2013-05-24T22:27:31-04:00 Maryam Adrangi http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=maryam-adrangi Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Maryam Adrangi Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2277323 2012-12-12T17:42:18-05:00 2013-02-11T05:12:01-05:00

Maryam Adrangi http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maryam-adrangi/ rich countries' failure to act. Again the annual talks which this time took place in Doha, Qatar ended without binding commitments to reduce fossil fuel emissions or make financial contributions to mitigation and adaptation strategies. Elsewhere, however, different Canadian bureaucrats and politicians were participating in other negotiations.

Some of these included negotiations about the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the selling of two Canadian-based energy companies to foreign companies. What do both of those negotiations have in common? They put the governance of energy resources in the hands of international trade tribunals which have no accountability to people and communities facing the real and dangerous impacts of the energy sector which includes tar sands and gas extraction.

In other words, we're being taken for a ride. Canadian bureaucrats cannot simultaneously participate at the UNFCCC to draft an international deal which requires us to reduce carbon emissions and save the world from extreme weather events, droughts, and floods, and also in negotiations which enable fossil fuel industry expansion. Or at least, they can't do it and think they can get away with it.

Particularly because whatever happens at these negotiations may not actually do what they are intended to do in order to serve people at home. The Canadian government may go to Doha and pretend it is discussing climate policies, but the same government can turn around and weaken environmental legislation at home, pass free trade policies that weaken environmental legislation, and grant corporations rights to pollute. But I shouldn't speak as if this hypothetical, because it actually happens.

The day before the negotiations began, a member of the Gidimt'en clan of the Wet'suwet'en First Nation in Northern B.C. evicted a pipeline surveyor off the clan's territory and told them to not come back. The surveyor was contracted by Apache Corporation, and two days later there were about 20 actions targeting Apache Corp. as well as investors in the Pacific Trails Pipeline that they are trying to build.

In the second week of negotiations, Indigenous leaders tried to get into the House of Commons to voice opposition to Bill C-45, a bill which would weaken environmental legislation, facilitate corporate and industrial projects that pollute water resources and allow for large-scale deforestation, and which would undermine communities' right to say "no." Some of the folks who entered into Parliament (but were stopped from actually entering the House of Commons where their voices could actually be heard) spoke briefly with Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, saying that they "wouldn't tolerate being ignored any longer."

BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW



Throughout the two weeks of the climate negotiations, communities along the route of the proposed Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline attended Open Houses organized by the company in order to tell company representatives that they did not want the pipeline through their communities. The company has been treating these Open Houses as consultation sessions, hoping that they could put a check mark beside their task of consulting with communities. Members of the public, however, attended these sessions telling the company that they would not accept these as public consultations, that they demanded a formal process where they could get their concerns on the record, and that they were opposed to the pipeline. In Victoria, members of the public even took down the signs put up by the company and put up their own signs which outlined the real impacts of the Kinder Morgan pipeline which could bring up to 850,000 barrels of tar sands oil to the Burrard Inlet just outside of Vancouver.

Earlier this week, Rising Tide-Vancouver, Coast Salish Territories put out a call to action for when the Joint Review Panel comes to Vancouver for the public hearings on the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. In their callout they say "No Consent, No Pipelines" and are actively mobilizing to voice opposition to all pipelines which would be carrying dirty fossil fuels and contributing to global warming pollution.

What do the stories of the members of the Wet'suwet'en who are defending their land, the Indigenous leaders having their voices heard, and concerned community members speaking truth to Big Oil Giants have in common? They are all examples of communities fighting back and saying "no" to projects that threaten their communities. 'Tis the season, after all.

But there are more facts and figures revealed during these negotiations that give us reason to believe that maybe it is always the season.

Over the past year, Environment Minister Peter Kent has met with the fossil fuel lobby 48 times, and the second meeting in Doha was the first time Kent agreed to meet with climate NGOs while at the UN negotiations. It became public that US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, has more than $1 million dollars worth of shares in each of TransAtlanta, Encana, Enbridge, Cenovus, and Imperial Oil. She also has shares in TransCanada, the same company building the Keystone XL pipeline being opposed during the climate talks by activists who barricaded themselves in segments of the pipe as it was being constructed. Another report released during the talks by the International Forum on Globalization explained how the world's two wealthiest men, the Koch brothers, have aggressively funded climate denial "science," attacked clean air laws, and lead "an epic propaganda effort by the broader fossil fuel industry."

