First Nations women camping at the Rocky Mountain Fort site and opposing ongoing construction for the Site C Dam say they feel intimidated and harassed by male security guards and “investigators” with ties to BC Hydro.

Women at the encampment told DeSmog Canada small groups of men arrive on site at least twice a day to film the predominantly female campers and repetitively question them about their intentions.

“There would be three or four of them with cameras and all males,” says Helen Knott, a Treaty 8 member and Fort St. John social worker who has sometimes been alone in the bush when security guards and investigators suddenly appear. “It was intimidating…as a young indigenous women coming into daily contact with men with cameras in the middle of nowhere.”

Knott has been camping at the historic fort site since New Year’s Eve when she and other Treaty 8 members, along with Peace Valley farmers and business owners, set up a wilderness camp to maintain a presence in an old-growth forest on Crown land that is slated to be clear cut and flooded for the Site C dam.

One group of rotating campers keeps a fire burning throughout the day near the bridge over the Moberly River that was constructed by BC Hydro during the Christmas holidays in preparation for logging. The forest is prime habitat for the blue-listed fisher and migrating songbirds, and is used by Treaty 8 members and elders for spiritual purposes and to collect plants for traditional medicines.

Helen Knott at the encampment. Photo: Sarah Cox.

Another group remains at the camp a 20-minute walk away, at the site of the first European fort in mainland B.C., where the Beaver people came to trade furs with early explorers and voyageurs in the late 1700s and early 1800s. The fort site, along with 42 other heritage sites along 107 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, would be flooded by the $8.8 billion Site C dam project.

Knott says she has experienced some uncomfortable moments during the twice-daily questioning, during which security “investigators” film the women without their permission and ask for the names of the people present, how long they will stay and if they intend to allow or prevent “timber harvesting” in the area.

No logging has taken place since January 7 when the campers, who call themselves the Treaty 8 “Stewards of the Land,” began to maintain a constant vigil from dawn until dark, in temperatures as low as minus 25 Celsius, after old-growth cottonwoods were logged that day when they briefly returned to the fort site to get food.

“The other day because I wasn’t giving him (the investigator) the answers that he wanted, his voice started getting a little bit louder and he was talking over me,” Knott said. “He said ‘you’re not answering my questions,’ because I answered his question with a question. I asked him, ‘Are you still going to infringe on my treaty rights?’ And he started talking over me and his face got red and finally he just calmed down and he just walked away…He was getting worked up.”

Knott says she and others have asked the security investigators many times not to come into the camp where women are sleeping, eating and using an outdoor toilet, but they continue to do so at least twice a day, filming the campers standing outside their tent and cooking and sleeping huts, and asking the same questions again and again. “That is . . .basically borderline harassment especially when we’ve asked [them not to]…And they say this is what we were instructed to do and we say ‘well, it’s not okay.’”

Helen Knott and Yvonne Tupper do sunrise yoga on the newly-constructed bridge over the Moberly River as security guards watch and film. Photo: Sarah Cox.

The security guards and investigators wear jackets emblazoned with “Saulteau Safety and Security.” The Saulteau First Nation belongs to B.C.’s Treaty 8 Tribal Association, and the Nation was once strongly opposed to the dam’s construction. But following a 2015 band council election the Nation’s new leadership has taken a different tack.

According to a BC Hydro information bulletin, in July 2015 the new Saulteau chief and councilors agreed to terms for a Site C impact benefits agreement. The agreement followed a controversial on-line vote by band members that saw 144 people cast ballots out of 711 eligible voters. Eighty-nine band members voted in favour of the agreement, which included lump sum payments, an annual payment stream and contracting opportunities. A logging company owned by a Saulteau band member was awarded the contract to clear the south banks of the Peace River, including the area around the historic fort.

Camper Yvonne Tupper, a Treaty 8 member from the Saulteau First Nation, says she does not recognize any of the nine different security guards and investigators she has encountered, all of them wearing “Saulteau Safety and Security” jackets. A second Saulteau woman at the Treaty 8 Stewards of the Land camp, who did not wish her name to be public, also said she did not recognize any of the security guards or investigators.

“When a single female is out here they ask more questions and they intimidate more and we have proof of that [because they are] being recorded,” says Tupper, a Chetwynd community health worker.” She says the campers film every interaction with security investigators and guards.

A company profile on the Work BC Employment Services Centre for Fort St. John describes Saulteau Safety and Security as a “partnership” between the Saulteau First Nations and the Vancouver-based company Securiguard Services Ltd. It says a joint venture agreement signed by the Saulteau chief and councilors provides “a significant opportunity to partner with the local first nations people and award them the right to protect their lands and represent their identity.” Securiguard is a Site C contractor, according to BC Hydro.

Huts airlifted into the encampment, which is four hours from Fort St. John by highway, backroad and snowmobile. Photo: Sarah Cox.

A December 11, 2015 job posting for Saulteau Safety and Security guards based in Fort St. John directs applicants to the Securiguard website. The job posting asks for candidates “who are able to effectively and positively communicate in a customer service oriented manner with a variety of people.” The jobs pay a starting wage of $16 to $19 an hour. Duties include welcoming people into the area, patrolling, crowd control, crime prevention and “providing excellent customer service.”

BC Hydro media relations spokesperson Dave Conway, responding to an emailed request for an interview with BC Hydro to discuss the Rocky Mountain Fort camp and Saulteau Safety and Security, emailed back what has become a scripted response about the camp which states that BC Hydro is “not moving equipment within the immediate proximity of individuals or the encampment itself.”

Conway did not respond to a second email with specific questions about Saulteau Safety and Security and the joint venture’s interactions with female campers.

Verena Hofmann, a Peace resident who is supporting Treaty 8 members at the camp, says she also feels intimidated by the security investigators and has told them so on camera. “This is repetitive,” she said on January 13 to two investigators from Saulteau Security who called themselves Glen and Sten, after they filmed her and asked the same questions for the second time in several hours. “To me that feels like pestering and harassment and it doesn’t feel like trying to find workable solutions as we’re hearing in the media quoted by BC Hydro.”

Signage at the encampment. Photo: Sarah Cox.

The area slated to be logged is the subject of an ongoing judicial review court case by the West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations, who say they were not adequately consulted regarding the permit process. These two First Nations have two additional court cases against Site C. Peace Valley landowners also have an appeal case against the dam that will be heard in early April.

