impact perspective will continue. The organization is now looking to the feds for a revised review process for pipelines, which includes a climate test that takes into account all infrastructure, including trains, and respects Alberta’s cap on oilsands emissions.

The Pembina Institute’s executive director Ed Whittingham told DeSmog Canada that Pembina’s oilsands advocacy work will continue. Pembina’s advocacy around pipelines has always been out of concern for upstream impacts — not surprising for a group founded in Alberta, on the heels of a deadly sour gas well blowout.  While many of Pembina’s climate-related concerns have been addressed by Alberta’s climate plan, “lots of air, land and water concerns remain,” Whittingham said.

Clean Energy Canada never campaigned against pipelines in the first place. And Equiterre couldn’t be reached, but I’d hazard a guess they’re in the same boat as the others.

So, sounds to me as though there was no deal of the sort that Cattaneo described.

Thirdly, even if there was a deal, a deal with four environmental groups wouldn’t be worth the hypothetical notepad it was jotted on given the breadth of opposition to new oil pipelines in this country — from municipalities like Vancouver and Burnaby to First Nations to grassroots activists to the umpteen environmental groups that weren’t on that stage.

“People who think climate policy in Alberta will ‘buy market access’ through B.C. don’t understand concerns around Indigenous rights, tanker traffic, oil spills or the grossly unequal distribution of economic risk and benefit,” said Kai Nagata, energy and democracy director at B.C.-based Dogwood Initiative.

It’s not helping the industry’s case that a landmark study released on Tuesday by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences confirms that diluted bitumen, such as that carried by Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline, sinks in water if not cleaned up immediately, making for a nightmare scenario.

The study, Spills of Diluted Bitumen from Pipelines: A Comparative Study of Environmental Fate, Effects, and Response, concluded that diluted bitumen poses unique risks compared to other blends of crude oil.

Which brings me back to my point: the pipeline deal-breaker in B.C. has always been the risk of oil spills. Alberta’s action on climate change doesn’t move the needle on that.

Now, to the climate plan itself. Many environmentalists aren’t terribly impressed with it. Take this revealing infographic by Barry Saxifrage, which shows how Alberta’s emissions will continue to grow until 2030. (Canada has promised to reduce emissions 30 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030.)

However, we must take into consideration that Alberta has already issued permits for another six million barrels a day of oilsands production. The new cap means that, at current emissions levels, three million barrels of those barrels will stay in the ground. That’s a seriously bold move in a province that has an economy 70 per cent based on oil — and that has already seen 40,000 layoffs in the energy industry this year.

All of the enviro grousing of late has reminded me of Rebecca Solnit’s stellar piece in The Guardian a few years back, written to her dismal allies on the U.S. left.

“If I gave you a pony, you would not only be furious that not everyone has a pony, but you would pick on the pony for not being radical enough until it wept big, sad, hot pony tears,” Solnit wrote. “Can you imagine how far the civil rights movement would have gotten, had it been run entirely by complainers for whom nothing was ever good enough? To hell with integrating the Montgomery public transit system when the problem was so much larger!”

Environmentalists are fighting the richest industry in the world — an industry that has spent millions of dollars to confuse the public about climate change science. They are finally starting to see some victories. The climate change plan enacted in Alberta was unimaginable a year ago. It has the “100 per cent” support of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Chief Allan Adam.

If we want any policy to stick — not to be struck down like former Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach’s royalty review — it needs to have broad support. Part of the job of the environmental movement should be to help build that support.

To quote Solnit again: “Being different (from the radical right) means celebrating what you have in common with potential allies, not punishing them for often-minor differences. It means developing a more complex understanding of the matters under consideration than the cartoonish black and white that both left and the right tend to fall back on.”

The fact industry and environmental leaders met informally over the past year, found some common ground and ended up standing on stage together to announce a major step forward on Alberta climate policy is a great thing. (And saying that does not mean I don’t acknowledge that while great, it’s not sufficient for Alberta to do its fair share to keep the planet from warming more than two degrees.)

As Tzeporah Berman, adjunct professor in the faculty of environmental studies at York University, wrote recently: “To say a policy is great does not mean there is not more work to be done.”

Without further ado, may the pipeline battles continue.

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.

There are more than 176 square kilometres of tailings ponds holding waste from oilsands development in the area around Fort McMurray, Alberta. According to new research released from Environment Canada, those tailings ponds are emitting much higher levels of toxic and potentially cancer-causing contaminants into the air than previously reported.

As the Canadian Press reports, Environment Canada scientist Elisabeth Galarneau is the first to conduct field studies in the region and her research confirms that previous estimates of chemical release into the air have been massively underestimated.

“We found that there actually does appear to be a net flow of these compounds going from water to air,” Galarneau told the Canadian Press. “It’s just a bit under five times higher from the ponds than what’s been reported.”

A previous study used modeling to estimate potential chemical release, but Galarneau’s study, published recently in the journal of Atmospheric Environment, relied on air samples and filters located in the study region.

Joint federal-provincial monitoring program called into question

Galarneau’s research was conducted under the joint federal-provincial monitoring program, a new three-year plan announced by Canada and Alberta in early 2012.

The monitoring program recently came under fire from Alberta’s auditor general, Merwan Saher, after the group released its first report that Saher found “lacked clarity and key information and contained inaccuracies.”

A report for the year leading up to March 31, 2013 was released in June, 2014, 15 months after the program’s first year end and a full nine months after it was due. Saher said the delay in the report was “disturbing” and “made the report less relevant.”

In a statement to the Canadian Press, Environment Canada said Galarneau’s research is a part of the government’s commitment to tracking industry impacts.

“The government of Canada and Alberta remain committed to ensuring that data from the monitoring activities and the scientific methods used are transparent, supported by necessary quality assurance and made publicly available to allow independent scientific assessments and evaluations,” an Environment Canada spokesperson wrote in an email.

