The Globe And Mail: Same Old, Same Old

We are currently receiving a three-month free subscription to The Globe and Mail, a paper I supported for many years until it returned to its largely right-wing nature after vanquishing its putative competition, The National Post, and jettisoning many of its finer writers. At least getting it free for this period allows me unimpeded access to the front section of my paper of choice, The Toronto Star, since my wife very generously reads the Globe at the breakfast table.

When the free subscription period ends, I shall not continue with the Globe, as my wife and I are clearly not part of its intended audience. I was reminded of that fact this morning as I read what was essentially a two-part editorial on tarsands oil.

Part 1, entitled Canadian oil scores a well-deserved win overseas, begins on a note of triumph:

It’s encouraging that Canada was able to exert “immense” pressure (in the words of a European Commission official) so as to moderate the terms of a proposed EU fuel quality directive that would have discriminated against Canadian exports of bitumen from the oil sands. Canadian persistence has been admirable, and no doubt the successful Canada-EU trade negotiations helped.

The piece then appears to dampen its enthusiasm by broaching the subject of those pesky carbon emissions, but the basis of the paper's concern quickly becomes evident:

Even so, Jim Prentice, the Premier of Alberta, is right to warn that, though this is “positive news for Alberta, and for all of Canada,” this country cannot afford to appear to be a reluctant foot-dragger on the environmental front.

For example, the stalling of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline is a result of immense pressure from the environmental movement, which harms Canada’s legitimate economic interests. (italics mine)

Which leads us to Part 11, Carbon policy: lagging on the home front. Intially, it appears to be offering a counterbalance to Part 1, faulting the Harper government for its sluggish pace and vague policies on reducing carbon emissions:

The government’s plans for limiting carbon emissions are vague and incomplete. Even at that, the work is lagging behind schedule. There is no clear path forward. And much of whatever progress Canada has made on these matters has been accomplished by the provincial governments, not Ottawa.

However, it emerges very clearly that it is the optics of this delay, not the ongoing environmental and climate degradation, that is The Globe's true concern:

Such silence and delay give Canada and Canadian oil a bad name, not least in the U.S. They amount to damaging weapons in the hands of the American opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would benefit both Canada and the U.S.

So it is clear that nothing has changed at The Globe since I cancelled my subscription. The self-named newspaper of record continues to see the world through the bifurcated lens of business imperatives and those who oppose or challenge those interests; the paper clearly continues to subscribe to the notion that anything wrong with our version of capitalism can be fixed with a little tinkering around the edges and some effective spin.

I'll take The Star's social agenda and citizens lens over that any and every day of the week.

No Surprise Here- An Update

Tuesday's post discussed the apparent disappearance of a committee made up of representatives from Environment Canada, the Alberta government and oil and gas companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the tarsands. Investigative reporter Mike De Souza provides important new information about this committee on his website.

Putting the heat on Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq in the House of Commons, NDP environment critic Megan Leslie suggested it is time for the Harper regime to stop stalling:

“After seven years of the government’s broken promises to introduce greenhouse gas rules for the oil and gas sector Canadians are still waiting,” Leslie said.

“Now we hear that Environment Canada has stopped talking to the industry and the Alberta government altogether. In fact, the (federal) government-led committee hasn’t met since March 2013. When will this government quit stalling and when will we see the regulations?”

Of course, as is standard operating procedure for this government, Aglukkaq did not answer, preferring to mouth platitudes about what a great job the government is doing in reducing emissions in this country:

“We have taken action on some of the largest sources of emissions in this country, the transportation and the electricity-generation sector” ... “I’m also looking forward to taking part in the UN climate summit in New York next week to speak to Canada’s record in taking action on climate change.”

And this is hardly a time for obfuscation and misdirection:

Environment Canada estimated earlier this year that greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands increased by 307 per cent between 1990 and 2012. The carbon emissions were projected to grow a further 61 per cent before the end of the decade.

A clue as to why the committee's work suddenly ceased may be found here:

Behind closed doors, internal records obtained by Greenpeace Canada through provincial freedom of information legislation revealed that industry lobbyists rejected proposals from the Alberta government to introduce tough rules, and instead suggested delaying action to allow for more “study, analysis and consultation.”

Concludes Keith Stewart, a Toronto-based climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace Canada:

“This is what happens when a government opens the doors wide to the oil industry and shuts out everyone else ... The upstream oil and gas industry is now the biggest carbon polluter in the country precisely because the Harper government gives in every time they cry poor. Meanwhile, the public foots the ever-rising bill for climate disasters while the oil companies post record profits.”

It seems safe to conclude that this is yet more evidence that Stephen Harper is not here for us.

No Surprise Here - Part Two

Given Stephen Harper's most recent demonstrated indifference to climate change, I report the following with no surprise, only a degree of tired resignation:

Environment Canada appears to have quietly ended key discussions that were intended to tackle carbon pollution from the oil and gas industry.

A committee made up of representatives from Environment Canada, the Alberta government and oil and gas companies was created in the fall of 2011 to develop options to reduce industrial greenhouse gases from the oilsands sector, the country’s fastest growing source of carbon emissions.

But the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), which was part of the committee, says it stopped getting invitations to meetings in 2013.

“We have no knowledge of the group having met since March 2013,” said Alex Ferguson, the vice-president of policy and performance at the association, which represents Canadian oil and gas companies, in an email to the Star.