A fifth on-going court case, launched by the Blueberry River First Nation, claims that the cumulative impact of Site C and other extensive industrial development in the Peace violates the band’s treaty rights.

Image: Yvonne Tupper points to trees cut on crown land that is the subject of the ongoing court case with the West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations. Photo: Sarah Cox.

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 federal government’s anti-terrorism bill C-51 was the subject of heated parliamentary debate recently after revelations that the RCMP characterized pipeline opponents and First Nations as “violent anti-petroleum extremists” in a leaked internal intelligence report.

NDP environment critic Megan Leslie argued the leaked RCMP document, which labeled Canada’s environment movement as “a growing and violent threat to Canada’s security,” displays precisely how bill C-51 could be used to deploy anti-terrorism legislation against environmental activism deemed to be “unlawful.”

Because protests carried out without proper municipal permits can be deemed “unlawful” the proposed bill has serious implications for environmental and aboriginal groups, Leslie said.

“A lot hinges on that word ‘unlawful,’ ” she said during a recent question period in parliament.

“This is dangerous legislation, because if there is a wildcat strike or an occupy movement – an occupation of town property, such as the camps that we saw set up – that activity, under the eyes of CSIS or the current government, could potentially undermine the security of Canada without the right municipal permit, and it could all of a sudden be scooped up into this anti-terrorism legislation.”

“Every single word here matters,” Leslie said.

"Unlawful" Protest Potentially Deemed Terrorism in Bill C-51

In her argument, Leslie pointed to a recent analysis of the bill performed by Craig Forcese, national security expert and associate professor of law at the University of Ottawa.

In a recent piece Forcese agreed that even though the bill does not target democratic protest, there is room in the bill to pull participants of protest into the gambit of "security concerns."

“Under C-51,” he writes, ”the government will be able to share internally (and potentially externally) a lot more information about things that ‘undermine the security of Canada.’ That concept is defined extremely broadly – more broadly than any other national security concept in Canadian law. Yes, it can reach the subject matter of many democratic protest movements.”

Forcese also pointed to the fact that previous governments have avoided the dangers of limiting legitimate civil dissent to only "lawful" protest.

In fact, he writes, the very concerns raised in parliament now were on the table back in 2001 when the government first introduced a definition of “terrorist activity” in the original Antiterrorism Act.

The Act excluded “lawful” protest from the definition of terrorism but the term was eventually removed because of the undemocratic danger it posed to strikes and unpermitted protests.

“Given the experience in 2001 and the legal views expressed by the government of the day, we have to conclude that if the government continues to include the qualifier ‘lawful’ in its exceptions, it does so with its eyes wide open,” he writes.

Forcese warns that where protests deemed ‘unlawful’ overlap with other security concerns, such as critical infrastructure including pipelines, “democratic protest movements with tactics that do no square in every way with even municipal law may properly be the subject of CSIS investigation and possibly even disruption.”

He adds, “my point is this: when we craft national security law, we craft it to deter bad judgment. We do not craft it to be so sweeping and ambiguous that it must depend for its proper exercise in a democracy on perfect government judgment. Very few governments are perfect. And even if you think this one is, what about the next one?"

Anti-Terrorism Bill Targets More Than Just Terrorists

An editorial in the Globe and Mail also pointed to the danger of bill C-51, arguing the legislation does “much more than fight terrorism.”

The bill targets “activity that undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada,” that includes “terrorism,” “interference with critical infrastructure” and “interference with the capability of the Government in relation to…the economic or financial stability of Canada.”

The authors of the editorial argue the new legislation creates another “class of security-underminer” that has implications for “environmental activists denounced as radicals.”

“If Bill C-51 passes, CSIS will be able to disrupt anything its political masters believe might be a threat,” they write.

Criminalizing Indigenous Dissent

NDP MP Niki Ashton said the bill is a clear attempt to “criminalize dissent.”

“As we know, indigenous peoples – First Nations, Métis, Inuit, or indigenous peoples in general – have often been at the forefront in fighting for what is important to them and, in many ways, what is important to all of us,” she said during question period.

“These activists, these leaders, these members of their communities are not terrorists and do not pose a danger to the lives of anyone.”

The problem with the legislation is clear, Ashton said, “it lumps legitimate dissent together with terrorism. Indigenous peoples have a right to seek environmental and social justice through protest, communication and activism. This bill would call that criminal. It would call that work terrorism.”

Ashton quoted Pam Palmater, a Mi’kmaq lawyer and activist with the Idle No More movement.

Palmater said Canadians and First Nations “as treaty and territorial allies” face a “threat to our collective future” with the breakdown in democracy and radical changes to Canada’s legislative landscape that have eliminated many of the nation’s environmental laws.

“Hundreds of thousands of people across Canada rose up against Bill C-45 – the large, unconstitutional omnibus bill pushed through Parliament without debate which threatened our lakes and rivers,” Palmater said.

“This time, the threat is personal – any one of us could go to jail for thinking or voicing our opinions. All of the rights, freedoms and liberties upon which Canadian democracy rests will be suspended with Bill C-51. This bill creates what has been described as Harper’s ‘Secret Police force’ with terrifying expanded powers.”

Ashton said she is “uncomfortable in principle and in practice with any one government body having this kind of unchecked control.” Ashton said under Bill C-51 CSIS will have the power to “surveil and target anyone they want.”

“Indigenous and environmental activists are afraid about what that could mean when they organize to protest a pipelines, when they communicate among themselves to reclaim territory that is theirs, and when they speak out in defence against the government in any way, which is their right to do.”

Indigenous rights and climate activist Clayton Thomas-Muller said the bill “is an abuse of democracy.”

“Our movements are about justice. To criminalize Indigenous dissent, then, is to repress Indigenous rights in Canada, and our responsibilities to protect the land.”

“We are transparent, open, base-driven movements that take a non-violent, peaceful direct action approach…The state is criminalizing Indigenous peoples who are acting within their right to exercise jurisdiction over their lands.”

“It is clearly about providing a right-of-way for the mining and energy sector,” he said.

Image Credit: Mark Klotz 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.

An internal Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) document (provided in full below) warns “violent anti-petroleum extremists” driven by an “anti-petroleum ideology” pose a criminal threat to Canada’s oil and gas industry. The document, reported on today by the Globe and Mail, reveals growing concern within the RCMP about opponents of pipelines or fracking and “violent aboriginal extremists,” suggesting they have the ability to incite criminal activity across the country.

