The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline has turned into one of the most hotly debated topics in North America. There are so many ways to debate about the pipeline and the tar sands oil that would fill it. But, what does it mean when 10 Nobel Peace Laureates, including former U.S. president Jimmy Carter and landmine activist Jody Williams, take a stand and call for a rejection?
If Canada can make the right choice and tone down the 'dig baby dig, drill baby drill' mentality, not only would Canada not be worse off economically, but we would have a safer environment, and be able to seize the incredible opportunities to invest in the sophisticated clean technology that is going to power this century.
In case you missed it the New York Times recently ran an op-ed by Jacques Leslie entitled "Is Canada Tarring Itself?" As a "tar sands" (I grew up usin...
Elizabeth May has chosen to respond to my critique of her Green Party website post "4 facts about Keystone XL" here on the Huffington Post Blog. It's ...
The HuffPost blog from the Fraser Institute's Senior Director, Natural Resource Studies, Kenneth Green, set out to make me look uninformed based on my submission to the U.S. State Department on the proposed Keystone pipeline. From his first words, it was pretty clear he didn't grasp the concept of writing a letter.
Recently, Green Party leader Elizabeth May orchestrated an open letter to United States Secretary of State John Kerry, urging the U.S. to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. In her note, Ms. May states that she sent Mr. Kerry "4 facts about Keystone XL." Unfortunately, two of Ms. May's facts aren't actually facts, and two of her facts are so lacking in context as to constitute merely factoids.
We have to question whether climate denial is an exception or the norm in the Canadian government, and even if our government's case of climate denial doesn't extend into the Prime Minister's Office, our policies are out of step with believing in, understanding and taking action to solve the climate crisis.
Trudeau professes to be capable of both meaningfully combatting climate change and supporting oil sands expansion. Yet he recently went so far as to proclaim that "the opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline in the United States and elsewhere is not scientific." Leaving oil in the ground is precisely what must happen. The longer Trudeau loudly supports the oil industry without a similarly strong signal that he is committed to meaningful action on climate change, the harder it will be, should he win, to enact the bold policies the scientific community is actually calling for.
We're producing so much oil sands crude that we've overwhelmed cross-border pipeline capacity. Now the industry is stuck in a Catch-22. Profit margins have dropped dramatically. To reassure investors, bitumen miners talk about dramatically expanding production. But the more we produce, the more we exacerbate the supply glut.
The U.S. State Department said Keystone XL would actually be better from a climate perspective than the alternatives. While there is a logic to this line of argument it rests on an illogical assumption. That assumption is that ongoing development of the conventional fossil fuel sector is inevitable. It is not.
This week, the U.S. State Department gave the Keystone XL pipeline an environmental thumbs up. In its latest report on the project, the department stated that Keystone wouldn't have a significant environmental impact and wouldn't create unacceptable levels of greenhouse gases. So how much longer can Obama stall before making a decision? Can he ignore the 42,000 jobs and $3.4-billion the report suggests Keystone would bring to the U.S. economy? Probably yes. Any decision Obama makes will inevitably alienate part of his constituency, either environmentalists or unionists, so he has an interest in putting it off as long as possible.
With your help, we'll produce and distribute a provocative film that will go beyond the issues, to the very DNA of change, and encourage constructive discussion across all points of view. It's the only way we're going to find the innovative solutions we so badly need. This is an amazing moment. KeystoneXL pipeline, Enbridge's proposed pipeline, and Kinder Morgan's pipeline expansion, hang in the balance.
Like Mr. Mulcair, Dr. Jaccard has gone down to Washington to try to shame Canada into walking away from a prospective source of prosperity and employment for the people of Canada. He does his country no service tossing around overheated rhetoric which only arms Canada's competitors and critics against her best interests.
At first glance Harper looks very much the accountant he was trained to be: dull and lacking in passion. But don't be fooled, he has a determined even subversive vision for the country. Harper is bound to American style conservatism, yet his battles are not fought in the open. As a new book illustrates, Stephen Harper's path is a subtler one.
Over the years, the environmental movement has written hundreds and hundreds of reports and had thousands of meetings with decision makers, and while these things remain important, what we really need is people power. We need decision-makers to realize that Canadians want climate change to be taken seriously for a clean energy future.
In addition to the Keystone XL which would increase total capacity of the pipeline to 1.1 million barrels of diluted bitumen per day, Enbridge filed plans to Monday to build the $2.6B Sandpiper pipeline project across northern Minnesota. If approved, the project will move 225,000 barrels per day of unconventional oil to Minnesota, and 375,000 barrels to Wisconsin.