Test - Alberta

Showing posts with label Alberta. Show all posts

Another Gas Pipeline Rupture in Montana

July 08, 2013 Add Comment Edit

Early in July a gasoline pipeline outside of the small town of Lodge Grass on Montana's Crow Indian Reservation spilled 25,000 gallons of gasoline. Over the last 20 years there have been at least three spills from the 8-inch underground pipeline now owned by Phillips 66.

The Lodge Grass spill comes almost two years to the day after 63,000 gallons of crude spilled into Montana's Yellowstone River from an Exxon Mobil line. The cleanup and repair costs for that spill totaled more than $135 million.

Phillips 66 is a Houston-based oil refinery and chemical company. They said the boken pipe outside of Lodge Grass will have to be excavated to be repaired and the contaminated soil likely will have to be removed.

The Seminoe pipeline carries gasoline, diesel and other refined petroleum products from Phillips 66's Billings refinery to Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. It has a maximum daily capacity of 46,000 barrels, which is equivalent to more than 1.9 million gallons.

Gasoline is highly toxic and gives off more dangerous fumes and is far more flamable than crude oil. When mixed with water gasoline can be even more damaging than oil.

In the same general area, the same pipeline spilled 2,300 barrels of gasoline in two seperate spills in one week in 1997.

The two spills and another 2001 pipeline leak near Conrad, Mont., resulted in a half million dollar settlement ($465,000) for violating the Clean Water Act. The line's former owner, Conoco Pipe Line Co.,

The environmentally destructive impacts of leaking pipelines are hardly the only concern associated with transporting fossil fuels. In Nigeria 120 people were burned alive in a pipeline rupture and fire in 2011 and more recently the small town of Megantic Quebec was decimated by the derailment of a train carrying oil.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Video - Train Carrying Oil Derails Destroying Town in Canada
Pipelines and Oil Spills in Alberta Canada
Managing the Massive Gulf Oil Spill
Oil Spills Add to Concerns about the Keystone XL Pipeline
EPA Slams State Department on its Keystone XL Report
Oil Spills off the Coast of New Zealand
South Dakota Wants Additional Protections Against Spills
Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Shell Oil Rig Runs Aground in Alaska Raising Safety Concerns
Lawsuit Protecting the Arctic from Oil Spills
Inadequate Safety Measures for the Keystone XL Pipeline
BP Accused of Corporate Recklessness Including Willful Misconduct
Transocean to Pay $1.4 billion for its Role in the Gulf Oil Spill
The Cost of Oil: BP Barred from Doing Business with the US
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for up to 90 Billion
BC Opposes the Northern Gateway Pipeline
Another Offshore Oil Leak
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
The Costs of Offshore Drilling

Pipelines and Oil Spills in Alberta Canada

July 01, 2013 Add Comment Edit

The province of Alberta and the oil industry are fighting to expand the tarsands and build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and the Northern Gateway pipeline.

The Canadian and Alberta government's are working hard to defend the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline which would ferry tar sands oil from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico.

Another controversial project, the Northern Gateway pipeline, would ferry oil from Alberta to the West Coast of British Columbia.

Government largely ignores the problem of pipeline ruptures which is endemic to the oil industry. Without the Keystone XL and the Northern Gateway there are already over 399,000 kilometres of pipelines under the authority of the Alberta’s Energy Resources Conservation Board.

Despite the Alberta government's repeated assurances that oil spills are rare, they are in fact an unavoidable corollary of oil pipelines.

The entire oil pipeline network in Alberta has spilled approximately 28,000 barrels (~4,452 cubic metres) equivalent volumes of liquid hydrocarbons every year since 2005.

Flooding has caused pipes to shift spilling 750 barrels of synthetic oil from a pipeline in northern Alberta.

There have been many other oil spill in Alberta in recent years. As reviewed by Sean Kheraj's review of pipeline spills in Alberta from 1970 to 2005 and Kheraj's extensive summary of more recent oil spills from Alberta's pipelines between 2006 and 2012.