Yet representatives from Canada’s broad environmental movement say the document is another example of the Harper government’s efforts to criminalize legitimate civil dissent such as peaceful climate activism and pipeline opposition.

The document, a Critical Infrastructure Intelligence Assessment report from early 2014 originally obtained by Greenpeace, provides “intelligence and/or information” that “may be used to assist in the protection of Canada’s [critical infrastructure],” such as pipelines and other oil and gas infrastructure. In recent years, discussion of Canada’s critical infrastructure (CI) has shifted from a focus on digital and electricity networks to energy-related infrastructure.

The RCMP intelligence report suggests growing opposition movements against pipelines should be seen and treated as criminal security threats although groups mentioned in the report are quick to point out the document fits into a much larger strategy, led by the Harper government, to beat back pipeline or oilsands opponents.

“This is absolutely the criminalization of peaceful protest,” Keith Stewart from Greenpeace Canada, one of the groups named in the document, said.

“The striking thing is that the U.S. has identified climate change as one of the greatest threats to national security, yet here in Stephen Harper's Canada it is the people trying to stop climate change that are identified as the threat.”

Stewart pointed out that in 2012, the Harper government called people concerned about climate change 'radicals' and 'money-launderers.’

“And now we are being called 'anti-petroleum extremists,’” Stewart lamented.

Screen caps from the RCMP report.

Stewart also pointed out the troubling “ideological” nature of the document. Its authors reference climate change as a “perceived environmental threat from the continued use of fossil fuels” that groups such as Greenpeace, Tides Canada and Sierra Club Canada have “an interest in drawing public attention to.”

The report also paints industry opponents with a broad and extreme brush, calling them “anti-petroleum extremists” and relies on the industry-friendly research of conservative commentator Vivian Krause to echo the foreign-funded radicals line first used by former natural resources minister Joe Oliver in 2012.

The report relies largely on publicly available newspaper articles for source material.

Caitlyn Vernon, campaigns director with Sierra Club B.C., said the leaked documents "show that our government considers climate change a hoax perpetuated by environmentalists."

"What is truly ‘extreme’ is to radically change our climate, impacting the health and security of generations of Canadians to come. What is ‘extreme’ is to ignore the warnings of climate scientists and governments from around the world, to continue extracting and burning tar sands and other fossil fuels, to leave a legacy of extreme weather and food shortages," Vernon said. "Our government is leading us down a path with extreme unpredictable consequences for all Canadians."

Among the RCMP report’s ‘key findings’ are concerns that “there is a growing, highly organized and well-financed, anti-Canadian petroleum movement, that consists of peaceful activists, militants and violent extremists, who are opposed to society’s reliance on fossil fuels.”

“Governments and petroleum companies are being encouraged, and increasingly threatened, by violent extremists to cease all actions which the extremists believe, contributes to greenhouse gas emissions,” the document states.

“Violent anti-petroleum extremists will continue to engage in criminal activity to promote their anti-petroleum ideology.”

The report is meant to provide critical infrastructure stakeholders, such as pipeline operators, with a “law enforcement assessment of current [critical infrastructure] protection issues.”

The existence of the RCMP report lends credence to concerns that the Harper government’s new anti-terrorism legislation will be used to label pipeline opponents and First Nations as ‘terrorists.’

Bill C-51 would give the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) extended powers to conduct surveillance, something they call ‘disruption,’ or make arrests if the individuals in question are seen as a potential threat.

The RCMP, CSIS as well as Public Safety Canada are all ‘Critical Infrastructure Partners’ in Canada. A Public Safety Canada Plan for Critical Infrastructure for 2014–2017 recommends increased collaboration between critical infrastructure partners and industry. The plan includes granting security clearance to oil and gas industry representatives so they can be brought in on sensitive information and secret intelligence.

Pipeline proponent Kinder Morgan recently cited ‘critical infrastructure security’ as a reason for withholding crucial spill response information from the province of B.C. in the ongoing National Energy Board review of the company’s proposal to nearly triple the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline that carries oilsands bitumen to the west coast.

Vernon from the Sierra Club said she is worried about the implications of the RCMP report in light of Bill C-51. 

"Will the proposed new anti-terrorism legislation be applied to anyone speaking up about the threat of climate change?" she asked. "Will we be labelled extremists and terrorists for participating in a rally to oppose the Enbridge or Kinder Morgan pipeline and promote more sustainable energy alternatives?"

The proposed legislation could have "frightening consequences for our democracy and for our climate," she added, saying the bill raises the "spectre of surveillance and interference and potential arrest for anyone who brings attention to the very real threat of climate change."

The RCMP report says the Alberta oilsands “are receiving singular international attention” because of growing climate concerns. Environmentalists using social media to attract attention to the issue “exaggerate the oilsands’ environmental footprint…[reference] reports that challenge the safety and integrity of the petroleum industry, and the hydraulic fracturing process,” the report states.

The report cites six separate incidents of criminal activity connected to the “anti-petroleum movement,” including the 2006 firebombing of a vehicle belonging to a vice president of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and explosive devices used to damage facilities belonging to Encana, the natural gas company at the centre of a massive legal battle involving the contamination of drinking water. No detailed documentation of these events is provided within the report.

Also referenced is the highly publicized Mi’kmaq First Nations blockade in New Brunswick in 2013 to protest the presence of fracking companies on unceded territory. The RCMP response to the blockade was met with severe criticism after the arrival of RCMP snipers, dogs and tasers turned a weeks-long peaceful protest into a battle ground.

“I think that attempted criminalization of indigenous dissent in this country is nothing new,” Clayton Thomas-Muller, member of the Mathais Colomb Cree Nation in Northern Manitoba and indigenous extreme energy campaigner with 350.org, said.* “It is however new for the Harper government to use the country’s security apparatus to weave a narrative of terrorism in general into indigenous dissent.”

“All of this is rooted in an agenda that really is about removing any kind of barrier to the Harper government’s economic action plan,” Thomas-Muller said. “Aboriginal priority rights are one barrier this government has not been able to remove through omnibus bills. The Harper government is trying to use the security apparatus to criminalize First Nations and spread propaganda."  

