SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Westward Passage for Canada's Tar Sands Oil Also Challenged
Jan 07, 2012
Republicans opponents in Congress and many of the candidates for the GOP presidential nomination commenting on Obama's decision to hold off approval of the Keystone XL pipeline frequently make the argument that if the US decides not to allow such a project the obvious result would be that Canada's tar sands oil - regarded by most environmentalists as the "dirtiest fuel on the planet" - would simply shipped "straight West" for consumption by the Asian energy market, most notably by Chinese companies looking to diversify their imports.
This argument, however, misses that a fight equal to that waged against the Keystone pipeline in the US is being fought by campaigners against Enbridge's Northwest Gateway Pipeline that would carry tar sands oil west from Alberta to the coast of British Columbia.
Like their counterparts in the US, those concerned site environmental concerns as their primary reason for opposition. The Vancouver Sun reports that opponents of the pipeline "don't buy the assurances" of Enbridge to transport the oil safely.
They fear a spill by even one massive tanker could wreak havoc on marine life and coastline.
Environmentalists opposed to the project say it creates risks that have not previously existed on B.C.'s north coast -- specifically, oil-carrying supertankers navigating the same rock-shrouded channels that sank B.C. ferry Queen of the North.
Oil spills are common on the B.C. coast, but they tend to be small and involve petroleum products such as diesel fuel from vessels that disperses relatively quickly.
Canadian Coast Guard statistics show more than 550 "marine pollution incidents" in B.C. in 2011 as of mid-December, about 27 per cent of them level-three incidents requiring "cleanup or threat mitigation measures."
For environmentalists, the conclusion is obvious: Despite shipping advancements the risks are just too great.
And though this may be new on the rader of many in the US, this battle is not new, as noted in another recent report from the Vancouver Sun:
The mostly B.C.-based environmental groups have been fighting the proposed Enbridge pipeline for years.
There are about a dozen such groups, including the Dogwood Initiative, ForestEthics (with offices in B.C. and the U.S.), West Coast Environmental Law, the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, the SkeenaWild Conservation Trust and the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation.
All have similar concerns: the risk and the potential catastrophic effects of a pipeline or tanker spill on the environment and communities; and the expansion of the Alberta oilsands and increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Victoria-based Dogwood Initiative has an active campaign to halt the project.
Recently it ran a campaign that helped sign up 1,600 people to testify at the National Energy Board's regulatory hearings that begin Jan. 10 in Kitimat.
Although the Dogwood group says the decision on Northern Gateway should be made by British Columbians, it has no problem with the addition of the American-based NRDC to the campaign. "The more attention that can be placed on this issue, the better," said Dogwood Initiative official Eric Swanson, who heads the group's no-tanker campaign.
"We all share the planet, and we share the Pacific coast with many others," he added.
###
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Republicans opponents in Congress and many of the candidates for the GOP presidential nomination commenting on Obama's decision to hold off approval of the Keystone XL pipeline frequently make the argument that if the US decides not to allow such a project the obvious result would be that Canada's tar sands oil - regarded by most environmentalists as the "dirtiest fuel on the planet" - would simply shipped "straight West" for consumption by the Asian energy market, most notably by Chinese companies looking to diversify their imports.
This argument, however, misses that a fight equal to that waged against the Keystone pipeline in the US is being fought by campaigners against Enbridge's Northwest Gateway Pipeline that would carry tar sands oil west from Alberta to the coast of British Columbia.
Like their counterparts in the US, those concerned site environmental concerns as their primary reason for opposition. The Vancouver Sun reports that opponents of the pipeline "don't buy the assurances" of Enbridge to transport the oil safely.
They fear a spill by even one massive tanker could wreak havoc on marine life and coastline.
Environmentalists opposed to the project say it creates risks that have not previously existed on B.C.'s north coast -- specifically, oil-carrying supertankers navigating the same rock-shrouded channels that sank B.C. ferry Queen of the North.
Oil spills are common on the B.C. coast, but they tend to be small and involve petroleum products such as diesel fuel from vessels that disperses relatively quickly.