On June 7, 2012, the Sundre Petroleum Operators Group, a not-for-profit society, notified Plains Midstream Canada of a major oil pipeline failure near Sundre, Alberta that spilled an early estimate of between 1,000 and 3,000 barrels of light sour crude oil (~159-477 cubic metres) into Jackson Creek, a tributary of the Red Deer River. The river is one of the province’s most important waterways, providing drinking water for thousands of Albertans.

In late May 2012 an estimated 22,000 barrels of oil and water (~3,497 cubic metres) spilled across 4.3 hectares of muskeg in the northwest part of the province near Rainbow Lake. According to the Globe and Mail, this rupture, which occurred along a pipeline operated by Pace Oil & Gas, Ltd., “ranks among the largest in North America in recent years,” and certainly in the province of Alberta. A couple of weeks after the accident, the company downgraded the estimate to 5,000 barrels of sweet crude oil with no water (~795 cubic metres).

In 2011, 28,000 barrels (~4,452 cubic metres) of oil spilled on the Rainbow pipeline operated by Plains Midstream Canada near Little Buffalo, Alberta. The 2011 Plains Midstream oil pipeline rupture was one of the largest single spill events in recent memory,

On October 10, 2006, the Rainbow Pipe Line Company became aware of a crude oil spill on its pipeline 20 kilometres southeast of Slave Lake. Roughly 7,924 barrels of oil (~1,260 cubic metres) poured into a series of ponds near the northern Alberta town, despoiling wildlife habitat on what one local news outlet ironically referred to as “Black Tuesday.”

In mid-June 2008, Pembina Pipeline Corporation accidentally leaked 177 barrels of oil (28.1 cubic metres) into the Red Deer River, eventually resulting in a large oil slick on the surface of Glennifer Lake. Resorts on the Lake had to turn off their drinking water intakes to avoid human consumption of the contaminated water.

From 2006-2010, Alberta's pipeline network leaked roughly 174,213 barrels of oil (~27,700 cubic metres). In 2010 alone, more than 21,000 barrels (~3,400 cubic metres) were spilled across the network.

Click here to see Kheraj's map of pipeline spills in Alberta from 2006 to 2012.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Oil Spills Add to Concerns about the Keystone XL Pipeline
BC Opposes the Northern Gateway Pipeline Due in Part to Fears about Spills
The Fate of the Keystone XL in the Wake of President Obama's Climate Action Plan
Video - Will the Keystone XL Pipeline Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions?
EPA Slams State Department on its Keystone XL Report
Inadequate Safety Measures for the Keystone XL Pipeline
South Dakota Wants Additional Protections Against Oil Spills
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Shell Oil Rig Runs Aground in Alaska Raising Safety Concerns
Shell Temporarily Pauses its Arctic Drilling
Lawsuit Protecting the Arctic from Oil Spills
Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill
BP Accused of Corporate Recklessness Including Willful Misconduct
The Costs of Offshore Drilling
The Cost of Oil: BP Barred from Doing Business with the US
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for up to 90 Billion
Transocean to Pay $1.4 billion for its Role in the Gulf Oil Spill
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels

Video - Will the Keystone XL Pipeline Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

June 29, 2013 Add Comment Edit

This video addresses both sides of the debate on whether the Keystone XL pipeline will increase GHG production. The proposed pipeline would ferry tarsands from Alberta to refineries on Texas's Gulf Coast. On June 25th, 2013, President Obama made it clear that he will not authorize the building of the Keystone XL pipeline if it results in an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs). While it is widely understood that the tarsands are much more GHG intensive than traditional fossil fuels, the question is whether this would result in a net increase in GHG emissions. Those that support the building of the Keystone XL say that in the absence of the pipeline there would be increased transportation traffic (tankers and trucks) which would result in even greater levels of GHGs.

What this video does not address is the fact that more fossil fuel infrastructure and easier access to dirty sources of energy will detract from market based forces that would decrease our reliance on climate change causing sources of energy.

