Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
GLG
Well-Known Member
Nope I'm just a tad busy the last few days.
Will get to post 280 shortly. Thanks.
Thanks for this OBD. What a F-N load of crap. They have enough large-scale mapping to model spill trajectories already. The "bottom" (verses the top where oil floats - for a while) is important so that tankers don't find it. That's the time-limited "essence".
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Yes better hurry election is coming.....
Apples and oranges, dude. 1) Those are assets and not operating budgets. 2) Add all of those assets together and then compare them to the gross revenue of Exxon for just one single quarter (see https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:XOM&fstype=ii). In one quarter, the gross REVENUE for Exxon is a little over $100B and the net income (PROFITS) about $8B. The total ASSETS of all of the non-profits listed above is about 4x the net profit for just Exxon in just one quarter. A typical not for profit has an annual operating budget of 2.5-5% of the total assets. So, in brief, you're still F.O.S. Hahahaha's not withstanding.
CK buys in to all the PR speaking points from his industry. This is a tired old misdirection from Vivian Krause. She works for both fish farms AND big oil even those industries are NORWEGIAN and US-based - but somehow this rather obvious hypocritical contradiction is overlooked by Vivian.
http://wcel.org/resources/environme...l-attack-ads-expose-un-fairness-vivian-krause
Ethical Oil attack ads expose un-"fairness" of Vivian Krause
18 January, 2012
On January 13th, our Executive Director, Jessica Clogg, appeared on the Bill Good Show on CKNW radio, opposite blogger Vivian Krause, to defend West Coast against the recent American-style attack ads launched against us by the oil industry advocacy group, Ethical Oil. Ethical Oil has publicly acknowledged Krause’s research as the source of the information used in their attack ads.
Even though Ms. Krause has distanced herself from the ads, the Ethical Oil campaign, in our view, vividly illustrates at least three sources of bias and misinformation in her work:
Krause’s so-called “fair” questions are asked only of non-profit environmental groups - in this case the groups opposed to Enbridge (but not those who support it);
Krause, and Ethical Oil, mischaracterize the relationship between funders and fundees; Krause, and Ethical Oil, without any evidence, imply that U.S. charitable foundations are not advancing their charitable objectives (as required by charities law), but are instead advancing undisclosed national or corporate U.S. interests.
“Fair” questions need to be asked of all sides
“Fair” questions need to be asked of all sides. So, it’s a fair question to ask whether (among other things):
Campaign contributions by the wealthy or by corporations or unions disproportionately influence politicians;
Corporate spending on lobbyists unduly influence government policies;
Investment (Canadian or foreign) in the Oil Sands or in other resource industries reduce Canadian control over our resources; and
Contributions to charities come with strings attached.
Krause acknowledged in the CKNW interview that the influence of corporations is an important question, but the fact is that she only asks the last of these “fair questions.” She seemed to argue that it was not necessary for her to research these other influences because they are “well known”, while the funding for charitable organizations was being hidden.
Notice that in terms of relative amounts, the contributions to charities represent peanuts, but let’s allow Krause her obsession of digging through tax returns of U.S. foundations, and ignoring the other sources of financial influence. The fact remains that Krause asks her “fair questions” only of environmental non-profits. She ignores non-profits and charities that accord with her own ideology.
Nowhere is this clearer than in Ethical Oil’s recent attack ads. As between Ethical Oil and West Coast Environmental Law, you have two non-profits that are actively engaged on different sides of the same public controversy. However, Ethical Oil (unlike West Coast Environmental Law):
Does not publicly disclose its funding sources, and won’t confirm whether it includes oil companies or not (check out this video of Ethical Oil spokesperson, Kathryn Marshall, refusing to answer repeated questions about whether it receives funding from Enbridge), although Ethical Oil maintains, without providing evidence, that the funding is entirely Canadian (click here for West Coast’s Annual Reports, which acknowledge our funders by name each year);
Frequently finds the funds for prominent and expensive ads attacking critics on television, radio and in newspapers;
Does not list its Board of Directors on its website (click here for West Coast’s Board of Directors which, for the record, are entirely Canadian residents).
Of these two organizations, we believe that West Coast Environmental Law is clearly the more accountable and transparent. And yet Krause has repeatedly subjected West Coast to investigations, and has not asked “fair questions” about Ethical Oil. And the less transparent of those organizations - the one with the undisclosed and seemingly extensive funding - is now using her “fair questions” to attack the more transparent.
Relationship between funders and fundees
Krause has always implied that Canadian environmental organizations that receive funding from U.S. Foundations are somehow the agents of those foundations. But because she’s continually (and cleverly) framing this as just another “fair question,” it’s hard to call her on this incorrect allegation. But Ethical Oil lacks Krause’s finesse, and is out-and-out accusing us of being “front-men” for “U.S. Interests.”
Indeed, when our Executive Director, Jessica Clogg, pointed out that we, and not our funders, set our priorities, Ethical Oil essentially accused her of lying on the basis that we had received money for a specific purpose.
But the foundations in question do not dictate what their fundees should ask for funding for. I’ve been at West Coast for over a decade and I do not recall a single time when a funder came to us and said “I’ve some cash here, and I’ll give you a grant if you say x, y or z.” This just doesn’t happen.
Rather, as we have recently explained, West Coast Environmental Law’s staff and Board identify our goals, programs and strategies about how best to protect BC’s environment, in large part informed by British Columbians from all corners of the province, and then we seek out credible funders – whether Canadian or U.S. (or in one case recently Switzerland) – that recognize the environmental value of our goals and our work, and are willing to fund it. Most foundations we deal with have a rigorous, formal, competitive process in which they select projects to fund which are consistent with their own charitable purposes.
That doesn’t make us front-men for those funders.
Once we receive a grant from a foundation to carry out our work, we are obligated to use the money for the purposes for which we requested it, or to return it, but the workplan and deliverables are our own – we don’t take orders from the funders.
Funding from Canadian and other foundations, along with donations from individuals and a very small number of corporate donations, allows us to do our important work, and we are grateful to all our supporters. But it is simply incorrect to say that we have been hired by them or are following their orders.
Krause and Ethical Oil accuse U.S. Foundations of ignoring their public purposes
The “foreign” interests that Krause and Ethical Oil are so incensed about are U.S. charities (unlike the U.S. and other foreign corporations that are investing so heavily in the tar sands). As such they are required by U.S. tax law to use their funds for purposes that are “public purposes”. And that is what they are doing by funding us (giving money to help protect the environment – a well recognized charitable purpose).
Ethical Oil alleges that these foundations are using their charitable funding in a direct attempt to enhance the position of U.S. energy interests by undermining Canadian oil interests. Krause is more subtle, but still suggests that the charities are still more concerned about U.S. economic protectionism than protecting the environment, and that, for example, their concern for the rights of aboriginal groups opposed to the pipelines are merely “the best pretext for choking oil exports to Asia and preventing Canada from diversifying our customer base in Asia.”
Our friends at the Dogwood Initiative have written about why this is a conspiracy theory, but it’s also a very serious, and untrue, allegation that these U.S. Foundations are lying about their true purposes, and are actually acting not for charitable purposes, but in the interests of (depending on your conspiracy theory) the U.S. government or U.S. corporations.
Fair questions
By all means, let’s have some fair questions.
Let’s ask who is funding Ethical Oil’s current attacks on Canadians who have signed up to express their opposition to the Enbridge Pipelines. Let’s ask what influence big money – Canadian, U.S., Chinese or otherwise – is having on the Enbridge debate. Let’s ask about the relative influence of dramatically smaller charitable grants as compared to corporate money.
Those are some of the real fair questions.
By Andrew Gage, Staff Lawyer
http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/...of-trade-event-sponsored-by-mining-companies/
Vivian Krause’s Board of Trade event sponsored by mining companies
By Kate Webb
Metro Vancouver
Share this Article
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward Vancouver Police look on as members of the Tsilhqot'in national government protest a proposed mine in their territory outside the Taseko headquarters in Vancouver, B.C. Friday, June 1, 2012. The proposed open pit mine is expected to drain the waters of Fish Lake.
Two mining companies connected to the rejected New Prosperity Mine proposal sponsored a Board of Trade luncheon with North Vancouver environmental group watchdog and self-proclaimed transparency advocate Vivian Krause this week.
The event was initially listed as a “blind” event, meaning the companies’ sponsorship was not disclosed, but Krause urged the sponsors, Hunter Dickenson Inc. and Taseko, to come forward after questions were raised by media, including Metro.
“It’s really the pot calling the kettle black,” said Wilderness Committee campaigner Ben West, noting that Krause has repeatedly denied claims of being under industry’s wing, claiming she’s a single mom working independently from home.
“Vivian clearly has an agenda,” West said. “This idea that she’s just an arbiter of fairness holds about as much truth to me as Fox News’ claims of being fair and balanced. She’s clearly a political attack dog for industry.”
Sean Magee, a spokesman for Hunter Dickenson Inc. (HDI), said it wasn’t HDI that asked for its sponsorship role to be kept private. He said HDI sponsored Krause’s talk in the interest of promoting transparency.
“We fully support the legitimate role that watchdog groups play in Canadian society and the Canadian debate about whatever the issue is, but we do believe that there should be the same transparency and accountability for all parties,” he said.
A Taseko spokesman did not respond to Metro’s request for comment.
Krause’s research on the movement of charitable funds from the U.S. to Canada sparked an $8 million Canada Revenue Agency investigation and Senate inquiry into alleged tax code violations by Canadian charities. So far, the Senate Finance Committee has not released the names of any offending charities.
The Fair Questions blogger rose to national attention after digging up American charities’ tax records showing U.S. foundations have donated $300 million to a variety of environmental initiatives in Canada over the last 10 years, about half of which went toward protecting forests.
She did not immediately respond to an interview request Thursday after the event’s sponsors were named.
Vivian Krause’s Board of Trade event sponsored by mining companies
By Kate Webb
Metro Vancouver
Share this Article
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward Vancouver Police look on as members of the Tsilhqot'in national government protest a proposed mine in their territory outside the Taseko headquarters in Vancouver, B.C. Friday, June 1, 2012. The proposed open pit mine is expected to drain the waters of Fish Lake.
Two mining companies connected to the rejected New Prosperity Mine proposal sponsored a Board of Trade luncheon with North Vancouver environmental group watchdog and self-proclaimed transparency advocate Vivian Krause this week.
The event was initially listed as a “blind” event, meaning the companies’ sponsorship was not disclosed, but Krause urged the sponsors, Hunter Dickenson Inc. and Taseko, to come forward after questions were raised by media, including Metro.