He added that aboriginal rights are not the result of mere extremism.

“The aboriginal legal regime has been built up not just through dissent on the streets and out in the land, but through the power of the courts and through sophisticated education strategies that are reaching out to Canadians, like Idle No More.” He added that aboriginal rights are enshrined in the Constitution, through treaties one through 11 and by way of 170 Supreme Court rulings.

"The federal government couldn’t be farther off when it comes to on the ground concerns about the energy industry in this country and they’re using the country’s security apparatus to remove barriers. They are worried about the tremendous amount of solidarity in Canada."  

A spokesperson with the RCMP, Sergeant Greg Cox, told the Globe and Mail the police force has a mandate to investigate potential criminal threats, "including those to critical infrastructure and at public events."

But, Cox said, “There is no focus on environmental groups, but rather on the broader criminal threats to Canada’s critical infrastructure. The RCMP does not monitor any environmental protest group. Its mandate is to investigate individuals involved in criminality.”

RCMP – Criminal Threats to Canadian Petroleum Industry by DeSmog Canada

*Updated February 23, 2015: An earlier version of this article stated Clayton Thomas-Muller works with the Polaris Institute. It was updated to reflect his current position with 350.org.

Image Credit: Burnaby Mountain protest 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 is a guest post by Karen Campbell, Ecojustice staff lawyer.

The dramatic events unfolding on Burnaby Mountain — where more than 100 protestors have been arrested and charged with civil contempt — has turned a white-hot spotlight on Kinder Morgan’s proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and the National Energy Board (NEB). And both parties are looking a little worse for wear.

Between injunctions and arrests, the furor over Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project has suddenly surpassed that other pipeline, Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline, in terms of controversy. You will recall that despite vociferous opposition from most First Nations and northern B.C. communities, the federal government approved Northern Gateway in June 2014. That approval is now the subject of dozens of legal challenges, including three applications filed by Ecojustice lawyers on behalf of our clients.

We are just one-third of the way through the Kinder Morgan project review, and frustration with the NEB’s stripped-down process — a product of federal environmental law rollbacks tucked into the 2012 budget bill — is steadily mounting, and may have serious implications for other projects, namely TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline.

To accommodate the new 15-month time limit imposed on pipeline reviews the NEB opted to forego cross-examination and community hearings in the Kinder Morgan review. This means intervenors, including municipal governments, affected citizens, First Nations, and environmental and community groups, can’t directly challenge Kinder Morgan’s experts the way they did during Northern Gateway hearings.

Instead, the NEB is relying on two rounds of written questions and answers as a means to test evidence. This “paper hearing” process has already proven to be a poor substitute for oral cross-examination.

Of the 253 responses Ecojustice’s clients received from the company during the first round of information requests, at least 77 — approximately 30 per cent — were inadequate or simply not answered.

All in, the NEB has issued 46 rulings to date in response to various motions and procedural matters in the review, virtually all of which favour Kinder Morgan’s interests. These rulings include upholding Kinder Morgan’s refusal to answer questions from intervenors about its project application (such as a question from Living Oceans Society, one of Ecojustice’s clients, about the makes and models of its oil spill response equipment), and allowing the company to undertake exploratory routing activities on Burnaby Mountain over objections from the City of Burnaby on behalf of its residents. 

Climate change is notably absent from the list of issues the NEB will consider. The NEB’s steadfast refusal to consider the pipeline’s climate impacts — from upstream extraction of bitumen to its downstream use — is inexplicable given the steady thrum of scientists warning us about the need to curtail global greenhouse gas emissions. The omission of climate impacts is even more problematic given the federal government’s continuing failure to take meaningful action on climate change.

The erosion of the NEB’s review process certainly appears to stack the deck in favour of industry. But while the federal government’s gutting of environmental laws in 2012 may have made approving a pipeline easier, if what’s happening on Burnaby Mountain is any indication, it may have also made building a pipeline more difficult. 

Those participating inside the NEB process can tell you that things are not working. Until the NEB addresses the systemic failures of its regulatory process — at minimum, adopting more flexible timelines, restoring cross-examinations and considering climate change — intervenors in the process will continue to be frustrated in their attempts to participate meaningfully, and protests like the one on Burnaby Mountain will likely continue and only get more heated. At this point, Kinder Morgan’s exploratory drilling activity is taking place with RCMP protection.

In addition to the more than 70 people arrested on Burnaby Mountain, six legal challenges have already been filed over the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline project. Conversely, the first Northern Gateway case was not filed until after the Joint Review Panel had made its recommendation to approve the project.

The longer that the NEB ignores the public’s legitimate concerns about the Kinder Morgan project, the more it undermines its own credibility and ability to regulate in the public interest. With yet another major proposal on the horizon in TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline, the NEB would be wise to get its house in order — and quickly.

Image Credit: 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 video, by comedian Scott Vrooman, originally appeared on the Toronto Star.

American energy corporation Kinder Morgan filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against five Trans Mountain pipeline protestors in Burnaby, B.C., because apparently nobody told them the average income of a pipeline protestor.

The National Energy Board — an anagram of “regulatory capture” — ruled that the City of Burnaby can’t stop Kinder from carrying out its work, so now the protestors are accused of trespassing in their own city’s park. Kinder solved the Not In My Backyard problem by taking the backyard.

The company also claims that protestors’ angry facial expressions constitute an assault on their workers. They’re arguing that freedom of expression doesn’t extend to your face. So I assume that if protestors draw angry faces onto their butts and display those towards Kinder Morgan workers, that won’t constitute assault. And I encourage every protestor to test that theory.

All of this comes within the context of a wider attempt to delegitimize protest itself. The University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy which just installed a new oil feature in their garden it’s lovely — they recently held a conference on “social license,” where the case was made that protestors undermine the rule of law by claiming to speak for the whole community.

But pipeline and climate change protestors are mostly speaking for members of the community who don’t have a voice: children. Or they do have a voice, but they’re babbling and responding to everything with “why” and just generally saying the darndest things.

We don’t have a law that says children have a right to a livable environment when they get older. They’re expected to earn their ice sheets and predictable planting seasons just like we did. 

Even radical, chaos-gargling anarchists like the International Energy Agency and former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney have agreed that the vast majority of fossil fuel reserves must be left in the ground to avoid devastating climate change.