Related ArticlesThe Fate of the Keystone XL Pipeline in the Wake of President Obama's Georgetown University Speech
Unions Oppose the Keystone XL in the Jobs vs. Environment Debate
EPA Slams State Department on the Keystone XL
Cornell University Questions the Economic Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline
American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone Canada's Leader of the Official Opposition on the Keystone XL Pipeline

Unions Oppose the Keystone XL in the Jobs vs. Environment Debate

June 06, 2013 Add Comment Edit

Several unions are opposing the Keystone XL project and this is significant because the strongest argument of supporters of the pipeline is that the project provides jobs. The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP), the Transport Workers Union. and an increasing number of health care workers have all come out against the pipeline.

Refering to the Keystone XL, David Coles, the president of CEP said "We're diametrically opposed to the construction of it." What makes the support of this union so important is the fact that it represents 35,000 Canadian oil and gas workers, including thousands involved in Canada's tar sands. "The Keystone XL is not good for the economy, it's not good for the environment, it violates all kinds of First Nations rights," Coles said.

Coles went on to say that the union also opposes "the unfettered expansion" of tar sands extraction, saying "it's not in the best interest of Canada and it's not in the best interest of our members."

Coles and members of his staff do not only talk the talk they walk the walk. In 2011 they were arrested during White House protests against the pipeline. Coles had indicated that his union was planning to continue to protest the project but he was forced to back-down after US construction unions threatened to picket them.

The Transport Workers Union also opposes the Keystone project, as are a growing number of health care workers. Earlier this year, the National Nurses United published a statement warning of the "significant impact" the pipeline would have on the health of communities along its route and that it will "exacerbate climate change which affects public health much more broadly even than the widespread direct impacts of the tar sands industry."

"You cannot separate the environment, jobs, the economy, human rights," said Coles. "It's a four-legged stool, and it's falling over...The thing that liberals and progressive minded people have not yet come to terms with is what do we do about an economic system that continually puts the health, environment and standard of living of workers at risk."

The support of these unions adds weight to a 2011 Cornell University study which indicated that the Keystone XL would not offer the employment and economic benefits that many are suggesting. The study also indicated that the project would undermine cleaner energy initiatives.

The Cornell study and opposition from organized labor powerfully refutes the employment and economic arguments put forth in support of the pipeline.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
Cornell University Questions the Economic Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline
Burning Fossil Fuels and Staying Within the 2 Degree Limit
EPA Slams State Department on the Keystone XL
Canada's Leader of the Official Opposition on the Keystone XL Pipeline
A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone

BC Opposes the Northern Gateway Pipeline

June 06, 2013 Add Comment Edit

The provincial government of BC has indicated that it is opposing the Northern Gateway heavy oil pipeline project due in part to environmental concerns. Although environmental concerns and aboriginal rights factor prominently, part of B.C.'s decision appears to be an attempt to sue for a bigger slice of the economic pie.

After reviewing all of the evidence B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake said, "our questions were not satisfactorily answered during these hearings."

B.C. is dissatisfied with the responses offered to questions related to five areas of concern which serve as the province's conditions for acceptance:

Environmental review needs to be passed.
World-leading marine oil spill prevention, response.
World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response.
First Nations opportunities, treaty rights respected.
Fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits for B.C.

"Northern Gateway has said that they would provide effective spill response in all cases. However, they have presented little evidence as to how they will respond," Lake said. "For that reason, our government cannot support the issuance of a certificate for the pipeline as it was presented to the joint review panel."

The president of Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipelines project, John Carruthers, has indicated that he will attempt to allay B.C.'s concerns. While Enbridge does indicate they will try to address environmental concerns they invariably try to pitch the idea by talking about jobs and the economy.

The $5.5-billion Northern Gateway project involves the construction of two pipelines covering a total of 1,177-kilometres that will run from the Alberta oilsands to a tanker port on the North Coast of B.C. The capacity of the pipelines is expected to be 525,000 barrels of heavy oil per day.

B.C. will present its final arguments to the joint review panel on June 17. The review panel is scheduled to present a report to the federal government by the end of the year.