1,069 kilograms of oilsands toxins from tailings released into air each year

The research found 1,069 kilograms of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), oil-derived toxins that are known to cause cancer in animals and humans, are released from tailings directly into the air each year.

According to Galarneau’s research abstract, the most recent emissions reports to Canada’s National Pollutant Release Inventory only totaled 231 kilograms.

“These results indicate that tailings ponds may be an important PAH source to the atmosphere that is missing from current inventories in the [oilsands region],” the abstract states.

Pollutant emissions may be key to understanding oilsands’ environmental impacts

In 2012 federal scientists from Environment Canada presented research at a toxicology conference that confirmed contaminants from the oilsands were polluting a much larger area on land than previously thought.

A team led by scientist Jane Kirk found contamination, including PAHs, in lakes as far as 100 kilometres away from Fort McMurray, the centre of oilsands development.

In that presentation senior federal scientist Derek Muir said the contaminated region is larger than anticipated with a ‘legacy’ of chemicals building up in lake sediment. Another federal scientist Joanne Parrott presented research on the toxicity of water from snow melt in the oilsands region. Parrott said larval fish exposed to melted snow from the area did very poorly in the contaminated water.

A report released in early 2014 by researchers at the University of Toronto found that the reported level of PAHs released by bitumen extraction were “inadequate and incomplete.” The study found pollution emissions in the oilsands were likely two to three times higher than industry estimates.  

The new research released by Environment Canada could give some insight into how oilsands contaminants make their way into the surrounding environment.

Galarneau, however, said the new research doesn’t study what happens to the chemicals once they enter the atmosphere or give any indication as to the consequences of the pollution.

“We have to consider the ambient measurements and the deposition. The computer modeling simulations that’s needed to put all the pieces together hasn’t been done yet.”

Environmental contamination is a major concern for local communities and First Nations who have suffered elevated rates of cancer in their communities and report strange deformities in local wildlife and fish.

A health study released by the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Mikisew Cree in collaboration with the University of Manitoba found high concentrations of PAHs and heavy metals, arsenic, mercury, cadmium and selenium in kidney and liver samples from moose, duck, muskrats and beavers trapped by community members. The pollutants were found to be “positively associated” with oilsands development.

Galarneau said more testing and more sophisticated testing is needed to better understanding her findings.

“We would certainly like more information from more facilities’ ponds.”

Image Credit: Hot waste filling tailings pond at Suncor Mining site. Photo by Alex McLean.

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 health study released today by the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Mikisew Cree, in collaboration with researchers from the University of Manitoba, is the first of its kind to draw associations between environmental contaminants produced in the oilsands and declines in health in Fort Chipewyan, a native community about 300 kilometres north of Fort McMurray, Alberta.

The report, Environmental and Human Health Implications of Athabasca Oil Sands, finds health impacts for communities downstream of the Alberta oilsands are “positively associated” with industrial development and the consumption of traditional foods, including locally caught fish.

Dr. Stéphane McLachlan, lead environmental health researcher for the report, said the study’s results “as they relate to human health, are alarming and should function as a wakeup call to industry, government and communities alike.”

Findings include generally high concentrations of carcinogenic PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), and heavy metals arsenic, mercury, cadmium and selenium in kidney and liver samples from moose, ducks, muskrats and beavers harvested by community members. A press release for the study says bitumen extraction and upgrading is a major emitter of all of these contaminants.

The Joint Oil Sands Monitoring Program has released data about the increases in these contaminants, but fails to address and monitor impacts to First Nations traditional foods,” said Mikisew Cree Chief Steve Courtoreille. “We are greatly alarmed and demand further research and studies are done to expand on the findings of this report.”

The First Nations worked in concert with University of Manitoba scientists, blending “western science and traditional ecological knowledge” to evaluate contaminant levels and potential community exposure, according to the press release.

“This is the first health study that has been conducted in close collaboration with community members of Fort Chipewyan,” McLachlan said in a recent interview.

“The results are grounded in the environment and health sciences, but also in the local traditional knowledge shared by community members. Unlike any of the other studies it has been actively shaped and controlled by both the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Mikisew Cree First Nation from the outset.”

The report comes on the heels of the fifth annual ‘healing walk’ in the oilsands region, during which Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation said the report would “blow the socks off industry and government.”

Concerns over high rates of rare forms of bile duct, cervical and lung cancers have worried residents of Fort Chipewyan, a small community 300 kilometres downstream of the oilsands, for years.

A government report in March 2014 found elevated rates of the three forms of cancer in Fort Chip, but suggested overall cancer rates fall on par with cancer rates elsewhere in the province. The report’s author, Dr. James Tablot, chief medical officer for Alberta health, said there was little evidence environmental factors played a role in the elevated cancer rates.

The report was treated as largely inconclusive and confirmed the need for further, independent study.

An editorial in the Calgary Herald argued the report confirmed the need to “settle the matter once and for all” and called for an independent study.

“Only then will the nagging fear — whether founded or unfounded — that the Alberta government is too closely linked with the oilsands to provide objective data and conclusions, be put to rest.”

The community of Fort Chip has struggled for years to have a comprehensive, baseline health study conducted.

In March, Chief Adam suggested it was “time for a real study, that is peer reviewed and done in partnership with our communities.” He suggested the government report was conducted to “ease the public response to this and garner more support for approvals of more projects in the region.”

Today researchers and community leaders called for further investigation of contaminant concentrations, as well as community-based monitoring and improved risk communications from government and industry.

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 B.C. government cannot expect support from First Nations for its much-touted liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects if the province insists on steamrolling ahead with the Site C dam, a First Nations chief is warning.