So maybe angry protestors aren’t the problem, it’s the lack of anger of everyone else. Maybe the expression we should be worried about isn’t an angry face, it’s a shrug.

Follow Scott on Twitter: @mescottvrooman

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.

Oil companies and fossil fuel investors seeking further developments in the Alberta tar sands have been dealt another setback with the publication of a report showing producers lost $17.1 billion USD between 2010-2013 due to successful public protest campaigns.

Fossil fuel companies lost $30.9 billion overall during the same period partly due to the changing North American oil market but largely because of a fierce grassroots movement against tar sands development, said the report — Material Risks: How Public Accountability Is Slowing Tar Sands Development.

A significant segment of opposition is from First Nations in Canada who are raising sovereignty claims and other environmental challenges, added the report, which was produced by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) and Oil Change International (OCI).

“Tar sands producers face a new kind of risk from growing public opposition,” Tom Sanzillo, director of finance at IEEFA, and one of the lead authors on the report, said. “This opposition has achieved a permanent presence as public sentiment evolves and as the influence of organizations opposed to tar sands production continues to grow.”

Opposition to tar sands unexpected

Steve Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International, added industry officials never anticipated the level and intensity of public opposition to their massive build-out plans.

“Public opposition has caused government and its administrative agencies to take a second and third look,” Kretzmann said. “Legal and other challenges are raising new issues related to environmental protection, indigenous rights and the disruptive impact of new pipeline proposals.”

He added anti-pipeline protests are keeping carbon in the ground, and changing the bottom line for the tar sands industry. 

“Business as usual for Big Oil – particularly in the tar sands – is over,” Kretzmann said.

The report said market forces and public opposition have played a significant role in the cancellation of three major tar sands projects in 2014 alone: Shell’s Pierre River, Total’s Joslyn North, and Statoil’s Corner Project.  

“Combined, these projects would have produced 4.7 billion barrels of bitumen that would in turn have released 2.8 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere,” the 28-page report said. “This is equivalent to the emissions of building 18 new coal plants that would last 40 years each.”

Growing First Nations voices take tar sands story international

“I think it’s pretty inspiring and also uplifting to see the recognition of First Nations that have been very vocal and have articulated their staunch opposition to tar sands expansion in our traditional homelands,” Melina Laboucan-Massimo, a Greenpeace Canada campaigner from the Lubicon Cree, told DeSmog.

Laboucan-Massimo and other representatives from local First Nations like Eriel Deranger from the Fort Chipewyan have been campaigning for years to bring greater awareness to the human health and environmental impacts of rapid tar sands expansion. Laboucan-Massimo said she spent a lot of energy campaigning outside of Canadian borders, speaking to parliamentarians in the U.K., across Europe, as well as to U.S. Congress and the shareholders of major companies.

“We wanted to tell the story on the outside and really put that pressure on the Canadian government to do its due diligence and be accountable to its own citizens,” she said.

“I think that’s a part of what’s been effective in this campaign of accountability, that people not only in Canada but around the world were asking what is happening in Canada? Why is Canada such a climate laggard? Why is the Canadian government not listening to the voices of their own people?”

The growing environmental movement, she said, has been better at incorporating the voices of local First Nations living on the front lines of the tar sands. The movement also now represents a much wider range of social perspectives.

“When we work in coalitions – the environmental movement, First Nations and the labour movement – there’s such a convergence of diverse voices…we’re really starting to see growing public accountability and public opposition being seen and taken seriously.”

She added the future of the tar sands under the Harper government is “tenuous” because “you can see he has a very pro-tar sands agenda,” she said. But, she added, even five or 10 years ago very few Canadians knew what the tar sands were and had little awareness of the switch from conventional to unconventional, extreme forms of energy.

“Now people are quite aware that that’s what been happening and there has been a public dialogue created on that and there has been more pressure on the government to really address the environmental concerns, the health issues and indigenous rights violations. I feel like people really are a lot more aware of these issues now than in the past.”

Keystone XL delay shows tar sands "weakness"

The report says the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is one of the most talked about North American energy and political issues of the era.

“Once thought inevitable, the project and Canada’s plan to expand tar sands production have been confronted by an accumulation of economic and political risks creating a veritable ‘carbon blockade.’”

Project delays are taking a financial and political toll on proposed tar sands projects, the report said.

“The delays and cancellations have exposed the fact that tar sands investments, once thought to be highly lucrative, are showing signs of financial weakness. With growing public awareness and market hesitancy, expansion of tar sands production in Canada will remain contested terrain for the foreseeable future.”  

The report also noted that the tar sands sector faces a growing constellation of risks as project economics become pressured by low oil prices and shrinking revenues, rising costs, smaller profit margins, tougher capital markets, transport constraints, environmental challenges and protectionist legislation.

Nine of 10 leading tar sands producers in Canada have underperformed the stock market in the last five years, it said, adding industry experts have recently downgraded their outlook for future tar sands production.

“Tar sands pipeline campaigns are a recent example of how public advocacy efforts can alter capital investment decision making,” the report said.

“The Keystone XL campaign has managed thus far to delay a final governmental decision on the project while raising public awareness about the environmental costs of tar sands development.”

“These citizen interventions have resulted in increased diligence by government agencies with public health and environmental mandates, impaired the project development process of the capital markets and mobilized a permanent, political constituency in support of alternatives to tar sands expansion.”

The report noted there was an expectation that the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline would receive necessary approvals quickly when it was originally proposed in 2008 and be up and running by late 2011.

“Time and events changed this storyline,” the report added. “By 2011 Russ Girling, the CEO of TransCanada, said ‘There is no way we could have ever predicted that we would become the lightning rod for a debate around fossil fuels and the development of the Canadian oil sands.’”

According to a report in the Guardian, Canada has staked its energy future on a massive expansion of tar sands, which hold the world’s third largest reserve of crude after Saudia Arabia and Venezuela.

“But the huge amounts of water and solvents needed to extract oil from bitumen dramatically boost greenhouse gas output and, on latest production forecasts, will increase Canada’s CO2 emissions by 56 megatonnes by 2020,” the Guardian said.

Image Credit: People's Climate March 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.

If Canada is to seriously confront its addiction to fossil fuels and fight climate change, we need to reframe the entire debate.

That's the message a group of protesters aimed to send when they occupied and disrupted a conference at Montreal's McGill University on Friday.