Alberta, which is banking on the project, tried to minimize B.C.'s opposition. Alberta's Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Minister Diana McQueen said the process will continue emphasizing that the federal government will ultimately decide the fate of the pipeline, "This is an ongoing, federally regulated review and I expect that the concerns brought forward by the government of British Columbia will be discussed and addressed through that forum," McQueen said.

These sentiments were echoed by the Federal government in Ottawa. After providing the usual environmental assurances, he indicated that he will wait until the end of the year to make a final decision, federal Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver said, "we look forward to continued engagement with all provinces on market diversification for oil and gas."

Given the ruling federal Conservatives efforts to silence debate on the Northern Gateway project, Oliver's assurances are little more than lip-service. Support for the Northern Gateway project can be expected from both the federal government in Ottawa and the provincial government of Alberta as both are stalwart champions of big oil.

The government of B.C. has made it clear that its opposition does not constitute a final decision. "The position adopted by B.C. on the Northern Gateway Pipeline project as currently proposed is not a rejection of heavy-oil projects." Lake said.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Burning Fossil Fuels and Staying Within the 2 Degree Limit
Canadian Conservatives Silence Opposition to the Northern Gateway Oil Pipeline
Canada on Track to be a Dirty Energy Superpower
Enbridge and The Farce of Canada's Carbon Capture
How the Hell did Enbridge get on the 2012 -2013 DJSI Leaders List?
EPA Slams State Department on the Keystone XL
Canada's Leader of the Official Opposition on the Keystone XL Pipeline
American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone

EPA Slams State Department on the Keystone XL

April 23, 2013 Add Comment Edit

In a letter to the State Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) raised serious objections to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. A State Department's draft report in March said the project would not create significant environmental impacts. Describing the State Department's analysis of the project's environmental impact as "insufficient," the EPA said "oil sands crude is significantly more GHG intensive than other crudes and therefore has the potentially larger climate impacts"

The EPA quotes DSEIS reports which indicates that the lifecycle GHG emissions from oil sands could be 81 percent greater than emissions from the average crude refined in the US. The incremental emissions from the oil sands crude would be 18.7 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent based on the project's capacity of 830,000 barrels per day. Over a 50 year time span that could amount to 935 million metric tons.

The EPA letter goes on to question the veracity of the notion that in the absence of the Keystone XL, transportation of the oil sands would be done by rail. Transportation of the oil sands by rail entails higher costs and this could slow the transport of crude.

In terms of the mining of the oil sands, the EPA recommends working with the governments of Canada, specifically focusing on "pumping station energy efficiency and use of renewable energy, as well as investment in other carbon mitigation options."

The EPA letter points to the greater risks associated with oil sand (bitumen or dilbit) spills.

"We have learned from the 2010 Enbridge spill of oil sands crude in Michigan that spills of diluted bitument may require different response actions or equipment from response actions for conventional oil spills. These spills can also have different impacts than spills of conventional oil. We recommend that these differences be more fully addressed"

The further point to the problems associated with bitumen oil spill in water noting, "it is possible that large portions of dilbit will sink and that submerged oil significantly changes spill response and impacts."

The EPA cites DSEIS which recognizes that dissolved components like, "benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarns (PAHs) and heavy metals could be slowly released back into the water column for many years after a release and could cause long-term chronic toxicological impacts"

The letter specifically recognizes the threat to the Ogallala Aquifer posed by the pipeline They further ask the Department of State to provide an "opportunity for public review and comment"

The EPA's letter urges the State to conduct a more thorough analysis of oil spill risks and alternative pipeline routes, as well as greenhouse gas emissions associated with the $7 billion pipeline.

The State Department is planning to conduct additional analysis and will incorporate comments from the public and other federal agencies into a final environmental report expected this summer. President Obama said in late 2011 that he would decide the pipeline’s fate, and a final decision is expected by summer.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Unions Oppose the Keystone XL in the Jobs vs. Environment Debate
Cornell University Questions the Economic Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline
American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone
A State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline

Keystone XL Pipeline: Your Last Chance to Say NO!