“It’s really the pot calling the kettle black,” said Wilderness Committee campaigner Ben West, noting that Krause has repeatedly denied claims of being under industry’s wing, claiming she’s a single mom working independently from home.
“Vivian clearly has an agenda,” West said. “This idea that she’s just an arbiter of fairness holds about as much truth to me as Fox News’ claims of being fair and balanced. She’s clearly a political attack dog for industry.”
Sean Magee, a spokesman for Hunter Dickenson Inc. (HDI), said it wasn’t HDI that asked for its sponsorship role to be kept private. He said HDI sponsored Krause’s talk in the interest of promoting transparency.
“We fully support the legitimate role that watchdog groups play in Canadian society and the Canadian debate about whatever the issue is, but we do believe that there should be the same transparency and accountability for all parties,” he said.
A Taseko spokesman did not respond to Metro’s request for comment.
Krause’s research on the movement of charitable funds from the U.S. to Canada sparked an $8 million Canada Revenue Agency investigation and Senate inquiry into alleged tax code violations by Canadian charities. So far, the Senate Finance Committee has not released the names of any offending charities.
The Fair Questions blogger rose to national attention after digging up American charities’ tax records showing U.S. foundations have donated $300 million to a variety of environmental initiatives in Canada over the last 10 years, about half of which went toward protecting forests.
She did not immediately respond to an interview request Thursday after the event’s sponsors were named.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sandy-...-oilsands-oil-sands-alberta-bc_b_2220651.html
The World According To Krause
Posted: 12/03/2012 1:45 pm EST Updated: 02/02/2013 5:12 am EST
Another instalment appeared in the
Vivian Krause conspiracy saga about shadowy Americans bent on shutting down Canadian oil sands development via the Financial Post on Nov. 29.
It's a lengthy tract -- much of it recycled -- and in the end it's not easy to pin down Krause's point. Her logic is often hard to follow and prone to hairpin turns, but one thing's clear, she's really good at making us hyper-ventilate about a conspiracy by American environmentalists to Do Something Bad. Apparently "they" have put huge areas of Canada off-limits to development as de facto trade barriers that enforce a U.S. monopoly on our exports, while at the same time they want to drop our exports to the U.S. to zero. Or something.
The recitation of numbers and data from widely disparate years and sources, the 12-year-old quotes about long ago parties, and the dots that don't quite connect -- all of this only adds up to a confusing welter that makes the most sense if you don't read very closely. Try to tease out and scrutinize real evidence, and the whole thing unravels.
Consider Krause's focus on CGBD (the Consultative Group for Biological Diversity), an apparently shady umbrella group of American environmentalists convened out of the U.S. State Department 25 years ago. With annual expenditures of $3.2 billion in 2010, Krause intones darkly, "They can't be out-spent."
Reading that, you probably thought that an American environmental superpower is aiming a blasting gusher of cash directly at the Canadian oil sands. Ah, but facts are funny things.
As it happens, the CGBD isn't a granting body at all, but a professional association for foundation executives and trustees in the conservation field. Its participants include the Gates Family Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the John D. & Catherine T MacArthur Foundation, the Bloomberg Philanthropies, and many other trusted household names.
And as long as no one asks how much of that $3.2 billion actually made it to Canada, the vast environmental conspiracy theory sorta works. But it's best not to ask that question.
Because the answer is: almost none of it.
FOREIGN DONORS TO CANADIAN CHARITIES
According to the widely respected Canadian charity lawyer and tax expert Mark Blumberg, the Canadian Revenue Agency reports that 2010 revenues to the Canadian conservation movement from all foreign sources totaled just over $48.5 million in 2010.
At most, only about 1.5 per cent of that ominous multi-billion dollar CGBD budget slipped across the border into Canada. Pretty much all of it went somewhere else.
And you would be forgiven for thinking that the supposedly infamous Tides Canada was the recipient of most of those millions from the U.S. Oops, wrong again. Roughly 70 per cent of the total went to Ducks Unlimited, leaving $15 million donated from worldwide sources to organizations like Tides Canada, the Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Federation and all the others.
The David Suzuki Foundation, cited repeatedly by Krause for its supposedly suspicious foreign influence, received a mere $553,560 from foreign sources in 2010.
To give perspective, in 2010 alone, foreign donors contributed a total of $831 million to Canadian charitable institutions, and conservation organizations received about six per cent of it. Tides Canada, the subject of such intense scrutiny from Krause, received less than one per cent of all foreign grants, and distributed grants not only to the conservation sector, but also to service organizations like the Stephen Lewis Foundation, the Ottawa Food Bank, the Toronto YWCA, Pen Canada, and a host of other highly respected institutions.
It goes on. Over the last 15 years or so, according to Krause, U.S. foundations have donated some $425 million to Canadian conservation groups.
While it's true that the two land conservation projects she mentions are the main beneficiary, these were not imposed on an unwilling Canada by American environmentalists. The Harper government actively championed both of them, and actively sought millions and millions in donations from the American conservationists that Krause now vilifies.
None of this was secret, just conveniently forgotten.
'POLITICALLY USEFUL'
John Baird, then the environment minister, triumphantly announced the Canadian government's financial partnership in the GBR with American environmental foundations at a press conference in 2008. Immediately following the 2008 federal election, Baird accepted a Boreal Award for his "far-reaching vision, diligent work, and collaborative initiatives to protect land within Canada's Boreal Forest."
In his acceptance speech, Baird expressed great pride in the Harper government's achievement, saying:
"Canada's government has demonstrated its commitment to the Boreal Forest and Canada's North. In protecting over 30 million acres of our pristine Canadian wilderness, our Government has taken real action to ensure that these lands and their legacy are preserved for generations to come."
Or maybe just so long as it was politically useful.
Suddenly those massive environmental projects -- so vital to the Harper minority government in 2007 and early 2008 -- are terribly inconvenient. Gone from the web is the 2008 Conservative Party election platform, which committed to the preservation of ecologically sensitive lands. And those major American endowments, once so prized by the federal government, are a millstone around its neck.
If there are any deceptive practices going on here, it's the Harper government's disavowal of its own conduct and its pretense that it never met its own partners.
Krause's literary pursuits will come in very handy should the federal government wish to unwind its own contractual commitments to preserve Canada's environment, in order to drive oil pipelines and Arctic drilling projects.
This supposed scandal has been hiding in plain sight for almost a decade, and almost none of the key claims hold up to scrutiny. A veritable cottage industry has grown up promoting one of the most politically convenient conspiracy theories in recent memory.
But the entire thing could be put to bed with just a few hours of homework by journalists endowed with a working Internet connection, a calculator, and Hemingway's indispensable gift: a built-in, shock-proof, um, "nonsense" detector.
The World According To Krause
Posted: 12/03/2012 1:45 pm EST Updated: 02/02/2013 5:12 am EST
Another instalment appeared in the
Vivian Krause conspiracy saga about shadowy Americans bent on shutting down Canadian oil sands development via the Financial Post on Nov. 29.
It's a lengthy tract -- much of it recycled -- and in the end it's not easy to pin down Krause's point. Her logic is often hard to follow and prone to hairpin turns, but one thing's clear, she's really good at making us hyper-ventilate about a conspiracy by American environmentalists to Do Something Bad. Apparently "they" have put huge areas of Canada off-limits to development as de facto trade barriers that enforce a U.S. monopoly on our exports, while at the same time they want to drop our exports to the U.S. to zero. Or something.
The recitation of numbers and data from widely disparate years and sources, the 12-year-old quotes about long ago parties, and the dots that don't quite connect -- all of this only adds up to a confusing welter that makes the most sense if you don't read very closely. Try to tease out and scrutinize real evidence, and the whole thing unravels.
Consider Krause's focus on CGBD (the Consultative Group for Biological Diversity), an apparently shady umbrella group of American environmentalists convened out of the U.S. State Department 25 years ago. With annual expenditures of $3.2 billion in 2010, Krause intones darkly, "They can't be out-spent."
Reading that, you probably thought that an American environmental superpower is aiming a blasting gusher of cash directly at the Canadian oil sands. Ah, but facts are funny things.
As it happens, the CGBD isn't a granting body at all, but a professional association for foundation executives and trustees in the conservation field. Its participants include the Gates Family Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the John D. & Catherine T MacArthur Foundation, the Bloomberg Philanthropies, and many other trusted household names.
And as long as no one asks how much of that $3.2 billion actually made it to Canada, the vast environmental conspiracy theory sorta works. But it's best not to ask that question.
Because the answer is: almost none of it.
FOREIGN DONORS TO CANADIAN CHARITIES
According to the widely respected Canadian charity lawyer and tax expert Mark Blumberg, the Canadian Revenue Agency reports that 2010 revenues to the Canadian conservation movement from all foreign sources totaled just over $48.5 million in 2010.
At most, only about 1.5 per cent of that ominous multi-billion dollar CGBD budget slipped across the border into Canada. Pretty much all of it went somewhere else.
And you would be forgiven for thinking that the supposedly infamous Tides Canada was the recipient of most of those millions from the U.S. Oops, wrong again. Roughly 70 per cent of the total went to Ducks Unlimited, leaving $15 million donated from worldwide sources to organizations like Tides Canada, the Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Federation and all the others.
The David Suzuki Foundation, cited repeatedly by Krause for its supposedly suspicious foreign influence, received a mere $553,560 from foreign sources in 2010.
To give perspective, in 2010 alone, foreign donors contributed a total of $831 million to Canadian charitable institutions, and conservation organizations received about six per cent of it. Tides Canada, the subject of such intense scrutiny from Krause, received less than one per cent of all foreign grants, and distributed grants not only to the conservation sector, but also to service organizations like the Stephen Lewis Foundation, the Ottawa Food Bank, the Toronto YWCA, Pen Canada, and a host of other highly respected institutions.
It goes on. Over the last 15 years or so, according to Krause, U.S. foundations have donated some $425 million to Canadian conservation groups.
While it's true that the two land conservation projects she mentions are the main beneficiary, these were not imposed on an unwilling Canada by American environmentalists. The Harper government actively championed both of them, and actively sought millions and millions in donations from the American conservationists that Krause now vilifies.
None of this was secret, just conveniently forgotten.
'POLITICALLY USEFUL'
John Baird, then the environment minister, triumphantly announced the Canadian government's financial partnership in the GBR with American environmental foundations at a press conference in 2008. Immediately following the 2008 federal election, Baird accepted a Boreal Award for his "far-reaching vision, diligent work, and collaborative initiatives to protect land within Canada's Boreal Forest."
In his acceptance speech, Baird expressed great pride in the Harper government's achievement, saying:
"Canada's government has demonstrated its commitment to the Boreal Forest and Canada's North. In protecting over 30 million acres of our pristine Canadian wilderness, our Government has taken real action to ensure that these lands and their legacy are preserved for generations to come."