Canadian Coast Guard statistics show more than 550 "marine pollution incidents" in B.C. in 2011 as of mid-December, about 27 per cent of them level-three incidents requiring "cleanup or threat mitigation measures."
For environmentalists, the conclusion is obvious: Despite shipping advancements the risks are just too great.
And though this may be new on the rader of many in the US, this battle is not new, as noted in another recent report from the Vancouver Sun:
The mostly B.C.-based environmental groups have been fighting the proposed Enbridge pipeline for years.
There are about a dozen such groups, including the Dogwood Initiative, ForestEthics (with offices in B.C. and the U.S.), West Coast Environmental Law, the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, the SkeenaWild Conservation Trust and the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation.
All have similar concerns: the risk and the potential catastrophic effects of a pipeline or tanker spill on the environment and communities; and the expansion of the Alberta oilsands and increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Victoria-based Dogwood Initiative has an active campaign to halt the project.
Recently it ran a campaign that helped sign up 1,600 people to testify at the National Energy Board's regulatory hearings that begin Jan. 10 in Kitimat.
Although the Dogwood group says the decision on Northern Gateway should be made by British Columbians, it has no problem with the addition of the American-based NRDC to the campaign. "The more attention that can be placed on this issue, the better," said Dogwood Initiative official Eric Swanson, who heads the group's no-tanker campaign.
"We all share the planet, and we share the Pacific coast with many others," he added.
###
Republicans opponents in Congress and many of the candidates for the GOP presidential nomination commenting on Obama's decision to hold off approval of the Keystone XL pipeline frequently make the argument that if the US decides not to allow such a project the obvious result would be that Canada's tar sands oil - regarded by most environmentalists as the "dirtiest fuel on the planet" - would simply shipped "straight West" for consumption by the Asian energy market, most notably by Chinese companies looking to diversify their imports.
This argument, however, misses that a fight equal to that waged against the Keystone pipeline in the US is being fought by campaigners against Enbridge's Northwest Gateway Pipeline that would carry tar sands oil west from Alberta to the coast of British Columbia.
Like their counterparts in the US, those concerned site environmental concerns as their primary reason for opposition. The Vancouver Sun reports that opponents of the pipeline "don't buy the assurances" of Enbridge to transport the oil safely.
They fear a spill by even one massive tanker could wreak havoc on marine life and coastline.
Environmentalists opposed to the project say it creates risks that have not previously existed on B.C.'s north coast -- specifically, oil-carrying supertankers navigating the same rock-shrouded channels that sank B.C. ferry Queen of the North.
Oil spills are common on the B.C. coast, but they tend to be small and involve petroleum products such as diesel fuel from vessels that disperses relatively quickly.
Canadian Coast Guard statistics show more than 550 "marine pollution incidents" in B.C. in 2011 as of mid-December, about 27 per cent of them level-three incidents requiring "cleanup or threat mitigation measures."
For environmentalists, the conclusion is obvious: Despite shipping advancements the risks are just too great.
And though this may be new on the rader of many in the US, this battle is not new, as noted in another recent report from the Vancouver Sun:
The mostly B.C.-based environmental groups have been fighting the proposed Enbridge pipeline for years.
There are about a dozen such groups, including the Dogwood Initiative, ForestEthics (with offices in B.C. and the U.S.), West Coast Environmental Law, the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, the SkeenaWild Conservation Trust and the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation.
All have similar concerns: the risk and the potential catastrophic effects of a pipeline or tanker spill on the environment and communities; and the expansion of the Alberta oilsands and increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Victoria-based Dogwood Initiative has an active campaign to halt the project.
Recently it ran a campaign that helped sign up 1,600 people to testify at the National Energy Board's regulatory hearings that begin Jan. 10 in Kitimat.
Although the Dogwood group says the decision on Northern Gateway should be made by British Columbians, it has no problem with the addition of the American-based NRDC to the campaign. "The more attention that can be placed on this issue, the better," said Dogwood Initiative official Eric Swanson, who heads the group's no-tanker campaign.
"We all share the planet, and we share the Pacific coast with many others," he added.
###
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.