April 15, 2013 Add Comment Edit

This is the final official comment period for Keystone XL pipeline. Both 350.org and the Sierra Club are joining many others in sending a message to President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry. They want to make it clear that this project is not in the national interest and Americans along with people around the world are against it.

The Keystone XL pipeline will put more dirty money into the pockets of big oil and worse, it will accelerate tar sands development in Canada, some of the dirtiest oil on earth. That's the definition of reckless.

Sierra Club supporters have already submitted over 100,000 comments -- we need to keep it up and push the national total to one million by April 22!

Its a fact, oil pipelines leak. To make the point there have been three major oil spills in the United States recently, including one that poured 84,000 gallons of tar sands into Arkansas backyards. The first Keystone pipeline saw an average of one oil spill per month in its first year of operations. Two years later, the Kalamazoo, Michigan spill still not cleaned up.

It's time to say no to spills, no to tar sands, and yes to the climate! With stakes this high, there is no excuse for the White House to approve Keystone XL. It's impossible to fight climate change while simultaneously investing in one of the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive fossil fuels on the planet.

This is your last chance to help stop Keystone XL pipeline before its too late. Submit a comment and sign the petition before the April 22 deadline!

To join 350.org in submitting a comment to the State Department explaining the energy security case for stopping the pipeline click here. To sign the Sierra Club's petition click here.

Related Articles

EPA Slams State Department on the Keystone XL
Canada's Leader of the Official Opposition on the Keystone XL Pipeline
American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone

Anti-Keystone XL Actions Target TransCanada

March 15, 2013 Add Comment Edit

The current round of protests against the Keystone XL show that popular actions are a real threat, even to a corporate giant. The latest pressure campaign is targeting the builders of the infamous Keystone XL. TransCanada Pipelines have been selected to build the Keystone XL which is supposed to ferry tar sands from Alberta to Texas. The week of actions is being called "Stop Tar Sands Profiteers." It starts on March 16th and runs until March 23rd.

This campaign is being led by a group that calls itself "Tar Sands Blockade." This is an open grassroots organization composed of people from across North America. This group has been behind more than 38 peaceful direct actions designed to stop the Keystone XL pipeline.

To execute this event, Tar Sands Blockade joined with people from a wide variety of backgrounds. Despite their differences all of those involved are united by the understanding that the extraction of tar sands in Canada is “game over” for the climate.

Starting on Saturday, Tar Sands Blockade is coordinating grassroots actions across Texas and Oklahoma and solidarity support actions are scheduled to take place all through North America. The organizers of this action have called on people to hold solidarity actions at TransCanada's offices or at the offices of one of their investors.

These protests may affect the company's operations and diminish shareholder value.

With hundreds of actions scheduled to take place all across North America, the impacts will be felt on TransCanada's operations far removed from the Keystone XL.

TransCanada's shale gas exports in BC alone are valued at almost 10 billion, that is 3 billion more than the Keystone XL pipeline.

With 30 billion worth of projects in the works over the next few years, TransCanada will have to analyze the material risk to the company's entire operation for what amounts to less than one quarter of the firm's business.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone

American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs

March 15, 2013 Add Comment Edit

While much has been made of all the jobs that would be associated with the Keystone XL pipeline, the truth is that far more long term jobs would be created though green projects. Despite all the wild claims from the oil industry and their supporters, a State Department Report indicated that the Keystone XL pipeline will generate about 42,100 jobs in the construction phase but only 35 permanent jobs to operate the pipeline.

TransCanada, the builders of the Keystone XL claim the pipeline will boost the US economy and create more than half a million jobs. According to a study they commissioned in 2010, the construction of the pipeline would create 118,935 non-permanent jobs and an additional 553,235 permanent jobs due to the increased US oil supply.

A Cleantechnica article reviews the number of green jobs that could be generated all across the country form clean energy projects. According to a new report http://www.e2.org/jsp/controller?docId=31325 from the green business group Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) there are more than 300 new clean energy and transportation projects which will create 110,000 green jobs in the U.S. The difference between the Keystone XL and the green jobs are significant.