“They want support on LNG, and the level of destruction that is going to bring, and then they want Site C as well. They can’t have them both,” Chief Roland Willson of West Moberly First Nation told DeSmog Canada.

There is no logical reason to have both, Willson added, saying the provincial government has ignored alternatives to Site C, even as the federal Joint Review Panel found there is no immediate need for the power and excess power would be sold at a loss.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Treaty 8 First Nations in B.C. are vehemently opposed to BC Hydro’s plans to build a third massive dam on the Peace River that would flood more than 5,000 hectares of land, swamp more than 330 recorded archaeological sites and — in direct contravention of the 1899 treaty — destroy land now used for hunting, fishing and collecting medicinal plants.

Initially, some Treaty 8 Tribal Association nations were willing to look at what the B.C. government was offering in terms of mitigation and compensation, but, as more information became available, Willson noted a change in attitude.

“Now everyone is opposed,” he said.

The treaty states First Nations have the right to continue with their way of life “for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow.”

But with massive resource development in the area, the sun, grass and rivers are all at risk and Site C is the final straw, Willson said.

With high levels of methylmercury in fish because of rotting vegetation from the previous two dams, fishing is restricted and ungulates, such as caribou, are being destroyed by the major projects, said Treaty 8 Tribal Association Chief Liz Logan, who has asked the UN Special Rapporteur James Anaya to call on the government of British Columbia to assess cumulative impacts of industrial activity in the area.

A recent study, Passages from the Peace (PDF), by the David Suzuki Foundation and Global Forest Watch Canada found 28,587 kilometres of pipelines, 45,293 kilometres of roads and 116,725 kilometres of seismic lines used for oil and gas exploration within the Peace region.

“We have become the cash register for the province . . . .Now our way of life is going to be interfered with again,” Logan said.

“We are bush people and this is our grocery store, our pharmacy, our school and our church. It still sustains us.”

The treaty is alive, despite damage inflicted on the ecosystem by resource extraction and previous Peace River dams, so the province should think carefully about ramifications of treaty-breaking, Willson said.

The Joint Review Panel agreed the dam will have significant adverse effects on First Nations practices and heritage and that many of those effects cannot be mitigated.

A total of 21 First Nations would be affected if the valley is flooded and, with numerous legal decisions reasserting First Nations’ constitutional rights, there is growing awareness that a court challenge could hold up the $7.9 billion project for years if the province decides this fall to proceed.

First Nations file for judicial review of panel report

This month the Mikisew Cree First Nation, which has nine reserves in northeastern Alberta, and the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, which has eight reserves near the southwestern tip of Lake Athabasca, filed a Federal Court application for a judicial review of the Joint Review Panel report.

The two Treaty 8 First Nations rely on the Peace Athabasca Delta for plant gathering, fishing, hunting and travel through the many lakes and river tributaries and presented evidence at the hearings that showed the Delta is already ecologically stressed, with low water levels affecting wildlife habitat and harvesting.

Any further changes to water levels in the Delta could prevent First Nations from exercising their treaty rights, according to the application, which aims to have some sections of the Joint Review Panel report declared invalid and unlawful, some sections quashed and others referred back to the panel for further consideration.

The application is asking the Federal Court to prohibit the federal and provincial governments from taking any further actions that would allow Site C to proceed until a new report is issued that complies with “principles of procedural fairness.”

BC Hydro spokesman Dave Conway said he could not speculate about the possibility of Site C heading to court.

“However, I can tell you that we aim to fulfill our duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate aboriginal groups,” he said.

Logan said the five Treaty 8 nations have not yet voted on whether to go to court, but there are heavy hints that any attempt to build the dam will immediately become entangled in legal battles.

Chief's mandate: 'Oppose this right to the end'

“The only mandate I have right now is to oppose this right to the end. We are going to go back to our people once we hear the decision,” Logan said.

Willson supports the judicial review of the environmental assessment and then, if necessary, a court challenge.

But going to court is expensive, especially when going up against the deep pockets of BC Hydro and the provincial government, he said.

BC Hydro has talked with more than 50 aboriginal groups in hundreds of meetings since 2007 and will continue to look for mitigation measures, Conway said.

“We are committed to providing lasting benefits to aboriginal groups through the construction and operation of the project. In addition, we are negotiating impact benefit agreements with some First Nations where appropriate,” he said.

An impact benefit agreement could mean a lump sum payment, payments over time, cash equivalent benefits or agreements around provincial Crown land, Conway said.

But a major hurdle is the distrust First Nations have for government.

West Moberley First Nation Chief Roland Willson. Credit: Garth Lenz.

“Nothing the B.C. government has done since I have been chief has made me trust that I can believe anything they do,” Willson said.

Logan said she always tries to be hopeful.

“But, unfortunately, in my 16 years of working with this government, I have learned not to really trust what comes out of their mouth,” she said.

Site C likely to get entangled in court challenges

As decision time approaches, other Site C opponents are counting on the power of First Nations.

There is no doubt Treaty 8 nations have a strong case for stopping the dam plans, said Andrea Morison, coordinator of the Peace Valley Environment Association.

“That bodes very well for the campaign and I absolutely expect it would go to court,” Morison said.

However, in the meantime, Peace Valley residents and First Nations are hoping Site C will be rejected and there will be no need for a legal battle.

That will take more pressure from people in southern B.C., Logan said. A petition to stop the Site C dam and save the Peace River Valley has been set up at StopSiteC.org

“We are doing everything we can, along with our environmental friends from down south, to create awareness and tell people ‘it’s coming out of your pocket,’ ” she said.

Photo: Treaty 8 Tribal Chief Liz Logan by Zack Embree.

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 article originally appeared on MikeDeSouza.com.

A new study from the University of Manitoba will soon challenge industry and government claims downplaying environmental health impacts of oilsands development, said the chief of a First Nations community Friday.