Or maybe just so long as it was politically useful.
Suddenly those massive environmental projects -- so vital to the Harper minority government in 2007 and early 2008 -- are terribly inconvenient. Gone from the web is the 2008 Conservative Party election platform, which committed to the preservation of ecologically sensitive lands. And those major American endowments, once so prized by the federal government, are a millstone around its neck.
If there are any deceptive practices going on here, it's the Harper government's disavowal of its own conduct and its pretense that it never met its own partners.
Krause's literary pursuits will come in very handy should the federal government wish to unwind its own contractual commitments to preserve Canada's environment, in order to drive oil pipelines and Arctic drilling projects.
This supposed scandal has been hiding in plain sight for almost a decade, and almost none of the key claims hold up to scrutiny. A veritable cottage industry has grown up promoting one of the most politically convenient conspiracy theories in recent memory.
But the entire thing could be put to bed with just a few hours of homework by journalists endowed with a working Internet connection, a calculator, and Hemingway's indispensable gift: a built-in, shock-proof, um, "nonsense" detector.
http://www.vancourier.com/opinion/fair-question-includes-who-funds-vivian-krause-1.379210
Fair question includes who funds Vivian Krause?
ALLENGARR / VANCOUVER COURIER
JANUARY 13, 2012 02:00 AM
Email Print
So who is paying Vivian Krause's bills? It is a fair question.
Krause is the blogger whose picture turned up on the front page of the Globe and Mail Monday along with the story of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver. They were attacking opponents of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline.
Krause on her blog-which you can find by Googling "fair questions"-has taken on the rock stars of the environmental movement including David Suzuki and Alexandra Morton. She accuses them both of either outright falsehoods or misleading information in their campaign against farmed salmon.
But Krause's primary focus of late has been on the piles of money coming mostly from U.S. Foundations-$300 million in a 10-year period-to Canadian environmental organizations, which fight, among other things, tar sand projects.
It is her research that is credited with fuelling the xenophobic attacks by both Harper and Oliver against those "radical" environmentalists, who use "foreign money" to "undermine Canada's national economic interest."
In this battle, the former federal Conservative staffer and fish farm worker finds herself aligned with the pro-industry group Ethical Oil.org founded by Alykhan Velshi, who is now director of planning in Harper's office.
The Tory assault coincides with federal regulatory hearings, which began this week in Kitimat, looking into the environmental impact this pipeline would have as it was constructed and carried crude oil from the Alberta tar sands to the port at Kitimat and then by tanker to Asia.
Of course, not all Canadians would agree on the impact of exploiting the tar sands and that would explain why there are more than 4,000 interveners who want to say their piece at that Kitimat hearing.
While $300 million is a lot of dough, as Canadian environmentalists point out, it is a pittance when compared to the $20 billion foreign corporations have poured into tar sand development in the past three years. That, by the way, is not a fact I was able to find on Krause's blog.
Krause's work first came to my attention because of her criticism of Vision Vancouver and connections between Mayor Gregor Robertson and some of the same organizations she says are acting as conduits for foreign money supporting environmental groups on the Enbridge pipeline issue.
In particular, she targeted Tides Canada Foundation and the organization she says is its largest donor, Endswell Foundation. Krause's work in that area has been promoted on a blog site run by two former staffers who worked for former NPA mayor Sam Sullivan. One, Mike Klassen, ran for and lost in his bid to get elected to city council.
A principal player in all of this is Vancouverite Joel Solomon, an American immigrant who has supported Vision from its inception and also uses resources available to him to support green entrepreneurs, including setting up Robertson and his partner in the organic juice business.
Krause has tied Vision Vancouver to both Tides Canada and Endswell. Many of the "fair questions" she put to the players in this matter went unanswered. In the end she failed to come up with a smoking gun that indicated any wrong doing on the part of Solomon, Robertson or Vision.
While political parties are required by law to make public who funds them, bloggers such as Krause face no such scrutiny. But here is what she emailed me when I asked. "My work isn't funded," she said. "I have not been funded by any industry, any company, and political party, any entity of any kind."
But this single mom from North Vancouver doesn't live on air alone: "I got a loan from my father (a retired minister) and was able to afford to work unpaid because of child support from my daughter's father. Ultimately, I sold my home and have been living on my savings."
agarr@vancourier.com
Fair question includes who funds Vivian Krause?
ALLENGARR / VANCOUVER COURIER
JANUARY 13, 2012 02:00 AM
Email Print
So who is paying Vivian Krause's bills? It is a fair question.
Krause is the blogger whose picture turned up on the front page of the Globe and Mail Monday along with the story of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver. They were attacking opponents of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline.
Krause on her blog-which you can find by Googling "fair questions"-has taken on the rock stars of the environmental movement including David Suzuki and Alexandra Morton. She accuses them both of either outright falsehoods or misleading information in their campaign against farmed salmon.
But Krause's primary focus of late has been on the piles of money coming mostly from U.S. Foundations-$300 million in a 10-year period-to Canadian environmental organizations, which fight, among other things, tar sand projects.
It is her research that is credited with fuelling the xenophobic attacks by both Harper and Oliver against those "radical" environmentalists, who use "foreign money" to "undermine Canada's national economic interest."
In this battle, the former federal Conservative staffer and fish farm worker finds herself aligned with the pro-industry group Ethical Oil.org founded by Alykhan Velshi, who is now director of planning in Harper's office.
The Tory assault coincides with federal regulatory hearings, which began this week in Kitimat, looking into the environmental impact this pipeline would have as it was constructed and carried crude oil from the Alberta tar sands to the port at Kitimat and then by tanker to Asia.
Of course, not all Canadians would agree on the impact of exploiting the tar sands and that would explain why there are more than 4,000 interveners who want to say their piece at that Kitimat hearing.
While $300 million is a lot of dough, as Canadian environmentalists point out, it is a pittance when compared to the $20 billion foreign corporations have poured into tar sand development in the past three years. That, by the way, is not a fact I was able to find on Krause's blog.
Krause's work first came to my attention because of her criticism of Vision Vancouver and connections between Mayor Gregor Robertson and some of the same organizations she says are acting as conduits for foreign money supporting environmental groups on the Enbridge pipeline issue.
In particular, she targeted Tides Canada Foundation and the organization she says is its largest donor, Endswell Foundation. Krause's work in that area has been promoted on a blog site run by two former staffers who worked for former NPA mayor Sam Sullivan. One, Mike Klassen, ran for and lost in his bid to get elected to city council.
A principal player in all of this is Vancouverite Joel Solomon, an American immigrant who has supported Vision from its inception and also uses resources available to him to support green entrepreneurs, including setting up Robertson and his partner in the organic juice business.
Krause has tied Vision Vancouver to both Tides Canada and Endswell. Many of the "fair questions" she put to the players in this matter went unanswered. In the end she failed to come up with a smoking gun that indicated any wrong doing on the part of Solomon, Robertson or Vision.
While political parties are required by law to make public who funds them, bloggers such as Krause face no such scrutiny. But here is what she emailed me when I asked. "My work isn't funded," she said. "I have not been funded by any industry, any company, and political party, any entity of any kind."
But this single mom from North Vancouver doesn't live on air alone: "I got a loan from my father (a retired minister) and was able to afford to work unpaid because of child support from my daughter's father. Ultimately, I sold my home and have been living on my savings."
agarr@vancourier.com
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Vivian_Krause
Between January 1, 2002 and October 13, 2003,Vivian Krause served as Corporate Development Manager (North America) for Nutreco Aquaculture, then the world's largest salmon farming company.[4]
In February 2003, the BC Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA) launched a public relations counter-offensive by hiring industry giant Hill and Knowlton to combat environmentalists’ claims of health hazards caused by the raising of farmed salmon. According to the subscriber-only industry newsletter Intrafish, Krause sat on the committee that approved Hill and Knowlton’s hiring, saying that it was long overdue to explain to the public how the industry operates.[5]
In a blog post in November 2010, Krause described herself as “an ex-P.R. person from the salmon farming industry,” referring to her former employment at Nutreco.[6]
Nutreco terminated Krause in late 2003. But Krause says that she returned as a consultant for the salmon farming industry in 2007.
A February 2010 paper Krause authored on contaminants in farmed salmon contained the following disclosure: “In January of 2007, she served as a consultant to Millerd Holdings Ltd., which has interests in processing farmed salmon on Vancouver Island. In July of 2007, she served briefly as a consultant to an international salmon farming trade organization. Vivian Krause has not worked for the salmon farming industry since 31 July 2007.”[7]
Krause’s July 2007 consultancy was for Salmon of the Americas, an international salmon farming trade organization.[8] Krause further states on her website: “... You note that I used to work in the salmon farming industry. That's true. That was in 2002 and 2003, eight years ago. I also did two short consultancies in 2007. For those, I was paid $10,000 and $7,750, respectively. As I've said many times, since July of 2007 I have not worked for the salmon farming industry in any paid capacity. In January, I was the keynote speaker at the Nova Scotia Annual Aquaculture Conference but apart from my airfare and hotel costs, I was not paid.”[9]
Political Employment
Krause has stated that she had worked for the United Nations "for over 10 years" before returning to Canada in 2001.[10] Krause briefly held a job in 2010 as a Constituency Assistant for Conservative MP John Duncan.[11] In the April 2011 federal election for North Vancouver Island MP, John Duncan was the only candidate to support open-net salmon farms remaining in BC waters.[12]
In September 2011, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) paid Krause $5,000, plus travel expenses, to address its members during a luncheon talk. "I work from home on my own nickel," she stated in a subsequent tweet. "I'm not funded by anyone. $5,000 from CAPP is the first honorarium I've had."[16]
In a November 24, 2006 presentation in front of the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture of the B.C. Government, Krause claimed “no connection whatsoever” to the salmon industry, but stated that, “I was employed in the industry three years ago.”
Shortly after her presentation to the Special Committee, Krause said that she began to investigate the role of American foundations, in funding Canadian environmental and charitable organizations critical of the fish farming industry, all at her own expense.[17]
On June 27, 2007, Krause published an article called “The Demarketing of Farmed Salmon by 35 Environmental Organizations in the United States and Canada” on salmonfacts.org, a website operated by the industry association Salmon of the Americas, which Krause later acknowledged paid her a $7500 consultant’s fee for work up until the end of July 2007. [18]
In its Winter 2007 newsletter, Salmon of the Americas highlighted an article that Krause wrote in another publication as “a concerned citizen and consumer” defending farmed salmon, without revealing that the industry group had recently retained her as a consultant.
“In a recent article in the Westcoaster, Vivian Krause writes in as a concerned citizen and consumer regarding the negative publicity created by environmentalist organizations (ENGO’s) towards ocean farmed salmon,” the newsletter stated.[19] “I no longer work in salmon farming, and am writing as a concerned member of the public…” Krause wrote in her September 28, 2007 article in the Westcoaster. In her article she mentions no employment by the salmon farming industry after 2003, omitting that she had worked for Salmon of the Americas, the organization of salmon-producing companies in North and South America, just two months prior.[20]
Between January 1, 2002 and October 13, 2003,Vivian Krause served as Corporate Development Manager (North America) for Nutreco Aquaculture, then the world's largest salmon farming company.[4]
In February 2003, the BC Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA) launched a public relations counter-offensive by hiring industry giant Hill and Knowlton to combat environmentalists’ claims of health hazards caused by the raising of farmed salmon. According to the subscriber-only industry newsletter Intrafish, Krause sat on the committee that approved Hill and Knowlton’s hiring, saying that it was long overdue to explain to the public how the industry operates.[5]
In a blog post in November 2010, Krause described herself as “an ex-P.R. person from the salmon farming industry,” referring to her former employment at Nutreco.[6]
Nutreco terminated Krause in late 2003. But Krause says that she returned as a consultant for the salmon farming industry in 2007.
A February 2010 paper Krause authored on contaminants in farmed salmon contained the following disclosure: “In January of 2007, she served as a consultant to Millerd Holdings Ltd., which has interests in processing farmed salmon on Vancouver Island. In July of 2007, she served briefly as a consultant to an international salmon farming trade organization. Vivian Krause has not worked for the salmon farming industry since 31 July 2007.”[7]
Krause’s July 2007 consultancy was for Salmon of the Americas, an international salmon farming trade organization.[8] Krause further states on her website: “... You note that I used to work in the salmon farming industry. That's true. That was in 2002 and 2003, eight years ago. I also did two short consultancies in 2007. For those, I was paid $10,000 and $7,750, respectively. As I've said many times, since July of 2007 I have not worked for the salmon farming industry in any paid capacity. In January, I was the keynote speaker at the Nova Scotia Annual Aquaculture Conference but apart from my airfare and hotel costs, I was not paid.”[9]
Political Employment
Krause has stated that she had worked for the United Nations "for over 10 years" before returning to Canada in 2001.[10] Krause briefly held a job in 2010 as a Constituency Assistant for Conservative MP John Duncan.[11] In the April 2011 federal election for North Vancouver Island MP, John Duncan was the only candidate to support open-net salmon farms remaining in BC waters.[12]
In September 2011, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) paid Krause $5,000, plus travel expenses, to address its members during a luncheon talk. "I work from home on my own nickel," she stated in a subsequent tweet. "I'm not funded by anyone. $5,000 from CAPP is the first honorarium I've had."[16]
In a November 24, 2006 presentation in front of the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture of the B.C. Government, Krause claimed “no connection whatsoever” to the salmon industry, but stated that, “I was employed in the industry three years ago.”
Shortly after her presentation to the Special Committee, Krause said that she began to investigate the role of American foundations, in funding Canadian environmental and charitable organizations critical of the fish farming industry, all at her own expense.[17]
On June 27, 2007, Krause published an article called “The Demarketing of Farmed Salmon by 35 Environmental Organizations in the United States and Canada” on salmonfacts.org, a website operated by the industry association Salmon of the Americas, which Krause later acknowledged paid her a $7500 consultant’s fee for work up until the end of July 2007. [18]
In its Winter 2007 newsletter, Salmon of the Americas highlighted an article that Krause wrote in another publication as “a concerned citizen and consumer” defending farmed salmon, without revealing that the industry group had recently retained her as a consultant.
“In a recent article in the Westcoaster, Vivian Krause writes in as a concerned citizen and consumer regarding the negative publicity created by environmentalist organizations (ENGO’s) towards ocean farmed salmon,” the newsletter stated.[19] “I no longer work in salmon farming, and am writing as a concerned member of the public…” Krause wrote in her September 28, 2007 article in the Westcoaster. In her article she mentions no employment by the salmon farming industry after 2003, omitting that she had worked for Salmon of the Americas, the organization of salmon-producing companies in North and South America, just two months prior.[20]
http://www.desmog.ca/directory/vocabulary/9119
Tar Sands Oil Companies 71 Percent Foreign-Owned - Cue Ezra Levant's Outrage
ForestEthics Advocacy released a game-changing research brief today documenting the massive foreign control of Alberta's tar sands oil industry. Publicly traded oil companies with active tar sands operations have a very high level of foreign ownership – 71 per cent.
Some supposedly “Canadian” oil companies including Suncor, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Imperial Oil and Husky are predominantly owned by foreign interests. More than half of Canada’s oil and gas revenue goes to companies under foreign control.
This revelation stands in stark contrast to the talking points of the Harper administration and its media echo chamber, which insist that there is too much foreign influence over Canada's resource decisions from environmental groups. In fact, the evidence shows overwhelmingly that foreign interests are influencing tar sands and other resource decisions - chiefly Chinese and other foreign oil companies.
Cue Ezra Levant's outrage at this foreign influence in Canadian interests! Where's Vivian Krause when you need her? Surely the Ethical Oil Institute will agree that this level of foreign intervention is a dangerous threat to Canada's future?
Recall that when the Ethical Oil Institute launched its allegedly “100% Canadian” OurDecision.ca website, this was the statement by spokesperson Kathryn Marshall: “We’ll never take foreign money to undermine our country’s national interests.”
The group admits that it receives funding from companies active in the tar sands. Now that it's been revealed that all these companies are predominently foreign-owned, the group's claims to be 100% Canadian are highly misleading. We await their statement correcting the record.
Anticipating that someone, perhaps from the 'ethical oil' team, will quickly attempt to do damage control by claiming that this is just some ginned up report by ForestEthics, let's be crystal clear that the data underlying the report are all from independent sources including Bloomberg Professional and industry journals.
Tar Sands Oil Companies 71 Percent Foreign-Owned - Cue Ezra Levant's Outrage
ForestEthics Advocacy released a game-changing research brief today documenting the massive foreign control of Alberta's tar sands oil industry. Publicly traded oil companies with active tar sands operations have a very high level of foreign ownership – 71 per cent.
Some supposedly “Canadian” oil companies including Suncor, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Imperial Oil and Husky are predominantly owned by foreign interests. More than half of Canada’s oil and gas revenue goes to companies under foreign control.
This revelation stands in stark contrast to the talking points of the Harper administration and its media echo chamber, which insist that there is too much foreign influence over Canada's resource decisions from environmental groups. In fact, the evidence shows overwhelmingly that foreign interests are influencing tar sands and other resource decisions - chiefly Chinese and other foreign oil companies.
Cue Ezra Levant's outrage at this foreign influence in Canadian interests! Where's Vivian Krause when you need her? Surely the Ethical Oil Institute will agree that this level of foreign intervention is a dangerous threat to Canada's future?
Recall that when the Ethical Oil Institute launched its allegedly “100% Canadian” OurDecision.ca website, this was the statement by spokesperson Kathryn Marshall: “We’ll never take foreign money to undermine our country’s national interests.”
The group admits that it receives funding from companies active in the tar sands. Now that it's been revealed that all these companies are predominently foreign-owned, the group's claims to be 100% Canadian are highly misleading. We await their statement correcting the record.
Anticipating that someone, perhaps from the 'ethical oil' team, will quickly attempt to do damage control by claiming that this is just some ginned up report by ForestEthics, let's be crystal clear that the data underlying the report are all from independent sources including Bloomberg Professional and industry journals.
GLG
Well-Known Member
3X5
Yup I would have to agree with your reading of the paper.
If LNG did replace Coal you might have a case.
I don't see China importing less Coal as BC just OK'ed an expansion for more coal export to China.
Seems it's not so much a bridge but a pilling on.
But as I said before... we were promised the cleanest LNG in the world and that's not what is happening.
Industry documents have no plans for renewable energy to power LNG.
They will burn NG to compress the gas to turn it into LNG.
Going that root with just one plant will, according to industry documents, increase BC's total GHG by 5%. (If we can believe that industry)
That number doesn't include the GHG that are from upstream of the the plant.
You must not work at the Horn River basin because their NG has 12% CO2.
(That amount is not in that study so as I said before would like to see a BC study)
Do the have a way to sequester that or do they just vent it.
If they do sequester what percentage do they do?
Here is some links what has me thinking this LNG is just some Pipe Dream and has no credibility to help us with reducing GHG.
BC’s Big Favour?
<article id="node-12154" class=" node node-commentary" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 0px;">
AUTHOR(S):
Marc Lee
JANUARY 30, 2014
The hype on LNG has grown to staggering proportions. I have not had much time to debunk all of the government’s grotesque exaggerations and outright falsehoods. But Christy Clark’s claim that BC is “doing the world a favour” by exporting LNG to Asia made me write this oped, which got picked up in today’s Vancouver Sun:
Is LNG B.C.’s big favour? It’s unlikely exports will reduce global greenhouse gas emissions
Is British Columbia “doing the world a favour,” as Premier Christy Clark put it, by developing a liquefied natural gas export industry? Or is this just wishful thinking from a government that has abandoned its law on reducing carbon emissions to pursue LNG riches?
Natural gas is a cleaner burning fossil fuel than coal, in terms of carbon pollution as well as other emissions that lead to smog and acid rain. In the United States, substitution of gas for coal in electricity generation has led to declining carbon emissions in recent years. So it is plausible the same could be true for Asia, enabling essentially unlimited LNG exports in the name of climate action.
For B.C.’s LNG exports to lower global emissions, they would need to be part of a deliberate effort to use natural gas as a transition fuel, linked to displacement of coal use in countries such as China, along with a strong regulatory framework to minimize leaks and source renewable power for operations. This is far from the Wild West mentality currently in place on the North Coast.
First, will LNG be a substitute for coal at all? A number of independent projections show a growing appetite in China for all energy sources, including renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels. A new international treaty to constrain carbon emissions, now under negotiation, could change this dynamic in 15-20 years. For now, LNG is anticipated to pile on top of China’s growing coal consumption, rather than displace it.
The transition to natural gas in the U.S. came as a result of record low gas prices in North America. But at the much higher price the B.C. government and the industry expect Asia to pay, coal is way cheaper than LNG. That is, if LNG is to displace coal based on economics, B.C. will need to accept much lower prices and abandon its fantasy of a $100-billion prosperity fund.
Another challenge to the premier’s argument is that LNG may displace other sources of power, in particular nuclear power in Japan. As evident in the 2011 Fukushima disaster, nuclear has major risks. On the other hand, nuclear’s carbon footprint is negligible, so if Japan decides to shift its nuclear capacity to LNG, global carbon emissions would rise.
Leakages also undermine the case for LNG as a transition fuel. Natural gas is primarily methane, a greenhouse gas 86 times more heat-trapping than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Leakages of only 1.2 per cent are enough to erase claims of having an advantage over coal.
Typically, from wellhead to final combustion, including processing and transportation, leaks of about two to four per cent are standard. Those leaks can be much higher for fracking operations, the technology that will be used to supply B.C.’s LNG industry.
Strong regulations could reduce the amount of leakage, and allow B.C. to produce the “cleanest LNG in the world,” an aspiration of the B.C. government. If LNG proceeds, such regulations must be part of the deal, even if they impose additional costs on the industry. But B.C. cannot regulate LNG once it leaves port, so leakages will likely erase natural gas’s carbon advantage.
The big picture is that global warming is primarily caused by extracting carbon from underground and putting it into the atmosphere. The government’s LNG ambitions would double or triple the amount of gas extracted in B.C., the equivalent to adding tens of millions of cars to the roads of the world.
B.C.’s estimated marketable gas reserves, if combusted, would be equivalent to 10.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, or about one-third of worldwide annual emissions from burning fossil fuels. It is hard to square LNG with the pressing need to constrain carbon on a global basis.
Pursuing an LNG industry amounts to doubling down on fossil fuels, precisely at the moment when extreme weather events are starting to have significant financial impacts. In our era of climate change, global energy supply must ultimately look beyond fossil fuels, and into renewables and conservation.
A government with its eyes on the future would be leading us down that path. If B.C. really wants to do the world a favour, it must leave most of that natural gas in the ground. Instead, B.C. should drive new investment into low-carbon technologies and infrastructure, and in doing so would create more jobs and leave a sustainable legacy for our grandchildren.
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/bc’s-big-favour
</article>
Yup I would have to agree with your reading of the paper.
If LNG did replace Coal you might have a case.
I don't see China importing less Coal as BC just OK'ed an expansion for more coal export to China.
Seems it's not so much a bridge but a pilling on.
But as I said before... we were promised the cleanest LNG in the world and that's not what is happening.
Industry documents have no plans for renewable energy to power LNG.
They will burn NG to compress the gas to turn it into LNG.
Going that root with just one plant will, according to industry documents, increase BC's total GHG by 5%. (If we can believe that industry)
That number doesn't include the GHG that are from upstream of the the plant.
You must not work at the Horn River basin because their NG has 12% CO2.
(That amount is not in that study so as I said before would like to see a BC study)
Do the have a way to sequester that or do they just vent it.
If they do sequester what percentage do they do?
Here is some links what has me thinking this LNG is just some Pipe Dream and has no credibility to help us with reducing GHG.
BC’s Big Favour?
<article id="node-12154" class=" node node-commentary" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 0px;">
AUTHOR(S):
Marc Lee
JANUARY 30, 2014
The hype on LNG has grown to staggering proportions. I have not had much time to debunk all of the government’s grotesque exaggerations and outright falsehoods. But Christy Clark’s claim that BC is “doing the world a favour” by exporting LNG to Asia made me write this oped, which got picked up in today’s Vancouver Sun:
Is LNG B.C.’s big favour? It’s unlikely exports will reduce global greenhouse gas emissions
Is British Columbia “doing the world a favour,” as Premier Christy Clark put it, by developing a liquefied natural gas export industry? Or is this just wishful thinking from a government that has abandoned its law on reducing carbon emissions to pursue LNG riches?
Natural gas is a cleaner burning fossil fuel than coal, in terms of carbon pollution as well as other emissions that lead to smog and acid rain. In the United States, substitution of gas for coal in electricity generation has led to declining carbon emissions in recent years. So it is plausible the same could be true for Asia, enabling essentially unlimited LNG exports in the name of climate action.
For B.C.’s LNG exports to lower global emissions, they would need to be part of a deliberate effort to use natural gas as a transition fuel, linked to displacement of coal use in countries such as China, along with a strong regulatory framework to minimize leaks and source renewable power for operations. This is far from the Wild West mentality currently in place on the North Coast.
First, will LNG be a substitute for coal at all? A number of independent projections show a growing appetite in China for all energy sources, including renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels. A new international treaty to constrain carbon emissions, now under negotiation, could change this dynamic in 15-20 years. For now, LNG is anticipated to pile on top of China’s growing coal consumption, rather than displace it.
The transition to natural gas in the U.S. came as a result of record low gas prices in North America. But at the much higher price the B.C. government and the industry expect Asia to pay, coal is way cheaper than LNG. That is, if LNG is to displace coal based on economics, B.C. will need to accept much lower prices and abandon its fantasy of a $100-billion prosperity fund.
Another challenge to the premier’s argument is that LNG may displace other sources of power, in particular nuclear power in Japan. As evident in the 2011 Fukushima disaster, nuclear has major risks. On the other hand, nuclear’s carbon footprint is negligible, so if Japan decides to shift its nuclear capacity to LNG, global carbon emissions would rise.
Leakages also undermine the case for LNG as a transition fuel. Natural gas is primarily methane, a greenhouse gas 86 times more heat-trapping than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Leakages of only 1.2 per cent are enough to erase claims of having an advantage over coal.
Typically, from wellhead to final combustion, including processing and transportation, leaks of about two to four per cent are standard. Those leaks can be much higher for fracking operations, the technology that will be used to supply B.C.’s LNG industry.
Strong regulations could reduce the amount of leakage, and allow B.C. to produce the “cleanest LNG in the world,” an aspiration of the B.C. government. If LNG proceeds, such regulations must be part of the deal, even if they impose additional costs on the industry. But B.C. cannot regulate LNG once it leaves port, so leakages will likely erase natural gas’s carbon advantage.
The big picture is that global warming is primarily caused by extracting carbon from underground and putting it into the atmosphere. The government’s LNG ambitions would double or triple the amount of gas extracted in B.C., the equivalent to adding tens of millions of cars to the roads of the world.
B.C.’s estimated marketable gas reserves, if combusted, would be equivalent to 10.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, or about one-third of worldwide annual emissions from burning fossil fuels. It is hard to square LNG with the pressing need to constrain carbon on a global basis.
Pursuing an LNG industry amounts to doubling down on fossil fuels, precisely at the moment when extreme weather events are starting to have significant financial impacts. In our era of climate change, global energy supply must ultimately look beyond fossil fuels, and into renewables and conservation.
A government with its eyes on the future would be leading us down that path. If B.C. really wants to do the world a favour, it must leave most of that natural gas in the ground. Instead, B.C. should drive new investment into low-carbon technologies and infrastructure, and in doing so would create more jobs and leave a sustainable legacy for our grandchildren.
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/bc’s-big-favour
</article>
GLG
Well-Known Member
And then there is the matter of breaking BC law so that your industry can expand.......
(I guess every one in BC could reduce their GHG emissions by 81% so those that think they are entitled to be above the law can expand their industry......)
BC’s move to escalate natural gas production is contrary to government’s own GHG legislation: report
<article id="node-11017" class=" node node-news" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 0px;">OCTOBER 10, 2012
(Vancouver) Just five years ago the BC government legislated targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), but the province’s 2012 Natural Gas Strategy risks breaking that legislation.
The legislation calls for a 33% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020 and 80% by 2050. In a report released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ BC Office,CCPA senioreconomist Marc Lee finds that:
The Natural Gas Strategy not only poses threats to the environment and climate, but would deliver few economic benefits for ordinary British Columbians:
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/n...roduction-contrary-government’s-own-greenhous
Notice that little nugget on government revenue there 3X5.....
$1.9 billion in 2005/06 to a projected $157 million in 2012/13.
Seems like you got a present from the Lib's</article>
(I guess every one in BC could reduce their GHG emissions by 81% so those that think they are entitled to be above the law can expand their industry......)
BC’s move to escalate natural gas production is contrary to government’s own GHG legislation: report
<article id="node-11017" class=" node node-news" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 0px;">OCTOBER 10, 2012
(Vancouver) Just five years ago the BC government legislated targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), but the province’s 2012 Natural Gas Strategy risks breaking that legislation.
The legislation calls for a 33% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020 and 80% by 2050. In a report released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ BC Office,CCPA senioreconomist Marc Lee finds that:
- As of 2010, BC’s greenhouse gas emissions were down 4.5%. The province would have met its 2012 interim target of 6% below 2007 levels, if not for increased emissions from the natural gas industry.
- Increased natural gas extraction and processing, mainly for export to Asia, will make it virtually impossible for BC to meet the 2020 target. In the study’s medium scenario, the rest of the economy would have to reduce emissions by 81% in order to accommodate growth in the natural gas industry.
- The legislated targets do not count emissions from exported natural gas burned outside of BC. By 2020, these exported emissions could represent the equivalent of putting 24 to 64 million more cars on the road each year.
The Natural Gas Strategy not only poses threats to the environment and climate, but would deliver few economic benefits for ordinary British Columbians:
- Even if the most optimistic job creation estimates are realized, growth of the natural gas industry will lead to an increase in employment of just 0.1%.
- In spite of record high extraction levels, government royalties from natural gas have dropped from $1.9 billion in 2005/06 to a projected $157 million in 2012/13.
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/n...roduction-contrary-government’s-own-greenhous
Notice that little nugget on government revenue there 3X5.....
$1.9 billion in 2005/06 to a projected $157 million in 2012/13.
Seems like you got a present from the Lib's</article>
GLG
Well-Known Member
B.C.’s Natural Gas Hypocrisy Leaves Consumers Paying the Price
One of the thorniest issues raised in the joint review panel’s report on BC Hydro’s Site C dam proposal is that of the B.C. government’s hypocritical policy on the burning of natural gas for electricity.
“The LNG developers have been promised a free hand to burn their gas here for their own purposes, but BC Hydro has been denied the same privilege,” the panel wrote in its report on the $7.9 proposed dam.
The controversy revolves around the 2010 Clean Energy Act — and who it applies to and, perhaps more importantly, who it does not.
The act limits BC Hydro’s options for generating electricity by demanding that 93 per cent of the province’s energy needs be met by “clean or renewable resources” — eliminating the use of gas turbines and sending the gas-fired Burrard Thermal generating station into early retirement.
It’s a reasonable policy from a climate change perspective — but there’s a catch.
In June 2012, the province exempted the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry from the Clean Energy Act, enabling plants to burn as much natural gas as they’d like to power their giant compressors — despite originally promising they'd be powered by clean electricity — and, as of now, that’s exactly what they intend to do.
“If it is acceptable to burn natural gas to provide power to compress, cool, and transport B.C. natural gas for Asian markets, where its fate is combustion anyway, why not save transport and environmental costs and take care of domestic needs?” the Site C panel wrote.
To turn natural gas into a liquid for export, it must be cooled to 163 degrees below zero. Doing so essentially requires running a gigantic refrigerator 24/7. Each of the large LNGplants proposed for B.C.’s coast (there are 10) would need the equivalent of an entire Site C dam to power it by electricity.
Oilsands-sized pollution problem
The Pembina Institute reports that for the province to meet its annual revenue hopes of more than $4 billion (five to seven LNG facilities) by 2020, the resulting carbon emissions from that industry would rival that of Alberta’s oilsands.
In case you missed it, this is the industry that Premier Christy Clark has repeatedly touted as producing the “cleanest LNG in the world.”
For B.C.’s LNG industry to come anywhere near to being “clean,” plants would need to be fuelled by renewable electricity, not natural gas.
With that in mind, Clean Energy Canada recently commissioned a feasibility study that looks at meeting the energy demands of LNG plants with regional renewables, such as wind on the north coast, which wouldn’t require transmission upgrades or power from the Site C dam.
“Any LNG facility on the North Coast could primarily power its production facilities with renewable energy and do so reliably, affordably and on schedule—using established commercial technologies,” Navius Research concluded. “Further, doing so reduces that plant’s carbon pollution by 45 per cent, and increases local permanent jobs by 40 per cent.”
Seems like a no-brainer, doesn’t it?
If the province is going to forge ahead with an LNG industry, 91 per cent of British Columbians say it’s “very important” or “somewhat important” for LNGplants to maximize their use of renewable energy, according to a poll conducted by NRGResearch Group in October 2013.
I haven’t seen any poll results on the matter, but methinks British Columbians wouldn’t respond to kindly to the natural gas industry playing by a different set of rules than the rest of us. After all, a Strategic Communications poll from April 2014 found 78 per cent of British Columbians fully supported the province moving off of fossil fuels completely in favour of clean sources of energy to prevent climate change from worsening.
B.C.'s natural gas contradiction
Due to the Clean Energy Act, BC Hydro couldn’t include gas-fired electricity in any of its scenarios presented to the Site C panel — even though the LNG industry can now burn gas willy-nilly.
That means natural gas facilities like Burrard Thermal, which has similar capacity to Site C, couldn’t even be considered as an intermittent source of power for times when electricity demand peaks.
With a price tag of $7.9 billion, Site C is the most expensive infrastructure project on the books in Canada — and could be the largest public expenditure in B.C. for the next 20 years. Meantime, the lower impact, more affordable alternative of geothermal power hasn't been placed on the table by BC Hydro due only to the province's “failure to pursue research over the last 30 years,” according to the panel.
If the province approves Site C this fall and it actually gets built, the project is expected to chalk up $800 million in losses in the first four years due to a lack of market for its power — and it’s BC Hydro customers (pssst … that’s you and me) who will be on the hook for covering the loss.
While British Columbians are picking up the tab for that, the LNG industry will be enjoying a free pass to pollute.
It’s high time for Clark to force the LNG industry to play by the same rules as the rest of us — and, for her own sake, she’d better do that before British Columbians cotton on to the fact she’s trying to sneak an oilsands-sized pollution problem below the radar while sticking British Columbians with a pricy and impractical megadam.
http://www.desmog.ca/2014/06/24/b-c-s-natural-gas-hypocrisy-leaves-consumers-paying-price
One of the thorniest issues raised in the joint review panel’s report on BC Hydro’s Site C dam proposal is that of the B.C. government’s hypocritical policy on the burning of natural gas for electricity.
“The LNG developers have been promised a free hand to burn their gas here for their own purposes, but BC Hydro has been denied the same privilege,” the panel wrote in its report on the $7.9 proposed dam.
The controversy revolves around the 2010 Clean Energy Act — and who it applies to and, perhaps more importantly, who it does not.
The act limits BC Hydro’s options for generating electricity by demanding that 93 per cent of the province’s energy needs be met by “clean or renewable resources” — eliminating the use of gas turbines and sending the gas-fired Burrard Thermal generating station into early retirement.
It’s a reasonable policy from a climate change perspective — but there’s a catch.
In June 2012, the province exempted the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry from the Clean Energy Act, enabling plants to burn as much natural gas as they’d like to power their giant compressors — despite originally promising they'd be powered by clean electricity — and, as of now, that’s exactly what they intend to do.
“If it is acceptable to burn natural gas to provide power to compress, cool, and transport B.C. natural gas for Asian markets, where its fate is combustion anyway, why not save transport and environmental costs and take care of domestic needs?” the Site C panel wrote.
To turn natural gas into a liquid for export, it must be cooled to 163 degrees below zero. Doing so essentially requires running a gigantic refrigerator 24/7. Each of the large LNGplants proposed for B.C.’s coast (there are 10) would need the equivalent of an entire Site C dam to power it by electricity.
Oilsands-sized pollution problem
The Pembina Institute reports that for the province to meet its annual revenue hopes of more than $4 billion (five to seven LNG facilities) by 2020, the resulting carbon emissions from that industry would rival that of Alberta’s oilsands.
In case you missed it, this is the industry that Premier Christy Clark has repeatedly touted as producing the “cleanest LNG in the world.”
For B.C.’s LNG industry to come anywhere near to being “clean,” plants would need to be fuelled by renewable electricity, not natural gas.
With that in mind, Clean Energy Canada recently commissioned a feasibility study that looks at meeting the energy demands of LNG plants with regional renewables, such as wind on the north coast, which wouldn’t require transmission upgrades or power from the Site C dam.
“Any LNG facility on the North Coast could primarily power its production facilities with renewable energy and do so reliably, affordably and on schedule—using established commercial technologies,” Navius Research concluded. “Further, doing so reduces that plant’s carbon pollution by 45 per cent, and increases local permanent jobs by 40 per cent.”
Seems like a no-brainer, doesn’t it?
If the province is going to forge ahead with an LNG industry, 91 per cent of British Columbians say it’s “very important” or “somewhat important” for LNGplants to maximize their use of renewable energy, according to a poll conducted by NRGResearch Group in October 2013.
I haven’t seen any poll results on the matter, but methinks British Columbians wouldn’t respond to kindly to the natural gas industry playing by a different set of rules than the rest of us. After all, a Strategic Communications poll from April 2014 found 78 per cent of British Columbians fully supported the province moving off of fossil fuels completely in favour of clean sources of energy to prevent climate change from worsening.
B.C.'s natural gas contradiction
Due to the Clean Energy Act, BC Hydro couldn’t include gas-fired electricity in any of its scenarios presented to the Site C panel — even though the LNG industry can now burn gas willy-nilly.
That means natural gas facilities like Burrard Thermal, which has similar capacity to Site C, couldn’t even be considered as an intermittent source of power for times when electricity demand peaks.
With a price tag of $7.9 billion, Site C is the most expensive infrastructure project on the books in Canada — and could be the largest public expenditure in B.C. for the next 20 years. Meantime, the lower impact, more affordable alternative of geothermal power hasn't been placed on the table by BC Hydro due only to the province's “failure to pursue research over the last 30 years,” according to the panel.
If the province approves Site C this fall and it actually gets built, the project is expected to chalk up $800 million in losses in the first four years due to a lack of market for its power — and it’s BC Hydro customers (pssst … that’s you and me) who will be on the hook for covering the loss.
While British Columbians are picking up the tab for that, the LNG industry will be enjoying a free pass to pollute.
It’s high time for Clark to force the LNG industry to play by the same rules as the rest of us — and, for her own sake, she’d better do that before British Columbians cotton on to the fact she’s trying to sneak an oilsands-sized pollution problem below the radar while sticking British Columbians with a pricy and impractical megadam.
http://www.desmog.ca/2014/06/24/b-c-s-natural-gas-hypocrisy-leaves-consumers-paying-price
GLG
Well-Known Member
Is B.C.’s LNG another pipe dream?
Proposal looks good on paper but could fail in practice
During B.C.’s 2013 election campaign, at a conference of energy economists in Washington, D.C., I spoke about how one of our politicians was promising huge benefits during the next decades from B.C. liquefied natural gas exports to eastern Asia. These benefits included lower income taxes, zero provincial debt, and a wealth fund for future generations. My remarks, however, drew laughter. Later, several people complimented my humour.
Why this reaction? The painful reality is that my economist colleagues smirk when people (especially politicians) assume extreme market imbalances will endure, whereas real-world evidence consistently proves they won’t. For B.C. Premier Christy Clark to make promises based on a continuation of today’s extreme difference between American and eastern Asian gas prices was, to be kind, laughable.
For many years, natural gas prices differed little from one region to another. But the shale-gas revolution in the U.S. in the past decade created a glut, causing rock-bottom prices in North America. Meanwhile, prices in eastern Asia were pegged to the price of oil, which has risen. These two trends led to a price divergence starting in 2008. By 2012, Japanese gas prices were more than four times higher than North America’s.
If that difference were to hold for several decades, producers could earn sufficient revenues from Asian sales to cover shale gas extraction, pipeline transport, cooling to liquid in LNG plants, shipment across the Pacific, healthy profits, and billions in royalties and corporate taxes. That’s an attractive image in an election. But it can quickly become a mirage as gas markets behave like – well – markets.
In competitive markets, a price imbalance triggers multiple profit-seeking actions, which work to eliminate the difference — usually sooner than expected — by those hoping to benefit from it. In this case, there are many potential competitors for the gas demands of China, Japan and their neighbours. China can invite foreign companies to help develop its massive shale gas resources. It can buy from Russia, which has enormous gas resources. It can also buy from other central Asian countries, such as Kazakhstan. It can also encourage a bidding war between prospective LNG suppliers from many parts of the world, some of which will have lower production costs than B.C.
The result will push down the price in eastern Asia. As was easily predicted by my smirking colleagues, it’s already happening. Unofficial reports put the price of a recent gas contract between China and Russia at $10.50 per million British Thermal Units, far below the peak Asian price, and close to (if not below) the cost of sending B.C. gas to China. At this price, there will be no government royalties, no lower income taxes, no debt retirement, no wealth fund. Maybe no LNG plants.
If any LNG plants are built in B.C., they will likely be constructed and operated as cheaply as possible, which will put the lie to another promise of Clark’s. In a province with legislated targets for reducing carbon pollution, she promised B.C. would have “the cleanest LNG produced anywhere in the world from well-head to waterline.”
As it turns out, this promise is easy to verify. Experts know the cleanest LNG in the world is the Snovit project in Norway, which emits 0.35 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of LNG. The under-construction Gorgon facility in Australia will match it.
But, public documents indicate British Columbia’s proposed LNG industry will be three times worse, producing one tonne of CO2 per tonne of LNG. Were three such facilities built as proposed, they would bring oilsands-scale carbon pollution to B.C., doubling our current emissions and making it impossible to meet our legislated targets.
We could build the cleanest LNG systems in the world. This would require reducing methane leaks from processes and pipelines, capturing and storing carbon pollution, and using renewable energy to produce electricity for processing and cooling natural gas, as Clean Energy Canada has recently shown.
But this is unlikely, especially as those Asian gas prices fall. So brace yourself for another barrage of Orwellian doublespeak from government and industry, in which cleanest means dirty, great public wealth means modest private profits, and revised climate targets mean missed climate targets. No doubt my economist colleagues will be amused. But should they?
http://markjaccard.blogspot.ca/2014/08/is-bcs-lng-another-pipe-dream.html
Mark Jaccard, professor of sustainable energy at Simon Fraser University and a convening lead author in the Global Energy Assessment.
Proposal looks good on paper but could fail in practice
During B.C.’s 2013 election campaign, at a conference of energy economists in Washington, D.C., I spoke about how one of our politicians was promising huge benefits during the next decades from B.C. liquefied natural gas exports to eastern Asia. These benefits included lower income taxes, zero provincial debt, and a wealth fund for future generations. My remarks, however, drew laughter. Later, several people complimented my humour.
Why this reaction? The painful reality is that my economist colleagues smirk when people (especially politicians) assume extreme market imbalances will endure, whereas real-world evidence consistently proves they won’t. For B.C. Premier Christy Clark to make promises based on a continuation of today’s extreme difference between American and eastern Asian gas prices was, to be kind, laughable.
For many years, natural gas prices differed little from one region to another. But the shale-gas revolution in the U.S. in the past decade created a glut, causing rock-bottom prices in North America. Meanwhile, prices in eastern Asia were pegged to the price of oil, which has risen. These two trends led to a price divergence starting in 2008. By 2012, Japanese gas prices were more than four times higher than North America’s.
If that difference were to hold for several decades, producers could earn sufficient revenues from Asian sales to cover shale gas extraction, pipeline transport, cooling to liquid in LNG plants, shipment across the Pacific, healthy profits, and billions in royalties and corporate taxes. That’s an attractive image in an election. But it can quickly become a mirage as gas markets behave like – well – markets.
In competitive markets, a price imbalance triggers multiple profit-seeking actions, which work to eliminate the difference — usually sooner than expected — by those hoping to benefit from it. In this case, there are many potential competitors for the gas demands of China, Japan and their neighbours. China can invite foreign companies to help develop its massive shale gas resources. It can buy from Russia, which has enormous gas resources. It can also buy from other central Asian countries, such as Kazakhstan. It can also encourage a bidding war between prospective LNG suppliers from many parts of the world, some of which will have lower production costs than B.C.
The result will push down the price in eastern Asia. As was easily predicted by my smirking colleagues, it’s already happening. Unofficial reports put the price of a recent gas contract between China and Russia at $10.50 per million British Thermal Units, far below the peak Asian price, and close to (if not below) the cost of sending B.C. gas to China. At this price, there will be no government royalties, no lower income taxes, no debt retirement, no wealth fund. Maybe no LNG plants.
If any LNG plants are built in B.C., they will likely be constructed and operated as cheaply as possible, which will put the lie to another promise of Clark’s. In a province with legislated targets for reducing carbon pollution, she promised B.C. would have “the cleanest LNG produced anywhere in the world from well-head to waterline.”
As it turns out, this promise is easy to verify. Experts know the cleanest LNG in the world is the Snovit project in Norway, which emits 0.35 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of LNG. The under-construction Gorgon facility in Australia will match it.
But, public documents indicate British Columbia’s proposed LNG industry will be three times worse, producing one tonne of CO2 per tonne of LNG. Were three such facilities built as proposed, they would bring oilsands-scale carbon pollution to B.C., doubling our current emissions and making it impossible to meet our legislated targets.
We could build the cleanest LNG systems in the world. This would require reducing methane leaks from processes and pipelines, capturing and storing carbon pollution, and using renewable energy to produce electricity for processing and cooling natural gas, as Clean Energy Canada has recently shown.
But this is unlikely, especially as those Asian gas prices fall. So brace yourself for another barrage of Orwellian doublespeak from government and industry, in which cleanest means dirty, great public wealth means modest private profits, and revised climate targets mean missed climate targets. No doubt my economist colleagues will be amused. But should they?
http://markjaccard.blogspot.ca/2014/08/is-bcs-lng-another-pipe-dream.html
Mark Jaccard, professor of sustainable energy at Simon Fraser University and a convening lead author in the Global Energy Assessment.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Another nail in the coffin for LNG ?
Bad News for Obama: Fracking May Be Worse Than Burning Coal
New science shows that thanks to methane leaks, gas won't work as a "bridge fuel."
—By Bill McKibben
| Mon Sep. 8, 2014 6:00 AM ED
If you're a politician, science is a *****; it resists spin. And a new set of studies—about, of all things, a simple molecule known as CH[SUB]4[/SUB]—show that President Obama's climate change strategy is starting to unravel even as it's being knit. To be specific: Most of the administration's theoretical gains in the fight against global warming have come from substituting natural gas for coal. But it looks now as if that doesn't really help.
Read more here....
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/methane-fracking-obama-climate-change-bill-mckibben
Bad News for Obama: Fracking May Be Worse Than Burning Coal
New science shows that thanks to methane leaks, gas won't work as a "bridge fuel."
—By Bill McKibben
| Mon Sep. 8, 2014 6:00 AM ED
If you're a politician, science is a *****; it resists spin. And a new set of studies—about, of all things, a simple molecule known as CH[SUB]4[/SUB]—show that President Obama's climate change strategy is starting to unravel even as it's being knit. To be specific: Most of the administration's theoretical gains in the fight against global warming have come from substituting natural gas for coal. But it looks now as if that doesn't really help.
Read more here....
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/methane-fracking-obama-climate-change-bill-mckibben
GLG
Well-Known Member
By Carol Linnitt , reposted from the Vancouver Observer, July 23, 2014
Last year B.C. joined Washington State, Oregon and California in an effort to limit the causes and effects of climate change. A new poll released on Tuesday shows British Columbians are eager to see the government keep its commitments under the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy.
The climate plan was designed to respond to “the clear and convincing scientific evidence of climate change, ocean acidification and other impacts from increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which threaten our people, our economy and our natural resources.”
The plan was signed in 2013, with little fanfare. Yet B.C. residents strongly support the initiative, and the government’s commitments to limit carbon pollution.
But with the B.C. government’s ambitions to develop and export liquefied natural gas (LNG), there appears to be a conflict brewing within the province’s own objectives.
The poll, commissioned by the Pembina Institute, Clean Energy Canada and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS) was conducted by Strategic Communications and had 802 respondents living in the Greater Vancouver area, the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island, northern BC. It shows British Columbians want to prioritize five things:
1. Transition to energy efficient buildings (91%)
2. Hit our climate targets (89%)
3. Maintain low-carbon fuel standard (88%)
4. Increase electric vehicles in government and company fleets (82%), and
5. Continue the carbon tax (69%)
So far, B.C. has been successful at limiting its carbon emissions. The province has a commitment to limit emissions 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent below by 2050.
In 2012, the province met its interim goal of being 6 per cent below 2007 levels. The next interim goal comes up in 2016, when the province aims to be 18 per cent below 2007 levels.
But given the province’s massive push to develop its natural gas resources and build several LNG facilities to liquefy and export the gas to Asia, experts are concerned B.C.may be in danger of failing to meet those targets.
B.C.’s problematic ‘clean’ LNG promise
The B.C. Liberal government has made the development of the province’s natural gas deposits and the export of LNG a strong part of its clean energy platform.
In 2010 the province committed to having one LNG plant in operation by 2015 and three more to follow by 2020. Initially the government pledged to have these plants run on clean energy, but has since exempted LNG plants from this requirement, confusing exactly what ‘clean’ LNG might mean.
In 2012 Premier Christy Clark promised to deliver “the cleanest LNG in the world” at the World Economic Forum in China. Within a year she clarified that her “cleanest” standards would only apply to LNG facilities, and not the extraction of gas via fracking or transmission of the resource to production plants.
Then recently Rich Coleman, the provincial minister responsible for natural gas development, told the Globe and Mail the B.C. government would now only be measuring B.C.’s LNG facilities against other facilities, meaning the “cleanest” LNG in the world only has to out-perform previously existing plants to meet the province’s standards.
Coleman also dismissed the previous goal of running LNG plants on clean energy, saying “the cost to deliver the power would be so expensive that it would be ridiculous to make the investment.”
Clean Energy Canada, however, would disagree. The group recently commissioned a feasibility study to determine the reliability and affordability of regionally sourced renewable power for B.C.’s LNG development.
They found “any LNG facility on the North Coast could primarily power its production facilities with renewable energy and do so reliably, affordably and on schedule – using established commercial technologies.”
Further, they found “doing so reduces that plant’s carbon pollution by 45 per cent, and increases local permanent jobs by 40 per cent.”
Kevin Sauvé from the Pembina Institute confirmed that B.C.’s LNG ambitions stand in conflict with its own climate targets: “Multiple analyses have shown that B.C. targets are not achievable if three LNG terminals are developed by 2020, as the government intends.”
“This highlights a tension between public opinion and current government priorities, and is something that government should address as it develops its LNG regulations and the next phase of the Climate Action Plan,” Sauvé said.
There are a total of 14 proposed LNG facilities for the central coast of B.C.
As previously reported, the gas industry is seriously underreporting fugitive methane emissions – a reporting error that threatens B.C.’s ability to meet its own targets under the Climate Action Plan.
Using standard industry fugitive emissions rates, B.C. natural gas production emissions are likely 25 per cent higher than reported.
Another poll, commissioned by the same three groups and released in April of this year, found 78 per cent of British Columbians want the province to shift away from producing, using and exporting fossil fuels and to make the transition to using cleaner sources of energy.
“Given British Columbians’ desire to see the province transition away from both using and exporting fossil fuels, a wholesale push for LNG does not make sense for B.C.,” Sauvé said. “Particularly given that the government’s current plans for developing LNG will make it impossible for the province to hit its climate targets.”
Cont next post
Last year B.C. joined Washington State, Oregon and California in an effort to limit the causes and effects of climate change. A new poll released on Tuesday shows British Columbians are eager to see the government keep its commitments under the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy.
The climate plan was designed to respond to “the clear and convincing scientific evidence of climate change, ocean acidification and other impacts from increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which threaten our people, our economy and our natural resources.”
The plan was signed in 2013, with little fanfare. Yet B.C. residents strongly support the initiative, and the government’s commitments to limit carbon pollution.
But with the B.C. government’s ambitions to develop and export liquefied natural gas (LNG), there appears to be a conflict brewing within the province’s own objectives.
The poll, commissioned by the Pembina Institute, Clean Energy Canada and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS) was conducted by Strategic Communications and had 802 respondents living in the Greater Vancouver area, the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island, northern BC. It shows British Columbians want to prioritize five things:
1. Transition to energy efficient buildings (91%)
2. Hit our climate targets (89%)
3. Maintain low-carbon fuel standard (88%)
4. Increase electric vehicles in government and company fleets (82%), and
5. Continue the carbon tax (69%)
So far, B.C. has been successful at limiting its carbon emissions. The province has a commitment to limit emissions 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent below by 2050.
In 2012, the province met its interim goal of being 6 per cent below 2007 levels. The next interim goal comes up in 2016, when the province aims to be 18 per cent below 2007 levels.
But given the province’s massive push to develop its natural gas resources and build several LNG facilities to liquefy and export the gas to Asia, experts are concerned B.C.may be in danger of failing to meet those targets.
B.C.’s problematic ‘clean’ LNG promise
The B.C. Liberal government has made the development of the province’s natural gas deposits and the export of LNG a strong part of its clean energy platform.
In 2010 the province committed to having one LNG plant in operation by 2015 and three more to follow by 2020. Initially the government pledged to have these plants run on clean energy, but has since exempted LNG plants from this requirement, confusing exactly what ‘clean’ LNG might mean.
In 2012 Premier Christy Clark promised to deliver “the cleanest LNG in the world” at the World Economic Forum in China. Within a year she clarified that her “cleanest” standards would only apply to LNG facilities, and not the extraction of gas via fracking or transmission of the resource to production plants.
Then recently Rich Coleman, the provincial minister responsible for natural gas development, told the Globe and Mail the B.C. government would now only be measuring B.C.’s LNG facilities against other facilities, meaning the “cleanest” LNG in the world only has to out-perform previously existing plants to meet the province’s standards.
Coleman also dismissed the previous goal of running LNG plants on clean energy, saying “the cost to deliver the power would be so expensive that it would be ridiculous to make the investment.”
Clean Energy Canada, however, would disagree. The group recently commissioned a feasibility study to determine the reliability and affordability of regionally sourced renewable power for B.C.’s LNG development.
They found “any LNG facility on the North Coast could primarily power its production facilities with renewable energy and do so reliably, affordably and on schedule – using established commercial technologies.”
Further, they found “doing so reduces that plant’s carbon pollution by 45 per cent, and increases local permanent jobs by 40 per cent.”
Kevin Sauvé from the Pembina Institute confirmed that B.C.’s LNG ambitions stand in conflict with its own climate targets: “Multiple analyses have shown that B.C. targets are not achievable if three LNG terminals are developed by 2020, as the government intends.”
“This highlights a tension between public opinion and current government priorities, and is something that government should address as it develops its LNG regulations and the next phase of the Climate Action Plan,” Sauvé said.
There are a total of 14 proposed LNG facilities for the central coast of B.C.
As previously reported, the gas industry is seriously underreporting fugitive methane emissions – a reporting error that threatens B.C.’s ability to meet its own targets under the Climate Action Plan.
Using standard industry fugitive emissions rates, B.C. natural gas production emissions are likely 25 per cent higher than reported.
Another poll, commissioned by the same three groups and released in April of this year, found 78 per cent of British Columbians want the province to shift away from producing, using and exporting fossil fuels and to make the transition to using cleaner sources of energy.
“Given British Columbians’ desire to see the province transition away from both using and exporting fossil fuels, a wholesale push for LNG does not make sense for B.C.,” Sauvé said. “Particularly given that the government’s current plans for developing LNG will make it impossible for the province to hit its climate targets.”
Cont next post
GLG
Well-Known Member
Climate action and a strong economy
An analysis from the group Sustainable Prosperity shows B.C.’s carbon tax is both an “environmental and economic success story.”
The carbon tax, according to Sustainable Prosperity, has been remarkably good at limiting fuel use since it was introduced in 2008. And there have been no adverse impacts on the B.C. economy to speak of.
While B.C. reduced its fuel consumption by 17.4 per cent, its GDP kept pace with the rest of Canada.
Stewart Elgie, professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa and the report’s lead author said, “B.C.’s experience shows that it is possible to have both a healthier environment and a strong economy – by taxing pollution and lowering income taxes.”
Another new report from PICS shows that, despite the government’s decision to exempt the agricultural sector from the carbon tax, there is “little evidence that the carbon tax was associated with any statistically significant effects on agricultural trade or competitiveness.”
Even in areas where the carbon tax was assumed to have negative impacts, there appears to be little damage done.
“The first phase of BC’s climate action plan has been an environmental and economic success,” Sauvé said, “and now is the time to build on it.”
“Government needs to lay out a road map for how we will meet our 2020 climate target as part of the second phase of its Climate Action Plan. Following through on the commitments it’s made in the Pacific Coast Action Plan would be a good start, particularly as those commitments appear to be popular with British Columbians.”
This story was originally posted on DeSmog Canada.
An analysis from the group Sustainable Prosperity shows B.C.’s carbon tax is both an “environmental and economic success story.”
The carbon tax, according to Sustainable Prosperity, has been remarkably good at limiting fuel use since it was introduced in 2008. And there have been no adverse impacts on the B.C. economy to speak of.
While B.C. reduced its fuel consumption by 17.4 per cent, its GDP kept pace with the rest of Canada.
Stewart Elgie, professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa and the report’s lead author said, “B.C.’s experience shows that it is possible to have both a healthier environment and a strong economy – by taxing pollution and lowering income taxes.”
Another new report from PICS shows that, despite the government’s decision to exempt the agricultural sector from the carbon tax, there is “little evidence that the carbon tax was associated with any statistically significant effects on agricultural trade or competitiveness.”
Even in areas where the carbon tax was assumed to have negative impacts, there appears to be little damage done.
“The first phase of BC’s climate action plan has been an environmental and economic success,” Sauvé said, “and now is the time to build on it.”
“Government needs to lay out a road map for how we will meet our 2020 climate target as part of the second phase of its Climate Action Plan. Following through on the commitments it’s made in the Pacific Coast Action Plan would be a good start, particularly as those commitments appear to be popular with British Columbians.”
This story was originally posted on DeSmog Canada.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Gas industry contributes just 0.1% of BC’s revenues, few jobs
By Norman Farrell
Regular readers are aware that British Columbia’s natural gas industry provides surprisingly little return to the province by way of royalties for depleting non-renewable public assets. In the last two fiscal years, after accounting for drilling and road subsidies taken by or owed to producers, the province’s net gas royalty receipts averaged $2.5 million a month. That is less than 1/10 of 1% of BC government revenues.
Defenders of government policy suggest the industry is contributing much economic value to BC through jobs. Yet, government statistics show that only about 3,000 people are directly employed in oil and gas extraction. Education and manufacturing each provide more than 50 times as many jobs. Retailing, almost 100 times as many.
In 2013, Christy Clark’s government resisted calls from the motion picture and sound recording industry for subsidy increases, yet this non-polluting, non-depleting industry provides four times as many jobs as oil and gas extraction. It stimulates cultural and tourism activities and costs a fraction of the subsidies flowing to oil and gas production.
As Premier, Clark pays little attention to forestry, the traditional engine of our economy. The only part of the industry that remains busy is logging, a function that cannot be moved out of province.
So questions arise. What influences a government to offer special treatment to one particular economic sector that provides scant economic return and relatively little employment?
Who and where are the real beneficiaries? In what jurisdiction, if any, is corporate income tax paid on profits of gas production and sales?
Were decisions to provide public funds and public assets fairly determined or were they improperly influenced by the flow of cash from industry to the holders of political power?
I think the answers are self-evident. British Columbia is governed by captives of industry.
NOTE: The chart below illustrates some of the hidden costs to BC taxpayers of subsidizing the natural gas industry. Feeling that they overpaid for leases that are yielding few profits with fallen gas prices, the industry has been granted a series of royalty deductions, now totalling some $5 Billion. Factoring in other ministry expenditures to the benefit of the industry, the natural gas sector has actually received $6.5-7 Billion in taxpayer subsidies since 2008.
Norman Farrell is a BC-based political blogger and publisher of Northern Insights
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/gas-industry-contributes-just-0-01-bcs-revenues-jobs/
By Norman Farrell
Regular readers are aware that British Columbia’s natural gas industry provides surprisingly little return to the province by way of royalties for depleting non-renewable public assets. In the last two fiscal years, after accounting for drilling and road subsidies taken by or owed to producers, the province’s net gas royalty receipts averaged $2.5 million a month. That is less than 1/10 of 1% of BC government revenues.
Defenders of government policy suggest the industry is contributing much economic value to BC through jobs. Yet, government statistics show that only about 3,000 people are directly employed in oil and gas extraction. Education and manufacturing each provide more than 50 times as many jobs. Retailing, almost 100 times as many.
In 2013, Christy Clark’s government resisted calls from the motion picture and sound recording industry for subsidy increases, yet this non-polluting, non-depleting industry provides four times as many jobs as oil and gas extraction. It stimulates cultural and tourism activities and costs a fraction of the subsidies flowing to oil and gas production.
As Premier, Clark pays little attention to forestry, the traditional engine of our economy. The only part of the industry that remains busy is logging, a function that cannot be moved out of province.
So questions arise. What influences a government to offer special treatment to one particular economic sector that provides scant economic return and relatively little employment?
Who and where are the real beneficiaries? In what jurisdiction, if any, is corporate income tax paid on profits of gas production and sales?
Were decisions to provide public funds and public assets fairly determined or were they improperly influenced by the flow of cash from industry to the holders of political power?
I think the answers are self-evident. British Columbia is governed by captives of industry.
NOTE: The chart below illustrates some of the hidden costs to BC taxpayers of subsidizing the natural gas industry. Feeling that they overpaid for leases that are yielding few profits with fallen gas prices, the industry has been granted a series of royalty deductions, now totalling some $5 Billion. Factoring in other ministry expenditures to the benefit of the industry, the natural gas sector has actually received $6.5-7 Billion in taxpayer subsidies since 2008.
Norman Farrell is a BC-based political blogger and publisher of Northern Insights
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/gas-industry-contributes-just-0-01-bcs-revenues-jobs/
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Only in BC..Where is tourism in those graphs??
- Status
Similar threads