Unlike the Keystone pipeline jobs, many of these green jobs are permanent and renewable energy projects like solar and wind, as well as transportation projects advanced vehicle and trains offer far more than just jobs.

Clean energy is the future of power production and improved transportation networks reduce traffic congestion and pollution.

These projects will help move the US economy forward in meaningful ways that are in step with the realities we face. In addition to employment and economic benefits these projects would help to stave off climate change improve community well being and public health.

Perhaps most importantly green jobs do not light the fuse on a massive carbon bomb which is how some have described the tar sands oil that will flow through the Keystone XL pipeline.

The lack of long term jobs is far from the only problem associated with the pipeline. Refining tar sands oil also creates an additional environmental problem, a byproduct known as petcoke. Although the State Department report appeared to downplay the risks associated with the Keystone, the reality is that pipelines regularly leak, break and spill.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline

March 01, 2013 Add Comment Edit

On Friday March 1, the State Department released a draft environmental impact statement which has cleared the 875-mile Keystone XL pipeline saying it will not harm air, water or landscape. The draft further indicated that although the pipeline will carry 830,000 barrels of crude oil from Alberta to Texas each day, it will not increase greenhouse gases.

Contrary to the whitewashing contained in this report, the pipeline is widely referred to as a “carbon bomb.” Environmentalists have consistently expressed concerns about the fact that tar sands oil are among the dirtiest fossil fuels on earth.

Predictably the news was heralded by the Canadian government, the oil industry, some members of Congress, and the nation’s major labor unions, which stand to gain construction jobs.

The last remaining hopes are that either the new Secretary of State or President Obama himself will kill the Keystone. Both men have repeatedly indicated that they are serious about tackling climate change. It remains to be seen whether this is just empty rhetoric.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles

American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone

Video - Interview with David Lavallee of White Water, Black Gold

February 16, 2013 Add Comment Edit

Video - White Water, Black Gold: Tar Sands Pipeline

February 16, 2013 Add Comment Edit

Action to Defend Canada's West Coast from Big Oil

September 14, 2012 Add Comment Edit

A historic direct action will take place in Victoria, B.C. on October 22. When sending letters and signing petitions isn't enough we must say "enough is enough—not on our watch." People from the province of British Columbia will join others from across Canada to converge on the B.C. legislature to take peaceful, direct action to defend the West Coast.

Enbridge and Kinder Morgan are proposing new tar sands pipelines that would bring hundreds of supertankers to B.C.’s fragile coast. B.C. Premier Christy Clark has said she’d support supertanker projects as long as B.C. gets a payout to compensate for the risk of oil spills—in other words, she’s willing to sell out the coast to big oil.

Prime Minister Harper spent the last year silencing the voices of opposition by gutting environmental protection, cancelling more than 3,000 safety assessments of industrial projects, and attacking people in Canada who hold and voice environmental values. By pushing these tar sands pipeline projects, Prime Minister Harper is pushing us further into a growing climate crisis.

Just after the action in Victoria, an amazing youth conference will convene in Ottawa and Gatineau. Powershift 2012 is a youth-led conference geared toward tackling climate change head-on and uniting a generation of activists around climate justice. If you're a young person who’s interested in joining us on October 26-28th, or know someone who is, check out the Power Shift 2012 website and save the dates!

Together, we can show the B.C. and Federal governments that the west coast is not for sale. Join us in Victoria, share the action on Facebook and Twitter, and encourage your family and friends to sign up as well.

There comes a time when you need to take a stand, for Canada, that time is now.

Click here to defend our coast this October.