“When that report comes out, it’s going to blow the socks off industry and government,” Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation told native and non-native supporters gathered at a campsite for an outdoor weekend retreat near major oilsands projects. “We went ahead and did our own independent studies and we found some very stunning results.”

First Nations communities have alleged that toxic pollution from oilsands operators is contaminating their air, water and food. Representatives from industry and the federal and provincial governments have pointed to research suggesting the toxins aren’t yet at unsafe levels.

Environment Canada has sometimes declined requests from journalists asking for interviews with federal scientists doing this research.

But the anticipated study described by Chief Adam would follow a provincial government report, released in March by Alberta’s chief medical officer, James Talbot. The provincial report confirmed warnings about high rates of a rare form of cancer from a local physician, Dr. John O’Connor, who had been criticized for publicly drawing attention to the cases in the community of Fort Chipewyan.

The provincial government confirmed levels of bile duct, cervical and lung cancer in the community, between 1992 and 2011, that were several times higher than expected. But the report also found that the overall number of cancer cases was 81, and therefore not significantly higher than the expected total of 79 cases.

Bile duct cancer can be linked to a number of factors such as family history or exposure to some toxins.

Talbot said in March that there wasn’t “strong evidence for an association between any of these cancers and environmental exposure.”

Talbot also confirmed at the time that there were never any comprehensive studies in the potentially affected communities.

O’Connor said that nurses and doctors in the community may see things differently.

“The proof is up there if anyone chooses to look,” O’Connor said in an interview after participating in a panel discussion with Adam and George Poitras, the CEO and a former chief of the Mikisew Cree indigenous First Nation.

Several hundred people from Canada and the United States travelled to northern Alberta for the outdoor weekend retreat – described as a “Healing Walk” around oilsands operations for First Nations communities affected by the industrial development.

This is the fifth and final edition of the walk, a 20 km trek scheduled on Saturday. The event’s website said organizers would shift their focus in subsequent years away from open-pit oilsands mining to raising awareness about impacts of other forms of oilsands extraction that use steam injected deep underground.

Chief Adam said in an interview that the University of Manitoba study would likely be released within a month with findings that would raise questions about the credibility of the Alberta Health report on cancer in Fort Chipewyan.

The provincial report prompted newspaper articles in the Globe and Mail and the National Post, among other media reports, that defended the oilsands industry – an economic engine in Canada that historically relied on generous government incentives and subsidies, but which also generates jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenues – suggesting that the Alberta government review proved that O’Connor’s warnings were “falling apart.”

O’Connor warnings drew official complaints from government officials, provoking a professional review that would eventually clear him.

“I didn’t expect the reaction that I got. I didn’t expect to be attacked so viciously, when I chose to do my job,” he said.

“My way of reconciling it and dealing with it, is if they (media personalities) think I’m doing wrong, I know I’m right, because if they agreed with me, I’d want to take a long hot shower and really examine what I’m doing.”

O’Connor said this is why he has no regrets. But he wonders whether government officials feel the same way.

“I have a clear conscience,” he said. “I wouldn’t hesitate to do it again and will do it again if a similar situation arises. I would hate to be in their position. They have to sleep at night and they have to answer their grandchildren: Why did you do this? And all you’ve got to do is look in the communities and you know there’s no doubt about what’s going on.”

Image Credit: Chief Allan Adam by 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.

Critics cried foul last week after oilsands giant Syncrude was awarded the inaugural Towards Sustainable Mining Environmental Excellence Award at the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) industry gala held in Vancouver on Monday, May 12.

The Fort McMurray-based company was recognized for its work in land reclamation, the attempt to re-establish ecosystems destroyed during oilsands development.

The company was specifically lauded for its work with fen wetlands, a sensitive and complex peat ecosystem that is a key part of the Boreal Forest and the local watershed, through its Sandhill Fen Research Watershed Initiative research project.

“We're quite pleased to have been selected. We see it as a demonstration of our commitment to improving our reclamation process,” said company spokesperson Will Gibson by phone. “It underscores our need to meet the public's expectations, and part of that is constant improvement.”

But, for some, labelling any work done in the oilsands as 'sustainable' may be premature, if not entirely contradictory. 

An 'industry award'

“It's industry giving awards to industry,” said Carolyn Campbell of the Alberta Wilderness Association, a conservation group working to conserve ecosystems and wilderness in the province. “It's misleading to say they are taking a significant approach to sustainable mining. Tar sands mining is inherently unsustainable. The push for fossil fuel development is destroying the boreal wetlands.”

For Campbell, attempts to bring back ecosystems that have been under pressure from mining for decades is too little too late. “This needed to be considered 40 years ago,” when the first oilsands developments began, said Campbell.

Most people may have heard of peatlands – Canada is the world's largest producer of peat moss for horticultural purposes – but few know about the importance, and uniqueness, of fens. While similar to peat bogs, fens are distinguished by a high water table and a slow, regular flow of water which makes them much more rich in minerals and much less acidic than bogs.

Fens support a specific set of vegetation and animal life and, because of these unique characteristics, are considered much more difficult to reproduce than other peatlands – which already present an enormous ecological challenge. Fens are an integral part of the northern Boreal ecosystem, which itself is tied to the health of Canada's important watersheds, like the adjacent Athabasca and Peace River watersheds. While fens are a small part of the entire Boreal forest, their loss has a significant impact on the surrounding ecosystem.

Their importance isn't lost on Gibson, who stressed in the interview that Syncrude is committed to monitoring their 52 hectare test site for the next 10 to 20 years in order to better understand and replace the fens that have been removed during oilsands development.

Gibson strongly rejects the ideas that Syncrude's reclamation work is simply window dressing. “Over half of our [research and development] spending goes into reclamation projects,” he said, adding, “would people prefer we do nothing?”

