In October, B.C. Premier John Horgan made a visit to the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter on the banks of the Douglas Channel in Kitimat.

He praised the facility for being “a great example of how companies can improve conditions for workers and reduce pollution all while improving their bottom line.”

What he didn’t mention was the ongoing battle at Rio Tinto Alcan over a provincial permit that allowed the company to increase sulphur dioxide pollution by more than 50 per cent, or the union representing 800 workers at the smelter that appealed that permit, saying the increase in pollution was a direct threat to their health.

Exposure to sulphur dioxide aggravates the respiratory systems of asthmatics and is known to negatively affect the respiratory systems of children and the elderly.

At the heart of the controversy is a decision by the B.C. Ministry of Environment in 2013, which allowed the smelter to increase its sulphur dioxide emissions into the Kitimat airshed during a $5 billion expansion project. The ministry approved the increase in emissions under an environmental monitoring plan that would measure, but not prevent, the impacts of the pollution on human health until 2019, when the plan would be revisited.

B.C. did not require the company to install scrubbers, commonly used in smelters to remove airborne pollutants from emissions, a decision that still bothers Sean O’Driscoll, president of the smelter’s union, Unifor local 2301.

“Having a monitoring program ongoing, with suitable human health mitigation plans required to be implemented at a later day, has folks feeling like they, their children and neighbours are being treated like guinea pigs,” O’Driscoll told DeSmog Canada.

ICYMI: Rio Tinto Alcan Polluting Kitimat Airshed to Save Money, Tribunal Hears

ICYMI: Rio Tinto Alcan Externalizing Air Pollution onto Kitimat Households, Says Expert Witness

The B.C. Environmental Appeal Board previously told the union it had no right to challenge the environmental effects monitoring plan. But the court of appeals has now overruled that finding, kicking the original appeal — first launched in 2014 — back into action.

“This [appeal] opens a path for Unifor to challenge the mitigation plan on the basis that it is insufficient to protect workers and their families from growing levels of sulphur dioxide,” Jason Gratl, lawyer for local 2301, told DeSmog Canada.

O’Driscoll said the company was essentially given permission to subject workers and the community to a health risk to minimize costs.

“Our full expectations of the new Horgan NDP government is that they take another look at this issue and put the health of communities first,” O’Driscoll told DeSmog Canada. “Industry and stringent environmental standards need not be mutually exclusive.”

Gratl said the appeal will address whether or not it was appropriate for the government to approve the pollution increase without a clear plan to protect human health.

Governments increasingly approve projects with the explicit plan to work out details after the fact, Gratl said, adding pipeline approvals that come with more than 100 conditions are a prime example.

“What happened with Rio Tinto Alcan is the government said ‘let’s start making aluminum and we’ll figure out the environmental and social issues later.’ And they keep trying to push these issues further down the road.”

BC Using #Kitimat Smelter Workers as ‘Guinea Pigs’ for Air Pollution Monitoring, Union Says https://t.co/CcjzYKZcOE #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 6, 2017

Experts-for-Hire at Heart of Rio Tinto Alcan Concerns

Chris Tollefson, lawyer with the Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation, brought a previous challenge against the Rio Tinto Alcan on behalf of two Kitimat teachers: Lis Stannus and Emily Towes.

In 2015 Tollefson and his co-counsels provided an Environmental Appeal Board tribunal with evidence of alleged regulatory capture.

Regulators and statutory decision-makers within the Ministry of Environment were inappropriately close with Rio Tinto Alcan and relied heavily on science and analysis provided by the company’s hired scientists, Tollefson argued.

Tollefson said this case gives rise to the problems of “professional reliance” — the practice of using proponent-hired experts rather than independent analysts during environmental assessments.

ICYMI: ‘This is B.C.’s Version of the Duffy Scandal’: Government Officials Refer to Rio Tinto Alcan as ‘Client’ in Work Journal

ICYMI: Tribunal Hears Regulatory Capture Behind B.C.’s Decision to Increase Rio Tinto Alcan Pollution in Kitimat Airshed

In August, the B.C. government ordered a review of the professional reliance system, which rose in popularity in B.C. under the tenure of the BC Liberals as cuts to the civil service were made.

Tollefson said the reopening of Unifor’s appeal will start a new discovery process that may provide crucial insight into what decisions and decision-makers played a role in the permits and adaptive management plan being approved.

“We’re concerned that the Ministry of Environment relied far too heavily on Rio Tinto Alcan’s experts, on Rio Tinto’s preferred approach and did not subject the environmental effects management plan to the kind of rigorous scrutiny that it deserved; and that it rushed its approval of that management plan in a way that compromised its scientific integrity,” Tollefson said.

‘We Feel Like An Experiment’

Tollefson also said the appeal provides new ground for his clients to relaunch their legal challenge.

Stannus said that is something she plans to pursue.

“Since this permit was approved, we have learned a lot more about the problems of professional reliance, a lot more about the health impacts of sulphur dioxide,” Stannus said.

Kitimat resident Lis Stannus poses for a photogaph with Premier John Horgan during his October visit to Kitimat. “I walked up to Horgan and I said, ‘I’m from Kitimat and I’m worried about sulphur dioxide pollution,’ ” Stannus recounted to DeSmog Canada. Photo: Province of B.C. via Flickr

“It’s a little shocking to me that this is allowed to proceed. We feel like an experiment and I don’t recall ever giving consent to this experiment.”

Stannus said her ears perk up whenever she hears the new government criticize the practice of professional reliance.

“But they never bring Rio Tinto Alcan up,” Stannus told DeSmog Canada. “They never mention the fact that the project’s studies were bought and paid for by Rio Tinto.”

Kitimat Residents Try to Raise Concerns with NDP Government

Stannus said she sought out the premier on his last visit to the area.

Stannus and a community organization she belongs to, the Kitimat-Terrace Clean Air Coalition, have sent three letters to B.C. Environment Minister George Heyman, expressing their fears that Rio Tinto Alcan’s permit to increase sulphur dioxide emissions is a threat to their health. The group has repeatedly asked for meetings with the minister, Stannus said.

“I asked [the Premier] why they won’t meet with us and he said it is because they have only been in power for 100 days,” she said.

ICYMI: Kitimat Residents ‘Muzzled’ From Speaking Out On Rio Tinto Alcan’s Plan to Increase Air Pollution

In a statement to DeSmog Canada, Minister Heyman said he can “empathize with those who have concerns about air quality in their community.”

“I want to assure everyone that we will restore public confidence in government’s ability to protect our water, land and air,” Heyman said.

He added the environmental effects monitoring plan is currently under appeal with the Environmental Appeal Board.

“As such it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.”

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.

At an estimated 2,700 litres, the bunker fuel spill in English Bay was relatively small — yet the stakes of that spill couldn’t be much higher.

With Enbridge and Kinder Morgan both hoping to build oil pipelines to B.C., which would significantly increase oil tanker traffic in the province’s inside coastal waters, a dramatically mishandled marine oil spill raises all sorts of questions — questions the federal government does not appear well-positioned to answer, despite its aggressive push for West Coast oil exports.

“Obviously, from the oil industry’s perspective, you couldn’t have picked a worse place to have an oil spill,” Jim Stanford, economist at Unifor and founder of the Progressive Economics Forum, told DeSmog Canada.

While the federal government insisted its response was “world-class,” a former commander of the shuttered Kits Coast Guard station blamed the six-hour delay in even deploying a boom to contain the oil on the closure of that station in 2013 — a move that is reported to have saved the federal government at estimated $700,000 a year.

The English Bay spill, beyond being a systemic failure, has been a total PR disaster.

“It’s a very dramatic indication of the failure of our environmental safeguards around transportation and energy,” Stanford said.

Will The Real Energy Superpower Please Stand Up

Canada’s aggressive “energy superpower” push — a Harper government priority that has been accompanied by the elimination of environmental laws— has drawn criticism from all corners, and not just domestically.

The Obama administration indicated the fate of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline, which has been caught in a protracted review process for six years, was intrinsically tied up with the oilsands’ growing greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union came close to labelling oilsand’s crude as high-carbon due to its energy-intensive extraction and refining process (that move was thwarted by intensive lobbying by the Canadian and Albertan governments). 

Back at home, the undercutting of environmental reviews and elimination of environmental laws has resulting in growing citizen concern about Canada’s oilsands development and record on climate change, as demonstrated by recent climate and pipeline protests.

Martha Hall Findlay, former Liberal MP and executive fellow at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, says the federal government has blown the environmental file.

“You don’t poke people in the eye when the rest of the world is saying there are significant environmental concerns,” she said.

“I think it’s smart to acknowledge that and address it. Our current federal government has done the opposite in many ways. And, importantly, have been seen to be doing the opposite. There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that it was a factor in Obama’s decision on Keystone.”

With Friends Like These Who Needs Protesters?

What’s become clearer is that such a myopic approach to policymaking has created difficult conditions for the extractive industries.

“The Harper government’s bloody-mindedness on environmental issues has actually done more to bog down large resource projects than anything the environmental movement could have done,” Rick Smith, executive director of the Broadbent Institute, said.

“What it’s done is make First Nations, local communities and environmentalists feel marginalized and angry.”

Keith Stewart of Greenpeace Canada echoed the sentiment, saying complaints are now likely to emerge from beyond the protest crowd: “If the government won’t listen to Canadians about it, they’re soon going to have to listen to our would-be customers.”

While there’s some significant progress occurring on the provincial front on the climate change file, that can’t make up for the lack of federal leadership.

“People outside Canada don’t necessarily understand the nuances of the different levels of governance within the country,” notes Anthony Heyes, University of Ottawa economics professor and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Economics. “Outsiders see it as a country that has a relatively disappointing record in not just greenhouse gas emissions in an absolute way, but also against international commitments..”

Hall Findlay added that if the federal government had followed the lead of the provinces, Keystone XL might have been approved. But at this point, piecemeal climate commitments from the provinces might not be enough.

An associated problem is the fact that Harper bet the economy on the success of the oil and gas sector (Thomas Walkom put it nicely in a piece for the Toronto Star: “Harper has his own unspoken industrial policy. It can be summed up in a word: pipelines.”)

Stanford suggests that such infatuation has come at the cost of other industries — manufacturing, tourism, transportation — due to the high dollar being pegged to an extremely volatile resource.

“You would have needed a government with the foresight and courage to actively push against that in order to protect our environment, obviously, but also our economic diversity and long-run prosperity instead of riding the bandwagon as they did,” he said.

Stanford notes that the employment rate is currently as low as it was in the summer of 2009, the worst moment of the global recession. That’s got to sting for a party that advertises its leader as a trained economist — not an elitist lawyer or under-qualified teacher.

Ultimately, Harper’s mismanagement of the energy and environment file — and most importantly the nexus of those two things — might be more of a gift than a burden for those who want to see progress on climate change.

“In a way, the fact that Stephen Harper has burned any semblance of federal environmental regulation to the ground is an opportunity for Canadians to rebuild something at the federal level that’s new, truly modern and forward thinking,” Smith says.

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 new U.S. proposal to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants could result in more thermal coal being shipped to Asia through existing and planned port facilities in Metro Vancouver, people attending Port Metro Vancouver’s annual general meeting were told Tuesday.

“[President Barack] Obama’s administration is changing the game,” Steven Faraher-Amidon said during a question period.

Faraher-Amidon also told the meeting that five schools in Delta and Surrey are within 700 metres of the contentious Fraser Surrey Docks coal handling proposal while medical studies in the U.S. have found that living within five kilometres of coal dust and diesel particulates presents significant health risks. A former Port Metro Vancouver environmental impact assessment that looked at the Fraser Surrey Docks terminal was criticized for being limited in scope and failing to adequately address public health concerns.

The 64-year-old retired Surrey teacher added a proper health impact assessment needs to be done before the Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility — which could eventually handle eight million tonnes annually — can be approved.

Faraher-Amidon’s comments came a day after the Obama administration announced a plan that would result in a 30 per cent drop in coal-fired electricity plant emissions below 2005 levels by 2030. According to an Environmental Protection Agency media release, the reduced emissions will protect public health, move the U.S. toward a cleaner environment and fight climate change.

“Climate change, fueled by carbon pollution, supercharges risks to our health, our economy, and our way of life. EPA is delivering on a vital piece of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan by proposing a Clean Power Plan that will cut harmful carbon pollution from our largest source — power plants,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was quoted as saying.

“By leveraging cleaner energy sources and cutting energy waste, this plan will clean the air we breathe while helping slow climate change so we can leave a safe and healthy future for our kids. We don’t have to choose between a healthy economy and a healthy environment — our action will sharpen America’s competitive edge, spur innovation, and create jobs.”

Location of Fraser Surrey Docks via Google Maps.

Responding to the EPA plan, the Metro Vancouver environmental group Voters Taking Action on Climate Change said Monday some analysts predict that the new rules will eventually lead to the closure of hundreds of coal-fired power plants in the U.S., leading to increased pressure to export American thermal coal from B.C. ports.

In a letter to B.C. Health Minister Terry Lake and the port authority, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union, Unifor, and the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation all called Monday for a full health impact assessment of the Fraser Surrey Docks coal export proposal.

Concerned about health and climate change implications from burning thermal coal, the B.C. Conference of the United Church of Canada has also asked the port authority to reject the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal.

Currently, no ports in California, Oregon and Washington export thermal coal.

Port Metro Vancouver says it treats materials for export as safely as possible. It also says it is up to the federal government to decide what materials are traded internationally.

In a later interview, Faraher-Amidon said it seems the port is ignoring the new U.S. plans and what they might mean for increased trainloads of thermal coal into B.C. for export to Asia. “We are a natural conduit for where they are going to bring the coal,” he said.

Image Credit: BNSF train by Contemplative Imaging 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.