This wealth and influence undermines a reduction in climate pollution all year-round, not just during the talks. Lobbying efforts to expand the fossil fuel industry, ongoing investments by the 1 per cent in building pipelines that are widely opposed, and corporate access to politicians and decision-makers are apparent every single day. Simultaneously, it is apparent that arginalized communities have significantly less influence to shape the outcome of these negotiations.

But what if we could change the role that wealth and political influence play on these UN negotiations? What if communities impacted by the tar sands and by fracking were the ones who had most access to decision-makers at the UNFCCC? Or what if they were the ones who were actually drafting the text? What if the people who had the most power at these negotiations were the people who had the most at stake, and were not the people with the most cash?

Then we would be facing a very different reality from the current state of these international climate negotiations.

If we want to see change from these negotiations, we need to see fundamental changes in the way decisions are actually made. The ones supposedly drafting "fair and ambitious" deals should not be the same people who profit from no deals or weak deals. This is a complete conflict of interest. Politicians and bureaucrats with connections to oil and gas profiteers are not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because it is in their bank accounts' best interest to pollute. Negotiators are accountable to polluters.

The inspiring part is that regardless of what happens at these negotiations, communities are organizing themselves and saying this is unacceptable. When bureaucrats and politicians return from Doha, we can make sure that we hold them accountable. We need to do that, since this December we have once again been shown that the UN climate negotiations is not where we see accountability and responsibility. If there is no international "agreement," we need to show that we demand emission reductions and expansion of the tar sands and fracking. This holiday season give the gift of climate justice. Give the gifts of solidarity, resistance, and community power. 'Tis the season.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1871757 2012-09-11T16:06:16-04:00 2012-11-11T05:12:01-05:00

Maryam Adrangi http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maryam-adrangi/
Can I call you Ian? I hope so. Let's consider it a first step towards building that trust and confidence you seek with British Columbians. I read your recent op-ed in the Vancouver Sun and I had some follow-up questions and comments.

I should probably confirm that we are in fact speaking about the same project -- the Trans Mountain "expansion" project? I put it in quotations because "expansion" seems like a misnomer when you plan to build an entirely new pipeline, even if it's alongside an existing one.

Or maybe the "expansion" refers to the alternate northern route that you so rarely talk about. The one that would require building a new pipeline to the port of Kitimat, bringing tankers to the north coast of B.C., much like the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline proposal.

Given that the Trans Mountain "expansion" would carry even more than the Northern Gateway, I would expect it would bring even more tankers to Kitimat than Enbridge. If you've been paying attention to B.C. politics, you may notice that residents in this province are quite concerned about Enbridge and the tankers. A larger pipeline and more tankers would raise even more alarm bells.

I also see you've written that you are going "to hear every voice and every concern." Will you also respect every voice and every concern?

You must have heard that Carleen Thomas, elected band council member of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, said "The Tsleil-Waututh Nation opposes the expansion," at a public forum in Burnaby on June 27. Her nation and over 100 others have signed the Save the Fraser Declaration that bans tar sands pipelines and tankers in the signatories' territories and on the ocean migration routes of Fraser River Salmon on the north and south coasts of B.C.

If for some reason this opposition has not registered, you definitely heard Chief Mike LeBourdais of Whispering Pine, with whom you had a personal conversation.

Remember, you threatened to rip the pipeline right out of his reserve so that it wouldn't get any tax money. His response: "Great, I'll operate the backhoe." I expect that you'll continue to hear more of that. I ask again: Will you and Kinder Morgan Canada respect what you hear?

I'd also like to comment on Kinder Morgan Canada's "culture of safety" that you talk about. What is that exactly?

Making sure construction workers wear hard hats? Or ensuring that pipelines aren't ruptured and spills and leaks don't happen? If the latter, where was that "culture" during the 2007 oil spill in Burnaby that forced evacuations and required $15 million in clean-up costs? Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan said he was "appalled" that it took your company 17 hours to send a clean-up crew to the site of the spill.

You must have been appalled too. That is probably why you write that you "have plans to respond, clean up, remediate and learn from every incident."

But at a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Chilliwack on Aug. 16, you said that you "have not changed your response capabilities or equipment" since the 2007 spill. Five years later, I am shocked to hear that you have not improved your capability to respond to a spill in less than 17 hours.

And we know that it is a matter of when a spill happens, not if. You even point out in your op-ed that you "cannot promise there won't ever be a spill."

I will end by addressing your last point that "British Columbians want and need reliable information and facts that will provide them with greater understanding of our proposed project and assist them in forming opinions." Absolutely, we would like full information. However, not only has Kinder Morgan Canada withheld information such as the exact route of the new pipeline, but sometimes we are the ones informing you.

At a recent Chamber of Commerce meeting in Chilliwack, members of a local pipeline opposition group, PIPE-UP, let you know that the diluted bitumen you want to transport is more corrosive and harder to clean up than conventional crude. Don't let the name fool you, the risks aren't diluted at all. The volunteer-run community group followed up with your staff by sending reports and documents verifying these facts. And yet you continue to claim that there is "no scientific or operational evidence that it is any more corrosive to the pipeline than other products."

I agree with you that the only way forward requires trust and confidence. But how can this "expansion" move forward when we have been given so little in which we have any confidence or trust?]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1699718 2012-07-25T10:49:56-04:00 2012-09-24T05:12:25-04:00

Maryam Adrangi http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maryam-adrangi/ investigated Enbridge's handling of the spill, citing two dozen safety violations.

The investigation showed that Enbridge knew that the 40 year old pipeline could use some work on numerous cracks and corroded areas to make it safer and less likely to fracture, yet there were no attempts to fix the pipeline. They also underestimated their "worst case scenario" by claiming that a spill would be noticed and shut down after eight minutes. When a spill actually happened, we saw that it took the large, wealthy pipeline company over 15 hours to react.

The pipeline that fractured in Kalamazoo connects to Line 9 when it passes through the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, the most densely populated area in Canada. But communities along this pipeline are not being informed or asked if they are okay with it. In fact, the National Energy Board will be making a decision on phase one of the project, which is to bring a corrosive tar sands-chemical mixture known as dilbit from Sarnia to a refinery outside of Hamilton, no later than August 20th.

Dilbit is more corrosive than conventional crude given the temperatures needed for transport and its acidic nature, and a joint fact sheet put out by several environmental groups describes the flow through a pipeline as "fast, hot, and toxic liquid sandpaper." But again, most people do not know about it, and grassroots and environmental groups have taken on the responsibility of informing neighbours and those at risk.

And whether or not you are directly on the route of the pipeline, a fracture could still impact you since it crosses major rivers and water systems. A spill could devastate the Grand River Basin, Lake Ontario, and the St. Lawrence River -- just to name a few. If you are served by one of these large water sources, you may expect cancer-causing toxins to enter with a spill, potentially evacuation of your home, and several years of cleanup without full restoration to pre-spill conditions.

It is going largely unnoticed that Enbridge's failure in Kalamazoo may very well be repeated just across the border. Water, land, air, and ecosystems know no borders. Unfortunately, neither do human error, corporate irresponsibility, lack of government environmental regulation and proper consultation with communities opposing these projects. People are piping up and opposition is growing in many communities near Line 9's right-of-way including Six Nations, Aamjiwnaang, Sarnia, Hamilton, London, Guelph, Kitchener-Waterloo, Toronto, Montreal, Dunham, and others.

And why wouldn't these communities be piping up? They will be facing all the risks, with little (if any) consultation, while Enbridge profits. When there is a spill, these communities will have to face the consequences and Enbridge may (or may not) get a slap on the wrist. For the Kalamazoo spill, the company was fined a measly $3.22 per gallon of oil spilled. We pay the true costs to our health and our communities.

We may even be forced to pay for it out of our wallets. Enbridge carries only enough insurance to cover $575 million in damages, well below the costs of clean-up for the Kalamazoo spill. Who pays for the rest? In the age of austerity when there are rallies across the country against rising tuition fees and Harper's cuts to health care, we are similarly seeing $1.4 billion dollars in subsidies going to the oil and gas sector and industry executives getting large pay raises -- including Enbridge's CEO and 12 directors.

Alternatively, some of us may like to see this money, particularly the subsidies, going to cutting our addiction to fossil fuels through investing in public transit and building retrofits. With more affordable public transit, there could be more transit routes and the capacity to operate for longer hours. This means not only less cars, but also that those employed in shift work and out of the regular nine-to-five would be able to get to work more easily. This is a clear shift towards healthier cities and respecting all types of work that allow our cities and communities to function -- not just focussing on the jobs in northern Alberta and temporary jobs for pipeline construction.

Governments can continue to talk about deficits and budget cuts, but while they wonder where their money is going, our communities face the risk of corporate mismanagement. So where is the contingency budget for taking the cancer out of our water, the asthma out of our air? It doesn't cost that much to respect people's right to say "no" does it?]]>