Reclamation cannot offset conservation

“Of course, they shouldn't be doing nothing,” Eriel Deranger told DeSmog Canada in a telephone interview. Deranger is a member of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN), located over 200km northeast of Fort McMurry and directly downstream from the centre of oilsands development. Her traditional territory lies in the Athabasca watershed and has been significantly affected by industrial development to the south. 

“Reclamation work needs to be done. But it can't be used to justify the further expansion of the tar sands,” Deranger said. She is also a spokesperson for the annual Healing Walk, which brings together Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to visit the oilsands region and discuss industry's impacts.

For Deranger, the question isn't only about whether the fens can eventually be brought back, but the immediate and ongoing impacts that are justified through what is branded as 'sustainable development' of the oilsands.

The destruction of key parts of the northern Boreal ecosystem has a direct impact on the ACFN's and other First Nations' access to their traditional territory and to their way of life.

“The real issue,” she said, “is that these projects are going to be erasing these ecosystems for 50 to 100 years. That also means the loss of our treaty rights for 50 to 100 years.” And while it's clear that there have been advances in reclamation techniques, she said, the pace of development in the oilsands has greatly outrun any improvements.

The uncertain science 

Recent scientific reports have presented mixed results about the potential for reclamation. A 2013 study from the Université de Laval's Peatland Ecology Research Group found that the various mosses found in peat fens were able to withstand water with higher salt contents – similar to what they would be exposed to in reclamation areas – at a higher degree than expected, which researchers felt showed a strong indication that fens could be re-introduced post-mining.

At the same time, they highlighted that the study was done in limited laboratory settings, and that the complexities of a natural environment would complicate the re-establishment process.

Even if fens can be re-introduced, another peer-reviewed report questioned whether reclamation efforts could ever truly re-create or undo the damage of the original fens in the first place.

In a 2012 paper, researchers Rebecca C. Rooney, Suzanne E. Bayley, and David W. Schindler from the University of Alberta concluded that regardless of the ability to re-establish fens, the destruction of peatlands – which store a large amount of carbon in the ground, acting as a massive natural carbon sink – would result in the release of seven years worth of mining and upgrading emissions at 2010 production levels into the atmosphere.

They also noted the difficulty of recreating the water flow necessary for fens will mean that any eventual reclamation results would cover 65 per cent less territory than fens covered pre-mining.

Of the total area currently mined for oilsands, only 0.12 per cent of the land has been certified reclaimed, with some seven percent currently in progress of being reclaimed. The only certified reclaimed site is Sycrude's Gatweay Hill, which received the official reclamation distinction from Alberta Environment in 2008.

While the site has been vaunted as an industry success, Deranger sees it as a disturbing precursor to reclamation projects as the future for her people's territory. Gateway Hill, she said, is a clear sign that industry-styled reclamation projects cannot be used as an offset for protecting untouched land.

“I see fenced-in areas that have no relevance or value to First Nations people. They're fenced-in regions that they tout as a conservation zone,” she said.

"These areas were once areas that housed wild buffalo, that hunters and trappers utilized, that fishers utilized, that we considered sacred sites. And we're talking about creating a big sign that says, 'Look at the successes of this industry!' Why don't we juxtaposition it with, 'Look at what industry has destroyed.' Frankly, it's a little bit absurd and insulting."

Image Credit: Syncrude's Gateway Hill from CAPP

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 a guest post by energy economist Andrew Leach.

Neil Young and the Honour the Treaties Tour is crossing the country in support of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation’s court challenge against Shell’s proposal to expand its mining operations north of Fort McMurray.

The biggest risk I see from this tour is not that Neil Young says things which are wrong (there have been a few), that he blames Prime Minister Harper for promoting an industry that has played an important role in the policies of pretty well every Prime Minister to precede him in the past four decades (that part was pretty clear), or, least of all, that he’s a famous musician who hasn’t spent his life working on energy policy.

The biggest risk I see is that all of the heat and light around the Neil Young tour will distract you from what you should do, which is to sit down, read the mine approval, and decide for yourself what you think.

A joint review panel approved (PDF) the Jackpine Expansion in July 2013, and in December, the project received cabinet approval. The most important issue here, so far over-shadowed during Neil Young’s tour, is summarized in one line in the decision letter: “the matter of whether the significant adverse environmental effects (of the project) are justified in the circumstances.”

This decision is likely to be as important for the future of the oil sands in Canada and its so-called social license as the pipelines, rail accidents and greenhouse gas policies which have been covered to a much larger degree in the media. This is a decision where your government had spelled out clearly before it the environmental risks and uncertainties of an oil sands project, in all its gory detail, and decided it was worth it or, “justified in the circumstances.”

We’ve come a long way from the days when then-Premier Ed Stelmach declared environmental damage from the oil sands to be a myth.  Around that time, in its approval of the Kearl oil sands mine, for which Phase I started last year, a Joint Review Panel concluded that, “the project is not likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects.” But, the panel evaluating Kearl raised a flag, saying that, “with each additional oil sands project, the growing demands and the absence of sustainable long-term solutions weigh more heavily in the determination of the public interest.”

We’ve now reached the point—the panel evaluating the Jackpine Mine left no doubt—where significant environmental consequences will occur in order to not (and, I kid you not, these are the words used) sterilize bitumen. Reading the Report of the Joint Review Panel (warning, it’s a slog) will be eye opening. Let me give you a couple of excerpts, in case you can’t spare the time:

·      The Panel has concluded that the Project would provide significant economic benefits for the region, the province, and Canada

·      The Project will provide major and long-term economic opportunities to individuals in Alberta and throughout Canada, and will generate a large number of construction and operational jobs.

·      The Panel concludes that the Project would have significant adverse environmental project effects on wetlands, traditional plant potential areas, wetland-reliant species at risk, migratory birds that are wetland-reliant or species at risk, and biodiversity

·      The Panel understands that a large loss (over 10,000 hectares) of wetland would result from the Project, noting in particular that 85 per cent of those wetlands are peatlands that cannot be reclaimed.

·      The Panel finds that diversion of the Muskeg River is in the public interest, considering that approximately 23 to 65 million cubic metres of resource would be sterilized if the river is not diverted

·      The Panel recognizes that the relevant provincial agencies were not at the hearing to address questions about why the Project (which seeks to divert the Muskeg River: author’s addition) is not included in the Muskeg River Interim Management Framework for Water Quantity and Quality;

·      The Panel concludes that it could not rely on Shell’s assessment of the significance of project and cumulative effects on terrestrial resources;

·      The Panel notes that a substantial amount of habitat for migratory birds that are wetland or old-growth forest dependent will be lost entirely or lost for an extended period;

·      The Panel is concerned about the lack of mitigation measures proposed for loss of wildlife habitat…that have been shown to be effective.

Don’t stop reading before you get to the good parts:

·      Although the Panel has concluded that the Project is in the public interest, project and cumulative effects for key environmental parameters and socioeconomic impacts in the region have weighed heavily in the Panel’s assessment;

·      All of the Aboriginal groups that participated in the hearing raised concerns about the adequacy of consultation by Canada and Alberta, particularly with respect to the management of cumulative effects in the oil sands region and the impact of these effects on their Aboriginal and treaty rights.

It’s these last two that have got us to where we are today—to a First Nation challenging the government in court for a decision that it made which valued bitumen over the environment and their traditional territory and for not fulfilling its constitutional duty to consult on that decision.

The decision on this project will, in all likelihood, go all the way to the top court in the land. The decision which really matters, however, will be the one you take: is it justified, in your mind, given the circumstances?

This article originally appeared on Maclean's. Republished here with permission. Read Leach's Neil Young Fact Check, also on Maclean's, here.

Image Credit: Waging Heavy Peace book cover

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.

Neil Young’s Honour the Treaties tour kicked off with a bang on Sunday when the ex-pat Canadian rocker ripped into the Conservative government’s management of the oilsands.

Calling the oilsands a “disaster” and a “devastating environmental catastrophe” at a press conference at Massey Hall in Toronto, Young stood by his earlier statement that the oilsands region resembles Hiroshima.

It wasn’t long before a war of words with the Prime Minister’s Office broke out. Young’s comments provoked a particularly fierce reaction in Calgary, the corporate headquarters of Canada’s oilpatch.

By Tuesday, the Globe and Mail had posted a cartoon depicting the House of Commons divided into two camps: “pro Neil Young” and “anti Neil Young.”

Talk about turning a complex issue into black and white. The more important question here is whether celebrity awareness-raising efforts like this one serve a valuable role in generating discussion or whether Young’s inflammatory language further divides the country into two opposite camps — moving Canadians further away from the solutions we so desperately need on the energy and climate file.

In an editorial on Wednesday, the Hamilton Spectator wrote:

“If there's a downside to Young's comments … it’s that the kerfuffle around Young might detract from the substance of his remarks. Some — including comparing the area to Hiroshima — are over-the-top silly. But about the pace of oilsands development and lack of environmental oversight, he's not wrong. The question isn’t whether or not oilsands development should take place. It should, responsibly. The question is how fast growth should happen, and whether the regulatory and monitoring infrastructure is in place to make sure environmental damage is mitigated.”

Agreed. You might not know it from reading the news headlines, but the vast majority of Canadians strongly believe the country needs an integrated approach to climate change and energy. In July, Clean Energy Canada released the results of a Harris-Decima poll, which found 87 per cent of Canadians surveyed agreed: “The nation needs a Canadian climate and energy strategy to plan its energy future.”

Canadians were asked to indicate to what degree they would prioritize a series of objectives for a potential Canadian energy strategy. What did Canadians most frequently rank as “high” or “top” priorities? Improving energy efficiency (80 per cent), creating more jobs in clean energy (73 per cent), reducing Canada’s carbon pollution to slow down climate change (67 per cent) and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal (61 per cent). In contrast, only 31 per cent of those surveyed called “exporting more of Canada’s oil and gas resources” a high priority.

So why, when there’s so much common ground in the middle, does the Canadian energy debate continue to rage around the edges?

Well, for one, that’s where the conflict happens and we all know the media loves a good ole’ dust-up. And since the media likes a brawl, it’s tempting for players on all sides to make polarizing statements because they chalk up media hits and social media shares.

However, in doing so, they’re playing a dangerous game. Andy Hoffman, a professor of sustainable enterprise at the University of Michigan, describes scenarios in which two opposing sides talk past each other, impeding meaningful dialogue, as a “logic schism.”

“In a logic schism, a contest emerges in which opposing sides are debating different issues, seeking only information that supports their position and disconfirms their opponents’ arguments,” Hoffman told the University of Michigan Record. “Each side views the other with suspicion, even demonizing the other, leading to a strong resistance to any form of engagement, much less negotiation and concession.”

Dan Kahan, a professor of law and psychology at Yale, who researches science communication and the application of science to law and policymaking (and who just so happens to be a fan of Neil Young's music), says debates like the one stirred by Neil Young become about much more than what they appear to be on the surface.

“People end up seeing questions of fact as kinds of symbols that are badges of who they are and stock that indicates their status in society,” Kahan says. “The kinds of dynamics that I find disturbing and sad are the ones that prevent people who really probably have the same goals, or at least pretty close to the same goals, from recognizing what the best available evidence is."

Which brings us to the state of debate in Canada today. When Young says the Canadian government is “trading integrity for money,” Harper’s spokesman says: “Canada’s natural resources sector is and has always been a fundamental part of our country’s economy.”

Logic schism, anyone? The fact is rapid oilsands development comes with tradeoffs. Now, people are free to make different value judgments on those tradeoffs, but to deny they exist is to deny Canadians a sensible conversation on natural resource issues.

Young responded to the PMO with this: “Our issue is not whether the natural resource sector is a fundamental part of the country, our issue is with the government breaking treaties with the First Nation and plundering the natural resources the First Nation has rights to under the treaties.”

Indeed, proceeds from ticket sales for the concerts are going to support the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation in their legal challenges of oilsands projects. Unfortunately, as of right now, most of the conversation spurred by Young’s tour doesn’t appear to be of a substantive nature about the issues the First Nation faces.

Reading the PMO’s statement, you’d think there is nothing controversial going on up there. “Projects are approved only when they are deemed safe for Canadians and [the] environment,” MacDonald said.

That seems a strange thing to say given the federal government recently approved Shell Canada’s Jackpine mine expansion even though Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq said it is “likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.” (That's what's called a tradeoff, folks.)

And so it is that almost every environmental issue in our country plays out as a he said-she said in the media, and then goes on to one of two fates — stagnation or escalation, wherein both sides of the debate end up viewing the other as untrustworthy without much discussion of the real issues.

Roger Conner, a law professor at Vanderbilt Law School who also runs a consulting practice specializing in consensus building and conflict resolution on contentious public policy issues, coined the term “the advocacy trap” for this point in the debate where both sides have a profound distrust of the other.

“There are a few profoundly evil people in the world, but if you think you’re surrounded by them, you probably need to change your own psyche,” Conner said in an interview with DeSmog Canada founder Jim Hoggan. “If you think that the whole movement of people for the pipeline in Canada is made up of people who are either evil or idiots, I can almost assure you with great certainty that’ s not accurate.”

The only way out of this trap, Conner says, is for advocates to police their attitudes so they can learn to push sometimes, pull sometimes, collaborate sometimes and remain limber enough to sway back and forth as the situation demands, like a light-footed boxer. To use the entire range of strategic options, a public advocate must be able to avoid thinking of others as foes, he stresses.

“Resentment is like a drug. It feels good to go home and say: ‘Those assholes! Those jerks! Those liberals. Those conservatives … I’m right, they’re wrong,’ ” Conner says. “The truth is we all have some degree of uncertainty and we go to this self-righteous place to protect ourselves from that uncertainty.”

In other words, while it might feel good to be self-righteous and demonize people on the other side of the debate, it's likely not helpful in advancing the energy policy solutions the vast majority of Canadians want for their country.

So long as civil society groups rely on ingenuity to do battle with companies with multi-million dollar PR budgets, celebrity activists are likely to continue to play a role in the debate. But if you're using this as a moment for self-affirmation, to dig your trench a little deeper, remember: if we’re going to make progress on energy issues in this country, we’re all going to have to stick our heads up, stop seeing the people on the other side of the debate as enemies and find some common ground in the middle. 

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

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.

In a move that epitomizes the principle of thinking globally and acting locally, national youth climate conference PowerShift has gone local. Rather than one large national event, the conference has been split into smaller, regional events. The first will be in Victoria, BC on October 4.

“We’ve held two national ones before, and while they were amazing, what we realized is we were missing the mark on really being able to connect with movements locally that were leading the edge in fighting the fossil fuel industry,” said Cam Fenton, director of convening organization Canadian Youth Climate Coalition. Last year’s PowerShift was held in Ottawa shortly after the Defend Our Coast rally at the Victoria legislature that drew thousands, and Fenton said the conference in Ontario failed to tap into the energy that was building on the west coast.

PowerShift is a series of youth-driven speakers, panels and workshops designed to give young people the skills and tools they need to organize for climate justice. Big-name speakers include David Suzuki and Council of Canadians national chairperson Maude Barlow, in addition to numerous young people from frontline communities all over Canada.

The decision to host the first regional event in BC was twofold. First, as a province that was once a leader in sustainable energy development and is now embracing LNG and tar sands development, BC has become a battleground. The fight to stop Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline has galvanized activists and ordinary British Columbians alike.

The second reason has more to do with logistics. Fenton said the largest number of youth who were unable to attend last year due to the cost of getting to Ottawa were in BC, so it seemed like a great place to start.

He said there has also been a shift in the direction of the fight against fossil fuels. Rather than focusing on governmental policy change like their forbears, young climate activists are creating grassroots movements though community-based organizing and action.

“We wanted to transform PowerShift into something that would reflect that, and rapidly build our power as young people and as a climate movement in general.”

The concept of movement building is key for Fenton, and bringing together the voices of people working across the country will be crucial going forward.

“In the past, it hasn’t felt like we’ve really had a movement to stand behind our champions, and I think we’re starting to see it and see these movements grow to be the force that we need and the people power we need.”

He used opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline as an example of a group of people large enough to guide and support politicians to stand up for the climate justice.

“There is a movement that will actually stand behind them when they do the right things, and also hold them accountable if they do the wrong thing.”

Fenton said one of CYCC’s biggest concerns right now is divestment from the oil and gas sector, drawing on support from university groups and other major institutions. He’s hoping to spark a major player to take a stand.

“In order to have this conversation more publicly, some folks and some institutions with a more significant profile need to step up.”

Eriel Deranger, environmental activist and member of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, will be bringing the story of her nation’s fight against extreme energy development on their traditional territory, with the hope of raising awareness about the scope and pace of tar sands development. She said part of the process of bringing national concerns to a regional level is highlighting the increasingly strong role First Nations are playing in defending the land and the water.

“I think just getting more people to have their eye on the expansion and approval of expansion on the Alberta tar sands is one of my main goals. The more eyes that are watching, the more the government will be careful.”

In the past, she said, approval for new projects was simply rubber-stamped and pushed through. But change is starting to happen, and Deranger said her ultimate goal is to maintain that kind of pressure not only on the government but also on the industry itself.

“We saw it with the Jack Pine Mine hearings. They actually put conditions on the approval and there was a strong public lens on it, which I think changes the way these projects are approved.”

Crystal Lameman, one of the keynote speakers, is member of the Beaver Lake Cree First Nation and does most of her work in her traditional territory, fighting tar sands development on the ground and through legal frameworks. She hopes to leave youth with the message that, no matter which road they’ve come in on, they have something important to give.

“Before our feet touch the floor in the morning, we’re all human beings first and foremost,” she said. “This issue that we’re faced with now on the environmental front, this issue is no longer an Indian problem. If you drink water, if you breathe air, this is about you and you need to be involved.”

She has no doubt grassroots organizing is the most powerful force for change right now. But she also acknowledges the foundation of policy work and legal struggles that underlie it.

“They created tools for change that the grassroots people are now taking up and using,” she said. “They were just as important in this movement.” In addition to sharing the stage with David Suzuki next Friday, Lameman will be speaking on a panel about legal issues.  She said she’s also looking forward to bringing her two children to meet the PowerShift organizers and attendees.

“These youth have every intention of creating a sustainable and safe future for my children.”

Image Credit: Image courtesy of PowerShitCAN 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.

Following a trip to the Netherlands to speak at the Royal Dutch Shell Annual General Meeting, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) has released a short documentary film detailing the struggle against tar sands development.

Narrated by Indigenous rights activist and ACFN communications coordinator Eriel Deranger, the film gives a brief history of the nation’s conflict with Shell Oil, including broken impact-benefit agreements dating back ten years, and residents of Fort Chipewyan explain in their own words why they fight for their land.

Yet another test of Treaty 8 and section 35 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will come at the end of this month. Shell’s proposal to expand the Jackpine Mine in northern Alberta is currently under review with the Alberta regulatory body, the Energy Resources Conservation Board, with a decision expected by next Friday, May 31.

Since the ACFN filed its constitutional challenge against Shell in 2012, the company has also proposed a new open pit mine project, the Pierre River Mine, that will likely go under review before the end of this year.

Deranger says the time has come to draw a line in the sand. “If we don’t put our foot down somewhere, it will never stop.”

Image Credit: Creative Commons via mark(s)elliott

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.

Yesterday, members of First Nations and environmental organizations from both Canada and the United States attended Royal Dutch Shell’s Annual General Meeting in The Hague, Netherlands, to speak out against the company’s high-risk energy projects.

Eriel Deranger, communications coordinator for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN), attended the meeting on behalf of the nation and spoke directly to Shell’s board of directors, focusing on the duty consult on the Jackpine Mine expansion project.

Deranger addressed the chair of the board to ask why a company that purports to put so much emphasis on stakeholder relationships has failed to address the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation’s concerns regarding tar sands development. The chair responded that the company felt the hearings for the Jackpine project were successful, but that it would open discussion on the issue with the president of Shell Canada, Lorraine Mitchelmore.

Other organizations, including Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands (REDOIL), UK Tar Sands Network and members of the Inupiat community of Alaska attended to question Shell on plans such as offshore drilling in the Arctic.

Deranger said she's pleased with the response from the chair of the board, but will continue to demand accountability. “We have a longstanding relationship with Shell that ties to business ventures and programs and projects Shell has run over the last ten years,” she said, adding that concern over the impact of tar sands has been growing over the last decade, causing the relationship to deteriorate.

She said the ACFN believes the only way the relationship can continue in a positive way is for Shell to make the nation a partner in all future development. She added that the nation’s demand to work with Shell has nothing to do with encouraging development or with revenues. “We want to be partners in the development so we can create a baseline for environment protection and protection of our treaty rights.”

ACFN has been pushing for Shell to agree to work with their traditional knowledge holders to do a full analysis of the impact of what the nation has termed extreme energy projects, but the company has refused. Shell has argued that there was no need to collect that kind of information because the data already exists. Deranger said that’s not good enough. “The data that’s been created has been inefficient and was not created by us.”

While she doesn’t have much faith in Shell’s promises, she’s heartened by the change in tone she saw between last year’s meeting and today’s.

“Last year they just really tried to brush me off, and this year they seem legitimately sympathetic.” Last year, Deranger asked similar questions about projects and the company’s failure to adequately consult First Nations. The board told her that her nation was an anomaly and that they should take up their issues with their government.

Deranger said the next step is to give Shell a chance to follow through on its promise to connect the ACFN with Shell's Canadian president.

“I think it’s a little bit of a wait-and-see, will they live up to their word,” she said. “I don’t have a ton of faith they will but if they don’t, they’ve just given us a bit of an upper hand by basically lying to us in front of their shareholders.” The AFCN have shown on more than one occasion that they aren’t afraid to take action if Shell doesn’t hold up its end of a deal.

“They’ve made promises in the past to our community that haven’t lived up to that resulted in us suing them.”

Any shareholder is permitted to attend the AGM and ask questions. Shareholders can also act as proxies to allow other groups to come. Friends of the Earth Netherlands acted as a proxy for the ACFN.

Deranger said it’s common in Europe to see activist organizations buying shares in companies who goals are otherwise at odds with their own as a means of accessing meetings like this one. Shareholder questions ran the gamut from environmental concerns to issues with remuneration, boom-and-bust scenarios and the fracking industry.

Deranger said attending the AGMs of corporations has long been a part of the nation’s strategy. “It’s always been a part of indigenous delegations at Shell to bring awareness to Shell’s bad reputation within indigenous communities,” she said. “We’re just one of many different indigenous communities globally that have been facing issues and damages from Shell’s projects.”

Image credit: Creative Commons L.C. Nottaasen, 2009

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.