At 7:45 a.m., about 30 people entered the prestigious McGill Faculty Club where the second day of Petrocultures, a conference organized by the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada (MISC), was to take place. Instead, the conference was forced to start an hour and a half late. While most of the day's events still went ahead at the new location, the protesters saw the action — which was tied to a banner drop — as a success.

"Every slowdown of this kind of conference helps," said Mona Luxion, a McGill student and spokesperson for the occupiers, in an interview with DeSmog.

At first glance, the conference isn't an obvious target for environmental activists. While featuring several pro-oil speakers, including an oil company vice-president and the former head of the Oilsands Developers Group, the conference appeared to lean towards voices critical of fossil fuel extraction, including an Indigenous anti-oilsands activist, prominent environmentalists, and academics and artists critical of the fossil fuel industry.

But while the conference featured critics of the oilsands, a promotional video for the event featured co-chair Dr. Will Straw saying the goal of the conference was to cover all sides: "It would be very easy to have a conference on this subject that would bring together everybody who's on the same side: hard core environmentalists, anti-oil people, and so on. But we do want all sides to be heard," he said in the video produced by TV McGill.

It's this kind of false equivalency between the two sides of the fossil fuel debate that's dangerous, said Luxion. "Debate can be productive…But a debate that puts support for the tar sands as equal [to criticisms of the fossil fuel industry] isn't the debate we need to be having."

The negative impacts of the fossil fuel industry — from higher rates of cancers in First Nations communities living downstream from the oilsands, to the growing catastrophic impacts of climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions — are well documented, Luxion said.

Instead, the occupiers argue there is an urgent need to discuss how we end our dependency on fossil fuels, and how to stop the promotion of the fossil fuel industry.

Co-chair Dr. Will Straw told DeSmog he agrees not all sides of a debate are equal, and said McGill attempted to give more space to fossil fuel critics.

"We didn't look for a balanced conference. One side already has more access to the media," he said, referencing the oil and gas industry. He also stressed that by holding the conference on campus and reducing the entry fee (in the past, McGill Institue for the Study of Canada) conferences have been held at hotels with hefty $400 registration fees), there was a much broader student and community participation.

Even with greater participation, the conference's mandate to "discuss and debate the role of oil and energy in shaping social, cultural and political life in Canada at present and in the future" still served to reinforce the status quo, said Luxion.

The protesters voiced an additional concern that invited representatives from the environmental movement weren't challenging the status quo aggressively enough. 

In a written statement, the occupiers were specific in their concerns:

"To whom does Petrocultures offer a stage? Beyond outright promoters of the tar sands and fracking: a co-founder of ForestEthics, which advocates for 'responsible industry,' a co-founder of Équiterre, which urges 'responsible consumption,' and the president of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, which campaigns to achieve 'green growth.' The common thread uniting these speakers is a commitment to making moderate adjustments to life under capitalism, adjustments which serve to extend the lifespan of an inherently violent system without abolishing it."

Steven Guilbeault of Montreal-based Equiterre was invited to speak at the conference, on a panel with Tzeporah Berman of ForestEthics, and Sun News personality and oilsands proponent Ezra Levant.

While Guilbeault agreed the debate around fossil fuels is in need of being reframed, he feels the necessary discussions on how to combat climate change are happening in the environmental movement, and that Équiterre and its allies have seen successes.

"I often debate with myself and others on what we need to do to be more effective; how do we become more radical, more effective, more inclusive," he said. The debate is shifting, he argued, pointing to 50,000 people out last year for a march in Montreal against fossil fuels, and 300,000 coming out for Earth Day in 2012, at the height of the Quebec student strike.

But Luxion says the protesters want a stronger challenge of current economic frames: "Our concern specifically was that that the people who are proposed as opponents don't veer too far from capitalism…They aren't talking about decolonizaton or about changes to our economic model."

Also reached for comment, Levant, who contends that Canadian oil is more ethical than oil imported from countries like Saudi Arabia, agreed that the debate around oil in Canada needs to be framed differently, although to different ends.

"Right now the framing of it is: imperfect oilsands oil versus the fantasy fuel of the future that's perfect in every way (except it doesn't exist yet)," he wrote. "I'm trying to reframe the debate towards real-life choices: ethical oil from Canada versus conflict oil from OPEC."

The ethical oil argument, however, fails to address the problematic aspects of oil development in Canada, leaving the important questions unaddressed. Ethicaloil.org has deep ties to the oil and gas industry and the Conservative party.

Levant's presence at the conference became a lightening rod for criticism. Straw said if he was to redo the conference, he may not have invited the controversial pundit. Guilbeault said Levant's presence served to reduce the credibility of the event.

For Luxion and other occupiers, though, the mere presence of Levant wasn't what made the conference more problematic. Rather, it's that the discussion continues to reflect a status quo that places pro- and anti-fossil fuel positions on the same footing, a status quo which is also reflected prominently in mainstream media and Canadian politics.

"The fact that all the federal parties support fossil fuel extraction to a degree points to the fact the debate is about how to exploit oil and gas, and not whether or not we should," said Luxion.

* Correction Notice: This article originally stated that the Petrocultures Conference was forced to change venues. That was not the case.

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 RCMP responded to a First Nation’s protest against shale gas fracking in New Brunswick with arrests and pepper spray this morning. Reports from the clash show images of a highly-militarized police response to the blockade along Route 134 near Rexton, N.B. in front of a compound belonging to SWN Resources, a Houston-based company that recently performed seismic testing, a precursor to fracking, in the area.

The Elsipogtog Mi’kmaq First Nation has been protesting the development of the region’s shale gas resources for months. In June, the RCMP responded to the lighting of a sacred fire with arrests. Today, a reported 75 officers responded to the peaceful blockade to enforce an injunction, sending 10 officers in military fatigues with sniper rifles. Watch a video of the morning's events on this feed.

Elsipogtog councilor Robert Levi reported that “dozens” of people have been targeted with pepper spray. “The chief was manhandled a little bit and all hell broke loose,” he said.

Chief Arren Sock, pictured below, was apparently in custody, but according to Postmedia News, RCMP Const. Julie Rogers-Marsh could not confirm if any arrests have been made. *Update: Postmedia News is reporting that at least 40 arrests have been made.