Related Posts
New Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
World Oceans Day 2012
World Oceans Day in America (2012)
Urgent Appeal to Save our Oceans
Five Water Related Events (June and July 2012)
Melting Arctic Ice is Releasing Massive Amounts of Methane
Marshall Islands World Ocean Day 2012
State of the Climate Global Analysis Nov 2011
Seven Ways to Save the Seas
Air and Water in the OECD Report
OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: The Consequences of Inaction
Water as a Weapon of War New Tool Helps Companies with Water Risks
Protect the US Clean Water Act
Report on the UN's World Water Day Panel Discussion
World Oceans Day UN Panel Discussion
Alarming Facts About Water
Solutions to Diminishing Ground Water
Solutions to the World Water Crisis
Population Growth and Climate Change will Add to the World Water Crisis
Water Management Webcast: Cities and the Global Water Crisis
Siemens Water Tool on Facebook
Water School’s Ascent of Mount Kilimanjaro
Banana Peels and Water Purification
Sustainable Water Purification Technology Investing in Water
Celebrate World Water Day
UN World Water Day 2012
World Water Week 2011
World Water Week 2011: The Business of Water Management Requires Collaboration
World Oceans Day 2011 is Focused on Youth
WWF Celebrates Canada Water Week
GWC and World Water Day 2011
First International Water Hour
Blog Action Day 2010: Raising Awareness about Water

Merkel and Harper: Two Opposing Visions of the Future

August 16, 2012 Add Comment Edit

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's official state visit with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper highlights the stark contrast between the two heads of state. The have vastly different views on the environment and are leading their respective countries in diametrically opposed energy directions. Germany is a country that has invested heavily in renewable sources of energy while the Canadian government under Conservative leader Stephen Harper, has gutted environmental funding and invested in the tar sands, arguably the world's dirtiest oil project.

Merkel has been a champion of GHG reduction since the mid-1990s, when she was Germany's environment minister. At that time she brought together world leaders to try to limit GHGs. She was instrumental in getting everyone on board the Berlin Mandate of 1995, an agreement that eventually lead to the signing of the Kyoto Protocol two years later.

The Kyoto protocol is but one illustration of the Harper government's contempt for the environment. They have also worked to undermine global COP negotiations in Durban in 2011, they passed Bill C-38 which essentially emasculated the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and deprived scientists of funding.

Merkel plans to attend a meeting on climate science in Halifax, while Harper will be predictably absent.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Canadian Conservatives Silence Opposition to the Northern Gateway Oil Pipeline
Canadian Conservatives Admit to Killing Environmental Dissent
Report: Canadian Government is Not Helping Business Prepare for Climate Change
Report: Canadian Businesses are Unprepared for Climate Change
Canadian Government Spending on Dirty Projects
The Farce of Canada's Carbon Capture
Canada's GHG Rankings
Canada's Ruling Conservatives Muzzle Scientists
Conservative Budget Guts the Environment
Conservatives Cut Budgets and Slash Jobs at Environment Canada
Canadian Conservatives Slash Environmental Assessment
Canadian Conservatives Slash NRC Budget
Canada on Track to be a Dirty Energy Superpower
Canadian Federal Provincial Energy Conference on Resource Exploitation
Federal Provincial Energy Conference Sponsored by Big Oil
American Protests Against the Tar Sands Oil Pipeline
Canadian Conservatives Dirty Priorities
Canadian Conservatives Disregard for Canada's Environment
Canada is a World Leader in GHG Emissions
WWF's Canadian Living Planet Report
The State of Canada's Environment
Video: The Alberta Tar Sands Dirty Oil
Canadian Global Warming Denial from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Canadians Support Efforts to Combat Climate Change
Canadian Government at Odds with the Public on Climate Change
Conservatives Ignore Canadians While Jeopardizing the Environment and the Economy
Canadian Conservative Government Rejects Kyoto
Canada's Government Opposes Kyoto and Hampers Progress at COP16
World Urges Canada to Do More to Manage Climate Change
Why Canadian Environment Minister Resigned
The Impact of a Climate Change Deal on Canada
A Made in Canada Sustainable World Order

Government Energy Policy the Environment and the Economy

September 16, 2010 Add Comment Edit

What a government does, or does not do, on energy policy will have major implications for the future. Rather than allowing the markets to dictate the price of energy, the confluence of environmental and economic concerns are putting pressure on governments to engage the issue of energy.

China recently unveiled a $700-billion program to promote clean energy investment. The U.S. government is seeking greater automotive efficiency and Germany is considering the development of nuclear power. In countries like Brazil Government policy has enabled the country to go from being a net importer to a net exporter of energy.