The most discouraging aspect of the report is this:

The Harper government has estimated it won’t achieve the prime minister’s international climate change commitment to reduce emissions by 2020, mainly because of rising pollution from the oil and gas sector.

While most Canadian industries have reduced their carbon footprints, the oilsands sector has moved in the opposite direction increasing its emissions by 307 per cent between 1990 and 2012, Environment Canada estimated in a report submitted to the United Nations earlier this year.

Once again, under this administration Canada is proving to be one of the West's most egregious climate-change outliers. It is not a distinction any of us should take pride in.

UPDATED: Parsing Justin Trudeau's Words

Like many, I have real reservations about Justin Trudeau's capacity for the kind of leadership that reflects a mature and nuanced mind. While many praise him for his spontaneity and unorthodox pronouncements, I look for substance and an indication of policies that suggest a significant departure from the mindset of the Harper Conservatives. Thus far I have found little to encourage me.

All three of our major federal parties are largely silent on the issues that should be preoccupying us, one of the most pressing, of course, being climate change. Because of the amount of carbon being emitted by fossil fuels in general, and by the extractions taking place in Alberta's tarsands in particular, anyone looking to young Mr. Trudeau for a new direction would be well-advised to pay close attention to his public musings on the subject.

Here is what he said back in February about the proposed Kinder Morgan oil pipeline to Vancouver:

Pipeline policy in general is one of the most important responsibilities of a Canadian prime minister and of a Canadian government – to make sure we can get our resources to market. We are a natural resource economy and we need to be able to do that. However, we need to do that in the right way. A right way that is sustainable, that has community support and buy-in, and that fits into a long-term strategy of not just a sustainable environment but a sustainable economy.

Because of that I have been a strong promoter of the Keystone XL pipeline and also a harsh critic on the way the prime minister has approached pushing the Keystone XL pipeline. To my mind, the only thing that has prevented Keystone XL from getting approved already in the United States – and what has allowed it become such a polarizing issue, with celebrities weighing in and all sorts of people having very strong opinions even though there is not necessarily all that many facts going around in many of the conversations – is that the prime minister hasn’t done a good enough job of demonstrating a level of commitment to doing it right and upholding environmental protections and regulations.

If you think that sounds rather suspiciously like a version of what politicians say when they meet opposition ("We need to communicate our message more effectively"), I think you are correct.

The Toronto Star has been running a series called Energy Wars. In yesterday's segment, entitled Pipelines define environmental struggle, here is what Mr. Trudeau had to say about the ever-growing opposition to pipeline expansion:

“The fact is that the oilsands have somehow become a poster child for climate change” ... “That is a failing of both government and industry for allowing that to happen because they weren’t doing enough to reassure people that the environment is a priority.”

Am I being overly cynical here? In my attempt to parse the Liberal leader's words, the discouraging interpretation of his statement I draw is that the tarsands suffer because both the Harper regime and the oil industry have not sufficiently 'massaged' the message. In other words, they haven't done a good enough job of faking sincerity about environmental concerns.

As things stand now, I will not be supporting young Justin in the next federal election unless substance takes precedence over style in his public pronouncements and policies.

UPDATE: Just so I don't leave you with the impression that Trudeau is our only opposition climatic coward, check out Thomas Mulcair's thoughts here.

Fear And Loathing In Peace River

While the Harper cabal proceeds full-tilt with its tarsands advertising campaign, the details of which Canadians are being denied, a game of inconvenient truth versus consequences is being played out in Peace River, Alberta.

According to a report in The Edmonton Journal, Peace River may be making people sick. The suspected culprits? - its gas well emissions and its storage tanks in which bitumen is heated as part of the process of separating sand from the oil. Residents' health complaints range from dizziness to insomnia to cognitive impairment. Unfortunately, a conspiracy of silence in the medical community is exacerbating their problems:

Some Peace River area doctors are afraid to speak out about health impacts of oil and gas activity and in some cases have declined to treat area residents who wondered if their health problems were related to emissions, says one of two independent health experts hired by the Alberta Energy Regulator.

Dr. Margaret Sears is an Ontario expert in toxicology and health who will appear this week at a special hearing into complaints about emissions from the Baytex oilsands operation 32 kilometres south of Peace River. Her interviews with residents found physician care was refused when a resident suggested a connection between their symptoms and oil and gas emissions.

"Communications with public health officials and medical professionals revealed a universal recognition that petrochemical emissions affect health; however, this was countered by a marked reluctance to speak out,” wrote Sears.

As the article makes clear, physicians face tremendous pressure to conceal this possible relationship, pressure that seems to be leading some to violate their Hippocratic oath:

“Physicians are quite frankly afraid to diagnose health conditions linked to the oil and gas industry,” wrote Sears, adding she heard several times about the case of Dr. John O’Connor who was threatened with losing his licence after raising an alarm about cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan.

Although I am not a conspiracy buff, the pervasive kind of corruption this suggests is astounding, something we would ordinarily have a hard time accepting in Canada.

Perhaps equally astounding, but in a good way, is that this perversion is being seriously investigated by both the Alberta government and the Alberta Energy Regulator, which hired eight independent investigators to comprehensively explore the health problems and their possible relationship to the oil processes and emissions in Peace River. As well, the AER is going to hold a special ten-day public hearing into the entire affair.

Wonder if the Harper cabal will now take to labelling both the Alberta government and the AER as additional enemies of the people.