#Elsipogtog Chief & council getting arrested along with protesters #cdnpoli #IdleNoMore pic.twitter.com/NOOXyWbMrw

— Lionel Levi (@lionelwade1980) October 17, 2013

In this video below, numerous heavily armed officers appear on the scene and a woman behind the camera asks a man in fatigues not to point his gun at her mother.

It appears numerous police vehicles were set on fire, with twitter reports claiming up to 14 cars are burning.

Police cars on fire at NB blockade #Elsipogtog #FrackingProtest #mikmaqblockade #occupy #ows pic.twitter.com/WKVtKRJhK7

— Occupy The Earth (@djjohnthomas) October 17, 2013

Rexton protest #nb pic.twitter.com/zeTxxdeuzo

— Jen Hudson (@hudson_jen) October 17, 2013

The Halifax Media Co-op is reporting that one of their writers, Miles Howe, may have been arrested.

SNIPERS Pointed guns at camp with elders children & women first thing this am. #Elsipogtog #AntiFracking pic.twitter.com/1ThhuJlcbX

— Rhonda Doxtator (@kawisaha99) October 17, 2013

Tensions flare as the police line advances. Police tear gassing the crowd. pic.twitter.com/3WrjsdA2EA

— Ossie Michelin (@Osmich) October 17, 2013

Police car on fire as police lose control of anti #fracking blockade. pic.twitter.com/MTmkY5arSF

— Ossie Michelin (@Osmich) October 17, 2013

2 more RCMP cars on fire #mikmaqblockade pic.twitter.com/5N7IHUIRhf

— stimulator (@stimulator) October 17, 2013

#mikmaqblockade pic.twitter.com/3qQRcyRaYZ

— stimulator (@stimulator) October 17, 2013

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.

As promised, multiple protests against the tar sands greeted Prime Minister Stephen Harper Thursday in London, where he became the first Canadian prime minister to address British Parliament since 1944. Harper has been using his UK trip to lobby against the proposed European Union (EU) fuel quality directive, which would label oil from the Albertan tar sands as 'highly polluting' to deter imports into Europe.

Linda Solomon writes for the Vancouver Observer, that "50 campaigners representing 30 environmental groups gathered outside the UK Parliament [to] greet Prime Minister Stephen Harper's car with anti-tar sands banners, placards and chants." One of them, Suzanne Dhaliwal, was dressed as Bridgette DePape, the Senate Page who was fired in 2011 for holding up a "Stop Harper" sign on the Canadian Senate floor.

The group protest outside Parliament was organized by the UK Tar Sands Network (TSN). Jess Worth of the TSN is quoted as saying that Thursday's protests "demonstrate just how strongly people in the UK feel about the Harper government's attempts to force their dirty tar sands oil onto Europe."

The TSN posted a YouTube video of the protest.

In a separate protest, members of an activist group calling themselves "Love Canada, Hate Tar Sands" (LCHTS) attempted to "block the Sovereign's Entrance Gate to the room where Harper was speaking," and scaled the roof of the Parliament building to try and interrupt Harper during his speech.

According to the BBC, "shouting was heard" inside, but the "speech went ahead." They also report that two women were arrested outside "on suspicion of criminal damage," and three others "detained" by Parliamentary security for trying to get into "non-public rooms."

On their tumblr blog, LCHTS posted videos of their protest on the rooftop of Parliament. They also posted a statement, saying:

"From further marginalising historically shunted Indigenous people, to muzzling world class climate scientists, Prime Minister Harper has shown time and again that nothing will stand between him and developing dirty tar sands, even though tar sands will create unprecedented global warming. Now Harper brings his circus of oil peddlers to Europe to interfere in EU climate legislation, to push his monstrous industry onto Europeans."

They add that by staging Thursday's protest they "have acted, in solidarity with those resisting Harper everywhere, to STOP CLIMATE CRIMINAL HARPER."

British Prime Minister David Cameron's government has proven a staunch supporter of Harper's tar sands push. But some in the UK government are pushing back.

The TSN reports on their site that British MPs have tabled an Early Day Motion to recognize the damaging effects of tar sands exploitation, resist Canadian lobbying against the EU fuel quality directive, and keep tar sands oil imports out of Europe. 7 MPs from 4 different parties have signed. Solomon notes that "other MPs will now be encouraged to sign, in the run-up to an EU Member States' vote later this year."

Harper's final destination in Europe is the G8 Summit in Northern Ireland this week. At G8, Harper is expected to continue lobbying against the EU fuel quality directive. He's also likely to advocate for the Canada-European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) which, according to citizens' organization the Council of Canadians, could support tar sands expansion by "[empowering] European corporations to attack environmental and health measures" and "[restricting] our Internet freedom [by criminalizing] certain online behaviour."

Image Credit: Rajan Zaveri / No Tar Sands Facebook Page

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.

As the Obama administration revisits its decision on whether to approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, DeSmog Canada decided to take a look at how the project became a cause célèbre.

We asked ourselves: Of all the environmental causes to fight, what was it that mobilized Hollywood celebrities, renowned scientists, environmental activists and a handful of Texans to face jail time protesting a proposed pipeline from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast?

What’s more: How did a decision on the project – which Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper once brushed off as a “no-brainer” – get sidelined by the U.S. government ahead of a crucial 2012 presidential election?

While the Stephen Harper government has been quick to point fingers at so-called foreign-funded “radicals” and First Nations, we believe the answer lies much closer to home.

In fact, if the Obama administration decides to reject TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline, the Harper government will need to face facts: Its own environmental policies and PR tactics will be largely to blame.

Its pro-pipeline campaign, which vilifies environmental groups and suggests Canadians must choose between the economy and the environment, is backfiring. Keystone XL could very well be the first failure case study, followed by other anti-pipeline movements such as the one organizing against the Enbridge Northern Gateway.

Where exactly did the Harper government go wrong? The bungling of the issue dates back to 2006, when the newly elected Harper administration began backing away from the Kyoto Protocol climate change agreement, going against the trend of most other developing nations.

At a time when climate change concerns started to resurface as a top issue for Canadians, the Harper government was signaling its plans to loosen environmental targets for heavy-polluting industries, in particular oil and gas and tar sands. Its argument was that the targets were unrealistic and uneconomic.

That said, as the 2008-09 recession took hold, the pro-development message resonated with many Canadians. While climate change concerns remained, polls taken during the global financial crisis showed those worries took a back seat to the economic worries.

However, as the economy recovered in 2010 and 2011, so too did environmental concerns. Still the Harper government continued to drive home its commitment to expanding the Alberta tar sands and played down the importance of meeting emissions targets.

When it officially withdrew Canada from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011, amid international backlash, the Harper government and its friends in the oil industry continued to treat climate change not as an environmental issue, but as a public relations problem.

Once the U.S. announced it would delay the Keystone XL decision, the Harper PR machine went into overdrive. Instead of seeking collaboration with environmental groups and First Nations, the government doubled down, ramping up its rhetoric about environmental “radicals,” while at the same time increasing its advertising spending to promote the Harper administration as environmentally responsible.

Consider the response to a February 2013 report from the federal environment commissioner, Scott Vaughan, which found shortcomings in how the government protects citizens from pollution risks associated with resources development. Commenting on the findings in his final report Commissioner Vaughan said, “we need a boom in environmental protection in this country.”



Instead of responding with a commitment to do better the Harper Government sent Canadian Ambassador to the US, Gary Doer, out to the media to suggest that Keystone XL critics have overblown the estimated net increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the Keystone pipeline project.

He was quoted by Postmedia News saying: “If you ask the question: Do you want oil from (Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez or (Alberta Premier) Alison Redford I think I know the answer.”


With all due respect to the Ambassador this is just a bad political shell game that has already backfired once. People can see that he is asking the wrong question. What Americans want to know is: Why isn’t the Harper government working quickly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands and other sectors of the Canadian economy?

In its newest advertising campaign, the government continues to promote itself as greening the tar sands, even though its emission targets remain largely unchanged. This greenwashing only serves to inflame the critics, as we’ve seen with the fresh round of Keystone XL climate change protests in Washington.

Now, as a result of the Harper government’s muted response to environmental concerns, Keystone XL has become about much more than just a pipeline. As a recent opinion piece in The Guardian points out, Keystone XL will become a climate legacy issue for the Obama administration at a time when the environment has once again become top-of-mind for many Americans, particularly in the destructive aftermath of Superstorm Sandy.

Instead of attempting to address society’s growing concern about climate change, the Harper government’s response has been to try to spin its way out of the issue through denial and misleading PR campaigns. What’s worse, these government-sponsored ad campaigns are being funded by Canadian taxpayers, many of whom disagree with the Harper administration’s position on the environment, according to polls.

Still, as global climate change concerns continue to grow, the Harper government continues to dig in its heels. It’s that stance that is fuelling environmentalists not just with Keystone XL, but Northern Gateway and other resource projects across North America.

Opposition to Canada’s tar sands expansion efforts is growing globally, and the Harper government has only itself to blame.

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 Sunday report from the Globe and Mail gives a rather undersized account of what prominent environmental organizations are calling the largest climate rally in American history, suggesting Canadian media might be trying to downplay the extent of public opposition to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline planned to cut across the U.S. to reach refineries and export markets.

In the wake of the massively successful display of North American opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline in Washington DC on Sunday, February 17th, perhaps some Canadians are refusing to receive the message, or admit the significance of Canada's contentious, bituminous role in the whole ordeal.

Organizers for the event estimate 35,000 or more individuals attended Sunday's event, with some accounts citing figures as high as 50,000.

But as Paul Koring and his co-authors present the rally in the Globe and Mail, organizers only claimed 35,000 participants attended the protest, but "turnout seemed significantly smaller."

Some protesters even "voiced disappointment at the numbers" after traveling across the country to be in Washington for the monumental day. An unofficial policeman's estimate, the article states, said the turnout amounted to perhaps 10,000, a meagre total evidenced by the unused portable toilets and protesters who skipped out early to leave nothing but a "straggling column" to march on the White House a mere two hours into the rally.

Sounds rather unimpressive. I suppose Canadians can rest easy, knowing rumours of growing tar sands opposition south of the boarder are exaggerated. Right?

An anticipatory article by Koring in the Globe had already set the tone on Friday with misgivings about organizer ambitions to deliver "tens of thousands" of "people to decry efforts to build a pipeline." And in a follow-up article Koring claimed "the raucous Keystone XL pipeline argument is drowning out serious discussions about bigger, broader and far more important choices."

Sunday's article, co-authored by Koring, Barrie McKenna and Carrie Tait, runs with the headline "U.S. Protest Paints Keystone as Emissions Villain." The overarching message is this: the opposition may have drawn their line in the sand, but it's the wrong line. Protesters who "vilified Keystone" on Sunday, need a reality check: the pipeline itself isn't the issue – climate change is the rallying cry.

Exactly.

What Koring and other commentators have failed to grasp is the intentionally principled nature of the protest. The Keystone XL protest isn't just about the pipeline itself – which Koring meaninglessly states "would produce virtually no emissions" – it's about the fossil fuel empire; it's about the tar sands; it's about manmade climate disruption.

The event itself was called "Forward on Climate." 

And given the pipeline's direct link to Canada's climate quagmire, the Alberta tar sands, it isn't at all surprising that Americans have seized the Keystone question as an opportunity to call out Canadian shortcomings. And it also isn't surprising that some might try to dismiss the importance of that altogether. 

Gary Doer, Canada's ambassador to the U.S., also downplayed the rally, claiming the protesters lack "logic." Speaking on Energy Week TV Doer referred to a number of high-profile arrests in the leadup to Sunday's rally, including that of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and actress Daryl Hannah, saying "twenty people protesting do get more attention in the media than the 65 percent of Americans that prefer to get their oil from Canada rather than Venezuela or the Middle East," an argument seeming to emerge from out of the Canadian 'Ethical Oil' playbook. 

"So am I concerned with the fact that the media will go with the picture as opposed to sometimes logic? That's just part of how issues are covered. But when you look at it, public opinion supports [Keystone]."

Doer might be somewhat behind the times, however. As the recent post-State of the Union poll demonstrated, the majority – 65 percent – of Americans feel climate change is a serious problem and support President Obama's use of authority to curb carbon pollution. Keystone XL presents Obama with the opportunity to do just that, whether or not Canadians are on board, and whether or not Canadians keep apprised of American popular sentiment.

Doer suggests the Obama administration ignore "the 20 people who are out there" and choose instead to "proceed with logic."

But whose logic would that be?

Image Credit: JennaPope.com

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.