China, already the largest energy consumer in the world, is planning a major expansion of its greenhouse gas causing coal-fired generating plants. The challenge is the same in India and everywhere in the world because coal is cheap and easily readily available.

The growing energy demands of countries like China and India are widely believed to be a major threat to the environment. However, countries like Canada are also a target of criticism because of their massive oil sand reserves.

Fossil fuel powered energy is a major emitter of GHGs and it drives down the price of energy thereby impeding the growth of renewable sources of power. Fossil fuels are relatively cheap which is why governments must not allow price to dictate energy choice.
___________________________________

Related Posts
The New International System: The Role of Government
Green Stimulus and Free Markets
Electric Vehicle Bill Passes Energy Committee
4 Principles for Climate and Energy Legislation
Obama Renews His Commitments to Clean Energy and Small Business
A New Energy Economy: Obama's Gift to America and the World
California's Government Partnerships are Driving the Green Economy
The Best Eco-Inventions of 2009: Energy Production
The End of Oil and the Next Energy Economy
Governments and the Growth of EVs
Germany and the Global Competition for EV Supremacy
Government Investment Fuels Greener Vehicles

One Million Acts of Green: The Human Network Effect

February 12, 2009 3 Comments Edit

CBC's talk show, The Hour hosted by George Stroumboulopoulos and Cisco Systems have succeeded in mobilizing people to commmit over one million acts of Green. The campaign appropriately entitled, "One Million Acts of Green" (OMAoG) started in October 2008 and as of today, 1,103,140 Green acts have been registered with participants logging an average 9,435 Green acts per day, and seven Green acts per minute. Although it originated in Canada OMAoG now boasts grassroots support from people in 50 countries. Participants also include businesses, politicians, celebrities, athletes, schools, universities, municipalities, and environmental groups.

There are many ways to act Green, it can be as simple as changing light bulbs or driving less. As referenced in a Green Market article subtitled, The Power of Small Gestures, small efforts can have a huge impact when they are repeated millions of times. The OMAoG campaign started with just one act, there are now more than one million acts of Green, amassed one act a time.

The goal is to change how we live and how we treat the planet and challenge others to do the same. The OMAoG interactive website is an accessible educational resource where people can register their acts of Green. It’s a virtual gathering place where people can exchange ideas, view content, post photos and videos, and create groups. Thanks to the website's GreenNexxus caclulator, registrants can calculate the impact of their environmental good deeds.

According to an IT in Canada article, Trent University and Dalhousie University led the way in terms of most members and most acts of green, (other noteworthy educational establishments included Bishop Strachan School, Havergal College, Delta Secondary School, Acadia University). Airdrie was the city with the most Green acts (19,000 acts) followed by the Town of Okotoks and North Bay. Many of Canada’s leading corporations including BMO Financial Group, MTS Allstream and Fairmont Hotels & Resorts have joined OMAoG and are complementing the program with innovative employee engagement and customer-facing initiatives. OMAoG’s “greenest” provinces are Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and Nova Scotia

Kirstine Layfield, executive director of programming for CBC Television said "I think we helped demonstrate with One Million Acts of Green in particular, the great results you can achieve by reaching out and engaging people.”

OMAoG has not only raised awareness it has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 63,326,358 kg. With over one million acts of Green in four months, OMAoG is a shinning example of positive and timely environmental change. This is a tangible demonstration of what can be achieved when we work together as a human network.

Go to One One Million Acts of Green to log your Green acts, challenge your co-workers, friends and family to do the same.

Links/URLS:

OMAoG
OMAoG (French)
The Hour
OMAoG Previous releases
OMAoG Facebook group
OMAoG on Twitter

Video: OMAoG <here>
Video: First two months of OMAoG. <here>
Video: BMO Financial Group on OMAoG <here>.
Video: Cisco CEO on OMAoG and how the human network can change the world. <here>

GreenNexxus greenhouse gas calculator
Cisco Green

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )